36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 31
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 30, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Supply day—Organized crime
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1010
1015
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1020
1025
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1030
| Amendment
|
1035
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1040
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1045
1050
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1055
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1100
1105
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1110
| Mr. Randy White |
1115
1120
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
1125
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1130
1135
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1140
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1145
1150
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1155
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1200
1205
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1210
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1215
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1235
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1240
1245
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1250
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1255
1300
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1305
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1310
1315
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1320
1325
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1330
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
1350
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1355
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| The Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| KIYOSHI TAKAHASHI
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| CULTURE
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1400
| CANADA SPORTS FRIENDSHIP EXCHANGE PROGRAM
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| DRUMMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| QUEBEC WING OF LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| MONTFORT HOSPITAL
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
1405
| MONTFORT HOSPITAL
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| RIGHTS OF YOUTH
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1410
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| INTERNATIONAL DIABETES MONTH
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1415
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| REFERENDUMS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| TRADE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1435
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1440
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1445
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| NATIONAL FILM BOARD
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1450
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SPORTS
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1500
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Organized Crime
|
| Motion
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1510
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1515
1520
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1525
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1530
1535
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1540
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1545
1550
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1555
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1600
1605
| Mr. John Maloney |
1610
1615
| Mr. John McKay |
1620
1625
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1630
1635
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1640
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1645
1650
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1655
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1700
1705
| Mr. John Bryden |
1710
1715
| Amendment agreed to
|
1745
(Division 59)
| Motion, as amended, agreed to
|
| MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
1750
(Division 60)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1755
| RECOGNITION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-224. Second reading
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1800
1805
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1810
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1815
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1820
1825
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1830
1835
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1840
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1845
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1850
1855
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
1900
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Trade
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mr. John Cannis |
1905
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 31
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 30, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present in both official languages the first report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant
to the order of reference of Thursday, October 14, 1999, your
committee has considered Bill C-202, an act to amend the Criminal
Code, and your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
SUPPLY DAY—ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse
the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of
criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October 31, 2000.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order. I would simply like to draw to your
attention that my hon. colleague from Berthier—Montcalm will be
sharing his time with our colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert,
and thereafter all members of the Bloc Quebecois will be doing
the same, for the rest of the debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the debate we are going to
have in this House today is an extremely important one. Members
will agree that on an opposition day the matter debated is
usually the one the opposition feels is most important at that
time.
We could easily have discussed the constitution today, with all
the things that are going on across the floor of this House and
with the Prime Minister's desire to pass legislation that will
provide a framework for Quebec, a framework for certain things
that fall under its exclusive jurisdiction, and which the people
of Quebec alone can decide in connection with its future. We
could have discussed the constitution, but the Bloc Quebecois
preferred to address another matter which is, without a doubt,
the most important one, not only today but probably in the next
century.
It is truly important that today people become aware of the
existence of a major problem in Canada and in Quebec: organized
crime.
1010
Our motion is one of open-mindedness. With this motion, the Bloc
Quebecois is reaching out not just to the government opposite,
but to all parties in this House. We are asking all the parties
in this House to conduct a serious and non-partisan study, as we
are capable of doing and as we have done in the past, of
important issues such as organized crime, with the sole
objective of finding a solution to a serious problem.
What is the problem? Why does the Bloc Quebecois think the
problem is important enough to take a day in the business of the
House? Why does it want to try to convince the government and
the other opposition parties to join it and adopt a motion
asking this House to instruct the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime and to
make proposals, if necessary, after listening to witnesses?
Why? Because in recent years, and particularly since 1995, a
number of events show the magnitude of the problem and the
urgent need to take action. Since I only have 10 minutes, let me
briefly remind the House that in 1995 young Daniel Desrochers
died following the explosion of a bomb. I am sure the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will talk about that incident,
because it happened in his riding. The explosion was related to
a biker gang war.
In 1997, two prison guards were gunned down in cold blood. It
would appear from the information we have that the shooting was
related directly to organized crime.
Very recently, as if that were not enough, colleagues in this
House have received death threats. The member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is one, because he dared to criticize the
growing of marijuana among corn plants, a practice going on in
his riding, and to defend the farmers in his riding. He
strongly criticized unacceptable activities and received death
threats.
I was looking at statistics before coming here. Between 1994
and 1998, there were 79 murders and 89 attempted murders
connected with battles among biker gangs in Quebec alone.
However, this problem is not unique to Quebec. It occurs in all
the other provinces as well, but I did not have statistics for
them this morning.
We talk of murder and attempted murder, but there are also arson
and bombings. Over the same period, there were 129 cases of
arson and 82 bombings. This is from RCMP sources, which are no
doubt reliable.
In terms of drugs, what is the value of the illegal drug trade
at the moment in Canada? This is a little more difficult,
because the calculation is based on drug seizures. Naturally,
seizures account for only a part, and we have to extrapolate to
get a total value. They say illicit drugs in Canada are worth
between $200 billion U.S. and $500 billion U.S. That is a bit of
money.
This is why I am saying the subject is very important.
Probably the most important issue in the next millennium will be
an effective response to organized crime, because at the rate of
$200 to $500 billion U.S. annually, it will not be long before it
controls almost everything in Canada. We must therefore give
thought to whether the legislation before us will do the job.
The Bloc Quebecois began a broad consultation in June, which it
stepped up in September. We have met with many stakeholders:
police officers, judges and law enforcement officials.
It is clear that our present tools may not be up to the task.
1015
The purpose of the motion we are introducing this morning is to
ensure that all parties become aware of how extensive a problem
organized crime is and of the shortcomings of our current
legislative tools, as we have come to realize.
The police will say they need bigger budgets. And in fact, when
we look at the last few years, we see that, despite its protests
to the contrary, the government has cut, or is getting ready to
cut, police budgets and the budgets of certain RCMP offices.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Even in Saint-Hyacinthe.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
will certainly talk about it in his speech. There may a lack of
funds, but the issue goes beyond that and we must take a serious
look at all the legislative tools available.
Speaking of legislative tools, the issue of witness and jury
protection immediately comes to mind. Are jury members
adequately protected , since they must decide whether an accused
is guilty or not while all his friends are sitting in the front
rows, staring at them throughout the trial? This is very
intimidating. It is not surprising that we have difficulties
finding people willing to sit on a jury and follow the rules.
Then there are the witnesses.
Do we provide adequate protection to witnesses? We should check
to see if we do.
Building a case is one of the major problems faced by police
officers. They have techniques to infiltrate crime gangs, but
is it enough? Should we not review certain provisions in the
Criminal Code to allow undercover officers, as they are commonly
called, to commit criminal acts to be on the criminals' good
books and eventually be in a position to testify? This is an
extremely complex area, but we must take a look at the whole
issue.
We must improve the exchange of information between the RCMP,
the Sûreté du Québec and various departments, because police
forces complain that communications are very bad.
I could spend another hour discussing this issue, but my time is
almost up, so I know I have to wrap up.
I will conclude by urging all members of this House to forget
about the fact that this is a motion from the opposition, from
the sovereignists in this House, because we are simply asking
that the committee conduct a serious study of the whole issue of
organized crime.
I am asking members to overlook that fact and to vote with the
Bloc Quebecois so that a serious, non-partisan study of the whole
issue of organized crime can take place, and that a report be
submitted to the House no later than October 31, 2000. This
would allow us to begin the new millennium with good tools to
fight organized crime effectively.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. Bloc
Quebecois member on this motion. It is very important for
Quebec, for the country, and for each and every Canadian.
1020
[English]
The hon. member has identified many of the problems we are
facing. He has laid out quite accurately the level at which
organized crime has crept into many Canadian communities and many
different levels of society.
The threat is so real for our law enforcement agents. They are
particularly vulnerable because of the cutbacks they have
undergone. Their salaries are not on par with some other sectors
of society and they themselves in essence can be bought. The
member talked about how law enforcement agents themselves may be
infiltrated. Could the member expand on that element of his
remarks?
He quite rightly says this is a non-partisan issue. I certainly
assure him he will get the support from the Conservative Party of
Canada.
What particular elements of funding does he see as being the way
to address the issue? What elements will help bolster our law
enforcement agents and help address the problem of infiltration
by organized crime which is buying off our officers, or at least
posing that threat to officers in Canada today?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party for
his question and take note of the fact that it will probably
support this morning's motion.
His question is an extremely complex one and a response would
take more than the time available to me this morning. As far as
infiltration is concerned, with $200 billion to $500 billion
U.S. yearly, organized crime can certainly buy people off,
including members of parliament and ministers, not just police
officers. I do not think that any individual or group is
protected from organized crime trying to buy them off at some
point in time.
I have as much confidence in the political system as I do in the
justice and law enforcement system.
Both Quebecers and Canadians have certain values, and cannot be
bought off as easily as that. It must be realized, however,
that this is a risk in Quebec and Canada at this time, and we
need to see whether the legislation is sufficient protection.
When I spoke of infiltration, one of the useful tools in law
enforcement is infiltration of criminal groups. At present,
with the legislation available to us, it is extremely
complicated and difficult for police officers to infiltrate such
groups. For one thing, they need years to move up in the ranks
of organized crime until they reach the decision makers, the
kingpins.
I am saying this morning I hope that, if the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights considers this question, it will
look very carefully at legislation enabling the police to
infiltrate criminal groups in order to discover whether there is
a way to help them do so. In this case, would society agree to
an amendment of the Criminal Code to enable those infiltrating,
the undercover officers, to commit acts that are illegal under
the Criminal Code so criminal groups will consider them
criminals?
The police tell me they have “officer-sources” within certain
criminal groups. When a gang leader has doubts about the
loyalty of one member, do members know what this person is asked
to do? He asks them to go and kill someone. Under the Criminal
Code, this person is a criminal, at the moment. There is no way
this person can be exempted from the application of the Code.
In addition, this person is in a tough position. If he does not
kill anyone, his days are likely numbered. If he does, his days
are likely numbered as well, because he will be treated as a
criminal under the Criminal Code.
Has society reached a point where we will authorize an
undercover officer, with all the proper authority, to go so far
as to commit a crime, to go so far as to commit murder in an
effort to protect society and save tens or hundreds of people,
perhaps? I think we have reached this point, and we must
examine the issue in committee.
1025
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to this motion by the Bloc Quebecois to the
effect that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
should study organized crime in Canada, an issue I am deeply
interested in, and which the Bloc Quebecois has entrusted to my
colleague from Berthier—Montcalm and myself.
It seems obvious to us that organized crime is on the rise in
Canada and the rest of the world. These organizations are said
to be octopus-like for good reason. With tentacles extending into
all segments of society, they have no problem finding people to
carry out their dirty jobs.
We know that many are lured into crime by the temptation of easy
money. To maximize their efficiency, criminal organizations
impose the law of silence, and any transgression means death,
immediately and unconditionally, for the informers.
We should acknowledge that the various levels of government have
taken steps to deal with organized crime. The Carcajou squad in
Quebec comes to mind, as well as the new sections in our
criminal law that make it illegal for five people and more to
associate when two of them have already been convicted for
crimes that are punishable by five years in prison or more.
These initiatives have some merit, but the question that begged
to be asked when they were taken and still today is whether they
are enough. The only possible answer is no.
The problems remain, and I will mention some hurdles that still
exist: gang leaders often have only minor offences on their
record. The judge has then to be convinced of the danger that
these people represent for society.
The effectiveness of orders issued under Bill C-95 to prevent a
gang member from associating with other gang members is
questionable.
Belonging to a bikers group is not a criminal offence per se.
Also, it is not easy to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that
the accused has accumulated his fortune through a series of very
specific and identified criminal offences.
There is also the law of silence governing all relationships in
the underworld; search warrants that are restrictive because of
the courts interpretation of the provisions of the Canadian
Charter of Rights; small police budgets compared to resources
available to criminal groups; the difficulty to assert that,
simply by associating with them, a person is really involved
with other individuals for a criminal purpose, since organized
crime is not considered a crime, and only individual actions
are; the banking secret of tax havens, which protects against
the laundering of proceeds of crime. All in all, organized crime
does not know any boundaries.
The necessary measures should be taken by our economic and
commercial partners, otherwise all attempts made to solve the
organized crime problem will fail.
Moreover, all legislative or other measures should have an
impact on every organized crime group, from the Russian mafia to
the Chinese triads, the Italian mafia and biker gangs. All
measures taken against any of these groups would only create a
vacuum that would immediately be filled by the other
criminalized groups.
This is why our recommendations must take into account what is
done outside Canada.
Generally, anti-gang laws seek to improve the tools law
enforcement and judicial authorities are provided with to fight
organized crime. I will give a few examples.
In Hong Kong and Russia, access to proof is made easier.
In the United States, laws were enacted on specific infractions
committed by organized crime. It should be noted that, in the
case of the recycling of products of crime, the Canadian law is
more efficient than the American law since it allows
confiscation after the first designated offence instead of two,
as is the case in the United States.
It is important, in comparing Canadians laws to those of other
countries, to remember that Canada draws inspiration largely
from the British common law, which makes its judiciary system
quite different from those of other countries.
1030
We can question the effectiveness of the legislation passed by
all these countries in light of the fact that organized crime
continues to operate.
Little data is available on the actual impact of such
legislation on organized crime. In any event, I want to talk
briefly about a legislation whose effectiveness and limits have
been demonstrated, namely the “Racketeer Influences and Corrupt
Act”, also called RICO, which was passed in 1970 and which
creates four offences covered under two definitions.
The first offence, called “racketeering activity”, is a criminal
offence that covers 50 crimes, such as extortion, robbery,
arson, kidnapping, fraud, counterfeiting, and so on.
The second one is the “pattern of racketeering activity”, which
consists of at least two of the criminal offences covered, one
having been committed after the enactment of the RICO, and the
other one over the preceding 10 years.
Here is a short description of the four offences I previously
mentioned and whose purpose is to prevent the infiltration of
companies by criminal groups. It has to do with the investment
or the acquisition of an interest in a company that is doing
business in another country or another American state, through
capital derived directly or indirectly from criminal activities
or from the collection of an illegal debt.
It could also be the participation in or the management of,
through a series of criminal activities or the collection of an
illegal debt, of a company doing business overseas or in more
than one American state by an individual who is either employed
by or associated with the company, or a conspiracy to commit one
or the other of these offences.
The maximum jail sentence for these offences is from 20 years to
life and there are also monetary fines.
There is no need for a criminal conviction to launch legal
proceedings under RICO. The state needs only prove that crimes
were committed. Once the suspect has been convicted, he or she
can be sued under RICO's provisions.
RICO allows for the confiscation of goods obtained through the
illegal activity and of all interests in the business concerned.
There is also a protection and redress mechanism for third
parties affected by the confiscation of goods.
RICO also allows for two types of civil remedy: one for the
government and the other for individuals. It enables the US
District Courts to issue orders at the request of the Attorney
General. For the government, these remedies are: dispossession
of all direct or indirect interests of the individual in a
business; restriction of future activities or investments by the
individual; dissolution or reorganization of the business,
except that in that case, the court must take into account the
interests of third parties.
The Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Act provides individuals
with the following redresses: damages amounting to three times
the victim's loss and the right to be reimbursed for all the
court and lawyers' fees.
In spite of its huge shortcomings and of the fact that it is far
from perfect, the RICO Act is an illustration of a jurisdiction
that used exceptional means to achieve its aims. The committee
members could build on the positives results of the RICO Act and
avoid its drawbacks and shortcomings to give Canada the
appropriate legal instruments.
To conclude, I want to mention that it is important to make the
public in Quebec and Canada, the lobbies and the government
aware of this problem so that nobody can slip through the
dragnet and the fight against organised crime can be effective.
This is why I ask all members of this House to support this
motion today so that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights and parliament can contribute in a constructive way to
the debate and give the government a clear indication of the way
to fight this scourge in our society.
Finally I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting before the word
“combat”, the following: “effectively”.
1035
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate is now on the
amendment.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Bloc for this
motion. It is an excellent motion and one that we should be
debating in the House. My party will be supporting the motion
tonight when the vote is held.
I have travelled around the country as the chief justice critic
for the Reform Party. I have talked to municipal police, the
RCMP, provincial police forces and people in our armed forces.
One of the great concerns they have is that we do not have a
national police force dedicated to organized crime. Would the
Bloc support looking at setting up a national force dedicated
only to organized crime? It would work at the municipal level,
the provincial level and the federal level to get to the bottom
of what is happening in the country on this very serious problem
of organized crime.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the
Reform Party will be supporting our motion this evening. The
way things are going, I have the feeling that a vote will not
even be necessary, given that the entire House seems to agree
with us.
As to whether we would support a national force dedicated
exclusively to organized crime, here again, it all depends on
our understanding of the word national, and on whether national
standards would be imposed on police forces across Canada.
I think that there are differences throughout the country, even
in organized crime.
There are differences in each province, each region. I also
think that, so far, police forces have helped each other out.
We saw this in Quebec with the marijuana raids. RCMP and Sûreté
officers have worked together to eradicate marijuana. This
co-operation is of several years' standing and should be
continued.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, could the
member from the Bloc talk a little more on the effects of
organized crime on women? It is an aspect that is often
overlooked.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly,
the hon. member is wondering about the effects of organized
crime on women.
We know that most, if not all, pimps are part of organized
crime. It is therefore directly related to prostitution, of
course. I think that all of Canadian society suffers the
effects of this scourge, which unfortunately keeps on growing.
Yes, there are side effects. Women are affected by organized
crime. Families are destroyed, couples break up because one has
to put up with what the other is doing.
Something must be done and today gives us an opportunity to
debate the issue and to decide that we, as parliamentarians,
will make it our business to do that something, and instruct the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to examine the
problem and to submit a report with effective and timely
recommendations.
1040
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who is also a member of
the justice committee.
She has made several remarks about information sharing, or
perhaps in some instances the lack of information that sometimes
is shared between law enforcement agencies. Would she agree that
what is needed most at this time is some leadership within the
solicitor general's department to get these two agencies working
closer together, that is, CSIS and the RCMP?
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party is absolutely right, since
members of these two organizations have already said themselves
that they were competing with each other. Surely they were often
asked for a much closer involvement and co-operation.
I think the solicitor general, who is here at present, will
certainly be able to approve what we are asking for and what I
believe he himself supports.
I once again thank our Progressive Conservative colleague, who
also mentioned that he would be voting for this motion tonight.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I also intend
to share my time.
The motion before the House today is one of great importance. It
touches each and every Canadian, in fact it involves everyone
around the world. The problem of organized crime is one that has
no borders. Organized criminal groups do not even have to
operate in Canada to have victims here. Simply put, organized
crime is a global problem.
The government has made great strides in the fight against
organized crime. We recognize it as the government's number one
law enforcement priority. We have worked with other
jurisdictions to provide enforcement agencies with more and
better tools to fight organized crime.
In the recent Speech from the Throne the government repeated its
commitment to fighting organized crime to make our communities
safer places to live. The RCMP plays a key role in the fight
against organized crime. In fact, for the first time ever, the
RCMP recently created the new position of deputy commissioner in
charge of organized crime investigations.
The government also recognizes that in the war on organized
crime no level of government can act alone. Many levels of law
enforcement and government are involved in protecting public
safety. That is why fighting organized crime in a co-ordinated
way is the key priority, indeed it is essential. In recent years
the federal government has taken many steps in partnership with
the provinces and territories to help the police in its fight
against organized crime.
Canadians know that this government has a longstanding
commitment to provide safe communities. Our efforts to fight
organized crime have been and continue to be comprehensive and
wide ranging. I would like to outline some of the examples of the
initiatives we have taken since 1993.
The anti-smuggling initiative introduced in 1994 provides
resources for the RCMP, Justice Canada and Revenue Canada. It
targets smuggling and distribution networks at the border, in our
ports and across the country. This initiative has led to 17,000
smuggling related charges and fines totalling over $113 million.
This year the federal government injected another $78 million
over four years to fight smuggling.
Money laundering is another major part of organized crime. That
is why we created 13 integrated proceeds of crime units in 1997.
These units bring together police, government and outside experts
to target organized criminal groups and seize their ill-gotten
gains. Over $110 million has been collected so far. Simply put,
these units are designed to take the profit out of organized
crime.
1045
In April 1997 the government put forward a strong anti-gang
bill. These changes to the criminal code make participating in
criminal organizations an indictable offence punishable by up to
14 years in prison. Also, amendments made to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act prevent people convicted of organized
crime offences from getting accelerated parole review.
In May 1997 this government passed legislation to control
illicit drugs. We modernized our approach to drug control with
innovative police techniques for money laundering and drug
investigations. These developments toughened Canada's
enforcement efforts and in particular, undercover investigations
directed at high level drug traffickers.
The Criminal Law Improvement Act adopted in 1997 established new
provisions in the criminal code to allow police to conduct
undercover anti money laundering operations.
New telemarketing fraud offences were created by the amendments
to the Competition Act last March. These offences are now
considered enterprise crimes. This means that they are within
the scope of the criminal code scheme for seizure and forfeiture
of proceeds of crime.
As the House will recall, DNA data bank legislation was given
royal assent last December. Since then the RCMP, working with
partners, has been busy setting up the system. They expect to
have it up and running by June 2000. Canada is breaking new
ground in establishing this national data bank. It will have
great implications for law enforcement in the new millennium.
The national DNA data bank will help to identify suspects more
quickly and speed up criminal investigations. It will shorten
trials and lead to more guilty pleas. One important application
of this technology is to clear innocent people who have been
wrongly convicted.
Last April I announced $115 million to rebuild the Canadian
Police Information Centre, known as CPIC, with modern computer
technology. A crucial improvement will be in the ability to
share information more widely in a more timely manner among
police, prosecutors, courts, corrections and parole. It
complements the work of the provinces and territories which are
themselves investing in improved information sharing.
CPIC will be replaced with a modern computer system for
improving information sharing with other law enforcement
agencies, provincial and federal databases. This translates into
more crime prevented or solved, or a better co-ordination of
action against organized crime.
Five months ago I announced approximately $15 million for the
RCMP to fight organized crime at Canada's three largest airports,
Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. As a result, there are now 100
more RCMP members to increase federal policing pressure to target
organized criminals who use these airports to get into Canada.
In September 1996 the Solicitor General and the Minister of
Justice hosted a national forum on organized crime that brought
together the police, federal and provincial governments, the
private sector, the legal community and academics. At that time
it was clear that Canada needed a more co-ordinated approach to
fight organized crime.
It is precisely with this in mind that this week in Vancouver
the Minister of Justice and I will meet with our provincial and
territorial colleagues. We will be discussing the challenges
posed by organized crime and what more we can do collectively to
deal with the problem. It is only by continuing to work
effectively in partnership with other levels of government, the
law enforcement community and others that we can put in place the
arrangement needed to protect Canadians.
There is no easy solution to this problem. That is why I am
pleased to support this motion before the House. As I have said,
this government has identified organized crime as its top law
enforcement priority.
1050
We have brought together provincial and municipal governments.
We have discussed possible solutions with our international
partners. We have sought the views of those in the law
enforcement community across Canada and around the world. We
recognize that in the fight against organized crime we must
gather our forces and involve as many people as possible to find
the solution. That includes bringing the matter before the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Organized criminals target the most vulnerable in our society
and they make victims of us all. We owe it to Canadians to bring
our resources together to fight organized crime.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the government supports this
motion. I look forward to getting it to committee.
The solicitor general covered a lot of things the government is
doing including the new organized crime directorate. One of the
problems is that the directorate is sitting there with no staff
and bodies. As the solicitor general knows, the RCMP is not
meeting its par levels in most of the major detachments in
Canada, which is a serious problem. Where is he going to get the
money to put the bodies in charge to work with this organized
crime directorate to alleviate that situation?
I will mention one case from the early nineties. There was a
great operation called Green Ice which was a co-operation of
eight countries around the world on drug enforcement. It
targeted the Columbian cartel and it was very successful. It
seized $47 million U.S., 140 bank accounts and a lot of arrests
were made. There was a lot of publicity about how good that was.
The Columbian cartel's profits are estimated at $30 billion U.S.
a year. That whole operation got two-tenths of 1% of what the
Columbian cartel does.
That was one good operation but it only touched two-tenths. To
solve this problem we not only need the organized crime
directorate but we need a national police force dedicated to
organized crime. Would the solicitor general be prepared to talk
with the provincial premiers, justice ministers and solicitors
general across the country to put together a national police
force on organized crime? It would be dedicated to this one
issue and would work with municipalities, provinces, all police
forces and the armed forces to get to the bottom of the organized
crime problem in Canada.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
concern of my hon. colleague from Vancouver.
The deputy commissioner in charge of organized crime and
investigation is an important initiative to co-ordinate our
efforts. My hon. colleague is also aware there is a review
before treasury board and the RCMP to evaluate all the resources
for the RCMP. That will be dealt with in co-operation with the
RCMP, treasury board and my department.
My hon. colleague is also well aware that the Speech from the
Throne indicated that this government is certainly aware and has
indicated it is a priority to support the RCMP more.
As I indicated, we have made many moves to put many initiatives
in place. The 13 proceeds of crime units are so important
because they take the profits out of organized crime. My hon.
colleague is right that we do not get it all, but we are
organizing in a proper fashion to make sure we have a
co-ordinated effort in order to fight organized crime.
The government is fully aware that we do not fight organized
crime just with this government. We must fight organized crime
with provincial and municipal governments. That is why I will be
meeting with people in Vancouver. I will have the input of
provincial and municipal leaders from across the country which is
very important.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
He is going to Vancouver. I want to appeal to the minister not
just to go to Vancouver but to go to Burnaby as well. I represent
a group of constituents in the Metrotown area of Burnaby who are
absolutely fed up with the failure of this government to respond
seriously to a very significant problem, a crisis in that
community.
Drug dealers are openly defying the law in the Metrotown
Skytrain area.
People are abusing immigration laws and the criminal code.
1055
The minister says he is studying the situation, that he is
looking into it, that he is going to treasury board. This is not
good enough.
My colleague from Kamloops previously pointed out that an
organized crime investigation was shut down because a couple in
his constituency were told that the RCMP did not have the
resources to deal with it.
When the minister goes to Vancouver, will he meet with people
from Burnaby? The Burnaby RCMP have identified this as a very
serious problem. There is a total lack of resources. Will the
minister take his responsibility seriously and respond to this
crisis?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is
wrong. I did not say we were just studying this. In fact, if he
had listened to what I had to say, I indicated a large number of
initiatives that the government has taken.
What I did indicate on the resource review was that my
department, along with the RCMP and treasury board, conducted a
study to make sure that the dollars that will be spent, our tax
dollars, British Columbia tax dollars, Canadian tax dollars are
spent in a co-ordinated fashion. This will enable us to fight
organized crime in the most efficient manner possible.
That is why the proceeds of crime unit, the DNA data bank, the
$115 million for CPIC were established, so that we would have in
place the best technology possible enabling us to share
information with police forces across the country. These are
very important initiatives which have been taken by the
government. We are not just studying; we are taking action and
have taken action.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we resume
debate, I want to make an explanation on questions and comments.
I can see there is a lot of interest and there is some
consternation.
This is a Bloc supply motion. If there are members of the Bloc
who wish to ask other members questions, the Speaker would
normally see the party whose motion is on the floor more often.
If there are members who have been in the Chamber all day wishing
to ask a question, the Speaker will very often see those members.
I will ask for the questions and responses to be short because
there is a lot of interest. Very often the Speaker will see
critics or people whose portfolios are specific to this issue.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my colleague on the
justice committee, the member from the Bloc who has brought
forward this excellent motion.
The motion we are discussing this morning is one that deserves
all of our attention. Organized crime is not a new problem in
Canada but has been recognized as a growing one. It affects
Canadians from coast to coast and it affects people in countries
throughout the world. Whether it is a fraudulent telemarketing
scheme preying on seniors in Montreal or a large shipment of
narcotics through the port of Vancouver, organized crime
manifests itself in many ways.
The word globalization has been used more and more frequently as
the millennium draws to a close. The development of computers
and network technologies is creating a global revolution in human
communication and commerce, but it is also creating new
opportunities for crime that we must now address. In Canada,
developing effective measures to deal with computer related crime
has raised numerous challenges. It has required us to meet these
challenges in ways that previous generations could never have
imagined possible.
More and more we find ourselves looking outward to the
international community in our search for solutions. We look to
our neighbours because we can learn from their ideas, from their
successes and from their failures. But there is more to it than
that. In a new environment of high speed low cost
communications, we need policies and legislation and practical
solutions that are compatible with those of our neighbours. In
the high tech environment, the list of neighbours with whom we
must co-operate is much longer than it ever was in the past.
We share crime control problems, not just with those countries
with whom we share physical borders and trade links and with whom
we share political and social beliefs, but also with those who
are distant from us geographically and philosophically.
1100
Any country in the world with an airport, telephones, fax
machines or Internet access may be a base for offenders targeting
Canadians or a source of victims for Canadian offenders. They
could also serve as a haven for the concealment of evidence or
illegally gained proceeds of crime.
Developments in the world of high technology create many
challenges that we must now address if we are to maximize the
benefits of globalization for our citizens, but at the same time
protecting them from these risks that we are discussing here in
the House today.
I will discuss four specific challenges facing Canada and its
international partners in this area of high tech crime. First,
the challenge that arises from the time pressures imposed by the
rapid and highly volatile nature of computer communication.
Those who investigate cases of high tech crime must be able to
successfully locate the source of attacks and seize electronic
evidence or proceeds of crime in an environment where these can
be erased completely at the touch of a finger or moved cross
national borders without detection or scrutiny. The challenges of
law enforcement is to ensure that they are technically able and
sufficiently resourced to locate criminals and preserve that
data. The government has made it perfectly clear that we intend
to provide the RCMP with the tools it needs to do the job in the
fight against organized crime.
Our challenge as legislators is more difficult. It is the
problem of creating laws that will ensure that national borders
do not provide offenders with increased opportunities to hide
their identity or location, or to conceal or destroy evidence so
as to evade detection.
Another challenge relates to the creation of new rules.
Traditionally the development of policy in the international
community has taken place incrementally at a slow pace as
measures are thoroughly examined and discussed until consensus is
reached. Consensus of course is still an essential ingredient in
our approach, but we will find ourselves faced with a need to
achieve it more quickly than ever before as we are able to
successfully keep up with the rapidly changing technology while
protecting our citizens and fostering a healthy climate for the
traffic of information and commerce into the next millennium
The third challenge that I will discuss arises from the costs
associated with law enforcement in this new global electronic
environment. Many of the obvious costs in detecting and
investigating transnational crime are currently borne by national
governments and agencies. The governments' challenge, one which
we share with industries and the private sector, is that of
creating rules and practices which address all of the challenges
that I have mentioned, but which also minimize the cost that
governments must bear and maximize the degree of crime control
that we can hope to achieve with our limited resources.
There are further cost factors to be considered. Many of the
options open to us, such as requiring service providers to use
particular types of technology or retain data for extended
periods of time, offer effective law enforcement but at
significant cost.
Until relatively recently, cost implications would have been
purely domestic policy questions, but in the present era of
globalization it has become one of international trade as well.
We must establish rules and practices to fight transnational
crime that are economically fair and maintain a level playing
field for communication industries that now operate already in a
very competitive global milieu. Imposing undue burdens on
certain industries may well result in their relocating outside of
our country and by so doing they will create safe havens for
criminals who wish to abuse new communication and information
networks.
We have undertaken a dialogue here in Canada with the private
sector and we find it very willing to co-operate in preventing
criminal abuse.
We are engaged, we are committed and we welcome the opportunity
that this motion has brought to have this matter brought before
the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of
which I am a member.
1105
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too agree with the Bloc motion. It is way overdue. It
is 1999 and the government came to office over six years ago.
The member opposite, more or less, talked about the issue of
dialogue, consensus and going to committees about it. Where I
live, we are sick and tired of politicians saying that we need
consensus, dialogue, studies and committees to review this issue.
It is upon us and has been for well over a decade. My community,
which was a little farming community, now has prostitution and
drugs like cocaine, heroine and so on.
I am curious as to what length of time the member opposite feels
is appropriate to have dialogue, consensus, committee meetings
and so on. There are people on the streets today, I can assure
her because I have been there many times, who are hurting and
have been hurting for years. They are sick and tired of this
House saying that we need consensus, time and dialogue.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we ought
to interpret from my explanation of the need for consensus that
this necessarily entails a slowing of a process. It does not.
In my view, and I very strongly believe this, we create the very
best laws for this country by thoroughly vetting the issues that
have brought us to the process of wanting to create a new law.
Consensus building is rooted in common law and common law is the
tradition of the country. It is not the tradition of the country
to go shooting out with little study, little analysis and little
comprehension of the essential issues with a response that
creates a weak law.
We are talking about an information era that we are only
beginning to grasp on many fronts. As it impacts on the issue of
organized crime, we too in this area have to make sure that we
have all of the information that is requisite in order to
effectively defeat the very problems and the crimes that the hon.
member from across the House wishes us to address. We will do an
excellent job. We have an excellent justice committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
tell the hon. member who just spoke that the purpose of the
motion put forward by the Bloc this morning is specifically to
ask that a committee look into the matter so that all her
concerns and fears can be discussed.
I do not understand her point. I would like her to be more
explicit, because what we are proposing this morning is that,
all partisanship set aside, we meet in committee and consider
the issue. We have proposed a deadline of the end of October
2000, next year, one year from now, to do it. I wonder what part
of the motion disturbs the hon. member.
[English]
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I am not disturbed. I
have no difficulties at all. I did not want to imply a sense of
being worried.
[Translation]
I am not disturbed. I am happy that we have time enough to
address this issue and the other issues we mentioned this
morning.
[English]
We have a justice committee at this time. Having completed
second reading in the House of the young offenders legislation, I
know that on all sides of the House there is considerable concern
that we take our time and adequately address those issues. I
know this is a major issue to the Bloc. I would be most
surprised to hear that the Bloc would wish us to drop that from
the agenda in order to move on to another important matter.
All of these things must be considered. All of these issues and
laws impact very much on our communities.
[Translation]
There are impacts on communities in Quebec and in Ontario.
However it is necessary to address those issues step by step. We
have to think and we have to consider. Of course, I am not
disturbed, I am delighted.
1110
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to support the motion before the House today.
I do want to clarify a couple of things. I find it interesting
that the member opposite says that we do not want to go ahead
with too little study on this issue. I can assure her that this
issue has been studied and studied to death. I have reams of
information if she would like to have it on drugs in this
country, on trafficking, on organized crime and on the effects of
heroin and cocaine on our lives and on our people.
That is what is so disappointing about the House of Commons. We
get into this place and someone says that we have to do a study,
we have to take our time, we have to look at it and we have too
little information. The fact is, we have an abundance of
information. It is a matter for all parties in the House to act.
