JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

• 1111

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good morning, bienvenue tout le monde. I call to order the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today we are hearing witnesses on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I go to the panel, I want to bring to the attention of the committee a couple of business items. Firstly, as we're hearing witnesses today, we'll be hearing witnesses again at 3:30 p.m. We will be hearing the minister tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. on main estimates. We're scheduled at this point to do clause-by-clause on Thursday morning at 9:30.

We will also be entertaining a motion. We've been given notice of a motion some time ago by Mr. Williams to call the Information Commissioner. We'll be dealing with that motion on Thursday morning.

So, colleagues, I'll now go to the panel.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Having to do with business, Mr. Chairman, I would like to register my objection to the speed with which we're going to go from hearing testimony to clause-by-clause. We don't have the transcripts of most of the evidence we've heard. It's not as if opposition parties or anybody for that matter have been stridently opposed to this bill. People have been cooperative.

It seems to me that due process would dictate that we have some decent interval of time between hearing the testimony and considering what amendments we might move and how we might respond to other amendments. It's not that big a bill. To go from today into clause-by-clause on Thursday, we're assuming the government is intent on getting it through on that day.

I don't think this is a particularly decent process. It's been decent up till now. I think it would be much better to go into clause-by-clause after we come back so that people at least have had some time to reflect on the evidence.

Some difficult issues have been put before us with respect to the police immunity, etc. Perhaps the rest of you are a lot quicker than I am, but I wouldn't mind some time to actually reflect on what has been said and how it might be changed, improved, or whatever.

I think there's an indecent haste to this.

The Chair: With apologies to the panel, although it's probably going to inform your interventions...

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I am always hesitant to agree with members of the opposition, but there is some merit in that view.

I had the great privilege of sitting on the subcommittee in the last Parliament. Interestingly, the clauses of the bill on which the subcommittee reported have attracted the least amount of controversy. Unfortunately, because we were in camera, it's not part of the legislative record to which the place down the street will inevitably refer.

• 1115

The part of the bill that has attracted the most controversy was not something with which the subcommittee dealt. I frankly don't think we have built a sufficient record in Hansard, because as sure as God made little green apples, this bill will be constitutionally challenged, if not each constituent element, certainly significant portions of it.

If we expect the Supreme Court of Canada to defer to the wishes of Parliament, Parliament has the corollary obligation to build a record to which the Supreme Court can refer when it deals with the inevitable intrusions on peoples' constitutional rights and the harm that Parliament is trying to address, and whether the bill is a proportionate response to these constitutional rights.

I'd be open to other members' suggestions on how we can build that record. I'd be open to government suggestions on how we can build that record. I want to frame my concern about moving too quickly in the larger context that this is a very significant piece of legislation that, inevitably, will be attacked in the courts by the best money that lawyers can buy.

Yes, I think I'm backwards on that one.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have two comments.

I fully subscribe to what Mr. Blaikie said. I hope the government will accept the argument that it would probably be preferable to study the bill when we return after the one-week recess so that we too can have the chance to go over the briefs and decide what type of amendments the committee would like to make. Besides, a delay of one week is not going to make any real difference. I think all parties want to see the bill passed before the end of the session. Presumably, the police also wish to have the bill passed as quickly as possible.

However, as Mr. McKay was saying, there are contentious issues which could wind up in court, and I think it is in our interest to take things very seriously.

Personally, I want you to give us your word that if we begin clause-by-clause study this coming Thursday, we will be able to have a meaningful exchange with senior officials and receive a briefing book that explains the rationale for each clause, as we have had in the past. It is important for us to fully understand what we are voting on and to at least take the time, if we are to move quickly to clause-by-clause study, to fully grasp the effect of each provision of the bill.

In addition, I hope you will exercise due diligence, as you always have, to my knowledge, in terms of the respect that is to prevail in the course of the exchanges during clause-by-clause study.

[English]

The Chair: Separate and apart from the discussion, there will be a presentation from officials this afternoon specifically to allow for the opportunity for the committee to interact on some of these issues with the officials that in no way speaks to Thursday.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I have a comment, Mr. Chair. I was listening to the arguments. Some of these arguments do resonate.

We have a panel of witnesses here. This could go on for some time. I wonder whether we might proceed to hear the witnesses and then discuss this housekeeping issue when they're finished, or this afternoon.

The Chair: On the basis of your informed observation, Mr. Maloney, and of the resonance that this has made with you, we will go to the panel, if Mr. Cadman doesn't have any objection.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to concur with my colleagues here because I think this is a substantial bill. As Mr. McKay said, there's going to be all kinds of challenges on this and we want to be sure we get it right the first time. I would just suggest that we delay the clause-by-clause.

The Chair: Okay. It's a thoughtful series of interventions.

We'll go to the panel. Isn't democracy wonderful?

• 1120

The groups that are appearing before us include, as I understand it, the Service de police de la communauté urbaine de Montréal, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers.

I am advised also that we have two visitors from the Ministry of Justice of Israel, Ms. Nava Ben-or and Ms. Irrin Eisinger.

Welcome to our proceedings. We hope to give you not too good a show, but a good show.

[Applause]

The Chair: In order of presentation, I believe first on the list is the Service de police de la communauté urbaine de Montréal.

Perhaps you could introduce yourselves, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Marc St-Laurent (Assistant Director, Direction des enquêtes criminelles, Service de police de la communauté urbaine de Montréal): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Marc St-Laurent, and I am the Deputy Director of Investigations with the Montreal Urban Community Police Department. With me is lawyer Denis Asselin, who is also a deputy director, and heads the Legal Affairs Division of the Montreal Urban Community Police Department.

First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting us to share our comments on a bill that is of tremendous importance to us. I have with me a few copies of my speech. Unfortunately, it is in French only, and I do not have enough copies for each member of the committee present. We had a little problem this morning and had to ask Ms. Barrette to provide us with a corrected version, which I have just received.

Unfortunately, I will not give the full speech; it was prepared by Mr. Asselin, who is a very skilled lawyer, and would take 20 minutes to read. I will therefore attempt to summarize it. But if you are interested, I invite you to take a copy. It contains information that in my opinion, should be of particular interest to you.

The Chair: Just a moment.

[English]

I should have explained first that we try to keep the presentations to around ten minutes. Your ten minutes hasn't started yet.

The second thing is that we do not distribute documentation that is not in both official languages. However, I'm in the hands of the committee. If that is okay with everyone assembled, if there's no objection...

Some hon. members. Agreed.

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: I only have three copies right now.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: When are we going to get the English copies?

The Chair: I've been asked by Mr. Cadman how quickly we'll have the English copies. Friday I'm told. We'll make arrangements for other copies to be made available and so on.

[Translation]

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: I will try to keep it to 10 minutes.

To begin with, I must say that we were disappointed with Bill C-95 when we received it. But I must say that today, we are very enthusiastic about the new Bill C-24 because it at last meets our expectations and gives us confidence in the future.

We support the changes proposed in the bill, in particular the new definition of criminal organization and related offences. Of course, we are also in favour of the protective measures put in place for those involved in the justice system and the immunity granted to peace officers.

We would like to take this opportunity today to talk about some of the highlights of Bill C-24 and to explain to you what impact they will have on policing. We will also suggest a few more changes to refine the bill. And at the end, we will also make a few recommendations for future legislation.

With regard to the new definition of criminal organization, I'll be quite brief. I would say that the current definition under section 2 of the Criminal Code was very complex for us and the bar was set quite high in terms of burden of proof. The new definition is greatly streamlined, mainly by the withdrawal of the “three fives rule” and the notion of “knowing that” which made it compulsory for the members of the gang to “know that”. I think you're very familiar with the legislation. So for us, this is very good news.

• 1125

Now with regard to the new offences per se, under clause 467, the drafters have come up with a concept which provides for three types of offences that do not necessarily require the same burden of proof: first, participation in activities facilitating gang activity; second, what used to be found in section 467.1, namely the act of gangsterism as such, where a criminal offence was committed; third the new offence which enables us to attack the leaders of criminal organizations more easily.

I can tell you that we've given a great deal of thought to this new bill. We sat down with our experts in organized crime at the MUCPD and all of them were delighted with the bill and agreed that indeed, with this new clause 467, we will be much more effective, and be so at a lower cost, in dealing with criminal organizations.

To support this, I would say that despite our numerous reservations about section 467.1 of the current act, we still did everything we could. We focussed on attempting to test it in court. Through the media, you most probably heard about the project we called "Amorce" amongst ourselves, but which targeted the Rock Machine gang and more specifically Peter Paradis' cell.

If we take this example, this was an investigation that focussed on the Peter Paradis cell, as I just said, where about 11 people controlled the sale of narcotics in Verdun and the west central district of Montreal. The investigation took one year. It cost 2.5 million dollars and eventually enabled us to charge eight people with acts of gangsterism under the provisions of the current legislation. Fortunately or unfortunately, only four of these people were found guilty of gangsterism, and four were acquitted. Why were the other four acquitted? Two because we were not able to demonstrate the "knowing that", which is as I've mentioned, was one of the difficulties we faced. The other two were acquitted because the offence they committed was narcotics trafficking but the drug in question was marijuana and the quantity was insufficient for conviction, that is it was less than three kilograms. We were thus unable to demonstrate that this was a criminal act punishable by more than five years in prison. These individuals were therefore acquitted.

