Justice Committee on March 29th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure as the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to welcome you to the sixth meeting of our study on the state of organized crime.

It's a pleasure to be here in Edmonton today. We appreciate all the witnesses who have taken time out of their day to be here. We're going to have a full day of hearings in Edmonton. Previously we have had meetings in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, and we're prepared and ready to listen to ways in which we might understand the state of organized crime in Canada and perhaps even make improvements with respect to it.

We will be hearing from each of the witnesses or groups of witnesses for a period of 10 minutes. We would remind witnesses to keep a certain rhythm when speaking so the translators can keep up. Some people are so excited about and into what they are saying that they often speak quite quickly. That is difficult for the translation services to pick up.

With that reminder, I'm going to introduce our panel of witnesses this morning, including: Harvey Cenaiko, the chairman of the National Parole Board; Jan Fox, the district director of the Alberta/Northwest Territories district office of the Correctional Service of Canada; and Hugo Foss, the psychologist for the Alberta/Northwest Territories district office of the Correctional Service of Canada.

Welcome.

We also have Roy Louis with us today. He's a member of the citizen advisory committee for the National Aboriginal Advisory Council.

Good morning.

Finally, from Public Prosecution Service of Canada, we have with us Greg Rice, senior counsel and team leader in the Edmonton regional office.

Welcome and good morning to you all. We'll start with the statements from each of the witnesses for 10 minutes. We'll keep neither a liberal nor a conservative but a reasonable watch on the time, so that you can get your views out.

We'll start with you, Mr. Cenaiko.

[Harvey Cenaiko, Chairperson, National Parole Board]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, for inviting the National Parole Board to appear before you as you examine the state of organized crime in Canada.

I'm Harvey Cenaiko. I was appointed chairperson of the National Parole Board last July. Prior to this, I was vice-chair of the prairies region, based here in Edmonton. Before I joined the board, I was the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security for the Province of Alberta and MLA for Calgary--Buffalo here in the province of Alberta after having spent 25 years in policing with the Calgary Police Service.

Joining me today is the regional director general of the National Parole Board's prairies region, Bernie Pitre. Mr. Pitre has been with the board for six years and has almost 35 years of experience in working in the criminal justice system.

For those of you who may not be intimately familiar with the National Parole Board, I will explain that we are a small agency within the federal public safety portfolio. We are at arm's length from government. Our conditional release and pardons decisions are made by highly trained, independent board members.

Today I will speak to you generally about the board's approach to making parole decisions regarding offenders with organized crime links. I will also raise some of the more specific challenges faced by the board in this regard.

Over time, the board has developed a thorough and robust system for evaluating the risks posed by offenders. I believe our statistics attest to this. Over 90% do not reoffend while on conditional release and 99% do not reoffend violently while on conditional release.

Our members come from diverse backgrounds, but they are recruited because they have the necessary aptitudes to make sound decisions on very difficult issues. The board provides them with ongoing training, using the latest evidence-based research in decision-making, risk assessment, and risk management techniques. This helps to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills to evaluate risks to the community that an offender may present and make appropriate decisions to allow or deny parole.

Under law, in policy, and in practice, the board's first consideration in all of its decisions is to protect society. Every day in every region our members conduct hearings where they must evaluate an individual's risk to reoffend. This risk for reoffending is of particular concern for offenders involved in organized crime, given the potential for violence.

In addition to our general policies on decision-making, we have specific provisions to guide board members to take into account information related to organized crime and criminal gangs. In addition to risk factors that are specific to the offender himself, we also assess external risk factors posed by an offender's associates and also the impact of locating an offender with organized crime links in a particular residential facility or community.

The number of offenders appearing before the board who have been specifically charged with criminal organization offences under the Criminal Code is small. In 2008-09 the board rendered 241 such decisions out of more than 25,000 decisions rendered that year.

Having said this, I note that the board clearly sees more than 240 offenders with ties to organized crime. While some offenders' indexed offences may not be specifically tied to organized crime, they nevertheless can represent special risks. But in the vast majority of these cases, our decision-making processes and the information board members receive about these offenders allow us to appropriately evaluate their risks.