I see it from two different levels. I wish the hon. solicitor
general could hear some of these things. He mentioned $50
million to fight organized crime in airports. At the same time,
this is the government that disbanded the ports police. Just
exactly where does the government think drugs come into Canada on
the west coast? They come in through our ports. Since the
ports police have been disbanded the situation has become much
worse.
In order to fix the problem, the reaction by the government is
to say, “We'll throw $50 million into fighting organized crime
at airports”. On the other hand, it disbands the ports police.
That is not consistent at all.
There is $78 million to fight smuggling. That is nice, but on
the lower mainland between Vancouver and Hope there are numerous
open trails. One in particular is called the Ho Chi Minh trail
which I was on the week before last. It is a smuggling trail.
The police know about it. I was with the police when we were on
it. I have been on it a number of times. There are a number of
trails, beaten down and four feet wide between Canada and the
United States on which illegals come across, guns come across,
money is laundered across, marijuana goes south and heroin and
cocaine come north. Seventy-eight million dollars would not even
touch that area because we have a maximum of six RCMP officers,
and one is an administrator, working on it. It is just not
enough.
The minister talked about proceeds from crime legislation.
However, the proceeds from crime are not effective. The
solicitor general talked about how effective anti-gang
legislation is but has refused to acknowledge, because I have
talked to his people and the solicitor general himself, the drug
cartels in prison. The commissioner of corrections refused to
even acknowledge it, but it exists.
If we look at the national drug strategy that was put out by the
PCs in the eighties, not too much was done as a result of that.
Then we look at the national drug strategy that was developed
last year by the Liberals and compare them, which I have. They
are virtually an overlay of one over the other. Nothing has
changed in their opinion. The problem is that a great deal has
changed.
In one outlet alone in downtown eastside Vancouver last year,
1.5 million needles were issued to over 6,000 addicted people.
Yet we are still talking in the House of Commons about a
committee, about talking and about researching. No damn wonder
it is so frustrating in this place.
Yesterday I asked the solicitor general why he was building a
research facility in his riding for $2.5 million to study drugs
in prison.
He said “You can study it anywhere”. But he missed the point.
That $2.5 million building has a life expectancy of 25 to 50
years. Will he study the issue for 25 to 50 years? If he has to
study the thing, which has been studied so often, why can it not
be done in one of the many government buildings that have been
vacated? Chilliwack, British Columbia, has a whole military base
right smack dab in the middle of all the prison problems, drugs,
cartels and organized crime. He could use the Aldergrove base,
which has been closed.
1115
That is what tells me the government is not sincere about the
issue. One of its ministers says that he is building a building
in his riding to study it, when we know darned well that it is
basically patronage. There is more interest in looking after the
riding than in solving the drug problem.
The opinion across the country is that not enough is being done.
An article in the Ottawa Citizen stated:
Organized crime in Canada is now so pervasive that police have
been reduced to putting out isolated fires in a blazing
underworld economy.
That is true and the government knows it.
An opposition party raised the issue and said it should go to
committee. The government thought that was a good idea. Another
government member said that we should study it and that we need
dialogue and consensus.
I want leadership, and I want it now, not later. The problem is
here. I have dealt with enough people who are addicted to know
they have all but given up hope of getting anything from the
federal government. Those people who are working with young
teenagers who are addicted have all but given up hope of this
place doing anything.
A government minister, the solicitor general in particular, said
that the government gave $78 million or $50 million to fight
organized crime. Is he kidding? That is petty cash in
Vancouver. Lots of dealers have $50 million. Lots of them in my
community have that much in assets.
I am splitting my time and I note that I have two minutes left.
Members might sense that I am a bit frustrated with the
government on this issue. I worked with an organization that is
trying to get a rehabilitation centre for young teenage girls who
are addicted. I went to the Minister of Health to tell him they
need some help. I was put off to a bureaucrat in Vancouver who
did absolutely nothing, and yet we have more teenage girls who
are addicted in our little community than we can handle.
I dare say that Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam and all of these
other places have more than we do in the Fraser Valley, and yet
an opposition party has to tell the government to get off its
butt, take this issue to committee and do something about it. It
is terrible.
All I can say is that I do not believe the government is
sincere. If it was sincere something would be done. While I
applaud the Bloc for bringing this up, I equally say to the
Liberals, shame. There are a lot of people across the country
who are depending on 300 members of the House to take some
action, to stand together and deal with this issue. It is lack
of leadership that is the problem.
If the government said “We will go to committee and we will come
up with a national drug strategy that will really work at the
street level”, I would be the first one applauding it. I have
taken the government's national drug strategy, and everywhere
from Sydney, Nova Scotia, right through to Vancouver, British
Columbia, when people looked at it they said “This is
meaningless. This is not helping us here. We are issuing
needles. We see drug addicts every day. Take your document and
go away”.
1120
I do not have confidence that the government will do anything.
I applaud members of the Bloc for bringing it up, but good luck
trying to get some help from those folks.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is not often that the previous speaker and I agree on many
things, but he raised some interesting points today and I applaud
some of them.
I am particularly interested in his discussion about the
building of a new facility in Prince Edward Island to study the
effects of drugs in jails. He said that there are existing
facilities that might be used. I think of that because my own
riding, and he mentioned Sydney in his comments, has a severe
unemployment crisis because of the closure of some of the
traditional industries. I am wondering if he would like to take
that a little further and support the establishment of that kind
of centre in areas in the country which suffer a high
unemployment rate. If the government is going to establish this
kind of facility and there is no need to build a new building and
spend government revenue—and I will not confine it to my
riding—would that not be a more sensible kind of
decentralization of government offices that would enhance those
communities and provide some revenue generation?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am not
very interested in creating employment through researching the
issue of drugs in prisons. This issue has been researched time
and time again. What is lacking in the system is the will of the
correctional service to implement its own procedures. The
commissioner's directives state that there is zero tolerance in
prisons, and yet they issue bleach to sterilize cocaine needles.
What kind of contradiction is that? The problem is not the
research. The difficulty is in the implementation.
I am just sick about the solicitor general wanting to build a
building with a 50 year lifespan to study something that should
not be studied but acted upon. If they are going to do some work
on drugs, it should be in a prison or close to a prison, in a
post-secondary institution where research takes place, anything
but building a building. It is not a matter of job creation, it
is a matter of saving lives. That is the problem. They have the
wrong emphasis.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford knows I share his concern about the drug
situation in Vancouver and elsewhere in the country.
Could he tell us how we could stop approximately one young
person a day from dying of an overdose in East Vancouver and many
other places in the country? What could we do to combat that
more effectively?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the big problem is the
supply of drugs. We need programs to cut it off.
The demand for drugs is only going to decrease by fewer people
being on them. Unfortunately, in Vancouver we are not going to
be able to stop people from dying because of drugs. It will be
unstoppable until we stop the drug trade. Until we stop
organized crime, until we cut off the supply, someone will die
today, tomorrow and the next day.
1125
We only have to go into some of the hotels in the downtown east
side to see what a terrible scene it is. I invite every Canadian
watching to take the time to do that. The police will take
people to the downtown east side of Vancouver. It is like a war
zone. I am not kidding. I have seen young girls and young boys
shooting up between their toes because there is no other place to
do it. All their marks have been used.
I really do not think it will be stopped until all members of
parliament take action to cut off the supply. That means
boarding the ships that are anchored off Vancouver, getting the
drugs, seizing the ships, selling the ships and telling the
lawyers that they have to stop defending the bad guys and start
prosecuting those people with everything they have.
There is no easy answer, but somehow we have to wake up the
House, and particularly the government.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, no other issue threatens the sovereignty of Canada,
or for that matter other nations, like organized crime.
Organized crime is operating in Canada with impunity. The extent
of organized crime is epidemic.
Allow me to read a statement from the Canadian Police
Association: “Recent threats against the Bloc MP should be a
wake up call for all politicians” says the executive officer of
the 30,000 member Canadian Police Association, David Griffin.
“The frightening reality is that organized criminals are
flourishing in epidemic proportions and police feel frustrated by
the lack of tools and resources to fight back. Canada has gained
third world status as a haven for organized criminals and money
laundering”, said Griffin. “Even our institutions are being
threatened by the influence of global criminals. Two Quebec
prison guards were murdered. A member of parliament and his
family are now under police protection and players in the
National Hockey League have become the targets of Russian
gangsters”.
I am told by police officers that there is too much politics and
infighting regarding who is in charge of fighting organized crime
in Canada. I am told it is foolish to have provincial law
enforcement agencies take on this issue. We are in dire need of
a national organized crime agency to deal with this issue. We
must tie all of the different agencies together.
Recently the solicitor general announced the formation of an
organized crime directorate, headed by an individual of deputy
minister status in the RCMP. I was told last night by a crime
fighter that this initiative is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
The individual put in charge has no foot soldier to carry out the
task, no resources and is wondering what to do. He is in a void.
Every August a report on organized crime is tabled by the
Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada. Every year is a litany
of the proliferation of organized crime. Every year it offers,
according to my crime fighting friend, no plan of action, simply
recognition of everything every police officer already knows but
does not have the power to change.
Let us get serious. If Canada were really intent on fighting
organized crime we would get away from the rhetoric and deal with
such obvious issues as RCMP understaffing in British Columbia due
to budgetary cuts. There have have millions of dollars in cuts
and the RCMP detachment is not meeting its own standards. Yet,
we expect police officers to do their jobs. One would think
there is some complicity with organized crime to allow these
staffing issues in the RCMP.
If we were serious we would deal with the illegal entry of
Chinese migrants. We all know that organized crime is being paid
to get them into Canada. If we were serious we would not be
playing the patsy for the triads in Vancouver. If we were
serious we would take a look at the kinds of companies we allow
to do business in Canada, particularly those like COSCO, which is
allowed to use the Vancouver waterfront but has been banned from
U.S. ports because of nefarious or suspect criminal activity. It
imported AK-47s into the United States for criminal purposes. It
is banned from U.S. ports, yet it looks after the Vancouver ports
now. Is it not interesting that this government allowed the port
police to disappear just when it took over? Why are we so naive?
If we were serious we would never have allowed a known triad
leader, Tong Sang Lai, to enter Canada. He was rejected in Hong
Kong but allowed into our Los Angeles office. He is known and on
a Canadian list of high ranking triad leaders.
If we were serious we would not have whitewashed how he eluded
scrutiny by conducting a phoney inquiry at immigration. Many who
know the Lai story know of the drive-by shooting that took place
at his residence in Vancouver, a settling of a score. He is
still around. Is there is nothing we can do but turn a blind eye
to the existence of known triads in Vancouver?
1130
If we were serious, we would question and investigate the
existence of crooked Hong Kong police officers who retired, so
called, in Canada. These officers made medium salaries in Hong
Kong, yet live in million dollar homes in Vancouver. How did
they get that kind of money? Are they doing it here on the take?
What is the government doing?
At least 44 former Royal Hong Kong Constabulary police officers
who fled a corruption crackdown in the former British colony have
established themselves in Canada with their ill-gotten gains,
police studies show. Dubbed the millionaire cops, the ex-Hong
Kong officers, their wives and concubines are believed to have
invested tens of millions of dollars in businesses and real
estate in Canada, mostly in British Columbia and Ontario.
A covert study by the Asian organized crime investigators, with
the help of Immigration Canada officials, found that 30 of the
police officers have invested in at least 13 B.C. companies and
bought about 50 pieces of property in the Vancouver area. This
included large homes in West Vancouver, commercial buildings, a
shopping mall and vacant acreage. Others invested in restaurants
and bought shares in a private hospital.
The study also found that four of them whose average salary had
been about $30,000 Hong Kong a year, a pittance by North American
standards, have built a two tower, 600 room hotel in Toronto
valued at more than $20 million. Police sources said the B.C.
study into the cops with strong connections to triads in the
Chinese mob began in the late 1970s and was updated in the 1980s,
but it was kept under wraps.
Last night I was told by a crime fighter that he thinks the
Canadian embassy in Hong Kong has been bought and paid for by
organized crime. He feels our system of security has been
penetrated and he has a point. Allow me to explain.
Project Sidewinder, a joint CSIS-RCMP venture, was launched in
the mid-1990s to look into the influence of Chinese tycoons in
Canada and their political connections. The investigation was
going along merrily, perhaps too well. Names were being amassed
and the information was being assembled on Chinese espionage
activities and triad-linked businesses in Canada. After a couple
of years the probe was abruptly shut down, and following that
CSIS destroyed documents pertaining to the investigation. Why?
Two people involved in it know and stepped forward. One was an
immigration official at the Hong Kong embassy, Brian McAdam, an
expert on Chinese criminals. He knows the immigration computer,
and files and codes were accessed by those who should not have
had access.
Another Canadian, Corporal Robert Read of the RCMP, agreed and
talked about the project sidewinder and was suspended. In a
series of compelling and investigative stories by Fabian Dawson
of the Vancouver Province, the project sidewinder story has been
revealed. SIRC has been called in to get to the bottom of the
issue. Many important names are surfacing in its investigation
and many of these names are those of individuals with investments
and interests in Canada.
Frankly, the government is ignoring the proliferation of
organized Chinese crime figures in Canada. One asks the question
where the direction is coming from when it comes to shutting down
investigations like Project Sidewinder.
If the Canadian government was serious about organized crime,
this would not happen. Is our sovereignty being sold? It is a
good reason this is going to committee. It is sad for instance
that questionable and suspect organizations of our Hong Kong
immigration office are surfacing.
As well, one has to question the wisdom of our federal court in
this entry of triad leaders into Canada. I will quote one
instance, a triad leader turned down by immigration a number of
times. His name was Lam Chum-wai, a member of a very notorious
triad. Yet the federal court overturned those rejections and he
was allowed to stay in Canada. A known criminal should not be in
this country, a triad leader by all reports, and yet a federal
court judge allowed him to stay in Canada. Nobody questioned
that issue of a judge and we should be. We should be asking why
this is happening.
In October I had the pleasure of attending the ministerial
conference of the G-8 countries on combating transitional
organized crime held in Moscow. I knew organized crime was
proliferating, but I did not know to what extent and in what
high-tech way. Clearly, the bad news guys have the upper hand.
There was a communique issued at that conference that said:
The G-8 are committed to fight against the dark side of
globalization—transitional organized crime which threatens to
damage our societies and our economies.
We have agreed that transnational organized crime can only be
successfully combated by combining preventative and enforcement
measures.
We have agreed that all G-8 members who have not yet done so
should consider the possibility of accession to the Council of
Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation
of proceeds from Crime. We also agreed on the importance of an
outreach to the media and non-governmental organizations because
they have important roles to play in fighting against organized
crime and corruption.
8. Today, we have endorsed the Guiding Principles and Plan of
Action to Combat the Smuggling of and Trafficking in Human
Beings, which was prepared by the G-8's Lyon Group under guidance
provided at the G-8 Summit in Birmingham in 1998...
10. We have agreed to co-operate against an immediate
threat—the possible use of Y2K as a cover for high-tech
transnational organized crime frauds. We have agreed to support
the continuing work of our Lyon Group subgroup on high-tech
crime. We must explore new options for locating and identifying
criminals who use networked communications for illegal purposes.
1135
This debate could go on and on. I certainly have a lot more to
say but I know my time is just about up.
I congratulate the Bloc members for what they are doing today
and I congratulate the government for allowing this to go to
committee. I think it is time we got into some very serious
discussions in committee as to how do we really stop organized
crime in Canada. Let us get the facts on the table. Let us call
the Corporal Reads, the Mr. MacAdams and people like that to the
committee and get their stories under oath to a bunch of members
of parliament who can finally take the tough stand and take some
action against organized crime in Canada.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member tell us a
little more about how he thinks we could make it more difficult
for criminals, particularly the organized career type of
criminal, to get into Canada?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, certainly there are a
number of ways and a standard basis of just criminals getting in.
There is the situation of the triad leader I mentioned who was
turned down in Hong Kong and got in through the L.A. office.
There is no question in my mind, even though there was a report
written by a former ambassador, that there were cover-ups in that
area. There is very strong evidence and I think we should call
these people to the committee. Mr. MacAdam who has gone public
and Corporal Read when talking about Sidewinder have some answers
in that area as to why these people are getting in. We have to
get them before that committee and talk about it.
We have to stop the payoffs and the fraud outside the country.
We all know the RCMP has numerous investigations at embassies
right now into people who are paid off at the local level to get
people to the front of the line. We have to stop that.
One might ask, why did a federal judge with evidence from the
RCMP and worldwide police organizations of a well-known triad
leader allow that man to stay in Canada? There should be no
reason for that whatsoever and yet a judge did that in this
country and it was a federal judge. That is what disturbs me the
most because most federal judges come by political appointment,
as we all know. I just start to wonder.
I have been in this business for a long time. I sat in a
committee of this House in the seventies on penitentiaries. It
was unanimous from all members of the House, yet I know the
government did darned near nothing about it when it came in. I
hope that if we make this public enough, we can get some answers,
get them out before the public and make sure that things change
so that people do not laugh at Canada because it is such an easy
place to get into by organized crime.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have in hand a copy of a criminal intelligence brief dated June
15. I brought it to the attention of the House in a statement
last week. I would just like the hon. member's comments on this.
This is an RCMP criminal intelligence brief on computer crime
and national security. It states:
The likelihood of a serious, deliberate and targeted attack to a
Canadian critical infrastructure program has increased from low
to medium and the impact of such an attack remains at high.
Several government departments dealing with an increasing number
of sophisticated attacks, are seeking guidance, support and
assistance from law enforcement, only to find there is a lack of
skilled and trained resources.
Interestingly, when a reporter asked the RCMP to comment on the
release we did of this criminal intelligence brief, it said it
was going to move some resources around.
I do not think that is quite the way to do it and I think the
hon. member would probably agree with me. Just moving resources
around is not the answer. Coming up with new resources and more
of a determination on the part of this government is the answer,
I believe.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
just moving the resources that we have around is not going to
solve any problems. As we mentioned to the Solicitor General
earlier, we have RCMP shortages right across Canada and we need
money for that. Organized crime is costing Canadians about $18
billion a year. On top of that there are the profits the
criminals make and the billions a year on drugs and other issues.
1140
With regard to the new computer data and all of those problems
across Canada and across the world, that was one of the issues
discussed at the G-8 conference in Moscow. It was interesting
that all the countries agreed except for Germany, so they could
not come to an agreement. They just agreed to study it for one
more year which is much of what we get here. Politics around the
world is not much different than what it is right here. At a
conference like that everybody wanted to get in.
Now with encryption, criminals can talk to each other quite
openly. Wire taps cannot be put on like what can be done with
telephones to investigate. So it is not just resources. There
has to be a will to say to people that we have to do something
about organized crime in Canada, that we can do something about
it, that we have not done things about. I hope the committee
will make recommendations the government will listen to and act
on in a very quick manner.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
too will be dividing my time and I too, like every member who has
risen so far to address this resolution, want to congratulate the
members of the Bloc Quebecois for bringing it forward. It is an
important resolution and I can indicate that my party will be
supporting it.
The only real concern I have is that unfortunately the
government of the day does not always respond well to reports
from committees, and we can name the committees to which the
government has either watered down recommendations or dismissed
them outright. I can think of recommendations from the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development, both of which at
different points in this government's lifetime brought forward
important recommendations which were then diluted after
consideration by cabinet.
It is my hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights will take this issue as is recommended in the resolution,
that it will investigate it, hear witnesses and bring forward the
kind of report I know we can. I sit on the committee on justice.
We have brought forward unanimous reports in terms of important
measures for the House to consider. It is my hope that the
government will then adopt those measures.
There has been some discussion here about frustration, about how
long it has taken the government to recognize that organized
crime is something that has to be dealt with in this country. I
share that frustration.
Today is November 30, 1999. I have here my comments from almost
a year ago when the solicitor general brought forward his
statement on organized crime. My comments are dated December 3,
1998, almost a year ago to the day. At that time we were talking
about the need to take action on organized crime in this country.
Much of what we have heard from the government today was said at
the same time almost 12 months earlier. It has taken an
opposition party, the Bloc Quebecois, to bring forward this
motion, and it will take the justice committee I suppose to get
some action by this government.
Organized crime affects every single ministry in this government
and every single geographic part of the country. When I say that
it touches on every ministry, it touches on transportation. I
will go back. The member for Langley—Abbotsford began talking
about the ports police. We are a nation bordered by three oceans
and yet when I first came to parliament two years ago, the
Minister of Transport was eliminating the ports police, one of
the real safeguards against the importation of drugs, weapons and
illegal contraband into this country.
It is no small irony that we stand here today debating organized
crime at the same time as the talks are taking place at the World
Trade Organization because there is a World Trade Organization.
It trades in ammunition. The single greatest item that is traded
and sold is arms from one nation to another, illegal arms. It is
a billion dollar trade around the globe. My colleague has
correctly called them implements of destruction, and we trade
them in billions of dollars.
The second largest item traded is drugs. Although I do not have
the figures, I would suspect the third is trade in humans, in
immigrants, people who are seeking some kind of better life.
If we look at what is being traded around the globe today we find
that it is arms, drugs and humans. It is about time that we
began to address the issue here.
1145
One protection we had were the ports police. I argued in the
House passionately with the Minister of Transport that we ought
not to disband the ports police. The government went ahead and
did it anyway and privatized the ports. It is in the process of
privatizing airports. The role of government is diminished at
the points of entry where illegal activity takes place.
I have said that it cuts across ministries. It is not the
concern of a particular minister. I mentioned the fact that
there is trade in human beings. Because of the situation in
Vancouver with the boatloads of immigrants that arrived there,
the general public is now aware of the snakeheads, the people who
traffic in individuals seeking a better life.
It touches on health and justice. We know the cost of young
people who are addicted to crack cocaine. We know the cost of
people who take drugs. We know the cost to the country of
prisons. We know the cost of trying to treat people who have
been the victims of organized crime.
Organized crime touches on finance and international trade. Let
us not forget white collar crime. When we talk about organized
crime there is a temptation to think that everyone involved in it
looks like a stereotypical biker. In reality many people in very
expensive suits, shirts and ties are laundering money. They are
shifting the proceeds of crime from one country to the other and
are robbing us with a fountain pen. With one stroke they create
criminal activity.
It touches on finance. It touches on international trade. It
touches on Canada customs. It also touches on defence because in
many cases we rely on the men and women who serve the country in
the military to fill the void created because of cutbacks to the
RCMP and because of the elimination of the ports police.
The issue of organized crime is the responsibility of every
member of cabinet. The fact that there has been little or no
action taken on it is a shame shared by every member of cabinet.
There are no geographical boundaries in terms of organized crime.
No one area of the country suffers more than another. In small
towns across Canada there are concerns about organized crime.
In Halifax, Nova Scotia, we have a sad spectacle of two rival
gangs, the Hell's Angels and another gang. One is located in
Dartmouth and the other is located in Halifax. The people in
that community live under the ever present threat that maybe the
situation will turn into the same situation that has been
complained about and highlighted by my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois as happening in the province of Quebec.
In cities in Ontario there is a real danger and fear of
trafficking in everything from tobacco and alcohol to drugs
across the border. In cities like Winnipeg there are real
concerns. The new government in Manitoba is beginning to take
real action against inner city crime and inner city organized
crime.
British Columbia, as my colleagues have highlighted, has seen a
dramatic increase in drug trade. To the people who live in those
communities it appears that the government is powerless to stop
it because of the funding cuts to the RCMP. It is also an issue
that requires international co-operation.
I will end on perhaps a more positive note. I congratulate the
government on taking some steps to work with the international
community. It was my pleasure and privilege to accompany the
minister to the United Nations in New York where we shared some
ideas with attorneys general from other countries on how to fight
organized crime.
I congratulate members of the Bloc for bringing forward this
motion and will support it.
1150
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am always very buoyed and entertained to a degree
by the commentary from my learned friend from Sydney—Victoria in
the province of Nova Scotia.
He always gives a very insightful view. I want to ask him a
question specifically with respect to the problem of organized
crime in the maritimes. We face a very unique situation, not
unlike that of the coast of British Columbia, where we have large
bodies of water that make our coastline vulnerable, in particular
for the importation of drugs, contraband material, pornography
and weapons coming from large urban centres like Boston and New
York.
I am wondering, particularly in reference to his area in Cape
Breton or Nova Scotia generally, if the hon. member could talk to
that and the increased vulnerability of our coastline because of
the disbandment of the ports police. I know that Halifax, which
was very much vying for superport designation, dealt with that in
a very timely way. It may have factored into the decision
ultimately as to whether Halifax would receive that designation.
Could the member expand on that thought and tell us what he
feels we could do to address the situation in Nova Scotia?
Specifically, what advice might he have for the solicitor general
in this regard?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question
from my colleague. I am glad to entertain him whenever I can. On
this issue he is correct. The ports police played an important
role but not only by themselves. I think this is an important
point. The customs officers who worked at the ports in Nova
Scotia relied heavily on the partnership with the ports police to
assist them in ensuring there was no importation of stolen items,
whether they be automobiles, drugs or whatever.
My advice would be to reinstate the ports police. There was
some interesting discussion the justice committee could look at
in terms of a national police force which might incorporate some
of the work the ports police did if they were not reinstated.
He talked about the vulnerability of the Atlantic region. It is
true. The coastline is full of coves, full of areas where ships
can land. We need additional protection in that part of the
country. We used to be able to rely to some extent on a
partnership between fishermen and the RCMP. There were programs
where fishermen could report if they saw suspicious activity.
Again, with the downsizing of the RCMP that becomes more and more
difficult.
We are talking about the sea coast. I noticed in his remarks
the solicitor general talked about funding for airports. Halifax
is not one of the airports that has been mentioned. As the
government enacts policies that cause rural areas to lose
population and to congregate in large urban centres, we also lose
the ability to protect those coasts as small villages and small
towns lose their population.
I know the member will understand, coming from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, that as Halifax becomes a
concentrated centre, because that is where the government has
decided economic activity will take place, we lose some of the
resources along the coastline and in other communities that are
assets in the fight against organized crime and make those
communities more vulnerable.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I again thank the member
for his commentary. I know that his heart is very much in the
right place when it comes to the province of Nova Scotia. In
fact there is a great deal of pressure on him to spend more time
in his home province.
My question for him is with respect to airports because he
raised a very interesting point. There has been a lot of
discussion in the policing community about privatization of
policing, that is security guards. The thought is that we might
remove RCMP presence in airports. This is very much a great
concern because of the vulnerability of airports and because of
being the flash point in terms of importation of contraband
materials. Halifax is certainly an international airport with
that designation.
Could the member expand on his party's position and his own
personal approach to privatization of policing? Standards are
lowered and I believe police officers themselves do not receive
the same level of training they would get as members of the RCMP
or municipal police forces.
1155
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon.
member again that the privatization of the police force is not
the way to go. We need professionally trained police officers
with the benefits of good pay and good training to protect
communities.
He is correct when he says that I am under pressure to spend
more time in the province. He is under the same pressure
sometimes himself.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to take part in this debate. I want to start by expressing
appreciation to members of the Bloc Quebecois who brought forward
this very timely, topical and relevant subject for us to debate
today. Special thanks go to the member for Berthier—Montcalm
for bringing forward the particular motion.
I come from the riding of Winnipeg Centre, the core area of
Winnipeg. In that neighbourhood, I am not proud to say, we are
no strangers to the problems of organized crime albeit on a small
scale. I am speaking specifically of urban street gangs, often
wrongly called aboriginal youth gangs. It is a misnomer to call
our problem an aboriginal youth problem. These urban street
gangs are run and orchestrated by adults, often using young
people or abusing young people, to bring about their own goals. I
want to make perfectly clear that when I talk about the gang
problem in Winnipeg it is an urban street gang problem and not an
aboriginal youth problem.
Much of our problem in the inner city of Winnipeg is a very
predictable consequence of a disastrous social policy or the
absence of any social policy. This is a predictable consequence
that anybody could have told us would be the outcome of years of
neglect. Years and years and years of letting the inner city of
Winnipeg rot has had a very predictable outcome and consequence
in the form of a permanent underclass. Quelle surprise. Starve
people for a couple of decades and we will develop an underclass
which will become organized. When we shut people out of the
mainstream economy where do they go to find a standard of living?
When we talk about organized crime everybody thinks of the
Mafia. It is almost a cliché. Where do we think it came from?
In the 1900s in New York City people were shut out of the
mainstream economy. People would not hire a swarthy
Mediterranean type. They were shut out of the economy and they
created their own economy. Yes, it was illegal. Given the
choice between my children starving and doing something a bit off
colour, I have often said it is frankly an easy choice to make.
They loved their children too and they were forced into the
situation of doing something illegal in order to survive.
That is the situation with the urban street gangs we have in the
city of Winnipeg. A whole generation of people were shut out of
the mainstream economy and created its own illegal mini economy.
Some people think that illegal is just a sick bird because
frankly when it is survival or illegal they choose survival.
The whole social problem faced in the core area of the city of
Winnipeg recently manifested itself in arson. There is an
epidemic of arson. It is like Watts in 1965. It is burn baby
burn. People are expressing their frustration by torching the
miserable neighbourhood they live in. They are levelling it.
They are taking the law into their own hands. They are
expressing themselves and their frustration by burning down the
neighbourhood they live in, maybe in the hopes that something
will rise from the ashes that will be a better world.
It is very predictable. Any student of the human experience
could have told us that this would happen. We are playing with
fire here and now we are experiencing fire. It boils down to
year after year after year of fundamental neglect in the inner
city.
Thankfully we have now elected a progressive mayor and a
progressive provincial government. Maybe those two could
actually work together and start to turn the issue around. Let
us call it what it is. Organized crime and street crime are
predictable consequences of chronic long term poverty that we
should have known about.
My colleague talked about an issue in which I am very
interested: human bondage, human slavery, the advent of slavery
again.
1200
I see the member from the Tories gets a kick out of that. I
agree that human bondage can have many meanings. The particular
meaning I am dealing with now is the terrible spectacle of
desperate people, looking for a better life, who are washing up
on the shores of British Columbia's west coast. They are getting
put into a pipeline that is in fact organized crime. The whole
network of people who are taking advantage of these desperate
individuals is organized crime in its truest sense. They are
very well connected. They have a network all over North America
that takes these people from the ships and puts them into illegal
and abusive situations where they have to pay off the debt they
owe for getting themselves smuggled into the country.
More sensitive people are looking at this issue and trying to
understand how it comes about. People from the Fujian province
in China, desperate enough to leave their situation, are willing
to get on some death trap of a boat and owe some criminal $40,000
to come here to build a better life for themselves and their
children. Let us try and understand their motivation. What kind
of circumstances are they leaving that they would risk life and
limb to undertake a journey like that?
In doing a bit of research, I have learned a bit about the
Fujian province where these desperate people come from. That is
the first place in China where they had these free economic trade
zones, that great bastion of capitalism called free economic
trade zones. It is a fenced compound where labour legislation
does not apply and no laws apply. People work making Barbie
dolls, The Gap jeans and Liz Claiborne sweaters. A lot of our
western products are developed in these trade zones in the Fujian
province of China.
The ILO, the International Labour Organization, did some
research. It found that they need to make about 85 cents an hour
to make a reasonable standard of living in China. To live like a
Chinese peasant, they need to make 85 cents an hour. This is $6
or $7 a day. The wage in these free economic trade zones is 18
cents an hour, one-fifth of what it costs to survive as peasant.
The Gap jeans, Liz Claiborne and all these outfits are paying
these people 18 cents an hour for making western goods. These
people are not stupid. They put two and two together. They know
there is another world out there that lives a hell of a lot
better than they do. To better themselves and their families,
they will do anything to get here and maybe have some hope and
optimism that they will enjoy a better standard of living.
I believe we have only seen the tip of iceberg in this
situation. I think we will face a day of reckoning. As a
western developed nation, we cannot keep those people down
forever. They know that we are here enjoying the good life and
they are there living a life of misery and desperation. We have
this bizarre spectacle of people living in a grass hut with a mud
floor watching Mary Tyler Moore reruns on a colour TV and
wondering why it is not them and why they cannot have a piece of
that good life. So they become desperate.
A lot of less sensitive people or people who have not thought
this through are saying “Why should these people be able to jump
the queue and wind up on the shores of Canada and become landed
immigrants in this country? What about all those good people
who are waiting patiently in line?”
Let me tell the House something. There is no way to get here
from there. China has 1.2 billion people and we have one
Canadian immigration officer in China who is in Beijing, which is
a heck of a long way from the Fujian province. How does a person
making 18 cents an hour save up enough money to get themselves to
Beijing, to then stand in line for months sometimes and literally
sleep outside the door of the embassy to get a visa to come to
Canada?
I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration why we could
not set up a little satellite office. If there is such a great
demand from the Fujian province to come to Canada, we could set
up a little office in the Fujian province for 18 months. There
would be no market for snakeheads. We would pull the rug out
from underneath them if we gave people conventional access to
this country. Well, the minister said that there was no budget
for promoting Canada, et cetera. It is all a budgetary issue.
Now we are facing the consequences of these people who are
desperate enough to come to our shores and become victims of this
terrible criminal pipeline.
The last thing I will say about this is that I am very critical
of the way the government is handling the issue. We know some of
the problem people in that criminal pipeline. We know some
individuals, and I know some by name, in Vancouver, Toronto and
New York City. However, for some reason the government is hoping
to wait until it can do one big sting, like a TV cop show where
in the last five minutes of the show they will round everybody up
and bust them so they can look like heroes.
Why are the police not harassing the people that it knows
already? By the word harass, I mean within the context of the
law.
Why are the police not picking these people up and questioning
them? Why are they not doing everything they can to stop this
and send a message back to the Fujian province that Canada will
not tolerate the smuggling of human cargo and human bondage in
our community. That is one issue I am very critical of.
1205
The other thing that my colleague from Sydney—Victoria raised
is the RCMP's inability to enforce the laws and put an end to
some of the terrible organized crime we have in the country.
Our party gets letters from RCMP officers telling us that they
are unable to investigate crimes they know are being committed
because they do not have the budget or personnel to do it. It is
sending a green light to organized crime, especially on
complicated issues of white collar crime, et cetera. It is a
terrible thing when we do not have the money to bust criminals
who we know are operating in our community and exploiting
Canadians. It is all budgetary. It is strictly a matter of
finance. Balancing the budget seems to have priority over
protecting Canadians from organized criminals, and I think that
is scandalous.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, could the hon. member table the letters from the RCMP
officers that he spoke about earlier? I would appreciate seeing
them.
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I think they are a matter
of public record. The member from Kamloops stood up and made not
only statements on that issue but questioned the government on
that issue. He quoted chapter and verse, and the name of a
senior RCMP officer from British Columbia who wrote letters to us
in response to a white collar scam that was going on in the
riding of Kamloops.
Seniors were being cheated out of hundreds of thousands of
dollars by some kind of a scam. The RCMP knew it was going on,
knew the details, the amount and the people involved, but they
wrote back saying, “We're sorry, but at this time we can't
possibly investigate this. We don't have the resources, the
staff or the manpower to investigate”. In other words, they
said that there was no money to protect the interests of the
victims.
