EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights NUMBER 005 3rd SESSION 40th PARLIAMENT Thursday, March 25, 2010 Le jeudi 25 mars 2010 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE March 25, 2010 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 005 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 005 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 005 (Version officielle) 05 25 03 2010 2010/03/25 14:00:00 House of Commons Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights JUST Chair Mr. Ed Fast 40 3

(1405) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)) : I call the meeting to order. This is meeting five of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Thursday, March 25, and we're continuing our study on organized crime in Canada. We're grateful that we have a number of witnesses before us. We have two panels this afternoon. This panel will have three witnesses plus another one that will probably appear at about three o'clock. I want to welcome James Dubro, Antonio Nicaso, as well as Margaret Beare. I think you understand the process.

Each of you has 10 minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions from our committee members. Perhaps Mr. Dubro would like to start. Mr. James Dubro (Writer and Filmmaker, As an Individual) : Thank you very much for inviting me. I'm sorry Michael Chettleburgh isn't here today, because he agrees with me on the position I am going to take about marijuana.

As Sergeant Tommy O'Brien, a wise old New York city street cop working organized crime, told me many years ago as we were walking along the streets of little Italy in New York to confront a mobster, “As long as people enjoy the services, and that is all it is, so long as people enjoy prostitution, untaxed cigarettes, after hours joints, gambling, as long as people enjoy that, there will always be Mafia people, criminals who will supply them. It's like anything else--if the general public wants it, they'll get it.” He chuckled when he said that--and that is very true today.

As an investigative journalist who has specialized in organized crime reporting for almost a lifetime, I have a different perspective from police and prosecutors who generally want more laws and easier arrests and convictions, or most politicians who usually desire a simplistic, nice-sounding, quick fix for political advantage to things that cannot be so easily fixed.

I've been looking at and documenting organized crime in Canada since 1974 for television documentaries, books, scores, and magazine articles, including the CBC Connections series from 1974 to 1979; a series called Mob Stories on the History Channel, where I was interviewed, along with Antonio; in the 1980s and 1990s, Mob rule: Inside the Canadian Mafia ; Dragons of Crime: Asian Mobs in Canada ; and three others, including one on organized crime during the 1920s prohibition in Canada.

I have been involved in many TV documentaries on people smuggling--one for A&E and one for the National Film Board and the CBC; a 10-part series on CityTV on Toronto organized crime groups; a CBC Witness documentary on cigarettes, guns, booze, and smuggling; a CBC Montreal documentary on the bike war in the 1990s; and many others. I am also the co-author of the definition articles of “organized crime” for all editions of the Canadian Encyclopedia .

The point here is that a lot of my life's work has been researching, looking at, and documenting organized crime in Canada and the various changing states of organized crime. Some of my sources I've met over the last 40 years--ex-hitmen, gangsters, con men, bikers, and mafioso--are still friends, as are some cops and some other mob sources. I see or call them and they call me frequently to chat, compare notes, and analyze the most recent organized crime developments. So I think I know of what I speak.

Since 1974, when I began work on Connections , and since 1985, when I published Mob rule: Inside the Canadian Mafia --the first book outside of Quebec on organized crime in Canada--we've come a long way in Canadian enforcement techniques and laws. Examples include the excellent anti-gang laws that were strengthened eight years ago, money-laundering legislation, and tougher, more rigorous immigration enforcement. The Chair : Mr. Dubro, I'm going to ask you to slow down a little. The interpreters are having trouble keeping up. Mr. James Dubro : Oh, I'm sorry. I'd be happy to slow down.

Organized crime mobs have come a long way too. They have proliferated and grown immensely. This is sad but true, in spite of the jailing of the leadership of the Hells Angels and more recently Vancouver gangsters, after they got too cocky, violent, and out of hand by killing many, including some innocent people. More than ever before, many more organized crime gangs are operating across Canada, though many are less structured and strictly hierarchical. That's very true here in Toronto, incidentally.

There is only one long-term solution, apart from continuing, intense, ongoing enforcement, like the anti-gang laws and tinkering with laws and sentencing, as much of the Conservative tough-on-crime legislative agenda proposes. Unfortunately, that does little to inhibit the growth of organized crime. It is time that we as a society, once and for all, deal seriously with the reality of the huge public demand for some of the major products and services of organized crime, most significantly marijuana, the number one money-maker for organized crime gangs across the country.

Ending the prohibition and making it legal and taxing it and taking the business away from the mobs, as we did in ending prohibition over 80 years ago, is what is required. I wrote a book on that about 20 years ago, about Rocco Perri and how mob bosses in Canada and the United States were created by the prohibition against alcohol, and that led to mob wars in both countries. Pot prohibition is a colossal failure as a policy. Some of the big money, billions, that pot brings in can be used for education on recreational drug misuse.

I say this as one who knows organized crime well and has seen it grow and grow as enforcement tries to keep up but cannot because of the demand. We need to legalize some of the more profitable products and services upon which organized crime grows and thrives, starting with pot, and do that in the United States and Canada. The coming California referendum on pot, if passed, will get the ball rolling, as medical use of pot has already done in both countries. I know many “medical users” in Canada and the United States already.

More than ever, I now see the need to decriminalize many products and services of organized crime, from prostitution to gambling, and most drugs. Where mobs used to run booze and gambling, and thrive on it, now the government runs or controls most gambling and booze. Pot should and will follow; we cannot stop it. This is an idea whose time has come.

From the Fraser Institute study of almost a decade ago to billionaire entrepreneur George Soros, to ex-Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, to The Economist magazine--the special issue just a few months ago urging the very same thing--to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, LEAP...I don't know whether you've had a speaker from LEAP here. Have you? You should.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, that is, former soldiers in the war on drugs in the United States and Canada, are now against the prohibition of drugs, from U.S. governors to U.S. and Canadian organized crime law enforcement officials, like ex-Mountie, coroner, and Vancouver mayor, Senator Larry Campbell. He would be an excellent witness, I would think. Larry Campbell--a very good guy. Of course, to avoid the potential for gang wars in Canada for turf and U.S. routes, as in Mexico now and as in the 1920s prohibition period, we need to legalize and decriminalize in both countries at the same time.

That's an extremely important point. We couldn't just legalize pot in this country. I think when it happens in California, that's when we'll have to move very fast. That's why you guys should be looking into it now before it happens in California. California is the largest state in the United States, and when it happens there, it's going to happen. As for the idea floated by some, including members of Parliament, that one answer to the organized crime problem in this country is criminalizing a group by its name, for example the Hells Angels, it's wrong-headed on many counts. First, it wouldn't work.

The Hells Angels would go underground, as it has already partially done in Quebec in the drug biz, where it's still fairly effectively importing and selling drugs. There's no lack of drugs on the streets of Montreal, I can tell you.

(1410) Second, it's a slippery slope. Why just the Hells Angels? Why not other organized crime gangs? Why just focus on organized crime with a name? Alas, many organized crime gangs, like many street gangs or Vietnamese gangs, are very fluid and adaptive and don't really have names, except for those given to them by journalists and cops. Third, it would make civil rights martyrs out of the Hells Angels. It would be a public relations coup bonanza for such a sinister group. In the end, it is too simplistic to make it a crime to be a member of a named group.

It is good only for cops who don't want to spend the time making real cases or using the anti-gang laws, and it is not good for our civil liberties in Canada. I might add that over many years of application it hasn't worked very well to eliminate the many mafias in Italy or the triads in Hong Kong, though one might argue that in Italy, at least, it has kept intense pressure on mafias. Antonio can answer on that one. The time has come to do something nationally and internationally that really hurts organized crime groups operating in Canada. Ending the prohibition on pot is the first big step forward to that end.

Rigorously enforcing the tough anti-gang laws will also help enormously. More federal government funding and vocal, visible support for the use of the anti-gang laws consistently and nationally is required. These laws have been used successfully against the Rock Machine, the Hells Angels, highly organized black street gangs in Toronto, ethnic organized crime gangs elsewhere, and the powerful Rizzuto Mafia family.

In my opinion, there is no need for new laws, just a need for strenuously enforcing existing ones and eliminating some very old out-of-date laws, such as the prohibition against certain widely used, hugely popular recreational drugs such as marijuana and possibly ecstasy. We need quality controls on this highly popular drug, as most users rarely know exactly what they're getting in a drug often manufactured in garages and basements.

Getting rid of drug prohibition, starting with pot, is the only real thing left to do that will almost certainly work to reduce the power, income, and membership of organized crime gangs. We must get at what fuels the growth and profits of the mobs. It's time to get at them where it hurts, and legalizing pot in North America will begin to do that. Of course, we can never eliminate organized crime in a society; we can only contain it and keep it on the ropes.

Today, as I was getting ready to come here and as we're having this meeting right now, there's a judge from New Jersey who is a commentator on the Fox television station, which is not a station I usually watch. As we're sitting here, he's giving a speech on his position to legalize marijuana on Fox television. This is what he said in Facebook this morning. He said: Isn't it about time for the government to drop its Victorian facade and let folks do to their bodies in private whatever they wish.... The time has now come for the government to get out of our homes and leave us alone.

Governments in America have been spending about $50 billion annually on drug enforcement and recreational drugs use increases every year. When will we learn that prohibition is a disaster? That's how he ends his entry on Facebook this morning. I think I made my 10 minutes.

(1415) The Chair : Thank you so much. We'll move on to Mr. Nicaso for ten minutes. Mr. Antonio Nicaso (Author and Journalist, As an Individual) : Mr. Chairman, honourable members of this committee, good afternoon. The last time I addressed this committee was in 2001. I remember we asked ourselves this question: why is organized crime afraid of American laws and borders and not afraid of ours? Since 2001 nothing has changed. The situation is actually becoming worse.

According to the latest report of the Criminal Intelligence Service, most criminal markets appear highly resistant to long-term disruption, and in some cases they remain criminally active during incarceration. The same report listed hundreds of criminal organizations. I used to call our country a Welcome Wagon for organized crime. The main problem lies with the definition of organized crime. We have criminal organizations that insulate themselves from risk, such as the Mafia and the 'Ndrangheta, which tend to be less visible and more difficult to link to criminal behaviour.

They are more business oriented and have established links with politicians, business people, and professionals. If you have the time to read the intelligence report prepared by the RCMP and the Montreal police about the Mafia in Quebec, you will find the names of important corporations, politicians, lawyers, and builders. From those reports, you will learn what the power of a criminal organization like the Mafia really is. Moreover, you will learn that they are more dangerous when they cannot be shocked.

The connections with decision-makers, business persons, politicians, and professionals are the backbone of criminal power. Nevertheless, this is an area that is off limits. How many investigations target the so-called grey area where politicians, criminals, professionals, and business people get together for various reasons? There are not many. This is the real target. According to the Criminal Intelligence Service, the dividing line between illegality and legality is fine and can be redrawn with changes in regulations or legislation.

