:
I call the meeting to order.
This is meeting number 13 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Tuesday, April 20, 2010.
You have before you the agenda for today. For the first hour and a half of today's meeting, we'll continue, and perhaps complete, our study on organized crime. I recognize that further instructions may have to be provided to our analysts. They are working on a first draft of a report.
During the last half hour of today's meeting, we'll hear from John Weston, member of Parliament for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. Not bad, eh? He'll be speaking to Bill C-475, which is his private member's bill.
To help us with our organized crime study, we have with us some representatives from Statistics Canada, more specifically from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. We have Julie McAuley, who is a director; Mia Dauvergne, a senior analyst; and Craig Grimes, chief/advisor of the courts program. We also have with us John Martin from the University of the Fraser Valley. He's a criminologist at that university.
I think you've been told the process. Stats Canada, you have 10 minutes to present. Mr. Martin, you have 10 minutes to present. Then we'll open up the floor to questions from our members.
Ms. Dauvergne, are you starting?
:
Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee this morning on organized crime. My colleagues, Mr. Craig Grimes and Ms. Mia Dauvergne, will assist me in answering any questions you may have.
If you would please turn to the first slide in the deck, this is the first of several slides providing information related to homicides committed in connection with a criminal organization or street gang. The charts show the number of gang-related homicides and the number of homicides not related to gang activity over the last decade. By gang related, we mean whether the police identified the homicide as involving an organized crime group or a street gang.
In 2008, police reported a total of 611 homicides in Canada. There were one in four of these homicides, or 138, reported by police as being gang related. This is an increase of 20 over 2007.
Gang-related homicides have been increasing over the last decade, as you can see in the chart on the left. This upper trend contrasts with the trend in the number of homicides that were not gang related, as shown on the right. Firearms are more likely to be used to commit gang-related homicides than in other types of homicide. In 2008, 77% of gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm, compared to about 20% of homicides that did not involve gangs.
The next two slides indicate where the gang-related homicides occurred. The first is a regional breakdown. In the late 1990s, most gang-related homicides occurred in Quebec. However, in recent years, many gang-related homicides have also been occurring in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. The overall number of homicides increased in Alberta and British Columbia between 2007 and 2008. Two-thirds of the increase in Alberta was due to an increase in gang-related homicides. In British Columbia, gang-related homicides accounted for about one-third of the provincial increase in homicides.
If you could please turn to slide 4, you will see that most gang-related homicides occurred within Canada's largest cities. The 10 largest census metropolitan areas accounted for about half of Canada's homicides in 2008, but more than two-thirds of gang-related homicides. In particular, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Calgary had the highest number of gang-related homicides. Together they accounted for 55% percent of all such homicides in 2008.
Turning to the next slide, we will look at youth accused of gang-related homicide. In 2008, 501 people were accused of homicide, including 55 youths aged 12 to 17. We know that homicides for youth who are accused often involve gangs. There were 32% of homicide incidents with youth who were accused involving gangs, compared to 11% of incidents with an adult accused. Because of the small numbers, the rate of youths accused of gang-related homicide does fluctuate year over year. As you can see in the graph on the left, the trend in this rate has generally been upward since about 2002, despite dropping in 2008.
Please turn to slide 6. The extent of organized crime activity in Canada is very difficult to measure. There are some agencies, such as Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, that do collect detailed information on criminal organizations, but it is mainly intelligence-based, often secret, and generally kept in a format that is not conducive to statistical analysis.
At Statistics Canada we have information on four Criminal Code violations related to organized crime, as presented in this slide. Information on the involvement of organized crime groups for other violations, such as drug offences, prostitution, or fraud, is limited. That is something we are currently working with police services to improve.
Other than the four violations listed, the only offence where we can estimate the involvement of organized crime is motor vehicle theft. Based upon the assumption that most vehicles stolen by an organized crime group are not recovered by police, about four in ten motor vehicle thefts in 2008 involved an organized crime group.
As you can see on slide 7, Statistics Canada has a number of upcoming releases that can inform the work of this committee. These include data tables on street gang activity, which will be available in June, and police-reported crime statistics, which will be released in July and will include information on the short- and long-term trends in overall violent and non-violent crime at the national, provincial and territorial, and census metropolitan area levels.
Adult criminal court statistics will be available in July and will summarize trends from provincial and territorial adult criminal courts across Canada. Information will be available on the characteristics of cases and accused persons, the percentage of guilty cases, sentencing trends, and related issues. Similar data on youth courts will be released at the same time.
