36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 116
CONTENTS
Monday, September 18, 2000
1100
| VACANCY
|
| Okanagan—Coquihalla
|
| The Speaker |
| Kings—Hants
|
| The Speaker |
| BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-334. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1110
1115
| Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1120
1125
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1130
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1135
1140
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1145
| Mr. David Pratt |
1150
1155
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1200
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1205
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1210
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-38. Second reading
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1330
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1350
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| JOURNALIST MICHEL AUGER
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| BATTLE OF BRITAIN
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| JOURNALIST MICHEL AUGER
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1400
| ERIC LAMAZE
|
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| SIMON WHITFIELD
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| TORONTO GARBAGE
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| JOURNALIST JEAN V. DUFRESNE
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1405
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| 2000 OLYMPIC GAMES
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| FUEL COSTS
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| SYDNEY OLYMPIC GAMES
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1410
| WHARVES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| THE LATE MEL SMITH
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| STOCKWELL DAY
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| GASOLINE TAXES
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1425
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FUEL COSTS
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1445
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1450
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1455
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1500
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HIGH TECH INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Hon. John Manley |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Organized Crime
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Randy White |
1510
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| A DAY FOR HEARTS: CONGENITAL HEART DEFECT AWARENESS DAY ACT
|
| Bill C-492. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1515
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-493. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| ROBERT MARLEAU
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| Housing
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1520
| Bioartificial Kidney
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Importation of plutonium
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Canada Health Act
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1525
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-3—Notice of Motion for Time Allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Organized Crime
|
| The Speaker |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1530
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1535
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1540
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-38. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1545
1550
1555
1600
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1620
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1640
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1645
1650
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1655
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. John Herron |
1700
1705
1710
1715
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1720
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1725
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1730
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1750
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1755
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1815
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1820
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1825
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
1830
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion
|
1835
1840
1845
1850
| Mr. John Bryden |
1855
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1900
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1905
1910
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1915
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1920
1925
| Mr. Randy White |
1930
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Randy White |
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
2000
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
2005
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
2010
2015
2020
| Mr. John Bryden |
2025
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
2030
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
2035
2040
2045
2050
| Mr. John McKay |
2055
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
2100
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2105
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
2110
2115
2120
2125
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2130
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
2135
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
2140
2145
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
2150
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
2155
2200
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
2205
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
2210
2215
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
2220
| Mr. John McKay |
2225
2230
2235
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
2240
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
2245
2250
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
2255
2300
| Mr. John Bryden |
2305
2310
2315
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
2320
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
2325
2330
2335
2340
2345
| Mr. John Bryden |
2350
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
2355
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
2400
2405
2410
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
2415
2420
2425
2430
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
2435
2440
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 116
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 18, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
[English]
VACANCY
OKANAGAN—COQUIHALLA
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a
vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Jim Hart,
member for the electoral district of Okanagan—Coquihalla, by
resignation effective July 19, 2000.
[Translation]
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act,
I have addressed on Wednesday, July 19, 2000, my warrant to the
Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election
of a member to fill this vacancy.
[English]
KINGS—HANTS
The Speaker: It is my duty to also inform the House
that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr.
Scott Brison, member for the electoral district of Kings—Hants,
by resignation effective July 24, 2000.
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act,
I addressed on Monday, July 24, 2000 my warrant to the Chief
Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a
member to fill this vacancy.
* * *
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that Mr. John Reynolds, member for the electoral district of West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, has been appointed member of the Board
of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Jay Hill, member for the
electoral district of Prince George—Peace River.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed from May 17 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-334, an act to amend the criminal code (wearing of war
decorations), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, after a wonderful summer it is an honour to be
back to represent my wonderful constituents. I believe, Madam
Speaker, that you and all other members of the House also had an
excellent summer. I look forward to a good session of
parliament.
On the first day of the session and as the first speaker, I rise
on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to support Bill C-334,
an act to amend section 419 of the criminal code which will
permit the wearing of war decorations by relatives of a deceased
veteran on the right side of the survivor's chest. As we know,
our military veterans always wear their medals and stripes on the
left side of their chests.
The people of Surrey Central would have me begin my comments
today by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. Not only is he the sponsor of this
bill and today's debate, he has also been appointed to the
position of chief whip of Her Majesty's Loyal Official
Opposition, the Canadian Alliance. We are all very proud of our
seasoned parliamentary colleague and are confident that he will
do a fine job of whipping us up to the next election.
This initiative by the hon. member is not meant to diminish or
dishonour the service, sacrifice and valour of our veterans and
those who have been awarded decorations. On the contrary, it is
meant to celebrate and recognize the sacrifice in this
achievement. It is also meant to recognize and acknowledge
bravery, gallantry, patriotism and commitment to our nation.
Those decorations must not be forgotten, put away in dusty boxes
or drawers or end up in flea markets just because of a 1920 law
that established as a criminal offence to wear war decorations
unless the wearer earned them. In those days parliament
recognized the need for such legislation. The problem was that
these war decorations were being sold and it was not uncommon for
someone to purchase them, wear them and thereby falsely give the
impression of having earned the decorations they had actually
purchased. Legitimate recipients of these medals were concerned
about protecting the integrity of these military decorations.
By making it a criminal offence for someone other than the
original recipient of the award to wear the decoration, Canadian
veterans were sustaining the valour, honour and privileges that
accompany these military distinctions.
That was then, but this is now. Today fewer and fewer Canadians
are able to wear Canada's war decorations. Our veterans are
aging and, sadly, are passing on. The declining membership of
the Royal Canadian Legion should give us the common sense to help
reconsider the archaic law. It is even more startling since 44%
of the members are over the age of 65 and, out of those, over a
quarter are over the age of 75.
We need to enhance Remembrance Day services by allowing family
members to bring out medals on this day and thereby perpetuate
the act of remembrance.
My grandfather fought in the world war and was awarded bravery
medals. My brothers, sisters and cousins have perhaps forgotten
the stories of bravery of our grandfather. The medals he won
ought to be the symbol of refreshing the memory of his bravery
today, are locked in boxes somewhere or perhaps even lost. It is
because no one after him could ever wear them.
1110
On November 11 at 11.00 a.m. Remembrance Day is celebrated in
three legions in my constituency. As an MP, I would like to
attend the ceremonies at all three places but I cannot. Last
year I sent my younger son Livjot to one of the events to
represent me.
I think that Remembrance Day should not only be limited to the
older people but rather we should encourage our youth to get
involved so that they can get motivation from our veterans to
become good citizens.
Livjot also gave a very emotional speech on my behalf, which was
highly appreciated. My son said:
The 20th century was a violent century. World peace was won but
the human cost defies our imagination. The fear, the sorrow and
the horror of war was unimaginable. The price tag of peace was
war and 110,000 Canadians dead. Those who came back, no matter
how wounded in body and spirit, were determined to build on what
they left behind. Together they fought a war and forged a
nation, a nation we proudly call Canada.
We must learn from the harsh truths of wars past so that we
never repeat humanity's mistakes. Let us remember to pass on
their legacy to our children and our children's children, as my
dad did today. Love and remembrance last forever. There is a
link death cannot sever.
That link is by those medals and war decorations that this bill,
if passed, will allow the relatives to wear on Remembrance Day.
The time has come to follow the lead of Great Britain, Australia
and New Zealand, our Commonwealth partners, which have already
amended their laws to reflect the need to unveil these
decorations and re-commemorate the valour of those who were
awarded these distinctions.
We live in a relatively peaceful era. Today's generation is
very lucky in that regard. Canadian youth need to learn the
value of these medals, how they were earned, why they are so
important and the great costs at which they were won. By
allowing the wearing of Canada's war decorations by close
relatives and descendants of our war veterans, and the wearing of
these decorations in a manner different than that of the original
recipient, we would be protecting the honour, valour and
privileges that these medals command. This is important because
these decorations and the stories behind them represent our
heritage.
In the previous hour of debate the only problem cited by the
government and the Tory Party was the definition of a relative.
Who would be entitled to wear the decoration won by a deceased
Canadian war veteran? I agree that this is an important
definition.
My colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast was generous
and showed foresight in leaving the definition of relative open
to debate and input from the members and the witnesses appearing
before the committee. He did not insist on limiting nor overly
extending the category of people who would be entitled to
privileges should the House pass the bill.
If the government would allow a free vote in the House, it would
be possible to modernize an antiquated law. If the House
supports the bill then it will be sent to the committee and the
matter of the definition of relative can be decided
democratically.
I would suggest that the committee consider requiring a red,
green or blue piece of material to be worn on the right side of
the chest as a background for the decoration thus denoting that
the person wearing the decoration is the first, second or third
descendent generation of the person originally awarded them.
I could also suggest that the committee consider establishing a
system whereby the person intending to wear the medal must
satisfy a requirement that would show they understand the
significance of wearing the medal.
1115
Bill C-334 is striving to make arrangements to address these
concerns. It is worthy of serious consideration by the House. It
is worthy of proceeding to the committee stage so that the
outstanding issues can be dealt with.
I urge all members to support the initiative we have with the
bill. Let us do the work necessary to examine this matter
totally. Let us prepare for the dwindling number of Canadian war
veterans who will be among us in the future. Let us prepare to
provide the necessary arrangements to allow the direct
descendants and survivors of our military heroes to proudly wear
the decorations they have inherited. Let us reflect the need of
the times in our laws and let common sense actually work.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I also rise to debate
Bill C-334.
Wars indeed are a dreadful indictment of humanity's failure to
resolve disputes with civility and reason. Wars mean death and
destruction and the slaughter of innocents. Unfortunately, our
grandparents and great grandparents were to learn of this reality
all too well; on the killing fields of Europe and Asia, in the
skies above and the seas below, so many Canadian lives lost.
There are so many acts of courage, many known, countless others
unknown and untold. I wonder how many Canadians are aware that
more Victoria Crosses have been won by Canadians per capita than
by citizens of any other Commonwealth nation. In fact, 94
Victoria Crosses have been awarded to Canadians since the Crimean
war, medals for valour for individual acts of courage. How can
we know how many other actions were never recorded for posterity.
We were reminded recently of the courage of our young men in
battle with the return to Ottawa of Canada's Unknown Soldier in
late May of this year. He was disinterred from a burial place
not far from Vimy Ridge and formally transferred to Canadian
officials at the Vimy Memorial.
We saw how, with all the dignity appropriate to the occasion, he
was brought back to the nation's capital to lie in state in the
Hall of Honour for Canadian citizens to pay their respects. On
May 28, 2000 in a dignified and fitting ceremony televised for
all Canadians from coast to coast, the body of this young soldier
was finally given his rightful burial spot at the War Memorial.
Now nearly four months later, if we visit the young soldier's
sarcophagus, we will find Ottawans and visitors from everywhere
still paying their respects, still talking about the event and
still putting fresh flowers on the memorial. That is the true
meaning of remembrance.
I would like to address two issues about the bill that came out
in the debates last spring. First, it was said that by wearing a
veteran's medals on the right side of the chest automatically
indicates to an observer that they are being worn on behalf of
the memory of someone else, namely the deceased veteran.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm in support of the bill
said “We all know that an individual wears the medal that he won
on a battlefield on the left side of his chest. Therefore, we
would immediately realize if a person wears such decorations on
the right side of the chest, that person is not the one who was
awarded the decorations, but a relative”. This is an
inappropriate assumption; in fact, it is an error on two counts.
First, except for those who have served in the military, most
Canadians would not make such a distinction. How would they know
on which side of the chest veterans should wear their medals? It
is not a matter of common knowledge.
Second, and perhaps more pertinent, it presupposes that veterans
themselves wear medals on the left side of the chest and never on
the right. This is also incorrect. The matter is more
complicated than that. Wearing medals on the right does not say
anything about the wearer and whether he or she personally earned
the medals. Many veterans wear medals that they themselves have
earned on the right. These are what could be called unofficial
medals.
1120
The rule is this: Official medals are worn on the left;
unofficial medals are worn on the right. An official medal is
one awarded to a person by the state, while an unofficial medal
is one awarded to a person by some other entity. For example,
many of the veterans in the parade to install the Tomb of the
Unknown Soldier legitimately and correctly wore medals on both
sides of the chest. Service medals were worn on the left, and
the legion or other veteran association medals and other medals
were worn on the right.