As a result, some criminal groups undertake a series of enterprises that are on the margin of legitimacy or entirely legitimate. Some operate businesses that are primarily intended to facilitate criminal activities, while others offer legitimate trade but also facilitate illicit enterprises through, for example, laundering funds, income tax fraud, enabling fraud, or the illicit manipulation of stock markets. A criminal group may own or operate these businesses openly, conceal their dealings through nominees, or collude with, coerce, or deceive the owners or employees.

These businesses can also enable criminal groups to distance themselves from criminal activity and provide an appearance of legitimacy. If this is the real issue, why do we stand idly by? Instead, and for obvious reasons, we continue to link organized crime only with violence and not with white collar crime. Street gang activities often more directly have an impact on the general public than other organized crime groups, particularly as some gangs pose a threat to public safety through their high propensity for violence.

We have a serious problem in Quebec, where many sectors of the economy are infiltrated by white collar criminals. We face increased violence on Montreal streets. Ninety percent of drug retailing is in the hands of street gangs and they are fighting for more turf to exert an influence over drug territory. They are not kids with guns. In Alberta police witnessed street gang members exchanging text messages while the alleged criminals were sitting at the same table. No words were exchanged during the meeting. They were using BlackBerry devices because they cannot be intercepted by police.

This is only an example of the level of sophistication of our street gangs.

(1420) I hope this meeting will not be useless like the others. For many years, we as Canadians have remained like ostriches with our heads firmly planted in the sand. We have anti-gang legislation that we barely use outside of Quebec. I remember when organized crime was identified as a priority, a government priority, both federally and provincially. They made only newspaper headlines and no action was taken. Whatever the reason, we are now faced with confronting criminal organizations that are immeasurably stronger and more sophisticated than they used to be.

Some have retained superbly resourced dream teams of lawyers and chartered accountants, and a few are capable of successfully infiltrating law enforcement. I'd like to quote Crown Attorney Stephen Sherriff. In a speech dated 2001, he said, “There is no point crying over spilt milk but we must realize that what started as spilt milk has turned into an oil spill.” Unfortunately, almost 10 years later, this is the current reality. It is a waste of time to debate how we got so far behind. The important thing is to not squander any more time.

If we do not take action, we will have more bystanders at risk, more business people in the hands of criminals, and more narcotics on the streets. I'd like to know, as a Canadian, if there is political will to fight organized crime. In the last 20 years, I've never had the sense that there is. Thank you. The Chair : Thank you very much. We'll move on to Ms. Beare. You have 10 minutes. Dr. Margaret Beare (Professor of Law and Sociology, York University, As an Individual) : Thank you very much. My name is Margaret Beare.

I'm a professor at York University, where I served for 10 years as the director of the Nathanson Centre for the Study of Organized Crime and Corruption. The name of that centre has now been changed to the Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security, but policing and organized crime is still a topic for that centre. Prior to that time, I worked for 13 years in what was then the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada and is now the Ministry of Public Security. I was the director of police policy and research.

Our panel has a bit of an advantage, in the sense that your committee has been meeting for quite a while and I've had an opportunity to go through some of the previous testimony that was given. A lot of it was given with passion and commitment, and I welcome this opportunity to add my own opinion, experience, and to a large extent my hope for change into the mix that somehow you have to make some kind of sense out of. Running through the various presentations that have already been given, there was a call for a focus on root causes to combat organized crime.

Obviously no one answer is going to be the answer that meets all kinds of organized crime, but I would like to focus just for a moment on the kinds that in fact do speak to root causes. As you may know, yesterday there was a gang summit held here in Toronto, and the strong message was a need to look at membership, the need to look at and understand who are the members of these street groups or gangs, and in fact not to automatically assume that they are criminal gangs that should be slotted into the magic three: membership, criminal organization, and categorization.

There is agreement that to work effectively to reduce street violence from street gangs, the focus needs to be on jobs, literacy, social inclusion, and social services. This, however, appears to be political poison, accepted as mere rhetoric, backed up by an array of get tough legislation that you've all been hearing about. The list of get tough measures include the mandatory minimums, the criminal organization enhancement to police powers and sanctions, and the debate on the practicality of naming groups as being criminal organization entities.

Both James and Antonio addressed that issue to some extent, James emphasizing the networking, the fluid nature of a lot of organized crime groups, and Antonio emphasizing the grey area, the blurriness between political corruption, corruption of officials, influence peddling, and the “criminal element”. What do you put under the umbrella of whatever name you want to assign to a group? The Hells Angels are a beautiful group because they have everything going for them: the jacket, the club, the name, the whatever.

The organized crime groups that you would perhaps be better served to look at are the fluid groups that include the legitimate and illegitimate activities. I just finished a study on women involved in organized crime. The international community appears to be concerned that women are moving into leadership roles. Other than anecdotal examples, I think we are safe from women for a while, although they do play a key role in some of the trafficking of persons through certain routes.

Mainly these women are the same poor, jobless, abused, often illiterate, often single moms that we see in our domestic prisons, victims of abuse much more than abusers. We now see these women targeted with the mandatory minimums associated with drug trafficking, i.e., the drug mules.

But when one analyzes the court cases, what you find is naive, duped, intimidated women mixed with—yes, of course—some women who knowingly choose to take upon themselves the most risky and the least profitable part of the trafficking network that leaves them most exposed, while somebody else who runs the operation possibly, but not necessarily, becomes rich. I've also just finished a study on the enforcement of gambling. You probably would ask yourself how gambling relates to the issue we are looking at.

In my mind, it speaks to justice policies that appear to be derived, at least to some extent, by flavour-of-the-month polling mechanisms.

(1425) While everyone acknowledges that illegal gambling is still a major source of profits for organized criminals--and even the recent killings in Montreal reveal some of the players who have been and are still involved in this enterprise--there is little political will to continue to fund street gambling enforcement. Far sexier is the international hype over money laundering, terrorist financing, and of course gangs and guns. Focusing on street-level traditional police work, rather than funnelling our precious resources perhaps too heavily into elite squads, might be a better response.

What is my point that links these three areas? What is needed is the political will on the part of committees such as yours--which is why I'm so pleased to be here speaking to you--to stand up to political masters. When Corrections Canada briefed the Prime Minister about the severe downside of mandatory minimum sentences in terms of the impact on prison populations, his response was that the hardest thing he had to deal with was getting the bureaucrats on board. Research, evidence, and the experience of the knowledgeable correctional research staff and the prison staff were irrelevant to him.

Standing up and saying everything we know, nationally and internationally, tells us that mandatory sentences do more harm than good; massive gang roundups that cannot be processed by either our legal aid systems or our courts must be a last resort to alternative measures in some of the most depressed areas of our cities; and the Gladue judgment tried to tell us, regarding the far excessive overrepresentation of aboriginals in our prisons, that equal justice is not equal when everyone does not start at the same point.

Therefore justice must be flexible and wise, free from political ideology, and free to make brave, made-in-Canada social justice-focused responses. I would like to add my voice to the choir that emphasizes that the current drug laws are not working, pure and simple. No matter what your view on marijuana is, what we are doing is not working. Save your resources for other drugs if you must, but decriminalization is the only reasoned response to marijuana.

I was a member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police drug abuse committee for several years, and there was one magic year when the CACP drug committee voted to recommend decriminalization to the government. Alas, when the chiefs went back from the conference to their home departments, they apparently got whacked, because the formal decision changed. However, it was an indication that the police do see the folly of what the laws cause, and this most powerful policing organization almost had the courage to tell the government. I thank you very much.

(1430) The Chair : Thank you. Our fourth witness isn't here yet so we'll go to questions. Mr. LeBlanc, you have seven minutes. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for interesting presentations and even some thought-provoking ideas on how we can attack a problem that I think we all agree is increasing and concerning. There are two items I'm hoping you can elaborate on. Mr. Dubro and Mr. Nicaso passed over the issue of how organized crime recruits people. How does one become involved in a criminal gang?

What are the typical ways in which they seek to add membership or expand their influence? I'm curious to hear your views on how they typically grow their membership, either formally or informally. In other words, how do they seek to add people under their influence who will participate in criminal activity? Professor Beare, in your opening comments you referred to some of the root causes of why people participate in criminal gangs, or why criminal gangs become a problem in some communities. Perhaps you can expand on that. I'm interested in that. We focus on the legislation and changing statutes.

I sense that's a significant but certainly not all-encompassing solution. There are many other non-legislative means to help police and community groups, like giving tools to those involved in prosecuting, that can also have a big impact, and not simply changing the letter of the law. So I'd be curious to hear from you on that. Mr. James Dubro : In terms of how people get into organized crime gangs, which I think was your first question, there are so many different ways. It depends on the group. As Antonio will tell you, in the Mafia it's almost generational, or family.

It's that old cliché you see in The Sopranos on television or in The Godfather . Many people are born into the Mafia. When you talk about street gangs and youth gangs--you have several people coming about that--they get into it for a lot of reasons. There are economic reasons, as Margaret referred to, and social reasons. There's deprivation. But I would argue that one of the main reasons they get into it--and Margaret implied this, too--is that there's a lot of money to be made very quickly. All your friends want steroids or ecstasy or pot or whatever, so why not make a lot of money?

I know younger people who are doing this in Toronto. I know some in Montreal who do it. They don't have any moral qualms about doing it. It's— Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : By “doing it” you mean supplying...? Mr. James Dubro : Not necessarily getting into a gang, but— Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : You mean supplying the demand. Mr. James Dubro : Yes, supplying drugs. Steroids are drugs. They're illegal. A lot of money is made on steroids and ecstasy, and, as I said earlier, God knows what's in them. Anyway, in terms of youth gangs, I think a lot of people get in for a lot of reasons, but one of them is the profit motive.

A lot of them graduate to larger organized crime gangs. As you get a little more sophisticated.... You see, for a lot of the youth gangs and younger gangs, the ones selling drugs on the street are one thing, but a lot of the early Mafia groups, let's say, and Asian crime groups, if you look at Asian crimes, started with extortion when they were younger, in their twenties. Extortion doesn't get you very much money, but it gets you money, and you generally extort people from that community. It's going on right now with the Tamil Tigers.

Other groups are extorting recent immigrants, I suspect, in the Somali community and others. It's a long pattern, and it goes back to the early Italian immigration in the 1920s. Most of the original Mafia groups were involved in extortion. But that doesn't make you money, so you move to more sophisticated things, like international crime and drug trafficking on a large scale, from heroin to cocaine and marijuana. I think the younger gang members get into where there's more money, so they get into the organized crime gangs. Those are two ways they get in.

As for women, Margaret didn't mention this, but back in the 1920s and 1930s, there were women who ran the Mafia in Ontario, Bessie Perri and Annie Newman, so they're not exactly newcomers. Rocco Perri, who was the gang boss in charge of most of the bootleg booze coming from Canada into the United States, relied for all his decisions on them. Whether it was killing a customs officer or corrupting a customs officer, he relied on Bessie and on his women. He couldn't do it without his women. Antonio wrote a book about this too.