From these data it will be possible to produce statistics on cases where the accused was charged with a Criminal Code offence specific to organized crime. Data from the 2009 cycle, as a general social survey on victimization, will be released in August. This survey collects data on victimization and public perceptions of crime and the justice system. It measures the risk of violent and household victimizations, victims' use of services, and perceptions and fear of crime.
Finally, data from the 2009 homicide survey will be available in October. We would be happy to return to the committee in the fall to provide you with updated statistics from these data sources. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to present this morning. This concludes the presentation.
:
Thank you very much. I am greatly appreciative of the invitation to appear before this committee. I consider it quite an honour.
I'm a criminologist. I've been doing that at the University of the Fraser Valley in excess of 20 years.
I would like to speak to the issue of organized crime in the context that organized-crime-specific initiatives are really contingent on some fundamental shifts in the way we do criminal justice in this country. I had the benefit of looking at the previous testimony of other witnesses, and much time was allotted to discuss specific pieces of impending legislation and law enforcement initiatives, and I applaud those. But I do believe that without some fundamental rethinking of the approach to criminal justice, any results are going to be limited.
I'll discuss this in three areas.
The first one—and I'm quite troubled by it—is that there is almost a resignation that we should accept and tolerate this particular level of crime. Time and time again we hear commentators who have just accessed the latest Statistics Canada data and they wave it around and tell us, “See? Crime is down.” That is often used to challenge this government's initiatives to bring forward legislation. They'll say, “Well, we don't need to change sentencing practices; we don't need to change bail issues, because crime is on a decline.”
The people who say that are all starting from the high points in the 1970s and 1980s when crime had nowhere to go but down. Crime went through the roof during that time period and now it's hovering around the ceiling. Many of us are wishing we could get it down to the area where it was in the early 1960s, down in the basement. Almost no commentators that I can identify will talk about the crime rate in comparison to where it was in the early 1960s. It is considerably higher, particularly for violent offences.
I think this should be disturbing, because we're under this illusion that somehow crime is dropping and obviously everything is fine or there's no need for dramatic reform. I would say, yes, it has decreased somewhat, but it's nowhere near where it once was.
What troubles me about that is there's this acceptance that it's normal. In other areas of public policy we strive for zero tolerance. One could argue that there's much less hostility today towards gays and lesbians than there was 20 years ago, there's much less overt racism today than 20 years ago, but no one is saying that means we shouldn't be advocating for policy in this area, that we shouldn't be pursuing education and more diversity initiatives. We're trying to get it even lower still.
I think it's very odd that somehow when it comes to drug dealers, when it comes to violent offenders, we're saying, “Well, it has come down considerably from the 1970s or 1980s, so what we're doing now is obviously working and there's no need to pursue these new initiatives.”
So I ask that statistics be taken in the context not of where we were in the 1980s, but where we were in the early 1960s. I believe the information started to be collected in 1962, and we're nowhere near those levels. That's the first issue I would bring forward.
The second one, related to that, is to address this mantra that punishment doesn't work, that tough sentences don't work. One of the difficulties is that very rarely do people who say these things operationalize their terminology: What does one mean by “works” or “doesn't work”? Punishment clearly does work. It's one of the most fundamental principles in human behaviour and psychology. The dynamic of punishment and reward is universal. It's used to raise children. It's used by employers. We use it everywhere. So the notion of just dismissing extended sentences in response to offenders because somehow punishment doesn't work really doesn't pass the test. Punishment takes offenders off the street. It takes them out of circulation. When they're doing time, they're not doing crime.
We have people with 40, 50, or 60 convictions getting community supervision and going out and committing more offences. I would say that denying those people an opportunity to reoffend does work. Similarly, enhanced sentences speak to the denunciation of the criminal act, another objective of sentencing. They bring a sense of closure. They bring a sense of justice to victims and to the community, another objective of sentencing.
When people say that punishment doesn't work, what they're usually saying is that it doesn't deter. The research is mixed on that. We have different evidence that it does or does not deter, depending on the offence and the offender. Even if it does not deter, I don't think that's a reason to categorically dismiss the concept of enhanced sentences.
Because of the way the statistics are presented, they show that crime is on the decline, giving confidence and ammunition to those who say there's no need to even look at enhanced sentences and there's no need to even look at adjusting parole, because crime is on the decline. Again, the extent to which we are actually seeing a decline in crime is debatable. Maybe the aggregate data does suggest that, but when we look at drug crime, which is not included in the data for the most part, and when we look at violence among young offenders, it's not going down, it's going through the roof, and that should cause us to be disturbed.