We would be happy to give those letters to the member because we
want this publicized as much as the member obviously does.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member, who was just asking the question,
points out the problem we have between east and west where these
stories are quite well known.
I have written the solicitor general and the head of the RCMP
about the shortage of officers on the Sunshine Coast where they
are supposed to have 52 officers for a population of 46,000. We
are about 10 short, which is well above the 10% the commissioner
sometimes talks about. Because of that, RCMP officers are
sometimes quoted as saying that they cannot cover certain crimes
overnight, like break-ins, because they do not have the staff.
One officer was quoted as saying that they have been told by
Ottawa not to go up to Pender Harbour from Sechelt to cover
things at night, and yet there are a few thousand people who live
there. We know it is a serious problem.
A comparison with that is West Vancouver which has 40,000
people, its own police force and 77 policemen on staff. It is an
area bordered by water on two sides and a very compact area
compared with the Sunshine Coast. We have a real shortage.
The member made a comment about the Fujian province. I agree
with a lot of the things he said about that, but he also said
that we only have one office in Beijing and at 18 cents an hour
how can they afford to get there. That may or may not be true,
but how can they afford to pay the $40,000 to the guys to get on
the boat? It leads to the fact that organized crime is behind
it.
I have been told by an overwhelming number people in the Chinese
community in Vancouver that if we do not turn the boats around,
or at least send the people back by airplane immediately, the
people in that province will not get the message that human
smuggling is not the way we do immigration in Canada.
There is a difference here to start with. Yes, they cannot
afford it, but they can afford to raise $30,000 or $40,000 and/or
pay it off in ware when they get here. How does the member
rationalize that statement?
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member
answered his own question. No one pays it up front. No one from
that area has that kind of money. They sign a chit or whatever
that they owe that money when they get here.
My brother is a lawyer in Toronto and has one of these people as
a client. This person was chained to a bed in the basement of a
home and forced to work 16 to 18 hour days in servitude, in
bondage.
This is bonded labour. This is a return to the bad old days of
slavery. People are desperate enough to undertake the obligation
of owing $40,000. If they do not pay it back, they are under
great threat of coercion or of having damage done to their
families back home. Many of them probably still have loved ones
back in the Fujian province.
1210
This is the kind of coercion and manipulation that goes on in
the minds of desperate people. Can anyone imagine how desperate
people would have to be? The 18 cents an hour is not my figure.
It was the International Labour Organization that just recently
did the study of the free economic trade zones in the Fujian
province where a lot of our products are made, such as children's
toys, furniture and electronics. Maybe the clothes that I am
wearing right now were stitched together in that particular area
of China. There are 200 free economic trade zones in China now,
many of them in the Fujian province, where western goods are
made. I did not invent that figure. The International Labour
Organization's estimate was that 85 cents an hour would be a
reasonable living wage for a person in that area of China. They
make 18 cents an hour. Beijing is a heck of a long way from the
Fujian province. I do not know how they would even get there to
file an application for a visa. I do not think it can be done.
Legally, they cannot get here from there.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and take part in this
debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I will begin by commending the Bloc for the impetus to bring
this debate before the House. It is certainly very useful and
instructional in terms of the commentary that we will be hearing
throughout the day. I commend the Bloc's foresight on the use of
this opposition day.
With the issues of options and priorities that we have when it
comes to the decision that an opposition party must make with
respect to the debate that will take place, I find it very
interesting that the Bloc decided to choose this matter. It shows
that it obviously recognizes the importance and the priority this
issue has in Canada.
Yet, at the same time, the Prime Minister has chosen to provoke
the Bloc and prefers a self-edifying folly into the minefield of
separation. Canadians are very fatigued with the neverending
debate. Obviously he is looking for a pedestal or a way to
rehabilitate his abysmal performance in 1995 when he disappeared
from the debate and left it to the then leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party to try and carry his baggage.
We all recognize that organized crime is a threat to all that we
hold dear: peace, order and good government. The Bloc Quebecois
has chosen to make this a priority and it deserves praise for
that. It is something that is very close to home within the
province of Quebec because of the competing biker gangs that are
playing out their dangerous warfare on the streets of Montreal.
We also know that Lennoxville is home to the largest organized
crime unit in the country. There is a chapter of the Hell's
Angels that operates from Lennoxville. It is very timely that
this motion comes before the House.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I also want to
remind the House about the supply day motion itself and the
process that brings us here today, which will culminate next week
when the government will be asked for the authority to spend over
$4 billion belonging to the people of Canada.
Supplementary estimates are referred to various committees for
examination. To date, the government has not produced a single
minister at committee to answer questions or offer attempts to
speak to the reasoning for this request for supply. It is truly
an offence to democracy. It offends people's sensibilities. I
suggest that the smallest municipality in the country would not
treat its taxpayers and citizens in such a cavalier fashion.
This is $4 billion without a single word of explanation.
I will cite only one example of what is at stake when it comes
to these types of estimates. The National Capital Commission is
asking for $40 million for projects on Sparks Street, only one
block away from the Chamber. The National Capital Commission
meets in secret. The only public scrutiny of this agency would
take place at a committee and it probably will not happen.
Another request is for $35 million for the firearms control
program that is presently in chaos and making a black hole out of
public money. The minister and officials have been unable to
defend in any way their stewardship of this program.
1215
The government has shut down the scrutiny process when it comes
to estimates. The Liberals take the position that it is
inconvenient for ministers to attend before committees. The
ministers have a duty, I suggest, to attend and to give the
public and members of the House an accounting.
It is not for the ministers to tell the committees of the House
when they can appear. It is a duty they have to parliament to be
here and answer questions about supply. Too many people in
Canada, and in fact too many people in the House, have forgotten
that cabinet ministers in particular are servants of the Canadian
people.
I raise this point in the proceedings to give the government
fair warning that it is completely dissatisfying the people of
the country and the members of the House with its arrogant
treatment of committees. To ask the House to approve public
spending without an opportunity to question the government is
highly unacceptable and inappropriate to everyone in this place.
It is time for the committees to do their work. It is time for
us as opposition members to hold the government to a greater
level of account.
I want to turn now specifically to the motion before the House.
It is appropriate to begin my remarks by congratulating the men
and women who work on the frontlines of law enforcement. Whether
it be police officers, peace officers, customs agents or crown
prosecutors, those working at all levels of law enforcement need
our support. They need our increased attention and they need
resources very quickly. Increasing the law enforcement budget is
the only true way to address the problems pointed out very
clearly in the Bloc motion.
In essence, what is occurring at this time in this area is that
law enforcement agents are simply being asked to do more with
less. They have been ravished by government cutbacks and like a
tired animal they are asking for assistance instead of having
more heaped on to their backs. Unfortunately government cutbacks
and slashes over the years have led Canadians to question the
commitment and the priority level the government places on this
sector of our country.
This ultimately leads to vulnerability to organized crime and
increased levels of organized criminal activity. I am talking of
Mafia type associations, criminal gangs and street gangs. Whether
they be of any origin or national descent they are popping up at
a shocking rate in communities around the country.
They are having a field day in the area of white collar high
tech crime such as fraud, telemarketing scams, money laundering,
drug importation and exportation, particularly on the west coast.
They are dealing in pornography and contraband materials such as
firearms, trafficking, loan sharking, and influence peddling,
another area where organized crime is very active.
It is coming from international and multicultural groups within
the country in the form of eastern European gangs specializing in
counterfeiting, biker gangs that are mainly Caucasian, guns and
explosives being smuggled in, Russian, Italian and Asian gangs,
extortion, aboriginal gangs, pornography and firearms
trafficking. All these groups are actively involved in criminal
activity. However, the highest threat is drug importation and
drug trafficking, the most lucrative area of organized criminal
activity.
Intimidation of witnesses has been touched upon by a number of
previous speakers. Intimidation of juries, officials and law
enforcement agents very much undercuts and undermines the
pinnings and the very cornerstones of our criminal justice
system. If those working within the system are feeling hard done
by and put upon by members of the organized community, they will
not be able to do their jobs effectively. Insidious efforts to
permeate and pervert our justice system are happening as we
speak. Many of these threats to the justice system have come as
a direct result of negligent underfunding on the part of the
current government.
We know that many coming from outside the country are from very
tumultuous and sometimes wartorn backgrounds. When they come to
Canada they are overjoyed, if they are involved in criminal
activity, at the lax approach that is sometimes taken and the
blind eye that is sometimes turned to organized crime.
These criminals are professionals. They come to Canada
oftentimes with quite a knowledgeable background of how to
circumvent the law. There is no code of conduct or unwritten
rules of conduct among the criminal element in this country.
It is not like the old Hollywood movies and the gangsters who
sometimes had a code of thieves. That does not happen.
1220
Gangs are growing at an astonishing rate. I spoke recently with
an undercover officer from the city of Montreal. He gave me some
statistics and spoke of personal accounts of how gangs were
cropping up in different parts of the city of Montreal and around
the country at an astonishing rate.
In 1999 a CSIS annual report stated that Asian based criminal
organizations would continue to pose challenges for police and
agencies across the country because of their abilities to
function as tightly knit units. The agencies we have in place to
fight organized crime are aware of the syndicates that are
cropping up. Yet they are increasingly frustrated because they
do not have the resources to react.
The same report stated that the Hell's Angels had almost doubled
in size in the province of Alberta in the last two years since
coming to that province. In 1997 there were 26 members. In 1999
there are 46 members. As I have said, we have seen the numbers
of chapters in and around the city of Montreal double in the last
number of years.
To combat this new form of organized crime, police officers and
CSIS agents need to be high tech. They need to be on at least a
level playing field and working together with a common goal to
try to stop the expansion of organized crime. In order to
protect the public they need at least the equivalent tools and at
least the equivalent resources.
Instead we hear that the RCMP is unable to investigate fraud
cases in the province of British Columbia because of lack of
resources. We know that in British Columbia close to 400 RCMP
officers are needed to fill vacancies as we speak. The closing
of government RCMP training academies in the last year even
temporarily was a severe blow to the police. The elimination of
ports police increased drug and human smuggling in our coastal
communities. The Quebec Mounties have been ordered to stop
recruiting. There are paid informants to help investigations.
Real problems are happening out there.
In particular, organized crime involving drug importation is on
the rise because the force is simply running out of money. It is
not able to get people involved because it cannot pay them. Sadly
one of the most effective tools the police have to infiltrate
organized crime is to pay informants or the informants are not
willing to inform. Similarly they are not getting the same level
of protection under the Canadian witness protection program
because of a lack of funding. Many investigators are unable to
use wiretaps because the force cannot afford the computer time
and the cost of transcribing tapes.
The solicitor general refuses to take responsibility for his
department's actions when it falls down and documents go missing,
but we know from the same internal reports put out by CSIS and
the RCMP that it is not co-operating. It is not exercising the
discretion to share information for a common goal because it is
competing for resources. This should be very alarming. This
rivalry is actually costing investigators and potentially putting
lives at risk.
Groups like the Asian triads involved in the smuggling of
individuals, of human bodies into the country, is on the rise due
to the poor situation at our borders. There is a suggestion that
many criminal gangs in Canada have links to the Chinese military.
I was about to say Canadian military, and there is some
suggestion of that too.
We know of the sidewinder investigation that took place and
exposed a far-reaching, insidious plot to set up more organized
crime in the country. Yet, because of a lack of resources among
other problems, the sidewinder investigation was put aside. We
will be hearing more about this issue. I suggest there will be
shockwaves throughout our entire political and justice systems
when it comes to the sidewinder investigation being brought to
the forefront.
Gangs in Quebec have been growing marijuana in farmers' fields,
intimidating farmers to remain silent, intimidating families and
intimidating members of parliament. I congratulate the member
who was threatened for his courage in continuing to fight for
activity that will lead to the breaking of these types of crime
syndicates.
It is not the fault of our law enforcement agents. The
hardworking men and women involved in this battle continue to put
their lives on the line. They continue to risk their own safety
even in the face of this lack of government support.
They need greater funding. They need greater support. They need
greater surveillance. They need equipment, helicopters, patrol
boats to monitor and actively take part in the effort to stem the
tide of criminal activity.
1225
Some may argue that it is too costly. The Liberals and the
solicitor general himself can say that it is too costly. However,
we know that they do not have enough money on occasion to fix
patrol cars. They do not have enough money in some instances to
provide adequate firearms for our officers. A shocking situation
is developing.
Internationally we are increasingly vulnerable because of the
erosion of policing agencies. Other countries have recognized
this point. CIA and FBI reports have said that the United States
of America is increasingly vulnerable because of the breakdown of
law enforcement agencies in Canada. This is something that we
should all be ashamed of, quite frankly.
I need not go into detail about the morale that exists within
law enforcement agencies. That is at the point where it is
bottoming out as well to match the funding. In April 1999 the
chairman of the U.S. judicial subcommittee, Republican Lamar
Smith, said that Canada was being used as a launch pad for middle
eastern terrorists, biker gangs and crime families that use
Canada's borders to sneak persons into that country.
Earlier this year the government put a little money back into
fighting organized crime. In government terms it was $15 million
per year for the RCMP to target organized crime at three
international airports: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. As was
previously mentioned Halifax was left out of the equation. It
also put $19.5 million per year into Canada's anti-smuggling
initiative.
I commend the government for recognizing the need to put in the
money, but oftentimes we see that it puts in money over a long
period of time. It makes a great deal out of the announcement,
just like we saw in the throne speech and the red book before it.
There were all kinds of promises about commitment but in the
short term we need to stop the bleeding. We need to put in the
money now.
This recognition by government is only the first step. We know
that law enforcement officers need that money now. The DNA
databank and the reopening of the RCMP training facility are
great moves. We commend the government for them.
The solicitor general spoke in his remarks about changes in
legislation to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and
changes to the court system which would enable police officers to
get witnesses before the court and provide them with greater
protection to encourage them to testify.
There is one glaring omission. I can sum it up in a very simple
phrase. We cannot keep people in prison longer and we cannot get
them to court with greater ability unless police officers are
able to catch them in the crime, bring them forward and get them
into the system. That simply is not happening.
The Canadian police information system was recently upgraded by
the solicitor general. With great pomp and ceremony he said that
$150 million were being put into the upgrade. We know, and RCMP
officers themselves have stated it, that $280 million were needed
for the upgrade to be effective. Less than half the money
required was put in by the solicitor general.
In the face of making these announcements about government
spending, it is very apparent it has been spread far too thin
over far too long a period. The solicitor general always says
that fighting crimes is their number one priority. We on this
side of the House are questioning that statement because it
appears a lot of number one priorities are fighting for
attention.
We hear a plethora of platitudes from the solicitor general
denouncing criminal activity and talking about changes in
organized crime strategy, but all we are seeing are increased
levels of bureaucracy and ossification from the solicitor
general. I truly question his grasp of his own department.
We see that there is not a co-ordinated effort. Our agencies
are not working together at the level that they should be because
they are not getting leadership from the top. They are not
receiving leadership from this department. They are not
receiving leadership from various agents at the top like the
director of CSIS who completely abdicated his responsibility with
respect to lost documents. Recently a CSIS agent was actually
brought to task, but the CSIS director was completely untouched
and, it appears, was complicit in the act itself and in the
cover-up.
Although the solicitor general has made promises to modernize
the department and do everything he can to increase the funding,
it is not happening quickly enough.
1230
The member spoke of the anti-gang bill and the CCRA review.
Again these are pale in comparison to the priority when it comes
to the need to inject real resources, real quick. Opposition
parties, and I would suggest, provincial governments recognize
this, and it is high time the government recognized it.
I want to commend the Bloc Quebecois as well. I want to commend
the member for Charlesbourg who sponsored a private member's bill
to get rid of thousand dollar bills, which are very popular among
the drug trade. As well, I again reference the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who stood up to real threats from drug
producers in his part of the country. I commend the member for
his courage.
There are various elements of the criminal justice system that
have to continue to work together, such as information sharing.
Earlier in questions and comments I spoke about the privatization
scheme which may be coming forward. I hope that is not the case.
The Liberals continue to pat themselves on the back for creating
initiatives, but this self-aggrandizing and plagiarising of
policy is the trademark of the Liberal government. We have
witnessed the GST, free trade and others. It was the
Conservative Party which actually kick-started many of the
initiatives dealing with organized crime.
In 1989 and again in 1993 a former Progressive Conservative
government passed four major pieces of legislation to assist our
law enforcement community. In 1989 the Conservatives passed
proceeds of crime legislation, which was a first in Canadian
criminal law history. They passed legislation to help officers
trace the flow of money diverted from criminal activities. The
former government passed the Proceeds of Crime Act in 1991.
The Progressive Conservative Party also brought in legislation
which dealt with the seizing of property. A final initiative
that I would reference is that of the organized crime bill, which
had far-reaching implications and modified our Customs Act.
There is no doubt that this government has a high standard to
live up to. The solicitor general needs to recognize that more
can be done by his department. I hope he will do so.
I again cry out for the solicitor general to bring more tools,
better and adequate legislation to address many of the problems.
I thank the Bloc Quebecois and commend it for recognizing the
need to discuss this matter now, ahead of an onerous, divisive
debate which the Prime Minister would have had had he been able
to provoke the Bloc in the way he tried.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the people reading Hansard or viewing this debate
will note the collegiality which exists. From time to time in
the House we come up with a common objective, a common agenda,
and clearly the issue of organized crime in Canada is one that
every member of the House should be very serious about.
The member touched on the issue of the lost CSIS briefcase. I
think he may agree with me that the problem with respect to the
action or inaction on the part of the government is probably best
shown by what is or is not going on at CSIS.
In the period of time the government has been in power, in
addition to the lost briefcase, there was also the loss of a
computer disk which was left in a telephone booth. The solicitor
general told us there was a review going on at CSIS by SIRC. We
then found out from the same paper that the chair of the SIRC
committee, the overseeing committee, was informed of the loss of
the briefcase through the newspaper, not by the solicitor
general, not by anything kicking in, which should be kicking in,
at the department. But then we are told that the computer disk,
in the so-called review—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Is the questioner opposite going to get to organized
crime?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would think the
question is relevant.
1235
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it just shows that the
Liberal member does not understand the connection, CSIS
being able to uncover organized crime.
The point I am driving at is that the person who discovered the
disk in the telephone booth said that SIRC had not even inquired
of them as to the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Would the hon. member agree with me that the government did not
even have people at SIRC who were in the position of overseeing
CSIS? It was not until September 1999 that it finally appointed
Bob Rae, Ray Speaker and Frank McKenna to three of the five
positions. It was not until November 15 that it finally got
around to appointing, after years of the position being vacant,
the inspector general of SIRC.
Would the hon. member agree that it really belies this kind of
inaction and the importance of CSIS relative to combating
organized crime and getting intelligence?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question and I certainly agree that it is completely
symptomatic of the breakdown in communication and the breakdown
in terms of government recognition of the need for resource
allocation in this area. CSIS is very much involved in the front
line battle against organized crime.
The examples that the hon. member has referred to were bad
enough. The bumbling type of activity that led to this lost
information, which increased the vulnerability of some of the
operations that CSIS was pursuing, was bad enough, but then to
have that error exaggerated further by the CSIS watchdog, SIRC,
not receiving the information, to use the phraseology of the
Minister of Justice, “in a timely fashion”, but to read about
it in the Globe and Mail, was absolutely abysmal. Then the
government does nothing about it or it waits weeks and weeks to
do anything about it.
This watchdog, SIRC, which was unmanned in many ways, or
unpersoned in many ways—
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Unstaffed?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Unstaffed. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for her politically correct question. No substance,
but political correctness has become the order of the day.
The point is, that watchdog cannot bite or bark unless somebody
warns it that there is a problem, and that was not happening
here. In fact I would suggest there is ample evidence that there
was a wilful effort to not let SIRC know that this blunder had
occurred. That is extremely problematic and the government is
not reacting to this issue in a very responsible fashion.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
with some emotion to address the motion introduced by the Bloc
Quebecois concerning organized crime.
A few weeks ago, I hired a helicopter and was flown over my
riding. This proved to be a strange but enlightening adventure,
as I now realize the scope of the phenomenon, just how much the
gangs have taken over in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
In viewing my riding from the air, and in talking with
colleagues afterward, I became aware that some 25% to 50% of
fields in Quebec, and the same percentage in Ontario, have been
commandeered by organized crime for the production of one of the
best grades of cannabis in the world. It has nothing in common
with the pot of the 1970s, as it contains 7 to 30 times more
hallucinogens.
My flight, coupled with the discussions afterward, also opened
my eyes to a very serious situation: the thousands of farm
families terrorized year after year by organized crime, families
prevented from enjoying their property in peace, from even
going into their fields on pain of death. Their lives and their
children's lives are threatened, and they do not dare set foot
in their fields because they have been booby-trapped and there
could be an explosion. These people have had enough, and they
are appealing to us.
I have also seen that the problem in our cities is becoming more
and more serious. My colleagues referred this morning to the
situation in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. We are all aware
that criminals are growing cannabis by hydroponics in a
greenhouse or basement, or right out in the open in the middle
of a city, and that there are shooting galleries all over the
place. This is becoming more prevalent in the city as well as
in the country.
1240
I also realized something even more serious. The cannabis
produced here is of such a high quality that it is often—and in
fact increasingly so—traded for the same quantity of cocaine or
heroin, for example on American markets. This means that the
fields in Quebec, like those in Ontario and in other regions
across Canada, are being used to smuggle huge shipments of
cocaine and heroin on the Quebec and Canadian markets.
Since these drugs are smuggled in huge quantities, prices are
low, which allows organized crime to sell it to children in the
polyvalentes or high schools. Not only cannabis, but also
cocaine and heroin, are found in the polyvalentes.
It is no surprise that, every year, there is an increase in the
numbers of 12 and 13-year olds who use these hard drugs, and the
children of anyone here could be among them. We should be very
aware of this issue and its long term impact on our society.
We have to realize that organized crime makes money primarily
from drug trafficking and production. The Canadian market alone
generates $10 billion U.S. annually. The international market,
which is controlled in part by some biker gangs in Canada, could
reach $500 billion U.S. annually.
Moreover, drugs and organized crime are also the cause of
several acts of violence in our society. For example, biker
gangs are engaged in wars to control the drug market.
In Montreal, in 1995, an 11-year old child died because of these
biker gangs and their turf war for a share of the drug market.
It is not surprising, because it is worth $10 billion for Canada
and $500 billion U.S. for the world.
Our inaction also involves social costs. For Quebec, Ontario
and British Columbia alone, the costs related to the consumption
of drugs are estimated at some $4 billion. Our children, at the
age of 12 or 13, are hooked on cocaine or heroin. We have a big
responsibility.
Since 1994, no fewer than 79 murders have been committed in
Quebec alone for the purpose of gaining control of the drug
markets. There have been 89 attempted murders, 129 cases of
arson and 82 bombings. In 1998, there were 450 acts of violence
related to control of the drug market.
Each time such things occur, innocent people can die, just like
the Desrocher child in 1995.
We cannot let it go on.
I have started this fight and will continue it to the end first
and foremost for my little Rosalie, but I do it as well for all
children in Quebec and Canada. I do not want them to be the
next victims of these criminals whom we welcome here with our
permissive laws and whose trade flourishes year after year
because of our inaction.
I have got to know the RCMP a bit better recently, everyone will
understand why, but all police forces are doing an admirable
job. They are competent and determined people. Very few people
would go to work with a smile if they faced the same environment
as the police forces in Quebec and Canada.
This is their environment. They do not have the resources they
need to go up against organized crime and the billions of
dollars it can call up year after year to expand its operations.
The RCMP budget shows $77 million under the heading of anti-drug
activities, and $40 million under the heading of money
laundering. This is ridiculous, particularly since the budget
has shrunk by 12% since 1994, while organized crime is
increasing exponentially. However great a job they do, their
budget is in no way adequate.
It is the same with respect to the agreement between the RCMP
and the armed forces for the loan of equipment, including
helicopters. In the fight against drug traffickers, it is vital
that there be hours of helicopter time available year after
year. For all of Quebec, there are 150 available hours. Ten or
twenty times that is needed.
Furthermore, the Canadian judicial system is not helping. Once
again, these are competent, experienced people I have had
occasion to deal with recently. They have pointed out certain
weaknesses in the judicial system. By the way, I thank them for
this information, for this wonderful contribution.
1245
I have identified five weaknesses in the legislation, but it
will be up to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
to identify many more and to find solutions.
First, the sentences handed down are ridiculous. Sometimes,
they are shorter than the time it took to find people guilty and
conduct an investigation. This is becoming ridiculous, and the
ringleaders are never charged, because it is not possible to
make the charges stick.
Sentences in Canada are so lenient, compared to sentences
elsewhere in the world, that the country attracts criminals.
Drug traffickers like to operate in Canada; I can see why, with
sentences like that, which are much lighter than in the United
States. They have a market in which their activities can
flourish, unimpeded.
Gang membership is not a crime under the Criminal Code, as it is
almost anywhere else in the world. It should be. Belonging to
a crime gang, or a gang recognized as such, is a crime and we
ought to identify all 38 gangs operating in Canada, whether they
are involved in drugs or something else, as such.
My response to the rights activists is this: the charter of
rights and freedoms contains a notwithstanding clause, and I
trust that the charter was put in place not to help criminals,
but to help honest folk.
It must also be proven that the property of criminals has been
obtained through criminal activity.
Why do we not follow the example of the United States, where the
onus is on the criminal to prove that his possessions, the fancy
house, the boats and so on, that he owns although having no
visible source of income, are not the proceeds of crime.
I could have spoken of electronic surveillance, of the weakness
of the clauses relating to money laundering. I call upon my
colleagues to support our motion. The same thing could happen
to them as happened to me and to the thousands of terrorized
people living in fear of organized crime throughout Quebec and
Canada.
I call upon them to support the Bloc Quebecois motion and to set
themselves promptly to the task of fighting organized crime to
ensure that families in Quebec and Canada can live in peace and
quiet and in safety, and that they can enjoy their lives without
having to deal with criminals who are out to get them or who are
commandeering their property to produce the drugs that will
eventually kill our children.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be very brief so that my colleagues can also get in a
question.
I commend this member. He has faced just a horrific situation
personally and at his family level. I wish him and his family
all of the best.
In light of the difficulties that he and his family have come up
against because of the actions and the aggressiveness of
organized crime against him, I wonder if he would agree with me
that the government also has to take a look at the whole issue of
protecting citizens who are going to come forward and be part of
solving the problem with respect to organized crime and that in
fact we should really be looking at beefing up the whole issue of
our witness protection legislation and witness protection
activities.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I
mentioned a number of problems with Canada's laws and the
Criminal Code, but there are many others.
This is why our motion calls on the House to instruct the
justice committee to seriously consider the situation and the
state and strengthening of these laws to make them really
effective.
I said earlier that Canadian laws do not consider membership in
a crime gang a criminal act, yet everyone knows how the
organizations run and who is at the head of them. However,
because we are sticklers for rules, because we have a charter of
rights and freedoms—which I respect—and because there are
do-gooders in our society who say that we must be careful and
apply the charter, we do nothing.
The charter is not meant for criminals.
The same applies to warrants for wiretapping. At one point, we
have to stop being so soft. Some wiretapping warrants, which
are for six months or a year, require extraordinary action, even
action that discourages all police forces.
1250
It is extraordinary, because I have seen determined, experienced
and highly competent police dealing with equipment that is of no
help to them. Most of all, there is the legal system, which
allows criminals to laugh in everyone's face, because it is very
permissive and full of loopholes. It even attracts criminals
from other countries to come here to carry on their activities,
because Canada is more permissive and Canada is a better place
to do business, at least their kind of business.
We as
parliamentarians have got to put a stop to this. We have a huge
responsibility, and we must take this responsibility seriously.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted an opportunity, like my colleague, to
congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for what he is
doing. I think we could just about call him a Canadian hero. The
member may jump at that and think it is an exaggeration, but I do
not because when we take on organized crime, we have a serious
problem, as the member is finding out.
I see the hon. member up in the gym and he is tailed by the
RCMP. I would not want that in my life and I do not think any
Canadian believes that should be happening in Canada. This
should be too free a country for that.
I hope the government, in accepting this motion, will also
accept witnesses recommended by the opposition parties and be
prepared to go to cities like Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto,
Vancouver for committee hearings so we can get to the root of the
problem in each of those cities and solve these problems.
I could not let the chance go by to say that it is astounding in
a country like this that organized crime is so deep it can get
right up to the level of the House of Commons where it can make
threats against a person and his or her family. We should all
take that seriously and make sure that does not happen again.
Organized crime has to know the government and the people in this
building are serious about ending organized crime in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, we
should stop making this debate personal. I am no Canadian hero,
but I would like us to think of the thousands of people who,
because they are not parliamentarians, do not benefit from the
protection of the RCMP or other police forces. We have to think
of these people first.
That is what I found out. There are people who have been living
in terror for years. A few weeks of terror is already difficult
to bear, but nobody should have to live in terror for years.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is time for a
very short question from the hon. member for Quebec.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what I want
to know, because it is often suggested, is this: regarding the
control of marijuana fields by criminal gangs, if marijuana were
made legal, would this not put criminals out of business? Could
that be a solution?
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I am far from convinced that
legalizing so-called soft drugs is the solution, and I will
explain why.
Legalizing them would probably get organized crime out of the
fields of Quebec and the rest of Canada. There are, however,
products that are substituted for this very high quality
cannabis, and I am talking about cocaine and heroin. Lowering
the price of top quality Canadian cannabis would bring down the
price of substitute drugs as well, possibly resulting in a
situation where organized crime would go after a greater share
of the market, because the price of hard drugs had dropped.
What is lost in terms of profits, because some drugs have been
legalized, could be made up for in increased numbers of hard
drug users.
So I think this bears looking at. But I am personally coming
around to the idea that it would not be the solution, far from
it, and it might make matters worse. I think it is too easy to
say that we are unable to do anything, because we are not
putting in the necessary financial and legal resources, and to
say that we will legalize what we cannot control
It is the thin edge of the wedge to take everything we are
unable to control and, when we are unable to find a solution,
legalize it.
I think this is something we should avoid doing.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think it is
extremely important to participate in this debate, as it deals
with what will certainly be one of the most important issues in
the next millennium. The Bloc Quebecois motion reads as follows:
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse
the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of
criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October
31, 2000.
1255
This debate is all the more important that it affects me as an
elected member of parliament representing a riding located in
central Quebec, where drug dealers have used agricultural land
to grow the illicit substance.
I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for his courage. In spite of death threats
on him and his family, he chose to continue his crusade against
what he calls a real scourge. It does take courage, but it was
also his duty as member of parliament to protect the interests
of his fellow citizens.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is the one who received
death threats in this case, but other members of this House may
also have received threats relating to their work, because they
took their responsibilities and did their job as
parliamentarians, as elected representatives of their fellow
citizens. Now, they have become victims of violence. This is
unacceptable.
As I mentioned earlier, in Quebec's central region and in the
Montérégie, more than 50% of farmland is contaminated by the
presence of cannabis producers who take advantage of corn crops
to grow a very high quality product, which ranks among the best
in the world. My colleague explained why it is important to act
and to provide the necessary tools to police forces, in addition
to strengthening our legislation.
I want to take a brief moment to urge the solicitor general, who
is responsible for the RCMP, to keep regional RCMP offices open.
There is a threat hovering over our regions. A study was
conducted and a report was produced, which indicates that
regional RCMP offices, whose staff has great expertise in
dealing with organized crime locally, might be slated for
closure and their staff relocated.
At present, everyone in the community, including municipal
councils and chambers of commerce, is opposed to such a change.
It just does not make sense. At a time when there is already a
shortage of tools and resources to fight this scourge in our
regions, the government lowers the boom by saying “We are
closing your RCMP offices”.
Moreover, these officers are working in close co-operation with
other police forces, such as the Sûreté du Québec or the
municipal police forces. Municipal police officers insist that
the RCMP officers, who have expertise in this area, have to be
kept in our regions.
Parliament has to deal seriously with this issue and realize
that organized crime is rampant in Canada and around the world.
We have to ask ourselves whether enforcement of current measures
is enough. In the light of everything we heard this morning, I
think not. Current measures are not enough.
The Bloc Quebecois did an extensive study and sounded out
several stakeholders, people responsible for enforcing current
legislation. They are unanimous in saying that it is not enough.
1300
The Canadian Police Association, in a release dated October 8,
stated that “The dreadful reality is that organized crime has
reached epidemic proportions and police forces feel frustrated
because they lack the tools and resources to fight against it”.
I would like to recall here what the Parliament of Canada has
done in terms of legislation. I feel it is important to mention
it.
The Witness Protection Act now makes it possible for police to
better protect people who co-operate to obtain evidence against
criminal organizations.
As a result of the Criminal Law Improvement Act, police can more
easily be involved in activities used as a front.
The anti-gang legislation, Bill C-95, which was enacted in April
1997, includes the definition of gang in the Criminal Code.
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gives police the power to
conduct controlled drug sale and delivery operations through
undercover agents.
Despite all these legislative provisions, enforcement
authorities seem to be unable to put a stop to criminal gang
activities.
Drug trafficking is still the main source of revenue for most
organized crime groups.
Of all the activities related to organized crime, it is the
illegal drug trade that has the worst consequences for Canada,
given its social and economic effects and the violence that
stems from it.
In studies that try to give a dollar figure for the cost of the
illegal drug trade in Canada, this cost ranges from a
conservative estimate of $1.4 billion a year to almost $4
billion a year for Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
I would also like to mention the main difficulties encountered
by enforcement authorities and crown prosecutors.
On top of limited budgets, police organizations complain about
the inability of the justice system to support their efforts:
sentences are often shorter than the length of the
investigation; the infiltration of criminal organizations by
enforcement officers, which is very difficult because belonging
to such organizations entails having committed criminal acts;
the difficulty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused became rich by committing a series of specific and
identifiable criminal acts, a difficulty that could be
eliminated by a reversal of the onus of proof; in some cases,
the difficulty in exchanges of information between police forces
and various departments, such as Immigration Canada and Revenue
Canada; the inadequacy of provisions for the protection of
witnesses and jurors.
Finally, in light of this brief overview of organized crime in
Canada, it is important to take stock of these instruments to
see which could be improved or complemented by new legislative,
administrative, or financial measures.
I conclude by appealing to all members of parliament to vote in
favour of this motion by the Bloc Quebecois, so that we can
finally put a stop to this scourge.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
hon. colleague mentioned earlier that some RCMP detachments
could be dismantled in her riding of Drummond. We have heard the
same thing about the RCMP detachment in the riding of
Saint-Hyacinthe for the last year and a half. The government
keeps saying that these are only rumours. Maybe, but these
rumours are getting persistent.
