Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and
Constitutional Affairs
Issue 48 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 5, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-10, to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organization), met this day at 4:23 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Chair) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are here this afternoon to consider Bill S-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organization). This is a private member's bill sponsored by the Honourable Fernand Roberge.
Welcome, Senator Roberge, in this slightly different capacity. We are delighted to have you here. After your opening remarks, I am sure that senators will have a number of questions.
Hon. Fernand Roberge: Bill S-10 was tabled in the Senate on October 29. Its objective is to amend the Criminal Code by adding a definition of the notion of criminal organization and certain provisions to combat it.
The bill responds to repeated appeals over the years from our law enforcement agencies for legislation to fight organized crime. I have spoken personally with police authorities who confirm that the organized crime phenomenon is increasing every year.
In a recent book on global organized crime entitled Global Mafia, Canada was described as a paradise for organized crime because of its insecure borders, its poor legislation and currency restrictions, its soft immigration and banking laws, its lack of organized crime control policy, and its lenient criminal justice system.
[Translation]
My Quebec colleagues in particular are well acquainted with the threat posed by motorcycle gangs in the province. Municipal and police authorities have long been demanding special legislation to fight organized crime. The initiative I am taking today has the support of the chiefs of police of Quebec City and Montreal and of a number of associations, notably the Quebec Public Service Association.
[English]
Bill S-10 makes living on proceeds from a criminal organization an offence. It allows for the seizure and forfeiture of any proceeds from a criminal organization, and it prescribes that any person convicted of the offence of living on proceeds from a criminal organization must serve three-quarters of his or her sentence before being released on full parole.
I should like the Senate to take a non-partisan approach to the problem. No Canadian government, Conservative or Liberal, has ever proposed specific legislation to fight organized crime. I believe we have a common responsibility as legislators and guardians of public safety. Canadians are becoming more and more frustrated that our Charter of Rights is being used by criminals as a shield to protect and even to further their activities. We must, therefore, devise legislation which respects the rights and liberties defined in the Charter but also protects citizens from criminal elements which abuse the Charter.
I should like this committee to give itself the widest possible mandate to investigate organized crime.
[Translation]
In fact, I would like to see the committee become a kind of national commission of enquiry on organized crime, like the one we had in Quebec during the seventies.
[English]
We should, for example, invite witnesses from the Canadian law enforcement agencies -- the RCMP and regional and municipal police forces -- Crown prosecutors, experts in the field, academics, lawyers, former criminals willing to testify, judges -- both from Canada and from countries where measures were taken to fight organized crime -- victims of organized crime, federal and provincial ministers of justice and attorneys general, and concerned citizens and associations.
The mere fact of the Senate studying the workings of organized crime would, in itself, be a blow to criminal elements which act in the shadows. The sittings of the committee on this subject should be given the largest possible media exposure. If the committee wishes, I would be glad to propose a precise communications strategy.
I realize that there are political considerations which might be invoked for us not to do this. I believe, however, that our moral responsibility to the safety of our communities should be our paramount consideration. We must show not only that crime is organized in Canada, but that democracy and the law must also be organized to protect our freedom and safety.
Before answering questions, I should like to read from a letter I received on February 18 from a concerned citizen in Quebec City.
[Translation]
Subject: An Anti-Gang Law.
I live in St-Roch, the poorest neighbourhood in the old capital. My lower town neighbourhood is bisected by an elevated concrete highway which is crumbling above our heads. This structure was built during Jean Pelletier's term in office. Today, this man serves as Jean Chrétien's Chief of Staff.
For months now, a biker war has been raging in our neighbourhood. Bombs and molotov cocktails are being set off and people are being gunned down in the street. Again last night, two people were shot on the street.
If I may digress from a moment, yesterday morning, the same thing happened in this neighbourhood. Another person was killed in a restaurant in broad daylight.
Our neighbourhood has been devastated, many buildings have been abandoned, and businesses are closing their doors one after the other. It is beginning to look like Beirut.