The key points are plain. Wearing medals on the right is in no
way a valid indicator that the medals are being worn in honour of
a deceased veteran. If this bill is passed, wearing medals on
the right will then be taken as indicating that the wearer is a
relative of a deceased person who earned the medal. These
conclusions could be false and would be in many circumstances.
Imagine the confusion on Remembrance Day if this bill were to
pass.
The other topic that was discussed at some length during the
first debate was the issue of what constituted a relative of a
veteran since the bill is silent on the matter except for the
inclusion of an adopted person. Even those supporting the bill
admitted this was somewhat problematic. The hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm said this on that item:
The term relative can be confusing, but it could be clarified. Do
first cousins qualify, for instance? Is it only direct lineage
or indirect as well? The bill could very easily identify what is
meant by relative.
If it is so easy, that task has eluded the draftsman. I am not
at all sure it is that easy. Does it stop at grandchildren or
great grandchildren?
Even the member for Edmonton East, who is from the same party as
the member who is sponsoring Bill C-334, admits that defining the
term relative is more than a little problematic. He said:
Where the bill could be improved is with respect to defining the
term relative. Relative should be defined to mean the widow or
widower of a deceased veteran, or a parent, child, brother,
sister, grandparent or grandchild, whether by blood, marriage or
adoption. Such definition would appear to provide constructive
limitation as to which family members could wear the medals.
Nephews and nieces and others not as closely connected to the
deceased veteran would not be able to honour him or her through
wearing the medals.
Not nephews and nieces. That begs the question, what if they
are the only surviving relatives? Could they not rightly claim
the same honour to pay their respects to a deceased aunt or
uncle?
I quote the hon. member again where he said “The definition of
relative could be expanded as times change and circumstances
warrant”. Expanding the term relative over time might create
ludicrous circumstances. The minute we open a door to allowing
those who did not earn the medals to wear them, no matter how
well defined, that door will remain wide open forever.
The member then proposed that we define what sort of honour
relatives could wear, suggesting limitation to Canadian or
Commonwealth general service issue medals as opposed to ribbons,
badges, chevrons, other decorations and orders. This is just
another slippery slope.
In a similar vein, the hon. member for Saint John expressed
like-minded concerns. She said during the last debate:
Who qualifies as a veteran? Other than specifying that adopted
relatives are also eligible to wear the medals, there are no
specifications on who is wearing and parading around in those
hallowed decorations of honour. There are no checks to be
maintained or record of who is wearing the decoration. Will a
veteran's third cousin by marriage be wearing medals or
decorations, or the veteran's eldest child? Understandably this
is a decision to be made by each family if this were to pass, but
where is the honour that goes with wearing the medals? Where is
maintaining and restraining enforcement? Certainly there must be
a status of decorum that must be upheld and I do not see that in
this bill.
1125
She hit the nail on the head when she said later in her
submission:
I believe that once a medal recipient has passed on, the
decoration should be treated as a representation of the service
and sacrifice of the veteran who earned it and displayed as such.
I fear that it will be perceived through the passage of time to
be a less substantial piece of jewellery just to be passed
around.
Exactly. I am delighted she states our position on this side of
the House so eloquently. I commend the hon. member for Saint
John, who holds the memory of the sacrifice and heroism of our
war veterans near and dear to her heart, for taking the time and
effort to call the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion
and the provincial command in New Brunswick, both of which
indicated their opposition to the bill. She also noted that her
family members who had relatives who served felt exactly the same
way.
I end with a quote from my hon. friend opposite, the hon. member
for Saint John, who said during the last debate:
I do not believe it is up to the House of Commons to determine
for veterans who should be allowed to wear these decorations of
honour. I believe we should listen to our veterans as to who
they feel it should be.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic
caucus I would like to extend our warm greetings to all members
of parliament, their families and the new pages who are with us
for this session. We wish them the best of luck. I send my
personal congratulations to all and hope that everyone had a
great and relaxing summer with their families and are ready to
get down to the nation's business.
It gives me great pleasure to speak on this very important
matter. I thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast
for raising it. I am speaking in favour of this bill not
necessarily to contradict my good friend from the riding of Sault
Ste. Marie, but to understand why we are doing this.
On a historical note, this is the 60th anniversary of the Battle
of Britain. It is the 50th anniversary of the Korean conflict.
It is the 90th anniversary of our navy. It is the 75th
anniversary of the legion. It is the 55th anniversary of the
liberation of my country of origin, Holland. Those anniversaries
and special dates could not have been accomplished without the
assistance of the Canadian people and their military forces at
those various stages of our history.
One certain fact is that Canadian children and students know
very little about military history. In fact, when veterans go
before school kids, usually during the week prior to Remembrance
Day, they are astonished at the lack of knowledge Canadians have
about their own military history and the individuals who fought
so bravely and gallantly in those battles.
Approximately 120,000 Canadians, mostly the same ages as the
pages who are here with us, are buried in over 72 countries
around the world. There is a historical cenotaph in Lower
Sackville, Nova Scotia built from 72 stones. Those stones
represent every country in which we have a military person
buried, having died as a result of peacekeeping missions or
conflicts. Those individuals died so that we could live in
freedom, so that individuals such as ourselves could stand in the
House of Commons to voice our opinions and battle with words
instead of with fisticuffs. That is what democracy is all about.
I attended the 38th annual dominion convention in Halifax. A
lot of the veterans said that the greatest homage is, “We shall
not forget them; they shall be remembered”. The truth is that a
lot of Canadians do not remember because they do not know.
This bill could enable young people and future generations to
understand what Canada and its people went through in those
battles of yesteryear. We hope and pray that we never have to go
through those types of conflicts ever again as a nation, but I do
know that our military would be ready at a moment's notice if
there were conflicts around the world that needed to be settled.
The unfortunate part is that most Canadians are forgetting. The
gatherings for Remembrance Day ceremonies are becoming larger and
larger, but that is due to veterans, their families and the
legion.
1130
The issue is quite clear. If we do not allow family members or
relatives to carry on proudly with the wearing of their uncles',
their fathers' or their brothers' medals, that history may be
lost. Those medals could eventually end up in a nice cedar box
somewhere in someone's attic and left alone and forgotten. The
history will be gone forever. That would be a tragic loss.
Some of the nation's most important battles were Vimy, Dieppe
and other areas throughout the world. How many people really
know the part that Newfoundlanders played in the war effort? They
know in Newfoundland, but not many people around the country know
that Newfoundlanders fought before it became a province of
Canada. When we mention this to young people they say “Oh,
really”. They did not know this and it is most unfortunate.
When I went to Holland for the 50th anniversary of its
liberation the Dutch children knew more about Canadian history
than Canadians do. That is a disgrace. That is very shameful.
When this is mentioned to veterans, for example at the Camp Hill
hospital in Halifax where many of our aging veterans are living
out the last days of their lives, they are very sad and
remorseful with the fact that Canadians forget them. Even though
we stand up every Remembrance Day and say we will not forget, the
reality is that time passes and memory lapses. This bill will
bring the memory forward and continue to keep it alive.
My mother, father and oldest brother were liberated by
Canadians. My father has now passed away, but on behalf of my
family and all Dutch citizens around the world I would like to
say thanks once again to the Canadian military and the government
at that time for intervening in order to rescue us and allow us
to come to this country and live in peace and freedom.
I promised my father and all military people that I would never
forget. I have passed it on to my children so they will never
forget, but there is no guarantee that they will pass it on to
their children. There is no guarantee that other children will
remember the sacrifices made by our military personnel. This
bill is one way of encouraging the memory of the very brave and
valiant soldiers, the men and women throughout our country, who
have passed on to their glory with God.
I encourage all members of the House to carefully consider this
bill and understand that there are differences of opinion. There
is no question there were differences of opinion when World War
II veterans wanted to get into the legion and World War I vets
were hesitant about that. There were differences when the Korean
vets came back to Canada as to whether or not it was actually a
war and whether they could get into the legion. There is debate
as to whether or not current serving military personnel, RCMP
officers or firefighters, for that matter, can enter the legion.
The legions know it is a sin that they are unfortunately slowly
closing down in smaller communities. They are changing their
requirements for entry on a regular basis strictly for survival.
Some of the larger legions in the larger centres are doing quite
well, but they are struggling as well in some cases. Entry was
changed for me to become a legion member. My father served in
the Dutch resistance but does not have any medals to show for it.
If he did, I would be very proud and honoured to wear those
medals on Remembrance Day or at other special ceremonies.
If the government looks at the bill carefully and understands
the historical aspect of what it is trying to do, I am sure it
would reconsider and show support for this very important
legislation.
On behalf of my family and the New Democratic caucus we will
support this initiative and will continue to debate it as it goes
along.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker,
once again let me echo my colleague's comments from
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. In coming back to
the House after our summer recess I know that you are happy,
Madam Speaker, to see all of us here. I am very happy to see you
in the chair.
I am very pleased to speak on behalf the Progressive
Conservative Party to Bill C-334 which has been placed before the
House. The Progressive Conservative Party supports the rights of
families of veterans to honour the memories of their ancestors
and their accomplishments. We support Canadian pride in our
country's military history, heritage and the sacrifice that has
been made on behalf of all Canadians and Canadian society.
1135
As my colleagues have said, the PC Party is not in favour of
this piece of legislation. I do not believe that it is up to the
House of Commons to determine for veterans who should be allowed
to wear their decorations of honour. I believe that we should
listen to our veterans on this very important matter. They made
the sacrifices; they earned the medals; and they have the right
to make those decisions.
The offices of the Royal Canadian Legion have expressed their
opposition to this bill. My party supports their position. They
understand the intent of families who believe they can promote
Remembrance Day by wearing the medals but the veterans
associations do not agree with this action.
The Dominion Command Office believes and states that medals are
not symbols of remembrance. Rather they are symbols of service
and commitments made by those men and women who were overseas.
Medals are very personal, awarded to specific people for specific
details and specific sacrifice. They are intended to be worn by
the person who earned them.
The intent of the bill is clearly to honour our valiant soldiers
and their services. However, if the wearing of another medal is
permitted, the possibility that medals will start to lose their
significance is strong. We have to be aware that those who are
wearing medals earned by others for their special acts of valour
could offend some living veterans who proudly wear their medals
on Remembrance Day. Is that fair to our proud living veterans of
today?
I agree with the member from the NDP Party for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. One of the most
important functions on a yearly basis that I have to attend is
that of Remembrance Day celebrations on November 11. I attend
because I have personally suffered a loss in the great war. I
lost an uncle in that war, an uncle whom I never knew. When I go
to Remembrance Day celebrations it is the memory of that man
which makes me stronger as a Canadian, knowing full well that I
did not have to fight in my lifetime for Canada. My uncle
fought. He gave the ultimate sacrifice. He lost his life on my
behalf.
When I go to Remembrance Day celebrations I make sure that I
take my children to those services. They must remember too. They
never had to fight for the country. They have simply been given
a gift by the men and women who have gone before us and who made
those sacrifices. That is the remembrance we must have for the
people who went before us, not to wear their medals on our chest
to show people that we remember. We can remember them in many
other fashions or in many other ways.
I am certain that many of the people here today have family
members who served with distinction and honour. The family
members of deceased veterans certainly have the right to remember
the deeds and the valour of loved ones. However I suggest that
there are many other ways to honour those veterans than wearing
their medals.
A specific problem with the bill is that it does not stipulate
who qualifies as a relative. Other than specifying that adopted
relatives are also eligible to wear the medals, there are no
specifications on who is allowed to wear these sacred decorations
of honour. Will a veteran's third cousin by marriage be wearing
the decorations of the veteran, or the veteran's eldest child?
Understandably this is a decision that each family would have to
make if the bill were to pass. This vagueness brings into
question what honour would go with wearing the medals. Where is
the maintaining and restraining enforcement? A status of decorum
must be upheld, and I do not see it in the bill.
Every November 11 we see veterans marching with their hard
earned medal decorations pinned proudly to their chests. On this
day of remembrance we acknowledge veterans for the sacrifices
they made. If Bill C-334 were to pass, it is entirely possible
that we would be acknowledging persons wearing medals they did
not earn them and for achievements they did not accomplish. We
could not even be certain that these people were the relatives of
a veteran. I suggest to the House that this would be demeaning
to the veterans who risked and perhaps even sacrificed their
lives.