Does my hon. colleague have any additional information about the
dismantling of RCMP detachments? I just want to say, by the way,
that this would be a major mistake, because we need these RCMP
detachments to fight against organized crime for three main
reasons.
First, the RCMP officers working at these detachments are highly
skilled. They have developed a bond with the residents and
forged links of trust that are very important to the continuing
fight against organized crime.
Second, their mere presence is a deterrent.
1305
Third, this is like a game of chess. If a bikers gang builds a
bunker somewhere, we need to have a police station nearby as a
deterrent.
So, I want to know if the hon. member has heard any additional
persistent rumours about the dismantling of RCMP detachments.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, rumours are based on a report
that is hard to get, and which may have been handed out to just
a few people who have told us about its recommendations.
The report did recommend that RCMP detachments be closed in the
areas of Drummond and Saint-Hyacinthe and in part of the Eastern
Townships, near the border.
The RCMP detachment in my area was set up about 15 years ago,
and officers are posted for good reason. They do an excellent
job. Everybody, the chamber of commerce and the municipalities
included, has passed a resolution asking the federal government
to maintain this detachment, because the officers there have a
close working relationship with the other police forces.
The situation is similar in the Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot area and in
other communities near the American border, in the ridings of
our PC colleagues.
There had been rumours that there would be closures, but we have
now learned that these rumours were based on an actual report.
We are now being told that the Saint-Hyacinthe and Drummond
detachments could be maintained, but, for the time being, there
is no guarantee to that effect.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you right
away that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Ahuntsic.
I will begin my speech with something that is rather unusual in
the House, but I will do it anyway. I want to congratulate the
Bloc Quebecois for putting forward this motion today.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse
the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of
criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October
31, 2000.
In the French version, I would have preferred the word “choix”
instead of “avenues” and the word “criminels” instead of
“criminalisés”, but this is just a minor detail of a linguistic
nature.
I could talk about all the initiatives our government has taken.
I could also talk, for example, about the proceeds of crime
control units, 13 of which were established across the country,
one in each large urban centre. I visited the one in Montreal. A
multidisciplinary team made up of lawyers, accountants and
police officers works in that unit. It is an example of
co-operation to fight organized crime.
I could talk about the bill we have introduced to fight money
laundering. We are the only G-7 country not to have done so, so
far. I am glad we finally did it.
I could talk about Canada's leadership role in a pan-American
group called MEM, chaired by the deputy minister of the
solicitor general, Jean Fournier. This group's mission is to
fight organized crime, particularly drug trafficking.
I could talk about Canada's participation in NORAD, the North
American Air Defence, and the support of this organization for
drug enforcement.
1310
Members are no doubt aware that I am the chair of the
Canada—United States Standing Committee on Defence and that NORAD
issues are of great concern to that committee. In this capacity,
I had the opportunity to visit the NORAD facilities at Mount
Cheyenne, in Colorado Springs. This is a technological marvel,
especially the drug enforcement service.
I might mention Operation Cisaille, which is so important in my
region. Other members already mentioned it. In the Montérégie,
this operation is highly important. The UPA, the stakeholders,
the Quebec government, the Canadian government, members of this
House, everybody agrees that this operation is a marvel of
co-operation and efficiency.
Another example is the drug strategy developed by the Canadian
government to combat drug supply, in other words the people who
produce and sell drugs, and to limit the access to drugs. I am
thus talking of prevention and of protection against supply.
The reason I support this motion is that I do not accept that my
colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot be threatened for doing his
job. What threatens my colleague also threatens the 301 members
of this House and the 104 senators in this parliament. This
threat affects all of parliament. The life of the hon. member is
torn apart. Such actions concern us all, and I reject them.
The reason I support this motion is that I do not accept that
senior citizens have their savings stolen as a part of a
fraudulent telemarketing operation.
I support this motion because I cannot accept that children be
robbed of their future by pushers who often are themselves the
victims of organized crime.
We deplore child poverty and we know that, all too often,
children go to school on an empty stomach, which is not the best
way to start the school day. It is not conducive to learning
either. The same can be said of drugs. A child who is under the
influence cannot learn.
This is why, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said just
a moment ago, I believe we cannot skirt our responsibilities.
Legalizing marijuana is out of the question; instead we should
go after those who are responsible for that scourge that affects
us all as a society.
I support this motion because I sincerely believe that we, as a
government, while we are doing great things—and I do know we are
doing a lot—must do even better. We must do more to fight
organized crime, to deal with the globalization of organized
crime.
We have heard a lot about the Canadian initiative on human
security. Canada is truly a leader in this respect. These are no
idle words, it is true, Canada has taken the lead
internationally in terms of promoting a new concept called human
security. It is in that context that we are intervening abroad,
that we are changing the definition of what a border is, and
that we are questioning the very principle of non interference
in the affairs of a foreign state. If human security is
threatened, we avail ourselves of the right to interfere.
It is in the name of this same humanism that we must intensify
our fight against organized crime. It is in the name of this
same humanism that every effort must be made to fight organized
crime.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, I
consider this a very important issue and have worked a lot on
it. I am delighted at the prospect of this motion, if it is
adopted, giving me the opportunity to take even greater part as
a member of the Standing Committee on Justice in formulating
suggestions that, in my opinion, are fundamental at the dawn of
the new millennium.
I invite all my colleagues on this side of the House and the
House as a whole to support this motion.
1315
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member.
In my province of Newfoundland, and in Atlantic Canada in
general, we have hundreds of miles of coastline that is
essentially unprotected and unpatrolled. That coastline is very
vulnerable to the importation of drugs, guns and all kinds of
illegal activity. Because of government cutbacks ports police
have been eliminated. It is a wide open invitation to the drug
trade.
What is government going to do to protect that kind of coastline
when it has cut out the ports police and reduced the ability of
the RCMP to do its job?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I must say that protecting our
coasts also means protecting air approaches to them. In this
regard, I referred in my presentation to the work we are doing,
within NORAD in particular, to have support to block flights
that could arrive here with drug shipments.
I would remind my colleague that we did indeed announce in the
throne speech our intention to strengthen and support the public
security initiative and, of course, the fight against organized
crime is an integral part of this fight for public security.
Third, I think that if my colleague has specific recommendations
to make, he will understand that I am not in a position to give
an answer now, when in fact I look forward to the working
committee coming up with appropriate answers, but at the same
time I would really like, once this motion has been adopted and
the committee has begun its work, for him to take that
opportunity to make them.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague and I would like to ask him these three
questions.
Could he not make a commitment, while the Standing Committee on
Justice is preparing its recommendations on legislative changes
among other things, to not close any RCMP detachments in Quebec,
starting with the one in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot? I agree with my
colleague from Drummond that they are doing an excellent and
much needed job.
Second, can he assure us that his government is aware of the
lack of police resources and is committed to putting a great
effort into strengthening them? This will let the criminals
know that, when planting season starts in May, the fun is over
and things will never be the same; they will no longer be the
ones calling the shots?
Third, can he—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unfortunately, there is not
enough time left for the third question.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I heard the same rumors as
everybody else, but I must say that they are only rumors.
My colleague is asking me to take a stand on these rumors. It is
absolutely impossible for me to do, and it is understandable.
However, it seems to me that the second question he asked me is
extremely important. He alluded to the lack of resources
available to the RCMP. Treasury Board asked an independent
organization to make a study on the RCMP's levels of financing.
This study will show us what we must do to help the RCMP
fulfill its mandate, which is getting larger every day.
Let us not forget that the DNA bank and gun control, for
example, were added to its responsibilities.
Many functions are being added to the RCMP's responsibilities.
Consequently, we should perhaps ask if its resources are
adequate.
When the report is made public, and considering what was said in
the throne speech, I believe it would advisable to give the RCMP
what it needs to fulfill its mandate.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleague, the parliamentary secretary, I would like to
congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for this motion, and I will say
that I support it wholeheartedly. It really is an excellent
initiative, and I thank the Bloc for having given us the
opportunity to address an issue which affects our children and
the their future in our country.
I would like to deal more fully with the activities of organized
crime groups involved in drug trafficking.
1320
This is a subject for which I have a keen interest. Just
recently, there were reports in the newspaper about a police
operation in the riding of Ahuntsic, in the northern part of
Montreal. The operation, called Operation Embryo, led to 205
charges being laid against two youth gangs. These young
criminals between 19 and 25 years of age had been active for
about two years in my riding and the neighbouring ridings, where
through intimidation and harassment they sold drugs in
elementary schools.
They did not became gang members at 19. They had been recruited
at a younger age by organized crime.
This is exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. This is
why I approve of the opposition motion for an in-depth study. It
will not go on too long, and I think it is a good idea not to
give too much time to the justice committee. Even though I am no
longer a member of that committee I can say that I keep an eye
on justice issues and particularly this one.
I personally want to congratulate the various police forces of
my area and of Montreal North for this operation, which was a
big success and helped to ensure the security of the population
of my riding of Ahuntsic.
This government is keenly aware that most organized crime groups
are very actively involved in drug trafficking. I just gave an
example of the fact that they are recruit school children
everywhere.
In its recently published report on organized crime in Canada,
the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics found that nine out
of ten organized crime groups are involved in drug trafficking.
Moreover, drug trafficking is for these groups the primary
source of revenue, a very lucrative source. According to the
federal government's best estimate, the size of the Canadian
market for illicit drugs would be between $7 billion and $10
billion.
Recently, an study of the impact of organized crime published by
the Department of the Solicitor General confirmed to what extent
members of organized crime are involved in and help support
illegal drug trafficking.
Again, I want to support what was said by my hon. colleague, the
parliamentary secretary, about what happened to our colleague
from the Bloc Quebecois because he spoke out against criminal
activities. He is faced with a terrible situation and I want to
tell him that we all support his actions. We want to ensure that
he will prevail against this organized crime group that has
threatened his family. It is really deplorable.
Of all the activities associated with organized crime, it is
illegal drug trafficking, as I said, that has the worst
consequences for Canada, because of its social and economic
impacts and the violence associated with it.
Studies to put a dollar figure on the cost for Canada of illegal
drug trafficking estimate it at between a conservative $1.4
billion a year and nearly $4 billion a year for the three
provinces in Canada with the largest populations, namely Quebec,
Ontario and British Columbia.
If we also take into account the fact that more than 93% of
these groups resort to violence and other forms of intimidation,
we get an increasingly threatening picture of the impact drug
trafficking has on our society and, particularly, on our
children.
The costs to Canada are huge, if we also take into account lost
productivity, illness, death, violence, crimes against property
and robbery that can occur as a result of drug trafficking or
use.
Drug dependency has dramatic consequences on the life of people,
and particularly on the future of our children.
Trade and economic indicators cannot adequately measure the
lives that are destroyed and the unrealized potential due to
drug use nor the losses sustained as a result by society. The
individual is not the only one that loses out. There is an
impact on families, children, friends and society as a whole.
1325
When all is said and done, these intangible consequences could
well be the worst damage caused by the illicit drug trade to our
country and our communities.
Illicit drug use, we know, occurs mostly among children and
have-nots. Street kids are particularly vulnerable.
Cannabis is the most popular illicit drug in Canada. Cannabis
consumption is said to have increased considerably in the last
few years, and production of cannabis in Canada also seems to be
on the rise.
In 1985, Canadian marijuana represented 10% of the total supply
on the Canadian market. In 1995, it had reached 50%. We have
grown from cannabis consumers to producers and exporters in the
last few years.
[English]
It is absolutely horrible. I am one of the members in the House
of Commons who supports what the health minister has initiated in
terms of doing studies to see whether the consumption of
marijuana for health purposes should be decriminalized. I
support the Minister of Health in this study. I hope that the
conclusions will lead to the beginning of the decriminalization
of marijuana in our society. That is a personal opinion that I
am giving on that issue.
[Translation]
The federal government is fully aware of how bad the situation
is. This is why it has adopted a series of measures to try and
solve the problem.
We are encouraged by the co-operation between federal, provincial
and municipal police forces to fight the illicit cultivation of
marijuana. I believe that if marijuana consumption were
decriminalized, we might see less crime related to its sale and
purchase.
[English]
The government has taken a number of initiatives in order to
ensure that there are tools that are needed by our crime
enforcement forces across the country in order to fight organized
crime. I believe that other speakers before me have listed some,
but I would like to list them again, because this question keeps
coming up from the opposition.
We have invested $150 million for the RCMP to upgrade and
enhance a national police information system. We have invested
$18 million for the national DNA data bank initiative, giving
police a powerful tool against serious violent criminals, an
additional $78 million to the national anti-smuggling initiative,
which will combat illicit drug trade and an additional $15
million annually to put more RCMP officers in Vancouver, Toronto
and Montreal airports to ensure that the drug trade does not come
in freely through our borders.
The government approved $13.8 million for the RCMP, to be used
for workload increases in 1999 and 2000. We established 13
proceeds of crime units across the country in the RCMP. The RCMP
has recently created the new position of deputy commissioner of
organized crime to oversee and co-ordinate the force's efforts at
the national and international level.
I would like to say once again that I support this motion 100%,
and I encourage all members of the House to give unanimous
support to the great initiative taken by the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I spoke just a couple of minutes ago about the feeling of
camaraderie we have, but I cannot stay away from thinking about
some of the comments a couple of government members, people who
are in responsible parliamentary secretary positions, have made.
For example, the preceding speaker to the last one talked about
the proceeds of crime. He must know that for every dollar
collected, it is currently costing the government $1.40. In other
words, there is no net gain there.
The other thing is, why has the government been so long, long,
long in finally bringing forward a money laundering bill? The
government was talking about the Pan-American group and the NORAD
group on combating drug trafficking while at the same time there
were severe cutbacks to the enforcement capability of the RCMP in
the lower mainland of Vancouver, where police cars could not
roll, where the RCMP officers could not even use their
cellphones.
1330
It just goes on and on. The question is simple and
straightforward. I believe everybody in the House is in
agreement that this is an excellent initiative. However, I have
to ask a government representative, a government member, a
parliamentary secretary, if this is such an excellent initiative,
and it is, why it took the opposition to bring this initiative to
the government for the government to finally get on the stick and
start to do something.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I believe he was not listening very closely to
the comments of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who in
fact stated all the different initiates we have taken over the
years. As former parliamentary secretary to the minister of
justice I can also mention our crime prevention initiative of $31
million and all sorts of other initiatives we have taken and will
continue to take.
I agree with the member that we need more money. That is
exactly what we stated in the throne speech. When the Minister
of Finance brings forth his budget I believe there will be
initiatives, although I will wait to hear what the minister has
to say, that stem from our pronouncement in the throne speech of
what we would like to do. I encourage the hon. member to support
the Minister of Finance and the government to ensure that there
will be more funds to combat organized crime and the illicit drug
trade.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois for
bringing this very serious motion to the attention of the House.
I should thank the previous speaker from the Liberal Party for
her remarks but unfortunately rhetoric is cheap. The hon. member
should refer to a news release done by the Minister of National
Revenue. He referred to Bill C-18 which provides customs
officers with the power to arrest and detain individuals
suspected of having committed offences under the criminal code.
Unfortunately the minister forgot to include Halifax and Halifax
airport and harbour. That is a piecemeal approach.
The government made Clair, St. Stephen and Woodstock in Atlantic
Canada part of this initiative but ignored the most important
airport in Atlantic Canada and the most important harbour on the
seaboard in terms of giving our customs officers the tools and
the training with which to work and with which to protect
themselves.
Unfortunately a while back the government got rid of the ports
police as a cost cutting measure and gave the ports over to local
police authorities. The hon. member from Cape Breton said quite
clearly that was a mistake. RCMP and law enforcement officers
across the country have been cut severely in terms of their
resources. Because of that organized crime has had more or less
a free hand in the country.
Although the hon. member's rhetoric is very important and
although I appreciate her comments, will she be able to convince
her government, especially in light of Bill C-18, that there are
some serious flaws? Will she encourage the revenue minister to
include Halifax airport and the Halifax port in this very
important initiative?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I understand how committed he is to ensuring
that his constituents have the necessary services.
As I said in my speech and as the parliamentary secretary said,
we are committed to ensuring that there are more funds. As I
stated, we have given more money to Vancouver. I do not believe
it was rhetoric. I truly believe what I said and what was said
by the parliamentary secretary.
The government is committed. We said that in the throne speech.
I encourage all members to support the Minister of Finance and
the Minister of National Revenue in the ongoing program to combat
the illicit drug trade and to ensure that police forces across
the country have the money to do their jobs properly.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the government members who are working with us today. I
think all members of the House want this issue to be referred to
the appropriate committee, because we all know too well that
nowadays there are few problems more urgent and more serious
than organized crime.
1335
I have been following this issue very closely for several years
now, because I was the member of parliament for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in 1995 when, for the first time ever, a
car bombing killed an innocent bystander, 11-year old Daniel
Desrochers, who had the misfortune of being at the wrong place
at the wrong time.
That was when I realized that we, as parliamentarians, have to
fight organized crime. Organized crime does not come out of the
blue. Not every society has to deal with this problem. There are
certain conditions that foster organized crime.
First, it happens in a wealthy society that has communications
networks, airports and various means of transportation, because
organized crime is interested in globalization and needs to do
business and to connect with people on other continents.
Organized crime is also rampant in bureaucratic societies. In
that regard, we must acknowledge, even though our democratic
rights are very dear to us, that the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and the legal guarantees stipulated in sections 7
to 14 do sometimes undermine investigations.
We are facing a far from trivial paradox, since, as members of
parliament and as members of Canadian society, we are dealing
here with only about 200 individuals.
As we know, there are in Canada 38 criminal biker gangs, one of
which in particular, the Hell's Angels, is made up of less than
200 individuals in Canada, but has fifteen chapters, six of
which are in Quebec. These individuals and this highly criminal
group have managed to beat the most clever strategies and to
infiltrate all spheres of society.
One must never forget that organized crime operates in stages.
First, organized crime fights for a territory. This happened in
Montreal in the early 1990s.
Then, organized crime turns to money laundering. One example of
this stage is the Hell's Angels and the criminal biker gangs.
In Canada we are now at this second stage. The Italian Mafia has
mastered the third one. Once control over a territory has been
gained and money laundering activities are going on, we move on
to the third stage, to investments in both legal and illegal
activities.
I believe that we must all recognize that this situation allows
organized crime to go on from generation to generation. The
Hell's Angels have been around for 50 years and obviously they
have an interface with lawyers, accountants and businesses.
In Montreal, for example, 83% of licensed beverage
establishments are controlled by people with connections to the
underworld. We must not imagine that the police do not know all
this.
Police officers are dedicated people; just like us, they want to
fight organized crime effectively, but they do not have the
resources they need.
I recently met a police officer, whose name I will keep to
myself, who told me that tailing just one individual—for example
when they know a person is a member of one criminal gang or
another—can cost taxpayers from $400,000 to $600,000. Do members
really know how deep and widespread the problem is?
The interesting part in the motion of our colleague, the member
for Berthier—Montcalm, is that it is not partisan; let me repeat
how very grateful I am to all members in this House who
supported the motion.
1340
Organized crime can be found in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. It can be
found in the Montérégie, in Alberta and in regions right across
the country. The only way to win against the modern version of
organized crime is to work together, to create a common front
made up of all members of parliament, an unbeatable common front
because we will all stand united and determined in our fight
against crime.
I hope the justice committee will examine what they have done in
Japan. Naturally, the political context is not the same here as
in Japan.
I will say right away that there is no charter of rights and
freedoms there. In Japan, groups similar to the Hell's Angels
are not allowed to wear crests. Any public reference to this
type of organization is prohibited. I think this is an
interesting idea.
Again, a police officer was telling me “You are quietly driving
along highway 20, on your way to Quebec City. You know there are
members of organized crime behind you going 40 kilometres an
hour. Nobody is going to pass them. Nobody is going to dare pass
them, because they are seen as something strong and invincible”.
We do not have legislation to prohibit the wearing of crests.
There is a myth surrounding the rise of these gangs. Never has a
member of the Hell's Angels ever been kicked out of the gang,
because of the incredible solidarity that exists within the
gang.
Japan, which has had its share of problems with organized crime,
has taken steps that have helped, I would not say to eradicate
the problem—because it is not true and I would not want to imply
that it is—but to control the progression of biker gangs.
I think the idea of prohibiting any public reference to these
organizations and the wearing of crests should be considered by
the parliamentary committee.
I was in the House at the time and I believe I was the first MP
in 1995 to introduce a private member's bill following what
happened to young Daniel Desrochers. We were truly convinced,
all of us, the Liberals as well as people on this side of the
House, that we needed anti-gang legislation.
There was a problem though. We could not make it an offence to
belong to a criminal organization because, under common law, one
cannot be found guilty by association. One can only be found
guilty by virtue of one's acts, one's behaviour.
We could not directly declare a member of a group like the
Hell's Angels a criminal. So we created a new offence called an
organized crime offence. Today, we must recognize that in spite
of all our good faith—and I am convinced everybody acted in good
faith—the legislation has not produced the expected results.
The reason for this is twofold: first, the offence itself is far
too serious. An offence under the Criminal Code or any federal
act is punishable by a five year jail term. Then the
organization, whether formal or informal, must have a membership
of at least five, and the individuals accused of the organized
crime offence must have had a criminal record over the past five
years.
This is the theory of the three fives.
The result of this is that unfortunately, in spite of the fact
that police officers have solid evidence to present a test case
before common law courts, we cannot at this point benefit from
the work done on Bill C-95.
I would have a lot more to say about organized crime, because it
is an issue which deeply concerns me. My hope is that we will
spare no effort and not give in to blackmail and intimidation.
We should follow the example of some of our colleagues. What
they did has shown us what we must learn on this issue.
I am convinced that all the parliamentarians who take part in
the work of the justice committee will do so in a spirit of good
faith, determination and open-mindedness.
If we work together, in a non-partisan fashion, we will win the
fight against organized crime.
1345
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I had a question for the previous speaker from the
Liberal side but the question, in a little different form, is
just as valid for the Bloc.
One of the problems we have in Canada is the severe cutbacks to
the RCMP. Some detachments are short 40 members and money is a
problem. At the same time, one of the initiatives the government
claims it has taken to combat crime is the national gun registry
with in the neighbourhood of $300 million already being put in up
front.
Hopefully the member for the Bloc has informed himself as to the
usefulness of the gun registry. In fact, the papers in Quebec
today had some excellent articles on the national gun registry
and its ineffectiveness. I recommend that he reads some of those
papers. They are in French so it is difficult for me to get all
of the different nuances. However, it becomes clear that there
are some huge problems.
Would he agree with the solicitor general of Ontario who two
weeks ago said that the government should scrap the national gun
registry and put more police on the street to fight organized
crime and some of these other things? Would he agree that should
be the tact of the government, to save those hundreds of millions
of dollars, put it into fighting organized crime and putting more
police on the street?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that we should
abolish the national firearms registry, because I think it is
important, whether we are a politician in Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Montreal or Winnipeg, to know whether there are firearms at a
crime scene or any other place. I think the registry was one of
the bill's good points.
As for the operation of the registry, some members of our caucus
have told us that there may be some technical problems.
But this in no way detracts from the merits of a bill such as
the one we supported, Bill C-68. I agree with the principle of
the bill and I think that all parliamentarians who are
interested in helping to reduce violence in our society have a
responsibility to support it.
I caution the hon. member against jumping to a facile
conclusion. Yes, more police resources are needed. This is
clear, and all members of the community who meet police officers
are well aware of the problem.
But organized crime is not just about police resources—it is also
about evaluating evidence. Since the Stinchcombe ruling in
1994, the crown is now obliged to disclose all evidence. This
includes notes taken by police officers as well as all
recordings.
What does it mean when evidence is disclosed? It obviously
means that it cannot be used in a subsequent investigation, and
this makes the work of the police singularly difficult.
I suppose it is the price of a full and comprehensive defence.
I would say in closing that organized crime is not about police
resources, but about evaluating evidence and legislation, as
members on this side have realized.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like initially to applaud the
initiative by the Bloc Quebecois on today's motion.
I think, however, the debate should go a little deeper. I find
regrettable the remarks made by my friends in the Reform Party
on the Firearms Control Act. We should applaud the passing of
this legislation, especially in light of the massacre at the
école Polytechnique a few years ago. I find such remarks rather
regrettable.
I would like my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to tell me
whether we should restrict the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Second, in his own view of things, would legislation
on marijuana, for example, also have an impact on organized
crime?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, the question is relevant. I think
we have to consider this issue as parliamentarians.
If I were left to my own devices and had to decide only on the
basis of what would best serve the interests of
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I would not hesitate to say that we should
use the notwithstanding clause and declare, for five years—this
is what the notwithstanding clause provides; we can use it or
not—but if we use it, we can declare the 38 existing motorcycle
gangs outside the law for five years.
1350
Yes, I think this is something that must be used and considered.
On the subject of the legalization of marijuana, the link may
not be so direct, because it is in hard drugs such as heroin and
cocaine that organized crime deals. I think we have to look at
this. Our colleague will recall the excellent work done by the
member for Rosemont to have marijuana legalized for therapeutic
purposes.
I have not decided whether we need go further.
First off, I do not tend to think we need to. But I think the
parliamentary committee will give us all the latitude we need to
hear people whose expertise is probably broader and more defined
than mine.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to take part in an important debate, as my hon. colleague from
Berthier—Montcalm put it, given the expansion of organized crime
in Canada and in Quebec.
I want to stress how important the issue of organized crime is
to the Bloc Quebecois. I am thinking of that the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who, in 1995, introduced an anti-gang bill,
the hon. member for Charlesbourg, who put forward a bill on
money laundering and $1,000 bank notes, and the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who was not afraid to expose what farmers
were going through and to stand up for them. I also want to
commend the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert as well as my
hon. colleague from Berthier—Montcalm for the contribution they
have made on the motion before the House.
The Bloc Quebecois has been worrying about this important issue
for a number of years, and I am also worried about it, because
in my riding of Quebec, several gangs are fighting to gain
control over the territory.
Today's debate is also about the quality of life and the
security of the people. I want to remind those who are listening
of Daniel Desrochers, the young boy who was the innocent victim
of a car bombing in 1997. This most unfortunate incident
prompted us to question the effectiveness of the tools at our
disposal.
In today's motion, we ask that the Standing Committee on Justice
examine the various aspects of organized crime and recommend
solutions to this problem. We know that organized crime is on
then rise. Its control extends beyond alcohol and drug
trafficking, to such things as the theft of luxury cars.
Recently, we heard about a stolen luxury car ring. Is this
related to organized crime? This must be investigated. Other
things are stolen too such as trucks, luxury items, offensive
weapons and counterfeit money.
This problem exists throughout Canada. We know there are 38
gangs across the country. That is why we are calling for more
effective laws so we have the tools we need to fight organized
crime. The tools we have now are not effective enough. Police
officers also share that view. Several speeches were made this
morning in which the issues of lack of funding or inadequate
legislation were raised.
Right now, several units have joined forces. I am referring to
the Carcajou unit. There is also the anti-gang legislation that
was passed, Bill C-95.
It seems that we may have the necessary tools to meet the needs,
but these tools must be re-evaluated or improved through
increased funding.
Under Bill C-95, the anti-gang bill, a criminal organization means
any group, association or other body consisting of five or more
persons having as its primary activity the commission of an
indictable offence for which the maximum punishment is
imprisonment for five years or more. The bill created a new
offence.
1355
Those who belong to criminal organizations must be judged the
same way as those who commit criminal acts.
We also want improved tools to fight money laundering. The $1,000
bills in circulation largely favour organized crime. There
could be some improvements in that regard.
As regards the dubious transactions conducted through the banks
or investments made in the various casinos, the police could be
informed in the event of a reasonable doubt—not in the case of
an honest individual who invests or purchases with $10,000, but
when there is doubt about the source of the money—so they may
be equipped to pursue the individuals or at least investigate
the source of those assets.
They say the police are impotent when it comes to alcohol and
tobacco smuggling. La Presse had an article on this in fact.
That does not mean that they do not do an excellent job, but if
we could give them a hand through certain legislation in doing
their work and improving what they are doing, it would be great,
since we know that the heart of the issue are people's quality
of life and security.
They even say that at the federal department of justice they did
not know how to remedy the failings in the law that prevent the
police in their investigations from buying smuggled items such
as cigarettes and alcohol. When the police infiltrate a band
involved in organized crime and cannot buy the alcohol or
cigarettes, there is doubt within the band—
The Speaker: Unfortunateley, I must interrupt. You have at
least four minutes left in your speech and five minutes for
questions and comments following oral question period.
* * *
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of
Commons, Volume 2, for September and November 1999.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed to
have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
KIYOSHI TAKAHASHI
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to
announce the accomplishments of Mr. Kiyoshi Takahashi who is one
of my constituents.
Mr. Takahashi has recently returned from working for 16 weeks
in Bangkok, Thailand for an organization called the Canadian
Volunteer Advisers to Business.
He provided technical assistance and introduced new techniques
for quality control as well as new products for development in
the field of mineral compounds.
* * *
CULTURE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the World Trade Organization meets in
Seattle, we once again hear the calls that Canada has to protect
our culture.
But precisely what do these people want to protect? Are they
upset that last year four of the top ten female singers in the
United States were Canadians Céline Dion, Shania Twain, Sarah
McLachlan and Alanis Morissette?
Are they upset that last week both Céline Dion and Shania Twain
had their specials carried by American television networks in
prime time during the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday?
The only thing our talented Canadian performers need to be
protected from is the inferiority complex that the government
perpetuates. It is an insult to Canadian performers to suggest
that the only way they can compete on the world stage is with the
government's protection.
If these cultural protectionists are truly interested in the
well-being of Canadian performers, they would be out there
promoting them, not trying to isolate them.
* * *
1400
CANADA SPORTS FRIENDSHIP EXCHANGE PROGRAM
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what a fantastic experience for 30 young hockey players
from the town of Wallaceburg in my riding. They are taking part
this week in the Canada Sports Friendship Exchange Program with a
team from Gatineau, Quebec.
Funded in part by the Department of Canadian Heritage, the
principal aim of this hockey exchange for these 14 to 16 year
olds is to foster friendship and a better understanding between
our Canadian francophone and anglophone youths and their
families.
It will also enhance their knowledge of our great nation's
history and geography. The big highlight for the kids was a
visit to the Corel Centre today to watch the Ottawa Senators
practise, followed by a friendly non-competitive game on the NHL
ice with free tickets to tonight's game with the Chicago
Blackhawks.
The team from Quebec will go to southwestern Ontario in the near
future. It also shows that on or off the ice our Canadian youth,
French and English, are united in friendship.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, thanks to his website on gasoline prices, René Goyette
is becoming known throughout Quebec and Canada. His
www.abacom.com/essence website has become one of the sites with
the most hits in the Province of Quebec.
According to Mr. Goyette, it all started when there was a sudden
gas price hike a while ago. Mr. Goyette, along with myself and
many other drivers, is fed up with high gas prices.
Surfers are invited to input the gasoline price in their region.
All they have to do is click on a map of the province to find
out where the best price can be found in their vicinity. Every
region of Quebec is included. This site has become a means of
defence against the gasoline companies.
I invite people to participate in the vote that is part of this
web site.
* * *
DRUMMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the gala
evening of the Drummond chamber of commerce and industry,
recognition was given to a number of people who contributed to
the development and visibility of Drummond in 1999.
The young actress Karine Vanasse was named personality of the
Year, jointly with a couple, Marielle and Pierre Tremblay, who
were named Quebec's jewellers of the year.
The Distinction award was given to Jacques and Louis-Jacques
Laferté for their business.
André Jean, president of the Caisse populaire de Drummondville,
was named 1999 builder of the year. Napoléon awards were given
out to a number of other people in a number of other categories.
On behalf of all the people in my riding of Drummond, I wish to
extend my congratulations to these personalities and
entrepreneurs who have distinguished themselves over the past
year.
* * *
QUEBEC WING OF LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the
Prime Minister of Canada, I wish to congratulate the 1,400 party
members, 40% of them youth delegates, who attended the
convention of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Those present, including delegates from my riding of Ahuntsic,
submitted and proposed resolutions indicative of their desire to
improve the quality of life of Canadians.
I would especially like to congratulate a young delegate from
Rosemont, Naomi Arpin, who submitted a resolution about incest.
She was a victim of incest and introduced specific resolutions
for the improvement of the Criminal Code.
Let us not forget that the work done by the volunteers of the
Liberal Party of Canada is of capital importance.
It helps develop a blueprint for society that is adapted to the
realities of today and tomorrow.
My congratulations to all delegates who attended.
* * *
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1999, the Minister of Justice said
this about child pornography: “We are acting immediately. We
will not wait for this case to reach the supreme court”.
Since she made those statements, a 300,000 signature petition
has been tabled calling for the reinstatement of the possession
of child pornography as a criminal offence. Numerous individuals
have used the Sharpe decision as a defence to avoid prosecution.
Sixty-three Liberal MPs and six Liberal senators have called on
the Prime Minister to invoke the notwithstanding clause and
further the petitions that have been circulated.
The result of this is the Minister of Justice has received 6,500
signatures on a cruelty to animals petition. The minister has
decreed this issue as pre-eminent in the legislative sweepstakes.
It is regrettable that this minister has her priorities so
wrong.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTFORT HOSPITAL
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Ontario divisional court handed down its ruling
on the reduction of services at the Montfort Hospital. In a
unanimous decision, the court ruled that the Health Services
Restructuring Commission's decision ignored the principle of
protecting and respecting minority rights entrenched in the
Canadian Constitution.
1405
It is a great victory for all Franco-Ontarians and for all
official language communities in Canada. It will serve as a
precedent in future court cases, and sends a signal to those who
are constantly trying to limit the strength and vitality of our
communities.
I hope that the Government of Ontario will take action
accordingly and look for ways of improving services to
francophones in this issue and others. The survival of the
official languages is what a united Canada is all about.
* * *
MONTFORT HOSPITAL
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a court once again sided with Franco-Ontarians when it
ruled that the Montfort Hospital would remain open because it is
essential to the development of francophone communities.
With this ruling, the Ontario divisional court taught a great
lesson to all of Canada. A fundamental distinction must be made
between token bilingual services that have no impact on the
erosion of communities and a linguistic duality that requires
the existence of French language institutions to ensure the
development of francophone communities.
The Bloc Quebecois congratulates the whole S.O.S. Montfort team for
this great victory, and particularly Gisèle Lalonde.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes that predominantly English speaking
provinces will get the message and will immediately take action
to provide their French speaking communities with the
institutions that they need. If Canada is a country where the
expression linguistic duality means something, then
predominantly English speaking provinces will act quickly and
will spare their francophone communities costly legal battles
that they will lose in any case.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite
Liberal proclamations to the contrary, the crisis in agriculture
is growing. Input costs are up, commodity prices are down and
unfair international trade actions are increasing.