The average age of the population is the highest in Canada. People are afraid to venture out on the streets. Never before has our neighbourhood been so rundown and deserted.
We need a public commission, but since many people from all political parties and all segments of society could be targeted, no one dares to call one, either for lack of courage or for some other reason.
We know that organized crime in Canada, as in other countries, is present everywhere and that all social classes have likely been infiltrated.
Anti-gang legislation is needed, but we have the feeling that the disadvantaged like us have been abandoned by government and other officials and been left to face this violence alone.
Ordinary citizens can be stopped by police whereas these criminals who terrorize everyone freely go about their business because everyone is afraid of them, including the police.
We are distressed at the thought of so many businesses being owned by organized crime and we know that some police officers hold down all kinds of parallel jobs which may put them in an unacceptable conflict-of-interest situation. We know that police forces in many countries are corrupt and this could happen in our country.
Not a day goes by that police officers are brought up before the courts for crimes, breaches of police code of ethics and so on.
I doubt that you will be able to achieve your objective, but it nonetheless takes courage to speak and write a subject that scares people.
We thank you for your courage and for fighting the odds to get your colleagues in the Senate to reflect upon this issue. They have nothing to lose, because unlike millions of Canadians struggling to get by and all of the victims of criminal acts, your colleagues receive a decent salary and perhaps if they had a little more fortitude, the Senate would be viewed more positively by Canadians.
Owing to the delicate nature of the subject, this letter is personal.
Yours sincerely.
Thank you for your dedication to our country.
P.S. We are also concerned that criminals are not serving their sentences. Five prisons have been closed in Quebec and the head of the provincial prison in Quebec must release criminals since there is no room for them in jail. Victims of assault are no longer filing charges because they know they will have to confront their assailant when he is released from prison.
[English]
More and more Canadians, at least in the province of Quebec, are extremely concerned about crime, in particular organized crime, fights between bikers, and innocent people who are in danger of being shot or attacked. People are beginning to worry. They are concerned that the Charter does not protect them in this regard. I sincerely feel that this committee, and the Senate as a whole, should have a commission of inquiry into organized crime.
I welcome your questions, honourable senators.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Roberge.
Senators, I should like to explain that the summary of the bill before us is inaccurate. The error occurs on the fifth line of the summary. It states:
...a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than ten years.
That is not correct. The bill does not provide for that. It provides, on conviction, for a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years.
Senator Roberge: The French version of the summary is correct.
The Chair: Yes, that is right. It is the English portion that is not correct.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: There is no question that you are asking us today to embark on a long-term project. I see this meeting as being a truly preliminary step.
Senator Roberge: You are right.
Senator Nolin: Setting aside for the moment the particulars of this bill, I see that you have described for us, with the help of this letter from a Quebecker, a situation which is common to both urban Montreal and to rural areas. I too am from the province of Quebec and organized crime has infiltrated many legitimate fields of endeavour. Criminal activities are being conducted in broad daylight, under the very noses of police and government officials. Our laws are powerless to stop this situation.
Senator Roberge is asking us to look into this situation, somewhat like other countries have done. I would like you to explain to us a little which models you examined at in order to come up with this bill? Can you tell us what is being done elsewhere, for example, in the United States and in Italy?
Senator Roberge: Canadian law is totally different from the laws of these countries, there is no question about that. Some other countries display far more latitude. People may not necessarily enjoy the same protection as they do here in Canada with the Charter. The United States, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, Switzerland and Hong Kong have all enacted anti-gang legislation. I do not wish today to compare these laws to the one I am proposing. These particular laws were enacted several years ago to counter a growing problem world wide. In this era of global markets, crime is also becoming a global problem, one with devastating consequences around the world.
I believe that legislation which nonetheless protects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be adapted to the Canadian context. However, I am relying a great deal on the ability of senators to improve this bill and to suggest ways of truly dealing with this disastrous situation.