War decorations say something about the wearer. They say “I am
proud to have served my country with distinction and with
honour”. Were Bill C-334 to pass, this message would be
muddled.
One could not be certain that someone wearing a medal had served
in the military or whether the wearer had a parent who had
served, or a brother, or an aunt, or a third cousin by marriage.
1140
As the law currently stands the wearing of war decorations is
very meaningful. I fear that allowing anyone other than the
person to whom the medals were awarded would depreciate the value
of the medals and diminish the privilege of wearing them. We
need to encourage remembrance of our war veterans. There are
many ways to do it. Let us leave the wearing of war decorations
as the exclusive right of those who earned them.
I maintain that we let the veterans themselves tell us what they
would like to do. It is their honour and it should be up to them
to decide if, when and with whom they would like to share it.
As said earlier the party I represent, the Progressive
Conservative Party, certainly extends its gratification and
gratitude to all veterans for services rendered to our country.
It is they who should wear those medals with pride, not I or any
other member of the House, unless in fact we earned them on the
field of battle or in the service of our country.
I thank the member for bringing forward the legislation. However
the Progressive Conservative Party will not be supporting the
proposed legislation.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I too wish to welcome the Speaker and my colleagues back
to the House after hopefully a summer of relaxation.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-334. This
initiative by my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast
would amend the criminal code to permit the relatives of a
deceased veteran to wear any decoration awarded to that veteran.
The amendment stipulates that the relative can wear such
decorations only on the right side of the chest and would only be
permitted to do so on one day of the year, that being Remembrance
Day. To do so at the present time would be in contravention of
the criminal code.
The current law was written in the 1920s. I can certainly
understand why it made sense then. Legitimate veterans of World
War I did not want those who did not serve to be able to buy
decorations and wear them for personal gain, status or to
perpetrate fraud.
The reality of today is that the vast majority of these veterans
have passed on. The coming decades will see the passing of the
majority of those who served in World War II and Korea. Their
decorations for the most part will be relegated to basements and
attics, if not lost altogether. They will turn up in flea
markets and junk shops where they will be seen as nothing more
than just another bauble, their true meaning lost forever.
I do not think this is the way we want to honour the memory of
those who are responsible for the freedoms we enjoy today. I
will go so far as to say it is offensive, undignified and a
dishonour to their memory. They are priceless and should be
viewed that way.
This initiative is not intended to diminish the service, the
sacrifice or the valour of the recipients of these decorations.
It is meant to recognize and perpetuate the memory of their
achievements. My hon. colleague has taken this initiative at the
request of the relatives of veterans. They fear that the
decorations awarded to their family members are being forgotten.
Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand have recognized the
need to amend their laws pertaining to this matter and have acted
accordingly. I find it somewhat perplexing that Canada has not
followed suit. Are we so arrogant as to imply that Great Britain
with its long military heritage and tradition is by simply
allowing relatives of deceased veterans to proudly parade their
decorations on Remembrance Day somehow degrading the memory of
those who were all that stood between freedom and tyranny? Are
we telling Australians and New Zealanders that we harbour more
respect for our veterans than they do for theirs?
If I might be permitted to speak in some very personal terms, my
father was a veteran of World War II. He did not serve in what
some might mistakenly describe as one of the more glamorous
capacities of military service. I use the word “mistakenly”
because I have yet to meet any veteran who sees anything
glamorous about war.
What I mean to say is that my father was not a fighter pilot or
a gunner. He was not a paratrooper or a tank driver. He was not
a frogman or a commando. No. My dad drove a truck. He was a
convoy driver. He signed up in 1939 when the war broke out and
mercifully returned home to Canada when it ended six years later.
He met my mother in Holland when Canadians liberated that
country. The site of last spring's ceremonies, the town of
Apeldoorn, is my mother's home town. It is where they met. She
followed him to Canada in 1947.
1145
My father's brother, my uncle, also served in Europe for the
entire war and married a Flemish girl.
In the early 1950s my father did a short hitch with the Royal
Canadian Air Force and my family spent two years in northern
France. As a child, I played in the forests and fields that had
been battlegrounds less than a decade earlier. I visited the
still fresh cemeteries in France and Holland. To this day I
remember standing before the imposing monument of Vimy Ridge. I
vividly remember the bayonetted rifle barrels protruding skyward
from the dirt of a backfilled trench.
My father's explanations as to what this was all about had a
profound impact on me. Neither of my parents spoke much about
the war. They did not have to. My mother's traumatic experience
of years under the Nazi occupation was evident in her reaction
whenever she heard someone speak with a German accent.
I remember once as a teenager bringing a schoolmate home. He
was the son of recent German immigrants. He was tall and lean
with sharp square features, blonde hair and spoke with a heavy
accent. My mother was very gracious to him but after he had gone
she asked me not to bring him around anymore if she was at home.
She had no problem and no objection to me associating with him
but to be in the same room with him was just too much for her. I
learned something that day about the impact of war on people.
As for my father, his demeanour every November 11 was silent
testimony to his innermost thoughts and feelings. My dad did not
receive any special decorations for distinguished service or
valour above and beyond the call of duty. He just got the same
service medals given to thousands of other Canadian soldiers.
When he passed away in 1996 my only request of my siblings was
to take those medals home with me. They are a constant reminder
to me of who my dad was and the debt of gratitude I owe to him
and to the tens of thousands of others like him. They also serve
as a tangible reminder to me of the oppression and terror
suffered by my mother and millions of others under Nazi tyranny.
I am sure that many other children and other relatives of
veterans could tell very similar stories.
I do recognize that opinion is divided within our veterans'
organizations on this issue and I certainly respect the views of
those who oppose the wearing of war decorations by any other than
those to whom they were awarded. Perhaps that issue could be
addressed at the local level through regulation or by some other
means. These things could be discussed at committee.
Personally, why anybody would want to deny a spouse, a child or
grandchild the opportunity and privilege of publicly
acknowledging their deceased relatives' contributions by parading
his or her military service decorations on the one day set aside
for their remembrance is beyond me in the first place. However,
to label that spouse, child or grandchild as a criminal, thereby
lumping them with killers, rapists and thieves, is beyond reason.
It is ludicrous.
I have heard it said here this morning that it is not up to the
House of Commons to decide who should and should not wear war
decorations. It is in the criminal code and it is only this
place that can deal with the criminal code. What Bill C-334 does
is it removes the aspect of relatives of deceased veterans
wearing war decorations on Remembrance Day from the Criminal Code
of Canada. Persons other than relatives would still be covered
under the statute, as would anyone wearing the decorations on any
day other than November 11.
I encourage my colleagues in this place to support sending this
initiative to the standing committee.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I echo the comments made earlier in terms of welcoming yourself,
my colleagues and the House of Commons staff back from a long
summer vacation.
I am pleased to join my colleagues to discuss the pros and cons
of Bill C-334. I will concede that there are responsible,
reasonable and well-intentioned arguments on both sides of the
ledger. That is why it is difficult to definitively come down on
one side or another. However, making decisions is part of our
job and in this case the appropriate decision is in my view to
deny passage to this bill.
I certainly can see the point made during the last debate on the
bill. Our war veterans are a dwindling national resource. As we
start this new century we are losing many of them very quickly.
Such are the ravages of time and old age. Slightly more than
400,000 of our war veterans are still with us and of those who
are their average age is now approaching 80.
1150
This fact of time and history imposes on us a duty to honour
our commitment to remember their sacrifice for now and for future
generations. The question that arises is how best to do this.
Bill C-334 takes the position that allowing relatives of
deceased war veterans to wear their medals is one way to keep
that memory alive. I disagree. My colleagues on this side of
the House have already made the case of the legion's opposition
to the bill and I believe this to be the strongest argument
against the passage of the proposed legislation.
That said, I would like to point to some of the remarks made by
the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast during the
debate in May. Let me just pick out a few of the comments and
questions he raised. He said:
My initiative comes from the relatives of veterans who fear that
decorations awarded to their family members are being forgotten
and put away in dusty boxes and drawers. They, like me, believe
the time has come to move with the times and not let these
precious decorations collect dust somewhere.
He later said in his speech:
Why should it be a crime for a relative to want to display the
decoration and thus honour their deceased relative?
Later still he said:
Would it not be a positive gesture to remember them by allowing
their families to proudly display their decorations as their
veteran family members pass on?
Finally, the hon. member stated:
I believe these decorations are a birthright for the family
members of those who were awarded them and sadly can no longer
display them.
There is absolutely nothing in the current criminal code
legislation that prohibits the displaying of medals. There is
nothing that suggests that medals have to be put away in dusty
drawers nor does the current legislation say that it would be a
crime for relatives to want to display the decorations. The
prohibition simply applies to the wearing of medals by anyone
other than the veteran himself or herself.
We all encourage family members to proudly and publicly display
the medals of their parents and grandparents either at home or on
loan in more public facilities, such as local libraries and
museums. They could even consider making a donation of these
medals to their local institutions for public display.
I would like to make the case that taking the time and effort to
display medals in this way will be considerably more meaningful
than the option being considered by the bill: wearing the medals
one day of the year and then, by implication, putting them back
in a box to be worn the next Remembrance Day.
We should consider this proposition very carefully. One way is
to try to picture what it must have been like for those who
actually served in war and so reflect on why they might take some
umbrage at someone else wearing their medals. For those of us
who have not experienced warfare, it is almost impossible for us
to imagine what it was like.
In many theatres of operations the weather was often very cold
and frequently wet. The battlefields, especially in the first
world war, were seas of mud, at times waist deep or deeper.
Soldiers carried 40 pound sacks of equipment and provisions on
their backs. They ate, slept and fought in trenches or
makeshift barricades. They did not see their homeland or loved
ones for years and those who were the lucky ones
survived. Medical conditions often defied description.
In the first world war there were no antiseptic surgical
techniques. Antibiotics were non-existent. Many men who escaped
death at the hands of human enemies died from diseases such as
influenza, pneumonia or infections. In such conditions the
nursing sisters, brave women who often lost their own lives in
such hellish conflict, struggled to comfort soldiers' broken
spirits as they tended their broken bodies.
Our veterans faced implacable enemies, fiercely determined to
fight to the bitter end. It was kill or be killed. It is a
wonder that these men and women, considering the things they were
called upon to do and what they were forced to witness, kept
their humanity at all, and yet they did. When they returned home
they picked up their lives and started work on building their
country and raising their families. For their service, sacrifice
and courage under fire they were awarded medals.
Let us look at the most famous medal of all in the Commonwealth,
the Victoria Cross. On it are inscribed two simple words: For
Valour. In my view it would be a sacrilege and an outrage for
anyone to wear such a medal, relative or not, other than the
person who won such a high honour.
The irony of this is that many VCs were awarded posthumously
because the recipient died in service to his country and to his
comrades in arms. If we could agree that the VC should not be
worn by anyone but the recipient, then it would be hard not to
see the same principle apply to all medals for service and
courage.
1155
Far better and more honourable than appropriating the medals is
to honour the memory of our veterans through the retelling of
their exploits. We can do that. We can write their histories in
places like parks and street names. We can write them in places
of dignity and circumstance, like the National War Memorial, and
in the glorious landscape we have been blessed with where the
names of many of our mountains, rivers and lakes now proudly bear
the names of our beloved veterans.
We can write the memories of these brave men and women and the
principles they fought and died for in our hearts. We will carry
these memories with us from the past into the future.
If we go to any gathering, meeting or convention of veterans
anywhere in the country we will see, in their binding friendships
forged in the crucible of war, our history laid out plain and
clear, living and breathing. We must all reclaim that history.
We cannot allow it to perish, not even when the last of our
surviving war veterans passes on, especially not then.
The reclamation is not to be found in the wearing of medals not
earned through one's own actions. We know what to do. We give
our past a future by putting it in the hands of the next
generation. It is our duty to tell our children and our
children's children the story of courage and sacrifice, the story
of Canada's veterans. It is only fitting and proper that we do
so. It is their heritage too.
Bill C-334 does nothing to that end. Its passage will cause
grief and anger among those who served. I cannot and will not
support the bill.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on the wall of my bedroom there is a picture frame. In
that frame there are six war medals. They are the medals of my
grandfathers and my father, awarded to them when they served in
the first and second world wars.