It's quite amazing, in fact, that women were in that role, and our history on this has never been told. We get all of our history from American television, so naturally the Canadian history isn't there, but there have been women in crime. As Bessie said to Rocco back in the teens, when prohibition was coming, “We'd better get into this, because there's a lot of money to be made.” They made a fortune: the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars today. She was draped in diamonds and they had a big mansion.

Of course, she was murdered, so there is a moral to the story, and her murder is still unsolved 60 or 70 years later. I've said enough. Antonio, do you want to add anything?

(1435) Mr. Antonio Nicaso : I would like to focus more on the Mafia. I teach the history of the Mafia in an American college, at the military college, so I'm not familiar with the gangs or street gangs. I'm more familiar with the so-called traditional organized crime. The Mafia is actually based on functional friendship, so there are no blood ties. What brings all those people together is a sense of belonging, but you have to consider that they're not looking for money; they're looking for power. That is the main goal.

Looking for power means establishing connections with the people who are able to make decisions. I will just give an example. There was the Zappia business that was involved in the Olympic Village scandal in Montreal. He was arrested recently in Italy because he was investing five billion euros in the construction of the bridge that will eventually connect Sicily to the mainland. The 'Ndrangheta is another major criminal organization that operates in Canada. The structure is different, because 'Ndrangheta is the only criminal organization with a structure based on blood ties.

A way to recruit members is through marriage. Sometimes it's from families who come from the same area. Other ways that are very important in Italian culture are to be the godfather of a child or to be the best man in a wedding. It's a way to protect themselves. The 'Ndrangheta is now the most powerful criminal organization in the world, with ramifications worldwide because it's very difficult to infiltrate. It's very difficult to find informants within the 'Ndrangheta. Becoming an informant in the 'Ndrangheta means betraying your own blood. That is unacceptable.

Even in Canada we have the same structure, the same type of organization. It's an organization based on blood ties. The Chair : Thank you. We'll move on to Mr. Ménard. Before we do, I notice that our fourth witness is here, Reverend Julius Tiangson. I'll give him his 10 minutes to present right now, and then we'll continue on with the questions, if that's acceptable. Mr. James Dubro : Could I just add one thing? I just remembered that sometimes people are extorted into becoming gang members. It happens very much in Asian crime.

(1440) The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Tiangson, you have 10 minutes. The Reverend Julius Tiangson (Executive Director, Gateway Centre for New Canadians) : My name is Julius Tiangson. I'm the executive director of the Gateway Centre for New Canadians. We are a settlement agency in Mississauga, and we primarily serve youth between the ages of 13 to 24. I'll give you some brief background information about myself. I came to Canada in 1985 as a temporary foreign worker, actually. For about a year and a half, I was in a work exchange program, and I decided at that time that I liked Canada so much that I would immigrate.

I have worked with young people over the last 20 years, primarily among immigrant kids. They come under the live-in caregiver program and also under the permanent residency program--or the normal way, as many would call it. I've worked with families on the impact of some of the immigration policies that we have here in Canada with regard to family reunification and the impact of that with regard to children, youth, and their options for their lives here in Canada.

One of the things that I think we have not been really looking quite carefully into is the role of some of our immigration policies over the last couple of decades and the impact of those in terms of the options that children and young people--newcomers--have as they come and settle here in Canada. I have three observations. The first observation is with regard to the immigration policy. I think when there is a policy in place that will prolong the reunification of family, there is definitely, from where I sit, an impact on the children and young people of those who came first when they settle here in Canada.

There have been studies out there, some of which are funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and by the social development program, in which there is a social impact on the lives of children and youth. There are consequences of that in terms of involvement in organized crime or street gangs. There are some important studies. Right now I cannot simply draw from them, but there are some good studies that have been done on this.

The second observation is that when the majority of the newcomers settle here in this country, their children and young people are, in a way, looking for places to belong, places they can identify themselves with, places where they can be participants and be involved in something that is productive.

Regardless of whether they're temporary foreign workers who have successfully gone through the point system and have become successful immigrants or those who have come through the regular route to immigration--regardless of their status--at the time of settlement, parents of these newcomers do have difficulty in their economic integration into this country, which leaves no other option for their children to actually participate in extra-curricular activities. This would prevent them from getting involved in street gangs.

The third observation, from where I sit, is the role of many organizations in the community, and the role of the provincial, federal, and municipal governments in ensuring that there are truly accessible places that need to be established in many centres in which our newcomers tend to settle. They are in the greater Toronto area, in Montreal, and in Vancouver, and now increasingly in cities like Edmonton and Calgary. These are large centres where, because of the economic opportunities, many of the newcomers and their families tend to settle.

(1445) The lack of accessibility, as well as a lack of programming done at the front end of settlement for children and youth, will definitely have the consequence at the back end, as I will call it, of many of the kids getting involved with the law. We offer an alternative measure service or program in which young people have the alternative of serving their time for their conviction in our centre.

What I have observed over the last three years of delivering this service is that a good 80% of newcomer kids who get involved and entangled with the law do so simply because they were in the wrong company, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, with the wrong people. When we begin to prod a little bit further, we find that the majority of them get involved simply because there is no alternative activity or there are no alternative places or stuff that is affordable for them and affordable for their parents.

So accessibility to this programming for newcomer children and youth is a critical component in ensuring that kids who are newcomers do not get involved in street gangs. The Chair : Thank you very much. We'll resume the questions and move on to Monsieur Ménard for seven minutes. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [ English ] Dr. Margaret Beare : Could I respond? The Chair : You'll get another chance. We're going to have a number of rounds here. [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Ménard : Thank you.

Listening to you, I get the impression that the main sources of income of organized crime at the present time are drugs and specifically marijuana. However, I would also like to hear you talk — because I understand that you all agree on this point — about other legal activities of criminal gangs, such as any involvement in construction projects or in unions, as we know happens in other countries? Are they involved in prostitution or even gambling, do they traffic human beings, and what would be the respective proportions? [ English ] Mr.

James Dubro : Well, of course, I emphasize drugs and pot because I'm advocating the legalization of pot to solve the problems. But you're right, there are all those areas and lots of other areas. Certainly there's people smuggling. I did a documentary on people smuggling. It's a major organized crime activity around the world, and a very lucrative one. The answer to that is a lot more complicated than simply legalizing pot, although that gets rid of a lot of problems.

In terms of union activities and construction, going back 100 years, I would say, in this country, there have been activities, extortion on a very low level, and contract killing. For whatever reason, in our society there are people who want things done to other people. To get something done, who do you go to? You go to someone in the underworld. Antonio talked about levels of corruption. Gambling, which is something that Margaret emphasized, is still a major activity. While the government runs most of gambling now, the other major partner is the mob.

Loan sharking is another one that I'm sure you're aware of, which was very, very big in Montreal in the 1970s and 1980s, and even today. People cannot get money from banks. So we're talking about the whole range of activities. I don't know what percentage is actually drugs. I think the money revenue is coming from drugs. (1450) [ Translation ] Mr. Serge Ménard : Our time is limited so you might answer at the same time to what I asked earlier. Seven minutes are very short.

It is my impression that drugs are so lucrative for the large criminal organizations — those are the most violent or that establish their discipline through violence — that they leave to other groups activities such as cigarette smuggling or even prostitution. In fact, there are many other criminal organized groups but ultimately drug trafficking is so lucrative for the more dangerous large criminal organizations like the Hells Angels or even the mafia that they let those others thrive next to them. [ English ] Mr. Antonio Nicaso : I agree with you.

I think drug trafficking is the main source of income for criminal organizations. There are different levels of involvement in the narcotics trade. Criminal organizations such as the Mafia or the 'Ndrangheta are involved at the level of importation; motorcycle gangs are involved at the level of distribution; and street gangs are involved at the level of drug retail or selling on the street. This is the way that criminal organizations organized themselves in consolidating this major source of income. But I believe another important source of income is money laundering.

We underestimated the importance of money laundering in the lives of criminal organizations. It's practically impossible to run a criminal organization if you don't have an avenue to launder money. You can't stash money in cash. And I believe construction is a great way to reach legitimacy. When we deal with money laundering, and when we deal with a way to find a cover for your criminal activities, you are looking at corruption and infiltration. That's the way criminals and sometimes politicians and businessmen meet together for different reasons. Dr.

Margaret Beare : One of the things that's so difficult about the conversation is that every one of those criminal operations or enterprises brings in quite different factors. I'm not certain that you can say today that drugs are the big money-maker. Possibly they are the priority money-maker for some Mafia operations. But again, while I was looking at the situation of trafficking in humans, some of the criminal operations seem to be deciding that is a less risky and highly profitable enterprise to get into.

Basically any industry that has a possibility to make a profit is going to have a criminal and possibly a corruption sideline to it as well. In regard to some of the kinds of criminal activity that you talked about in terms of unions or construction, in terms of looking at what they're doing in the United States, I think we can maybe learn some things there. We certainly tried to learn from the RICO. But what they're doing in some of those industries is what they call IPSIGs.

In order to keep the operation going--like the business or the corporation or whatever--they make the people pay for trusteeships, auditors, and all the rest of it. What this emphasizes is that we have to assume that in any money-making operation there is the possibility that criminals are working. In fact, some criminals will be operating in those industries. One point I'd like to make is that we are speaking on the assumption that crime is increasing. Every time one has these hearings--I think every year--we talk about crime increasing.

Certainly the statistics are not increasing, and I'm not meaning to downplay organized crime or the dangers or the amount of money or anything, but I don't know that we have the evidence that it is increasing. Thank you very much.

(1455) The Chair : Thank you. We'll move next to Mr. Comartin for seven minutes. Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) : Thank you. Professor Beare, to you, and Mr. Dubro, maybe to you as well, concerning the question of tying violence to drug enforcement, the urban health research initiative of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS just came out this month with a report, interestingly enough, that was peer reviewed by the Fraser Institute. I couldn't quite figure that one out. I'm asking if you're aware of it.

If so, do you think the methodology is valid, and are you are aware of the studies they reviewed? Basically all of the studies--I think with the exception of one--found that as jurisdictions stepped up drug enforcement, the level of violence went up correspondingly, and this included assaults all the way to murder. Do you have any comments on that, again, on whether it's a valid report and whether the study was done according to accepted social science methodology and whether the results are-- Dr. Margaret Beare : I have not read that report, but what it seems to refer to is what we know.

When you take out a monopoly, which perhaps drug enforcement would do, you're opening it up to competitors, which then increases the amount of violence until whoever is there is once again able to regain political influence, again put in place a corruption network, and regain a monopoly. Mr. Joe Comartin : I was in Italy with the minister and other members of Parliament last spring. There we met with a number of the government agencies fighting organized crime. They advised us that they believe it was mostly by taking the wealth away from the family known as the Mafia that they basically destroyed them.

Going along with that, the other groups of Cosa Nostra and some of the other families stepped in, but I didn't get any indication from the agencies that the level of violence had gone up in that country as a result of destroying the Mafia family, although others were competing to take over. Is that an exception, or was I just not being given the information? Dr. Margaret Beare : Perhaps Antonio knows more. Maybe it has to do with what the level of violence was beforehand. Mr.