In terms of hearings where an offender may have ties to organized crime, the board must occasionally be particularly cautious in its line of questioning. The board cannot treat an offender as a member of a criminal organization unless there is an organized crime conviction under the Criminal Code, even if we have information or suspect involvement. In fact, that is true generally for other types of criminal activities for which an offender has not been charged.

Asking an offender directly about his connection to organized crime when he has not been convicted of participating in organized crime can be unfair, and there is case law before the Federal Court of Appeal. The board is neither a criminal court nor a police service. A direct question about participation in organized crime could lead to an admission about a criminal offence. The difficulty for the offender is obvious: either he admits to a criminal offence or he evades the question.

Why does this put the board in a challenging position? On the one hand, the board members may have information about an offender's involvement with criminal organizations and may decide that this elevates the risk that he will reoffend if released. This can be tricky, as we are obligated to share with the offender any concerns we may have about his potential reoffending. A decision based on information or concerns that were not first shared with the offender may be set aside. Again, these are rare occasions, and we believe we are generally equipped to deal with these effectively.

Let me briefly expand on a related issue concerning the obligation to share information with offenders. As I've indicated, offenders receive all of the information that board members consider about the risk they pose when making a decision about conditional release. The key to ensuring that the board makes quality decisions in the interest of public safety is that we have reliable, high-quality information at our disposal. Board members use this information to properly evaluate risk.

Since joining the National Parole Board, my top priority has been to explore ways the board can continue to improve the quality of our parole decisions. The National Parole Board has held training sessions on organized crime over the years. More recently, we held a board-wide national training session on risk assessment and offered a session on organized crime conducted by Dr. Hugo Foss from CSC, who is here with us this morning. The National Parole Board intends to continue offering ongoing training on organized crime issues, both at the national level and in our regions.

As the board is entirely dependent on criminal justice partners to supply us with the relevant information we need to make good decisions, you can see how the relationships and agreements we have with these partners are vitally important. Some of our partners have expressed concerns about providing certain sensitive information to the board because of the legal requirement to share information with offenders and the public accessibility of our hearings and decisions.

While we are satisfied that in the vast majority of cases we receive all of the necessary information we require about an offender, we nevertheless are taking action to ensure this continues. Through increased dialogue, negotiation, and outreach with our police and correctional partners, the board has been seeking to raise awareness about its public safety role and the vital importance of information sharing. Our partners recognize that we share the same mandate, which is the protection of society.

Our key partner, of course, is the Correctional Service of Canada. Our respective staff work hard to maintain positive working relationships throughout the country. CSC Commissioner Don Head and I have taken steps to further strengthen our working relationship by reinforcing procedures that require the sharing of relevant information with the board, including information about organized crime. We have also reaffirmed the steps that can be taken to safeguard sensitive information so that the board may receive what it needs, yet sources or ongoing investigations remain protected. The law has provisions for those truly exceptional circumstances where information must be withheld from an offender and a gist or summary is prepared.

In addition to working closely with CSC, we are reaching out to police partners to explain how vital their reports and intelligence are to the board. We are exploring ways to enhance information sharing, including a pilot project with police in Atlantic Canada that will allow high-quality information about difficult offenders, such as those involved with organized crime, to be captured and shared with the public safety agencies that need it.

I thank you for the time allocated to the National Parole Board. I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you have.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Cenaiko.

Now, on behalf of the Correctional Service of Canada, we have Jan Fox.

[Jan Fox, District Director, Alberta/Northwest Territories District Office, Correctional Service Canada]

Good morning. My name is Jan Fox. I'm the district director for Alberta/Northwest Territories district parole office in the prairies region. In this capacity, I'm responsible for the supervision of 1,126 offenders on conditional release, statutory release, and long-term supervision orders. We do so in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and under the direction of the National Parole Board.

I'm joined here today by Hugo Foss, who's a psychologist in our district and will speak with you in a moment. Mr. Roy Louis, who is a citizen advisory committee member, will also address you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Excuse me. Can you speak a little more slowly so the translation services can pick it up?