My grandfathers came home from those wars. Both of them had
suffered severe injuries. One of them limped all the rest of his
life. The other had considerable pain in his shoulder. One
received the wound at Vimy Ridge and the other at Hill 70. My
father was in the medical corps of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
In his duties he probably saved the lives of many flyers who had
crashed during the war.
I am proud to have those medals on the wall of my bedroom. I
would be even prouder to be able to wear them on the right side
of my jacket on Remembrance Day. Those three men, my
grandfathers and my father, are no longer with us. The sad fact
of the matter is that within the next 10 years there will be
hardly any of our war veterans alive at all.
How will we remember them? Will we be able to remember them
adequately?
What this bill simply does is it says that those of us who knew
these people, who knew of these people and of their sacrifices
for Canada, would be able to put those medals on our chests on
Remembrance Day and that at the services around the cenotaph be
able to say clearly, articulately and proudly to those who ask
“These are the medals that were given to those who fought for,
served and gave up their lives for this country”.
When little boys of five, six or seven would come to me and ask
about those medals, I would be able to say “Those are the medals
of my grandfathers and my father”.
I would ask all members of the House to give their consideration
to this bill, indeed their approval of it, send it to committee,
get it talked about and to finally put it into the law of the
land so that we might have the right to continue to remember
these veterans because soon they will not be with us at all. We
should never forget.
1200
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-334.
Before I get to the specifics of the proposed legislation, I
would like to preface my remarks by reflecting on the nature and
scope of the sacrifice of Canada's veterans, especially during
the last century. It sounds a little bit odd that we can refer to
the wars we have participated in as wars of the last century. It
is a testament to the sacrifice of our grandparents and
great-grandparents that we can now say we have been involved in
another world war since the first half of the 20th century.
It is a sad fact of 20th century life that if we want to trace
the history of our nation, we merely need to visit cemeteries and
memorials here in Canada and in the Commonwealth war cemeteries
the world over. During the two world wars, the Korean war and in
peacekeeping missions, over 116,000 of our young citizens were
slain for the cause of peace and freedom. Of their courage there
has never been any doubt; courage in action, in conditions that
go almost beyond description. Consider for example the killing
fields of the first world war, the so-called war to end all wars.
[Translation]
At the turn of the 20th century, Canada was a small nation in
terms of population: fewer than eight million, yet it was a
nation full of promise.
During this war, more than 66,000 young Canadians were to shed
their life's blood on the battlefields of France and Belgium. At
its end, names such as Arras, Amiens, the Somme, Vimy Ridge and
Beaumont-Hamel were graven forever in our history.
The death statistics for World War I are beyond belief. In
fact, the actual figures will never be known, but this was truly
a world war. Of the sixty-five million enlisted, ten million lost
their lives. Another twenty-nine million were wounded, taken
prisoner or reported missing in action. The beloved sons of so
many nations were lost, and along with them the enormous
potential of a missing generation.
[English]
The second world war would again plunge the world in darkness
and cost the lives of over 45,000 of our young soldiers, sailors
and air crew. Korea a few years later would take another 516. It
is in this context of such carnage that we can begin to discuss
the notion of courage and the medals that come to symbolize
courage under fire. For indeed by some definitions, courage
means medals and citations for bravery.
The Victoria Cross is the Commonwealth's highest designation of
valour. When we read the exploits of those who have won it,
their acts of bravery are almost impossible to imagine. The
irony is that when we talk to veterans about courage, they almost
never see themselves as heroes.
In fact, one of our VC winners, Fred Tilston, who passed on just
a few years ago, used to joke about it. When asked what it took
to win the Victoria Cross, he summed it up in one word:
inexperience. I guess he was poking a bit of fun at himself.
Fred, like most veterans, was very modest about his courage.
Perhaps English writer G. K. Chesterton had it right when he
said that courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a
strong desire to live taking the form of readiness to die. I
guess in many ways that is how courage showed itself for the
Canadians who went to war. Ordinary men and women were called
upon to do extraordinary things in the most frightening of times.
By that measure, all those who served were very, very
courageous.
It is in these multiple meanings of courage, service and
sacrifice that I want to turn to the specifics of Bill C-334.
1205
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member
but the time provided for the consideration of private members'
business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
I must also advise the hon. member that he will have five
minutes when this bill comes back to the House.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, after our summer recess it is important for Canadians to
know what business the government has on the agenda, given the
events of the summer, the problems at Burnt Church, the organized
crime problems in Quebec and across the country, even some of the
gasoline and heating oil tax issues, all those things. My
question for the government House leader is, what is the business
of the House for today and the rest of the week?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today it is the intention of the
government to commence the debate on Bill C-38, the financial
institutions bill, which we would propose to do immediately after
this statement. If there is time permitting later today, we
would then proceed to Bill C-41, the veterans benefits bill.
Tomorrow it is my intention to call Bill C-33, the species at
risk legislation, followed by, if time permits, report stage of
Bill C-14, the Manitoba claims bill.
On Wednesday, I would like to call the Manitoba claims
legislation if we have not terminated it.
On Thursday, I would like to designate the day as a supply day
in the name of the Canadian Alliance.
On Friday, we would like to proceed with Bill C-41, the veterans
benefits legislation, if we do not succeed in doing the bill
today.
I also wish to inform the House that it is the intention of the
government, and indeed of House leaders of all parties, to ask
that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government
Operations hold an informal hearing this Thursday for the purpose
of consulting with the interim privacy commissioner. Following
that particular meeting, it would then be the intention of the
government to bring forward a motion for the appointment of the
privacy commissioner at another sitting of the House.
There have been consultations, and so far they are incomplete,
in regard to the status of Bill C-3, the youth justice bill,
which, shall I be generous, is somewhat stuck in a particular
committee of the House. I intend to come back to the House later
today once these consultations are complete.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since we are
discussing the business of the House, I intend, as I announced
earlier, to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to amend
the order of business as follows.
The preliminary discussions I had with my colleagues lead me to
believe that the vast majority of opposition members in the
House would agree to support the request for the unanimous
consent of the House that I am going to submit to the government.
That request has to do with the very serious events that have
recently taken place in Quebec and that now make the fight
against organized crime the top priority. It is extremely urgent
that this parliament, which is aware of its responsibilities,
look at this issue and make a number of decisions.
I am asking for unanimous consent for the following:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, Motion No. M-428,
listed under the Private Members' Notices of Motions, be debated
immediately;
That the debate take place during the time normally allotted for
government orders;
That any member taking part in this debate not speak for more
than 20 minutes;
That it be possible for a member to split his or her time with
another member;
That a period of not more than 10 minutes be provided for
questions and comments following the speeches; and
That 15 minutes before the end of the debate, the Speaker shall
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
relating to the motion.
1210
It concerns Motion No. M-428, which I made a point of including
on the Order Paper so it would be available for all
parliamentarians and which reads as follows:
That the freedom of the press and the public's right to know be
recognized as fundamental to democracy, this House will not yield
to attempts by criminal groups to intimidate democratic
institutions, and this House request that the government prepare
and bring in, by October 6, 2000—
Of course, we could agree on a different date. Depending on the
outcome of our consultations, the date could be changed.
Since the members have known about this motion for some time
already and the problem is extremely grave not only in Quebec,
but in the rest of Canada, although more so in Quebec, I
therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to change the
order of proceedings for today.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there were preliminary
consultations this morning. I have not finished consulting
members on this side of the House. I am therefore unable at this
time to give unanimous consent to this proposal, or to any
amendment since the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois himself
has said that there may be an amendment.
However, at 3 p.m., immediately after or perhaps just before
oral question period, if the member wishes to put his question
again, if there is some sort of consent for a debate later today,
we could agree on a formula.
One way or another, I would like to raise this matter in the
House at 3. p.m. I will therefore have to withhold unanimous
consent until such time as a proposal is made, i.e. immediately
after oral question period.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps after routine proceedings.
Is there unanimous consent for the request made by the hon.
member for Roberval?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval will be able
to make the request again later this afternoon, after routine
proceedings.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, so I understood from the
comments made by the hon. government leader.
Since the opposition is unanimous, the government is giving the
matter some thought and we will perhaps have a positive
response—hopefully, anyway—if I move my motion again a bit later
today. That is what I understood.
The Deputy Speaker: I cannot speak for the government House
leader, but his statement is available for all members. What is
clear is that he has asked the hon. member to put his request to
the House again later today.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
Hon. Jim Peterson (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-38, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency
of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill
C-38 concerning our financial institutions, which I introduced to
the House last June 13.
1215
[English]
This is the seventh major initiative of the government dealing
with our financial institutions in the last four and a half
years.
Early in 1996 we brought in Bill C-15 which enhanced the powers
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to undertake
early intervention with respect to troubled institutions, thereby
enhancing the safety and soundness of our entire system.
In 1997 we entered into the WTO agreement on financial services,
enhancing the access of Canadian financial institutions to
foreign markets throughout the world. Again in 1997 the
government brought in Bill C-82 to strengthen consumer protection
by prohibiting coercive tied selling.
In 1998 probably one of the most important measures was passage
of the bill which allowed the mutualization of some of our major
insurance companies and put over $10 billion in the hands of
policyholders.
In 1999 we passed the bill dealing with foreign banks being
allowed to operate as branches in Canada, utilizing the capital
of their global entities in order to enhance their capacity to
lend to Canadians.
In June 2000 the money laundering bill was passed, which is a
direct blow to organized crime by clamping down on money
laundering through our institutions.
Our seventh initiative is Bill C-38. As we all know this is a
tremendously important bill in size and in consequences. It
amends 22 acts and establishes one entirely new act that covers
almost 900 pages. It is so important because as we know our
financial services sector is truly a driver of our economy.
[Translation]
There are more than 500,000 Canadians employed in this sector.
Its payroll is in excess of $22 billion annually. It accounts
for approximately 5% of our gross domestic product, and close to
$50 billion annually in exports from this country. It also pays
over $9 billion in taxes yearly to all levels of government. This
is the most heavily taxed industry in Canada.
Given the direct and indirect importance of the financial
sector, one of which I am extremely proud, the strategic
framework within which it operates must foster opportunities for
growth, for export and for job creation, to the benefit of our
economy as a whole.
[English]
Bill C-38 implements a policy framework which ensures that the
sector continues to make its crucial contribution to our economic
well-being by enhancing its ability to compete in the new world
of globalization and rapid advance in technologies, by making it
easier for these institutions to seize opportunities both in
Canada and abroad, and by following a balanced approach that is
in the interest of consumers and the sector itself.
As we all know Bill C-38 is the culmination of a process of very
extensive consultations. This process began in June 1996 when we
announced the creation of an advisory committee to review the
payment system. This was followed in late 1996 by the
establishment of the task force on the future of Canada's
financial services sector, a task force which was known as the
MacKay task force and which reported to us in September 1998.
Following that report the House and the Senate finance
committees held extensive consultations throughout Canada and
reported back to us by the end of the year.
1220
All this advice was considered very carefully in the preparation
of the June 1999 policy paper which gave the government response
to all consultations and input from colleagues in the House. Over
the past year, following tabling of this white paper, more
extensive consultations were undertaken so that we could enact in
legislation the results of all the undertakings and
considerations. I tabled that bill in the House last June 13.
[Translation]
More precisely, Bill C-38 encourages the efficiency and the
growth of Canadian financial institutions in international
markets, fosters competition within the country, enhances the
protection of consumers of financial services, and improves the
regulatory framework.
[English]
In terms of promoting efficiency and growth we have a holding
company structure which will give greater flexibility for these
institutions to compete with monoline institutions doing a single
type of business. They will enjoy a lighter regulatory regime
through that holding company.
In terms of ownership we are permitting up to 20% of the shares
of larger institutions to be used for strategic alliances to
allow our banks to enter into joint ventures with other
institutions both domestically and abroad. We have enhanced the
range of permitted investments for our financial institutions.
[Translation]
Through guidelines, we have stressed the possibility of mergers,
thus recognizing that such mergers can be a viable strategy. A
new transparent review process will be put in place to evaluate
mergers and to protect public interest.