Antonio Nicaso : The level of violence has decreased, but the main tool in fighting organized crime in Italy is seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. Mr. Joe Comartin : I understand that, but if I can stay with the question of the level of violence, why would it have gone down in that jurisdiction,

whereas when it happened elsewhere in the world--mostly in North America, but elsewhere in the world--every other one of these reports shows that the violence levels actually went up? Dr. Margaret Beare : I'm wondering if it's more organized in that jurisdiction, in the sense that an organization was in fact taken out or impacted. When we look at drug trafficking and criminal activity in Canada, sometimes we make it sound as if it's one or two organizations and that all the proceeds are going into somebody's pocket,

whereas in fact research out of Montreal seemed to indicate that there are so many small operators that there'd be more small operations to compete with one another and cause the violence you talked about. Perhaps if there is more of a Mafia-like centralized structure, there's basically less competition. Mr. Antonio Nicaso : It has to do with a different type of criminal organization. There are criminal organizations that are territorialized; they control the territory, and what they want is to run the criminal activity.

They don't want violence, because violence increases the scrutiny from police and media, and that's what they try to avoid. You mentioned Italy. In some regions of Italy, the criminal organization has a strong link with the territory. They control the territory and avoid the violence of street gangs or common criminals. In Canada we don't have that type of organization, the type that controls the territory. In some areas we do, but not across the country.

(1500) Mr. James Dubro : In many ways, increased violence indicates less organized crime or less organization, and more disorganized crime or fighting among different groups, as happened in Vancouver last year. The Hells Angels didn't particularly want violence, as violent as they are; it was only because the Rock Machine came in and started taking on their territory that they got very macho about it and started killing each other. This happens on the street level. Right now in Montreal we're talking about a street gang taking on the Mafia. Mr.

Joe Comartin : Professor Beare, you made the point about street-level gambling. I didn't catch what you were trying to convey to us. I got the sense that we don't provide resources to fight that. Are you advocating that we-- Dr. Margaret Beare : 'm advocating that if we are in fact focusing on the kind of activity that puts dirty money into the hands of criminals, that would at least be an area to maintain. Again, just as I was writing in trying to do this research, the joint force gambling operation in British Columbia was closed down. I thought there was an active joint force operation in Ontario.

It turns out that it is now turned into something called pods, and the reason seems to be that gangs and guns are the higher priority. So not only do the officers who do street-level policing feel that it's not given the priority it needs; they also feel that the local police are losing the expertise to even know what they're looking for. We did two studies while I was at the Department of the Solicitor General, looking at gaming across the country.

In those days I was in Ottawa, so I was riding with the vice guys, and they were pointing out the number of restaurants that had changed hands literally in the course of a game of cards. I was asking the police officer from Toronto whether I could do the same in Toronto, and he said no, they don't drive around and do that kind of law enforcement. The only explanation I could think of was that again the resources have gone somewhere else.

But also, as James or Antonio pointed out, now, with such a proliferation of government-run gambling, there's probably a sense that it's a bit hypocritical to be targeting the illegal operations. Unfortunately, the illegal operations are not petty-ass things. They're...again, who knows? The question was asked where the largest amount of money comes from. Well, I don't think we should write off gambling. Maybe it's not right up there at the top any more, but it's not piddly-ass. The Chair : We're out of time. We'll move on to Mr. Rathgeber. Mr. Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) : Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for your presentations, although I must say at the outset that I'm troubled by much of what I've heard this afternoon. We have heard the argument from time to time that if we just stopped prohibiting marijuana, magically all organized crime would disappear. As wonderful as that world would be, I have some problems with that simplistic theory. I listened, Mr. Dubro, with interest to your libertarian defence for abolishing prohibition: that an individual should be able to do what he or she wants in the privacy of his or her own home without state interference.

But then you drew the line at marijuana and ecstasy, and that's where your argument broke down. As a libertarian, which I'm assuming you are, based on what I heard you say, if you ought to be free to do marijuana and ecstasy in the privacy of your own home, or in public for that matter, why not heroin, why not cocaine, why not crystal meth? Mr. James Dubro : I agree with you; that's where it goes. I am a progressive libertarian. The person I quote at the end is the fellow on Fox who calls himself a “pro-life libertarian”. A libertarian would allow for heroin.

In fact, LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and Senator Campbell and various governors would make every major drug legal. I pointed out that in the case of ecstasy, for instance, God knows what people are getting. It used to be, when it first came out, that it was done out of the lab in France or Switzerland. Now it's just concocted in garages and basements. God knows what they put in it. People have died from bad stuff. If it were legal and people decided to take it, the government would make a lot of money. It would certainly knock out.... You said we oversimplified, and all of that.

No one ever said organized crime would be gone if you legalized marijuana or even all drugs. God knows, before drugs they were into zillions of things to make money—booze, back in the twenties....

(1505) Mr. Brent Rathgeber : We're going to get to that, but you're skirting my question: why not cocaine, why not heroin? Mr. James Dubro : I said yes. Mr. Brent Rathgeber : You want them all legal? Mr. James Dubro : Well, not at the moment. You'd have to do this gradually. You have to start somewhere—pot, as is happening in the United States. It's no good if, say, you legalize cocaine in Canada. That would just make more of a mess of this country vis-à-vis organized crime, because then you would have turf wars over U.S. territory. It would have to be done in the United States as well as Canada.

It's not going to happen in the United States, so forget about it; there's no sense even mentioning cocaine. It might happen in Mexico at some point. But marijuana is going to happen; I really believe it now. I didn't a few years ago. I believe it's going to happen with the next ten years. Mr. Brent Rathgeber : What makes you think the United States is going to legalize marijuana? Mr. James Dubro : It is through this referendum in California. It's just going in that direction, with all the so-called medical use. Basically, if you have the slightest pain, even in this country, you can get legal marijuana.

I happen not to use marijuana very often—maybe twice a year at most at a party—and believe me, I've seen the most sophisticated, respectable people smoking up or offering me a joint at a party. This is not a drug that should be illegal. A voice: [ Inaudible--Editor ] Mr. James Dubro: No, because it is in demand by a lot of people, not just sophisticated people. That is an elitist argument. The Chair : Mr. Rathgeber, you have the floor. Mr. Brent Rathgeber : Thank you. Dr. Beare, you didn't go as far as to tell the committee that drugs harder than marijuana ought to be decriminalized. Where do you draw the line?

Dr. Margaret Beare : The argument in my mind is not one of drawing the line, but the sense that what we're doing now doesn't work. What we're doing now leads to all kinds of police corruption, corruption of officials, and a whole lot of money for.... One of the questions that was asked was how organized crime recruits. It recruits, to some extent, at least, from the street-level kids who want to make money. It's the harm it does that I'm concerned about. Whether or not people have the right to do it.... I might think that anybody has the right to do whatever they want, but that is not my argument.

My argument is that this just doesn't work. Mr. Brent Rathgeber : No, I understand that you are defending prohibition for different reasons. So I am going to go back to the libertarian. What about the child? What about the mentally infirm? Do they require state protection, or do they too— Mr. James Dubro : I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question. Mr. Brent Rathgeber : Does somebody under the age of 18 or do the mentally infirm also have the right to make their own choices, or do they need state protection from— Mr.

James Dubro : Well, I wasn't arguing primarily as a libertarian, even though I am a libertarian. My argument was essentially, as someone who has studied organized crime and looked at it for almost 40 years, that, as Margaret said, this thing doesn't work with every drug. As for underage people, that's a whole different area. Of course not; that is parental guidance and various other things. Mr. Brent Rathgeber : So it is only adults who have the right to make their own choice. That's fine. You talked about alcohol.

Alcohol is a great case study, I would suggest, in the argument against abolishing prohibition, and I'll tell you why. Alcohol has been legal for almost a century, and organized crime still exists and abuse of alcohol is at higher levels today than it ever was. With that as background, why do you think abolishing prohibition of marijuana would be a successful policy? Mr. James Dubro : If you look at alcohol, the reason organized crime is still in it is that usually, with high taxes, people want cheaper booze. I quoted at the beginning that New York cop.

If you made it legal, then the government would control the quality and the distribution. There will still be organized crime, probably selling higher-quality stuff, but there would be billions of dollars to be made by government for education on why young people and others shouldn't be using drugs. I think that is very important. I mean, it doesn't make sense to use drugs on a regular basis. We all know that, libertarian or not. You have to educate people. I don't think education campaigns now are very effective at all.

If you had more money for doing television and probably more sophisticated modern technology communication, it would work. I think marijuana is where all the Asian crime money comes from. Look at the proliferation of grow ops. I've just been noticing, over the last 10 years, that

whereas there used to be one or two, they are literally every day busting huge places. And who are the people in them? They're not the people who run the gangs; they're often disposable people who will go to jail for the people running the gangs.

(1510) The Chair : Thank you. We'll move on to Monsieur LeBlanc. You have five minutes. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Beare didn't have a chance to answer the question. I'll just remind you that if there is time and if anybody else on the panel can offer an insight, I would appreciate it. You talked about the root causes. I assume you were talking about organized crime membership, or how an organized crime enterprise decides to go into sector A or industry B or community C. I'd be interested to hear if that's what you meant by root causes.

Also, at the end of your comments you talked about alternative measures. I think you meant mega trials, these big prosecutions that tie up huge resources, both police and prosecutorial resources. You talked about “alternative measures”, perhaps to organized crime prosecution, which in my province has led, in one case in New Brunswick, to our first mega trial. In a small province, it taxed the resources of the criminal justice system in a terrible way. Dr. Margaret Beare : I was speaking specifically about the gang problem and I suppose in terms of your question about recruitment.

I'm hoping there is a proceeding or a transcript from the summit that I wasn't able to attend yesterday, because it had a number of ex-gang members talking very fluently about why and how they had joined. One man in particular was making the point that a large number don't want to do that, and that what in fact.... I talked about jobs, literacy, social inclusion, and social services that I still think we pay lip service to.

I know this isn't the forum to talk specifically about a particular approach, but a book by Jock Young talks about the blurring of borders, and that there's a sense of inclusion and exclusion operating at the same time in our cities. The guys and girls who are gang members in parts of Toronto are not immune to the celebrity status we see on television--the ads and all the rest of it--but they are excluded from it. In fact, distributing drugs for somebody else is a good way to at least give yourself a sense that you are participating in the culture.

Why don't we take some of the resources that we use to overemphasize...possibly even the gangs and guns approach, and really seriously look at social services, jobs, literacy, and all the rest of it? I sit on a police community liaison committee in my neighbourhood, and the citizens of my community were upset because somebody was breaking mirrors in the cars on the street. It was as petty as that. The police community mobilization people were there at our very next meeting. Well, broken mirrors.... Target those highly problematic areas, but don't target them from a gangs and guns perspective.

Target them in the kinds of ways I have been advocating. Rev. Julius Tiangson : If I could simply add to it as well, from the relative experience I have in terms of working with young people and early newcomers in cities, areas, or regions like the greater Toronto area, or Montreal, or Vancouver, where there are high concentrations of newcomers, I think we now have a very good breeding ground for recruitment, simply because the root cause is poverty. If how we're settling newcomers and their families into our country isn't being addressed....