[Jan Fox]

All right.

On behalf of the Correctional Service of Canada, I thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you today.

I'm going to highlight some of the challenges that are unique to the prairie region and, in particular, to my district. I would like to focus on the importance of the establishment and maintenance of the partnerships we work with. I will highlight for you a little bit about our strategy for dealing with gangs in supervised populations.

I am aware that tomorrow you'll be hearing from my colleague, the warden of Stony Mountain Institution. The warden will provide you with information on gangs and gang management in federal institutions. I will provide you with information about gangs and gang management more specific to offenders living in our communities on various forms of conditional release, including statutory release and long-term supervision orders.

Of the 1,126 offenders we supervise, 20% are of aboriginal ancestry. In my district right now, we have 92 gang members, which represents approximately 8% of the supervised population. I will provide information about the gangs in the communities in the prairie region and highlight for you some regional differences that I believe exist.

Criminal organizations pose a serious threat to our community facilities and to the safety of the public, our staff, and our partners. In the prairie region, we are particularly challenged by aboriginal gangs and Asian gangs. The largest group in organized crime in the Correctional Service of Canada right now is made up of aboriginal gangs and 86% of them are in the prairie region.

Of my population, as I mentioned, 92 have gang affiliations and are members, 42 of them are aboriginal, and 22 are of Asian ancestry. Of interest is the fact that these gangs are also made up of Caucasian members who are of mixed ethnicity. These gangs are more prevalent in the prairie region and have characteristics that are significantly different from those of other gang members and criminal organizations such as biker gangs.

In the prairie region, we have identified 1,095 gang members out of a population of 5,435. This represents 20% of our total population. Of this number, 207 are serving their sentences in the community, with the vast majority on statutory release. The gang members are concentrated in urban areas.

The Correctional Service of Canada works to ensure the continued safety and security of the public and our staff. In the community, we must place strong emphasis on intelligence gathering and information sharing with our partners to achieve this. To be successful, we must invest significantly in partnership development and maintenance with policing and intelligence agencies. It is also imperative that we work closely with the communities most impacted by gang violence--in this case, aboriginal and Asian communities.

The management of gangs in the community is a very complicated matter. Gang affiliations change constantly and are very fluid. New gangs emerge and offenders change their affiliations or claim to become disaffiliated upon release from prison. Despite these complications, it is of utmost importance that the Correctional Service of Canada be a partner in ongoing information sharing and gathering. In this way, we must protect the community and our staff. We are also aware that we must provide a wide variety of interventions to assist offenders to disaffiliate and to become law-abiding citizens.

The Correctional Service has invested significantly in resources to manage criminal organizations. Specifically, we have established positions in every parole district in the country to enhance our partnership. These have included security intelligence officers, criminal analysts, and community correctional liaison officers who are actually serving police officers working in our parole district.

We have established enhanced supervision units and enhanced residential facilities to assist us in managing these challenging offenders. In my district in particular and in Edmonton, we have placed parole officers in each of the police divisional headquarters.

Like that of our institutional counterparts, our gang management strategy consists of a multi-pronged approach. It is an intelligence-led risk management model that focuses on prevention and proactive initiatives. We know that it's important to obtain information early, at the time of sentencing. We know that we must discuss our supervision strategies with the police at various stages throughout the offender's sentence. We have police officers who are actively involved in our community intervention boards. Also, like the parole board, we do a lot of staff education and training.

In the community, we work diligently to assist offenders who want to leave their gang affiliations. However, our main goal is to ensure public safety.

I note that you will hear from two individuals who have great expertise in addressing the challenges presented by gangs in our community: Roy Louis and Hugo Foss.

Mr. Louis, of the Samson Cree, is renowned for his work in combatting gang violence in the community. He will talk to you today about some of those initiatives. Mr. Foss will describe the partnership initiatives he has led to address violence perpetrated in the community. As noted, he is a practising psychologist in the community and has a great deal of success in assisting offenders to disaffiliate.