The four individuals who were acquitted were full-fledged members, people who were highly placed in the organization. Right now, there are three who do business with the Banditos and the fourth is a prospect for the Hell's Angels-Nomads. Therefore, their acquittal on charges of criminal organization offences did not act as a deterrent.

We also conducted a test. We took a look at the new bill and attempted to figure out how the evidence gathered in the Amorce project would have helped us better. Would we really have been able to convict other individuals? Indeed, there are at least five other fullfledged members of the Rock Machine against whom we were not able to lay any charges but that we could have charged under the new provisions provided for under clause 467.11. We didn't have enough evidence, because they were not committing criminal acts, but we had enough evidence to show that they were facilitating the commission of such acts by the gang. Therefore, this is a concrete example of a case where this provision would have enabled us to be more effective given the investment required for investigation.

In closing, let me cite as an example of what will facilitate our job that under clause 467.11 there are also a number of individuals who, without necessarily being members of a gang, are peripheral to it. These are what we call sympathizers. Often, these people will do small jobs, but we can't prove it. This can involve, for instance, transporting drugs, dancers, ensuring the protection of people in the organization, of gang leaders, and doing what we call countersurveillance, meaning going to a place where a "mass" is being held to ensure that there is no wiretapping going on.

In and of themselves, these acts are not necessarily criminal offences, but they aid and abet the gang in carrying out its mission. With new clause 467.11, we will be able to destabilize the group more effectively because we can reach individuals who help the organization in these ways.

To conclude this part of the presentation, let me say that when we appeared before the Sub-Committee on Organized Crime, we had asked that simple membership in a gang be criminalized.

However, with the provisions of clause 467.11, we feel that Bill C-24 is a good compromise. It has the advantage of punishing individuals for their actions and not for who they are. We are therefore in favour of this.

• 1130

There may be one amendment about which I would like to open a parenthesis here. All this being said, we would like to draw to your attention what we believe is an oversight in Bill C-24 in the chapter headed “Consequential Amendments”.

That chapter amends a number of federal statutes to bring them in line with the new provisions on criminal organizations. The French version of section 125 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act should be amended to replace the words un acte de gangstérisme with the words une infraction d'organisation criminelle. Without that amendment, a person convicted of une infraction d'organisation criminelle [a criminal organization offence] could qualify for accelerated parole review and be released after serving only one sixth of the sentence. So this is probably an oversight, one that we wanted to point out to you.

I would now like to present our comments about the protection of justice system participants. This will be quite brief. I would like to say that considering the violence that members of criminal organizations often display, it was important that Parliament offer special protection for persons involved in the justice system. In my opinion, the proposed amendment sends a clear message.

However, we believe that it would be appropriate to add other persons to the list of individuals requiring protection, including members of provincial legislatures and municipal councillors, who ought to receive such protection. Indeed, I think that more and more local elected officials are becoming involved in the war on organized crime. If we look at Montreal, Boisbriand, Calgary and others, these cities have passed bylaws prohibiting the construction and development of fortresses within their boundaries. We know that in Calgary—the media referred to this lately—there are municipal councillors who received threats. I therefore think it would be quite appropriate for those people to benefit from the same protection.

With regard to relative immunity for peace officers, it's no secret that this is the part of the bill that may be the most controversial, and we know that. Therefore, I would like to say that prior to the Campbell and Shirose ruling in 1999, police officers always believed that they benefited from immunity allowing them to commit certain illegal acts insofar as these acts were not unduly offensive to society. In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not call this reality into question because if it had found it unacceptable for peace officers to commit offences in the course of their investigations, it would not have enjoined Parliament to set out parameters.

The portion of Bill C-24 that grants relative immunity to peace officers appears to be very controversial, as I said earlier. However, this bill simply gives back to the police certain tools that they were already using without any problems prior to the Campbell and Shirose ruling. We therefore feel that it is important to emphasize that point in particular.

First, we can understand that the proposed amendments raise many eyebrows. Was it really necessary to state that police officers cannot commit sexual assault or murder? I personally can assure you that, no matter what the investigation, it would never enter our minds to commit such offences, either before having immunity, or after. It is unthinkable for a police officer. We therefore hold the view that the ends do not justify the means and we were shocked to find that the lawmaker felt it necessary to establish that limit. But we accept it.

Second, I would like to emphasize that the policy of the MUCPD has always been, is still today, and will continue to be in the future, to refrain from committing unlawful acts, except where absolutely necessary.

In the drug war, even though legislation has allowed police officers since 1997 to sell narcotics or offer them for sale, we have used that provision only 10 times in very specific cases, after all other possibilities had been exhausted.

Furthermore, we should not forget that not all police officers will be granted this immunity. In practice, only police officers who have been designated by the Minister of Public Security—at least, in Quebec—and the Solicitor General at the federal level will be granted immunity, and they will be undercover agents who will have been given appropriate training and who will have been hand-picked. So, this immunity will not be granted to all police officers. They will make use of this immunity in cases where their own protection is at stake, or because they have to protect—or avoid being discovered by criminals in order to protect—their investment in a long-term investigation.

I believe there is another point worth raising: this is an essential tool for fighting organized crime, but it should not be limited to fighting organized crime. I will give you an example of an actual MUCPD case, and you will understand how this tool can be used in other areas. Examples are often a good means of illustrating needs.

• 1135

A few months ago, an individual, a source, informed us that a kidnapping was being planned in our territory. Two officers managed to infiltrate the group that was planning the kidnapping.

When our people began to frequent the members of this group, the latter asked them to obtain disguises and a car. We had enough time to react, to rent a car in the name of the MUCPD, and to provide them with disguises and a vehicle. Naturally, they claimed that this car had been stolen.

The officers had to play along right through to the end, because they did not know the identity of the victim, the victim's family or the brains behind the operation. The people from whom the officers obtained the information, and whose group they managed to infiltrate, were not necessarily the masterminds behind the conspiracy; they were only the operators.

If we had, at that point, arrested these people for conspiracy, we would not have been able to identify the mastermind, who could then have started all over again. Furthermore, since the victim had not been identified, we would not have been able to pass on this information to avoid the kidnapping of the child.

We were therefore able to proceed with the arrest, without having to provide a stolen vehicle. But the suspects, in order to test our officers, could have asked them to steal a car right away. Our people would probably have had to do this; otherwise, the investigation would have been aborted and we would have not been able to identify the main suspect and the victim.

I believe that this case clearly illustrates the rationale for including the proportionality test that is set out in the bill. I do not think that society would have disapproved of a police officer stealing a car with criminals in order to prevent the kidnapping of a child and arrest the people who had planned this kidnapping.

I feel that this is a good example, and such things take place every day. It is not a very complex case; there is no long-term investigation into a criminal gang. This operation lasted about one month, no longer. This is the type of example that you may need in order to show why police officers sometimes need to commit criminal offences.

Fourth, I would like to point out that police actions will be subject to numerous controls. There is an impression, partly because of the media, that we are giving a blank cheque to police officers to commit criminal offences.

The bill sets out a number of strict rules to be complied with a priori. The first, as I mentioned earlier, is that only police officers designated by the Minister of Public Security will be authorized to commit these offences, and not all police officers. These designated police officers will have been hand-picked and, as I explained earlier, given comprehensive training. Except in emergencies, they must first obtain direct authorization from the senior officer in charge of criminal investigations, that is, from my superior, the Deputy Director of the MUCPD.

This is currently the case under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. As I said earlier, this authorization has been used about 10 times. On one occasion, the deputy director had to go before the court because the validity of the authorization was challenged. The court ruled, after the fact, that this authorization was indeed justified.

In addition to the framework that has been in existence since 1997 with the controlled-drugs legislation, the new bill also contains a proportionality test that does not exist in the controlled-drugs legislation. What is most important is that, in addition to these controls at the front end, the actions of police officers will be closely examined after the fact, since they will be disclosed to the Crown prosecutor and defence counsel if a trial is held, according to the standard rules on disclosure of evidence. And if the proportionality test is not met, have no fear, the consequences will be very serious. The case could be dismissed, there could be a stay of proceedings, the evidence could be rejected, and criminal charges could also be laid against the police officer who did not apply the right proportionality criterion.

Take the example of the new Police Act in Quebec. Since June 16, 2000, a police officer who commits a criminal offence without justification is automatically discharged. Those people who have concerns about police officers abusing this power should realize that undercover officers already take huge risks. When they make a mistake in applying the proportionality test in emergency situations, or their supervisors make a mistake, they must answer for their actions and run the risk of losing their job.

If this is not strict control, I don't know what is.

• 1140

[English]

The Chair: We're somewhat beyond the time. I've tried to be as open to this as I can, but we do want to have some dialogue with members. So could you finish in half a minute?

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: Okay.