For over six years the Liberals have promised to negotiate
reductions in agricultural subsidies with no result. Even if
they are successful, it will take years before the impact is felt
at the farm gate. Many producers are on the edge of bankruptcy,
not because of poor management, as the Liberal's think, but
because of the government's failure to take a strong stand in
international trade negotiations.
Canada's trade minister appears more concerned about protecting
everything other than farmers against the kinds of trade
harassment that threatens millions of dollars in Canadian
agricultural production. Where is the long range plan to
stabilize farm incomes?
Farmers have suffered long enough because of this government's
misguided priorities. They need a government that is prepared
for the future instead of one that is mired in the past. How
many farmers must go broke before the government wakes up?
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the first week of December we remember an act of violence
against women.
This year on the 10th anniversary of the massacre at the Ecole
Polytechnique in Montreal, we remember with sadness and horror.
While we remember those women struck down in the prime of their
promising lives, we encourage all Canadians to think about other
women in our society who have to endure violence in their daily
lives.
Violence not only affects and indelibly scars the lives of the
victims but also the lives of their children, their families and
consequently our entire society. Violence against women has many
faces and eliminating every form of violence from our society
requires a real commitment from everyone, be they the
legislators, lawmakers or social and religious organizations.
We must unite, work and be vigilant so as to eradicate this
insidious form of cancer that is ruining so many promising lives.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the convention held last weekend by the Quebec wing of
the Liberal Party of Canada, the grassroots people paid
particular attention to social issues in Canada.
They urged the federal government to raise family allowances.
They also proposed that the government give higher tax credits
to retirees, based on their income and their age.
Another resolution passed by Liberal militants urges the
government to initiate new programs that would have a direct
impact on the improvement of our education system and the fight
against poverty.
This is the kind of concern that women and men from all regions
of Quebec discussed at our last convention.
* * *
[English]
RIGHTS OF YOUTH
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week in Canada 14,000 students
in schools across the country voted in the national election for
the rights of youth. The students had a variety of ten subjects
to vote upon although it was noted that the environment was
unfortunately off the ballot.
1410
This election, organized by Elections Canada and UNICEF Canada,
gave children across the country the ability to participate in
democracy.
I would like to thank Miss Ramona Joseph and the staff and
students at Waverley Memorial and L.C. Skerry school in Waverley,
Nova Scotia, as well as Mr. Fred Hull, the staff and students of
Millwood High School in Lower Sackville in Nova Scotia, plus all
other students and teachers across the country for their active
participation.
The number one choice for students across the country was that
of a stable and loving family home environment.
I trust that all parliamentarians will take this result very
seriously and work toward providing our children and their
families from coast to coast to coast with the programs and
services to provide a stable and loving home environment.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister reminded us, with all of the
vision that is his alone, of why he rejects the rule of 50% plus
one: the plus one is perhaps the person who left their glasses
at home.
He and his minister of constitutional obsession should draw a
lesson from the writings of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, who said the following on the subject of democracy:
Since, if all men and women are equal, and each is the seat of
superior thought, it follows inevitably that the happiness of 51
persons is more important than that of 49; it is therefore
reasonable, and with the rights of the minority taken into
account, for the decisions made by the 51 persons to prevail.
Rather than reflect on the percentage of persons who might
forget their glasses in the next vote on the future of Quebec,
the Prime Minister would be better advised to draw on the
writings of the man whose heir he claims to be.
* * *
REFERENDUMS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc still claims that it is the only political
party in the House of Commons to listen to Quebecers, the only
political party to represent the desires and will of the people
of Quebec.
When 72% of Quebecers do not want either a referendum or
independence and when our Prime Minister has held out his hand
in a truce to Mr. Bouchard, I have one question for the Bloc
Quebecois members: why does the leader of the Bloc and member
for Laurier—Sainte-Marie not ask Mr. Bouchard to agree to the
truce and to promise not to hold a referendum during his
mandate?
Why have the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the member
for Repentigny—in fact why have no Bloc Quebecois members
publicly asked Mr. Bouchard to agree not to hold a referendum?
Why?
Perhaps because they do not listen to Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
lobster season only opened yesterday for lobster fishing areas 33
and 34 in Nova Scotia and already the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans has shown how unprepared he and his department are.
The Acadia first nation threatens to fish with 15 boats instead
of the six boats that were supposed to be agreed upon on the
imposed limit. Yet, Chief Debra Robinson says that the first
nation never agreed to any limit on lobster boats in southwestern
Nova Scotia.
That begs the question: What have the minister and his
negotiator been doing in the months since the Marshall decision?
The November 17 ruling stated that the responsibility is placed
squarely on the minister and not on the aboriginal or
non-aboriginal users of the resource, yet the minister has done
nothing to show the resource should be shared. Instead, he is
asking for suggestions from the Conservative Party. It was our
party that advised the minister to negotiate with all
stakeholders and introduce an implementation plan with
conservation as the first priority. It was our party that told
him to apply one rule for all fishers.
The lobster fishers are beginning—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DIABETES MONTH
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November is International Diabetes Month.
Throughout history, diabetes has been a leading cause of death.
It is estimated that at least 500,000 North Americans die as a
result of diabetes and its complications each year.
In Canada more than two million people have diabetes. In
addition to the health and social implications of diabetes, there
is also the enormous economic strain the disease places on our
health care system. The economic burden of diabetes has been put
at over $9 billion per year.
It is essential that we, in the House of Commons, address the
growing impact of diabetes on Canadians and consider giving
diabetes research a much needed shot in the arm.
* * *
1415
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ind. Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, sales of at least 100,000 tonnes of canola to China have
been lost because of Canadian transportation problems. Seventy
per cent of recent unloads at Vancouver were wheat board grains.
Meanwhile, one vessel has been waiting since November 9 for
50,000 tonnes of canola. The railways have 24,500 cars. Why
were only 14,000 under load last week?
A recent wheat board poll apparently reveals that farmer support
for single desk selling has dropped to approximately 20%. Why
does the government not realize that if farmers are smart enough
to grow the grain they are also smart enough to sell it and ship
it?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's newfound referendum strategy is as
clear as a foggy night. He declared that he would make the rules
for the next referendum clear, but he cannot say what he means by
a clear majority, he cannot say what would constitute a clear
question and, worst of all, he has never put forward any clear
position on how to reform and improve the federation itself.
Four years ago we published clear positions on all of these
matters. In the name of clarity, where is the Prime Minister's
clear position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the master of flip-flop is asking me to decide this
question, and it is not the time.
On Sunday I offered Mr. Bouchard an occasion to respect the will
of the people of Quebec. Seventy-two per cent of the people of
Quebec do not want a referendum at all. I just want the premier
of Quebec to reflect again so that nobody will have to have a
debate on this issue. If he were to declare that there would be
no referendum, we would not spend five minutes on it and we would
deal with the other business of the nation.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who resurrected this issue
over a week ago and he has yet to make a single aspect of it
clear. Let us go back to basics again.
The Prime Minister says that he wants a clear majority, but our
idea of a majority is the same as it was in the last two
referendums and the Charlottetown accord, 50% plus one. We have
said that for years. The Prime Minister says that 50% plus one
is not enough, but he will not say what it is. In the name of
clarity, why does the Prime Minister not say what constitutes an
acceptable majority?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is because I am looking at the constitution of the
Reform Party. I would like to know why it needs two-thirds of
the votes of the Reform Party to change a rule in the
constitution.
To break the country, one vote will be enough, but to change a
regulation in this very disunited alternative, two-thirds is
needed to be able to do it properly. It is clear to me, and I
have said it over and over again, that 50% plus one is a rule
that is unacceptable for breaking up the country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, another illuminating response.
The Prime Minister knows that anything more than a simple
majority on a secession issue will be impossible to enforce. The
Prime Minister hints at requiring a 60% threshold on a secession
negotiation, but 59% support on a clear question in favour of
separation would not settle the issue, it would only make matters
worse. The federal government would find itself in a
constitutional and democratic no man's land.
Since the Prime Minister wants to raise the bar, in the name of
clarity, what contingency plan does he have to deal with a more
than 50% vote?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again I say that the people of Quebec and the people of
Canada do not want to hear about a third referendum. Seventy-two
per cent of the people of Quebec say regularly that they do not
want to have another referendum. I am appealing to the Quebec
government to come to its senses, to listen to the will of the
people of Quebec and to agree with me to stop discussing this
issue. I think that I reflect the wishes of all Quebecers and
all Canadians.
1420
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a
paradox. The Prime Minister says that nobody in Quebec wants to
talk about a referendum. Who started the talk? Goodness
gracious, can you believe it?
The throne speech promised a new type of frankness and clarity.
My question is for the Prime Minister. If 50% plus one is not
sufficient for a majority, exactly what is?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, how can Reform claim that 50% plus one is sufficient
when, as the Prime Minister has said, it is not enough to amend
its constitution? In order to amend the constitution of the
Reform Party, what is needed is a resolution amending the
constitution, including the principles of the party, which to be
carried must receive not only a two-thirds majority of the votes
cast, but must also receive a majority vote of the delegates from
a majority of the provinces.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has a brand new word in his vocabulary. The word is
clarity. He goes around everywhere talking about it, but does he
not understand that the word clarity means putting his position
out on paper so that everybody can see what it is?
I ask again, for the sake of clarity, if 50% plus one is not
sufficient, what exactly is a clear majority for the Prime
Minister? What is it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these are the people who last week were telling me not
to say anything. They are the same people who, less than a week
ago, were asking me to say nothing. I think that we will let
them relax a bit because flip-flops like that cause problems to
their physical and mental fitness. Maybe before Christmas they
will come to their senses and say that we were absolutely right
in doing what we are doing at this time.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENDUMS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has made a sad spectacle of himself by suggesting
that he would stop talking about the constitution if Quebec did
the same.
Having called on the supreme court for help in defining the
rules of the referendum process, now he is threatening to use
the House to question Quebec's right to decide its own future.
He is fooling no one.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his plan, which is
apparently to introduce a bill, is nothing other than base
political blackmail that once again seeks to thwart Quebec's
most legitimate aspirations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
said, and I repeat: the National Assembly can ask whatever
question it wishes. We are not preventing it from asking a
question. It can ask any question it wants.
My responsibility is to respect the supreme court ruling that
there must be a clear question and a clear majority before there
can be any negotiations.
That is precisely what I am doing. I am respecting the supreme
court decision. Mr. Bouchard himself said a year ago August
that it was a good decision. If it was good then, it is still
good today.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
this truce, the Prime Minister is trying to buy time to do what
he wants, the way he wants, and when he wants, as he has done
from the beginning of his career.
When all is said and done, is the Prime Minister's truce not
really a request for permission to once again shove Quebec
around, as he has been doing for 35 years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the economy will be going up in one sector in Quebec, because a
lot of shirts are being torn over not much of anything lately.
As I said, Quebec can ask whatever question it wants. But, as
Prime Minister of Canada, I would hope that the Parti Quebecois
understands that the public does not want a referendum, that the
economy of the Province of Quebec needs stability.
Every week, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois talk
about winning conditions, while what we want to do is address
the real problems of Quebecers and other Canadians.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Prime Minister went at it again with his phoney
offer of a constitutional truce.
How can we take seriously this offer made by a man whose
political career is characterized by his determination to put
Quebec in its place?
How could the Prime Minister think we would take his offer
seriously, considering that he is the one who imposed the 1982
Constitution, the one who killed Meech, the one who, through his
social union, infringes on Quebec's constitutional
jurisdictions, and the one who now wants to change the 50% plus
one rule?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Really, Mr.
Speaker, I was not even a member of parliament when the Meech
Lake accord was signed. The hon. member is giving me great
powers.
But I clearly remember that the Parti Quebecois voted against
the Meech Lake accord. At the time, the member for Roberval was
an MNA and he voted against the Meech Lake accord.
Why do they not assume their responsibilities? Why do members of
the Parti Quebecois not admit that they are the ones responsible
for the defeat of the Meech Lake accord, since they voted
against that accord?
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
Quebec we know who is responsible for the failure of Meech, and
the Prime Minister is one of these people.
During the weekend, the Prime Minister spoke like a statesman
and said he was offering a truce to Mr. Bouchard. However, he
behaves like a Liberal Party leader who wants to denigrate
Quebec, who wants to please the rest of Canada in anticipation
of the next election.
Was the truce proposed to Mr. Bouchard by the Prime Minister
just a trap?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will leave the lobster traps to others. That being
said, it is really unworthy of the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry to give in to cheap partisan rhetoric, as
he just did.
This is an important issue, because we Quebecers could find
ourselves in a situation where we would lose the right to be
Canadians without ever having clearly wanted that. The answer to
the question is never.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that increasing
trade, without regard to the human cost, is the best way to serve
the citizens of the world.
Canadians want their government to take a more balanced
approach. Canadians recognize, for example, the importance of
worker safety and environmental protection.
Why then does the Prime Minister ignore workers' rights and
ignore environmental standards when he speaks of trade and the
WTO?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. leader of the fourth party should know that
when we formed the government we worked very hard to improve the
NAFTA deal.
What were the considerations at that time? We said that we had
to improve the deal for the protection of workers' rights, for
the protection of the environment, and for the protection of
water because there was a problem between Canada and the United
States. We made these improvements to satisfy exactly the point
that the hon member is making. Our record is quite clear on
that.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is
a sham. No wonder the Prime Minister does not want to talk about
the WTO.
The Prime Minister knows that the enforcement mechanisms of the
WTO are much stronger. When it comes to defending Canadian
product abroad, and that is very important, the government goes
to the WTO. Why? Because it has teeth.
When it comes to people needing health and safety protection,
and environmental protection, the government shunts them off to
some subcommittee of a subcommittee of a working group because it
knows that nothing will happen.
Why is Canada's position at Seattle so lacking in balance?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party should know
that we refer problems on labour to the ILO. She will be the
first one. She just made a great concession to us. She said
that we should use the WTO to make sure we sell our products
abroad. Well I know the workers are the ones who benefit the
most when we sell Canadian products abroad and these workers are
in unions that give money to the hon. member's party.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent from his comments at noon that the
Prime Minister just cannot take no for an answer. He has decided
to practise the divisive politics of Reform and has made yet
another tactical error on the Quebec strategy.
Premier Bouchard has said that there will not be a referendum in
the near future. Now the Prime Minister is desperately
backtracking. He is not tough. He is tilting windmills.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, as in 1995, he has once
again bungled the unity file?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we would like to know the position of the Conservative
Party on that. I would like to know the position of the leader
of the Conservative Party who said some time ago that 50 plus one
was enough. He has said nothing since last Tuesday. In his own
case, 66% of the vote was not enough to give him a mandate to
remain the leader of the Conservative Party, but 50 plus one is
enough to break Canada. They should get serious.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, if one
thing is clear, it is that the Conservative Party has not
changed its position. It has always worked to build this
country in unity and tried to find a way—
Some hon. members: oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Mr. André Bachand: Quebec is part of Canada. It is distinct.
It is different. Never has the Conservative Party tried to do
what the Prime Minister did with the Meech Lake accord and what
he did in 1995.
If the Prime Minister is not backing up, could he listen to what
the Quebec premier said about there being no referendum in the
future and to what the premier of New Brunswick said, to the
effect that the Prime Minister's timing is unnecessary and
dangerous.
Otherwise, what can he propose? A federal referendum election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he
has just said the Conservatives are in favour of a distinct
society. We had a vote here in December 1995, and the members
of the Conservative Party at the time did not even vote. He
should look into that.
Second, if 50% plus one is enough for him, he should do as the
Reformers have done and explain how it is that it takes a two
thirds majority of the voting members of the Conservative Party
to change their constitution under clause 14.6 of the
Conservative Party of Canada's constitution. To change party
bylaws, a two thirds majority is necessary, but to break up
Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Auditor General in his report today has pointed the finger at
poor and incompetent management by the DND brass again. They
ignored a gas scam where military personnel were accepting cash
kickbacks when they purchased diesel fuel. Military police
investigated. They said that there was not a problem and closed
the file. Now the Auditor General says that it has been costing
us millions of dollars a year.
Why did the bureaucrats under the direction of the Minister of
National Defence ignore the gas scam and close the file on this
case where corruption was staring them in the face?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious and disturbing
matter.
It is under investigation. The hon. member has it all wrong.
This matter is being fully investigated right now.
1435
Our people in the Department of National Defence, whether
civilian or military, are expected to maintain the highest
ethical standards, and we are going to ensure that happens.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let
me say that it is the minister who has it all wrong.
The military police closed the file and said that there was
nothing there. It was not until the auditor general alerted his
department that they reopened the case. The point we are trying
to get out is that there is no accountability in the senior
management of his department.
I ask the minister once again, why did his staff close the file
on a serious issue, which he acknowledges, instead of
investigating the case properly?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the file has not been closed. Perhaps
the hon. member is mixing this up with something else where
insufficient evidence may have existed. In this particular case,
the matter is fully under investigation.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there are some very serious allegations hanging over the head of
the Minister of International Trade relating to non-compliance
with the Canada Elections Act.
In a similar situation, former Conservative minister Marcel
Masse resigned in 1985, so that the integrity of his government
would not be affected.
Why does the Prime Minister now accept having the Minister of
International Trade keep his portfolio? Has the government's
level of tolerance been raised so high that only a guilty
verdict would warrant his resignation?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Very much the contrary, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of International Trade made the following statement
yesterday “I categorically deny having received a $10,000
contribution either directly or indirectly, as indicated in the
National Post article. What is more, my senior campaign manager
in 1997 states categorically that the only contribution received
from the individual in question is included in my report to
Elections Canada”.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Marcel Masse also denied it. He was even exonerated. But
during the investigation, he withdrew from Cabinet. That was
the honourable thing to do.
In response to the hon. government House leader, I would
indicate to him that a complaint against the Minister of
Internatinal Trade has been filed with the commissioner of
Canada Elections in this connection.
Given the precedent set by Marcel Masse, and for the sake of his
government's integrity, should the Prime Minister not require
his minister to step down, until the matter has been clarified
once and for all?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, in the case to which
the hon. member is referring, an RCMP investigation was
conducted. There is no investigation of any type whatsoever
involved in this matter, as far as I know.
Second, the hon. member opposite must be aware that what is
involved here is not a complaint against an MP or minister, or
indeed anyone in this House, but rather a divorce-related
dispute. The hon. member is very well aware of this.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because these clouds and allegations are hanging over his head,
perhaps the wisest thing for the international trade minister to
do would be to absolutely clear his name. I am sure he is
sleepless in Seattle and it is probably not the trade talks that
are bothering him.
If the trade minister categorically denies, as this minister
just said that he has, why in the world would the government not
have an investigation as soon as possible and clear his good
name?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to repeat what I answered awhile
ago and for the benefit of the hon. member, the allegations in
question are based on an unsubstantiated claim made in a divorce
case. The members will know what kind of case we are talking
about.
Furthermore, the minister issued a statement yesterday in which
he said “According to the information provided by my official
agent from the 1997 federal election, the Canada Elections Act
was respected by the campaign”.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the official agent giving reports is not exactly unbiased
information either.
The minister talks about “for the benefit of the minister”.
For the benefit of the country, I think this needs to be
brought—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton
North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, there are serious
allegations that the international trade minister has broken the
law under the Canada Elections Act. It would seem to me that the
wisest thing to do would be to have an investigation, clear it up
and prove the minister's innocence.
1440
I will ask my question again. Regardless of what the
National Post or a convicted murderer said, when will the
government have an investigation to clear this mess up?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what the
hon. member said. She called into question the work of the
official agent, a sworn statement that he made audited by duly
accredited auditors and submitted to Elections Canada. She can
spread blame around the House, but is it absolutely necessary to
tarnish the reputation of everybody?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the case of
Marcel Masse, in 1985, services provided by the firm Lavallin
had not been included in the election expenses. Minister Masse
claimed he was innocent and he was indeed found not guilty.
In the case before us, someone is accusing the Minister for
International Trade of having received services that were not
recorded. A complaint has been filed. The situation is exactly
the same; the minister claims he is innocent.
Why should, in this case, the minister not be required to resign
when, under the ethics rules of the previous government, Marcel
Masse had to resign?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, and contrary to what is
being alleged today, no accusations have been made against the
minister, his campaign committee or, to my knowledge, his
official agent. There are no accusations.
Second, this is a dispute having to do with a divorce in which
one party is accusing the other, a dispute set in a specific
context, as we know.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us be
serious here for a minute. We are talking about very serious
allegations made in a formal complaint, which is now before the
Commissioner of Canada Elections.
My question is: What is the new level beyond which a minister
can no longer sit in cabinet? Do we have to wait until the
minister is found guilty, or is a simple complaint with serious
allegations enough to have him temporarily removed from cabinet,
as has always been the case under such circumstances?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is trying
to get some mileage out of the complaint that he is referring
to.
First, as far as we know, no official complaint has been filed.
If the hon. member is aware of a complaint having been filed by
someone he knows, he should tell us about it.
Second, no accusations have been made against anyone. Third, in
a statement made yesterday, the minister categorically denied
having received, directly or indirectly, the said contribution.
That is clear.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, when we brought to the attention of the government the
serious allegations of electoral wrongdoing by the international
trade minister, the government House leader urged me to bring
these allegations to the attention of the commissioner of
Elections Canada, and I have done so. Unfortunately, the
commissioner cannot prosecute because two years have passed since
these events occurred.
The government House leader knows about this problem between the
passage of time and the alleged incidence. What will he do to
make sure that this tarnished reputation is restored to the
minister and an investigation takes place?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reputation of the minister
in question is not tarnished. Perhaps there are attempts to do
so on the part of some, but the minister's reputation is
untarnished and it will remain untarnished.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he
can wish the problem was not there. He can wish the allegations
were not in the press and being circulated amongst Canadians but
they are there and that is a fact. I wish it was as easy as the
Government House Leader would have us believe.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, if the government side
would listen, the allegations are a fact of life. They are out
there. They are in the media. They are being circulated.
The government House leader knows that section 279 of the
elections act clearly prohibits the commissioner from prosecuting
any offence that happened during the last election. He is
prohibited from prosecuting. He cannot do it.
The government House leader's advice to the House yesterday is
not useful. An investigation should take place. It should be
designed, I hope, to clear the minister's name. Does he not
realize that we should immediately start an investigation to get
to the bottom of these allegations?
1445
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can see that clearing the
minister's name is right at the top of the agenda of what the
hon. member wants.
He just stated moments before that these allegations were facts.
No, they are not facts. They are, with respect, factually
incorrect.
* * *
[Translation]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
InterCanadian, a regional carrier in Quebec, is in great
difficulty. But the Minister of Transport is still not ruling
out the possibility of granting a licence to a new regional
carrier based in Hamilton.
Could the minister just this once do his job and make a formal
commitment not to add another regional carrier to Canada until
the case of InterCanadian is satisfactorily resolved?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about this regrettable situation,
but I have been informed that other airlines have the capacity
to serve all InterCanadian's passengers.
It is common knowledge that InterCanadian was in trouble before
August, when we began the process of restructuring the airline
industry. I find it odd that the president of InterCanadian has
placed the blame on Air Canada, Canadian Airlines, Onex
corporation and the federal government, but not on the shoulders
of InterCanadian's management team.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Museum of Modern Art in New York City and the Academy of
Motion Pictures in Los Angeles have hosted celebrations honouring
the 60th anniversary of the National Film Board of Canada.
What is Canada doing to celebrate an organization that gave us
Norman McLaren, Donald Brittain and 11 academy awards?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with the support of the Reform Party and all other
parties in opposition I think we want especially to salute the
60th anniversary of the National Film Board of Canada.
This organization in its 60 years of existence has garnered
almost 4,000 awards for excellence. This year it launched
CinéRoute, a new project to put 1,000 movies on the web for every
Canadian to be able to watch.
[Translation]
I think that the history of the National Film—
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. The noise level is getting a
bit too high. The hon. minister of heritage was giving an
answer.
[Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps: I would just like to say again how proud we
have been of the National Film Board over the past 60 years. I
am certain that, with the support of all members, it will
continue to do an excellent job in Canada's film industry.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, even some Liberals can no longer stomach the corruption
in the jobs fund. Today a Liberal member blew the cover on how
the HRD minister broke the rules to use a cool million of other
people's money to lure a business to her riding away from a
higher unemployment area next door.
Does the minister think that she has the right to rip off the
jobs fund and thumb her nose at the unemployed in Sarnia just
because she holds a cabinet post?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the tone of the question
absolutely deplorable. The hon. member should just get her facts
straight.
1450
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the minister's invitation let us look at her track
record. There were huge jobs fund grants that her riding did not
qualify for, half a million dollars from the secret minister's
reserve, and jobs moved from Hamilton so she could claim job
creation in Brantford.
Now we have $1 million refused to Sarnia but wrongfully spent in
her riding next door. It is incredible that a minister in a
position of high trust could get away with such serious pork
barrelling. Is this just another symptom of widespread Liberal
corruption?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The language is getting just
a little too strong. I will permit the Right Hon. Prime Minister
to respond.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to stand to defend my minister because she is a
very good minister and a very honest member.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I have a list of ridings in
exactly the same position as the riding of the hon. minister that
have received money from the same fund. The ridings include
Kootenay—Columbia, Nanaimo—Alberni, Nanaimo—Cowichan,
Okanagan—Shuswap, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Lethbridge,
St. Albert, et cetera.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I think we have a better idea today why the health
minister's response to the Alberta privatization initiative has
been so pathetically weak and timid.
Today the auditor general reports that the government has no
idea whether or not the provinces are complying with the Canada
Health Act. The health minister has no idea and no way of
knowing if the provinces are playing within the rules governing
health care. He does not know how much money is going to the
provinces, where it is going and what impact it is having.
Is it not time for the minister to seize control over his
department so that he can get on with his full time job of
protecting health care for Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general has made some very helpful suggestions, all
of which we accept and many of which we are already implementing
to ensure that the best information possible is given to
parliament annually from the Minister of Health with respect to
the status of the Canada Health Act throughout the country.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general also issued a scathing criticism
today about how the government handled an outbreak of food borne
disease. It is a troubling report and it is not as if the
government has really learned anything and changed its ways from
the spring of 1998 when it happened.
Yesterday we learned about a potentially dangerous outbreak of
botulism in cattle in New Brunswick. Today we see that the
government has again risked safety by fast tracking approvals for
Monsanto on genetically altered foods.
In light of these events, how could the minister expect
Canadians to believe that the minister is capable of protecting
their health?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in terms of approving products, whether they are medical devices,
pharmaceutical products or bio-engineered foods, for Health
Canada public safety is the bottom line.
1455
I can tell the member that the report which appeared today about
the Monsanto product is absolutely false. That product was
subjected to the usual careful evaluation.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in 1997 the EI surplus was $7.5 billion and now it is
almost $25 billion. Today the auditor general criticized the
handling of that fund.
I think it is time for the government to realize that this
surplus is not for its own use. It is an insurance fund that
belongs to the employees and employers, and they are entitled to
it.
How high will this surplus have to get before the government
takes real action and reinvests in our communities to give back
hope and dignity to the unemployed of the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, since we have taken office we
have cut the premiums to $2.40. They were at $3.70 when we took
office.
At the same time, as was mentioned in the Speech from the
Throne, the Minister of Human Resources Development is bringing
forth a major initiative in terms of parental leave, an
initiative that will do an enormous amount for the capacity of
parents to raise their children.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, if the fund is so great and if they are doing so well
with it, why do we have such a surplus and so many people who do
not qualify or go with no income for so long? I do not
understand how the government can justify doing to this fund what
it is doing.
Could someone on the government side explain to Canadians why we
have such a surplus and why we have so many people going with
nothing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we took office there was a deficit of some $6
billion. In 11 of the last 17 years there has been a deficit in
the fund. The reason for the accounting treatment is that it was
recommended by the auditor general in 1986 and we are following
that policy.
The hon. member asks why there is a surplus. The reason is, as
we have seen today, that we are firing at all cylinders in our
economy. There are 1.7 million Canadians back at work, 700,000
in the last year. Young Canadians are back at work. We have one
of the strongest economies of any of the G-7 countries.
* * *
SPORTS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as an avid supporter of amateur sport, I would like to ask the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport the following question.
Has the minister done an analysis of how much amateur sport
funding goes to girls and women? What measures is he taking to
ensure that female athletes get a fair share of government
funding?
Mr. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is surely one of the most important
questions today.
Support to women in sports is a priority of the federal
government. Sports Canada's goal is to attain equality for women
in sports, ensuring that females have the same opportunities in
sports as males.
[Translation]
In order to qualify for federal funding, national sports
organizations and national sports centres must have an official
policy showing that they are committed to fairness
for all female athletes and must undertake to introduce appropriate
initiatives. That is what the Liberals are doing.
* * *
[English]
RCMP
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to the auditor general's report tabled today
the RCMP fast tracked the sole source contract, broke all bidding
rules and claimed it was an emergency to get a $362,000 contract
for an ex-RCMP officer.
This was after it sat on the bid for four months. Some
emergency. Why does the solicitor general allow the force, which
is supposed to uphold the law, to break the law?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. colleague that the RCMP
did not break the law.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
private agreement was apparently reached last March between
senior officials of the Department of Health and Monsanto for
approval of two new types of genetically modified potato seed.
1500
Would the minister confirm that this agreement provides a way
around the usual approval process of the Department of Health,
despite the fact that Monsanto refused to provide the scientific
information vital to the evaluation of its product?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
usual approval process was followed in this case. We have
received all the necessary information, and the products have
been assessed.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
in April a young man was killed on the job in Nova Scotia's
offshore petroleum industry. The Nova Scotia department of
labour recommended that the case be prosecuted, but jurisdiction
fell to the federal-provincial, Canada-Nova Scotia offshore
petroleum board, which failed to hold the company responsible.
The board has no enforceable health and safety regulations and is
charged as both the industry promoter and the safety regulator,
which is a clear conflict and which conflicts with the
recommendations of the Westray inquiry. The government has been
asked by the province of Nova Scotia to deal with this.
When will it deal with the conflict—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that I take this
matter of health and safety in the offshore just as seriously as
he does. This matter is under active consideration now between
the two governments and the relevant regulatory authorities. I
will take every step within my power to assure that those
regulations are in place at the earliest possible date so that
Canadians can have the necessary assurance about health and
safety.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. Just a little
while before InterCanadian closed its doors on Saturday it faxed
a letter to the Minister of Transport. The letter was from the
president to the minister and it said: “The simple fact is that
InterCanadian simply cannot continue to withstand the
continuously changing position of the government”.
If the minister who created this four months of aviation chaos
will not now step in to help InterCanadian, will he step aside
and let someone else bring some common sense to this chaos?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the financial problems of InterCanadian were well
known long before we started the restructuring in August of this
year, but it was in response to the airline industry, in
particular Canadian Airlines, that we started the restructuring
process. It is now working its way through the system. There
are discussions among various parties and companies and I hope
there will be a resolution to it.
In the meantime, I am very sorry for those people who have lost
their jobs at InterCanadian, but there is more than enough
capacity in the province of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to
take care of all of the passengers and to make sure disruptions
are kept to a minimum.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—ORGANIZED CRIME
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier, I
mentioned the contribution made by a number of Bloc Quebecois
colleagues during this debate.
I mentioned the initiative by the member for Berthier—Montcalm
and by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who took part
in presenting the motion.
A number of Bloc members contributed to the process related to
consideration of what has to be done about organized crime.
There is my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who was
directly affected in his riding by the death of a young person,
young Daniel Desrochers, who died as the result of a bomb
explosion.
I also mentioned my colleague from Charlesbourg, who introduced
a private member's bill on the withdrawal from circulation of
$1,000 bills to thwart money laundering.
A number of Bloc Quebecois members really contributed so that
real thought is going into the eradication of organized crime.
We know that there have been a number of turf wars over control
of the market, including the drug market. We read in our
newspapers of fires, bombings and murders. We must look after
people's security.
We have some idea of the scope of drug trafficking. Judging by
seizures, the extrapolation can be made that there may be
profits in the order of $500 billion. That is a huge amount of
money in the hands of the various organized crime gangs. It is
easy to imagine how they can control, and buy the silence of,
many people.
We know how hard it is to get through the wall of silence that
surrounds them. Numerous people have received death threats,
even organized crime gang insiders. It is hard to get any
testimony out of them that might help with a conviction.
A number of colleagues from all parties in this House are going
to support the motion. We are asking that a study committee be
struck to address the problem of organized crime. This would
make it possible to look at the various pieces of legislation,
the various tools, and the funding of law enforcement agencies.
We are thinking of the RCMP and of the police forces in the
various communities.
We know that it is very hard, for instance, to infiltrate these
groups. Is the legislation adequate? Could all legislation not
be reviewed in order to make it less unwieldy?
We know very well that there are victims of organized crime in
our society, and those victims include not always gang members,
but ordinary citizens as well. Someone in my riding was hit by
a bullet during a turf war.
1510
I feel that I must get involved, in large part because I am
aware of the various gangs involved in turf wars in the riding
of Québec, and in the Quebec City area.
If I can do anything to contribute to the committee study, I
will be very pleased to do so, particularly since safety is
involved, the public's safety and the very lives of our
children, and since drug trafficking wreaks such a terrible toll
on the health of our young people.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first, I would like to congratulate the member for Québec. I
believe she has a very good grasp of the whole issue of
organized crime in Quebec.
The member for Québec has often condemned this situation in
caucus and, more importantly, asked that something be done in
the House to fight organized crime. I understand full well her
concern and the approach she advocated in her speech. She made
an excellent speech, by the way, and I believe she has a very
good grasp of the whole issue.
My question for the member is rather simple. As we know, she is
very much involved in the issue of poverty and she fights for
people living in poverty.
Here is the question I would like to ask her: Does organized
crime not take advantage of poor people or does it not exploit
people in need, for instance with its loan sharks or
any other example the member is aware of? I would like to hear
her thoughts on the issue of poverty as opposed to crime.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his question.
Indeed, we all know that there are a good number of loan shark
networks in poor communities and we also know that interest on
such loans can go as high as 250%.
I also deplore the illicit drug trade. We are well aware that
often, in poor neighbourhoods where there is high unemployment,
this trade is very much oriented toward a clientele for whom
this can be an escape from the problems of daily life.
We also know that the organized crime cannot function without
drugs pushers. People become pushers because it is an easy to
make money. But we also know that the social impact is enormous.
I feel particularly concerned because, I know that this is a
scourge that has major consequences on people's lives, on their
quality of life and on their health, as well as on the living
conditions of families and children who make a living dealing
in drugs and those who are led to use drugs.
It seems to me that society has better things to do and to say
that to deal with drug trafficking.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
I want to begin by offering congratulations to the Bloc and to
the member for Berthier—Montcalm for putting forward a motion
which finally, on an opposition day, the government can support.
What a treat. This has been done in a responsible way, which
uses the parliamentary system to its best effect.