We still have all of these barriers that could be changed right now, both at the provincial and federal levels, so that newcomers could be integrated properly and would have more economic options. The root cause is really the lack of access to economic opportunities in this country. When you have areas like where our centre is located--at the catchments of Erindale and Cooksville--where nearly 56% of the population are actually born elsewhere.... If I drive around some of those areas where newcomers are settling, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that social problems are now brewing and occurring.

It has now become a wonderful breeding ground for recruitment of young people, beginning with the youngest of our immigrants. The fact is that 80% of those we serve under our alternative measures program are children of immigrants who have been in trouble with the law for less than a year. In fact, just before I came in here--and the reason I was late--I was dealing with a newcomer who recently arrived in July and got in trouble with the law in October. Now the whole family is a mess. It doesn't take very long.

(1515) The Chair : Thank you. I will move on to Madame Guay for five minutes. [ Translation ] Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an enormous, a gigantic problem. I would really like to be able to clean up the whole mess from top to bottom, but there will always be some residual dirt. It is an unending task. However, we must strive to do our utmost. Reverend, I would like to say a few words about the young Asians in particular.

I have recently read two or three reports on Asian parents who send away their children alone to study in Canada, in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal. These youth who are not yet adults, were 14 to 17 years old. Parents were sure their children would be taken care of here but in fact they were left to themselves. It is an obvious and recognized fact that these youth are easy prey for street gangs and many have joined these gangs. We must get these young people back. We really have to do something for them. I want to talk about Carcajou. You know that we launched operation Carcajou in Quebec.

It was a complex, difficult, dangerous task. We put lives in danger but it worked. I would like to know your opinion on this. Do you believe we should start another such operation? What could be improved in carrying out such an operation? I know it worked in Quebec. It was not perfect. It is never perfect but I believe that we should consider operations of this type to eliminate criminal groups. This reduces at the same time the number of street gangs because it is all a vicious circle. I would like to hear your views. [ English ] Mr.

James Dubro : I think there have been operations as a result of intense violence, where the pressure is on the police to sort it out, as in Vancouver last year. The Quebec operations--which of course Mr. Ménard was a part of as the leader--were focusing because there were two big biker gangs and lots of violence. They focused first on the Rock Machine. It was all very well thought out from a police angle, but they focused on the Rock Machine as the smaller party, knocked them out, and then went after the Hells Angels. They're still in existence, I believe, are they not? [ Translation ] Ms.

Monique Guay : Yes, but they are much less strong, less powerful. Mom Boucher is in jail. This leader has lost a lot of influence over his confederates. It divided the gang. [ English ] Mr. James Dubro : Right. It created an opportunity for other gangs, as we said earlier--Haitian gangs, black organized crime. [ Translation ] Ms. Monique Guay : As I said, there will always be some, they will always exist. Should we launch other operations like this in order to reduce their number as much as possible, letting some small marginal groups subsist rather than having major gangs like before? [ English ] Mr.

James Dubro : Absolutely. I think they're very good. Mr. Antonio Nicaso : I think we should focus continuously on organized crime. Quebec is a special society in that sense too, because it's the only one that is using the anti-gang legislation. It's the only one that is not afraid to target several members of organizations. The rest of the country is afraid to run a mega trial. But when we talk about criminal organizations, we are talking about several people. So if we won't target them in the right way--because there are associates among them--it's worthless.

I think Quebec should be considered as an example in the fight against organized crime in this country. Unfortunately, it's the only good reason for someone like me. I don't see the same spirit in the rest of the country.

(1520) Mr. James Dubro : Since we're in Toronto, Bill Blair, since he's been the chief, and even before he was the chief—and some would argue against this, particularly in the youth gang field—has used the same anti-gang laws that they've been using in Quebec against the black organized crime gangs in Toronto. He's used them three or four times. Sometimes that causes a lot of problems because all sorts of people are rounded up. If you have Michael Chettleburgh here, I'm sure he'll tell you about this. The Chair : There's a half a minute left for you to respond, and then we'll move on. Dr.

Margaret Beare : I want to address that, because, yes, in Toronto the criminal organization legislation has been used against those gangs, and I want to reply specifically in terms of another impact that has. You've got Malvern, where 64 people were rounded up. That's fine and dandy. It's a street gang, and probably Malvern felt something right after that, but it had a very real impact on the criminal justice system, and I don't think that's something we fully take into account. I had a judge come to the LLM class and talk about how you handle something like that.

The traditional way that criminal justice usually operates, in terms of a bifurcation between the role of the police, the role of lawyers, the prosecution, and the judge goes out the window because they can't handle that many accused people. So you get all kinds of renegotiations and conversations that bring the judge into the justice system at a very early point. I'm not certain that people are aware of what that kind of a takedown.... And of course we know that out of that 64, the numbers drifted away.

I don't know what the result was, in terms of how many people were charged, but in the process, the criminal justice system took a big shock. The Chair : Thank you. We'll move on to Mr. Dechert for five minutes. Mr. Bob Dechert (Mississauga—Erindale, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank each of the panellists for being here this afternoon. Reverend Tiangson, it's good to see you again. I have some familiarity with the centre you operate in Mississauga, and I want to point out the very good work I believe you're doing there to help newcomer youth and youth of all descriptions, especially at-risk youth.

I want to give you an opportunity to tell us in a little more detail about the types of programs you operate there. By the way, I take your point on immigration policy and how it impacts newcomer youth. I want to thank you for that. Also, you've heard a number of panellists suggest that legalization of marijuana is the way to go. A couple of years ago, when the former Liberal government mooted decriminalization and legalization of marijuana, Peel police officers came to me, including the Chief of Peel Police, and said to me they thought that would be a really bad idea.

In their considered opinion, having run a police operation in a very large, growing, and diverse community, as you point out, for many years, it was an entry-level drug for harder drugs. Not only would it lead to the use of harder drugs, the use of the marijuana itself would lead to other social problems, like increased domestic violence and petty crime, such as theft, to finance the use of the drug, and also impaired driving and motor vehicle accidents. I wonder if you could comment on what you think the impact would be of legalization of marijuana on the young Canadians that your organization services. Rev.

Julius Tiangson : First, going back to what you've requested, in terms of describing our services, we do provide— Mr. Bob Dechert : I want to add, tell us if you can, what other resources you and organizations like yours need to continue and enhance those programs.

(1525) Rev. Julius Tiangson : We run settlement services under Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It was about two and a half years ago that it was considered a pilot. It seems that they're moving towards having that as a mainstay in the area we serve, simply because of some of the results we're seeing in terms of young people and newcomers. We integrate up to 300 new arrivals to the city of Mississauga every single year, plus another 200. It's about 500 to 600 young people we take in every single year.

We integrate them in the types of programming that interest youth, such as urban dance, graphic design, photography, computer, Adobe Photoshop, and those types of programs that attract young people. In fact, you were there when we had our showcase a couple of weeks ago. Over 300 kids from as many as a dozen different nationalities came together and presented their talents, all of which required a little bit of preparation to get there to perform in the showcase. That means they needed to be involved in a number of group activities and were doing something that would positively impact them and also the community.

Let me speak, also, about the other 200 young people we take in who do not fall under the category of newcomers and do not fall under the category of recipients of direct services under the Citizenship and Immigration program we run. These are the alternative measures program participants, many of whom are children of new immigrants. I would say that a great majority of them have been charged because of marijuana. Maybe they were with their friends and they were in a car with a friend who was stopped and pulled over and it so happened that there was a little bit of marijuana in the ashtray.

The consequence of that, if there were three or four people inside the car, was that all of them were charged. Or in fact if some of them had already been involved in partaking of marijuana themselves, the consequence of that was that obviously they were caught and charged. They come to us in a variety of ways, but the great majority of them are charged because of marijuana.

From where I stand, in terms of my understanding of the newcomer community that comes to Canada, it is, in fact, the understanding of many of these cultures that marijuana is still an entry drug of choice among young people that could lead to other forms of drugs. There is a cultural understanding of this among the parents. So when their children actually are charged or get involved with this, regardless of whether they are partakers of marijuana or have been caught with their friends inside a car, they are very concerned.

Many of them would actually come and register their children who are 15, 16, or 17 years old. Yesterday there was one who was 19 years old. I have to figure out why she still needs to come with her parents. But I guess there's a cultural understanding that these are our kids, these are our children, and if they get involved with the law and they get involved with marijuana, from a cultural understanding, that is an alarming thing, because that would, in their minds, lead them to getting involved with other drugs.

(1530) From my own practice and from my own experience, I get a sense that whenever young people try this thing and don't get intervention, it leads to other social causes, leading to anxiety or depression, the moment they get into their young adult years, leading to all forms of wanting acceptance and so on. This leads to all kinds of other social ills as a result of partaking in this.

The Chair : Thank you very much. We'll move on to Monsieur Petit. [ Translation ] Mr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC) : Mr. Nicaso, I would like to ask you a question. I might get back to some of the things we heard this afternoon around the table. We are studying organized crime. We would like to counter it, maybe eradicate it, but we must find a solution and this is why we are coming to hear from different people in different cities and why we had many witnesses from all over Canada, in Vancouver, in Halifax, etc.

As for me, being a member of the Conservative Party, I will show my colors: we must find a solution and this situation cannot be allowed to persist. Let me explain to you why. Mr. Nicaso mainly launched a discussion based on some information that we have. In 1924, in Quebec, we established what we called the Régie des alcools in order to control the distribution of alcohol, because a small local mafia was producing and bootlegging moonshine and even claimed that it was good for health. Today, this brings in a billion dollars for the government of Quebec and we have many fatalities on the roads.

Some 650 people die because of alcohol and an average 12,000 arrests are made for drunk driving without an accident. This is the first thing. This is what we have always been told in recent years. In terms of gambling, this is very recent. Quebec took control of gaming. It opened casinos, it sells scratch cards and other gaming tickets. They wanted to get the mafia out of this industry. Now the money is pocketted by the government of Quebec. Before, gamblers who did not pay up were getting killed, today they commit suicide. It is not any better, we have just as many dead except that the killer is not the same.

Then we changed prostitution laws: now only the johns are found guilty. These are our standards. We changed the law and there has been a decision by the Supreme Court. We thought we had solved the problem, but there are still as many prostitutes as before, in Toronto, Montreal or elsewhere. And no one will make be believe that we do not know that there is prostitution. There is lots of it going on every day, at every minute of every hour. Nothing is being done about it since it is impossible to control. We talk about trafficking in humans. One of you talked about trafficking in humans.

We know now that marijuana is no longer important because they now use women. A woman brings in money every day. You do not have to keep buying new merchandise. She works all the time. I invite you to watch a full report on human trafficking in Montreal that will be broadcast tonight on Radio-Canada. It will help you to better understand what is happening regarding the trafficking of persons. Also, Mr. Nicaso, I am really worried. You describe the system. Since you have studied this, what are the possible solutions, in your view? What can government do? We have tried monopolies, we have tried taxes.