In summary, it's important for me to leave you with a couple of messages. In the community, we have to operate in the absence of static security measures like you might see in a jail; we don't have bars and locks. We must rely, therefore, on intelligence and partnerships, both new and traditional. We know that it's important to have consistency and to have coherent information with like organizations to help us combat organized crime. We need continued support for this approach.

We recognize that there are different gangs operating in the prairie region that might be described as less sophisticated. The characteristics of aboriginal street gangs require more research. We know, too, that to be successful we need programs for prevention, programming, and suppression.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from Hugo Foss.

[Dr. Hugo Foss, Psychologist, Alberta/Northwest Territories District Office, Correctional Service Canada]

Good morning. My name is Hugo Foss. I've worked as a psychologist on the front lines of the Correctional Service of Canada for 22 years. I've worked in all levels of security--maximum, medium, and minimum--and currently I'm in the community. I have always worked in the capacity of an intervention treatment provider and risk assessor.

My clients have been federal inmates and parolees. For the better part of the last 12 years of my career, I have worked with offenders who belonged to organized crime groups and/or street gangs.

In the prairie region, the predominant population of concern within our institutions and communities is made up of offenders who belong to street gangs. The number is greatest in the prairie region with respect to aboriginal street gangs.

The focus and goal of my work have always been enhanced public safety. To that end, the intervention with gang offenders complements the pillars of suppression and prevention, both with respect to decreasing incidents and levels of violence and with respect to recruitment. I would like to share with the committee some of the most important lessons learned with respect to intervention with this population of offenders--again, predominantly aboriginal street gangs.

The first lesson comes from one of the largest gang research projects reported in the literature, a comparative analysis of 3,500 gangsters from 17 different U.S. states. The research project found that a majority of gang members, 79.3%, stated that they would drop their flag--in other words, get out of the gang--if they had a true second chance in life. The second lesson is that the levels of hostility and violence that we as a community witness and experience are matched by the degree to which they, the street gangsters, have experienced it in their own lives.

The aforementioned informs us on the absolute need for intervention on two very important levels. First, at a rate of almost 80%, the majority of offenders belonging to gangs report that they are dissatisfied with their lives and would rather live a life apart from the dictates of the gang subculture. Second, intervention with this population will be difficult, arduous, and painstaking in terms of duration, with the potential for future hostility and violence needing to be assessed and carefully managed while the offenders are incarcerated and reintegrated into the community.

In recognition of the value of and need for coordinated intervention with the aboriginal gang population of offenders, the Correctional Service of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations have entered into an interchange agreement whereby my services will be utilized by both agencies as an adviser to the national chief, Shawn Atleo, of the Assembly of First Nations. A working group, including me, is engaged in a number of activities to enhance support for aboriginal communities across the nation that are experiencing issues pertaining to gangs.

First, we will be attempting to determine the scope of the problem across aboriginal communities by taking a census survey of communities. Second, we will be compiling a compendium of existing human resources in aboriginal communities that have the potential to assist in integrating persons requiring assistance, and we will make this compendium available to agencies, organizations, and citizens. Third, we will be providing training pertinent to intervention with persons who are gang-affiliated and support to those who are providing the intervention and living with gang violence in their communities.

Concomitantly, my responsibilities to the Correctional Service of Canada have resulted in a working alliance with the sociology and criminology department of the University of Alberta. In conjunction with the head of the undergraduate department, we will be conducting research, for the very first time, with gang-involved offenders, both in federal custody and in the community. The research should serve to inform on the scope of the problems and issues pertaining to the genesis of gangs and the process for intervention and disaffiliation.

My responsibilities also extend to Native Counselling Services of Alberta, in partnership with the Correctional Service of Canada. We will continue to share knowledge, best practices, staff training, and expertise in managing the risk of federally sentenced aboriginal gang offenders.

Also important, given the unique dynamics related to the management of gang-affiliated offenders, is that the Correctional Service of Canada is focusing on enhanced training of front line staff in gang dynamics awareness, risk management, and safety-related issues.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Foss.

From the National Aboriginal Advisory Council, Roy Louis.

[Roy Louis, Member, Citizen Advisory Committee, National Aboriginal Advisory Council]

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for coming to this great province of Alberta.