The motion asks that the House instruct the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights to conduct an investigation. There
might be some concern about committee members being instructed,
but I am quite sure they will look at this as the will of
parliament to conduct a study and report by the end of October
2000. That is a reasonable timeframe, which will give the better
part of a year to hear witnesses, to perhaps travel on the issue,
to conduct the investigation and to report.
1515
I wonder what this motion would look like if it was put by the
Reform Party. I strongly suspect it would be framed in such a
way that it would make it impossible for any of us to support it.
They would use terms like the government has abdicated its
responsibility and so on and, therefore, we should do this study.
I want to give credit where credit is due because I have stood
in the House and been somewhat critical of members of the Bloc in
the past. I think what they are putting forward is a responsible
position. I know that they come to this issue with some serious
deep seated concern in the province of Quebec.
We have all heard stories of the biker gang wars in Quebec.
There have been murders. There is drug trafficking. They take
over homes and destroy neighbourhoods. They threaten people
going to the corner store, for goodness sake, to get a jug of
milk. Women and children do not feel safe in communities when
that type of local terrorism, which is really what that amounts
to, is allowed.
I think the Bloc comes to this issue with a point of view of
perhaps some negative experience in this area and the problems
around organized crime.
I want to come at this a little differently, though. I believe
that the long term, big picture way for us to attack organized
crime, frankly, is to deal with our kids, our education system
and our families. We have to work harder at eradicating poverty.
I know there will be some who will say that we have not done
enough. However, as we on this side of the House know, the
government is committed to coming in with some programs that will
deal with child poverty in the upcoming February budget. I am
confident that there will be programs.
The reason I think one fights something as insidious as
organized crime by dealing with our young people is because the
very nature of an organized criminal group is they look for
people who are vulnerable. They look for people who are
impressionable. They look for people, whether it is in illegal
gambling, whether it is in drugs, whether they get young girls
who are impressionable and lead them astray and get them involved
in prostitution with promises of great money and beautiful
clothes and things of that nature, or they get young people out
of schools involved in selling drugs in the community, they
encourage them through establishing a mindset that says it is
cool to be part of an organized group.
One thinks about the gangs and the problems that we see. We had
a terrible tragedy in the greater Toronto area a couple of weeks
ago when a young boy was kicked to death by a gang of young
people. It is incomprehensible. What could possibly make these
young people react like that? Tragically, we have seen it in the
past. A young girl was kicked, bludgeoned and beaten to death by
other young girls. Violence in the female education system for
young girls, in my opinion, is becoming a crisis.
We can put in place all the RCMP and all the police assistance
that we want in communities, but we must address the basic
fundamental attitudes of young people and tell them that they
have to respect one another.
Yesterday, I was at Ploughman's school in Mississauga speaking
to four grade five classrooms. They got together in the library.
I was amazed to hear the questions coming from these young kids
in grades 4 and 5, asking me about the problems of violence in
the schools and what the government can do to combat it. They do
not feel safe in their own community; a community full of
families, young people raising their families. Kids at that
tender age worry about this. I am sure they hear their moms and
dads talking about it around the kitchen table. They do not
understand how somebody who is perhaps 10 years older than them
can actually go to the extreme of kicking someone to death.
1520
We can put something in place. In fact this government has done
a number of things which I would share with the House from a
crime fighting standpoint.
I want to stress that I do not think that this debate is about
the government standing up and strutting its stuff, saying
“We're really tough on this issue”. Nor is it about the
opposition standing up and saying “You're not tough enough”.
What this debate should be about, in my respectful submission, is
how we build and create a safer community. How do we get the
drug lords? How do we get the smugglers, whether they are
smuggling cigarettes or guns? I know it is a controversial issue
with some members on the other side, but it is about issues such
as gun control.
What is the basic, fundamental principle in the values of Canada
and Canadians? Do we simply want to be like the Americans? Do
we simply want to pander to the gun lobby group, or do we want to
put in place laws? Yes, they will be difficult to enforce. Do we
want to put in place a registry? Yes, and it will be difficult.
The criminals obviously are not going to register their guns. We
understand that, but we have seen so many tragedies in this
country.
I believe that the insidiousness of organized crime just sits
there and stirs the pot. The way for us to combat that, in
addition to the many programs that have already been announced,
is to get to the hearts of our young people. I hope that members
opposite will see this as I do, and as many Canadians do, as an
issue that we all need to work on together.
This is not just about giving the Mounties more money. In fact,
in my own community at Pearson International Airport the GTAA has
entered into an agreement with Peel Regional Police to provide
policing services to Pearson airport so that the RCMP can free up
more of its contingent to deal with the serious problems that
occur at such a major international entry point to this country.
That is a good, responsible, community partnership. That makes a
lot of sense.
Peel Region is where the airport is located. The Peel Regional
Police wind up with many of the problems once they leave the
airport grounds. They wind up with the problems. Whether it is
organized crime or crime of any kind, Peel Regional Police will
have to deal with it. Why not have them at the point of entry
dealing with it immediately and put in place the systems and
understanding of the flow that occurs when criminals come in?
On the other side of that coin, at a time when all governments
are facing great financial pressures, it frees up an opportunity
for the RCMP to concentrate on crimes that are perhaps more of an
international nature, such as smuggling.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have one minute
remaining. I wanted to talk about the people smuggling that we
have seen recently, but I am not going to have time to do that.
Let me just say that it is important that we focus our energies
in the area where in a long term, big picture way we can actually
eradicate organized crime. We can convince our young people in
our schools and communities that it is not an acceptable way and
that they must respect their colleagues, their friends and their
schoolmates. They must not turn to violence as a way of solving
a problem. It is easy to say those things, but it is places like
this, with responsible motions such as this one being put forward
by the opposition with an opportunity to debate it, where this
kind of issue can begin to be solved.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, first, I would
like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forward this
motion on organized crime.
As is the case for many of my colleagues, organized crime
directly affects the riding of Shefford I represent. And like my
colleagues from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Drummond, Shefford is
part of the triangle of fertile agricultural land ideally suited
for growing marijuana.
I have listened very carefully to today's speeches, especially
those on the rumours regarding the closure of the RCMP
detachments, because the one in Granby is included in the
detachments that are to be closed, according to these rumours.
1525
Since February 1999 we have been stepping up our efforts, our
requests to the solicitor general. Also, in May, people in my
riding sent a petition to parliament.
Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of
Canada said in answer to a question by a Bloc Quebecois member
that he did not comment on rumours. I would like to point out
that these are no longer rumours, as I saw the report on the
proposed organizational restructuring of division C, which is
dated August 16.
It recommends the closure of seven RCMP detachments in Quebec
including Granby, St-Hyacinthe, Valleyfield, the Magdalen
Islands, Roberval, Baie-Comeau and Joliette.
I also happen to know that the rapport was favourably received
by the solicitor general.
My question is for my colleague from the Liberal Party. Is he
aware of this report and, if so, does he support these
recommendations?
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was not sure
if the member was going into a speech or was asking a question.
I will try to answer if I can. I would have to look at those
recommendations in some detail and would be pleased to do so.
She talked about the closing of police stations in her community
and the impact that that can have. I understand that because we
have gone through it as well. What our police force has done is
gone to a more community based policing. We are trying to get
officers into the communities, the malls, the plazas and the
schools, which fits right in with the comments that I made.
Not having seen the report she is referring to, I may not have
answered the member's question. I do think that policing is
about the entire community working together and understanding the
dynamics and the problems that occur when young people do not
have an opportunity to interact properly with the police force
and the community.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to rise today in support of the motion to ask
the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the
issue of organized crime and analyze the legislative avenues open
to parliament to fight against activities of criminal
organizations.
I have 10 years experience in police service. As the former
chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I find this of
particular interest. It is certainly one where all Canadians
look for leadership from their federal government to ensure our
communities, wherever they are in this great country, are safe
and secure for themselves and their children.
Public concern over organized crime is not limited to any one
part of Canada. The RCMP reports that there are biker gang
activities and criminal enterprises in several parts of this
country. Indeed, the gang problem goes far beyond outlaw biker
groups. In addition to biker gangs, there is a host of organized
crime groups that operate and prey upon the weak in their own
communities and on Canadian society. That is unacceptable.
It is commonly known that organized crime is actively involved
in trafficking in illegal drugs. Last summer all of Canada saw
firsthand how organized criminal snakeheads were callously
smuggling Chinese people on rusty old ships to our shores. This
is unacceptable as well. It is perhaps less well known that they
are also involved in environmental crime, like illicit waste
treatment and disposal, trade in endangered species and ozone
depleting substances. They are involved in economic crime like
white collar crime, for example, such as security fraud and
telemarketing fraud. We also know that they are involved in the
sale of counterfeit products, in violation of intellectual
property rights and software piracy, money laundering and motor
vehicle theft for export or for parts.
There are those who claim that the police are powerless to fight
organized crime. Some argue that the police need more money.
Others argue that they need less. I think we should find out
what the facts are in this case.
It has been two years since parliament considered and enacted
any gang legislation. The provisions contained in Bill C-95
originated in discussions with the police community and other
members of the justice system in September 1996 when the then
minister of justice and the solicitor general held a national
forum on organized crime. This event brought together
representatives from the police community, the federal and a
number of provincial governments, the legal community, private
industry and academics to examine the increasingly complex
problem of organized crime in Canada and to recommend integrated
and effective measures to address it.
Participants examined the feasibility of legislation that would
provide new tools to the police, prosecutors and courts to combat
organized crime.
1530
We must recall another factor that led to the enactment of Bill
C-95, and that is the public's revulsion at the violent events
associated with a turf war between two rival biker gangs, the
Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine in Quebec, in which not only
members of the gang but also innocent bystanders were tragically
affected.
The legislation that followed Bill C-95 enacted new powers in
relation to the interception of private communication, proceeds
of crime and property used to commit offences and other things.
It also outlined for the first time in Canadian criminal law a
definition of a criminal organization and created a new offence
of participation in a criminal organization offence. This
legislation has been in force now for two years.
This may seem like a long period of time to some, but I
understand that a typically complex organized crime investigation
takes several years to progress to the point where charges are
laid. In fact, I know that to be the case.
Nevertheless, some of these investigations directed at criminal
organizations using the tools provided in Bill C-95 have now been
completed. Charges have been laid and prosecutions are
proceeding. Indeed, there have been convictions. Reports have
appeared in the media in recent weeks regarding some of these
prosecutions, notably in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and
Alberta.
It is important, however, to ensure that the provisions of Bill
C-95 are well understood. Not every case is appropriately
pursued as a criminal organization investigation or a
prosecution. It is not intended to be the only tool used to
combat organized crime. It is built on the tools already
available in the criminal code and responded in particular to
investigative and prosecutorial challenges posed by criminal
organizations. These are specialized tools in that sense.
Justice officials have been working in co-operation with the
solicitor general's department to provide training to police and
prosecutors regarding the contents of the criminal organization
legislation. Justice officials have provided full day and half
day training sessions across the country to over 500 members of
the provincial and federal police and prosecution services.
Law enforcement must be careful to ensure that powerful but
integrate powers provided for in legislation are not used
inappropriately or unnecessarily.
The committee may want to assess the extent to which the
provisions are being used and their effectiveness. If there are
ways to improve upon the manner in which the legislation is used,
we should facilitate the sharing of these best practices. If
there are improvements in the legislation that could be
considered, we should assess them collectively.
In another area of organized crime, combating telemarketing
fraud remains a priority for the Government of Canada, in
particular within the context of its organized crime agenda.
Since the 1997 binational report, Canada in partnership with the
United States has made significant strides in combating
cross-border telemarketing fraud. The major legislative
developments include Bill C-20, which recently added the new
offence of deceptive telemarketing to the Competition Act.
It also includes Bill C-51, which amended the criminal code to
link the new deceptive telemarketing offences in the Competition
Act to the criminal code scheme authorizing the seizure and
forfeiture of proceeds of crime for enterprise crime offences.
This amendment now allows the significant proceeds generated by
many telemarketing schemes to be captured.
Finally, Bill C-40, which amended the Canada Evidence Act and
the Extradition Act to provide for the use of video linked
testimony to be given at criminal trials and at extradition
hearings.
We are building on our successes and will continue to combat
telemarketing fraud through public education, information sharing
and co-operative law enforcement using the new legislative tools
that we have developed over the past year.
Before concluding, I would also like to address the issue of
acts of intimidation directed against key players in the criminal
justice system. My colleagues in the House will know that the
concerns have been voiced with regard to this issue of
intimidation directed against officials responsible for the
investigation and prosecution of crimes: judges and persons
responsible for the administration of sentences of convicted
offenders, as well as members of the public who become involved
in the criminal justice system as informants, witnesses or
members of juries.
1535
The intimidation of justice participants is purpose-driven. The
purpose is either to interfere with the ability to secure a
conviction against the accused or, in the case of an
organization, against other members of the organization in the
future, or to exact revenge. It is intended to destabilize the
criminal justice system, particularly where the prosecution of
organized crime is concerned.
The government is acting in this area and the Department of
Justice is currently examining this issue. It is consulting with
representatives of federal, provincial and municipal police
agencies, federal and provincial prosecutors, federal and
provincial correctional officers and officials and judges in all
parts of Canada. The object of this exercise is to determine the
scope and severity of the problem of intimidation and to develop
an appropriate legislative response. I applaud this initiative.
It is important for all our communities in terms of making them
safer and more secure.
I will conclude by observing that organized crime is a pressing
problem which takes various and many forms. The international
community has identified the fight against organized crime as a
priority issue. The Canadian government has taken a similar
position, and rightfully so. It is important for all Canadians
to have us move in this very important area.
Let us see if the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
can identify legislative avenues that can be effectively pursued
by parliament to win the fight against the activities of criminal
organizations.
I think this motion is most in order. It is useful and we
should get on with passing it to make sure it goes to the
committee where we can examine these and all important issues
relating to organized crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to ask my colleague a question because he is the chair
of the Standing Committee on Health, of which I am a member. I
know that he has shown a wonderful sense of fair play, and it is
a great pleasure to work with him.
The last report of the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada
described organized crime as making $10 billion annually from
drug trafficking, and an estimated $400 million from the sale of
jewellery on the black market. Every year, fraudulent credit
card purchases total close to $80 million.
As for economic crimes—the hon. member referred to
telemarketing—losses are in the neighbourhood of $4 billion.
Fraudulent use of credit cards accounts for something like
$127 million. Between 8,000 and 16,000 people are smuggled into
Canada illegally every year.
Car theft is still on the rise. And between $5 billion and $17
billion in illicit funds are laundered annually.
Would the hon. member agree with me that all options must be
considered in our efforts to more effectively combat organized
crime? It is not just a question of additional resources for
the police, but all options must be considered, including—and
this is something I think the committee will have to look at—the
Japanese model, which prohibits the public display of crests and
badges belonging to biker gangs, up to and including possible
use of the notwithstanding clause.
Would the hon. member agree that all options must be considered
and that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must
not exclude any of them?
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman
opposite for his question. It seems to me that what the motion
today is saying is that by referring the motion to the justice
and human rights committee we should analyze the legislative
avenues open to parliament to fight against the activities of
criminal organizations and then report back to the House.
If the question is, should we take a look at the variety of
options available to the committee and ultimately to parliament
and all parliamentarians, it seems to me that we should. We
should take a look at the kinds of things that we as a society
and we as parliamentarians should do in order to curtail criminal
activity wherever it may be in this great land of ours.
1540
As a former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I can tell
the House first hand that police services across our great
country need parliament's assistance in this very important area.
The government has done many things over the last number of years
to enact the kinds of legislation that are necessary to give the
police the kinds of measures they need in order to carry out
their function in society, all of which enables us to live in
more safe and secure communities wherever they may be in Canada.
I look forward to the report of the standing committee in this
very important area. I know that under the leadership of the
chairperson, who is a very capable individual, that is precisely
what will be done. The committee will report back to the House
in a very meaningful way and give parliament and, by extension,
all Canadians the kinds of necessary analysis and tools that will
help us to ensure that criminal activity is curtailed in Canada.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise on debate in the
House. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to tell the people
of Canada about the strength of the opposition in the House,
because if it were not for the Bloc Quebecois—and I give them
full marks—if it were not for the pressure of the Conservatives
and also of the Reform Party, this kind of motion would never
have come to the House. This kind of action would never take
place under the Liberal government.
It absolutely astounds me, with the encroachment of organized
crime into every part of Canadian life, that the government just
basically sits on its hands.
I look at the fact that the speaker just immediately prior to
me, in answer to a question from a Bloc member, said that under
the auspices of the chair of the committee on justice that
everything will go well. I remind the House that the chair who is
presently in that seat is the former solicitor general. It was
under that solicitor general that many of these pieces of
inaction in fact continued to fester.
I draw the attention of the House to a specific case. Let us
take a look at some specifics. As a result of coverage in the
news media, I and members of the House have learned that in 1997
RCMP Corporal Robert Read reported a cover-up of incompetence,
negligence and corruption within DFAIT and immigration and
complained of criminal misconduct by his superiors. This related
to activities that had happened in the very late eighties and
early nineties in Canada's office in Hong Kong.
The RCMP did not acknowledge that complaint much less
investigate it. In January 1998, Corporal Read took his
documented complaint to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He
was told it was the wrong venue, and indeed it was the wrong
venue. The reality is that within the purview of the government,
within the bureaucracy of the RCMP, there is no correct place for
that complaint if the RCMP hierarchy will not act on allegations
of this nature.
In January 1999, he took the same complaint and documentation to
the auditor general. None of these investigative bodies are
investigating this complaint, and Corporal Read is a veteran
insider. None of them are investigating the complaint that a
major cover-up is continuing today within the government's
bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I have to parenthesize. I failed to
mention that I am sharing my time with the member for Surrey
Central.
I have personally questioned Corporal Read. He has confirmed
and detailed his allegations to me. As a matter of fact, I have
seen pages and pages and pages of documented evidence that
clearly substantiates that there must be an investigation into
his allegations of cover-up on the part of the RCMP.
1545
The purpose of this cover-up is to protect the government from
the public humiliation of being systematically deceived by its
own employees. The effect has been damage to Canada's national
security.
It is all very well and good for the government to say that a
wonderful measure has been put forward by the opposition. It
thinks the Bloc motion is a good one and that it should be
proceeding with it. I want to know from the government in this
debate today why the allegations about which I have just informed
the House have not been acted on by the government. Why has the
government been sitting on its hands in the face of this
stonewalling?
It started in 1997. After two years of bureaucratic
stonewalling Corporal Read made his complaint public. What
happened? He was suspended. Rather than the RCMP actually doing
anything he was suspended. To the best of my knowledge there has
never been any further action taken to investigate the
allegations about Corporal Read to this date. Corporal Read's
findings of negligence, incompetence and corruption have not been
challenged. It appears no one will investigate even though the
complaint is substantial and has been documented.
This is a first step. Thanks to the opposition, issues of this
type will come before the standing committee. I can tell the
House what I fully anticipate in committee. There will be
further stonewalling by the majority representing the government
in that committee. Furthermore, as I pointed out, the chair of
the committee is a former solicitor general who in 1997, when
these events were taking place, was the solicitor general.
Will the current solicitor general appoint an independent
prosecutor to examine the evidence of Corporal Read? Not only
the evidence of Corporal Read. A lot of the evidence is
substantiated by pages and binders full of information, graphs
and flowcharts on information compiled by Brian McAdam, a former
immigration official in the Hong Kong office at the time of the
alleged incidents.
I do not understand how we can end up in Canada with a
professional bureaucracy that would allow this kind of situation
to continue to fester. Why has this never been properly
investigated? If the solicitor general will not act, will the
Speaker of the House order the auditor general to report directly
to the House?
These are serious allegations. I am fully aware of the
seriousness of the allegations I am relating to the House. I am
taking responsibility for that as a member of parliament. I will
repeat. These allegations have been brought to the RCMP. These
allegations are part of what led to the start-up of the
investigation called sidewinder. We all know what happened with
sidewinder.
Sidewinder was a two year investigation by a combined force of
CSIS and the RCMP. They compiled information for a full two year
period. They look into the kind of allegations that Brian McAdam
brought forward. What did they do? At the end of two years
someone at CSIS decided to terminate the sidewinder
investigation.
That was not good enough. Instead of just terminating the
investigation they terminated all the e-mails and all the written
documentation. They made sure to the best of their ability that
all information on electronic files was also terminated.
This was absolutely scandalous because it was going on at
exactly the same time as the government was not appointing people
to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. SIRC
was set up under the
legislation which established CSIS in the first place. Its
purpose was to have civilian oversight of a top secret
organization.
1550
The government neglected, and I use that word in its strongest,
most pejorative sense, to put people into positions of trust and
responsibility in SIRC so that SIRC could continue to oversee
CSIS.
As a result of the government leaving the SIRC position open,
CSIS basically ran rampant. When it came upon some results,
which it presumably did not like, it decided not only to
terminate it but to destroy the whole thing. Guess what? SIRC
found out about the destruction of sidewinder as a result of
reading about it in the newspaper.
The government is completely out of control. It has no idea
what we are looking at in the area of organized crime. The very
least I can say is that I am thankful the government will support
the motion put forward today by Canada's opposition which has
embarrassed it into action.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite impressed.
My colleague across the floor recognizes the merit of the Bloc
Quebecois initiative to bring the issue before us today. He
claims that it is because of the opposition that the motion is on
the floor.
I would agree with him if he were to be excluded from the
definition of opposition. Many days have been devoted to issues
put forth by the opposition, and the Reform Party never saw fit
to put the issue before the House. How dare he say that the
Reform is responsible for this issue?
Second, I heard my colleague speak about democracy and in the
same sentence say that the government should interfere either
with the launching of an investigation or with the suspension of
an investigation. He is asking us to have the government
interfere with the operation of a police body. I am saying there
is a great danger to democracy if we do that. Apparently he does
not understand this concept.
Third, I should remind him that Mrs. Paule Gauthier, the head of
SIRC, has declared that she is fully satisfied with the
co-operation she has with CSIS. Again we are reaching a point
where in the Reform Party fearmongering, insinuation and innuendo
have become a way of life. Is it surprising that it is losing so
much popularity?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, if Madam Gauthier was aware
of the theft of the briefcase after the Toronto Maple Leafs
hockey game, how did she become aware of it? The solicitor
general was informed by the director of CSIS that the briefcase
had gone missing. The solicitor general did not inform SIRC.
SIRC is the body. They are the people who are responsible to us
as Canadians.
These are people of name who we can trust. We can trust Ray
Speaker. We can trust Bob Rae. We can trust Frank McKenna. We
can trust people who have a long history of public service. These
are people who are put into the trusted position of overseeing
CSIS because of the kind of inept things that have been going on
over there.
The solicitor general sat on that information. It took a report
in the Globe and Mail to make the chair of SIRC aware that
the briefcase had been stolen in the first place.
The piety that has been coming forward from the solicitor
general's parliamentary secretary is a bit misplaced. If the
Reform Party were the Government of Canada, we would take
responsibility for the fact that we have not taken any action on
organized crime. The Liberals are the Government of Canada and
it is the Liberals that have not taken any action on organized
crime. It is the Liberals who are deficient in protecting
Canadians.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it incredible when we are talking about something
as important to Canadians as their own safety and security that
the parliamentary secretary would dare to rise and say that even
speaking about this issue is just fearmongering.
Shame on him. Shame on him that we had to have this debate. The
government should have been on top of things so that this problem
would not be a matter of debate in the House of Commons. There
should have been procedures in place where we would be safe, but
instead the government is asleep at the switch.
1555
I find so dismaying that the government is prepared to ignore
this issue and call people names who are trying to get it dealt
with. It actually punished those who tried to bring forward the
matter. The employee with the courage to raise the matter is now
toast. What kind of a signal does this send to people who want
to make sure that gross injustice and corruption in the country
are dealt with properly?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it sends a very bad signal
because in the case of the particular corporal, if we can believe
it, he has been restricted to staying within 100 kilometres of
the city of Ottawa. There is no future idea of when that
restriction will be lifted.
He is being punished for coming forward and being straight and
trying to bring these allegations to the attention of his
superiors. The only way he has been able to do that is to go
public. More is the shame on the government.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to the
Bloc supply day motion that calls on the House to order the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the issue
of organized crime, to analyse avenues available to parliament to
combat these criminals, and to report back to the House by
October 31, 2000.
Today the government side of the House is being forced by the
opposition to discuss organized crime. We will see how little it
will do, if anything. The people of Surrey Central are anxious
to do something about organized crime and its effect on our
country, our cities, our region, our children, and many other
aspects of our lives.
The weak Liberal government that has no vision and no political
will keeps our criminal justice system weak. There are less and
less resources, money and effort going to our law enforcement
community. We can clearly see this in Surrey. We feel the
effects of the scarce resources of the RCMP which is trying to
preserve and protect our communities.
The immigration minister tells the Prime Minister to adopt a new
slogan. The motto is that Canada is the place to be. The Prime
Minister brags about that. There is no political will on Liberal
benches to give B.C. and the rest of Canada the RCMP services
that are needed. Because of this, international criminals know
that Canada is the number one country and the place to be.
The Liberals already know that organized crime has a great
effect on our country. There is no need to study it. Illegal
migrants arrive at our airports and on our coasts. They are
brought here by organized criminals, and the Liberals do nothing
about it.
They do nothing about corruption in our embassies. When it
comes to filtering out criminals our embassies are just like
sieves. In Hong Kong 2,000 visas were stolen. Are gentle people
stealing them and using them? No, it is organized crime. It is
criminals who stole the visas and used them to bring over 2,000
criminals into Canada, and the Liberals do nothing about it.
I did something about it when my constituents told me about
corruption at the embassies at New Delhi and Islamabad.
Legitimate immigrants were harassed while criminals were buying
their way into Canada.
1600
I got results. Was I lucky? No. I did the work. I had the
political will to get to the bottom of these allegations of crime
and corruption on behalf of the people I was elected to
represent.
I took action on their behalf. I went to the RCMP. They were
glad to work with me and they did a good job. People were fired
as a result of my efforts and the corruption was cleaned up, for
a while at least.
The Liberals keep the RCMP starved of resources: money,
equipment and personnel. The Liberals do it with our military as
well. They starve our emergency preparedness, too. The Liberals
leave only four officers patrolling the B.C.-Washington border
near my constituency. Our ports and docks are understaffed.
Perhaps only 5% of containers are inspected at the Vancouver
port, but many of them contain drugs and other things being
smuggled for organized crime. The Liberals are not serious about
fighting organized crime. If they were they would dispatch the
military on a special two-day mission to open the 95% of
containers that have not been inspected. Let us get to work.
We know that there are refugee claimants on our streets selling
drugs. We know they have been arrested, but the police tell us
they are back on the street within hours, or at least the next
day, after being slightly slapped on the wrist. Why does the
government not do something about it? It is a shame.
Third world people are being enslaved into a life of crime.
They are being sent to the U.S. via Canada. What do the Liberals
do about it? Nothing. The CIA and the FBI in the U.S. are
furious about what is happening in Canada. They are furious
about our Prime Minister because he is cutting budgets, dragging
his feet and not upholding Canada's part in fighting crime in
North America.
The government knows about money laundering operations in our
country. Organized crime has built a very large, multibillion
dollar underground economy. The weak Liberal government has done
nothing about it.
Last week the newspapers published 10 ways to launder money and
those are the 10 ways the Liberals have refused to prevent money
laundering.
As a former credit union director, I know that our federal
government is not doing enough to help prevent fraud through our
financial institutions. There are many areas where the
government has dropped the ball on combating organized crime,
including industrial espionage, white collar crime, national
security risks and others.
The Liberal government should have introduced legislation to
protect the rights of civil servants who come forward to expose
corruption in government. It should have done this long ago. In
other countries the legal rights of public servants who blow the
whistle are protected. They are rewarded. In Canada we need at
least to protect the public servants who report, in good faith,
evidence of wrongdoing. They should not be subject to
disciplinary action, as the government has shown in the last few
years.
Canada needs a mechanism for our public servants to follow when
they detect wrongdoing, including mismanagement, misleading
information, cover-ups and other things like the issue we are
debating today.
I will soon be putting forward a bill for the government to
support that will protect and reward whistleblowers. The purpose
of the act will be to establish a procedure and provide
appropriate rewards and incentives for whistleblowing. Everyone
knows about the work of Brian McAdam, who exposed corruption in
our Hong Kong embassy.
The sidewinder investigation should certainly be of value and in
the best interests of Canadians. My hon. colleague has already
spoken about it. For three months Fabian Dawson, a Canadian
journalist working out of B.C., has been publishing articles
chronicling corruption in our federal government's overseas
missions.
1605
We commend these Canadians for their work, but where is the
government? Where are the Liberals? Why do the Liberals not
investigate what Fabian is writing about? Why do they not help
him? Why will they not take action when our media uncovers
things through good journalistic investigation?
Today we are looking for answers to the problem of organized
crime. What can parliament do? It is easy. The people of
Surrey and all Canadians know how easy it is. Contrary to the
motion we are debating, there is no need to study this problem.
We already know the answers. Parliament can legislate tougher
penalties. Parliament can provide whistleblowers with protection
and rewards so that they can come forward with the evidence of
corruption, exposing the techniques and modus operandi of
organized criminals and gangs like the triads.
Rather than this weak Liberal government listening to them and
taking appropriate action, rewarding whistleblowers like Brian
McAdam and Corporal Read, it tries to shut them up and muzzle
them while intimidating and threatening them. This weak
government should see to it that the laws which are already in
our statute books are enforced. The government can do that by
providing our law enforcement community with what it needs to get
the job done.
In Surrey the RCMP is always short of staff, equipment, time and
resources. There is no reason for that except that the Liberals
are starving the force of what it needs. We are the fastest
growing community in Canada and this government is starving our
city of police protection from organized crime. It is a shame.
I ask this weak Liberal government to wake up. Rather than
sitting on its hands, looking like an empty bag, it should get
tough on organized crime and send a strong message to criminals
around the world on behalf of the people of Surrey, B.C. and all
Canadians. It should tell those criminals that Canada is not the
place to be.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very happy to rise today to speak to this matter. Certainly
the debate in itself will send a message to organized criminal
elements that their behaviour and activities will not be
tolerated for the reasons which have been elaborated and which I
will continue to elaborate.
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough
East.
I would like to take a bit of a different tack in my address. I
would like to address some of the key international activities of
the federal government in addressing organized crime.
As members on both sides of the House will appreciate,
international co-operation in combating organized crime is very
vital. Canada, like other countries, is faced with responding to
an increased movement of goods and people as our economy
globalizes. At the same time, increased use of
telecommunications and finance in everyday affairs shrinks our
world.
To be sure, criminals are quick to try to capitalize on the
opportunity that globalization and technological change present.
Canadian ministers and officials are required regularly to attend
meetings or conferences where key discussions and negotiations
occur and where decisions are taken as to how to combat organized
crime. It is a very complex issue. The objective is always to
support a co-ordinated international approach to deal with this
problem while recognizing that the sovereign interest of states
must be respected.
An important recent meeting was the 1994 UN ministerial
conference on organized transnational crime held in Naples. At
that session a political declaration and global plan of action on
organized crime was produced. This document has served as a
framework for future multilateral activity in this area, some of
which I will now describe.
At the Halifax summit of 1995, on the initiative of the Canadian
government, the G-8 heads of state created an experts group on
transnational organized crime, now called the Lyon Group. The
Lyon Group has produced 40 recommendations on fostering closer
co-operative legal assistance, law enforcement and other efforts
to address the problem. This was followed by a meeting of G-8
justice and interior ministers on high tech crime in December
1997, a video conference of the G-8 ministers of justice and
interior in December 1998, and most recently a meeting of G-8
ministers in Moscow on October 19 and 20 of this year where
discussions focused on financial crime, high tech crime and
illegal immigration.
1610
The relationship between the Canadian and the United States
governments and their agencies in combating organized crime is
very important given the economic and cultural ties that we and
our neighbours share. We share the same North American space and
many of the same interests in combating transborder and
transnational crime.
In February 1997, on the initiative of the Solicitor General of
Canada and the Attorney General of the United States, it was
agreed that Canada and the United States would form the
Canada-United States cross-border crime forum. This agreement
was reinforced by the commitment of the Prime Minister and
President Clinton in April 1997 to form a bi-national body on
criminal justice issues.
The Canadian group is comprised of officials from the Department
of the Solicitor General, which co-chairs the forum with the U.S.
Justice Department, the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service, Correctional Service Canada, Revenue Canada, the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, Foreign
Affairs, the Department of Finance, as well as representatives
from provincial governments, including Quebec, and our police
forces.
The U.S. group is comprised of U.S. attorneys, officials from
the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshalls Service, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue
Service and regional and state officials.
The first full meeting of the cross-border crime forum took
place in Ottawa in October 1997. The forum met again in
Washington on May 21, 1998. The most recent meeting of the forum
was in June of this year in Prince Edward Island.
The forum provides a regular opportunity for officials from
Canada and the United States to discuss transnational crime
problems and strategies to improve operational and policy
co-operation and co-ordination. The work of officials through
the forum's subgroups on intelligence, enforcement, prosecutions
and telemarketing fraud is ongoing.
Bi-national strategies and threat assessments have been
developed and continue to be refined. Officials are also
evaluating current priorities and examining practices and
legislation on both sides of the border to support co-operation
at the national level, as well as regionally and locally in
communities where border crime is a serious public safety
concern.
The next meeting of the forum is to take place in May or June
2000 in the United States.
Still looking at the Americas, the Secretary of State for
International Financial Institutions participated on behalf of
the solicitor general at a ministerial level conference on money
laundering held in Buenos Aires in December 1995. The conference
produced an action plan on how to deal with money laundering in
the Americas in terms of strengthening law enforcement,
regulatory and legal measures. The action plan is an important
marker for efforts in this hemisphere to combat organized crime.
I would also note Canada's activities in the Inter-American Drug
Abuse Control Commission, or CICAD as it is known by its Spanish
acronym, of the Organization of American States. The focus of
the commission is to address drug abuse and trafficking within
the Americas, as well as related activities such as money
laundering.
The Deputy Solicitor General of Canada was elected chair of
CICAD's multilateral evaluation and monitoring working group at
the May 1998 meeting of CICAD in Washington, D.C. This working
group has developed a framework to evaluate member states'
anti-drug efforts, which was completed at a meeting held August
31 to September 2 of this year.
[Translation]
Canada, as a member of the G-7 countries, was a founding member
of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, the
FATF. This task force was created at the G-7 summit held in Paris
in 1989 to consider whatever measures were deemed necessary to
eliminate money laundering and to develop international
standards in this area.
The FATF released a report including 40 recommendations to fight
money laundering, which are now considered model measures to be
taken at the national and the international levels to put a stop
to money laundering.
These recommendations were reviewed in 1996 to reflect the new
patterns and the countermeasures taken in this area, like money
laundering on the Internet.
