Justice Committee on March 25th, 2010

[Supt Peter Shadgett]

My perspective is that in terms of enforcement and intelligence, Ontario is very well positioned to deal with organized crime. The focus on partnerships has had a lot of success in CISO. All the various enforcement units in Ontario are all members of CISO as well.

I think we're doing very well in Ontario, but what we're struggling with as a police community is the notion of partnering to the point that you leverage your success together, so that your work together is more effective than it is when you're apart. It's very tricky for us to do that, because there are competing issues over whomever you report back to in terms of who pays the bills. That's one issue: leveraging our success and our partnerships.

A second issue is working through the IT problems to get consistent information technology, so that when we want to share something electronically, we are actually positioned to do so. We don't have that capability as of yet.

The third thing is that we need to do a better job of linking the intelligence and the operations sides of police agencies so that everybody knows what everybody else is doing. As you can imagine, that is quite difficult, particularly in large police organizations.

[Supt Robert W. Davis]

With respect to resources, there's no question in my mind that this question needs to be addressed. I've been in the province for 30 years, and the number of RCMP employees in this province has not materially increased relative to the growth of the population.

However, it's more than just strictly numbers; it's about the wait or the drag on law enforcement to really be efficient and effective. That wait is caused by things like disclosure, lawful access, and quality of intelligence, and in a way they're all bundled up in one. I don't think for a minute you can look at it piecemeal or in isolation. It's a comprehensive and complex problem.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have just one minute left, so I'll quickly ask about disclosure.

We had a witness here this morning, Mr. Trudell, who represented the bar in Ontario. He says that the problem with the burden of disclosure on you occurs because you're not integrated enough. He says it's really not a big problem, and that you're making the problem worse because you don't communicate that well with the crown, and the crown doesn't communicate that well with the defence counsel.

Could you tell me quickly how you deal with disclosure currently, and what you mean by the burden? People at home reading this, or reading the blues from this, need to know exactly how much time police officers spend in talking to crowns and defence counsel about disclosure and the effects it has on the case.

[Insp Bryan Martin]

I'll take a different opinion. On our large organized crime cases, a lot of them we work very closely with Public Prosecution Service of Canada because the charges primarily are federal charges in the drug thing. We work closely with the crown or prosecutor assigned immediately. Disclosure is ongoing from day one of our organized crime cases. We've learned because of the volume that we have to work immediately with our friends at public prosecution service, so the amount of disclosure we have to make to keep up with our requirements by law is massive.

Any communication, verbal, any time we're meeting with witnesses, CIs, etc., that is all recorded and is disclosed, and there's lots of it. But to combat that we are now integrated with public prosecution service from day one. We're working towards disclosure. We are going to electronic disclosure to try to unburden—we can't keep up with volumes, and it's unfair for us to turn up at somebody's thing and drop off 50 banker's boxes full of documents. I'm not exaggerating there; that is a real issue that we have. So we are going electronic. I talked about the web-based solutions. I gave the example of Project Sharq in Quebec, which used it, so we are trying to move ahead and we're working with our colleagues across the country to stay ahead of disclosure. So we're very involved in it, and I think we're doing an excellent job of working with our crowns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We're going to have to leave that there for now. We'll come back.

Mr. Murphy, five minutes.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I just want to follow up on the money aspect, Mr. Shadgett. You mentioned that it's a question of how it's divided and there are already millions coming in Ontario and there must be much more going.... I agree with that. I have friends in New Brunswick who run the very successful proceeds of crime joint force thing. But it is about the money. I presume we're all in agreement that if the business were not so lucrative, they wouldn't have as many participants. And it seems to me that we're looking for solutions here.

So is there something that any of you can help us with in terms of broadening the law, broadening the scope of surveillance or monitoring—even by private agencies, let's get the banks involved, etc.—that would help? I know Toronto's not doing too well in hockey, but if they produce so much money in drugs—it's an astounding statistic, Inspector Penney—there's an awful lot of money coming into Canada because of drugs and there are people using that money. So are there some creative solutions you can offer us as lawmakers—maybe not this committee, maybe the industry committee, maybe the telecommunications committee, I don't know. But what can you give us as a blue sky sort of “let's track the money” solution to some of these problems?

[Insp Randy Franks]

FINTRAC is doing an excellent job right now, and it appears that it has recently expanded its intelligence capacity. I'm going to speak from a Toronto perspective, I'm in charge of our asset forfeiture operation. We've been seeing much more detailed reports coming from FINTRAC, the reporting into FINTRAC from the banking industry, from real estate, and all of the other entities. Lawyers have to report into it now.

In fact we're getting so much detailed information that we don't have the capacity to react to it. There are more cases coming from FINTRAC than we have the capacity to investigate.

I know you wanted something other than resources, but that's the reality. FINTRAC is in my opinion doing a good job in providing the information that is coming into it. It is analyzing it and sending it back to the end users.

Bob Davis may have a comment.

[Supt Robert W. Davis]

I think domestically and in the developed countries the established mechanisms work relatively well. There are huge gaping holes, however, in respect of the flow of currencies to foreign countries through money exchanges and hawalas and other sorts of informal money exchange processes, which we are not anywhere near getting a handle on.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

How would you get at them?