The notion that somehow addressing the issue of punishment is a wasted exercise because it doesn't work is usually held out because somehow it doesn't deter. People don't discipline their child to set an example for the neighbour's kid. They do so because it's seen as a response to the behaviour. I think we've gotten away from the fundamental concept of just basic human behaviour in the application of a punishment.
The third thing I would bring up is the dialogue around this issue. The statistics are used in a fashion to categorically dismiss legitimate debate, legitimate discussion, and dialogue. When initiatives have been suggested or legislation proposed, the words I have heard coming from commentators, academics, and such have been “draconian” or “barbaric” or things like “oh, you want to create an American justice system, and you want to do as the Americans do”. Nothing the government has proposed is anywhere remotely close to what goes on in the United States. There's no “three strikes and you're out”. There's no life without parole. There are a couple of incidents of mandatory minimums that have nothing to do with the concept as it's used south of the border. I think that toxicity poisons the debate. It really calls into question the legitimacy of the dialogue around what is actually happening in crime.
Statistically we have some disturbing information in front of us, particularly with regard to gun-related crime or youth violence and the amount of transnational crime or international crime for which Canada is used as a stopping point, which doesn't factor in to the typical crime rate. This stuff is devastating communities, and it's not really showing up in the discussion. There's a limited amount of material that comes out of the uniform crime reports and Statistics Canada victimization reports. I don't think it's responsible to jump on this, as we have been doing, and proclaim that this is sound evidence that we don't need reforms or we don't need new initiatives.
I would argue that what we've been doing hasn't been working. Given the changes over the last several decades, the crime rate should be a fraction of what it is. We have the smallest proportion of young people that we've ever had in this country.
We have enhanced technology, 911, paramedics, and cellphones that are increasing response time. To keep the crime rate slightly below where it once was I don't think is adequate, given all the resources we have at our disposal that weren't there in an earlier period.
Thank you so much.
I have a number of short snappers, I guess, for the Statistics Canada people.
Mr. Martin, I listened with interest to your comments. I don't think anybody at this table thinks that serious crime in certain sectors and among certain groups is something to be minimized. In fact, this whole organized crime committee is about surgically trying to respond to what we see as dangerous spikes in criminal activity. I hope you read that in the remarks that were read in preparation for your testimony.
One of the questions I have, which we got into on our little road show on organized crime, is on the aspect of youth criminal justice, which is what the act is called. I think we've heard that youth are being used as pawns, willing or otherwise, in criminal organizations or in criminal activity involving gangs. It's particularly bad in certain locations in Canada. However, international law, I think you'd agree, in most civilized and developed countries, recognizes that there ought to be a different regime for youth and children. Almost all jurisdictions allow a little crossover, if the acts are heinous and the intent is formable and formed, to elevate the mode of trial, and so on, and the rights and obligations, to an adult type of trial. I'd be interested in your brief comments on whether you think importing adult criminal or mainstream Criminal Code principles to the separate youth criminal justice scheme is appropriate.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am referring to what you said earlier, Professor Martin, that the crime rates, relative to the 1960s, are much higher today. I don't have any statistics to hand. You also talked about the fact that there was greater tolerance for homosexuals or immigrants. So there is less racism.
Professor, I would say that it is mainly as a result of prevention and education that is being done in society. It's not necessarily because we punish that the situation is improving. I think a lot of work has been done on education and prevention.
So if you apply this point of view to the question of crime committed by young persons—I'm not talking about those committed by adults who do it for profit—it seems to me that the policy of punishment without rehabilitation can never work. It's not by increasing their term of imprisonment or by sending them to prison for life that we'll solve the crime problem. You have to attach that to a very coherent prevention and rehabilitation program. Often sending people to prison has the effect of making them more hardened criminals. Prisons are schools for crime. That doesn't solve the basic problem.
I'd like to know your opinion on that subject.
:
We will reconvene the meeting.
We're moving now to consideration of Bill C-475, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in regard to methamphetamine and ecstasy.
We have with us the proponent of the bill, John Weston, the member of Parliament for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. That's a mouthful, but we're glad you're here. You have 10 minutes to present, but before you do, I want to remind members that we talked about getting the names of any proposed witnesses to us by today. If we don't have a long list, we'll also move to clause-by-clause at our next meeting. That's my proposal.