Senator Nolin: In the United States in particular, individual rights are protected by a charter. I note on reading your bill that you propose the inclusion of a notwithstanding clause which, to all intents and purposes, would suspend the protection afforded by the Charter.
Senator Roberge: Yes.
Senator Nolin: Could you explain to us how this law works in the United States? How have the Americans managed to develop a particular approach to dealing with organized crime?
Senator Roberge: They began by defining " organized crime" and by identifying the persons involved in these activities. They proceeded to pass a law which prohibits people from belonging to organized crime groups. By making organized crime illegal, we can then introduce a series of measures which would guarantee safeguards in our system and in the process, we would be able to confront criminals and bring them to justice.
Senator Gigantès: We already have on the books legislation which allows the profits of crime to be seized. We have laws which punish criminals for their crimes. If I am not mistaken, even in the United States, in order to arrest someone, you first need proof that that person is a criminal. You need to have proof that the person belongs to an organization involved in criminal activity. Judging from what I have read, this legislation has not amounted to much. As for including a notwithstanding clause relating to the Charter, I suggest that we be very careful about this because this would amount to assigning draconian rights to the police. As you yourself said, police officers are not always guardian angels; some of them are also criminals and I do not like criminals. I would prefer to see them in jail. Indeed, I would like to see them charged, brought before the court, convicted if they truly are guilty and sent to prison to serve out their sentence. We would have to be convinced that the system we now have is not adequate. I realize that it may be flawed somewhat, but I think it is impossible to expect absolute guarantees. I would ask you to consider the difference between a totalitarian regime which could resort to strong-armed tactics to fight crime and a democratic system of government which protects the rights of individuals and which is based on the presumption of innocence.
Senator Roberge: I understand what you are saying. Moreover, I have mixed feelings about this. However, the most important thing that I would like to get across to the committee and to the Senate is that this situation does exists and is growing worse with every passing year. Either the committee or the Senate enacts legislation, or it gives more clout to police forces so that they can better do their job. There are several ways that we can approach this. Many areas can be covered by this legislation. I also hope that this committee will ask for a commission of inquiry to be called into organized crime so that we can start to examine this situation across the country and show the public that we are indeed doing something about it.
We are concerned about the worsening situation. People are getting killed and innocent victims are dying. We are dealing with another level of activity now. Organized crime is buying up legitimate businesses with laundered money. We have reached an extremely critical point.
What I want more than anything in the world is for a commission of inquiry to be struck to heighten our lawmakers' awareness of the problem.
Senator Gigantès: We already know that these things are happening. There is also the issue of the administration of criminal law and the fact that the provinces are responsible for this area. Legislation is enacted by the federal government. If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that the criminal justice system is poorly administered. Are you saying that the police are dishonest and that they are not doing their job?
Senator Roberge: No, that is not it. I said that we need tougher laws to give police forces more ammunition to fight this problem at all levels, whether federal, provincial or municipal.
Senator Gigantès: You go so far as to propose the inclusion of a notwithstanding clause. Is that correct?
Senator Roberge: The committee will be the judge of that. I also said that I was bringing forward this legislation to heighten the Senate's awareness of the problem and to let the public know that we are doing something about it. If we can improve upon this bill, then all the better.
Senator Gigantès: You read to us a letter from someone who is very concerned about what is going on, as you are. The headlines in Quebec newspapers are full of stories about organized crime and gangs. The SQ will be conducting an investigation shortly into these matters. If we get involved, do you not think the Quebec government will likely say that we are interfering in the administration of penal law, an area which comes under provincial jurisdiction?
Senator Roberge: This is an entirely different matter. This is a federal law, not a provincial one.
Senator Gigantès: Yes, but the administration of penal law is a provincial matter.
Senator Roberge: I am not talking about administration.
Senator Nolin: Senator Gigantès, you are quite right that the administration of penal law is a provincial responsibility. Senator Roberge is asking us to do much more than that. If I understand correctly, organized crime in Canada is a problem known to police forces and one that deserves to be brought to light. You are proposing that this be done in the Senate.