[Translation]

We would like to see three amendments made in the near future. The first concerns the disclosure of evidence. You know, of course, that we took part in an operation dubbed “Spring 2001” which targeted the Hell's Angels, the Nomads and the Rockers in Montreal. As a result of this operation, 91 people will be appearing on various charges, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder and drug trafficking. In keeping with the rules on disclosure of evidence, we provided 1,000 compact disks to defence lawyers. Each compact disk contains 10,000 pages of text. Therefore, for these 91 people facing charges, we would have to photocopy millions of pages if we were to provide our texts as hard copy. Some courts have ruled that paper copies of texts have to be provided in some cases. This has happened in the past. What we are saying is that, if we do not obtain authorization to disclose evidence by electronic means, We will not be able to continue to conduct investigations of this nature. Moreover, this was one of the recommendations made by your Sub-committee on Organized Crime, and we urge you to push for this recommendation again.

The second amendment we want is very important to us. This is the reverse onus for the forfeiture of proceeds of crime. Bill C-95 as well as Bill C-24 provide for a reverse onus when the accused is put on parole or when an individual who has been sentenced is released after incarceration. We are glad to see that the legislator is ready to reverse the burden of proof, but we are surprised by the fact that this applies to keeping a person in custody but not to the confiscation of goods. Is a violation of a person's freedom not more significant than a violation of his or her property rights? We put this question to you. This kind of investigation is very costly. These organizations exist in order to make a profit. If we really want to combat them, we do not only need heavier sentences, we must also be able to seize their goods and to prove that these goods belong to them. They have so many dummy companies and ways to show that these goods do not belong to them that proving this kind of thing is already a burden. The act must be amended.

To conclude with our third request, regarding the creation of special courts, a measure that you suggest in recommendation 16 of your Sub-committee on Organized Crime. Within the context of the Spring 2001 operation, 42 members of the Hells's Angels will be facing accusations of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The chief prosecutor in charge of the file, Mr. André Vincent, expects the trial to last at least 18 months. You know that jurors are paid 25 to $40 a day. Who can leave their job for 18 months and live on 25 or $40 a day? We think that this is inconceivable. Only unemployed persons, retired persons or volunteers would be available, but we do not think that this is realistic. For such megatrials, a jury may not be the best choice, we have to consider other options.

Let us now consider the issue of jury selection. There are 42 accused, and so there are 1,600 potential peremptory challenges because each accused is entitled to 20 challenges. We estimate that this trial alone will require at least 5,000 potential jurors. Just think! We will have to call up and question 5,000 persons to be able to keep 12. We think that in such cases we should consider a trial with a special tribunal and probably three judges.

I will now conclude, and I thank you for your understanding. The message that we wanted to transmit to you is very important for us. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I would again ask, for the purposes of our discussion after, that the panellists try to keep their comments inside ten minutes. I've been very liberal in the first round, and I don't want to see that time taken up.

The next group is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Mr. Bill Marra (Councillor, City of Windsor, Federation of Canadian Municipalities): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bill Marra, a councillor from the City of Windsor.

I'll have my colleague introduce himself.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Gingras (Mayor of Blainville, Union des municipalités du Québec, Federation of Canadian Municipalities): I am Pierre Gingras. I am the Mayor of Blainville and the Chair of the Regional Development Council of the Laurentian region. This morning I also represent the Union des municipalités du Québec.

• 1145

[English]

Mr. Bill Marra: Also here is Stéphanie McFayden, a policy analyst with FCM.

We are very pleased to be here on behalf of the federation. We do have a written brief, but unfortunately, with the short turnaround time, we have only an English version. I understand it will be translated and provided to you at a later date. My presentation will strictly highlight what is in the brief.

FCM represents the interests of all municipalities on policy and program matters within federal jurisdiction. As you probably know, over 1,000 municipalities currently are members of FCM, certainly representing a large population of our country.

I am a member of FCM's Standing Committee on Community Safety and Crime Prevention, and the issue of organized crime has been one of great concern to our committee and to the Canadian communities we represent.

As community leaders, we are aware that organized criminal activity is too much for one municipality to handle. Criminal organization have tentacles that reach far beyond our municipal boundaries; nevertheless it is at the community level that our citizens are feeling the impacts of organized crime. Outlaw motorcycle gangs, prostitution, youth gangs, drugs, shoplifting rings, violent confrontation, and certainly some of the technical scams that we're seeing with debit cards and credit cards are all issues that we're feeling in a very significant way within our communities and on our streets.

Because we are so close to the impacts of organized crime, municipal leaders are very pleased to see the introduction of Bill C-24. We believe the initiatives described within this bill will help police forces be more effective and put a real dent in the organized crime issue.

FCM supports the proposed revisions to simplify the definition of criminal organization to make participation in such organizations an offence with much more meaningful consequences. We are also very pleased to see the initiatives around the seizure of proceeds of crimes. FCM has long supported the notion that we need to take the profit out of organized crime, and indeed we urge you to direct any proceeds of crime seized under this law back to fighting organized crime, and as you heard from your previous delegate, the expense related to organized crime and law enforcement.

We have some suggestions that we would like you to consider. I'll elaborate on two of them, and then I'll summarize rather quickly and have my friend provide you with some additional information.

As much as we endorse Bill C-24, we do believe an improvement is needed to these provisions to make them truly responsive to community needs. We urge you to amend the proposed definition of offence-related property to clearly include the notion of bunkers. I'm not personally familiar with what's happened with bunkers, but certainly my friend will elaborate later on. Our community has not had the misfortune of realizing this impact.

The bunkers, as some of you know, are the fortified clubhouses used by gangs, particularly outlaw motorcycle gangs. Communities such as Blainville, Montreal, and Quebec have seen outlaw motorcycle gangs purchase homes in residential neighbourhoods and then proceed to turn these houses literally into fortresses. These bunkers are used as places to meet and plan criminal activity, and they pose a very real threat to the neighbourhood life. Their mere presence creates an atmosphere of tension, due to these intensive fortifications. More importantly, these bunkers act as a very visible target for rival gangs, creating a focal point for violent confrontation in what should be a peaceful residential setting.

Municipal leaders are attempting to address this issue through anti-bunker bylaws. These bylaws prohibit the use of a variety of fortifications on these properties.

An amendment to add bunkers to the Criminal Code definition of offence-related property would place municipalities across the country in a much stronger position to enact bylaws so that gangs will be discouraged from establishing a clubhouse within their community.

It is important that the Criminal Code specifically authorize municipalities to pursue orders to seize and confiscate real property defined as a bunker, and in fact FCM recommends that the Government of Canada provide municipal governments recourse to civil remedies for asset forfeiture. We need to be able to act quickly and effectively to get forfeited clubhouses out of our communities and out of our neighbourhoods.

On another point, FCM is very pleased to see the added protection from organized crime to people involved in the criminal justice system that is offered in Bill C-24. However, there was a noticeable gap in the scope of these provisions, and I want to thank our friend Monsieur St-Laurent, because he certainly made the point, as well. They need to be amended to explicitly recognize elected municipal officials.

• 1150

As currently proposed, the list includes witnesses, jurors, police, prosecutors, prison guards, judges, members of Parliament, and senators. But there is a special need for municipal government officials to be included in this protective legislation, because we—just like members of Parliament or members of the Senate—have found ourselves targets of intimidation and threats from criminal organizations as a result of our official positions. You'll hear more on this point in a moment.

Because city councils approve budgets, bylaws, and police activities, they have a direct impact on organized crime. Examples include the anti-bunker bylaws and approving municipal police budgets. Zoning bylaws end up controlling gambling, pawn shops, pornography, and prostitution. The priority is to target organized crime.

Mr. Chairman, FCM supports the changes proposed to the Criminal Code in order to combat organized crime. The Department of Justice and the Solicitor General ought to be commended for developing a strong response to this complex problem.

In order to ensure that the changes respond to community needs, FCM recommends the following modifications to Bill C-24. The first, which I briefly described, redefines offence-related property to specifically include fortified bunkers.

The second is that municipal elected officials be included in the list of people provided with special protection under Bill C-24.

The third is that crime proceeds confiscated under this legislation be used specifically to initiate law-enforcement tactics against organized crime.

And the fourth is that the federal government allow municipalities recourse for civil remedies for asset forfeiture.

I'll turn that over to my friend, Mayor Gingras.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Gingras: Thank you, Mr. Marra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for hearing us this morning.

The Union des municipalités du Québec, the chief municipal organization in Quebec, deems that Bill C-24 will help the Canadian population as a whole in its fight against organized crime. It will more specifically combat the phenomenon of criminal motorcycle gangs, by creating new offences and by giving wider investigating powers to different police forces.

At the municipal level, however, we consider that the prime concern of citizens is the presence of fortified houses, commonly known as bunkers. In fact, this is a tangible, visible element that creates an enormous feeling of fear and insecurity among citizens.

Examining Bill C-24 has enabled us to identify mechanisms that, if they were slightly modified, would be very useful for Canadian municipalities and would enable them to fight organized crime on a new front, thus fulfilling the government's wishes.

The problem at the municipal level is, however, one of jurisdictions. The recourse set out in the Criminal Code is reserved for the Attorney General. Moreover, the lack of clear legislative mechanisms makes recourse to civil courts somewhat difficult. And that is what we are experiencing. I will tell you more about that in a few minutes.