I am a proud Plains Cree member of the Samson Cree Nation of Hobbema, a community rich in history, culture, ceremonies, and business development.

In the beginning of the year 2005, changes started to happen in our community, with graffiti and tagging of buildings and homes within our townsites. Gunfire became a nightly occurrence. Fear gripped our nation. The gangs had a foothold in our communities. At one point, we had 150 drive-by shootings within a period of six months.

Many of us became concerned about what was happening, about why relatives were threatening and assaulting innocent family members. In 2007, the RCMP estimated that there were between 225 and 250 gang members operating with 13 gang affiliations, with the majority being Indian Posse, Redd Alert, Alberta Warriors, and other local gangs.

In 2008, Asia Saddleback, a young child living in the Samson townsite, was almost killed by a drive-by shooting. This was a pivotal point of change. The Samson chief and council called for an open band meeting, where hundreds of people came to our community hall to hear many people express their anger and to make recommendations as to what should be done.

From there, the council created the Samson task force. They came up with 171 recommendations and then condensed them to 69 in their final report. I wish to table that “Working Together” report with the chair.

In the area of crime and victimization, aboriginal people experience rates of violence and victimization three times higher than those for the non-aboriginal population. During the years of 2005 and 2006, 7,500 aboriginal youth were admitted to custody or probation. For adults, aboriginal people represent 4% of the population in Canada, yet they accounted for 24% of admissions to provincial or territorial custody, 19% of admissions to remand, and 18% to federal custody. These statistics are available from Statistics Canada.

As part of our ongoing initiatives during the last three years, we've had gang experts make presentations to our community. We've heard from people like Michael Chettleburgh, author of the book Young Thugs: Inside the Dangerous World of Canadian Street Gangs, and Serge LeClerc, an MLA from Saskatchewan, who was a former street gang member. We had biweekly meetings with the local RCMP detachment and with various stakeholders from the Four Nations and the surrounding community. We had an excellent gang suppression unit with the RCMP, who worked closely with community members to drive out the gang members and drug dealers.

Our group, the Maskwacis Consultative Group, working closely with the RCMP, has created victim services for the Hobbema Four Nations, a family violence unit, and risk and threat assessment for police officers assigned to various schools in Four Nations. We've now secured funding for the Hobbema cadet corps from NCPC. I would like to personally thank our member of Parliament, Blaine Calkins, for working with us in securing some funding for the Hobbema cadets.

We're also in the process of working on a proposal for a gang exit strategy. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

In Hobbema, we didn't just report a drug house: we demolished the house. This was done to take action against the drug dealers and gang members, since these homes could not be repaired anyway. Altogether, 26 homes were completely demolished. Today, we've been out of the spotlight, but we continue to be vigilant in our aspirations to make our communities safe with the help of governments, our people, and the RCMP.

I also want to compliment Corrections Canada, under the leadership of Commissioner Don Head, who has supported our local correctional facility, the Pe Sakastew healing centre, in bringing partnerships and stakeholders together, not only to find solutions to the negative issues in our community, but to understand and be educated on the ways of our first nations community. A brochure about our minimum correctional facility is available. One example of this is hosting the RCMP in eight cross-cultural training sessions specific to our local Four Nations on history, language, colonialism, residential schools, the Indian Act, and the ceremonies of our area.

Thank you to Superintendent Darcey Davidson for his vision and initiatives, which have opened the doors to a healthy relationship with the RCMP in our community.

Finally, my humble recommendation is to have crime prevention in the school curriculum in all jurisdictions in Canada. This is the most effective long-term approach when dealing with gangs, drugs, and violence.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Thank you very much.

From the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Mr. Rice.

[Greg Rice, Senior Counsel and Team Leader, Edmonton Regional Office, Public Prosecution Service of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for inviting me here today.

I have been a federal prosecutor for about 10 years. Before that, I was a provincial prosecutor for approximately two years. Federal prosecutors generally deal with drugs, and drugs mean organized crime. As mentioned, I'm the team leader at our Edmonton office for organized crime cases, so not only do I handle organized crime cases, but I am apprised about any organized crime cases that are ongoing in our office.