Senator Roberge: That is correct.
Senator Nolin: Therefore, the first step is to heighten awareness of the state of organized crime in Canada. Then, your bill can be examined. I would assume that police forces will make suggestions to us, present the facts and tell us that their hands are tied. The problem is not confined to Montreal or to the province of Quebec. Police forces will tell us that motorcycle gangs do whatever they wish and that there are limits on the authority that police officers have. The testimony that we will hear will not come only from bad police officers. We will hear from conscientious individuals concerned about doing their job. They will tell us that they face restrictions and they will ask us for additional powers and tell us why they need them. That is how I see the process unfolding.
Senator Roberge: You are right.
[English]
Senator Gigantès: Chair, since he spoke to me, may I answer?
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Gigantès: Canada's chiefs of police often meet and discuss matters, then issue communiques to the press and to the public; we know that they are not unaware of the situation.
What are we going to say to them? Are we going to tell them to arrest people without sufficient cause, that is without an arrest warrant? Are we going to tell them that they can detain people in jail for longer periods of time than a judge would allow? Are we going to tell them that they do not have to release people in 24 hours if they do not --
Senator Nolin: Have them appear before a judge.
Senator Gigantès: Is this the additional ammunition they want?
Senator Roberge: Those who will appear before the Senate commission of inquiry will testify that their hands are tied and make suggestions as to what provisions could be included in federal legislation to help them better control this disastrous situation. For example, why are there one thousand dollar bills in circulation? Is this really necessary, since it makes money laundering easier? There are many subjects that police officers would be interested in discussing with an official Senate committee.
[English]
The Chair: Before I turn to other questioners, I need some clarification. It seems to me you are asking for two things. You are asking for this bill, but you are also saying perhaps this bill is not perfect as it is, so it is even more important that we conduct a study and that the study should be broader than just the bill.
Senator Roberge: That is correct. That is exactly it. I needed the bill to get your attention.
The Chair: There was another way to get our attention. Why did you not go the route of the special study? You could have requested that the Senate conduct a special study, as we did on euthanasia and assisted suicide, for example, on the issue of organized crime.
Senator Roberge: Perhaps I do not know enough about the regulations and the methods of the Senate. I have not been here long enough for that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Doyle: I wonder if the Americans have perhaps been seized with this problem earlier on because organized crime developed there faster than it did in Canada. The Americans seem to have found that their best method of getting at organized criminals was to catch them on failure to pay their income tax. The Al Capones of this world went off to gaol convicted of nice, white-collar offences.
I am not sure that I am aware of the Americans having progressed much beyond that kind of technique and that we have not been following them on such things as money laundering and making money laundering an offence. People who are suspected of it are pounced upon by the constabulary. However, I cannot remember offhand reading of anyone going to jail in the states or here because he was a member of the Mafia or a member of whatever crime organization. I do not know where that has been used successfully. I understand Sweden is experimenting.
Senator Roberge: I do not think that exists in France -- at least, not that I am aware. I agree with you that, in the United States, they have caught most of the big names, such as Al Capone, initially through the tax evasion schemes. Again, perhaps that is a way that we can do a better job in our legislation here in Canada.
I cannot say whether there are any arrests of people who are a part of a criminal organization in the States since the RICO Act was passed about five years ago. I have not gone that far into the analysis. That is why I feel we need a committee or commission to hear those people and ask them what they did and what was successful and what was not successful. Then, after all of our investigations, we can devise some legislation which will be better than what we have presently, and perhaps better than what they have as well.
Senator Bryden: I had a chance to look at this bill today, and it is scary. I speak from some experience with law as a former deputy attorney general. The powers provided here are extreme. The removal of certain protections by notwithstanding clauses in relation to the Charter is extreme.