Municipalities, in this regard, are on the border between criminal law and civil law, criminal law being federal jurisdiction. That is precisely one of the problems that the City of Blainville will have to resolve with its injunction against the Hell's Angels to close their bunker. Like the FCM, we are looking for a more detailed definition of offence-related property to insure that it clearly encompasses bunkers belonging to biker gangs by adding, for example, the notion of fortified building to the bill.

We would also like municipalities to be specifically authorized to take recourse to close and seize bunkers under the provisions to be added to the Criminal Code.

• 1155

In exercising the recourse I have just mentioned, we would like to see specific recourse to civilian courts brought in to speed up the process. For example, recourse by way of injunction as set out in the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec.

We are thinking about a mechanism similar to the one set out in the Disorderly Houses Act, which is chapter M-2, which clearly states that it is illegal for any person possessing or occupying a house or any type of building to use it or to enable a person to use it as a disorderly house. We would like the expression "disorderly house" in the bill to be replaced with "fortified house" or "bunker".

This act has yielded extremely positive results, because there are no longer any disorderly houses in Quebec. If the measures we are advocating were to be adopted, we could simply seize the building.

I will wrap up, Mr. Chairman.

I will mention an excerpt from a resolution that was adopted by the general assembly last Saturday and that has not yet been translated or distributed. Like my colleague from the FCM and Mr. St-Laurent, we want the UMQ to support the bill. We support the bill, but we would like elected officials and their families, not only councillors but also mayors, Mr. St-Laurent, to be protected and included in the bill...

In conclusion, and contrary to what I heard at the start of the meeting, I would like this bill to be fast-tracked. Action is urgently required. There are more and more places and criminal gangs and we would like the bill to be adopted before the end of the session.

We understand that the process will not be complete and the bill will be adopted in the Senate before the fall, but it should be adopted before the end of the session in June.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Trudell, for ten minutes.

Mr. William M. Trudell (Chair, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers is a national association of defence lawyers, formed in 1992. On behalf of our members, I'm very grateful for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

We are very concerned about this bill. One of our main concerns, which I noticed in some of the earlier comments, is the speed with which the bill seems to be progressing through the committee and perhaps into legislation. I would ask, on behalf of the defence council throughout the country, that you go slowly. I don't mean stop, but I do mean slow down. In our respectful submission, this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation you may see in a long time.

The essence of every criminal offence is that there are two components: the intention to do the act, and the act itself. For the first time, it seems here that legislation seeks to sanction intentional criminal conduct, and perhaps criminalize unintentional criminal conduct.

There has to be a very careful clause-by-clause analysis of this bill. I like to say to all the clients I have the honour of representing that I'm not just here for them today; I'm here for them in five or ten years from now, when they look back to make sure we were careful, that a balance was struck.

Members of the committee, I would ask you, urge you, to look at the balance that is necessary in this type of legislation.

• 1200

The two sections that are of serious concern to us are those that allow police officers to commit criminal offences in the execution of their duty and the definition of “organized crime” or “criminal organization”.

I've heard and read comments from very responsible members of police forces and persons in authority to the effect that there is accountability in this bill. But in my respectful submission, on behalf of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, we do not see the accountability. We see potential delegation of accountability.

One section of this bill talks about reports that have to be made. But there are escape clauses for making those reports: Is it indeed in the public interest? Does it jeopardize an ongoing investigation into a criminal proceeding? If so, it may very well be that there never is a report. Our position is that you must try to find a balance that includes meaningful accountability and reporting.

In terms of the conduct that is justified under proposed section 25.1, there is conduct that is justified, but it excludes the threat of violence. In my respectful submission on behalf of my constituents, we suggest that a threat of violence against a person ought not to be sanctioned by this bill.

Paragraph 11(c) of 25.1 mentions “conduct that would violate the sexual integrity of an individual”. We don't know just what that means, and we would ask you to examine what it means in your clause-by-clause analysis. Perhaps it should list the offences in the Criminal Code, such as sexual interference, sexual assault, an invitation to touching, and so on. Those kinds of offences should be spelled out, so they're not left to interpretation.

Because of the limited time here, I ask you to look at the accountability section. It seems to us that there really is no accountability. You may indeed have an extremely responsible officer in charge, but that officer may be replaced tomorrow or next week. You may have a certain police force that talks about training, as my friend has, but where is the guarantee that such training will go right across the country?

So in our respectful submission, we ask you to look seriously at this section—because you are sanctioning criminal conduct, and not just in pursuit of organized crime. This is a section that could stand on its own.

In the example my friend used—of supplying a get-away car and disguises—no criminal offence charge is going to be laid. My friend said they had to take one case to court, and a judge found it justified. We have those balances in the system now, and I think we should look at it very carefully.

Proposed section 467.1 does something that is of great concern: it takes knowledge out. For the first time, we are looking at criminalizing belonging to a group. Although the suggestion is that we are not criminalizing membership, section 467 does just that.

Proposed section 467.11 imports the word “knowingly”. But then in the prosecution section it's not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew the identity of other persons. I submit that it's a real leap to prove participation, whether the accused receives any benefit from the criminal organization or whether the person repeatedly engages in activities at the instruction of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization. It doesn't say “unlawful activities”. When you introduce legislation to go after the eagle, you may catch the fly instead. That's what the Supreme Court of Canada does: it looks at the broad approach. But does this bill go too far in its attempt to catch a certain type of person or conduct?

• 1205

That's what happened with the importation section. It wasn't designed for a person coming into the country with one joint of marijuana. The Supreme Court of Canada found it was too broad.

I know there's pressure in this committee, in the House, in this country, to do something about what seems to be organized crime running rampant. But I say we have to be careful, because organized crime is too easy a label to put on people who belong to organizations. There aren't bikers under everyone's bed, but there are groups who get together. I don't mean to demean some of the concerns police forces have in trying to deal with sophisticated criminal activity, but we have to be very careful. I urge you not to respond to emotional rhetoric just because it seems timely.

On behalf of the defence bar, I ask you to take time to look at these sections and to find out what the legislators intend by them. If this bill passes, you may end up catching people like the landlord who rents out the property, or like, dare I say, the lawyer who gives advice. The idea of “knowingly” is important in our criminal law, and it is absolutely absent from this section. If you look at this section and compare it with the earlier section, it is major surgery.

My friend indicated that four people were acquitted because they couldn't prove knowledge. I say knowledge is key to criminal sanctions, because at the end of the day, the sanctions here are very, very serious.

If this bill was in effect when the demonstrations occurred in Quebec, could this bill have been used to arrest persons who were there to protest? That's the question. Who is this legislation going to catch?

Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now I go to Mr. Toews for seven minutes.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I can direct these comments at the defence bar. I'm somewhat puzzled by some of the comments. I understand your concern, and yet I don't see the proposed authorization of police officers to break the law as any radical departure from what already exists in the Criminal Code. For example, the Criminal Code authorizes police officers, teachers, and parents to use reasonable force. That's in fact authorizing a criminal act.

All we're doing here, as I understand it, is simply saying we will not penalize officers who, in good faith, in the course of certain delineated activities, carry out certain acts. In the same way, a parent who believes that corporal punishment is an appropriate discipline for a child may be excused from prosecution if the force is reasonable. So for a peace officer, reasonable force is excused. It is still a criminal act that the police officer, teacher, or parent commits, but this section excuses it from prosecution.

I'll go one step farther. What we're doing in fact is saying that this excuses or denies the ability to prosecute for the types or categories of offences listed in this section. Well, other than those delineated offences—let's deal with offences involving violation of sexual integrity. I don't see any big difficulty in trying to define that. I'm sure jurisprudence and others will determine what that means.

• 1210

We have, then, even outside those carefully delineated sections, the authority of a prosecutor looking at a situation. Here is a police officer who has in fact assaulted somebody in good faith in order to carry out part of a larger operation. That prosecutor still has the discretion of saying, I'm not authorizing delaying of a charge here. That discretion is inherent in our system. What I'm suggesting is that our system today, without this section, relies on those discretionary powers, the excusing of criminal offences. This proposed section is very consistent with that, and in fact, it outlines further conditions that force the police officer to focus on what needs to be done in order to ensure that there will not be a prosecution.

Finally, one still has to remember that whatever we put into the Criminal Code for protecting police officers from prosecution in the context of these particular situations, there is still the broad discretion of judges in the overall prosecution of an offence to say, this situation brings the administration of justice into disrepute, and I will not allow this or that evidence.

So what really concerns me—and what concerns me about the development in the law in the last 10 or 15 years—is the judicial interference in day-to-day police operations that effectively hamstrings police, without any appreciable increase in the quality of justice that is being administered. I don't see anything radical about this. In fact, I think this is prudent, this is carefully delineated, and I don't see what the fuss is about.

But what do I know? I am a former crown attorney and that might influence my thinking on these matters. Perhaps I could leave that to you, Mr. Trudell.

Mr. William Trudell: You make a number of points, and let's get back to one thing. We're all citizens of this country. You as a former crown attorney, I as a defence counsel—and I've prosecuted cases—we're looking for a balance.

I want to respond first to what you said last about judicial interference with police officers doing their job. I don't think, with the greatest respect to you, sir, that's helpful at all to the community in which we live. Judges have to make sure there is a balance. If we stop criticizing judges and start educating the public as to the difficult job they do, I think the criminal justice system will be better served and perhaps more respected.