I'm sure that in these hearings you'll hear at length about the incredible amount of time and resources required to investigate and prosecute these offences, which usually have a wiretap, a component that is really the expensive component of these investigations. Of note is the fact that the reason for a wiretap is to go up the chain to catch the top-level criminals. Because they are so insulated, it is necessary to intercept a conversation. In a drug context, for example, a member of the Hells Angels is not going to get caught with a quantity of drugs on him. He will not touch the drugs, so it is necessary to tap his phone.

I want to share a couple of experiences with you. These experiences tend to underscore the length of time and the resources required for these prosecutions.

On our experience with disclosure, I will say that disclosure in organized crime prosecution tends to be our Achilles heel. Our experience with disclosure is not great. In an extremely large drug conspiracy, for example, an information was laid charging up to 39 accused, I believe, and that information hit the prosecutor's desk unbeknownst to them. Disclosure was non-existent, and ultimately this matter collapsed under its own weight, as our disclosure obligation could never be fulfilled. Unfortunately, it took several years and incredible resources to get to that point.

We learned a lot from that. For example, we now have charge approval on big cases. We separate the accused, if there are many of them—and in most of these cases there are many—into smaller separate trials, with perhaps four or five accused each. When we are aware of a large investigation taking place we task a crown and a paralegal, usually, with attending upon the police and commencing the disclosure and charge approval process prior to the wiretap even being taken down. Sometimes due to resources, this is not as complete a process as it should be.

That said, despite our best efforts and the best efforts of the police, disclosure continues to be problematic. I have two examples. I think that both of these cases should be viewed by the panel as what should take place.

Police took down a number of accused in a large, complex prosecution. This was organized crime and there were some organized crime charges laid. The wiretap ended in February 2006. To facilitate disclosure and charge approval, the individuals were not actually arrested until late November 2006. Even with that, a disclosure disk—and of course with computers, most of the disclosure is put on hard drives and disks nowadays—was not provided to defence until late January 2007. The remainder of the disclosure was not out until much later. The fastest of the matters, which went to trial, went initially to preliminary inquiry in February 2008 and ultimately to trial in February 2009. There were some convictions and sentencing took place in December 2009.

As I mentioned, pieces are broken off. Two other trial matters continue today, and disclosure issues are still arising. Additionally, the matter I've just related was my first real experience with a trial matter, with all of the surveillance calls and seizures, etc., also encompassing a full IPOC workup. IPOC, of course, relates to the proceeds of crime, and IPOC's raison d'être is to try to take the profit out of organized crime.

IPOC seized a number of assets of these individuals. The difficulty on the disclosure front is that IPOC matters usually continue well beyond the wiretap stage. Also, their investigations tend to be as big or bigger than the original prosecution. In this particular case, IPOC disclosures, particularly reports, were still being made on the eve of trial.

The other matter I wish to relate to you is in regard to a current prosecution. The takedown was done in the summer. At that point in time, a prosecutor and a paralegal were working with the police prior to takedown.

Fast-forward to today. Some disclosure has been made, but not of some of the most important parts of the investigation. The IPOC investigation continues and documents are still being scanned into the database. My point is that disclosure problems, despite the best efforts and lessons learned, continue.

I also want to talk briefly about another aspect that is a drain on time and money. If it goes unbridled, it can cause a prosecution to spin out of control. That's the issue of proper notice and the Garofoli hearing. In the project I just related to you, where the wiretap ended in February 2006, as we approached trial there was much sabre-rattling over the Garofoli hearing. In the Garofoli hearing, the wiretap affiant may have to testify. Of course, the main concern for any affiant on a wiretap or a warrant is the identity of confidential informants.

I'm sure you will hear at length about this issue so I won't say too much about it except to say that if an affiant is on the stand, it always has a very chilling effect on the prosecution, especially if the court allows any leeway concerning questions about informants. Particularly in the case of a wiretap where there could be as many as 10 to 20 informants, with as many individual informant handlers, the affiant is put in a tough position if they are to answer any types of questions in this area. If the identity of an informant becomes an issue, it may ultimately force a stay of the case.