The FATF now brings together 28 member states representing the
main financial centres of the world.
Canada is also a collaborative and supportive member of the
CFATF, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, a sister
organization of the FATF.
1615
The group members are committed to promoting and implementing
the 40 FATF recommendations.
[English]
I mentioned the United Nations in my earlier comments. Canada is
an active participant on crime issues in the United Nations and
its specialized commissions, in particular the United Nations
Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Commission on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice.
A convention on transnational organized crime is being
negotiated now in the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Commission. The work on this convention will have an impact on
Canada's domestic policies and programs. Canada must be ready to
meet its obligations and governments must take account of this.
At the same time, the convention will provide general tools for
law enforcement and legal assistance among countries at the
international level. It is expected that the convention will be
adopted by the Millennium United Nations General Assembly in the
year 2000.
A comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to combating organized
crime nationally is essential to make Canada an effective
international partner.
The main objectives of Canada's international activities are to
promote Canadian values and policies while building a strong
network for practical co-operation.
In this exercise, it is important that the federal government
works in partnership with the provinces and territories, and with
the communities across the country. We must ensure that our
domestic arrangements and our international arrangements are
compatible and support each other.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
motion reads:
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyze
the options available to parliament to combat the activities of
criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October
31, 2000.
I say at the outset that I support the motion and look forward
to the reference to the committee on which I sit and which I
consider to be a very important committee to the House.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm for his initiative in this area. It is always
appropriate that parliament oversees government initiatives and,
in this particular instance, this is a valuable and worthwhile
initiative.
I will speak to the irony underlying this discussion. This
irony revolves around the rule of law. Canada prides itself as a
nation subject to the rule of law, much to the chagrin sometimes
of many of the members of the House, particularly when the rule
of law comes in conflict with, for instance, the supremacy of
parliament or when we have interpretations from the Supreme Court
of Canada which conflict with the will of parliament.
Fortunately, we all respect the rule of law and therefore are
able to work out those conflicting points.
Governments are circumscribed by the rule of law. Institutions
are circumscribed by the rule of law. Individuals are
circumscribed by the rule of law. People in institutions cannot
simply do what seems most advantageous to their self-interest,
regardless of whether it be in the field of criminality or in the
field of civil law.
Canadians live under the rule of law and see it as their most
valuable tool to protect themselves, their families and their
assets against arbitrary actions by governments, institutions,
police and other individuals.
Organized crime on the other hand has no such limitations.
Whether it is trafficking in people, drugs, liquor or stolen
cars, organized crime challenges the very basis of our Canadian
society as we know it and, therefore, it is a threat like no
other threat to our civilization.
The irony is that while organized crime seeks to destroy the
rule of law in order to gain its revenues, it simultaneously
wishes to invest its revenues and its proceeds from its
activities in the societies which have the highest standards of
the rule of law, because there they provide safe and secure
banking systems, safe and secure property registration systems
and safe and secure judicial remedies.
The irony is resplendent that ill-gotten gains, regardless of
where they come from, whether they be from North America or from
other places, frequently end up here because of the rule of the
law and because of the security of our various institutions.
1620
I hope I am not naive, and there are some who might say
otherwise, but I believe that organized crime will be with us
forever, much like original sin, of which many of our members
know a great deal. It has been around since the dawn of time and
is not likely to go away soon.
Given that it is not likely to go away soon, we have to be
realistic about what can or cannot be done in the area of
organized crime. I believe we should support the efforts of the
RCMP in their interdictions in Sri Lanka for people smuggling, or
in Akwesasne for other kinds of smuggling. The question really
is whether the government is approaching this in the best
possible fashion. What are the initiatives that make the most
sense?
To me, hitting at profitability is what makes a great deal of
sense. What hits most at profitability? I think that will be
the question that determines the direction of the committee. For
instance, the principles enunciated by the ministers collective
of justice for the country states that taking a profit out of
organized is an effective way of putting these criminals out of
business and efforts to seize their illegal proceeds should be
vigorously pursued. I support that view.
Let us take a look at some of the initiatives that this
government has taken on in the last few years. The first
initiative is the $115 million given to the RCMP to upgrade its
CPIC facility. I had the good fortune of touring that facility in
the last term and found it to be a useful tour. I encourage the
other members to do so as well because the information held in
those files is quite useful in fighting crime.
The next one was $18 million to the data bank initiative. Many
of these people have no compunction about any method in order to
secure their profits.
An additional $78 million to the national anti-smuggling
initiative will fund 100 additional RCMP officers in major
airports to help target organized criminals who use these
airports as points of entry into Canada.
An additional $15 million paid annually will put more RCMP
officers in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, and $13.8 million to
the RCMP to use for workload increases. Thirteen proceeds of
crime units have been created within the RCMP across Canada.
While all of these are laudable initiatives, I do not want to be
circumscribing the work of the committee, assuming the motion
goes forward, by simply listening to what the government says.
To my mind, if those initiatives do not meet the profitability
test as to cutting out the profitability of the activities of
organized crime, then we probably have to ask ourselves whether
that is well spent money. If the foregoing interrupts the
profitability anywhere along a spectrum then, in my view, the
initiative is doing a good job.
I look forward to the reference to the committee. I reflect on
the last time that parliament referred an initiative to the
justice committee which was in the area of drunk driving. We on
the justice committee spent a great deal of time reviewing the
evidence. As the evidence came before us, we started to see the
patterns that were there and the gaps in the legislation. We
were fortunate enough to not only be able to produce a unanimous
report, but the justice committee also produced a bill which was
referred back to the House and in turn proclaimed on July 1.
In my constituency, the work of the justice committee and the
support that we received from the justice minister and the
government in that area, and from all parties, was well received
by my constituents. I look forward to this initiative also being
dutifully undertaken by the committee and that it will produce a
report that will not only be of use to the government but of use
to the House.
1625
Frankly, I will be interested at looking at anything that is
effective. I will also be interested in looking at initiatives
which are not effective. We live in a world of limited
resources. We continue to live and will always live in a world
of limited resources. We as a government will always be
criticized that we never apply enough resources. If the
resources that are being applied are not useful and are
misdirected then that should also be part of the review of the
committee.
While I appreciate that there is an irony going on here, that
the rule of law is being abrogated by a certain subset of
criminals, ironically, the work of the committee will, I hope,
return us to the rule of law. I hope that ultimately, as we
examine this issue, we will continue to move ourselves back to a
rule of law and a society where all people can have security of
person and property.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, gasoline pricing; the
hon. member for Vancouver East, Trade.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion. It reads as
follows:
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse
the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of
criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October
31, 2000.
I applaud my colleagues who have worked on these important
issues, sometimes at their own personal risk, particularly the
hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who, with my colleague from
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is leading this debate, the hon. member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who, in a way, raised the red flag after
the tragic death of the young Daniel Desrochers in his riding.
This young boy died in a car bombing incident involving feuding
criminal gangs.
I am very proud of the work my colleagues have done. We cannot
tolerate in the Quebec society, or the Canadian society for that
matter, any kind of ingrained violence as a way of determining
markets. This is how it works in the underworld.
Neither can we allow crime to become a way of becoming rich
without being punished, because all our values could be
compromised in the long run.
On a number of occasions, it was pointed out that, in Quebec,
which we do not like to think of as a violent society, between
1994 and 1998, criminal organizations were responsible for 79
murders and 89 attempted murders, 129 cases of arson and 82
bombings.
This is a serious situation. We know that it is not all that
serious in Quebec, but we are still concerned. However, this
scourge also ties in very closely with what is happening
internationally. Today we are looking at the globalization of
organized crime. Global crime involves more than connections
between Canada, Quebec and the United States, for example, with
some ramifications in Mexico. It is much larger than that.
1630
As I said before, we know that places that lend themselves to
criminal activity become markets that are fought over
internationally. We only have to look at the various gangs
competing with one another with the means and the level of
violence we know.
I just want to take a moment to mention that, in other
countries, in Europeans countries for example—and I have been
made aware of that—one type of crime that is being dealt with is
the exploitation of half a million women from developing
countries who are brought to western Europe each year for
profitable sex crimes.
We know that young women and women are kidnapped and disappear
and that they end up being exploited somewhere.
When you add up all these numbers, it looks like a modern-day
white slave traffic.
Then there is the whole issue of the displacement of persons.
According to the International Organization for Migration, those
who are involved in the organized trafficking of human beings
are responsible for the displacement of one million individuals
at any given time, generating $7 billion worth of business every
year.
Putting an end to the trafficking of human beings was the
primary goal of the European Union summit held in Finland. The
aim was not to simply prevent the displacement of people.
Displaced people who are charged $20,000—in the case of those
from China for example—are subject to a kind of slavery and
control including threats against their person.
Several migrants from Europe landed illegally in western Canada.
Recently, some of them were brought here by boat in the same
unacceptable fashion.
Drugs are an international scourge. Numbers vary but, according
to a document we produced, there is between $100 and $500 billion
in trade every year. By comparison, drugs account for 8% of
international trade, or approximately $400 billion, roughly the
same as oil and gas. This is a lot. Oil and gas represent an
extremely important part of international trade. The drug trade
is said to be of an equal value.
The stakes are enormous and profits from organized crime could
be as high as one trillion dollars. I am not mistaken. I do not
mean one thousand million in French, or one billion in English,
I mean one trillion, which as far as I know is “un billion” in
French.
This goes to show how extremely important these illicit, violent
activities are with all their showy wealth.
In Moscow I have seen the most sumptuous boutiques. There are
20 BMW dealerships in Moscow, and it would seem that very few
are authorized dealers. There is world-wide trafficking in the
resale of stolen automobiles.
Why mention this in connection with the death of the Desrochers
boy? In order to indicate the extreme importance of the work my
colleagues on both sides of the House will have to do. They
will certainly need to know exactly what is going on, as far as
international agreements are concerned, because the
globalization of crime is such that it cannot be considered
localized and therefore solvable locally. This is particularly
the case now that there are new approaches, such as high tech
crimes, cyber attacks and crimes committed by hackers.
1635
Now there are brilliant hackers who are able to commit financial
crimes by infiltrating computer systems and then, with a few
keystrokes, hiding all evidence of their crime, or transferring
the proceeds from it to another country.
This field is one of extraordinarily rapid change, and it is at
the service of biker gangs as much as it is for any other group.
Under these circumstances, the authorities face a major
challenge, because the crime must first be located and then the
data has to be obtained to prove it. There is considerable
urgency here.
Some countries, we have heard, want to make encryption keys
mandatory. Encryption uses extremely lengthy formulas that
supposedly make it impossible to get into messages and therefore
protect honest people from those who want to invade their
privacy. They may, however, also afford protection to dishonest
people by preventing the justice system from being able to find
out what they have been doing. This is what happened in Japan,
when a sect carried out its plans to poison subway travellers
and Japan found itself with evidence that had to be decrypted.
This was a very long and difficult task and it had to be done
before the criminals could be tried, and they were not able to
decipher it completely.
In closing, I wish to say that, as a society, we cannot allow
these crimes to go unpunished, because the entire social balance
is jeopardized. What is more, young people who are struggling
to make it in the world may be attracted by this way to get rich
quick.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague and I can
see once again that the hon. member for Mercier has a very good
grasp of the issue of organized crime and of its scope, in
Quebec and in Canada.
Her calm and rational tone was a reflection of today's debate.
Indeed, all the parties said they would support the Bloc
Quebecois' motion. We feel this is a very important issue which
deserves to receive all our attention, and the other parties
obviously think so too.
I have a question for the my colleague, the hon. member for
Mercier. I know she is very interested in what goes on at the
international level. I am sure she said something about this,
but I missed the beginning of her speech. I would appreciate it
if she could comment about what is being done at the
international level, if she had not already done so in her
speech.
I realize that we must first have good national legislation.
Obviously, we must first clean up our own backyard, but my
question to the hon. member is about what goes on at the
international level.
Does the hon. member think that, once we will have cleaned up
our act, there are things that must be done at the international
level? Is some form of co-operation desirable? Are there useful
lessons that could be learned from European countries, as the
hon. member has frequent contacts with them and comes back with
good ideas? I know that she recently travelled with the Minister
of Justice precisely to talk about organized crime at the
international level.
I would like to hear the hon. member, because she has a unique
experience. The Bloc Quebecois is lucky to have her, because she
increasingly brings her great expertise to us and to all
Quebecers. I would like to hear her comments on this issue.
1640
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is making
me blush.
Indeed, I have had the opportunity to join the justice minister
at the G8 Summit. Having a government with a small majority can
sometimes be useful to the opposition. I know about the
collaborative work being done, and the secretary of state has
mentioned the Lyon Group.
To be able to work together, countries have to agree on some
rules. They have to know that if an offender is sent to another
country, he will be treated the same way as he would be in his
own country. Therefore, it is extremely important for countries
to come to an agreement, and it is not always easy, because each
and every state wants to run things.
I am glad to see that the committee is considering this issue as
well as parliaments around the world, so that they can exchange
information. Of course, in order to be able to exchange
information and make a decision when the proceeds of some crime
are located, we have to decide in advance how the proceeds of
crime will be divided and who will try the alleged offender.
Will foreign countries agree with the way the trial will be run?
We also have to think about the severity of the penalties
provided. This has become crucial because it is so very easy for
criminals to go from one country to another.
I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question. I think
that, from now on, parliamentarians from countries around the
world will have to talk about these things. I hope the committee
will be the one to initiate these discussions.
I also hope that the committee of a sovereign Quebec will be
able to carry on and to discuss this issue with the committee of
a sovereign Canada and the committees of other jurisdictions. It
will be crucial to agree on some basic rules to ensure a minimum
of justice.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on the motion, which may be
made votable, introduced by the Bloc Quebecois on one of the
opposition days provided for in the agreement between the
parliamentary leaders of the various parties represented in the
House.
The full motion reads as follows:
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse
the options available to Parliament to effectively combat the
activities of criminal groups and to report to the House no
later than October 31, 2000.
In March 1998, Angus Reid conducted an omnibus survey containing
questions about organized crime. The results of the survey said
it all: 91% of the population described organized crime as a
problem, and one Canadian out of two thought that it was a
serious problem; 21% of the population thought that existing
efforts to combat organized crime were adequate, and 77% wanted
to see such efforts increased. Finally, the same survey showed
that residents of Quebec and British Columbia were more anxious
about organized crime than other Canadians.
For the Bloc Quebecois to have set aside as a possible theme for
this day a subject as important for our collective future as
sovereignty and anti-democratic measures to control that process
being dreamt up by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
the Prime Minister is a sign that the situation is critical with
respect to organized crime.
Since our arrival in the House in 1993, a number of incidents
have had a sobering impact on our existence as ordinary citizens
wishing to live in peace and harmony. Let us recall briefly
some of the more tragic among them.
1645
In 1995, during a war between biker gangs for the control of a
territory, Daniel Desrochers, an 11-year old boy, was killed by
the explosion of a bomb in the Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in the east
end of Montreal.
A few months later, a bomb went off in Saint-Nicolas, just south
of Quebec City, and windows were shattered, including those in a
baby's bedroom.
In 1997, Diane Lavigne and Pierre Rondeau, two prison guards,
were killed in cold blood, presumably by bikers.
In a report by the Canadian Press published in Le Soleil of
March 20, 1998, the then Quebec minister of public security,
Pierre Bélanger, declared that the security and custody measures
taken for the suspect had cost $1 million. Moreover, the chief
crown prosecutor in Montreal, André Vincent, said Hell's Angels
hitmen killed the two prison guards at random, just to
destabilize the justice system. He added that these criminals
intended to attack crown prosecutors and judges too.
I will add that André Tousignant, one of the Hell's Angels
hitmen, was murdered and his body found on February 27, 1998, in
the woods near Bromont.
These terrible incidents add to the problems faced by, among
others, the Sûreté du Quebec in the fight against the so-called
forced plantings of marijuana in farmlands across Quebec. In
this regard, the Canadian Police Association stated in a press
release on October 8 that the awful reality was that organized
crime had reached epidemic proportions and that the police were
frustrated by the lack of tools and resources to fight it.
The statistics are very revealing in measuring the scope of the
problem of organized crime, regardless of its source. For
example, the RCMP advises that, between 1994 and 1998, in
general terms, there were 79 murders and 89 attempted murders in
connection with biker gang wars in Quebec. These wars are also
behind 129 cases of arson and 82 bombings.
If we look at an impact study on organized crime commissioned by
the Office of the Solicitor General and released in 1998, we
learn that the illicit sale of drugs in Canada provides revenues
of $10 billion annually to those involved. Evaluations of the
scope of the world market of illicit drugs vary between $100
billion U.S. and $500 billion U.S.
Le Devoir of January 8, 1999 reported that, in Canada, in 1998,
smuggling, which concerns all criminal organizations, involved
primarily tobacco, alcohol and jewellery. It even reported
that, in jewellery alone, the Canadian black market was
estimated to be worth $400 million. All smuggling activities
together are estimated to have cost the federal and provincial
governments some $1.4 billion.
Crimes of an economic nature are on the same scale.
To list them quickly, these include fraudulent telemarketing,
aimed particularly at the elderly, stock market fraud and the
fraudulent use of credit cards. According to the same source, it
would appear that economic crimes cost the people of Quebec and
of Canada a minimum of $5 billion annually.
This being the case, what has the Parliament of Canada done on
the legislative, financial and international levels?
Let us look at the legislative aspect first of all. The
government has passed four bills we feel it would be worthwhile
to review briefly.
First there is the Witness Protection Act. Police forces are
now in a position to provide better protection to those
co-operating with them in obtaining evidence against criminal
organizations.
Second, the Criminal Law Improvement Actenables the police to
carry out storefront operations more easily.
This enabled the RCMP to successfully carry out Operation
Compote, resulting in charges against 50 people, one of them a
Montreal lawyer.
The third is the anti-gang legislation passed in April 1997, the
main thrust of which is inclusion in criminal law of the
definition of gang.
1650
This bill makes it a crime to take part in the activities of a
gang and provides heavier penalties for those who commit crimes
for a gang. It also authorizes the seizure of goods used for
gangs' criminal activities.
It should noted that this legislation does not target the
leaders of criminal gangs, since it is assumed that the
individuals targeted are the ones who commit the crime. However,
it is a well-known fact that in this type of criminal
organization, the dirty jobs are often done by subordinates and
that the leaders must be caught for these organizations to be
broken up.
The fourth legislative measure is the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, which gives police the power to conduct reverse
sting operations with undercover officers.
In spite of all these legislative provisions, police forces seem
unable to put an end to the activities of criminal gangs. As for
the financial resources earmarked by the governments of Canada
and Quebec to fight organized crime, they seem clearly
inadequate. However, it must be realized that it is difficult to
get a precise breakdown of all the moneys spent on the issue
that we are discussing today.
Finally, at the international level, during a conference held in
Montreal in 1998, the deputy commissioner of the RCMP for
investigations, René Charbonneau, proposed the establishment of
an international criminal tribunal to deal with drug dealers.
In light of this brief overview of organized crime in Canada, we
can see that the measures and the legislation in place and the
amount of money spent at this time cannot eradicate this
problem. That is why the Bloc Quebecois believes it is important
to examine the tools available to us to determine if they could
be improved or if they could be complemented by new legislative,
administrative and financial measures.
There seems to be a consensus on the urgency of passing new
tougher and more explicit legislation to counter activities by
criminal organizations.
Organized crime is certainly a national problem that threatens
public safety.
It is important that the efforts made by parliament to pass
legislation that is suited to the reality faced by police match
the efforts made by police in the field to uncover criminal
organizations.
The federal government must show the political will to take
action and must find ways to improve intelligence gathering by
the police, to impose harsher sentences on members of criminal
organizations and to give more teeth to its money laundering
legislation.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis for
such an interesting speech, and on her knowledge of the
international scene.
It is very often easier to obtain international consensus on a
criminal reform project than to obtain federal and provincial
consensus.
I recall that we managed to get three international treaties on
the control of international terrorism passed in a matter of
mere months, going beyond the ideological and conventional
borders of the day.
Has the hon. member considered making suggestions to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs on the drafting of more detailed
international conventions on this?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Judging by the performance of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs in the drafting of the treaty on
anti-personnel mines, the crusade on which he set out in order to
get the other countries on side, I feel he ought to again pick
up his pilgrim's staff and set off on another crusade in
connection with organized crime. This would lead to the
ratification of a treaty that would, in a way, make the
legislation more flexible.
1655
It would enable the countries that were signatories of such a
treaty to really deal with criminals, drug dealers for instance,
without our having to resort to extradition because our country
had sanctions against this crime and the other did not.
All the
signatory states would have to be able to try these criminals
and to impose upon them the penalties set out by a kind of
international tribunal or the treaty itself.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
comment will be along the lines of those I have made in the
course of the day. It must be understood that the motion tabled
by the Bloc Quebecois today, which will get hopefully a
unanimous vote in the House of Commons this evening, is the
product of considerable work.
The Bloc Quebecois has long been discussing and working on it.
I take this opportunity to thank the members for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Québec and
Drummond, and, for their support, the members for Roberval and
Rimouski—Mitis, who, in the past few hours, have been
negotiating with the other opposition parties to come up with a
motion that would receive the unanimous approval of the House.
Once and for all, we will study this issue seriously and with
all assumptions on the table.
It is common knowledge that drug dollars are a huge problem.
The Bloc Quebecois has already tabled a bill on money
laundering. Could we not in our study also look at the issue of
money laundering and take the avenue proposed by the Bloc
concerning, among other things, $1,000 bills and the deposit of
large sums of money? Could the member respond to this question?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will respond quickly.
Indeed, I think we must study this issue. Our colleague from
Charlesbourg has already introduced a bill to remove $1,000
bills from circulation. We are probably the only major
industrialized country to have such a large bill. It is easier
to carry ten $1000 bills in one's pockets than five hundred $5
bills or two hundred $10 bills, and so on. It makes for not
such a thick wad with ten $1,000 bills, and it is easier to
launder them, in the casino, for example, some evening.
[English]
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to express my support for the motion currently
before the House. I will share my time with the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
Organized crime is a serious national and international problem
that threatens public safety. It is now a multibillion dollar
enterprise in Canada. It has a negative impact upon all
Canadians.
Many of the problems Canadians see every day are linked to
organized crime. Whether it be a drug related burglary, a carton
of smuggled cigarettes, a telemarketing scam or juvenile
prostitution, it is usually part of the larger problem of
organized crime. That is why fighting organized crime is a major
task for the government and a key priority of the RCMP.
The federal government has done much so far to hit hard at those
criminals. The government is proud of what it has accomplished,
but we all know there is more work to do. The government has
undertaken a number of initiatives in its fight against organized
crime.
This government also recognizes that in the global war on
organized crime, no one country or government can win by acting
alone. Take the example of human smuggling and trafficking.
1700
The government shares the concerns and frustrations of many
Canadians in relation to the challenges posed by the arrival of
illegal migrants. Canadians are proud of and deeply committed to
our humanitarian traditions, but it is equally true that we have
no tolerance for those who would abuse this generosity. Today
criminally organized smuggling and trafficking operations are
conducting an extensive international trade in lives and in the
forced labour of human beings.
The United Nations estimates that international smuggling and
trafficking operations have grown to a $10 billion a year
industry. Organized criminals are demanding as much as $50,000
from their naive or misguided victims, exploiting their simple
desire for a better life. We know that this debt is typically
repaid over a short and brutal lifetime of illicit activity,
sexual exploitation and forced labour.
This is a truly despicable set of circumstances but we must be
clear about its source and direct our rightful anger and outrage
toward the criminals who seek profit in human suffering rather
than toward those victims who in search for a better life allow
themselves to be put into such slavery.
Let us be clear about what has been happening with respect to
our recent boatloads of arrivals from China. The boats were
identified, intercepted, boarded and apprehended. Nine crew
members have been charged. Their passengers have been detained.
Organized crime has been denied access to the source of its
profit. The economic incentive has been cut off. Those who have
claimed refugee status are being given a fair hearing on an
accelerated basis and in accordance with our charter, our
international obligations and our proud humanitarian traditions.
Canadian government officials from the coast guard and national
defence, the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada have all
responded admirably under extremely stressful conditions, but the
integrity of the system is something we take very seriously.
Simply put, if we allow the rules to be abused and the rules are
not respected, they cease to have meaning.
People smuggling and human trafficking are serious international
problems. That is why we have initiated a serious international
response. Canada has assumed a leading role in the development
of United Nations protocols on transnational organized crime and
migrant smuggling.
We have been working closely with our partners in the United
States to improve our crime databases and on joint efforts to
track and apprehend international criminals and terrorists. We
are working along similar lines with law enforcement agencies in
Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. It is worth
noting that other countries are confronting similar problems,
often on a significantly greater scale. This month alone
Australia has seen the arrival of 10 migrant vessels carrying
almost 900 people.
We are working with the People's Republic of China. Senior
immigration officers along with members of the RCMP have recently
returned from Beijing and the Fujian province where they met with
representatives of the Chinese government, its enforcement
officers and local police.
1705
Last September I and two colleagues from the House went to
China. We had discussions and negotiations with Chinese officials
to work jointly to solve the human smuggling problem. This visit
has helped us to advance our working relationship on human
trafficking, people smuggling and the repatriation of Chinese
nationals. The Chinese government has reported the recent seizure
of six migrant vessels, including up to four which are thought to
have been destined for Canada.
Smuggling has been around for a while. It is a fee for service
operation where smugglers are paid for simple passage across
international borders. They provide this service through various
means which include such things as false travel documents and
undetected border crossings. Their customers are sometimes
economic migrants, but sometimes they are legitimate refugees who
resort to smugglers as the only way to escape the source of their
persecution.
Human trafficking is more akin to human slavery. The goal of
traffickers is to profit from indentured human slaves. Once
their debts have been imposed, the victims of human trafficking
are bound to a long term repayment plan involving forced labour,
prostitution and other illicit activities. These victims often
have reason to fear for their lives and the lives of their family
members back home.
For human traffickers, the goal is not legal status. In the
first instance it is to evade detection at our ports of entry in
order to enter unnoticed and force their passengers underground
and into slavery as soon as possible. We are opposed to both
smuggling and trafficking. But above all, Canada will not
tolerate the abuse of our system by organized criminals engaged
in such deplorable human exploitation.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has travelled across
the country speaking with her provincial counterparts,
representatives of various non-governmental organizations and
other concerned citizens. She has listened to a wide range of
views on the matter in order to come up with a solution to this
problem.
There is no easy solution to this problem. That is why I am
pleased to support the motion that is before the House. I urge
all members to do so.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is really a pleasure to rise in this debate because
just yesterday I was saying that I felt that the Bloc Quebecois,
despite their agenda of sovereignty, contributes mightily to this
parliament. I think this motion today is an example of a very
positive contribution of the Bloc Quebecois.
I do not have a lot of time, but I would like to take this
debate in a particular direction. I would like to draw the
Bloc's attention and this parliament's attention to the fact that
organized crime has also entered the field of charities. I think
this is something that should be of concern to the justice
committee when it comes to act on the motion proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois.
Mr. Speaker, organized crime enters the field of voluntary
service in a number of ways. One way is the proliferation of
various telemarketing and direct mail scams. The commercial
crime squad of the RCMP has recently reported, in Montreal in
fact, that there have been links to the biker gangs. They have
established links to biker gangs of organizations that are
engaged in soliciting funds by telemarketing.
1710
These are the people, Mr. Speaker, who phone and chiefly prey on
the senior citizens in our society, both in French and in
English, I have to say. It very much is a Canadian thing because
this type of activity occurs and all we Canadians, our elderly
parents, actually are very vulnerable to it.
So this kind of thing is going on, Mr. Speaker. The other thing
that is occurring that again I believe is the effect of organized
crime, and this is the case of international organized crime
where organizations take advantage of the ethnic makeup of Canada
and perpetrate scams that basically involve making contact with
individuals from whatever ethnic group and saying that a long
lost relative has died in Africa, or Europe, or the former
Yugoslavia, or the far east, and that they have been left an
inheritance.
A lot of people have lost a lot of money through these scams
which, again according to sources in the RCMP commercial crime
squads, often are linked to international organized crime.
Canada's ethnic community is very vulnerable to this kind of
thing.
But, Mr. Speaker, probably the most significant penetration of
organized crime into the charity field has to do with the fact
that as the law stands now with respect to non-profit
organizations, and especially charities, because there is so
little scrutiny on the way charities operate, and so little
scrutiny on the financial affairs of charities, I suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker, that charities have become a major conduit for the
laundering of money.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give you chapter and verse
on which charities are engaged in this or which organizations are
actually involved in it because, frankly, I do not know. I am
not a policeman. I am not somebody who is involved in ferreting
out criminal activity. I can tell you though, Mr. Speaker, based
on my research, and you know, Mr. Speaker, I am very active in
examining the charity sector, I can tell you that there is a lot
of evidence, and recorded evidence, that charities have been used
as fronts to finance overseas ethnic conflicts and terrorism.
That stands to reason, Mr. Speaker, because a charity can
collect money. Under the current rules a charity can collect in
loose change, shall we say, at bingos and lotteries and all that
kind of thing, more than a million dollars and there is
absolutely no way that that money can be audited as it stands
now. On the other side with charitable organizations that have
overseas branches, again there is no mechanism, Mr. Speaker, to
be sure that when that money of that charity is transferred out
of this country to its parent organization in another country,
that that parent organization is not using it to finance ethnic
conflict or some very non-charitable activity.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what is good for international terrorism, I
suggest to you, is good for international organized crime and I
will say that the government has shown some interest in this area
and we can hope that perhaps we will move with some kind of
legislation, or some better regulations at the very least, to
control charities which I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, is a $90
billion industry that has run for years and years without any
kind of meaningful oversight.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks. I am glad to put
that on the record so that that can be part of what the justice
committee considers when it follows through on the motion by the
Bloc Quebecois, but I will end my remarks by saying that I think
it is an excellent motion. I think it is the credit to my
colleagues opposite and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly,
you know they do so well, that sometimes I wish that they were
the official opposition but then, what can I say, Mr. Speaker.
They would have to change their politics for me to really believe
that. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank them as well.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m., it is
my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
1715
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the amendment
carried.
The next question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In view of the importance of this motion we ask for a recorded
division on the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I must put the question
first and then see if more than five members rise.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, as amended, which was agreed
to on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams – 254
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Brien
| Brown
| Caccia
|
Canuel
| Desrochers
| Duhamel
| Harvard
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Pettigrew
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT
The House resumed from November 25 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, be read
a second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to the order made on Thursday,
November 25, 1999, the House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading
stage of Bill C-10.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House.
Liberal members will vote yes.
1750
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion, unless instructed otherwise by
their constituents.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will
support the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
this evening vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the good people of York
South—Weston would want me to vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, Portage—Lisgar votes
yea.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 212
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Manning
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Penson
|
Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 42
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Brien
| Brown
| Caccia
|
Canuel
| Desrochers
| Duhamel
| Harvard
|
Laurin
| Marceau
| Pettigrew
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill
is referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and
Government Operations.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[English]
The Speaker: It being 5.50 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1755
[English]
RECOGNITION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-224, an act to establish by the beginning of the 21st
century an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to
recognize the crimes against humanity as defined by the United
Nations that have been perpetrated during the 20th century, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-224 was originally introduced on
February 15, 1999, as Bill C-479. The number was changed because
the House prorogued and began a new session. The bill calls upon
the government to establish an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of
Civilization to recognize the crimes against humanity that
occurred in the 20th century. In total about 90 million people
have died in this century from crimes against humanity.
There are many different definitions of crimes against humanity.
Some call it genocide. Some call it holocaust. Some call it
murder or atrocities. I chose the UN definition so that nobody
could argue about it because we signed the UN definition of
crimes against humanity.
I did not use the word genocide because our government and many
governments around the world recognize that over 90 million
people died of genocide. For example, 35 million Chinese people
died because of genocide. I have used the phrase crimes against
humanity because it would be inclusive.
The second point I wish to make is that I did not ask to have a
freestanding museum for genocide or crimes against humanity,
simply because as backbenchers we are not allowed to ask the
government to spend money. I hope those two reasons will be
taken into consideration when we go forward in our discussions.
I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the
representative of the Turkish government at the embassy here and
the charge d'affaires of public affairs of the Republic of
Armenia. I was successful at bringing these two nations together
in the gallery to sit down and listen to the debate. I also
believe there are some Canadians of various backgrounds who are
very much concerned with this issue.
When I first introduced my bill on February 15 I said in the
House:
The purpose of the bill is to mandate the establishment at the
beginning of the 21st century of an exhibit in the Canadian
Museum of Civilization recognizing all crimes against humanity
that have been perpetrated during the 20th century.
Canadians from diverse backgrounds have been affected by crimes
against humanity that have taken place throughout the 20th
century. The suffering of any group of victims is no less
significant than that of any other group.
In introducing the bill I hope to address the concern that the
creation of a museum to recognize only one group of victims would
severely diminish the significance of the millions of other lives
that have been lost or ruined as victims of crimes against
humanity.
How can we as a government support one group of victims and
ignore the suffering of others?
That would be an insult to the other 90 million people who died
during this century.
The Senate held hearings in May 1998 and came up with a report
called “Guarding History”. Recommendation No. 12 of that
report called for the establishment of a museum for the genocide
and/or the holocaust. My bill addresses the report given to us
by the Senate.
We will recall also that the Prime Minister went to Auschwitz at
the beginning of this year. I was hoping that he would make an
announcement there that we would have an inclusive museum of
genocide in the country. I regret that was not the case.
Hopefully after the discussion today an inclusive museum will be
established.
I visited Poland with the parliamentary delegation for NATO. I
had a chance to visit Maidanek where I saw incredible scenes of
atrocities. The number of nationalities involved in those
atrocities was about 54. There were all victims of crimes
against humanity.
When I presented my bill back in February I received, within two
hours, endorsements from over 100 members of parliament. They
wanted to see the bill come to the floor to be discussed. I will
take this opportunity to thank them for their support. It was
very beneficial to me.
Throughout the few months that I worked on this, I had enormous
support from various cultural groups, the list of which I will
read soon.
1800
We also had the chance to send about 85,000 pieces of
literature: some post cards, some letters, some petitions and
some just regular mail. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit some
to you. I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
table these two pages.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Brampton Centre has asked the unanimous consent of the House to
table some papers in connection with his private member's bill.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, earlier in my
comments I said that I had enormous support from many Canadians.