[Supt Robert W. Davis]

A huge problem in many of the countries relates to corruption within those law enforcement agencies, and the infrastructure in some of the countries is just not there. To be effective at it we would have to transplant enforcement agencies from Canada into some of those countries, not unlike what the Americans do.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The Americans do this?

[Supt Robert W. Davis]

They do it in an informal kind of way.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Then you would never get a document on it, in other words?

[Supt Robert W. Davis]

I guess what I'm saying is, it's not uncommon for the FBI, for example, to work very closely with a police force in a foreign jurisdiction where the Americans would provide funding, provide cars and vehicles, pay overtime in salary and so on. That gives them a certain level of—

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We talked about going in camera here. Is it possible that CSIS has things going on in that regard? Do they have any financial anti-crime agenda? Most of it's espionage, I gather.

[Supt Robert W. Davis]

I can't comment on that.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

All right, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Madame Guay.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Guay and myself will share the time allowed, Mr. Chairman.

Initially, I was very sceptical about the usefulness of an anti-gang legislation. I always believed that a gang was a group of people who get together to commit criminal acts. If they conspire, let us charge them with conspiracy and let the judge determine the proper sentence in view of the extent of the conspiracy. But eventually, I have been persuaded to accept the principle of anti-gang legislation.

This is because I observed that in some cases it is possible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person profits from organized crime although we are unable to identify any specific criminal act. Furthermore, such legislation is a deterrent for ordinary people who provide small services to the gang. The Hells Angels knew very well how to convince relatives to provide some small services. There has to be a sanction for that. Most of the time, when someone like Mom Boucher is found guilty of murder, we do not need to add any other provisions to the act, because he will get the maximum sentence.

In many other cases, it is clear that a drug deal that can be proven in court was committed within the context of organized crime. I know that for you it is difficult to prove in addition that the dealer was part of a criminal organization.

Since you have extensive experience that goes back to before passage of the anti-gang legislation, did you know that in cases of trafficking by a criminal organization, judges used to take this into account and imposed harsher sentences? Is it really worthwhile to go through all the hassle of establishing that the first penalty is insufficient under the circumstances?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You used up all the allotted time, Mr. Ménard.

You may send your answer in writing to the committee.

Let me just say to you, Mr. Penney, you mentioned some figures that are really important to this committee. Could you provide us this information in writing? Furthermore, you could send us anything you have that could be useful to the members in doing their work. It is really important. You are a valuable resource.

I have one comment to make. We always talk about toughening laws and increasing penalties. This concerns me. More and more we are faced not with large organized groups — like the Hells Angels or the Rock Machine — but rather with street gangs. Street gangs will often use small resellers who are not necessarily hardened criminals. If we toughen laws, I am afraid these youth will be handed excessive sentences. These are young people that could be rehabilitated. I would like to hear your opinion on this.

[Det Insp J. Richard Penney]

I can address that. I would agree with you in some regard. When we get into corruption and issues at the airport, we do see couriers who are single moms, unemployed or otherwise, coerced or otherwise, acting as mules for money, drugs, criminal enterprises, and moving drugs and things back and forth to other countries. We do see that quite often.

The courts do recognize that with regard to the involvement of those individuals and the pressures that they face. And to some degree, with regard to the RCMP's interaction in that area, that is addressed by the courts and recognized by the judges in sentencing. You can't be wilfully blind, though. As a courier, as any person committing an illegal act, you can't sit back and take that it's simply because of the situation you find yourself in. But that is recognized with regard to those activities that we engage in with people such as that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses today.

Mr. Chair, I was writing quickly when Inspector Martin was speaking, as he had a lot of suggestions, just as you had invited from witnesses at the outset. I don't think I got them all down. I noticed he was reading from loose-leaf notes and I don't think I have a copy of those remarks. If I don't, I'm hoping I could get a copy of them at some point, because they seemed to be a good collection of suggestions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll send them out. I believe the remarks were submitted in English only, so they will be translated and then circulated.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have two areas I'd like to get to and I'll probably only get to one.

Superintendent Davis, I was grateful to receive your remarks. In particular, you made some comments along the line that criminal organizations, in addition to outsourcing, apply the latest advances in technology and consider law enforcement response, as well as potential legal sanction, in their undertakings.

Also, when discussing some of the other federal statutes, you said that legal sanctions associated with many of these other federal statutes should be refreshed in order to provide a real deterrent to current-day criminal organizations. It sounded to me that you were suggesting that in fact heavier sentences can act as a deterrent and can hinder criminal organizations and increase the cost of doing business for these groups. Yet we sometimes hear from academics and others who say that in fact sentences don't act as an effective deterrent.

I would just like to hear a little more from you on that point. If you told us how long you've been involved in this work or what opportunity you've had to observe the effect of deterrent sentences upon organized crime or criminals generally, I'm afraid I didn't catch it. I would like to know a little bit about how you reached the conclusion that sentences can deter, hinder, and make the cost of doing business greater for organized crime.