That's my point. It's the respect for the criminal justice system. It's the respect for law enforcement. If a police officer commits an offence in the execution of his duty—indeed he's no longer in the execution of his duty unless it's reasonable—there's the protection in the Criminal Code, in the courts. It's there and it's enough.

If this committee and the House decide that police officers have got to be given some looser reins, because crime is more sophisticated, you've got to take some shackles off them to let them go a little bit farther, that's fine, but it has to be something that is accounted for. You know as well as I do that there are good police officers and there are questionable police officers, just as there are good lawyers and questionable lawyers. We have a situation, with respect, in Toronto where we have had a very powerful union of police officers saying they are going to target certain people because they don't agree with them.

In my respectful submission, we have to be extremely sure that these powers are necessary, and if you decide they're necessary, you have to be absolutely sure that they're accountable and we're going to hear about it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard.

• 1215

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a comment and three questions. I think that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is misinterpreting the situation somewhat. Earlier on, when I stood up, I went to consult our expert on organized crime. I was told that bunkers are already part of the list of offence-related properties that can be seized under the new law that will apply. That is more or less what I was told.

We will have an opportunity to question Mr. Roy this afternoon. I think we need mutual guarantees that bunkers are already on the list of offence-related property, because according to the information we have, that would already be the case. If it is not the case, the committee can move some amendments. I recommend you keep in touch with committee members so that you can get these guarantees.

As Member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I came within a hair of having a bunker behind my house. If it had not been for my community's mobilization—you will recall what happened a month ago—we would have had it. But some senior officials have assured us that bunkers are already on the list.

I will ask my three questions quickly, Mr. Chairman, because you want us to be quick.

In my caucus, we are undeniably in favour of enforcement officers, as well as of the bill. However, as regards immunity, we would like to understand why immunity is not desirable for you when an enforcement officer has to appear before the courts in the case of wiretapping and seizure. Is your understanding of immunity such that it would apply... As for me, I distinguish it from accountability. The hierarchy that you outlined reassures us, because even for the most ardent among us who want to equip you with more tools the fact remains that we must have a balanced system. Give us very clear arguments. Why wouldn't judicial authorization be desirable? That is my first question.

My second question is for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I would like to get a better understanding of what recourse you would like to see incorporated into the act concerning the possibility for municipalities to undertake their own legal procedures to seize certain kinds of property. Do you not think that could give rise to constitutional difficulties? Perhaps you have given that more thought. As for me, I want to publicly express our support. I hope the government will move an amendment—if it does not do so we will—so that the list of people to be protected from intimidation includes mayors and municipal councillors. That is clear in my mind. You are also responsible and you have to make decisions that may intimidate, that may make you subject to retaliation on the part of organized crime, and that must be included in the bill.

I would like to hear your reaction to those two questions.

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: I am going to address judicial authorization.

First of all, I want to go back to what I said earlier. Before the Campbell-Shirose decision, police officers committed certain offences. As the representative of the defence attorney pointed out, the principle of criminal intent was not there. For us, the action taken was reasonable, given the police's mission. So it was done in the past and we did not need judicial authorization.

When the Supreme Court called for some kind of monitoring, in 1997, a bill on narcotics was introduced. It provided a kind of framework. There was no move toward judicial authorization at that point; the principle of accountability for a competent authority was retained, normally, the most senior authority in the investigation, who was accountable for all actions, because these were exceptional measures. That is how it has operated since 1997 and it is working well.

The other problem is that in most investigations on organized crime that we are currently conducting, there are now requirements with respect to affidavits, search warrants, warrants for wiretapping, etc., that encumber the legal process and make our work difficult. In the case of ERM Montreal, that we did on the Hell's Angels Nomads, our affidavit was 1,000 pages long. Do you know how long it takes to put together a 1,000-page affidavit? That is the reality we are facing, and something more is being added to that.

The other reason, which is more realistic, in my opinion, is that most of the time, the criminal act is not planned ahead of time. If we knew ahead of time that our guy was going to steal a car that night, it would go well, because sometimes we have time. But often, when they ask for a test, it's because the objective is to test our police officer, and we do not know that ahead of time.

• 1220

Mr. Réal Ménard: The criminal organizations ask for a test.

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: Yes, but our police officer is told that they are going to steal a car that night. They want to test the police officer.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are saying that in the course of the investigation it is not possible...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: I would say that is the case most of the time. Which means that judicial authorization does not necessarily appear to be the easiest way to operate. I do not agree with what my colleague of the defence said earlier. It is not a blank cheque. There is more than enough accountability afterwards. As the former Crown prosecutor explained, after that, when we disclose our evidence in court, we will have to disclose that we committed a criminal offence. The judge will conduct a proportionality test to determine if it was reasonable or not. If it was not reasonable, the police officer has no immunity. The Crown prosecutor can always decide to lay charges.

Some say our police officers will not be accountable. They can face charges. A police officer who is being sent out on an infiltration operation is already facing a lot of stress. If, on top of that, the government does not guarantee some legal protection if he does his job honestly, I don't think we will have anymore infiltration agents and we will no longer be able to work in criminal organizations.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Your arguments are shaking me up.

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: Good. That is what I intended.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will make your arguments to caucus.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pierre Gingras: I hope I will be able to provide as clear an answer to the member's second question so that he can convince his caucus.

Bill C-24 creates new offences, including participating in organized crime, which covers anyone participating or contributing to activities that assist a criminal organization in achieving their objectives. For example, this mechanism will make it possible to single out biker gangs who use a bunker located in a municipality, who go there to carry out surveillance, which for my colleagues is called the watch.

The second mechanism set out in the bill covers blocking and seizing offence-related property. That's where the shoe pinches or where there is a problem. We would like a more detailed definition of offence-related property to ensure that it clearly encompasses biker gang bunkers.

For example, the City of Blainville is currently in court, under a section of the Quebec Land Use Planning and Development Act, to regulate aspects of fortification. We filed an interlocutory injunction, and defence counsel has already indicated that he would be invoking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because a bunker is not clearly defined in the act.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Blaikie, seven minutes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like the witnesses to help me with this, and perhaps other members of the committee, because I don't understand it. Why is it that this broad power of designated immunity is the appropriate response to the Campbell and Shirose decision by the Supreme Court? If I read that decision correctly, what the court was concerned about in Campbell and Shirose was not something a police officer was asked to do on the spur of the moment. We've had examples put forward like stealing a car for some purpose. Another example that was used earlier, I think by Commissioner Zaccardelli and others, was, here's a stolen credit card, go buy some beer, or whatever. The Campbell and Shirose case was not about something police were asked to do on the spur of the moment, something they had to do in order to maintain their cover. The Campbell and Shirose case was about a reverse sting that took a long time to plan and in which police officers had time to consult with Department of Justice officials. In fact, their consultation with Department of Justice officials as to the legality of what they were going to do was in fact part of the debate, if you like, that was before the court.

• 1225

The more I think about this, the more I don't understand why examples like the stolen credit card or the stolen car keep being used to justify the immunity when the immunity that was put into question by Campbell and Shirose was not—at least the acts that were involved in that court decision were not similar to the examples that are being given by police when they come before the committee.

It would seem to me—I don't claim to have a lot of knowledge about this—that stealing a car and using a stolen credit card is the kind of thing for which discretion already exists within the system. I'm sure lots of stolen credit cards and cars have been stolen over the years in order for people to maintain their cover, as well as other things—break and enter, whatever. This has not been an issue.

What became an issue before the Supreme Court was a very well-planned reverse sting in which officers were engaged in the selling—or the proposal to sell, because the transaction never actually took place—of controlled substances.

I'm just having a hard time matching up what the court said, the examples that are being used by police when they come forward to justify the immunity that's in the act, and the relationship between the designated immunity in the act and the Campbell and Shirose case itself. There's sort of a triangle there. Anybody who can help me with this, I'd really appreciate it.

The Chair: Mr. Trudell has indicated a desire to answer.

Mr. William Trudell: One of our problems with the bill—and I say this with respect—is that by sanctioning criminal conduct, we're afraid that what it does is it sanctions shortcuts. Police are under a lot of pressure. Some police officers don't trust and are frustrated by the system, and we see in this bill shortcuts. In other words, rather than taking the time to go and get an authorization, rather than going another route, it authorizes a shortcut of a threat, for instance. We are very concerned about that.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: What do you mean by a shortcut of a threat?

Mr. William Trudell: Well, for instance, there may be laborious ways of furthering the investigation—a judicial authorization for a wiretap, these kinds of things. My friend has already indicated that sometimes the courts and the system frustrate proper police investigation. We're concerned that if you sanction criminal conduct without any preconditions, then what you're doing is sanctioning the short way to complete the investigation.

The other issue I tried to mention earlier was that no accountability may ever take place, because in 25.3(2), annual report, the limitation, the last section says, “The annual report shall not contain any information the disclosure of which would (c) otherwise be contrary to the public interest.” What does that mean? Who is going to decide what's contrary to the public interest? It is the police officer who decides that it would be contrary to the public interest to, what, reveal the name of the informant, to reveal some of the background information? That's what we're trying to say when we say the accountability isn't there.