Twenty-three committees have supported me so far. For the record
they are: Association for Learning and Preserving of the History
of WWII in Asia, ALPHA; Belarusan Canadian Coordinating
Committee; Buddhist Communities of Greater Toronto; Canadian Arab
Federation; Canadian Islamic Congress; Canadian Ukrainian
Immigrant Aid Society; Council of the Muslim Community of Canada;
Cypriot Canadian Federation; Federation of Associations of
Canadians Tamils; Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations;
Hellenic Canadian Congress; Hellenic Committee for Human Rights
and National Issues: Latvian National Federation of Canada;
National Association of Canadians with Origins in India; National
Federation of Pakistani Canadians; Palestine Heritage Canada; Pan
African Movement of Canada; Serbian National Shield Society of
Canada; Slovenian National Federation; Toronto Kurdish Community
and Information Centre; Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties
Association; Ukrainian Canadian Congress; Ukrainian National
Federation of Canada; and Ukrainian Women's Organization of
Canada.
Two weeks ago, I had the honour of enlisting the support of the
Armenian General Benevolent Union headed Mr. Danny Boyajan, which
made my support at 23.
I will read a couple of lines from a letter which I received
from the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations. It reads:
The Federation urges the Canadian government to consider the
establishment of a broadly based museum or exhibit on genocide
that is inclusive of the realities of all ethnocultural
communities.
It goes on to say:
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
I also have a general letter of support from a group of
Canadians called Canadians for a Genocide Museum. They say that
their 24-member association represents a wide multicultural group
and that they whole-heartedly support the passing of Bill C-224,
an act to establish by the beginning of the 21st century a museum
exhibit to recognize crimes against humanity. As members can
see, the support for this bill is enormous.
I had the chance to go to the Ukrainian church on the weekend
for a commemoration. It was the 66th anniversary of the famine
genocide on the Ukrainian population which took place in 1933. I
was very moved to see young Canadians lighting candles for each
of the nationalities I mentioned earlier that had suffered
atrocities.
Further, on November 18 I asked a question in the House of
Commons to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In reply, she
said:
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Brampton
Centre who has done an incredible job getting together 22
organizations from across the country to work on this very
important issue.
I hope that all members of the House will be here to speak in
support of private member's bill, Bill C-224, which will be
debated in the House on November 30.
I thank the minister for her support. I would like to save a
few minutes at the end of the debate for my final comments.
1805
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-224, the recognition of crimes
against humanity act, sponsored by the hon. member for Brampton
Centre. It is regrettable that the bill is not votable. It is
hoped that the government will take serious note of this debate
and act upon the sentiments that are expressed by myself and my
hon. colleagues.
Under Bill C-224, the Canadian Museum of Civilization is
directed by parliament to establish an exhibit that recognizes
crimes against humanity perpetrated during the 20th century. The
exhibit is to be located in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
The board of trustees is given two years from the time of the
parliamentary direction to establish the exhibit “crimes against
humanity” under the act defined by the United Nations. That
definition is quite broad, encompassing specific acts committed
as part of a widespread or systemic attack directed against any
civilian population.
By using the United Nations crimes against humanity definition
rather than the United Nations definition of genocide, the hon.
member has broadened the categories of acts that would be
depicted by the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Genocide is a
crime against humanity, although not all crimes against humanity
are genocides. Genocide is an act committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or
religious group.
While the notorious rape of Nanking, China by the Japanese prior
to the commencement of World War II would be categorized as a
crime against humanity, it is not genocide. The rape of Nanking
is a matter of particular horror to those Canadians with family
ties to China, just as the Russian-induced Ukrainian famine of
1932-1933 is a matter of particular horror to those Canadians
with ties to the Ukraine. If, by the hon. member's bill, the rape
of Nanking were to be remembered in Canada, that would mean very
much to many people.
I am supportive of the hon. member's bill, and in particular of
his willingness to support parliamentary direction into how our
federally funded museums shall utilize the public financial
resources that are voted on by this House and to be used in
accordance with the wishes of the House. Sometimes bureaucrats
forget that the public funds that they are accountable for are in
fact trust funds for the public's benefit, with the trust
established through votes in the House.
In the past, we have seen a need for intervention by members of
the House and the other place with respect to the administration
of the Canadian War Museum and an ill-fated proposal to house a
holocaust gallery in it. Many in the House and elsewhere
commented that it would be preferable to address this dark side
of humanity elsewhere than in the Canadian War Museum. They felt
this way since so much of our Canadian war artifacts and war art
have yet to be properly displayed in the war museum.
These people also recognize that while there is one historically
recognized Holocaust, the holocaust is part of a much larger
history of attempted genocides and related crimes against
humanity. Humanity's dark side should be subject to a separate
display that is not tied to Canada's proud war history. As one
step, I have introduced a motion, M-18, calling for a separate,
self-sustaining world genocide museum in Canada.
The bill of the hon. member for Brampton Centre is one step in
the right direction. One reason that his bill is declaratory and
does not go so far as to require the creation of a separate
crimes against humanity museum is that, as a government
backbencher, the hon. member cannot introduce legislation
requiring government expenditures; in short, he cannot introduce
a money bill.
The human race has witnessed acts of genocide throughout its
history. Genocide is not solely the horrendous byproduct of
certain wars. In fact many incidents of genocide are not war
related at all. Genocide is always a failure of humanity; the
dark side of a civilization run amok.
It is important to groups which have been decimated by genocidal
acts that the world remember the particular atrocities in order
to learn and understand what happened. All groups affected by
genocidal acts want only to be remembered equally. The genocides
of world history cannot be distinguished on the basis of size or
scope. All genocide is horror.
In my view, Canada should institutionalize remembrance to the
construction of a world genocide museum.
This would be a museum in Canada's capital depicting the madness
and inhumanity of the decimation of so many. Such a museum would
send a powerful message to visiting world leaders. It would
speak clearly to all Canadians as to the duty to be advocates of
a world peace that respects all persons.
1810
As is commonly understood, our history has witnessed one
Holocaust in World War II, and many attempted genocides. The
Holocaust is a uniquely recognized attempt at genocide. Others
are not so similarly recognized but should be clearly remembered.
In my view, genocide should be regarded more as a failure of
civilization rather than a product of war, whether it be the
Ukrainian famine, the Cambodian killing fields or the Holocaust.
The dark side of humanity is a separate issue to be remembered
quite apart from the honourable military histories. It is my
hope that consideration will be given to examining the dark side
of humanity throughout history by way of the establishment in
Canada of a permanent world genocide museum.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the bill put
forward by the hon. member for Brampton Centre gives me pause
for reflection on a very serious issue. I am talking, of course,
about genocide and other crimes against humanity that we should
never forget, let alone pretend that they never happened.
As members know, these last few years, Bloc Quebecois members
have supported every measure to underline and commemorate tragic
events where men have shown how inhumane and violent they can be
at times. We have stood up against those who tried to wipe out
all memories of these tragedies.
Let me remind my hon. colleagues that, in this House, in 1996 to
be exact, the Liberal government toned down a motion concerning
the Armenian genocide by dropping the word genocide and
replacing it with the term tragic event.
That same year, the Minister for International Cooperation
pressured the mayor of Montreal to abandon his plans to erect a
monument to the victims of the Armenian genocide. Again, the
minister would have preferred tragic event instead of the term
genocide.
At the time, I rose in the House to remind my colleagues that
toning down wordings in such a context is tantamount to
confirming that the final step in a genocide is to attempt,
after the fact ,to deny its very existence, or at the very least
to minimize its importance. That is what is called selective
memory.
For the Bloc Quebecois, genocide and all other crimes against
humanity must not be hushed up. There are lessons to be learned
from them. Also, the words used to describe these barbaric acts
must not be used as a pretext to trivialize unspeakable acts.
Let us not forget that our sense of history and our collective
memory will keep alive the memory of humanity's past.
The contents of Bill C-224, which we are now debating, are pretty
clearly defined in the title, an act to establish by the
beginning of the twenty-first century an exhibit in the Canadian
Museum of Civilization to recognize the crimes against humanity
as defined by the United Nations that have been perpetrated
during the twentieth century.
My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and myself will not oppose
initiatives aimed at reminding people of past errors so they
will ever occur again.
Having worked in education, I find it essential that our young
people have a better knowledge of all these tragic mistakes and
all these instances of genocide.
Therefore, we are interested in the idea of informing the public
about genocide and other crimes against humanity through an
exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
1815
It could be an interesting tool for teaching the young and the
not so young.
But the teaching of history is also important, because not all
Quebecers and Canadians have a chance to visit museums.
So that future generations recall these human tragedies, maybe
they could be included in the curricula of our history courses.
This would be another good way of ensuring that these events
live on in our collective memory.
We therefore see the debate on the bill introduced by the member
for Brampton Centre as a unique opportunity to recall the
growing concerns of Quebecers and Canadians with respect to
major crimes against humanity.
However, it is not for the Bloc Quebecois to impose themes or
exhibit material on museums. It is not for politicians in this
House to decide these matters.
We are here today to raise a concern that is important to the
constituents we represent and to express a wish and support for
a future exhibit. It is from this perspective that we feel that
Bill C-224 is well-intentioned and that we support it in
principle, but we feel that the Canadian Museum of Civilization
should have full latitude to make any decisions.
As parliamentarians, our responsibility goes beyond supporting
the idea of an exhibit on genocides and crimes against humanity.
For example, we know that Canada was and still is a haven for
too many people responsible for war crimes or crimes against
humanity.
The Bloc Quebecois has supported measures to amend the Criminal
Code to allow the removal and expulsion of war criminals. We are
still waiting for another amendment to the Criminal Code that
would allow us to judge these people here.
This is a concrete measure that the government and
parliamentarians will have to adopt some day if they are serious
about learning from the past.
Unfortunately, many genocides and crimes against humanity were
committed during the 20th century.
We are most familiar with the plight of Armenians, the Holocaust
and, more recently, the atrocities in Cambodia, Rwanda, Burundi,
East Timor, Bosnia or Kosovo, to name but a few.
For people to remember, for our collective memory to remain
intact, for reconciliation to be possible among people, society
must remember its epic moments, but also its darkest ones.
It is in the recognition of the peoples' right to exist that
justice and freedom take on their full meaning. Is justice not
freedom in action?
[English]
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to rise today and speak to this important Bill C-224, an
act which would direct the creation of a genocide exhibit at the
Canadian Museum of Civilization.
I would like to start my remarks by thanking the hon. member for
Brampton Centre for bringing this important matter before the
House. I would like to thank also the hundreds of Canadians who
have expressed opinions to members of parliament through cards
and especially through thoughtful letters which many of us have
received from national organizations on this matter.
It is clear that this matter has received a lot of thought from a
lot of Canadians.
1820
Among New Democrats there is no dispute that our society should
honour the victims of all crimes against humanity, no matter when
and where in the world this has occurred. We know we must
increase our efforts to educate our children and to remember
those who have fallen to genocide and encourage all of the
national institutions dedicated to providing such assistance to
fulfil this important mandate.
I am proud to be part of a political movement which has always
stood up for domestic and international human rights, even when
such stands were not particularly popular. The CCF, the
forerunner to the NDP, spoke out against the racist immigration
policies of previous Canadian governments, such as the Chinese
head tax and the confinement of Japanese Canadians in the second
world war.
In 1970 the NDP was the only voice in the House of Commons to
question the suspension of human rights by the government under
the War Measures Act. NDP policy has always called for the
respect of human rights as the primary consideration in our
foreign policy. On the whole, and there are exceptions which I
will not get into in this debate, Canada is now seen as a country
which supports human rights and which fosters peace by most other
countries and by most of the world's people.
Many associate the word genocide with places far from Canada.
But we have our dark moments in our history, moments which many
try to forget, moments when our forefathers and foremothers
committed massive human rights abuses, which I would define as
crimes against humanity. I specifically think of the shameful
slave trade which took place 200 years ago in Halifax or of the
barbaric actions taken by colonial powers against our aboriginal
populations from coast to coast to coast.
We should never forget the practices of slaughtering the Beothuk
in Newfoundland or the reallocation of the Inuit, the destruction
of the Potlatch or the policy of residential schools. These
practices were also a form of genocide.
These are things which we must recognize as part of our history
and which Canadians should be educated about by our national
institutions devoted to remembering the victims of crimes against
humanity.
Sadly, it is easy to develop a list of all those who have been
victims of genocide. Our century has been the most barbaric in
history. As we have developed as a civilization with
technological and scientific leaps, we have seen individuals,
groups and whole societies use that technology to find better
ways to kill their neighbours. The Holocaust and the famine in
Ukraine are but two examples of how modern methods which were
meant to raise our standard of living have been used to mass
murder men, women and children.
I believe it would be of benefit to Canada to have a national
institution which recognizes these facts. I believe that we need
to educate our next generation on how these evils occur. We need
a showcase which allows Canadians to confront our past both as
Canadians and as citizens of the world. We need a place to mourn
the millions who have died. We need a place where we can learn
from our history and so that it cannot be repeated.
Is Bill C-224 the best way to recognize the gravity of the
subject? I want to raise two questions on this issue. First,
should parliament dictate to a national museum the content of an
exhibit? That issue has already been raised tonight in the
House. Is a gallery at the current Museum of Civilization the
most appropriate national forum for this subject?
On the first question, I would have to answer with a firm no.
Politicians should not get directly involved in telling museum
directors and especially curators how to do their business.
Politicians have a responsibility to provide a framework for
appropriate expressions of our heritage. The result has been the
Museums Act which establishes our national museums and our
national art gallery, and gives them arm's length government
structures and states their goals in law. These institutions
report back to parliament on how they are meeting their goals and
account for their expenditures of public funds.
This is our tradition. That is the way it should work. But if
parliament says to a museum “Above and beyond your current
responsibilities you must have the following specific exhibit
with specific content objectives and meeting the specific
following time line”, which is what clause 2 of Bill C-224 says,
I have a real problem with that. If this passes, then the
tradition of the arm's length relationship with a national
heritage agency is broken, and I do have a problem with that.
I do not want politicians telling cultural agencies what art is
or what history is. That would be a danger.
1825
I have a problem with the current bill based on the wording in
clause 2 which breaks the arm's length relationship between
parliament and the Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Is an exhibit at the museum of civilization the most appropriate
forum? I am proposing an alternative approach. Why not ask the
government to establish a genocide museum under the current
structure of the Museums Act.
A separate institution would allow for the kind of meaningful
discussion which I know would be required to have the best
institution of this kind in the world. Many views exist on what
form a museum dedicated to victims of genocide should take. I am
aware that discussions have taken place between various parties,
notably the groups proposing an institution, to remember the
Holocaust and others in an appropriate forum.
I wish all concerned success since I know that no group is
approaching this debate with an agenda of exclusion. The purpose
of a stand-alone museum could be, as is set out in Bill C-224, to
recognize the victims of crimes against humanity. A separate
institution would have a permanence, something that an exhibit at
the museum of civilization may not have.
A separate institution would allow for a special place for those
who go not only to learn, but for those who go to remember and to
mourn.
I am optimistic about this as a possibility, partly based on the
work done by the member for Brampton Centre. Many of the groups
which have expressed support for the gallery included in the bill
have also expressed support for a separate institution. When the
member for Brampton Centre asked the question of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage about this matter on November 18 of this year,
she stood in her place and encouraged all MPs to support the
initiative.
To me this is a clear signal that the government is open to a
proposal for a stand-alone institution. In the end, the success
of an exhibit, gallery or separate institution would be based on
adequate funding from the government.
Having a proposal from the government would guarantee that the
resource question has been dealt with. I believe that having
such an institution will not break the bank. I remind members
that the total cost of all our national museums and galleries is
less than $4 per capita. I think it is a bargain, quite frankly.
It should be noted that more Canadians visit museums than attend
professional sports events every year. The museum of
civilization and its affiliate museum, the war museum, received
over one and a half million visits last year alone. While all
such institutions cost money, they are used and they are valued
by Canadians.
In closing, I regret not being able to support Bill C-224
because of how it breaches the arm's length relationship which I
believe parliament should maintain for our cultural institutions
or agencies, but I am proud to add my voice to those calling on
the government to create a museum which can deal with this
important matter.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I consider
it a privilege to rise before the House to debate the merits of
Bill C-224, an act to establish an exhibit in the Canadian Museum
of Civilization in recognition of the crimes against humanity, as
defined by the United Nations, that have been perpetrated during
the 20th century.
I congratulate my hon. colleague for Brampton Centre for having
the courage to introduce such an important piece of legislation.
I say courage because there remains considerable controversy,
whether some of the killings that are being characterized as
crimes against humanity were somehow justified as acts of war.
I suspect that all parliamentarians have received significant
amounts of correspondence in response to the member for Brampton
Centre's private member's bill.
I can honestly say that each day I receive a number of letters
or postcards from fellow Canadians showing their strong views
about the prospects of Canada establishing an all encompassing
Canadian genocide museum.
I thank each and every one of those Canadians who have taken the
time to share their personal experiences with me. Reading about
some of their terrible experiences has helped me develop a
greater understanding and deeper sense of appreciation for this
wonderful country in which we live.
I suspect that most Canadians who have the good fortune of being
born in a country such as Canada are guilty of taking our freedom
for granted.
1830
Our heroes who fought during the first and second world wars and
those who participated in the Boer and Korean wars, along with
the many peacekeepers who have represented us with honour
throughout the hot spots in the world, would have a different
perspective about what it means to live in a free and democratic
society.
In an ideal world, all people are created equal and are free to
live and work where they choose and free to practise their own
religion without fear of persecution. Unfortunately, history has
shown that this simply is not the case.
History is riddled with extraordinary acts of cruelty against
mankind. Crimes against humanity have been chronicled almost
since the beginning of time. It is because of this long history
of treachery that I question whether an exhibition of crimes
against humanity that is limited to the 20th century is
sufficient.
There are many examples of genocides or crimes against humanity
which have had a direct impact on the evolution of Canadian
society. To ignore some of them by restricting the exhibit to
events that happened in the 20th century would be committing a
huge disservice to our young Canadians. Our youth should be
exposed to the various interpretations of history so that they
can develop a broader perspective and a better understanding of
events that have shaped the social fabric of this country.
[Translation]
Most Canadians know about the deportation of the Acadians that
occurred in 1755. This was a tragic event in Canadian history.
During the deportation, most Acadians were put on boats and sent
to the United States. A lot of them ended up in Louisiana.
Thousands of Acadians lost their lives in this tragedy. The
survivors tried unsuccessfully to hook up again with their
families. Many Acadians were able to flee to New-Brunswick and
Quebec to avoid the fate of their fellow citizens.
It took several centuries for Acadians to recover from this
tragedy. Some would argue that we are still suffering.
Historians do not all agree about this deportation. Was it a war
against the Acadians or an ethnic cleansing operation? This, I
guess, depends on the viewpoint of the historian. Nevertheless,
no one can deny that this tragedy happened and that the measures
taken by Great-Britain had some serious consequences.
[English]
A better understanding of what happened to our Acadian people
can help Canadians to understand the interesting dynamics that
have helped to shape our individual communities. Surviving these
crimes against humanity has created a special bond among our
people. It has given us cause to unite and strengthen our unique
cultural heritage. Understanding the tragedy of the 1755
deportation can help us better appreciate the human suffering of
more recent examples of crimes against humanity.
On October 5, 1998 a redress monument was erected in the city of
Montreal by the Armenian community. It erected this monument on
behalf of all victims of genocide in the 20th century. This is a
very significant achievement considering the extensive
persecution that was carried out against the Armenian community.
By recognizing not only its own tragedy but also the many acts of
genocide committed in the world, the Armenian community has
helped to focus our attention on this ongoing tragedy. In a
sense this act of compassion may help with the healing process.
An all-encompassing genocide exhibit at the Canadian Museum of
Civilization has been proposed by the hon. member for Brampton
Centre. It could be a very useful tool in helping Canadians to
learn more about the terrible acts of terror we perpetrated
against our fellow human beings. Perhaps such exhibits might
help the world come to grips with these atrocities.
I cannot stress strongly enough the notion that such an exhibit
must be all-encompassing. Where disagreement threatens to blow
up into full-fledged controversy, it is important that both sides
of a conflict be allowed to present their different perspectives
on events surrounding a charge of genocide.
Crimes against humanity are not a new phenomenon. Examples of
genocide can be traced to a time before the birth of Jesus
Christ.
Sadly, history is saddled with examples of acts of genocide.
Crimes against humanity have been committed on religious, racial
and political grounds, yet the only common denominator continues
to be the extermination of millions of innocent men, women and
children.
1835
I mentioned the Armenians earlier because they were the victims
of persecution in the early 1900s when millions were reportedly
massacred during the first world war. Although some argue that
they were victims of war and not genocide, it is generally
acknowledged by many historians that millions of Armenians were
indeed the victims of genocide. Even to this day, the Armenian
people continue to be the target of the repressive government of
Saddam Hussein.
The Ukrainian people are another example of a people who
suffered tremendous persecution, in particular during the early
1930s. Josef Stalin created a state-generated famine that
resulted in the starvation deaths of millions of Ukrainians.
These people died needlessly when there was food available to
save them. They were also victims of Hitler's ethnic cleansing
policies that most people associate mainly with the Jewish
people.
I think most people are aware of the Holocaust and the notorious
death camps of the second world war in which over six million
Jews perished. These Jews were shipped from across Europe in
order to be systematically slaughtered in those death camps.
Perhaps ignored by history is the plight of the Gypsies and
Ukrainians during this particular onslaught on humanity.
The world was said to be appalled by this unprecedented attack
against humanity. At the time it was said that such a horror
could never happen again. We all know that history has an
unfortunate way of repeating itself. Many acts of genocide have
occurred since the second world war and, unfortunately, many acts
of genocide continue today.
We have examples of genocide in Cambodia where from 1975 to
1979, between two million and four million people were killed by the
Khmer Rouge simply for disagreeing with the regime. More
recently in 1994, we watched apathetically as the Hutus in Rwanda
massacred hundreds of thousands of Tutsis. We have the ethnic
cleansing that was carried out in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the
wars of the former Yugoslavia. Even today, we are receiving word
of crimes against humanity in Sudan.
I am standing here reciting atrocities as if they were score
cards, yet we are talking about the death and destruction of
millions of our fellow human beings. Is it not disgusting how
mankind has persecuted their fellow human beings? Perhaps it is
easier to talk about atrocities because we have not witnessed
them ourselves. I am afraid to consider that we are being
desensitized by the constant reports of atrocities.
If it is indeed the case, as I do fear, then I think it is
important that we support the member for Brampton Centre, along
with the millions of people who are victims of crime against
humanity. Let us create this exhibit in the Canadian Museum of
Civilization. Perhaps by seeing this horror for ourselves, we
might be more supportive in our efforts to try and put an end to
these atrocities worldwide.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): May I have some
indication of how many members intend to speak on this motion? I
know there are two, the members for Lac-Saint-Louis and Vancouver
Kingsway. We have five minutes for the sponsor of the bill.
There are about 15 minutes left, so that if the hon. member for
Vancouver Kingsway would keep her remarks to about seven minutes,
then we could do the same privilege for the member for
Lac-Saint-Louis, and still get the finishing remarks in.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the hon. member for Brampton Centre for
introducing Bill C-224 as a recognition of crimes against
humanity.
We all know that every murder destroys a measure of human
dignity. Atrocities against humanity have a long and sad history.
I will cite a few incidents of inhumanity.
One of the earliest examples are the horrors that were
perpetrated by the ancient Romans when they fought and destroyed
Carthage.
In the 1930s Stalin began his collectivization programs in
Ukraine. The result was mass starvation of untold numbers of
Ukrainians, an atrocity that community even today is struggling
to deal with.
1840
In 1931 to 1945 historians estimate Japanese soldiers
slaughtered 35 million Chinese during the Japanese invasion of
China.
In 1975 the Cambodian people began a terrifying period of their
history as the Khmer Rouge took over. The legacy of that
regime is known as the killing fields. Over the subsequent four
years, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million Cambodian people were
murdered or died as the result of the reorganization implemented
by the Khmer Rouge.
In 1994 attention slowly focused on Rwanda as news of a massacre
emerged from the nation. Those atrocities left communities
shattered, families broken and left thousands struggling for
survival. According to statistics from the Rwandan Ministry of
Home Affairs, obtained from the preliminary census of the
vulnerable groups, the number of vulnerable because of
genocide stood at 145,881 widows, 49,299 without shelter and
39,727 orphans. The physically and mentally handicapped
totalled 4,619.
As recently as last week, stories from East Timor tell of the
discovery of mass graves; priests, women and children shot or
stabbed to death and buried in an effort to conceal the evidence.
We must stop those senseless crimes against humanity by
recalling history so that our children may learn from our past
mistakes.
I congratulate the hon. member for Brampton Centre. I fully
support Bill C-224, the Recognition of Crimes Against Humanity
Act. I would encourage other hon. members to do the same.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member, for
expressing his views on the commemoration of crimes against
humanity committed during this century.
There are a number of ways to commemorate such phenomenal
violations of human rights and security. A museum exhibition
would be one of them. There are certainly other ways.
[Translation]
We are about to enter the 21st century. The time has come to
take a moment to reflect on the century that is coming to an
end. As my colleague who presented this bill said so eloquently,
the 20th century alone is enough to show, through too many
examples, man's inhumanity to man.
I think there are lessons to be learned from the past. Canada
stands as a role model for the rest of the world.
Everybody here can find order and good government. People can
co-exist in harmony with intercultural understanding and sharing
and with respect for differences.
[English]
Individuals from diverse backgrounds make up our country and we
have learned to respect one another's culture, religion, race and
ethnic origin. We are, therefore, sensitive to the pain of those
Canadians who may at one time have been victimized by the
inhumanity of war, or by bigotry and oppression.
1845
Our history records that we have made errors of our own.
Canadians wish those moments had never happened. We wish we
could rewrite history but unfortunately we cannot. However we
can and must learn from the past.
If we are to learn from the past, if we are to hope that one day
humankind can live together in peace and respect, we must always
be mindful of the cruelty of tyranny, of the massacres of
peoples, and of the incarceration, degradation and inhumanity
that man has wrought on his fellow human beings.
[Translation]
We must all be aware of the extent of the atrocious crimes
against humanity which have taken place through history. We will
be better able to learn from the past if we remember the crimes
against humanity which are still fresh in our memories and which
are the sorry legacy of the 20th century.
The voice of Canada is a voice for peace. Canada was the first
country to suggest the use of peace keeping forces and today we
are keeping the peace in many countries around the world.
On the eve of the 21st century, Canada is well placed to show
the way into a safer and more peaceful world.
In the last throne speech, the government promised to put a
greater emphasis on human security in its foreign policy, and
help international bodies make progress on the global issue of
human security.
One is better able to understand the significance of this
promise when one is aware of the injustices which have
threatened human security during this century and learns from
these experiences.
[English]
We strongly believe that on the world stage we as Canadians can
influence change. Protection from crimes against humanity can
best be gained through ensuring that all countries and their
peoples have a profound respect for and understanding of the
universal declaration of human rights.
Human rights are intrinsic to a rich and fulfilled life. The
recent 50th anniversary of the adoption of the universal
declaration of human rights by the United Nations General
Assembly gave Canadians a superb opportunity to reflect on how
human rights contribute to the quality of life in Canada.
[Translation]
International and Canadian organizations keep on looking for
solutions to the ongoing problems of human rights violations,
and to problems that have just been identified as such.
The establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal is only
one of the many current initiatives taken by Canada and the
international community to deal with these problems.
[English]
Over the years Canada has established a legislative and policy
framework that defines the rights as well as the responsibilities
of its citizens. Every jurisdiction in Canada has enforceable
human rights legislation designed to combat discrimination in
areas such as employment, accommodation, and the provision of
goods and services.
However legislation alone does not guarantee de facto civil and
political rights in the country. It must be combined with the
supportive infrastructure of good public policy and programs that
seek partnership with and are informed by civil society through
NGOs, the private sector and our institutions.
In conclusion, I emphasize the importance of learning about the
tragedy of crimes against humanity in the 20th century and
understanding the lessons of the past. By ensuring that the
lessons are well understood, we will be able to build a better
society for future generations of Canadians. Because of this I
would like to thank my colleague for the opportunity he has given
us today to debate the issue.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last parliament the House passed a unanimous
resolution calling for the week of April 20 to April 27 every
year to be recognized as the week of man's inhumanity to his
fellow man. The motion was accepted on the occasion of the 81st
anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
In the spirit of that co-operation, I would like to propose the
following to the House.
I ask for unanimous consent of the House that Bill C-224, the
recognition of crimes against humanity act, be made a votable
item.
1850
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Brampton Centre has requested unanimous consent of the House to
make this motion a votable item. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear
that. I ask for unanimous consent of the House to instruct the
subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to reconsider the
votable status of Bill C-224, the recognition of crimes against
humanity act, and that the bill remain on the order of precedence
until the committee reports on the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I will try a third
approach. I ask for unanimous consent of the House to refer the
subject matter of Bill C-224, the recognition of crimes against
humanity act, to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for
review and report no later than April 14, 2000.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
am assuming that along with the unanimous consent of the House we
are acknowledging that the proceedings on this item have expired,
or will shortly expire, and that the item will be dropped from
the order paper in accordance with Standing Order 96(1). Then the
House would have unanimously decided to refer the subject matter
in the way expressed by the member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will have to seek
clarification. As I understand it we are referring it to
committee, but let me do a bit of consultation.
We are referring the subject matter of the bill to committee and not
the bill. The bill will die at the conclusion of these
proceedings but the subject matter will be referred to the
committee. Is everyone clear on that?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent to refer the subject matter to committee with the
understanding that Bill C-224 will die today?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Because I happen to be the chair of that committee I want
to make sure what we are talking about.
We have a very long agenda right through to well after the
recess. I want to know the importance of this matter. Is it
purely in principle so that we take whatever time is available?
It could be many months before it ever comes up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That would be the
purview of the committee. The subject matter would be referred
to the committee and it would be at the pleasure of the
committee, one would assume. Once again I will check.
1855
It has been brought to my attention that I neglected to add a
written addendum, so I will read the motion again because there
is a time limit on it.
This is what we will be deciding. The hon. member for Brampton
Centre has requested unanimous consent of the House to refer the
subject matter of Bill C-224, the recognition of crimes against
humanity act, to the Standing Committee on Heritage for review
and report no later than April 14, 2000.
I see there is ongoing discussion so we will just stall for a
minute.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would like
to try to accommodate my colleague if he would be more flexible.
We have a huge amount of work before us. If he would say before
the June recess or something like that, we certainly would try
our best to see how we could do it. If he says April, I do not
know. I would not like to commit myself in that there is so
little time to handle matters right now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is highly unusual
to have negotiations of this nature in the House. The sponsor of
the bill has to be in his place to say anything.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, just to allow some time for
animus revertendi to take place here, if the hon. member
sponsoring the bill were to extend the date for return from the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to June 15, 2000, that
would satisfy the hon. member who just spoke and might allow the
House to adopt the unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Speaker is not
able to negotiate something of this nature.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to
extend it to June 15, 2000. It will be a brand new beginning for
the new century.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will start all
over again because we need to be absolutely clear on what we are
doing here.
The hon. member for Brampton Centre has requested unanimous
consent of the House to refer the subject matter of Bill C-224,
the recognition of crimes against humanity act, to the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage for review and report no later
than June 15, 2000. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, when you say the subject
matter being the crimes against humanity act, I understood the
subject matter of the bill to be an exhibit of crimes against
humanity. I need clarification on what exactly we are asking the
committee to deal with.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, we
will put the question and members will have the option to say
either yes or no, but it is not appropriate to debate it any
more.
1900
By unanimous consent the order will be discharged and the
subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage for review and report by June 15, 2000. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
TRADE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today thousands of demonstrators were tear-gassed and pepper
sprayed in Seattle in protest of the millennium round of the WTO
and in defence of democracy. Thousands of students, seniors,
trade unionists and concerned citizens travelled to Seattle from
Vancouver to join the tens of thousands of people there to make
it crystal clear to Canadian government representatives,
including the Minister for International Trade, that Canada is
not for sale.
The mobilization and opposition to globalization is widespread
and more and more people are connecting and understanding how
threatening the WTO agenda is to our democracy and public
services.
If the Liberal government believes it can get away with quietly
handing over control of our resources and services to the WTO it
is absolutely mistaken. It is shameful that the Canadian
government has supported and promoted the very narrow and
anti-democratic definition of trade liberalization as envisaged
in the WTO.
Whether it is the auto pact that protected Canadian jobs, farm
income support or culture, Canada has already suffered from WTO
rulings. We are threatened now with challenges to our drug
patent laws that will force drug prices to go up even higher than
they have been under NAFTA.
What is even scarier is that for the first time the federal
government is looking to include health care and education as
priorities for export. Any changes in the General Agreement on
Trade in Services by reverting to a top down agreement will be
devastating to our education and health care and allow them to
become commodities for trade and subject to control by foreign
corporations.
I cannot believe the Liberals are allowing this to happen. Who
is serving whom? Surely the role of our federal government is to
serve the public interest, meet the needs of Canadians and
protect our valuable resources and services. All the evidence
shows us that the Liberal government has gone on a wild binge of
serving not ordinary Canadians but the corporate elites and the
global market ideology.
Canadians who are at the battle in Seattle today and many more
people who could not be there are saying to the government,
“Stop the WTO sell out. We are opposed to the global hegemony.
We are opposed to corporate rule. We are opposed to Canadian
resources and public services being put on the WTO chopping
block”.
We need rules that protect our services and rules that make
multinational corporations operate within the confines of the
public interest. Why will the government not make that its goal?
It is what Canadians want.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is our goal. The upcoming
negotiations of the WTO, which will be launched in Seattle on
November 30, have generated a lot of interest, and rightfully so.
These talks are important to Canadians, as they should be.
One of the agreements that will be discussed is the General
Agreement on Trade in Services. This is an important agreement
for Canada, as we were in 1998 the 10th largest exporter of
services in the world. Currently over 60% of our GDP and 12% of
our exports are in the service sector and service exports are
growing at a rate of over 9% per year.
1905
Our service industries are a critical component of our growing
knowledge based economy. As well, with advances in technology,
an ever-increasing amount of our goods exported depend on a
service component either in the production process, distribution
or after sales service.
Globalization is pushing Canada to grow and develop markets
outside our borders. This is benefiting Canadians and is an
important contributor to job creation. Because we are trading
beyond our borders, it is important to have rules to protect our
interests. These multilateral rules, agreed to by the 134 member
countries of the WTO, helped to create an orderly marketplace.
This is why we participate in the World Trade Organization.
Canada has world class service firms in sectors including
engineering, telecommunications, environmental, computer, tourism
and financial services. In GATS negotiations, we will try to
further open foreign markets for Canadian service exports. As in
the case for goods, more exports of services means more jobs for
Canadians.
At the same time, we are fully aware of domestic sensitivities
in certain service sectors such as health, education and social
services.
As has been stated already and stressed, in the WTO and under
GATS, our universal health care and public education are not
subject to any international trade rules unless Canada accepts
such rules. This means that we will not be engaging in
negotiations in these most important sectors. Canada's position
is that our health care and public education system are not
negotiable and will not be jeopardized in the current upcoming
negotiations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.06 p.m.)