[English]
In terms of fostering domestic competition we will be allowing
new entities to establish with lower capital requirements. We
will have three levels of institutions: those with equity
exceeding $5 billion, those with equity under $1 billion and
those medium size ones in between. Finally large banks with
equity over $5 billion will be required to be widely held under
the new 20% ownership regime. This new ownership regime will
encourage the establishment of community banks.
[Translation]
We have also included provisions whereby co-operatives, credit
firms and credit unions could get involved in the establishment
of a national service entity. Such an entity would allow
co-operatives to adopt a national structure, while fostering
competition with large Canadian and foreign institutions.
[English]
By accommodating new entries into our payment system for life
insurance companies, for securities dealers and for money market
mutual funds we will see enhanced competition domestically.
Looking at what the bill does in terms of empowering and
protecting consumers, it will ensure access to basic financial
services regardless of income or place of residence, including
access to low cost accounts and a process that will govern the
closure of any branches.
[Translation]
It establishes the financial consumer agency of Canada to
strengthen the monitoring of protection measures for consumers
and to extend the scope of consumer awareness activities.
[English]
It establishes the independent Canadian financial services
ombudsman to deal with disputes with institutions.
1225
In terms of improving the regulatory framework we have a
streamlined approvals process. We have significant amendments to
the governance and oversight of the Canadian Payments
Association, and we have new powers for the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions to deal with potential risks.
This is an era of extremely rapid change and global competition.
We recognize that our financial institutions must have
flexibility and freedom to adapt to changing times. The world
will not stand still. Nor will the sector. Nor will we. This
is why constant attention to fostering competitiveness and to
ensuring safety and soundness are so important and are for the
benefit of all Canadians.
In keeping up to date we have ensured that this legislation has
a five year sunset clause, unique among institutions in the
world, to ensure that constant review processes are in place and
to ensure that our institutions can adapt.
[Translation]
Second, the government is prepared, if it deems appropriate to
do so, to reassess the legislation before the scheduled five year
period between reviews, to ensure that the framework remains
adapted to a rapidly changing market.
[English]
Third, the bill allows for many key elements to be dealt with by
regulation so that we will not have to come back to the House
through the cumbersome procedure of legislative change in order
to allow our financial sector to adapt.
The legislation provides a new policy framework that will keep
our financial institutions strong, safeguard the interests of
Canadians, continue to contribute to job creation and economic
growth, and maintain the safety and soundness of our financial
sector.
I thank colleagues for their very valuable contributions to the
bill. They will see many of their ideas and suggestions
reflected in it. It is because of the extensive consultation and
co-operation of all members that the early passage of the bill is
supported by consumer and industry groups alike. We in the House
look forward to early passage.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I too am pleased to rise
today to speak to Bill C-38. In listening to the secretary of
state's words one would think that the Liberal government had run
quite a race since 1993 to get all these things done.
In reference to our banking industry and to choices for Canadian
consumers of financial services, while the secretary of state
talks of seven positive initiatives taken by the government in
fact only two will have a direct result by way of possible
increased competition and allowing our domestic banks to move
into the 21st century and to catch up to what has already
happened in many foreign countries.
Probably a majority of the House, and maybe even the secretary
of state himself, does not know that Canada has lagged behind
other countries including some of our major trading partners in
modernizing our banking and financial structure.
The secretary of state may be quite proud of the legislation.
There are some good things in it. For the most part we will
support it, but I advise him to be cautious when talking about
the speed of the race the Liberals have run since 1993 in getting
our banking institutions up to par with the countries with which
we do business. I am sure the secretary of state is having some
second thoughts now that he reflects on that speed.
1230
There are some parts of Bill C-38 that we certainly agree with
and parts that we do not. There are even some parts missing
which we will likely address with some amendments as the process
moves along. With the secretary of state's encouraging words
that we help him get speedy passage of the bill, I am sure the
government will view the amendments that come from the Alliance
Party in particular with an encouraging welcome attitude and will
want to see those amendments become part of this great financial
services bill.
Let us deal with some of the good things in the bill, which
incidentally in many respects were spelled out for the government
in the November 1998 banking report by the member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley acting as the official opposition critic
for banks and financial institutions. In the 100 page report
entitled “Competition: Choice You Can Bank On”, we clearly
called for more competition and better service in banking. We
also recommended that merger proposals be evaluated under
individual merit and that mitigating factors be built into the
proposals so that when the Minister of Finance and all those
concerned looked at these proposals they would be able to say
“Yes, this is a good proposal; it has merit. Let us approve
it”, or “No, this one is not. Let us not approve it”. It
would do away with the blanket approach to the determination of
mergers.
We in the official opposition outlined a plan in 1998. The plan
offered choice and competition in the financial sector. It
provided an action plan for change that the government is just
now beginning to follow to allow our domestic banks to compete
more effectively in the global marketplace.
It is about time. The secretary of state knows, as does his
government, that the ratings of our big five domestic banks have
increasingly shrunk in the global scale. Major banks all around
the world, with much more ease than we can imagine, have begun to
amalgamate and merge and build their positions to even greater
strength, therefore capitalizing on the opportunities in the
global marketplace. Our banks, unable to merge, unable to build
through acquisitions and other arrangements because of
regulations, have had to sit by and watch these wonderful
opportunities pass them by and be scooped up by the big world
banks that have had the ability to strengthen to a size where
they can take advantage of these opportunities.
Only now are our Canadian banks, our big five, going to be able
to really look ahead. Madam Speaker, you have to understand, and
I am sure you do, that banking institutions simply cannot work on
short term planning. They need long terms, longer terms than can
be imagined, longer term vision and longer term business plans.
That is the nature of their business.
The government has been basically sitting on its hands since
1993. Our domestic banks were placed in the position that they
simply did not know what lay ahead from the government in the
regulatory field. They did not know what path the government was
going to follow which would allow them to make plans 10, 15 and
20 years down the road.
It has not been a speedy process. We are now just getting to
the point where Canadian banks can heave a sigh of relief and
start to concentrate on some long term plans, to look at some
opportunities in the global market. Our Canadian banks will now
be able to compete as a result of many of the features of the
bill. Let us not allow the secretary of state or the Liberal
government to take any credit for the so-called haste with which
they have dealt with this issue.
1235
There are some other points we want to talk about. The banks
have been calling for a provision that would allow them to break
up some of their structure into holding companies so they could
operate under a more flexible regulatory system. Finally the
government will make those allowances. The banks can now start
to make some progress on some of the plans they had put on hold
because there was no direction from the government.
We are also happy to see the increased access to the Canadian
payment system. It will allow life insurance companies and money
market mutual fund security dealers to have increased access, to
clear funds themselves without having to go through the banks.
There is something missing in the bill with respect to credit
unions becoming more like national banks. I am surprised it is
missing because the MacKay task force report recommended that the
government consider allowing what it called co-operatively held
banks in reference to credit unions. A co-operatively held bank
that would evolve out of a credit union simply means that every
member of that co-op, which would now be engaged in bank-like
activities, would be a voting member of that banking structure.
The government has not allowed that and we wonder why it has not.
If the government were committed to offering more choices in
banking services to Canadian consumers and small business
enterprises, why would it not have made this provision?
We intend to introduce amendments during report stage that will
give the government a chance to rectify that omission which it
allowed to happen in preparing the bill. One thing we are not
happy about is the omission of the provision for credit unions to
become co-operatively held banking institutions.
We are also happy that the government in its wisdom has
maintained a restriction on banks entering into the auto leasing
and insurance business. We commend the government for that. At
the same time we remind the government that in our 1998 report,
of which I have a copy for the secretary of state but I am sure
he must have read it in the preparation of Bill C-38, we too
called for the government to hold the line on this. Auto leasing
and insurance is a very competitive and vibrant business sector
in Canada and we felt the choices offered to consumers were very
wide and that it was operating very well.
We have a little trouble with the FCAC, the ombudsman office,
the financial consumer agency of Canada. Trust the government to
come up with a bureaucratic sounding title for what will be, from
all looks at this thing, another bureaucracy within the
government that will die a slow death because of the
inefficiencies that generally evolve out of government
bureaucracies.
This could have been quite simple. The government could have
made a provision for the setting up of a very independent
ombudsman's office for banking, one that would oversee the
financial services sector. This office would report directly to
parliament, to the elected representatives of the country.
But no, the government chose to create the office with a
commissioner who will be appointed by the Minister of Finance.
1240
One would think that the Liberals would have run out of Liberal
friends by now, but one more is coming down the tube and will be
the FCAC commissioner. That office will report directly to the
Minister of Finance. Anything that we get from that office will
have first been vetted through the Minister of Finance. In other
words, we will only hear what the Minister of Finance wants us to
hear. We will not be permitted to question the commissioner
ourselves. This is significant. It is so like the government to
restrict access of the opposition parties to the agencies it
creates because it does not fit in its agenda.
We are happy of the government's lowering of the capital
requirement to establish small banks. We commend the government
on that. We think we will see some movement in the setting up of
regional and community banking services. We would like to think
that the government will be encouraging more competition from
these types of businesses. We support that.
We have a problem with the demands on the government that it
must begin to or continue to operate money losing accounts for
Canadians as individuals or small businesses. While the
government may think that this is a good thing for political
reasons, the fact is this is an intrusion on private business.
The government is taking this a little bit too far.
How can the government say to a business that it must operate a
segment of its business but it is not allowed to make money? In
fact it will probably have to lose money, but the government has
decided that the business must operate a section of the business
on a money losing basis. This is what the government has done in
the bill. It has said to the banks that no matter who comes in
and asks for an account at the bank, the bank has to pretty much
open an account for them. Whether that account is operated in a
responsible fashion or not, the bank still has to provide access
for that person to have an account at one of that bank's
branches. The banks themselves will say that the government is
telling them how to run their own businesses.
Bank closures have become a reality in this country. It is
common knowledge that the banks for the most part are
over infrastructured as far as branches go. In many cases banks
are looking to close down this infrastructure because they are
money losing branches and banks are simply not in the business of
operating at a loss on behalf of their shareholders. As little
red tape as possible is necessary to allow banks to make prudent
business decisions.
The banks have recognized they have a corporate community role
in many small towns across the country. They will not
arbitrarily close branches. They will make provisions such as
did the Bank of Montreal with the sale of some of its branches to
the credit union people. This was a prudent business move.
People did not lose their banking services. The name changed but
the services are still there. This is just good business. I
trust the government will allow the banks to make those decisions
themselves as to how they want to structure their operations so
that they can assure their shareholders that they will be able to
do it by making money.
1245
The secretary of state will get a chuckle out of this one. He
may think that I have more guts than brains talking about this,
but there is nothing in Bill C-38 that addresses the very real
problem of the taxation regime in which the banks are forced to
operate. The secretary of state knows that the banks, among all
the corporations in Canada, are charged at more levels of tax
than any other type of business in Canada. Even companies like
Bombardier, SNC Lavalin and Magna International have less
structures of tax than banks do.
One of the things the Canadian banks have been telling the
government is that if it expects them, as domestic banks, to be
able to compete in the global economy and take advantage of the
opportunities, they need to be on a level playing field with
other banks around the world. The government has yet to address
the very real problem Canadian banks have in their global
competition goals, which is the taxation regime that they must
operate under in this country. We are surprised that the
government has not addressed this in the same way that it has not
addressed tax relief in so many other areas, whether it is
personal income tax, corporate tax, fees, services or EI
premiums.
This is not a government that is friendly to people who work
hard to be successful and try to earn money. It is the first one
in line to penalize success. It has been doing this to our
banking institutions for years. It has acted as a disincentive
for our Canadian banks which have to compete on an uneven tax
playing field.
I will close by saying that we will be supporting the bill. We
hope it passes in a timely fashion, as the Minister of Justice
would like to pass some of her legislation in a timely fashion.
We ask that the government look seriously at the amendments we
will be putting forward. We hope that a spirit of co-operation
will prevail as we discuss our needs and the government discusses
its bill passing needs as far as its timelines.
Our party will be actively involved in the process of Bill C-38
as it moves along.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I heard some applause. It is a very odd way to start a
pre-election period to have one of my Liberal colleagues applaud
my rising to speak. Should I assume that he will agree with
everything I say about his government in the next few minutes?