The Chair: Is there any other response?

Monsieur St-Laurent.

[Translation]

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: I'm going to answer in French because unfortunately I am not perfectly bilingual.

As regards the famous Campbell-Shirose decision, members of the RCMP, at the time, had in fact checked with police counsel to ensure that what they were doing was legal. The opinion of the lawyer advising the police was that the police officers had no criminal intent, that they had not intended to commit a crime and that as a result, they benefited from "some immunity" or that the Attorney General, as had always been done in the past, could decide if it was justified or not to press charges against the police, given the context of the investigation.

• 1230

Unfortunately, or fortunately because it now has to be clearly specified, the Supreme Court stated that criminal intent did not count; it was the act committed that counted. That is called actus reus. I am not a lawyer, but our lawyer can complete my remarks. He explained it quite well to the police officers.

When the Supreme Court decided the reverse thing in this narcotic trafficking case, it did not apply to that alone, but to all criminal offences. So from that point on we had to stop using certain methods.

Earlier on you talked about credit cards. Basically, our double agents operate using false identities. They have no choice. If we want them to infiltrate, they cannot use their real names. They can easily check. They have false licence plates, etc. So they can currently be accused of using forged documents, impersonation, etc.

So it is no longer the intention that counts. It is the action taken. That is why we were forced to ask the legislator to give us tools to protect our police officers, because we can no longer undertake infiltration operations. The reverse thing was...

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Nobody was charged out of the Campbell and Shirose case, right? I mean, the police officers in question who were charged with the reverse thing, they weren't charged with trafficking.

[Translation]

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: No, but the court ruled that it was unacceptable and that Parliament should clearly establish in which cases it was acceptable for police officers to commit offences. As the former prosecutor was explaining, they are not considered criminal actions when it is clearly outlined in what cases the police officer is justified doing so. The police officer is not committing a criminal offence, but he will nevertheless have to be accountable, in accordance with section 25 on the use of force. Police officers are regularly accused, in terms of ethics, discipline and on a criminal basis, because they used force and it was not considered necessary force. They are accountable and will continue to be accountable. However, not all police officers do so.

We do agree that there should be a balance, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that, like judges and lawyers, police officers are citizens first and foremost.

Perhaps counsel would like to complete my response.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to give Mr. Blaikie a little extra time—he's generous with us normally in terms of not asking questions he needn't ask. Mr. Blaikie, go ahead.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, I'm just still trying to get at the heart of this, I hope for the sake of others as well as myself, because what I understood in the Campbell and Shirose case... The police officers weren't charged. The court didn't find that they should be charged with a criminal offence, so they had a kind of immunity. What happened there, if I understand it, was that the evidence... it had to do with the gathering of evidence.

So in the case of the things that you and other police officers have cited—you have to use a stolen credit card and you have to be free to do that in order to maintain your cover, or you have to steal a car, or whatever. This doesn't necessarily have to do with the gathering of evidence. This simply has to do with maintaining your status as undercover in order to, at some future date, be able to procure the right kind of evidence.

So there seems to me to be two kinds of categories of things. It's not a case where the Supreme Court found that police officers who are engaged in otherwise criminal activities should somehow be charged. That isn't what happened.

[Translation]

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: For us, when attorneys general and our legal advisors examined it, they concluded that with this decision the court had clearly established that it was not a question of intent, but a question of action taken, and that police officers could face legal action.

The attorneys general clearly told us that if we did that we would face legal action. That is reality. In our opinion, what applied in the past no longer applies. In the past, we thought it was exactly as you said: in the worst case scenario, if the administration of justice were brought into disrepute, the evidence could always be thrown out. But that is no longer what we are being told. In addition to being thrown out, the police officer not only can face legal action but must face legal action. That is what we are being told. It is different.

Perhaps counsel would like to complete my answer.

Mr. Denis Asselin (Director, Legal Affairs Division, Service de police de la communauté urbaine de Montréal): A fundamental principle was set out in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Campbell v. Shirose, and that is the rule of law. According to the Supreme Court, police officers are not above the law; they must respect the law. In this case, the police officers believed in good faith that they could legally sell drugs. The Supreme Court told them that it was illegal.

• 1235

From that point on, in the police service, we had to take stock of all action carried out by police officers that could constitute an offence and that did not benefit from any justification or excuse under any legislation and we ordered police officers to stop these activities to respect the principle of the rule of law until the legislator enabled them to carry out this action legally.

Having established that it was clearly illegal, I could not tell the police officers to proceed in acting illegally, in what I felt was the futile hope that the Crown attorney would not bring any charges. It's a very bad message, a very poor signal to give to our police officers. There must be only one message, the one that comes down from the highest court in the land, telling them they must respect the law until the legislator intervenes. That is what is being properly done today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Trudell is going to respond. Just before he does, I bring to the attention of everyone that our clerk was out and put together a little something in the back. So if anyone has the need... I see Mr. Ménard has found his way there already.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am very slim, as you know.

The Chair: Probably the result of having ten or eleven birthdays every year.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Mr. Trudell, and then Mr. MacKay.

Mr. William Trudell: The court just basically said you can't break the law. Before you pass this legislation, where is the demonstrated need for these sections, given the balance already in existence? Quite frankly, there are anecdotal stories. Police officers tend to tell horror stories on one end and defence counsel tell horror stories on the other, and somewhere in the middle... It's our respectful submission to you that this immunity is not necessary. Indeed, it's open to all kinds of difficulties.

The Supreme Court of Canada simply said, police, quite frankly, as you said, are not above the law. That's the lesson; that's the message police officers have to uphold. If you find that there are those limited circumstances where they have to be allowed to break the law, and if there are those limited circumstances where they can't get judicial authorization, then they have to be accountable. But I think those circumstances are more anecdotal than real. This section is not about organized crime. This is a general section that allows the police to commit criminal conduct and be excused.

The Chair: Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome and our thanks again to our presenters.

Just to follow up on this point to Mr. Trudell, are you saying then that you feel the legislation as drafted is too broad because... First of all, we know it doesn't apply just to organized crime. But as far as the limitations that exist, I see them as twofold. I see—and this is the point that I think Mr. Blaikie was getting at. The remedy here is that the evidence isn't admissible, not so much the sanctions against police. From the perspective of the police, the second worst thing that can happen to you, short of being accused yourself of a criminal act, is losing the case and having all this evidence that you've gathered over sometimes months and months at great pains, using the traditional methods of gathering evidence, is lost.

I guess I would put it to you this way. If in the legislation there is sufficient restraint exercised in the granting of these designated immunities, if we know it's going to be scrutinized to the highest degree by the courts when that evidence is presented, and secondly, now you have this new level of examination that says you must report, you must give sufficient accounting for the reasons as to why, plus you have to get over that initial hurdle of being given this designation, because it isn't going to exist for every police officer—there are going to be specific task force or police officers who are put in this position of, “You go out, infiltrate organized crime or criminal circles, and in so doing we are granting you these special powers, but use them cautiously, carefully, and be prepared when you come back to give a very detailed report as to how you use them, when, and under what circumstances.”

• 1240

Do you find any comfort in this new level of examination that will exist outside of the normal court process?

Mr. William Trudell: Quite frankly, no, because I don't see the demonstrated need for it. If there's a demonstrated need for it... Let's assume there is, and let's go on to the next step. It's not only what happens to the evidence, not only what happens before it comes into the system, it's the public's respect for the administration of justice, including the investigative powers of the police.

Quite frankly, it is of some concern to us that a certain group of officers are given powers almost carte blanche—and I'm not trying to be extreme here: you go out and infiltrate, and you are allowed to commit certain offences, but make sure you come back and report on it.

I think the need has to be demonstrated before an officer can commit a specific offence, as opposed to an officer going out and saying “Okay, I don't really have to follow the rules here, because the key is I've got some slack in my leash”. The problem is a lot of this is not going to be disclosed, with the greatest of respect.

We have to be sure that a police officer who comes back is going to disclose. We have to be sure that the person who gave him the power is going to disclose. And that police officer can delegate, for instance, to an agent.

So it's not only the gathering of evidence, and it's not only whether it's admissible. A lot of damage—and I don't mean that in a rhetorical sense—can be done to the administration of justice by some of these provisions, and we have to be concerned about the public's perception.

You and I can look at a specific example and we can say there's no question that in that case the officer had to do that. Well, he's going to be justified now. The court is going to look at it, the crown attorney is going to look at it, and it's going to be excused and is going to be understood.

What you're talking about is saying you've got immunity, you can commit criminal offences, but you've got to remember that at the end of the day you're going to have to justify it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So you're saying, Mr. Trudell, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it encourages police perhaps to step over the line. I guess what I would say to that is don't we now have very stringent rules with respect to disclosure, and hasn't there been since Stinchcombe and a number of cases that have come down the utmost rigour focused on the police, and of course on the crown as well, to make these disclosures?