For example, the definition of a criminal organization means a group of individuals, in the (a) section, who have committed crimes. However, section (b) refers to a group of individuals, in respect of at least five of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that they will engage in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by an individual in the group or in influence of the commission of an enterprise or crime.
This is awfully close to saying that you have sinned because you thought about it. That is highly unusual.
Next, there is this presumption. For the purposes of the section which I just read, evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a member of a criminal organization -- that is one of the five who might commit a crime -- means that person can be deemed to be part of the criminal organization. Does that mean a brother, a sister, or a wife? Who is included in this?
I find it not only scary but highly unusual to find such a bill in the Parliament of Canada, either in the Senate or in the House of Commons. Our traditions are entirely different. For example, you opened by reading a quotation from the book, Global Mafia: The New World Order in Organized Crime.
You did not use the first part of the quote where the authors indicate they were surprised that Canada would play a major role in the book but found that it did so partly because of Canada's insecure borders. We have a big border. We are very proud that it is an undefended border with free access.
They credit as well our poor legislation in currency restrictions. In whose judgment is our currency restriction legislation poor? Obviously that is in the judgment of the authors.
They presume we have soft immigration and banking laws. Some of us Canadians might say we have enlightened immigration and banking laws.
They also cite a lack of any organized crime control policy and what they refer to as the lenient criminal justice system. Some of us, in comparison to the U.S. and some other places, might use the term "civilized" as against "lenient."
I would be prepared, if I thought this would ever see the light of day as legislation, to go through it piece by piece and sentence by sentence. I know I am making a speech instead of asking a question, and I am about to be chastised for that.
You seem to be saying that there should be an inquiry into organized crime. If you want an inquiry, I would think the first thing to do is to have an inquiry which determines the problem and whether there are solutions to that problem.
We could then come forward with those solutions which may or may not be legislative solutions. It may come down to better training of our police, better staffing of our systems, better communications internationally, all the things that can go with that.
You have used this to get our attention. To many Canadians, if this were to float, it would be scary. I hate to use the term "war measures," but it strikes me as a continuing war measures act against certain real or perceived people in our community who, no matter what they are or where they are, are Canadian citizens and have the presumption of innocence under our Charter.
I do not know whether an inquiry is necessary. If I am asked to serve on it, I want security. That is my view. I did not want to be part of this committee on this day without expressing those very grave concerns. I am sorry that I did not put that in the form of a question.
Senator Roberge: I respect that, Senator Bryden. I did not mention this earlier, but more and more people in my province are becoming concerned about the Charter. They feel the Charter is not protecting their rights versus those of the criminal -- that it is protecting the criminal's rights.
If we continue to let people hold such opinions and express such opinions on talk shows, as do the talk show hosts themselves, and if we do nothing to improve the situation, then we will one day be facing people who ask if there is any use in even having a Charter of Rights. We have a good Charter of Rights, and I want to uphold it and protect it, but we should do something about this.
Senator Bryden: I appreciate that. There is no question that we need to be sensitive to the public's concerns as expressed through the press and so on, but surely there is another way to gauge those concerns rather than through the talk show hosts.
In the last statistics that I have seen, Canada has become not a more violent society but a less violent society. You can read the press and watch the TV news and you will never hear that, but if you look at the statistics for murder and aggravated assaults, et cetera, they are going down..
The talk show hosts talk about the incidents where bikers throw some bombs or a maniac goes in with a gun and shoots some people. Such events can be in the news for a long time. Unless I misunderstand it, Canada is progressing in adjusting to our contemporary and global world and the increasing urbanization of our society. As we do so, our violent crime rate is declining. The rate of property crime and white collar crime is going up, but the rate of violent crime is going down.
Perhaps we need not take such a dramatic step as this, which creates an entirely different state, in my opinion, but rather determine how we can continue on that path and improve on it. What are we doing right? What more could we add? Perhaps some sort of inquiry like that would help, but I would not endorse starting it by saying that this is the piece of legislation we want you to address.