We have increased taxes on cigarettes, a legal product. But, by increasing taxes, government has increased smuggling. What should we do? This is why we are having these hearings. [ English ] Mr. Antonio Nicaso : I welcome this question. I have a different approach to the problem. I believe the only way to fight criminal organizations is to take the money out of crime. There is no other alternative, because if you just arrest them and put them in jail, they put on their account the possibility of spending time in jail, but what they do not like is the idea of losing their money.

Many provinces in this country have introduced new legislation using civil remedies. In Italy they are using these laws, but only after a criminal conviction can you start the procedure of law application and seize and confiscate proceeds of crime. In some provinces in Canada we don't need to have a criminal conviction because you can use simple remedies. Ontario passed a law allowing the government to seize and confiscate proceeds of crime. Also, I think we are notorious around the world because we have a lower risk of prosecution and detention compared to other countries.

I think our judicial system is a joke, because the only way to deal with the criminals is to make a deal with the criminals. I mean this in the sense that we are bargaining down sentences in order to avoid the cost of a long trial. I have some concern with the definition of drug trafficking because the definition of drug trafficking is a consensual crime without visible victims. I disagree. I think when people are selling drugs they are merchants of death. They are selling death and addiction. They are making a lot of money.

I spent a month in Colombia and I learned that a kilo of cocaine in Colombia costs $1,500. With one kilo of cocaine you can make 4.5 kilos and then the one gram of cocaine costs $50 to $60. So there is nothing that has a bigger margin of profit than drug trafficking. So if they are running these types of activities they should pay. They should be convicted and spend time in jail. We should be looking at working camps. We should be looking into real rehabilitation. What we are doing in our Club Med detention centres is we are putting those people together and increasing the synergy among them.

So what we should do is introduce a new strategy to fight the criminal organizations. I hear many things that don't make sense. If you really want to learn about organized crime, you should invite people who are aware, those in the witness protection program, people who have experience in criminal organizations, who can tell you that drugs are the major source of income. They can tell you so many other things that only those people are able to tell you.

(1535) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Nicaso. We'll move on to Mr. Norlock for five minutes. Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First of all, my apologies, through you to the witnesses, for my outburst there. It was not very professional, and it rarely happened in my previous profession, although in this one sometimes we have a hard time of it. I'd like to just say at the outset to Mr.

Dubro and to those who feel that legalizing marijuana and other drugs would significantly alleviate the problems we have vis-à-vis crime, etc., that you might be shocked--and I know you know my background--if I were to tell you that I also considered that very strongly, both as a police officer and as a legislator, and the alternatives. In this country we have trouble enough to prosecute impaired driving because of alcohol--and I know there are abilities to prosecute for the use of drugs. There is accepted evidence in the United States. It would never pass in this country.

We have too many people who would throw charter arguments. I think you're aware of retinal recognition. It's accepted in the United States, but it will never be accepted in this country. We have a hard time accepting the breathalyzer. That's number one. So I looked at the legalization of pot as just too many strokes. Here's what I deduce, and I'd like to hear what you think. You say that the costs associated with drug enforcement are very high. I would say that the costs of the legalized drugs of tobacco and alcohol far, far exceed what we're spending on drug enforcement. Take a look at the family.

I went to domestic calls caused by alcohol, a legal drug sold by the government, with profits made by the government. The social pain caused by alcohol.... Sir, I try to understand your libertarian viewpoint, but you would be foisting on this society a third legal drug. As a matter of fact, all those other legal drugs...the pain they would cause. If you think you have a law enforcement problem and a problem with impaired driving now, just you wait and see what our roads are like when people high on heroin and all those other legal drugs.... One mother, from the witnesses, said this to us.

We should have something very similar to the liquor control board in the old days, when you would go in and check off a bottle of this type of scotch; you could check off a little heroin for Saturday night and a little oxycontin for this night. I'm going to ask the analysts for the statistics, which I know are available--the cost of tobacco, which is a drug, which causes addiction. People are addicted to tobacco. We know the billions and trillions of dollars it costs the North American health care system. I want to see what statistics are available to have the societal costs and medical costs of tobacco.

Secondly, I know there are statistics on alcohol, on the amount of days lost because of alcoholism and all those other things. When I was a police officer, we had somebody from the Ontario alcohol and addictions group come into our schools. I didn't know who he was. He was free. It was the community policing group I was working with, because that was one of the programs I was bringing into Northumberland--well, it was already there, but we were enhancing it. He went into the high schools and he talked about kids, and he said, “Did you know that with a lot of use of marijuana...”.

And this is what the kids in our high schools were interested in. He said, “I know what they're interested in. You don't know. They're interested in being parents later on, and the use of marijuana reduces your sperm count so you may not have the children you want to have.” There has been no study of marijuana anywhere near the depth of studies into tobacco. We know the horror stories that came out of tobacco. So for marijuana, we've just scratched the surface. Some universities have done studies, but they're very minor. I guess what I am saying is this.

Before we leap into “We have a problem with drugs, legalize them”.... We already have two legalized drugs and they're killing us enough. Look at the cancers caused by tobacco, and the heart problems. Look at the pain and suffering throughout. So just a few quick comments, starting with Madam Beare and working this way, if I have any time....

(1540) The Chair : No, you do not, unfortunately. Mr. Rick Norlock : Maybe somebody else will pick up on it. The Chair : All right. Mr. Woodworth. Mr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses, but particularly to Mr. Nicaso. In response to Mr. Petit's comments, I heard what I would describe as a cri de coeur . In fact, I agreed with several things you said, Mr.

Nicaso, most of all that I, too, have heard many things that don't make sense, and with the fact that you have quite adequately pointed out that drug traffickers are merchants of death and addiction. By golly, I'm glad the government is not trying to make money in that business. The fact that the only or best solution is to take the money out of crime is I think the most intelligent thing we've heard this afternoon. I want to say that we--that is, the members of the committee--are all here because we wish to keep Canadians and their families safe from the violence and exploitation of organized crime.

We want them to have happy, fulfilled, love-filled, productive, and safe lives. So, Mr. Dubro, I would like to ask you whether you have any legislative proposal for us that we can hear from you, other than legalizing the sale of marijuana, steroids, ecstasy, crack cocaine, meth, and heroin. Mr. James Dubro : I've mentioned several. Obviously, what Antonio said is quite right: you go after the money. If you can knock out the money of any given organized crime leader or gang, that is excellent. Some of the anti-gang laws go after the money, too, so that's extremely important. The anti-gang laws are very good.

I wasn't saying, to answer his question earlier-- Mr. Stephen Woodworth : Can you answer my question instead? Mr. James Dubro : Oh, okay, but it's part of your question; that is to say, because marijuana is illegal, it doesn't mean that it isn't readily available to everyone in high school and everyone else in our society. Mr. Stephen Woodworth : Sorry, but my question was whether you have any legislative proposal other than the legalization of these drugs. Mr. James Dubro : I don't, because I actually said that I don't think we need more laws. Mr. Stephen Woodworth : Then you've answered my question. Mr.

James Dubro : We have a lot of things out there that are not being used-- Mr. Stephen Woodworth : I have one or two other questions. I'm sorry to be so brusque, but in the five minutes I have, if I'm not brusque I get nowhere. In regard to my next question, I have had some trouble, Mr. Dubro, following your logic. I did not follow your logic in saying that we should get the government involved in selling drugs so we could use the money to teach children not to use drugs.

Another area where I had trouble following your logic was where you said that obviously “we can never eliminate organized crime...we can only contain it and keep it on the ropes”. I would like to know how you feel that legalizing the major fund-raising activity of organized crime is going to keep them on the ropes.

(1545) Mr. James Dubro : The logic is strange, but it's used all the time. The government runs a lot of gambling, yet spends a lot of money on anti-gambling campaigns, which are not all that effective, I have to admit. The government is very involved in alcohol and spends some money on campaigns against alcohol. I would think, with the money coming in from pot alone, just the stuff that's smoked now.... I don't think there'd be the increase that someone suggested simply because it's made legal. I think you would use that for very effective campaigns against-- Mr.

Stephen Woodworth : How would this put organized crime on the ropes? We've already spoken about the fact that they're still involved in gambling and they're still involved in other areas where we've legalized things. How is legalizing their main source of income going to put organized crime on the ropes? Mr. James Dubro : Well, it would take away from them one of their main money producers. Mr. Stephen Woodworth : But they're not getting out of other things-- Mr. James Dubro : No. They'll get into other things. They'll get into more things.

A lot of legal drugs like oxycontin are sold on the street through organized crime. It's going to happen that organized crime will be in drugs. All I'm saying is that a number of organizations, whether it's in Mexico now, or in Vancouver, or on the streets of Toronto, are making their money from selling what people want. Mr. Stephen Woodworth : Let me suggest that this would just give the organized crime folks another great way to launder their money, rather than take any money away from them. The third question, if I have a moment, is to ask you, Mr.

Dubro, if you have any facts that you can give us about organized crime in Toronto, because we've come here to hear about organized crime in Toronto. I haven't heard much about organized crime in Toronto today, such as how many people are involved and what are the major activities of organized crime. I don't know whether you can tell us about that or not. Mr. James Dubro : I can tell you a bit about it because I have studied it for many years. Right now in Toronto it's quite different from what it was, say, in the 1970s or 1980s, when we had four or five major Mafia families and a few other groups.

Now we have quite a lot of different organized crime groups. We have black street gangs. We have Vietnamese gangs. We have Chinese gangs. We have Russian organized crime. We have virtually everything you can think of, including Tamil street gangs. We have the Mafia, of course, but the Mafia is less structured these days in Toronto. There are 'Ndrangheta, as Antonio referred to. They don't get a lot of attention, because they're not fighting it out right now. The ones who get the attention are the street gangs.

When they had a big internal problem a couple of years ago, they got a lot of attention, as did the Vietnamese gangs in 1991, when they had a lot of problems. Now Vietnamese and Asian crime is doing very well. Primarily they're running grow ops and making ecstasy, which they export to the United States and sell throughout Canada. There are very many groups in the city. It's not as though one mobster controls the city or anything like that. Mr. Stephen Woodworth : You mentioned a lot of ethnic groups-- Mr. James Dubro : Well, that's part of it. There are other groups.

There are bikers, and there are all sorts of.... Bikers won't let in certain ethnic groups, such as black people. The Chair : Thank you. We're at the end of our time, but I'm going to allow each of you a two-minute opportunity to give us any final information that we may have missed or that you wanted to get out there but didn't get a chance to give us. Before you do that, I have a brief question. I'm trying to flesh out where you stand on legalization of drugs. Mr. Dubro, you were pretty clear on that. Ms. Beare, you certainly were advocating for decriminalization, and I sense....