At our next meeting also, you should know, we may be in a position to consider one of the two order in council appointments, if that's the committee's wish. We have an order in council for the new appointee as deputy minister and AG. Of course, as well we have former Justice Iacobucci's appointment. Certainly we can fit one of them in at our next meeting.
If we can go clause by clause on this bill, as well as deal with that, that might be a good plan going forward.
In any event, we have with us Mr. Weston.
Please, you have 10 minutes to present.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
[English]
I'm very grateful to be here.
[Translation]
I'm surprised you've planned your schedule this way.
[English]
You have me here today, only six days after the bill passed second reading in the House. So I very much thank you.
I'm honoured to speak on this bill, which would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. My appearance comes hard on the heels of last Wednesday's unanimous vote in favour of the bill on second reading, the first time a private member's bill has attracted unanimous support in this Parliament.
On behalf of the many agencies and people who have endorsed the bill outside the House, I thank the members for their support.
In the previous session of Parliament, a version of the bill received unanimous support from the House as well. That was the work of my colleague and friend, Chris Warkentin, the MP for Peace River, who also deserves thanks for all the work and time he has invested in this matter.
I also want to thank colleagues of mine who accompany me today, Joshua Peters and Adrian Reimer, who have spent untold time working on the bill and gathering endorsements for it. I'm sure the unanimous consent that we received inside the House was influenced by the long list of supporters outside the House, which so far include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Solicitor General of B.C., the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the Crystal Meth Society of B.C., the Town of Gibsons, the City of Powell River, the District of Squamish, the Municipality of Bowen Island, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, Chief Gibby Jacob of the Squamish first nation, and several other groups and people.
Let me concede, colleagues, that I'm by no means an expert on the fight against drugs, but I am here to represent the public interest, the people of my riding, and all Canadians who are concerned about the fight against crystal meth and ecstasy. In that respect, I welcome your suggestions on how to improve the bill or make it more likely to achieve the goals of wiping out crystal meth and ecstasy use in Canada.
This bill would restrict the availability of crystal meth and ecstasy by providing additional possible charges against the drugs' manufacturers. These drugs are cheap to make, highly addictive, damaging to physical and mental health, and, in their manufacturing process, toxic to the environment. Increasingly, drug traffickers are mixing crystal meth into other drugs because it's inexpensive and it gives other drugs greater addictive qualities.
Crystal meth is a highly addictive drug, with a long-lasting high, and it produces an overwhelming euphoria. Those who use it are quickly addicted and experience more intense effects from prolonged use compared to other drugs.
These drugs have affected a large number of Canadians. In B.C., it was estimated by the Ministry of Health in 2003 that 4% of school-aged children have used methamphetamine-type drugs. At the same time, it was estimated by the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission that 5.3% of the school-aged population had tried methamphetamine-type stimulants. Between 2000 and 2004, 65 people died in B.C. with methamphetamine present in their bodies.
:
If I speak French, is that better?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
This number, which has been increasing each year for which statistics are available, charts a disturbing trend for all people in Canada. One of the most insidious qualities of these drugs is the covert way in which they attack users. Ecstasy appears to be a harmless drug to some. It's often marketed through colourful pills with cheerful designs such as happy faces. Police have found that a significant amount of ecstasy seized from the streets is laced with more dangerous drugs such as crystal meth. When combined, the two can become an addictive, toxic, and dangerous blend. Overdoses are common due to the unregulated nature of the drugs and also to the user's inability to monitor what he or she is actually consuming.
Side effects of methamphetamines are similarly worrisome. A 2007 position paper produced by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Australia noted that methamphetamine use has often been associated with violent crime and the drug has a strong reputation for inducing violent behaviour.
[Translation]
The 2004 United Nations report made clear what a scourge these drugs are to youth in our country. Serious health implications resulting from chronic use of these drugs include dependence characterized by compulsive drug seeking and drug use, and a phenomenon known as amphetamine or methamphetamine psychosis, which includes strong hallucinations and delusions. Crystal meth and ecstasy use can translate over the longer term into schizophrenia, a side effect with lasting consequences. Trauma experienced by users includes great physical, psychological and emotional harm. Too many families and communities are being affected by these awful drugs.
[English]
In addition to the harm to the individual consumer and his or her community, we legislators should take note of the dangerous environmental aspects of the production of crystal meth and ecstasy. The covert nature of the production process means there's no way to control the quality of the substances produced, the safety of production, or the location. Though large-scale industrial production of these drugs is an increasing reality, the vast amount of crystal meth and ecstasy is still produced in small kitchen-like laboratories.