Senator Roberge: I respect that. I beg to differ with your opinion. I am not disputing the fact that, statistically, violent crime may be going down. I do not have the statistics. However, I can tell you one thing: If you talk to police chiefs all across the country, including the RCMP, you will find that crime -- perhaps not violent crime -- is increasing rapidly, such as the white collar crime and le crime légitime, when they buy a legitimate business and use it to blanchir l'argent and so on. The problems in the 1970s in Montreal, and provincially, opened the eyes and ears of many people to the scope of white collar crime.
Senator Bryden: You can always get good attention if you are talking about property. Crimes by white collar criminals such as stealing banks' money and manipulating funds may very well be increasing, and perhaps some of the people who have a vested interest should be paying to do something about that, or contributing more.
However, in a society where we have increasingly limited resources to secure the person of the ordinary citizen, we are required to put those resources into that type of thing. There is no magic elixir. If you asked your society of the chiefs of police whether they think capital punishment for certain crimes would improve their situation, they will tell you yes. There is no magic elixir for the chiefs of police or the police forces or justice. It is a much more complex thing than depriving any group of citizens of very significant rights and allowing the police to use highly speculative grounds to harass not just the bad guys but some guys who are not so bad except in the minds of certain police officers.
Senator Roberge: Give yourself and the Canadian people the chance to listen in a commission of inquiry to what these people have to say -- the Justice people, the lawyers, all sorts of witnesses. Bring people from other countries. Listen to what they have to say on how to fight this problem and how to make proper legislation. Give yourself a chance. Give the Canadian people a chance.
Senator Lewis: This is the first time I have seen this bill. While I sympathize to a certain extent with the objective, my reaction is similar to Senator Bryden's. Some of the provisions worry me quite a bit, but I will not go into that because Senator Bryden expressed it very well.
You are very capable person, but, without detracting from that, I presume you do not regard yourself as a legislative draftsman.
Senator Roberge: Of course not. That is not my background.
Senator Lewis: Nor mine. You did not draft this bill yourself, did you?
Senator Roberge: No.
Senator Lewis: Did you have assistance, or was it prepared by qualified legislative draftsmen?
Senator Roberge: Yes, from the government.
Senator Lewis: We might hear from those people eventually. My own reaction is that we should not proceed with the bill. We should go back to the Senate and say we feel that there should be a study done on this.
Senator Nolin: A study should be done before we get into the bill.
The Chair: Senator Roberge, to clarify the question: I assume you went to legislative counsel in order to have a draft bill, and they drafted it according to your instructions.
Senator Roberge: It was done prior, in the house.
The Chair: Is it identical to the bill introduced in the House of Commons, Bill C-203?
Senator Roberge: Yes, with a few small modifications.
Senator Lewis: By the way, I notice a typographical error on page 6. The paragraph is not numbered correctly. The numbers are 462.54 and so on, but there it says 562.
Senator Roberge: That is right.
Senator Lewis: It should be "4", just in case it goes further.
The Chair: We have made note of that, Senator Lewis.
Senator Lewis: There is no provision, if the bill proceeded, as to when it would come into force and effect. I presume it would be on enactment.
The Chair: Yes, it would be upon proclamation.
Senator Gigantès: You referred to the Charter. You say that people are worried about the Charter. Which Charter are you talking about?
[Translation]
Senator Roberge: The Charter of Rights and Freedom.
Senator Gigantès: The federal Charter?
Senator Roberge: Yes.
Senator Gigantès: The one included in the Constitution Act, 1982?
Senator Roberge: Precisely.
Senator Gigantès: The same safeguards enjoyed by criminals and used by criminal lawyers --
Senator Roberge: To hide behind.
Senator Gigantès: ...exist in the Quebec Charter. What we often forget is that for example, Bill-101 is always challenged on the basis of the Quebec Charter. The Quebec courts and the Supreme Court ruled, based on the Quebec Charter, that minority rights had been violated. Therefore, what can we do in the case of the Quebec Charter?