In the long run, what's the optimal situation? Is it legalization of marijuana or legalization of all drugs? Dr. Margaret Beare : It might end up with more than marijuana, but I was not advocating legalization. Decriminalization of marijuana is what we need right now. The Chair : Do you see that as the first step? Dr. Margaret Beare : It is possibly a first step. Again, there is research that looks at decriminalization of heroin in terms of the fact that there isn't an increase in the population of users. Someone said that we need more research, and I did want to comment--

(1550) The Chair : Yes, you'll get that chance in a second. I want to go to Mr. Nicaso. I took note of your comment that those who sell drugs are merchants of death. I take it you don't support it? Mr. Antonio Nicaso : Yes, and I stand with that. The Chair : So you don't support the legalization of drugs? Mr. Antonio Nicaso: No. The Chair: All right. Reverend Tiangson, what is your position? Rev. Julius Tiangson : Not at all. The Chair : So you're opposed to the legalization of drugs. All right. Each one of you has two minutes. Reverend Tiangson, you can start. Rev.

Julius Tiangson : We've been talking very much about organized crime. I want to come from a different vantage point. I provide direct services to our young people, and one of the things I constantly advocate, not only with the people I work with among the non-profit organizations but also with parents, is organized prevention. Parents and community groups can actually take this upon themselves and not wait for governments to come up with wonderful and beautiful policies and solutions for our young people. We can do this as community groups and community organizations.

In order for us to succeed in eliminating some of those barriers that many newcomers, children and youth, are facing right now, the role of the government is to truly come alongside non-profit organizations and community groups and resource them properly in such a way that there would truly be an organized prevention of recruitment of people who would belong to street gangs, which are the feeder gangs, really, for these big organized crime groups. The Chair : Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Dubro. Mr.

James Dubro : Since I've been the main proponent of legalization, as you explained, I didn't come to this conclusion out of any one study or because I use drugs, or anything like that. It has taken me 30-odd years. If you look at some of my books, you'll see that I don't argue this at all, but the opposite: more enforcement, more enforcement, more enforcement. It's not because I'm a libertarian, which is a bit of a bogey argument. I'm saying this as someone who has studied organized crime all my life, that marijuana just has to be available, because it is available. Mr.

Norlock said that making it legal means that more people will use it, and there'll be more sickness, more illness, and everything. That's simply not true, not if it comes with an educational component. There may be fewer people using it. During prohibition, alcohol was illegal and more people drank than ever before, I believe—you can check it out, but they certainly drank quite heavily. The government is already a “merchant of death”, to use Antonio's very dramatic phrase.

I understand where he's coming from, but the government is already a merchant of death with cigarette taxes and with alcohol control and taxes. In terms of gambling, I think it's iniquitous, some of these ads. I remember before gambling was run by the government. They sneak you into becoming gamblers on television. It doesn't matter what government is in power—Conservative, Liberal, or NDP—they all run these ads saying, “Oh, you can be a millionaire overnight.” That's not what they should be doing.

They should actually be using the money they're getting from gambling to tell you how not to get addicted, and to fight the gambling addiction. So I would argue that making marijuana legal isn't something that I think is good for society or bad for society. It's somewhere in the middle. We have to fight it, obviously. We don't want everyone running around stoned on marijuana, and I don't think they would be.

Obviously, to succeed in this world, you can't be stoned, whether it's on alcohol, which is legal, or drugs that you get from your doctor, such as Ritalin, or God knows what they give kids nowadays and they get addicted to. It's not the way you get ahead in this world. The Chair : Thank you. We'll move on to Mr. Nicaso. Mr. Antonio Nicaso : According to the reports prepared by Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, every major criminal group in the world has a branch in Canada. If I were in your shoes, I would ask why they love Canada, why we have all those people in Canada.

This is a criminal microcosm, because we have so many different criminal groups. We should go behind the headlines. If this is a priority, and a priority to fight criminal organizations, let's come out with the proposal at the end of this hearing and avoid what your colleague did in 2001. Come out with the proposal, bring the people in with experience and expertise, and really start targeting criminal organizations in this country in a proper way. I think the only way is to take the money out of a crime.

(1555) The Chair : Thank you. I just want to respond. We have hearings yet in Edmonton and Winnipeg, and once they're completed, we'll likely immediately go into providing instructions to our analysts to prepare a comprehensive report. This study has taken at least two years, if I'm not mistaken. One year? All right. It feels like two years. But we've travelled across the country, and there will be a report that comes out. Likely it will be full of recommendations from this committee, and then it's up to government to respond to those recommendations. Ms. Beare. Dr.

Margaret Beare : I feel very strongly about a couple of things. I realize this is a legislative committee, and I guess my recommendation to you would be to curb the pure focus on legislation, or at least to take into account what are likely going to be the unanticipated consequences for it. The notion of decriminalization was not to be a major part of my approach, and one of the people commented that that was a simplistic kind of response. Welll, there are some responses that sound like they're so solid, but to me they are simplistic. Take the money out of organized crime. Isn't that wonderful?

The headlines, the public, the politicians—it's very popular. We did a study of all of the RCMP cases that had a money-laundering component. We did that in 1990. In 1994, we did an update. After all the money-laundering legislation, what are the RCMP cases and what do they tell us? Yes, people laundered in all kinds of ways, but mostly they pissed their money away the same way that you and I do. They bought things. This idea of taking money away from organized crime sounds better than it is because of what we have said before.

The criminal organizations are not necessarily Mafia structures like the five families in New York or whatever. You take some money away, yes, but we're talking about fluid, networking organizations that in my mind need ongoing, persistent, well-funded, and to some extent traditional police work. To look over at the United States and say, “Why is Canada so weak and why do they favour our—” Well, look at the United States. It's something like the third prisonized country in the world.

Yes, they put out of business their five Mafia families in New York, Detroit, or wherever, but the country has the wide array of organized crime groups that we have in Canada and more so. They put more people in prison, and they have a higher percentage of crime, even taking into account the population. I do not think we are weak on crime. I would like us to just try to be really intelligent on crime enforcement. The Chair : Thank you to all four of you. There have been very divergent perspectives presented, but each one of you has done it in a very articulate manner. I think we'd agree on that.

We'll take all of that. That forms part of the record, and then hopefully our committee can come up with some recommendations that will move Canada forward in addressing some of these challenges with organized crime. Again, thank you to all of you. We'll recess for 15 minutes. (1555)

(1615) The Chair : We will reconvene the meeting. We are continuing our study on organized crime. We are glad to have with us a number of witnesses who I hope are going to help us in preparing the report. We have Inspector Richard Penney and Superintendent Robert W. Davis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of the greater Toronto area. Welcome to both of you. We also have with us Peter Shadgett from the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario. Representing the Toronto Police Service we have Inspector Randy Franks. From the Ontario Provincial Police we have Inspector Bryan Martin.

Lastly, representing the Canada Border Services Agency we have Bonnie Glancy. Welcome to all of you. We have travelled across the country. We still have a couple of cities to go. We're trying to solicit information on organized crime and perhaps a direction our government should be proceeding in to try to address this very critical problem in Canada. Each organization has ten minutes to present. Then we'll open the floor up to questions from our members. I will ask Bonnie Glancy to start. Ms. Bonnie Glancy (Director, Intelligence, Greater Toronto Area Region, Canada Border Services Agency) : Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting Canada Border Services Agency to participate in this hearing. My name is Bonnie Glancy, and I am the director of intelligence for Canada Border Services in the greater Toronto area. Although this committee is focused on organized crime, I'd like to take a moment to provide a brief overview of the greater Toronto area region, which I will refer to as the GTA. This region is responsible for fulfilling the CBSA mandate at over 80 service locations, sufferance warehouses, and ports of entry.

These locations range in size from small marinas to the largest and busiest airport in Canada. These locations cover all modes of transportation: air, land, rail, postal and courier, and marine. Approximately 2,300 employees in the region are responsible for administering over 90 different acts, regulations, and international agreements regarding the movement of goods and people into Canada. Geographically speaking the GTA region ranges from Georgian Bay in the north, from Owen Sound to Parry Sound, and to Lake Ontario in the south from Mississauga to just west of Cobourg. The Chair : Ms.

Glancy, I'm going to get you to slow down just a little bit, because our interpreters are having trouble keeping up. Ms. Bonnie Glancy : Each year our people process over 12.7 million postal shipments, over 9.8 million international passengers, and over 1.7 million commercial shipments. In the 2008-2009 fiscal year, this region made over 6,400 seizures, approximately 22% of the total number of seizures made throughout Canada. The types of commodities and contraband intercepted within our region vary from agricultural products to watches.

The most commonly cited information, however, relates to the interception of drugs. As these are the commodities most commonly linked to organized crime, I will continue with that trend and relate some information from the 2008-2009 fiscal year. In that period, the GTA region seized over 669.7 kilograms of cocaine, over 139.5 kilograms of opium, over 86 kilograms of heroin, and more than 1,409 kilograms of marijuana, hashish, and hash oil. Officers working in the region are also successful in intercepting a number of different precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of ecstasy and methamphetamine.

In addition to the interception of goods, a number of employees have a role in programs that support immigration inland enforcement. These employees work at various locations, including the immigration holding centre and the Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre, GTEC, and are central to ongoing operations that result in the successful deportation of people deemed inadmissible to Canada. Some of the core activities include investigations of violations under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act detentions, and removals of persons from Canada.

In the 2008-2009 fiscal year, our inland enforcement officers detained approximately 6,500 people and removed 5,081. Alongside inland enforcement, the criminal investigations division supports the CBSA's public safety and economic security objectives by investigating and initiating prosecutions for criminal offences against Canada's border legislation.

They also provide an integrated enforcement capacity, which will detect those who have committed or deter those who would commit breaches of laws administered by the agency by investigating within whatever legal means necessary suspected, alleged, or known misrepresentation, evasions, or commitments of fraud with respect to the international movement of goods and people. They help their partners by reviewing leads, obtaining research, and gathering crucial evidence to assist the RCMP with their prosecutions.

The intelligence division provides support to our front-line officers, the enforcement of inland enforcement, criminal investigations, and other internal areas of CBSA, such as our trade administration. The intelligence officer and analysts work collaboratively on files that pertain to issues such as export control, missing children, fraudulent documents, and smuggling of various types of contraband, including humans, tobacco, illicit drugs, and weapons. The work done within the intelligence division may be difficult to quantify, unlike counting such actions as a removal or seizure.

Valuable intelligence may lie dormant until a catalytic event occurs and calls into action information gleaned from an earlier occurrence. A small detail previously uncovered and developed may only have meaning in the context of other information. While it may be difficult to measure the myriad of such seemingly insignificant details, they are nonetheless crucial in building a case or project, and minutiae often lead us to make connections to other events or activities, or to come to the realization that an individual is part of a larger group.

It will come as no surprise to the committee that effective sharing of information and intelligence among law enforcement agencies is essential in gaining insight into criminal organizations and their operations. This is the main reason the GTA region is an active participant in a number of joint-force operations, especially those aimed at addressing threats presented by organized crime. CBSA actively participates in a number of JFOs, or joint force operations. Through the agency, we have successfully carried our duties to the greater good and safety of Canadians.