A 2004 Carleton University report stated that “Versatility is the term that best defines methamphetamine production.” Clandestine laboratories have been found in sites as diverse as private residences, motel rooms, dorm rooms, campgrounds, storage facilities, and almost any other place you could imagine. These laboratories appear innocuous from the outside as they're located in residential neighbourhoods, but they produce toxic waste, up to five kilograms of waste for each kilogram of crystal meth produced. They're also a major fire hazard. A UN report noted that “environmental harm and costs caused by illegal laboratories and their safe removal are considerable”.
Many of our colleagues in the House have expressed to me concerns about the effects of these drugs on people across Canada. However, the marketing of crystal meth and ecstasy transcends Canada's borders and tarnishes our reputation on an international scale. A 2004 UN report entitled, Preventing amphetamine-type stimulant use among young people noted that there is evidence that Canada-based Asian organized crime groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs have significantly increased the amount of methamphetamines they manufacture and export for the U.S. market, also for Oceania and East and Southeast Asia.
The report went on to note that Canada has grown to be the most important producer of ecstasy for North America. Since 2006, all ecstasy laboratories reported in Canada have been of a larger-scale capacity operated principally by Asian organized crime groups.
We have many resources, skills, and commodities to send abroad. How sad that we Canadians must now include crystal meth and ecstasy among our recognized exports. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime also noted in 2009 that Canada is the single largest supplier of ecstasy to the U.S. and a significant supplier of the drug to Japan and Australia.
I welcome this committee's suggestions on how to improve the bill so it can best eliminate crystal meth and ecstasy found on the streets of Canada. I'd also appreciate your input on how to ensure that it moves quickly through this committee and the House, and thus avoid the fate of MP Chris Warkentin's bill, which died in the Senate even though it had received unanimous consent in the House.
I thank you again, Mr. Chair, and I'm more than happy at this time to answer any questions about the bill.
:
I have quick questions.
If I compare Bill C-428 to Bill C-475, I think there are three major differences. For one, your bill adds ecstasy. Two, it clears up how the previous intent section was drafted. It had sort of a passive use, “is intended for”, and yours is clearer in that it says “knowing”. In other words, the intent is very clear that it's with the accused, not objectified by the previous language.
I think the third point is that it specifies a maximum sentence of ten years. I'm not clear about what Bill C-428--unless I didn't get all the pages--intended to do for penalty. Maybe you can answer that.
The second thing I wanted ask you was, if someone is producing a listed drug in the schedule, is the maximum sentence ten years now? I didn't look it up so I don't know. Is this in league with the sentences that are there for other combined drugs?
:
Thank you for the questions.
The first thing I'd like to do is outline my approach in bringing the bill to the House.
It was very much an information-gathering, consensus-building approach. I went to the critics of the other parties to get their input. I went to law enforcement officials, both national and from my own province. It was recommended that we add ecstasy.
In my remarks, I mentioned that ecstasy is in many occasions a Trojan horse for crystal meth, so the law enforcement community felt that would be consistent with the intent of the bill and consistent with the health and welfare of Canadians. In terms of the intent, many people have asked about the intent provision. Any criminal offence in Canada has a mens rea or an intent portion, whether it's specific or not. We thought the clarity would both protect innocent users of the legal ingredients that may be covered by this bill as well as make it clear to the law enforcement community what they have to prove to get a conviction.
The sentence in this bill is ten years less a day, and I know there are various sentences for different offences in the Criminal Code. I suspect there are people at this table who are better able than I to make the comparison.
:
To answer my colleague, Mr. Murphy, it is seven years that is provided for in subsection 4(3) of the act.
I have a question which it may not be possible to answer. Why is the term being increased to 10 years rather than being left as it is?
First, we are clearly not opposed to your bill. I even agree with it. However, the bandits are often faster than the police. I'm concerned, having been at the World Antidoping Agency, about Olympic athletes and athletes at all levels.
Everything is already provided for in Schedule I. I've examined it, and everything is entered in it, “Methamphetamine (N,a-dimethylbenzene-ethanamine), salts, derivatives”, etc. Are you going to ask that over-the-counter flu products be banned? It's merely a practical question.
I believe all my colleagues agree with this bill. There's no problem. However, it's the practical question. Would it not have been preferable to establish regulations, which are much easier than amending an act? Everything's already in it. I'm trying to understand what more this offers. That's my question.