Senator Nolin: That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the federal Charter, because penal laws are federal laws.
Senator Gigantès: Individuals are protected and presumed innocent under the Quebec Charter as well.
Senator Nolin: That is not what we are talking about.
Senator Gigantès: Even if the federal Charter were to vanish, the problem would not be resolved because people would still be protected by the Quebec Charter.
Senator Nolin: No, that is not the case. We will hear from experts who will explain this to us.
[English]
When I first read the bill, of course I realized it was drastic, but we had discussed that prior to Senator Roberge introducing the piece of legislation. I stated previously before that that is a proposed result after doing the fact finding. Of course, the measures that Senator Roberge is proposing are drastic.
I am sure you are not proposing that we vote on this now. You want us to be convinced that it is a proper measure and, if it is not, we would amend it. Would you be offended by that?
Senator Roberge: No, of course not.
The Chair: I have some questions with respect to the National Forum on Organized Crime. As you know, a forum was brought together by the Solicitor General, the Honourable Herb Gray, and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, the Honourable Allan Rock, in September of last year.
I do not have a list of all the participants, but I do know that among the participants were the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, L'Association des avocats du Québec. Certainly the Metropolitan Toronto Police were represented, as were the urban police of Montreal. Their report stated that it was agreed by the participants at that particular conference that the criminalization of membership in criminal organizations is not a viable legislative option in the Canadian context.
Clearly, they examined at least one aspect of what you have proposed in the bill, and they rejected that as an option for Canada.
Have you been involved in the forum, and have you followed up on any of the recommendations of the forum?
Senator Roberge: First, we were not invited to the forum. We tried to attend it, but it was a closed forum.
The Chair: Was it by invitation only?
Senator Roberge: Yes, so we could not participate in it.
I spoke to Mr. Sangolo from the Montreal urban committee. He was there, and he was involved in the forum. I am not disputing the point that they feel the criminalization of criminal organizations is debatable. However, if we had an opportunity to listen not only to them but also to others such as judges, former criminals, reformed criminals, and so on, we could develop some ideas for proposed legislation that would be acceptable in the Canadian context of legislation and the Canadian judicial system. It would be agreeable to the participants, and it would aid in the objective of reducing crime and opening our eyes to better solutions.
Senator Gigantès: I am not aware that any of the participants in last autumn's forum came out of the forum to say that they disagreed with either the procedures or the findings. It seems to me that this subject was examined last autumn by all the pertinent authorities and witnesses. They came to the conclusion that, for no other reason, it is much too early to revisit this field.
The Chair: I assume that is a comment.
Senator Nolin: I wonder why criminals are saying silently that Canada is heaven for them. That is exactly what that book is saying.
Senator Doyle: If we are starting a survey of organized crime and criminals, there are people in Toronto who would suggest that you start with the bankruptcy courts.
Senator Roberge: There was a recent article in the Montreal papers about a gentleman went through a bankruptcy proceeding and $28 million passed through his account. He could not justify where that money came from and could not explain it to the judge. The judge was stuck because he had no proof. He said, "I do not believe you." Nevertheless, the man was only fined $60,000.
Senator Doyle: That is a good place to start.
Senator Gigantès: The judge said, "I do not believe you." However, there was no proof. We are still in a society which demands some proof. What do you suggest? Should we allow what the British call the hanging judge, who acts on the basis of his opinion, so that we can put this man in jail even though there is no proof?
Senator Roberge: I am only suggesting that we listen to people and to the specialists. They will tell you where the problem is, what the problem is, and what they recommend as a solution to the problem.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Roberge, for your presentation today. I do not know exactly how we will proceed. We will have a steering committee meeting following this meeting. We will make recommendations to the committee at large, but we will also involve you in any ultimate decision that we make on this particular piece of legislation.
Senator Roberge: Thank you for listening to me. You are very kind.
The committee adjourned.