I guess that leads to a question I'd like to pose to Mr. Asselin with respect to the knowledge that organized crime will have of this legislation, before it even passes. I suspect they have their lawyers studying this now. And this was asked of the RCMP and others. Are you concerned that this will raise the bar for initiation of undercover police—this will now become the standard or the test that those who are trying to infiltrate these gangs will have to pass? You have to cause bodily harm to somebody. You have to rape or kill in order to gain our trust to walk among our designated people.

They have their designations just as we do on the right side of the law. Are you concerned at all about the jeopardy in which this might place your officers and others?

[Translation]

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: Mr. MacKay, we were consulted during the drafting process. In answer to your question, I would tell you that it is obvious that ideally, we did not want a line. You are right in saying that a line is drawn. However, as I said earlier, if we set the line there, we give the impression that police officers can do anything short of murder or sexual assault. I would say that before Campbell-Shirose this type of offence was never committed. The criminals knew full well that a police officer would never commit a murder. They also knew that a police officer would never engage in sexual assault. This has simply been codified in the act. In any case, it now exists, but it was there before as well. Therefore, I am not terribly worried about it, save for the fact that it does convey a message. We can convey the same message by including specific offences in the act. As our friend the defence attorney said, if we include sexual assault or an offence of a sexual nature, must all offences then be codified? We would never see the end of it. As far as we are concerned, the fact that a line has been drawn does not worry me nor does the fact that the tests for organized crime will change. No, I am not worried.

• 1245

The Chair: Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Denis Asselin: I would like to respond to those who are worried about immunity. I should probably use the term justification, for certain special circumstances where the police officer feels that it is fair and reasonable to do certain things that, otherwise, might be considered illegal. Moreover, and this is something that we forget, he has to prove that there are no other acceptable alternatives under the circumstances. There is concern that the bill is too broad, that the scope would allow one to use it against criminals who aren't associated with what is commonly known as organized crime. It is obvious that these investigative tools will be used mainly, but not exclusively, for those who are involved in organized crime.

Take the example given by Mr. St-Laurent, about unidentified criminals who, according to our information, were involved in organized crime and were preparing to kidnap the child of a wealthy Westmount family in the hope of obtaining a large ransom, with the possibility that the child, once kidnapped, would be murdered. A police officer infiltrating the operation could steal a vehicle if the criminals were recognized and identified as being members of organized crime, but could not steal a vehicle if these criminals, who are just as violent and as dangerous, were not associated with organized crime. I would have a hard time explaining to the parents of a child who had been kidnapped, tortured and murdered that, unfortunately, such a serious crime could not have been prevented because the law prohibits the use of these methods since, presumably, the criminals were not involved in organized crime.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'd like to go to Mr. Owen.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Thank you all for attending.

We've had quite a broad discussion this morning of the most troubling, or at least dramatic, changes in the law around section 25. I'd like to perhaps have the comments from the members of the Montreal police on the agency clause, 25.1(10):

A person who commits an act or omission that would otherwise constitute an offence is justified in committing it if he or she... commits it at the direction of a public officer...

You've given some clarification of the degree of control there is over prior authorization, that this would lead to scrutiny through training and through oversight and through reporting. Do you have the same confidence in that control and that responsible application of this power by agents of a police officer or a public officer who, for instance, could be a criminal who's been engaged in this operation as part of an undercover operation?

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: You mean...

Mr. Stephen Owen: I'm worried about the extension to people beyond public officers.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Asselin: While my friend is thinking, I might tell you that the protection or the guarantee provided for by the legislator in order to ensure that the permission to commit an offence will not be given lightly to someone who is not a peace officer resides in the fact that it is not the peace officer who will determine whether or not the person will be entitled to commit an offence; it will be the senior official appointed and designated by the Minister of Public Security who will be authorized to do so.

• 1250

Within the police force, only the highest investigative authority, that is, the deputy director, will be able to do so. Therefore, only the deputy police chief will be able to authorize his peace officer to decide, if need be, to allow a citizen who is not a peace officer to commit an offence, and this senior official will have to ensure that the other investigative methods have been exhausted and that it is reasonable, in view of the important nature of the crime, because of the importance of the network or the organization that is being investigated. So there are guarantees to ensure that these people will not give their approval without protection, without these assurances.

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: Mr. Owen, I will give you an example. Mr. Asselin explained the legal part of an operation; I will explain the practical aspect. I told you earlier about operation “Spring 2001”, which targeted the Nomads. Naturally, in order to attack an organization like the Hell's Angels, we can't use undercover agents to get very close, because we would not pass the tests that they have devised for police officers.

Therefore, we must rely on what we call sources. That is what is provided for in clause 25.1(10). We don't often use sources. We must be able to convince such an individual who, obviously, is often a criminal who is quite close to the top or who is a regular member, to agree to work with the police. We have to sign a contract with the government because, once again, it isn't up to a police officer to decide that a particular person will become a police source and undertake a supervised infiltration operation. Therefore, we need to sign a contract with the government. He is paid, and we always plan how the operation will be carried out. He would not be allowed to do it on his own. Why do we need this protection? I will tell you about something that happened recently.

In this particular operation, one of our sources was a bodyguard for a well-placed Nomad. When these people act as bodyguards, they are always armed. You cannot be a Nomad bodyguard if you do not carry a weapon. But when he carries a weapon, he is committing a criminal offence. Therefore, when we control the source and we allow him to be in contact with the target, in order to obtain information, then we must accept the fact that he is armed. But we must be able to ensure that when he is carrying a weapon, he will not use it.

So we set the boundaries. In the contract that we sign with him, those are more or less the orders that he is given. We have to be sure of the individual when we send him in. Before hiring someone as a source, we make him undergo a lie-detector test. He must own up to all of the crimes that he has committed. So there are a number of conditions. It is not as simple as one, two, three, and, as far as I am concerned, it is a necessary tool, it is essential in allowing us to be able to work, in these particular cases, with organized crime. We would not use sources to work with criminals like the ones I told you about in the example I gave earlier. We don't usually need that type of... That is for a long- term investigation.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Owen: Thank you. That's helpful. I have just a brief comment on that.

I do understand the difficulty of infiltration of criminal organizations, because of the long initiation periods and such, and therefore the importance of being able to turn people already inside to get information. And I understand the restrictions and the guidelines you're describing. But I wonder if the general public, reading this clause and not understanding the degree of scrutiny that you would apply as a matter of policy and procedure, might be more confident in the application of this if there were a better public record of such policies, guidelines, oversight procedures. Because I think what we're facing—and we're hearing the broad concern expressed by the criminal defence bar—is that the act itself is very broad, whereas the application of it might be very narrow, targeted, reasonable, overseen, and so on. So that's a general comment.

The Chair: Mr. Trudell.

Mr. William Trudell: Mr. Chair, I wanted to respond to Mr. MacKay's question to me earlier about disclosure.

• 1255

I think the committee knows that the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Stinchcombe really to short-circuit this, that disclosure is absolutely vital. But disclosure is a problem in this country. It is still a problem. It is a problem regionally. There are no legislated parameters in terms of what disclosure has to be.

As we are sitting here now, there may be a crown attorney in British Columbia who takes the position that he or she turns over everything. There may be a crown attorney at the other end of the country who feels they can't disclose certain things. So there are no national standards of disclosure, despite what the Supreme Court of Canada says.

The other thing that may be of significance to the committee, which you should know, is this. In some provinces in this country—New Brunswick, Quebec, British Columbia—there is pre-charge screening. In other words, no case comes into the system without a crown attorney looking at it and screening it to make sure it ought to go ahead. It doesn't exist in other provinces.

For instance, someone may say, well, you shouldn't worry about the landlord being charged or the lawyer being charged, who falls under section 467, because there's going to be pre-charge screening—selective pre-charge screening. So just like there's different disclosure in this country, there are different standards in terms of cases coming into the system.

One of the things that might be wonderful on another day is that there be pre-charge screening legislated so that a crown looks at something before it comes in, and that there are national standards of disclosure.

I understand my friend is talking about standards that would apply to certain police officers, certain agents—training. But those standards may only be in effect in Montreal, where they have lots more experience perhaps in dealing with certain elements that we consider to be involved in criminal activity, as opposed to someone in Toronto, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia. So we're going to leave it up to various centres.

It's the same thing in terms of accountability. The accountability standards that the officer in charge or the designated officer has in New Brunswick—he may have ten other responsibilities—might be quite different from the designated officer in Quebec.

Thank you, sir.

The Chair: The chair appreciates your continuing reference to the province of New Brunswick.

Mr. Spencer.

Mr. William Trudell: ...

[Inaudible—Editor]

...the treasurer of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, sir.

The Chair: I do often get that response.

Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Two sides also mentioned today the clause that removes the requirement for knowledge of criminal activity in application to determining who's a member of a criminal organization.

The police seem to think there was an advantage there and the lawyers seem to think it was wrong. I'd like to hear a little bit more from the police side why this is a positive move to remove that requirement.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Asselin: In the Criminal Code, the present definition of “criminal organization” requires that certain elements be proven. A report had been tabled before the Sub-Committee on Organized Crime in which I seem to remember that 11 elements to be proven were identified.