I am pleased to rise and speak to this important bill. It is an
important bill because we have been waiting for it for over seven
years, and that things kept being postponed in recent years. I
see the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions, who was acting as chair of the Standing Committee
on Finance at that point. He knows what I am talking about on
the subject of delays. There was a delay of at least two years in
the government's introduction of a bill on financial
institutions.
Everyone here can testify to the Bloc Quebecois' interest in
this amendment to the laws on financial institutions. Two and a
half years ago, when Mr. McKay introduced his proposals, the Bloc
Quebecois presented a submission to the Standing Committee on
Finance. Rather than question witnesses, that time we had
decided to contribute to the debate on the amendments to
legislation on banks and financial institutions in general by
presenting a submission in more or less the following vein.
1250
When we look at the way things are changing on the international
scene, the first thing we notice is that they are moving very
quickly with what they call the globalization of markets,
especially with the increased opening up of a number of western
countries in the financial sector, and the fact that, in the
electronic commerce sector, the establishment of virtual banks is
allowed. Banks without a national base in certain countries
serving a certain clientele are being allowed to open what are
called virtual banks. They offer consumers financial products
without an actual physical location for the delivery of such
products.
International competition is heating up. Even the six largest
banks in Canada are small compared to American or certain Asian,
particularly Japanese, banks.
What is needed is a legislative environment conducive to
increasing the ability of our financial institutions to hold
their own against international competition as well as the
competition that will inevitably begin to appear—and of which
there are already signs—within the markets of Quebec and of
Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the spirit of the legislation and
several of its provisions. The competitive environment calls out
for a bill such as this, which amends the Bank Act and
legislation governing financial institutions in general.
That having been said, there are a number of problems with this
bill and we intend to move amendments at report stage. I hope
that members on the other side will give these amendments their
attention, will note that we are open to 90% of what is in the
bill; there is perhaps 10% of it that falls short and could be
improved.
First, and not least, it is clear from a reading of the many
pages of this bill and its schedules, a weighty 900 pages or so,
that far too much discretionary power rests in the hands of one
man, the Minister of Finance.
Throughout the bill, whenever there are provisions concerning
banks, insurance companies, trusts, anything to do with the
financial sector, the minister always reserves the right to
determine, based on criteria known to him alone, whether or not
an operation is acceptable. He alone defines certain concepts
such as low-fee retail deposit accounts.
We know that the Minister of Finance claims to be concerned
about improving the access of the most disadvantaged in society
to banking and other services, but he is still leaving himself
room to define in future what would be best for the least well
off, such as those living in certain poorer neighbourhoods in
Montreal or other large cities, or certain remote, rural areas.
There are way too many areas where the Minister of Finance,
alone, has a decision making power and a power of life or death
over certain transactions for us to be pleased with this bill.
Generally speaking, we would have liked more clarity regarding
the decision making process and also more specifics regarding
certain concepts, such as the minimum fee deposits for the poor.
This is our first general comment.
The second one concerns consumer protection. It goes without
saying that we cannot be opposed to any measure seeking to
increase consumer protection.
However, we are opposed to provisions that duplicate and overlap
those that are already included in the Quebec consumer protection
act. Incidentally, consumer protection is an exclusive provincial
jurisdiction. While there may be cases of specific protection
with regard to banks, which fall under federal jurisdiction,
consumer protection or the protection of privacy is, generally
speaking, a provincial jurisdiction.
1255
Yet, the bill constantly refers to new federal government
initiatives in an area which, in the case of Quebec, is well
covered by very comprehensive provincial legislation. We can
think, among others, of the consumer protection act, the privacy
act, the insurance act, the trust companies act, the Quebec
savings banks act and the credit and securities act, all of which
include provisions to ensure consumer protection.
There comes a time when a consumer no longer knows which
legislation to turn to.
Does the matter come under the jurisdiction of the federal
government? Does it involve the new consumer protection
legislation contained in Bill C-38? Or is it the Quebec consumer
protection legislation which applies in this particular case?
In short, in some respects, instead of improving consumer
protection, I would say that certain clauses of Bill C-38 only
add confusion. A lesser understanding means, of necessity,
lesser protection for the consumer.
Another case concerns the protection of another category of
consumers to which I have already referred, namely the most
disadvantaged consumers. The minister has taken the trouble to
include in Bill C-38 the concept of the low-fee retail deposit
account. He says that it has long been argued that there are
certain areas of major cities such as Montreal, Quebec City,
Vancouver and Toronto that are greatly disadvantaged.
So much so that when people in financial difficulty, people with
less money than the Minister of Finance, the banks, and their
branches in particular, show discrimination toward them.
When we undertook the process of reviewing the financial
institutions legislation, we often ran into cases of people who
had been totally denied permission to open an account because
they did not have a fixed income, had not worked for some time,
or could not produce any identification, and so on.
Now the minister is introducing his concept of the low-fee retail
deposit account, but does not tell us what this will mean.
This is a lovely concept that may appeal to certain consumer
associations, but where is the minister headed with this
“low-fee retail deposit account?” Who will this “low-fee
retail deposit account” be aimed at? What sort of fee will it
entail? Will it really be available to those who, in the past,
have had trouble getting quality services without being
discriminated against?
Let us not forget that a bank operates in a competitive
environment and that a bank is there to make profits. We are
not, nor have we ever been, against profits. It must be borne in
mind, however, that banks, like most financial institutions in
Canada, are active in a very regulated, and therefore protected,
environment. They are protected by a decision of parliament: the
public decided that the regulatory framework for Canadian banks
would be a protective one. We would not want to let our banks go
like that.
In return, banks have a responsibility to the public, as do
those holding voting shares. This concern with the
responsibility of banks is absent from the bill. We are not
looking for measures that would make it impossible for banks to
make profits. But some effort is required, particularly
since—as I mentioned—the banks are working within a regulatory
framework decided by parliament. Within parliament, people
elected by the public decided to protect the banking sector. I
would say that the banks therefore have a certain duty to the
community that is absent from the bill.
When it comes to a real social and community role for banks, or
to put it another way, if the banks are going to remember what
they owe us for bringing in tight regulations to protect them, we
would have liked the Minister of Finance to pay attention to our
proposals, including the one from the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who introduced a bill on community
reinvestment by banks.
1300
He has been fighting this battle for a long time. He brought us
in the Bloc Quebecois into the fray. We fight almost daily for
community reinvestment in the most disadvantaged regions, the
most remote regions in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, as well
as in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Quebec and
Canadian cities.
What does community reinvestment mean? It means—and it relates
to a practice that has been in existence in the United States
since the start of the 1970s—ensuring that certain banks are
accountable to the community in specific regions or disadvantaged
neighbourhoods in big Canadian cities. It involves, for example,
evaluating in a given year all of the deposits taken in by these
banks in neighbourhoods where in recent years a rate of
unemployment higher than the national average has been observed.
It involves noting the deposits made in these banks by both
individuals and businesses and the loans and advances given out
by the branch to the community, in a disadvantaged community in
Montreal for example, just to see whether a discrepancy does not
exist between what it takes out and what it injects back into the
community through loans and advances.
If there is a discrepancy, that is, if the branch in one of
Montreal's poorest neighbourhoods, for example, took in more in
deposits than it gave out in loans to individuals and advances
and loans to SMBs in the neighbourhood, it would be considered to
be a problem and the banks could be asked to make an extra effort
to contribute to the community.
The banks in this community reinvestment environment would be
accountable to the local residents and to parliament. At some
point, an accumulation of bad reports on the banks or financial
institutions in certain poor neighbourhoods in the major cities
or in certain remote regions would provide sufficient authority,
I would say, to influence in general terms community reinvestment
by the banks right across Canada.
From a local point of view, provisions for reinvestment in the
community such as those in the bill introduced by my colleague,
which we intend to introduce again through amendments to the
banking bill, would also mean that representatives of the
community could meet annually with managers of the bank branch in
their neighbourhood or region to discuss the contribution it was
making to the community, look for ways of improving things and
identify mutually interesting projects that the community's
deposits could be used to fund.
There have been a number of good results in the United States.
It seems funny to be citing the United States as an example of
progressive measures but, in the United States, making
communities and banks accountable has meant that, at a certain
point, the banks—and this is unusual, it is not often seen in
Canada—became known for contributing to the advancement of
communities.
In fact, at one point, in certain of the poorest regions of the
United States, some of the most down and out were allowed to cash
government cheques for free.
They went to those branches and there was no longer any charge
for government cheques. For the most disadvantaged, the fees
charged for banking services were very low or not levied at all
for the most common services. The banks had been offering this
since the early 1970s.
It was also agreed, after various discussions with the
community, with representatives of bank branches in the United
States, to freeze funds for a number of days or weeks. When we
met with consumer protection representatives, they told us that
funds had been frozen for more than a week.
1305
In the United States, based on a concept called community
reinvestment requiring the banks to be accountable to the
community, this led to certain provisions, among them ones
including those forbidding branches from freezing funds.
Based on this development of community reinvestment, some U.S.
banks even decided to reduce to a minimum the mortgage charges to
first-time property owners. This they did as a result of
discussions with the community on the possibility of a two-way
relationship between the least well-off in the area served by the
bank and the bank, since it stood to gain in the long term from
the improved financial position of the members of its community.
We would have liked to see the Minister of Finance take this
type of novelty a little more seriously, not that it is really a
novelty because it dates back to the 1970s in the United States.
We would like him to lend an attentive ear to the arguments
raised by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and all the
members of the Bloc Quebecois relating to the possibility of
reinvesting in the community.
We are not asking the banks to take over from the government.
After the carnage wrought on social programs by this Liberal
government, I believe we might even have been entitled to call
upon the banks to compensate for it, but we are not, despite the
billions of dollars in profit the banks are raking in.
We are not against the banks making profits, as the banks'
profits are also, to a certain extent, our profits. The trust
funds, the pension funds of the people of Quebec and of Canada
also make profits.
What we are saying instead is that the banks have the means of
balancing out the deposits they receive with the reinvestment
they can make in certain communities that are worse off than
others.
There was another problem relating to the people who were the
most disadvantaged and were living in the least advantaged areas
of major cities, or in remote areas.
The closure of branches of banks and financial institutions in
general was, is and always will be the problem with this bill.
Some regions do not or no longer have access to quality banking
services, because branches were closed. It was no longer
profitable for major Canadian banks to provide remote communities
with complete services, as can be found in major centres.
There are poor neighbourhoods in Montreal—earlier we mentioned
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve—where one must look hard to find a bank
branch that provides full services. There are no longer such
branches. Why? Precisely because it was not profitable for the
banks to provide these services.
Since the community groups that appeared before the committee
raised this issue time and again, we expected the bill to include
provisions to prevent, in certain communities, people from being
treated like second class citizens, like nobodies, because they
have less money than those living in neighbouring communities.
There is nothing in this bill to prevent branch closures in
those areas where poverty is a more serious issue than in other
neighbourhoods or other regions of Quebec and Canada.
The only measure included in this bill—and I doubt any consumer
association will applaud this initiative—is a requirement to
give a six month notice before closing a branch. But whether a
branch closes immediately, or in two, three, four or six months,
it will close at some point. Entire communities will get fewer
and fewer services from Canadian financial institutions,
particularly banks, because this bill includes no provision to
protect them.
The appointment of an ombudsman is a step in the right direction, but
it is clearly not enough. The bill should show that the Minister of
Finance wants to prevent people from not having access to banking
services and to the so-called new economy.
1310
There is no political will in this bill, not even the desire to
find ways to prevent the most disadvantaged in our society from
being totally excluded from the financial sector and the banking
services available elsewhere in Canada.
In addition to the issues for consumers, the bill contains an
enormous problem. It concerns the ownership of Canada's major
banks and major financial institutions.
I listened to the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions
discussing the importance of the flexibility given the financial
institutions to enable them to continue their activities, to
meet their competition and to respond to the development of new
markets.
There is, however, a difference between the flexibility found in
certain aspects of the bill and the fact that some of our
financial institutions and banks could literally be given to
foreigners, for example, or to a single investor, who could
wield either total or partial powers of life and death over
these institutions or their administration.
We supported flexibility from the start. Indeed, when we tabled
our brief with the Standing Committee on Finance over two years
ago, we proposed a more flexible regulatory framework in fact,
so that the small and medium banks could join with other
financial institutions, something the existing legislative
framework does not currently permit, but the bill would.