Through our participation in JFOs, CBSA has intercepted contraband such as drugs, firearms, and tobacco, as well as prevented various criminals and individuals who attempt to thwart the immigration process. In many instances, these coordinated efforts have also contributed to enforcement efforts outside of Canada. CBSA intelligence in the greater Toronto area is currently involved in a number of ongoing JFOs, including the Asian organized crime task force with the Toronto Police Service--

(1620) The Chair : Ms. Glancy, please slow down. Ms. Bonnie Glancy : Sorry. Also the combined forces special enforcement unit; Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario; the guns and gangs unit with the Toronto Police Service; the provincial weapons enforcement unit; the RCMP GTA drug section, Milton and Newmarket; the Toronto airport drug enforcement unit; and the Pearson International Airport intelligence unit, YYZ.

The Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre is involved in the immigration task force JFO, whose objectives are to apprehend persons who are on immigration warrants with criminal backgrounds, subject to security certificates, subject to extradition warrants, or declared a danger by the minister. Our criminal investigations division participates in joint force operations with the RCMP, immigration and passport, which investigates organized crime. CID passes on cases and works in conjunction with the RCMP on files with organized elements.

One of the major advantages of working within a JFO is the access to and the availability of information from other law enforcement agencies. Information obtained from all agencies can often make a determination regarding which targets to pursue or the direction a specific project will take. I will use our experience in partnering with the Pearson International Airport intelligence unit, also known as the YYZ airport intelligence unit, to underscore the value that these partnerships bring.

The YYZ airport intelligence unit serves as a primary intelligence contributor to the intelligence and law enforcement community in the Toronto area. The quality of the intelligence reports prepared for dissemination by the unit is possible by virtue of the vast amount of raw information that is gathered by local sources. The intelligence gathered by members of this unit is essential to the safe operation of Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

The YYZ airport intelligence unit determines which intelligence information can be forwarded to the appropriate law enforcement agencies locally and globally for further enforcement action. Information provided to various local airport security officials, including Transport Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, and the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, has resulted in the dismissal of over 50 airport employees. A number of employees are presently being investigated.

In late July 2009, credible information was received to indicate that the Outlaws motorcycle gang was assembling in Ontario over the August long weekend. This information was promptly disseminated through the province by the GTA region intelligence division. A total of seven individuals, members of an Outlaws motorcycle gang, were denied entry into Canada by CBSA.

In October 2009, intelligence officers, along with GTEC enforcement officers, partnered with the Toronto Police Service's guns and gangs unit and we were successful in conducting raids that resulted in the arrest of nine individuals under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Those arrested were members of a gang known as the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation. This gang came to the attention of law enforcement agencies in Toronto when it initiated a high-profile aggravated assault on a subway station in which four victims were stabbed.

The gang is one of the largest criminal street gangs in the United States and is well established in most Latin American countries. It is believed that the gang opened chapters in Ontario approximately five years ago and is now operating and actively recruiting in the greater Toronto area. Gang membership is estimated at 200 within the GTA.

As a part of the overall collaboration and contribution of all CBSA divisions within the GTA region, along with our numerous external partnerships with other law enforcement agencies, we have had numerous successful outcomes, which have disrupted and dismantled various organized crimes. I'd like to thank you, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

(1625) The Chair : Thank you very much. It's helpful for us to hear from you what you are doing, but for us it's just as important that we hear from you what you would like us as the federal government to do. What are the challenges that you face and what are the things within the federal purview that you would like to see us change that will allow you to be more effective in the jobs that you do? Ms. Glancy, you'll probably get a chance to respond to that from one of the questions.

You may want to be prepared for that, because we're really looking for what do you want us to do, what are some of the improvements you're looking for from our federal government, or are there things you don't want us to do, as has been suggested by others. Inspector Bryan Martin, from the OPP. Inspector Bryan Martin (Drug Enforcement Section, Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, Ontario Provincial Police) : Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to address the panel on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ontario Provincial Police has a mandated responsibility to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle organized crime. In order to accomplish this goal, the OPP developed the Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, which is comprised of specialized integrated investigative bodies such as the biker enforcement unit and the provincial weapons enforcement unit. The OCEB is comprised of four main operating centres strategically located throughout Ontario.

We operate on an intelligence-led policing model, establishing tactical priorities throughout the province, allowing us to identify and attack the vulnerabilities of organized crime, as per the goals of the Canadian integrated response to organized crime. The OPP supports legislative amendments and reform designed to combat organized crime as defined by Bill C-14 , which received royal assent and came into force on October 2, 2009. Bill C-14 has taken a strong step forward in bolstering existing legislation with a specific focus on criminal acts related to organized crime and revised judicial processes.

This new legislation has focused on designating all gang-related murders as first degree murder, addressed increasing incidents of reckless and drive-by shootings by creating a new offence, and defined a new offence for assaults against police. There are clearly a number of strong initiatives on this legislative agenda to target organized crime. The OPP believes the justice sector community must prioritize these initiatives to ensure the effective and efficient use of our resources as we move forward with strategies to attack organized crime. The Ontario Provincial Police has identified three main priorities.

The number one priority is lawful access. The OPP, the Toronto Police Service, and our regional municipal partners recognize the need for changes to existing legislation surrounding lawful access to communications. One of law enforcement's unrelenting challenges in addressing organized crime is to remain cognizant of emerging trends and to take proactive and effective steps to counter these trends.

In a world of accelerating technological developments and society's increasing absorption with technology, law enforcement has been slowly constricted by antiquated legislation and a lack of resources to effectively counter advances in technology. The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, Bill C-46, and the Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act, Bill C-47, passed first reading in June 2009. However, they died when Parliament was prorogued. It is hoped that these pieces of legislation will be reintroduced to address the gaps and restrictions previously identified.

As such, the Ontario Provincial Police strongly endorses and supports the passage of these bills. The second priority is e-disclosure. The traditional method of making full disclosure has created an enormous challenge for police and crowns, particularly in relation to organized crime investigations. The impact on resources and personnel is significant and, as such, the Ontario Provincial Police fully endorses and supports current efforts to reform, modernize, and streamline the disclosure process.

An excellent example of this was demonstrated recently in Operation SharQc, a large-scale investigation in Quebec that resulted in the arrests of hundreds of individuals. Investigators utilized a highly effective web-based solution to capture and streamline large volumes of disclosure for this mega-case. The OPP continues to strongly endorse and champion further advancements within this new technology. The third area is justice efficiencies.

In case management, the investigation and prosecution of organized crime cases is very complex and demands significant time and personnel, combined with the collection, collation, and disclosure of evidence. In most major organized crime investigations, there are multiple offenders. However, previous experience has shown us that investigating and effectively prosecuting a large number of accused is very unmanageable, time consuming, and very expensive. The OPP believes this area to be a priority for setting attainable and realistic goals and garnering solid convictions in relation to mega-trials.

On scheduling, having reviewed evidence provided to provincial panels representing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I would be remiss if I didn't speak to the proposed scheduling of criminal organizations.

(1630) The Chair : Inspector, I'll get you to slow down a little. Insp Bryan Martin : Sorry. The OPP acknowledges the complexity of scheduling or proscribing criminal organizations. There are a number of factors to consider in populating such a schedule. However, the OPP also contends that it is an overwhelmingly onerous task to repeatedly prove that a particular group is a criminal organization, despite having been deemed a criminal organization by our own judiciary.

A case in point is the designation of the Hells Angels in Canada as a criminal organization, as noted in a number of rulings stemming from recent investigations across Canada. Despite this designation being rendered in a number of trials, police must not only prove the substantive charge but in each and every case must proffer evidence to support this same group as a criminal organization. This creates a significant burden for investigators in these cases, as it becomes a parallel investigation requiring sufficient personnel and resources to support classification of the gang as a criminal organization.

The OPP is an active participant in examining this issue and remains committed to the process. The OPP also supports recommendations put forward in the 2007 organized crime summit to strengthen cooperation and collaboration, improve information sharing among agencies, and continue the expansion of strategies for an integrated response to organized crime. Strong partnerships among law enforcement, prosecutors, and supporting elements of the criminal justice network are key to successfully disrupting and dismantling organized crime.

The integrated joint force operations model has been particularly successful in attacking organized crime. The OPP continues to lead or participate in the provincial operations centre, the biker enforcement unit, and the provincial weapons enforcement unit. Units such as the biker enforcement unit have been internationally acknowledged as the template for similar investigative units throughout Canada and the world.

Furthermore, in line with discussions stemming from the June 2008 organized crime summit, the OPP fully supports and believes in the importance of maintaining a national intelligence database, ongoing research, and enhanced training platforms. The intelligence-led policing philosophy is dependent upon law enforcement's collective ability to share intelligence in a timely and integrated manner. This has led to the establishment of a national intelligence database--ACIIS--the automated criminal intelligence information system.

We support the continued effort to enhance the system's ability to be an effective tool for law enforcement investigation of organized crime. We are more effective as a policing community if we continuously research and develop better methodologies, legislation, and best practices, remaining open to learning from our national and international partners. It is critical to this development. Organized crime is mobile, opportunistic, and encroaching, and we must adapt to trends and burgeoning issues with an informed and effective response. Training is a critical factor in addressing organized crime investigations.

We need to develop a centre of excellence to promote and sanction strategies to provide police, prosecutors, and correctional staff with core competencies and training in all facets of organized-crime investigation. Coordinated training and integration of police and prosecutors provides a solid base to launch these complex prosecutions. The face of organized crime is fluid, and in order to remain effective we must provide the vehicle to gain expertise and to retain those experts to provide the consistency needed to investigate organized crime.

In summation, there are great law enforcement investigations and initiatives being conducted throughout the country, as evidenced by multiple cases designating the Hells Angels a criminal organization in Canada. The results have accumulated in an extensive list of strategies to combat organized crime. We believe it is of paramount importance that we prioritize our efforts and set attainable goals and firm target dates to maintain this momentum of reform and modernization, thus giving police and prosecutors the support and tools to effectively combat organized crime. Thank you.

(1635) The Chair : Thank you. We'll move on to Inspector Randy Franks. Inspector Randy Franks (Organized Crime Enforcement, Toronto Police Service) : Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the panel. My name is Randy Franks. I'm an inspector for the Toronto Police Service, and I work in organized crime enforcement. I'll speak about some of the issues facing Toronto. Recent enforcement successes have had a profound impact on the behaviour of organized crime in Toronto.

Between 2005 and 2009, a number of large-scale enforcement projects and initiatives have focused on the disruption of street gangs and other organized groups. Intelligence analysis of the enforcement initiatives indicates that displacement of criminal organizations throughout the GTA has been accomplished. This of course presents law enforcement with another challenge: properly identifying the relative success and failure of these operational initiatives and adapting these for greater future success.

The adaptation of these disrupted groups, as well as their evolution into more disorganized entities, also presents various challenges. Groups no longer act alone, are more fluid, with the subjects of interest playing a larger role in other criminal enterprises. With any illicit trade, groups strive to gain or main