One of these elements was that a member of a criminal organization, or someone that we want to charge with gangsterism, knows that at least two other members of the criminal organization have committed a series of offences and, particularly, that these offences are punishable by a term of at least five years or more. The investigating officers must spend a lot of time and energy to prove that the member was aware of the specific criminal activities that had taken place. A lot of time is wasted. These criminals exchange money, they exchange drugs, but they don't necessarily exchange their resumes. Therefore, they don't necessarily know exactly what offences have been committed by their partners in crime. It must be shown that these crimes have been committed during the past five years. This is a heavy onus and we don't see what purpose it serves. The one who commits a crime knows full well that he is acting on behalf of a criminal organization whose objective is to line its pockets through any possible means, but particularly illegal ones, because they are the most lucrative.

• 1300

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the mayor of Blainville's concerns with fortified club houses with him. I would also like to speak to Mr. Roy this afternoon. We will stay in touch with you regarding the answers.

Under the bill, I understand that a house can be seized if it was used to commit a crime. This is part of the provisions in the bill regarding offence-related property. In the past this would have come under an exceptions provision, and it has become an enforceable rule law in this legislation.

You seem to wish that the simple fortification of a house should be cause enough for its confiscation, even if no crime has been committed inside it. I have the impression that this would indeed pose a problem, as has happened in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. If you recall, there had been some indications that a real estate deal was about to be signed, a deal which would have brought about the establishment of a criminal motorcycle gang. The municipality had no means by which to prevent this from happening, except through their municipal by-laws, as you did, by banning the use of certain materials. The City of Montreal was perhaps inspired by you. Sometimes big ideas come from small cities and big cities have small ideas. The City of Montreal had to ban the use of certain materials. If your hope is that bunkers will be banned by the mere fact of their physical existence, we could discuss that with Mr. Roy, but I have the feeling that there would be legal problems.

Mr. Pierre Gingras: We do in fact have a problem. I will first of all make reference to a case, that of the building of the bunker in Saint-Nicolas, in Quebec. We had to wait until a transaction took place inside the bunker in order to be able to seize it. We, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Union des municipalités are talking about the mere fact of setting up in a given area, within a residential area, behind your house or behind the house of anyone sitting here. Imagine children going out on Halloween night and ringing the door of the bunker! Had they been warned? No.

The mere fact that there exists, in a residential area, within a municipality, a place that is fortified, therefore a bunker, where nothing happens but meetings of organized criminal groups who are conspiring, is already a safety issue for the public, for the people of Canada, and this gives rise to fear.

We claim that we should not allow places to be built on municipal territory where criminal organizations plot their business. This is dangerous. We know this because we have seen it. What usually happens when the criminal group meets in a given area?

Opposing gangs try and blow up the building, to machine gun individuals, to kill them. Then you have a motorcycle gang war. Gang wars have created innocent victims. There have been 156 deaths, 173 attempted murders and 13 disappearances. In our area, there was a shooting following the building of a fortified clubhouse and indeed there was one death, a gang member. Just imagine the children playing in the parks! We are not fooling around with people's emotions, as the lawyer for the defence maintains; I am telling you a true story. Imagine that a family with children realizes that such a building is close to their home. When the children leave for school, will they feel safe? No. We cannot allow such buildings to go up and allow such plotting to happen on our territory...

• 1305

Mr. Réal Ménard: It must be tied in to a legislative framework.

Mr. Pierre Gingras: It is important to tie this in to a legislative framework, and that is why I say that it is important to add the definition of “bunker” to the bill, if it is not specifically included in offence-related property.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you understand the difficulty...

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, cut me some slack.

[English]

The Chair: Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can allow Monsieur Gingras to just continue with that a little more.

Are you suggesting, sir, that the mere operation of a designated bunker, if we could narrow that definition down, would in and of itself constitute an offence? If it was being used solely for the purpose of perpetrating the activities of an organized criminal gang, that would allow for the prosecution and potential seizure of that designated bunker. Is that what you're looking for within the legislation?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Gingras: To give you an idea of what I expect from this bill, I will tell you what has happened in Blainville. We in fact had to go into one of these houses. We agree with the police chiefs. We support the notion of giving them more latitude in the discharge of their duties, because the criminal gangs are improving their skills and they have tools that are better than our police officers have. I will describe a bunker to you and you can tell me, sir, what such a building would be used for.

Steel plating was added to the front door of the house, the back patio door, and the front windows. Steel plating was also applied to the interior walls. Sixteen surveillance cameras in all had been installed on the exterior of the house. In one of the rooms, 16 television monitors were working, all linked to the surveillance cameras. Some 30 motion detectors had been installed on the fence around the property and linked to a control panel found in the same room as the monitors. A transparent mailbox had been installed just at the entrance.

What should have been the living room, the dining room and the bedroom on the ground floor, had been arranged in such a way as to provide a conference room. The house was not a permanent residence. Several leather jackets bearing the colours of a criminal motorcycle gang, the Rockers, were the only items of clothing found on site. In the bathroom, two urinals had been installed as well as a toilet. There was a cupboard for weapons storage on site, with at least one gun inside it. One room on the upper floor had been converted into an office, with a coded access lock, and a balcony had been added to the residence. It was accessible via the surveillance room and was completely steel-plated.

I wonder what purpose such a building could serve, other than to conspire in complete safety.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's tougher to get into that than a police station.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: I have a quick question for Mr. Gingras. It's apparent you've had some experiences with organized crime, biker gangs. Have you personally been threatened or intimidated, or any member of your council?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Gingras: I would like to come back to your question, sir.

• 1310

This morning, I took part in a radio show. We were discussing Lennoxville, a Quebec municipality that was involved in a confrontation with motorcycle gangs and they withdrew their municipal by-law. Was it because of intimidation? One wonders.

As for me, I may have been the victim of intimidation. Is it intimidation, or a threat, if I come out of city hall at 1:00 in the morning and see a licence plate which I phone in to the police and discover that this plate was cancelled two years before, and if I see vehicles with tinted glass and all I can see inside the vehicle is a camera taking pictures? I will let you be the judge.

That legislation was passed by elected municipal officials. There are federal elected officials, there are provincial elected officials, and I think that elected municipal officials are an essential part of the fight against organized crime. All levels of government must work together. In my town, there is a joint police force from the three levels of government, and this is working fairly well. Our police forces, however, must have the necessary tools to fight against organized crime.

Did I receive any verbal or physical threats? No. There has only been some intimidation, for the moment.

[English]

Mr. John Maloney: Ms. McFayden, we don't want to exclude you. As a policy analyst with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, is this a concern or a problem that has been exhibited by concrete examples?

Ms. Stéphanie McFayden (Policy Analyst, Federation of Canadian Municipalities): The intimidation or threats?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes.

Ms. Stéphanie McFayden: Yes. In fact we have a news article here from the Calgary Herald that might interest you—in English only, I'm afraid—but it's one very specific example of an alderman in the city of Calgary who had... The case is in court right now, so we have to use the word “alleged”, but his home was threatened because he and another community activist very actively opposed a bunker being installed, basically a clubhouse that was proposed by a group that was taken over by the Hells Angels. They were trying to set up a facility in a neighbourhood in this alderman's ward and he opposed it, and in fact he succeeded in having it demolished because they were able to prove that they didn't have a proper building permit. They were able to dismantle this bunker in their community, and then their homes were threatened. In fact the police arrested an individual with an explosive device, so something was about to be carried out, and they put a stop to it.

That case is in court right now because it's alleged that it was the Hells Angels who plotted to blow up this alderman's home because of his success in dismantling their bunker.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. St-Laurent, is this a concern? Do you get many complaints of this nature from municipal officials?

Mr. Marc St-Laurent: No, I have no...

[Translation]

I am not aware of any such cases in Montreal.

[English]

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much to all of our witnesses and the members of the committee. Your interventions were timely and engaging, and I hope you'll see some response to your interventions as things unfold.

You are all excused. I would like the members of the committee to just hang around for a second.

To the committee members, and I'm going to get Mr. MacKay's attention here shortly, what I think I'd like to do, for the record, is wait until after the justice officials have testified this afternoon in terms of their response to what we've heard to this point, before we decide exactly how to proceed after their appearance.

So the way it would appear is that we will hear from the departmental officials this afternoon, we will hear from the minister on estimates tomorrow, and at the end of the day this afternoon, after we've heard from officials, we'll make the decision as to how to proceed further, whether we proceed on Thursday or, as it was recommended and supported by many members, that we wait until after the break to go to clause-by-clause, for a period of reflection and an opportunity for amendments to be developed, and so on. It seems a reasonable response to the interventions we've heard, but we'll make that decision this afternoon.

• 1315

The only point I would make to Mr. Spencer, so he can pass it along to his colleagues, is that earlier this morning I suggested that we would be hearing from Mr. Williams in the context of his motion with regard to the Commissioner of Human Rights. I suggested we would have that debate on Thursday. If we don't go to clause-by-clause on Thursday, which is possible, then I don't think we will all want to be here for that particular debate. We may wish to have that Wednesday afternoon.

Would you advise Mr. Williams that there is a possibility that we would entertain that motion at the end of the minister's appearance on main estimates tomorrow afternoon? That way we would give notice and have something after the break from the Commissioner of Human Rights.

With that, I don't think there is any other business.

I want to thank the clerk for his quick work with the bread and butter, and so on.

The meeting is adjourned.