Therefore, a bank could join with a trust company, with an
insurance company or with other stakeholders in the financial
sector to create a sort of consortium, a firm that could meet
the challenge of the major international institutions either in
the Canadian market, because they will no doubt penetrate it,
some of them already have—there is the MBNA, for example, and its
virtual banks—or in international markets by ensuring that
strategic alliances will give us significant blocks to meet the
international competition there.
I have to hand it to the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions, he did a good job. I want to salute him in
passing, because he chaired the Standing Committee on Finance
for several years.
He worked very hard on this bill and he delivered the goods when
it comes to flexibility for financial institutions, strategic
alliances and the right way of making them more competitive.
Where I part company with him and with the Minister of Finance,
however, is when it comes to bank ownership. An individual's
right to hold a certain percentage of shares varies with the size
of these banks in Canada.
I still have a lot of trouble with this and I have had no
answers to the many questions I asked the Minister of Finance in
meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance or here, during
oral question period.
I have had no answers as to the reason for such amendments. Why,
for instance, when it comes to the largest bank in Canada, the
Royal Bank, will an individual now be able to hold 20% of shares?
It has gone from 10% to 20% of voting shares. Why is it that
when it comes to the largest bank in Canada, it can now be 20%,
but no more? The limit is set at 20%. Does anyone know why?
The reason is that it is dangerous, according to the Minister of
Finance and the secretary of state, his spokesperson.
It is dangerous because an individual holding too many shares in
a bank could have unprecedented power over the policies of that
bank. He could also create problems for market competitiveness.
I will come back to this shortly.
This is the percentage for the largest bank in Canada—a maximum
of 20%.
But when it comes to the largest bank in Quebec, the National
Bank, whose capitalization is in the middle range, an individual
may hold 65% of voting shares.
1315
Why this distinction? I have asked this of the Minister of
Finance. Why different treatment? When it is a matter of
protecting a major Canadian bank, then the maximum is 20%, but
when it is a matter of protecting the biggest Quebec bank, it can
be up to 65% of voting shares. It was enough to have 50% plus 1;
with 65%, I do not know if the constitutional debate has so
obscured people's vision that it is no longer seen that a
majority for a single share holder is over 50%, that is 50% plus
1. Now it has gone up to 65%. Even 50% plus 1 would have been
too high anyway.
The principle of what is called diffuse bank ownership, i.e.
allowing capital to be broadly distributed in the hands of a
number of individuals, relates to several fundamental elements in
the banking sector. First of all, its stability, and second the
fact that it might be unwise for a single individual to have
considerable power over the savings of individuals.
The fundamental aspect underlying this division of ownership is
to avoid cases of unfair competition, which I shall explain. A
rich industrialist in the manufacturing sector could buy up 65%
of voting shares in a bank like the National Bank.
For those who are not familiar with it, the National Bank is the
bank of small and medium sized businesses in Quebec. It is the
one that makes the most loans to these businesses. The
industrialist purchases 50% plus 1—no need of 65%—of the voting
shares of the National Bank.
That business person, who is involved in a given economic sector,
could decide to refuse to lend money to someone who wants to
borrow from the National Bank to invest in the same manufacturing
sector in which the bank owner is involved.
Certain things were possible in the past, are possible today and
will be possible in the future. In fact, this is why, in the
past, a single individual could not hold more than 10% of the
shares of a bank. Currently, we can see at shareholders' meetings
that a person who holds 10% of the shares of a bank has a great
influence on the direction in which it is going.
So, we have a situation where a business person involved in a
given sector could refuse to grant a loan to someone who wants to
borrow from his bank, because that person is in the same
industrial sector. The business person would in effect get rid of
a competitor because he controls the capital and has the power to
decide whether the other business person who wants a loan will
survive or not. Such situations could occur in the future.
There is also the possibility of takeovers by foreign interests.
Under the provisions of this bill, what would prevent the Royal
Bank from being the target of a takeover bid? Why should we, in
Quebec, put up with the risk that a foreign investor could get
50% plus one of the shares of the National Bank, thus taking
control of that institution, moving its head office and its
decision making centre elsewhere, eliminating specialized jobs
and adversely affecting Quebec's economy? We are not prepared to
take such a risk and rather resent the situation.
This is why we are asking that there be no difference between
the treatment given to major Canadian banks and to our largest
bank in Quebec. If the percentage of voting shares that can be
held by a single individual is increased from 10% to 20% in the
case of major Canadian banks, the same change must be made for
Quebec's largest bank.
1320
Not only does it require an increase from 10% to 20%, as in the
case of large banks, but if an individual had 10% of the voting
shares and wanted to increase his share to 20%, he would be
subject to what the minister calls at page 56 of the bill, in
clauses 395 and 396, an “approval process”.
A set of criteria would determine whether the fact of increasing
one's holdings by ten percentage points met the following
criteria. I would add others, but I will begin by identifying
those that are there. I would also have some questions for the
Minister of Finance and his secretary of state on a provision
that strikes me as a bit odd. There are no doubt answers, as
the minister always has answers.
They are not always the right ones, but we will not go into
that.
The bill provides that any particular transaction aimed at, for
example, increasing by 10% the shares held by an individual
would be subject to a set of criteria. The minister identifies
eight of them. The first involves the minister considering:
That is right. That is reasonable. They cannot have anyone
holding shares do just anything and interrupt the continuing
business of the bank. They will also consider:
This applies to amalgamations, combinations and the like. Under
the third criterion, the minister would consider:
Other criteria are:
(d) the character and integrity of the applicant or applicants
or, if the applicant or any of the applicants is a body
corporate, its reputation for being operated in a manner that is
consistent with the standards of good character and integrity;
(e) whether the bank will be operated responsibly by persons
with the competence and experience suitable for involvement in
the operation of a financial institution;
That is quite right.
One must be very responsible, particularly with other people's
money. Let us not forget that these are our deposits in all the
major Canadian banks.
This is the clause that covers the particular case I mentioned
earlier. A business person buys the majority of shares in a
bank and refuses to make a loan to a competitor in his
industrial sector. The minister will take this into account.
There is nothing wrong with that.
(i) the nature and extent of the proposed financial services
activities to be carried out by the bank and its affiliates, and
(ii) the nature and degree of supervision and regulation
applying to the proposed financial services activities to be
carried out by the affiliates of the bank;
This is normal. They have to comply with certain rules. Rules
are made to be complied with. So even without this criterion,
should the superintendent decide that the applicant or
applicants are not complying with the rules, the Minister of
Finance will take this into account.
Finally, the same clause also includes the following provision:
We would like to see the Minister of Finance add other criteria
to the bill. We are going to move certain amendments to round
them out. As members know, Quebec is now a distinct society. We
are familiar with the historic words. The Prime Minister has
already admitted that Quebec is a distinct society. The fact of
the matter is that Quebec is indeed a distinct society
financially. It has jurisdictions and institutions to which it
is attached. The National Bank is an institution we wish to
keep, particularly for its contribution to the economic and
financial development of Quebec as a whole and of Montreal in
particular as an international financial centre.
Incidentally, Quebec's minister of finance, Mr. Landry, wrote a
letter to his federal counterpart on June 7 to express his
concerns about the new legislation and to ask for safeguards
regarding the public interest of Quebecers.
Four criteria should be added. That is not asking too much. We
know that with the very specialized and competent human resources
that are available in the House of Commons we can draft
provisions covering these four additional criteria, which would
apply strictly to Quebec, given the special nature of the
National Bank.
1325
First, Quebec's minister of finance is asking that we take into
account the changes that affect the banks' current operations,
including the services available in Quebec and in Canada, because
the minister does not mention the services available in his
criteria. Service to consumers does not seem to be his main
concern.
In proposing an increase in the percentage of the voting shares
of a Quebec or Canadian financial institution held by an
individual, the government should take into account the impact of
that change on the level of the portfolio.
The first additional criterion when the Minister of Finance
decides whether or not he will accept that a shareholder can
increase his share in a bank should be the impact of the change
on the bank's current operations, including available services.
The second criterion that the Minister of Finance should add to
the list that I mentioned earlier is the effect of the change on
employment.
That is important. Why is employment not considered in the
criteria proposed to us by the Minister of Finance in clause 396?
Does this mean that employment is not important for the
Liberals, for the Minister of Finance and for the Prime Minister?
Not important to them? Minister Landry and the Bloc Quebecois
are calling for an examination of the effects on employment of
this additional participation relating to voting shares, both at
headquarters and in the branches, including professional
positions and those requiring specialized expertise.
It is important to maintain these specialized resources if we
want to have financial strength for Quebec. These are not to be
found on every street corner.
The third criterion is the effect of change on the economy and
the technological development of Quebec. This too is important.
On the Canadian level, this does not even appear to be the object
of any specific criteria for the federal Minister of Finance.
This is scandalous.
Finally, the effect of change in the financial sector of Quebec
and the role of Montreal as a financial centre, particularly as
far as keeping final decision-making centred in Montreal is
concerned. These criteria must be maintained.
I wish to inform hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois will be
presenting amendments for this purpose at the report stage, in
order to ensure that this important bill is complete. With a bit
of good will from the other side, that could be accomplished. We
support this bill overall, but the three points to which I have
referred are so problematical that they will force us to vote
against it tomorrow morning.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I welcome you back for another continuation of this
session of parliament.
We are starting this leg of this session of parliament with a
very interesting bill before the House, Bill C-38. It is a bill
to make a number of changes to the financial institutions in our
country. It is a rather historic bill with some 900 pages. I
understand it is the most voluminous bill we have ever dealt with
in the history of this country, some 900 pages and the
consequential changes which affect about 4,000 pages of existing
legislation. In addition, there are many things in the bill that
are left as orders in council and guidelines.
I do not think there is anyone in the House who can pretend that
we have a good grasp of the overall impact of the bill. The
minister, if he says he does, is very unique because the
bureaucrats tell me that there is no one who has a total grasp of
all aspects of the bill, including all the experts.
There are many experts of course who have expertise in various
parts of the bill but no one can really tie it together in terms
of all the consequences.
1330
It is a very comprehensive bill. Where did it come from? In
1996 the government established a task force headed by Mr.
Baillie, replaced later on by Mr. MacKay of Regina, to look at
financial institutions and make recommendations to parliament and
to the Minister of Finance to reform and change our financial
institutions.
That task force went on from 1996 to 1998 at a cost of $3.5
million. It made a comprehensive and sweeping set of
recommendations to the Parliament of Canada. The finance
committee undertook hearings on the MacKay task force
recommendations in October, November and December 1998, if I
recall correctly. We also made our recommendations to parliament
and to the Minister of Finance.
The Department of Finance issued a paper in June 1999 in which
it made some comments and 57 recommendations arising out of the
report. In the year 2000 we finally have before the House this
very voluminous bill that makes all kinds of changes.
In a bill of this sort there are many positives and negatives.
Our party will be voting against it on second reading and will
continue to take that position unless a number of fairly sweeping
changes are made to the bill.
Before I get into some of the negatives, I want to say that
there are also a number of positives. The bill expands access to
the payment system in the country. The payment system is there
for the chartered banks. Bill C-38 will expand access to that
system, in particular to the insurance companies, some of the
brokerage houses and other financial institutions. We see this
as a positive step in terms of competition in the financial
industry. It is something that is supported by the insurance
industry and others as well.
Another positive aspect of the bill is the expanded powers for
our credit union movement. The credit union movement comes under
provincial jurisdiction today. The legislation would allow them
to have a national service entity where we could have easier
transactions made from province to province. A member of
parliament for example from Nova Scotia could go out to B.C. and
do his banking in a credit union more easily than now because
credit unions are currently regulated on a provincial basis and
not on a federal basis.
There is also some talk about the possible creation of a credit
union bank. This was a recommendation of the MacKay task force.
It is not in this legislation, primarily because there is no
consensus, as I understand it, in the credit union or
co-operative movement on whether or not it is the right way to
go. I think there is an openness in the House and in the
government to the idea of a national credit union bank if indeed
there is consensus evolving in the credit union movement and if
the minister nods his approval to that. That would come some
time in the weeks, months or years ahead. That is certainly a
good possibility.
Under the current legislation a credit union could own a bank.