As I mentioned, there was much sabre-rattling. In the scheduling of the trial, the defence indicated they would need four months for a Garofoli hearing. That was before the trial; that was just the charter hearing. Then we would break for summer and would need another four months to conduct the fall trial. Now, pursuant to a Supreme Court of Canada case called Lising-Pires, we insisted upon the defence seeking leave to cross-examine the affiant. We also insisted that the defence provide a written brief outlining exactly what was wrong with the affidavit. As it turned out, there wasn't much.

We responded to the brief. Ultimately, the Garofoli opened in front of the Court of Queen's Bench and closed in one day, with the defence not being granted leave. So instead of conducting four months of Garofoli, we conducted the trial instead.

The point is the court was on board with this process, and because of that, we saved significant time and resources and also protected confidential informants. That being said, all too often courts allow defence fishing expeditions--and we see this all the time--creating trials that continue on and on, with the safety of informants often swinging in the balance.

Those are my comments with regard to this morning's proceedings.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Thank you.

Before we get into the questions, I'll note that we don't talk about cases all the time. We've talked about Askov and delay, and Stinchcombe. I think the committee members are aware of those cases. But I, at least, am not aware of and don't know what you were saying in terms of “Gary Foley”. That's a new one. It sounds like a guy who has a sports store. What's the spelling of that? I know that will help the people who are doing the transcription.

[Greg Rice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a Supreme Court of Canada case called R. v. Garofoli. It indicates that certain notice provisions are required before an affiant is to be cross-examined on the stand by defence counsel.

As I mentioned, I think one of the significant drains on resources is the fact that oftentimes if cross-examination is allowed to go on fishing expeditions, trials can actually spiral out of control.

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

You mentioned a Supreme Court case...?

[Greg Rice]

Yes. I mentioned Lising and Pires. Of note, it was some bikers, I understand, out of B.C.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Thank you.

We'll start our rounds of questions for seven minutes each.

We'll start with Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being with us.

I'm reasonably new on this committee, so forgive me if I'm not terribly aware of all the ins and outs of the justice system.

From all that we've heard, most specifically from Mr. Foss and Mr. Louis, there is a great deal to be said about prevention before we get to the part about correcting behaviour. I wonder if you are familiar with what the Quebec government has done in Quebec to prevent a lot of these gangs from developing, precisely because it is a serious problem.

Would you share with us a bit more what you are doing here in Alberta, and in the prairies in general, in terms of prevention? Either Mr. Foss or Mr. Louis can reply.

[Dr. Hugo Foss]

Not to repeat what I've said already, but we're looking at ways and means of gathering data for first nations across the country so that we can become a service for people who are already receiving gang people in their human resource agencies and provide them with specific intervention techniques that have been used in--

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

But that's after they have offended, right?

[Dr. Hugo Foss]

This has been used after they offend, but by bringing it into the community, this will be used before they get into the criminal justice system.

The interesting thing about intervention and prevention is that they are often seen as being distinct, but they actually overlap in a very important manner. If we don't provide intervention for people, even when they are in the criminal justice system, we defeat ourselves in terms of prevention.

These individuals will come out into the community, and they hold more sway and influence over future recruits than we do. That is why intervention and prevention are really closely linked. The lessons we have learned in working with this population in prison will be effective in the community for people who are identified as problematic before they get to us.

On my comment about ultimate prevention, I agree with Mr. Louis that it really should become part of the school curriculum.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Louis, is that being done in the aboriginal communities now in Alberta?

[Roy Louis]

I don't think we'd have so many gangs if that were being done. Unfortunately, there are a lot of issues that need to be looked at.

My wife has been a teacher in the system for over 35 years, so she has dealt with children all her life. I think if we're going to get anything done, that's where it counts.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Is it a question of funding?

[Roy Louis]

It's a question of more work that needs to be done with different curricula and different jurisdictions in the province. For instance, what we do here in Alberta might be different from what is done in Quebec, so it's an issue of jurisdiction.