Justice Committee on April 29th, 2013

[Insp Gordon Perrier]

I've been fairly vocal on the revamping of some other bills, and I know we are going into other areas there. When we get into the topic of wiretapping and modernizing, there is a crossover there when it comes to technology and how people misuse the Internet, hide behind Internet servers, hide on the Internet through other things such as Facebook or Craigslist, and we are not modern in that area.

While police have been able to make it work through some other systems and ways, we're really not keeping pace with technology, and that is certainly problematic, sir.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for those answers.

From the Liberal Party, Monsieur Bélanger, please.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Perrier, you mentioned a number. I just want to see if I heard it right. You said 666. Did you actually use that number?

[Insp Gordon Perrier]

I used 6,600, but the actual number was 6,647 reports.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Okay, 666 has other connotations. When I heard it I was wondering. Thank you for clearing that up.

You also said that one of the initiatives you undertook led to a tenfold increase in leads. What did that lead to?

[Insp Gordon Perrier]

A number of suspects were identified and people were arrested for sex-based crime who would have escaped justice and those things wouldn't have occurred.

We have lots of systems in place, and in these last two years, as I mentioned, we have taken a really hard look at how we do business around this. We've been very segmented, I'll admit. My service is no different from others. We are very segmented in our approach around different types of crime. We'll say this is the drug unit and it is only responsible for drug crime. That is the vice unit and it is only responsible for vice crime. That's why, when I talked about this realignment, it seems like a small thing but it's very important because it's bringing experts from different fields together where they can realize the types of overlaps they have in their business. Then you get a business model that's more effective and you can serve your citizens better.

Those types of things, which I am talking about, are tremendously important.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Do you include in these programs drug rehabilitation? That's something I have been involved with locally here, and it was a desperately needed program. We didn't have it. Now we are starting to offer it in the nation's capital and I believe it's starting to have an impact. Is it something that is included in your—

[Insp Gordon Perrier]

In particular for victims of exploitation or in our prostitution offender program we actually have ways to fast-track them into the system to get them assistance.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Is that the court drug rehabilitation program?

[Insp Gordon Perrier]

No, these are through private agencies. They've been sponsored by non-government agencies. That relationship needs constant investment by police because it's very powerful and they have a lot of abilities that police and government systems don't. So we're really engaging with that community and taking advantage of those things to help people and use services that we normally wouldn't be using.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Detective Sergeant Monchamp, I would like to pick up on a question that was put by Mr. Goguen.

He referred to a situation where presumption was used in order to accuse an individual of acting as a pimp with five other victims. Therefore, based on one victim's testimony, the individual can be charged for doing this with five other victims.

Mr. Goguen appeared to be expressing a concern that if that is the case, not only could the accused possibly intimidate other victims to convince them not to testify, but he could also convince them to testify in his favour and deny the charges against him, using whatever means possible.

You spoke about how victims can be terrorized. Families, people in their circles, and others could be also terrorized.

Is this a concern at all? Could that be one of the consequences of using presumption?

[Det Sgt Dominic Monchamp]

I don't think that could be a direct effect of presumption. In my opinion, that is a direct outcome of the kind of control these individuals have over their victims. We already see it on a daily basis in these cases. These kinds of incidents or situations occur on a regular basis.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I am going to put the question differently.

What measures are currently being used to prevent that?

[Det Sgt Dominic Monchamp]

These are extremely complex investigations that are not only based on victims' testimony. That forms the basis. What is most important is the testimony of these victims.

However, it's important to understand that these victims are dealing with serious post-traumatic shock, fear and doubt. These victims can be suffering from Stockholm syndrome or dissociation. It is important therefore to work with community groups and with a variety of people who will be supporting them.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

They have to be supported in every possible way.

[Det Sgt Dominic Monchamp]

Exactly. That is part of the approach.

Given the circumstances, these are investigations for the purposes of corroboration. We never just simply compare the victim's word to theirs. It's never their word against ours. Our work consists in supporting that testimony by going into the field to meticulously corroborate everything in their statement. That way, if the victim goes back on their testimony, the judge will be in a position to appreciate all the evidence accumulated during the first testimony, which might have been changed later in the court, and then come to a decision based on those facts.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Therefore you feel that presumption is a positive thing. Is that correct?

[Det Sgt Dominic Monchamp]

Yes. We have seen how it works and in any case this is something that has been proven over several years in the case of procuring.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you both.

Your presence here is appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, sir, for those answers.

Next, from the Conservative Party, we have Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk a little about the aspect of the bill that talks about consecutive sentencing.

I know, Dominic, you mentioned that if a person traffics or exploits five people, they may only end up serving five years because they'll be made to serve all those counts concurrently, which is what happens with a lot of sentences in our Criminal Code.

Based on your experience, if a person commits these offences against five or six women, do you think that a judge will now, because we make these changes, instead of imposing five years, make those sentences consecutive, making it 25 years, or will they say the existing case law is five years, so they're going to say everybody gets one year?

From my experience, judges have difficulty getting out of well-established sentencing ranges.

[Det Sgt Dominic Monchamp]

I hope not.

That is inconceivable for me. I can't see how a one-year sentence could be used to avoid that situation. I would be extremely disappointed if that were the case. Regardless, I cannot comment on that aspect.

However, it certainly will act as a deterrent. Currently, in the case of street gangs, the risk of getting caught for human trafficking compared to drug trafficking is very small. If an individual is arrested for possession of one kilo of cocaine, simply possessing that is illegal. However possessing an individual is not currently illegal. These people are able to manipulate and threaten their victims. They always have a way out.

I think that this message will restore the balance. Handing down consecutive sentences will restore the balance. These individuals are going to have to think before they act. They will no longer see this type of crime as being worthwhile. That is how they currently see it.

[Insp Gordon Perrier]

To be honest about this type of crime, it's very difficult to prove in the first place.

With drug trafficking you can define a network. You may have an individual who's caught with a kilogram of cocaine and you can say they're distributing and you get a 15-year sentence. That's not uncommon when you start dealing with and folding in organized crime, and organizations that participate in crime in an organized fashion.

Building cases when you have multiple victims is still very difficult. Even with presumption, it's still going to be very difficult. You're recognizing these people as individuals and you're recognizing that the crimes that were perpetrated against them, as a victim, matter.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I agree.

I'd rather see it be 25 years than five, I want to make that very clear.

I thought you might know from your experience with sentencing and other areas whether or not making this consecutive is going to be the answer to making this far more serious. Or, if perhaps another tool that we've used a number of times with legislation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty, is the answer.