For example, the Van City Credit Union could buy or operate a
bank but the bank would have to be a subsidiary of the credit
union and not owned directly by individual members of the credit
union. This gets us into some of the detailed debating we will
be having in the committee if the bill goes there in the next few
days.
We support the idea of a financial services ombudsman. When it
comes to the ombudsman it is a step in the right direction. We
now have an ombudsman funded by individual banks and therefore
there is a built-in conflict of interest in a real sense and in a
perceived sense. The new financial ombudsman would not be a
creation of the banks. It would have an independent board that
is not drawn from the federal government or the banks. It would
operate independently.
A concern I have about the ombudsman—and we will get to it in
committee as well—is that I do not think it has enough power to
enforce some of the findings that occur in terms of a levelling
of fines and sanctions on banking institutions that may violate
the rules and regulations pertaining to those institutions. We
will be looking at more details from the minister at committee
stage, but at least we have the establishment of a financial
service institution which is a positive step in the right
direction.
1335
Let me reminisce. In 1989 an old friend of mine, the then
member for Nickel Belt, John Rodriguez, introduced in the House a
private member's bill to establish an office of the financial
ombudsman or banking ombudsman that had sweeping powers to look
out for consumers and to impose fines and sanctions on financial
institutions that violated the rules and regulations. Some
progress has been made, but hopefully we can strengthen it at
committee stage.
Part of the bill that is going in a positive direction is some
of the consumer protection agencies. They are very timid in my
opinion. We now have the possibility of a lifeline account where
some four to twelve transactions in a bank account are free of
charge. If I understand correctly, it also says that no one can
be denied a bank account as long as he or she has two pieces of
identification and as long as there is no fraud. One cannot be
denied a bank account whether the person is poor, unemployed or
whatever. A lot of people now have difficulty establishing a
bank account.
This is very vague in terms of what is actually in the
legislation and of the details for individual banks. My
understanding is that there will be negotiations between the new
consumer agency and individual banks. There will be a memorandum
of standing, an MOU, signed with each individual bank which might
differ from bank to bank or financial institution to financial
institution in terms of their obligations. The minister
confirmed that as well. We want to scrutinize that carefully to
make sure we can maybe strengthen it on behalf of consumers.
Another positive aspect in the legislation is something for
which we have lobbied for a long time. It does not expand the
power of banks to get into auto leasing or the sale of insurance.
Members will recall a lobby a couple of years ago when this idea
was floated, particularly by the MacKay report when it
recommended that banks be allowed to sell insurance and get into
the auto leasing business. There was quite a lobby in the
country and we were all contacted. The influence of that lobby
has paid off and that provision is not in the legislation today.
That is a very positive step.
Those are some of the positive aspects of the bill. Some are
not as strong as we had hoped, but at least they are steps in the
right direction.
I come to some of the concerns. My major concern is the
changing of the wide ownership rule. I am afraid this opens the
door to more concentration of who owns the banking institutions
and to foreign control and influence in our banking institutions.
This has been a debate in cabinet. I would like to make sure
that Canadians know this fairly radical change is being
suggested.
Under the current legislation nobody can own more than 10% of
the banking shares in any bank. All a wealthy individual can buy
is 10% of the Royal Bank or 10% of the Bank of Montreal. This
rule was brought in to parliament in the mid-1960s by the Pearson
government when the Chase Manhattan Bank was in the process of
trying to buy the Toronto-Dominion Bank. There was great concern
about losing our financial institutions so the House of Commons
brought in the 10% and 25% rule. No individual could have more
than 10% of the shares in any bank and foreigners, put together,
could not have more than 25% of the shares of a bank. The 25%
rule went by the way with the signing of the free trade agreement
with the United States. That has been gone now for a few years.
Today the 10% rule still applies. The government will raise the
10% to 20% for voting shares and the 10% to 30% for non-voting
shares, opening the door for more concentration in the banking
industry and for more billionaires or wealthy banks in the United
States to buy huge chunks of Canadian banks and therefore have
control over the Canadian banking industry. I do not think that
is the way the Canadian people want to go.
Canadians are already concerned that we have given away too much
of our national sovereignty. We have sold out too much of our
country. We have erased too much of the border. I think
Canadians are saying that we should not get rid of the 10% rule
and should make sure Canadian banking institutions remain in the
hands of Canadians and regulated by the Parliament of Canada on
behalf of the Canadian people. I think that is the way we ought
to go.
1340
People are saying maybe we need this kind of change to compete
in the world. Our banks are actually pretty large on the world
scale. We have some of the largest banks in the world today,
ranking 15th, 16th or 20th in terms of size. If our banks need
to be bigger to compete in the world, for economy of scale, they
could form a consortium. They would still have the same effect
and efficiencies as if we were to change the rule in terms of
amalgamating with other banks and ownership changes. We could
do the same by consortium.
Another point I am concerned about is the ownership rule. The
government has decided to categorize banks into three different
categories: large, medium and small.
An hon. member: Good idea.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: It may be a good idea, but I have
some questions about the rules pertaining to each of these three.
A large bank is any bank with equity over $5 billion. That
includes the big five Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank, TD Bank,
Scotiabank and CIBC.
Then there is a mid-size bank with equity between $1 billion and
$5 billion. My friend from the Bloc Quebecois was referring to
this. That includes la Banque Nationale which is a fairly large
bank based in the province of Quebec, the Banque Laurentienne and
the Bank of Western Canada. The wide ownership rule does not
apply to them. For them, only 35% of the equity or voting shares
have to be widely held. In other words, an individual could
purchase 65% of the shares of la Banque Nationale, the Banque
Laurentienne or the Bank of Western Canada. That is a real
concern in the province of Quebec and elsewhere. Why would we
have different rules apply to these banks which are a bit smaller
than those which apply to the Royal Bank, CIBC and Bank of
Montreal?
The Chase Manhattan Bank or Citibank of New York could buy la
Banque Nationale just like that. The headquarters would go out
of Quebec and Canada and we would lose an important part of our
banking industry. Why has the minister decided to have different
rules and regulations for mid-size banks compared with big banks?
Why can the minister himself change the rules? Why is
parliament not supreme in changing those kinds of rules?
There is also a third category of bank called the small banks.
They are banks with equity of under $1 billion. There are no
restrictions at all on the ownership of small banks. The hon.
member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys could start a
bank. It could go up to $1 billion with no restriction on
ownership. He could give it away as a gift to one of his friends
in Finland or wherever he wants. There are no rules or
restrictions at all. We could have the bank of Tim Hortons
across the country. There could be the bank of Safeway or Loblaws. The
bank of Tim Hortons could be the biggest bank if it keeps on
going the way it is.
There are no rules or regulations. It is totally unrestricted
with regard to ownership. We are asking why there is this great
change and this great difference between small, medium and large
banks. This is of particular interest in the province of Quebec
with la Banque Nationale.
Outside the wide ownership rule a second concern I have with the
legislation as written is that far too much power is being given
to the Minister of Finance. I see the parliamentary secretary
across the way shaking his head. We have seen a disturbing trend
for the last 20 or 30 years. More and more power is taken from
the Parliament of Canada which represents the people of the
country and put in the hands of the Minister of Finance, other
ministers and in effect in many cases in the hands of senior
bureaucrats. The parliamentary secretary can confirm that the
Minister of Finance can change some of these ownership rules with
the stroke of a pen without going back to parliament.
In effect the minister has become a banking czar who can
determine many things such as whether or not, for example, a
merger will go ahead. In the legislation there is now a process
for mergers, but it is only a process for mergers.
1345
It is the minister himself or herself, whoever that minister may
be, who will make a decision about mergers in the future, whether
it is a good merger or a bad merger, according to the process
that is set in place. Why should that not be parliament? Why
should it not be the finance committee that recommends to
parliament whether or not a merger is good or bad for the people
of this country? Why not democratize this institution and make
meaningful the role of a member of parliament elected by the
people? Yet, this power is concentrated in the hands of the
Minister of Finance concerning mergers, acquisitions, ownership
rules and many other things. In this bill of 900 pages, the
power is with the new banking czar, the Minister of Finance.
Some Liberals across the way say that we have a very competent
Minister of Finance. Even if we concede that, and that is very
questionable because no human being should have that power, he
will not be the Minister of Finance for much longer. There will
soon be somebody else.
Do we want to give this kind of power to the member for Wild
Rose, for example, if he becomes Minister of Finance, or to the
member for Brandon—Souris if he becomes the Minister of Finance?
That is what is written in the legislation. This bill is saying
to hand power over to the Minister of Finance to make important
decisions over mergers, acquisitions, ownership rules,
regulations and so on.
Even when it comes to the banking ombudsman, the guidelines are
not written. There have been memoranda of understanding. There
will be all kinds of rules and regulations that are still being
debated and decided by the Minister of Finance and sometimes not
even recommended by the cabinet of this country.
We are going in the wrong direction in terms of the lack of
power in the House of Commons and about authority being taken out
of the House of Commons and transferred to the Minister of
Finance and transferred to bureaucrats, however competent they
may be. That power should be here in the House because we are
responsible to the people and we are accountable every three,
four or five years to the people in our ridings. That is where
the power should reside.
I mentioned the consumer agencies. I think that in principle
many of these agencies are going in the right direction. I do not
think they have enough power or legislative clout to adequately
protect consumers. Many of the rules and regulations are still
being decided in terms of guidelines and the memorandum of
understanding.
I referred already to mergers to a certain extent. We have in
the bill the guidelines and the process as to what must happen
when a merger occurs. These guidelines are common sense
guidelines in terms of a public debate. We need a process where
the details are revealed as to why the parties want to merge and
the like. It is the Minister of Finance who has the power. It
would be similar to what happened in 1998-99 when the TD and the
CIBC wanted to merge and when the Royal Bank and the Bank of
Montreal wanted to merge. It was the Minister of Finance after
pressure from the public, instigated primarily by our party and
our friends on the progressive side of the Canadian population,
who started to make this an issue across the country.
In my last minute, there is nothing here to establish a
community reinvestment act. There is nothing here that will
prevent bank branch closures except the notice in the cities of
four months or a notice in the rural areas of six months, but
there is no empowerment of the community that would prevent a
closure if that bank branch were profitable, so again it is a
Mickey Mouse approach.
The final point is that there is nothing here in terms of taxes
on banks. We all heard the news a while back where the Minister
of Finance, because of current changes in the tax system based on
1999 profit levels, was giving the banks an extra tax cut of $500
million a year. These are the most profitable companies in the
country and yet they are getting big tax cuts.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a comment concerning Bill C-38. First, let me congratulate
the minister as well as his department on introducing legislation
which will ensure competition as well as choice for consumers of
financial services in Canada.
My point focuses on some of the comments made by the minister
which now exist in the proposal dealing with MacKay task force
recommendation 22.
1350
The MacKay task force stated that further legislation should
permit co-operative banks and other financial institutions to be
chartered as new institutions with ownership and governance to be
based on co-operative principles, subject to compliance with
applicable provincial legislation. Provincial credit union and
credit union centrals should be able to continue as co-operative
banks under the Bank Act.
The House committee on finance as well as the Senate banking
committee have both agreed with the task force recommendations. I
understand that the bill already provides some additional
flexibility as well as scope for the credit unions. I was quite
encouraged to hear the minister stating that the Department of
Finance is committed to continuing to work with the credit unions
and co-operatives, so they can pursue more the co-operative bank
model.
I look forward to working with the minister and the finance
committee to see that the co-operative movement gets involved
with this legislation as it passes through the legislative
process. It is my hope that they will take into consideration
their comments and their input.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I missed
the last comment of the member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon.
colleague who as usual gave a very profound address in terms of
the nature of this omnibus legislation. He pointed out the
reasons why we are concerned about a number of features, one
which makes the Minister of Finance virtually a banking and
financial czar of the country. As capable as he may be, this
obviously causes Canadians some concern.
I have a question for the member. A number of American states
have legislation that would require a bank that takes in deposits
from a particular region to reinvest in that particular zone. In
other words, if we take money from a particular region or
community, we are obligated to write loans to benefit the
businesses or people of the particular area. It is called the
community reinvestment act.
I know my friend across the way is aware of the act. It is
something we have been pushing for. The member mentioned in his
presentation that it is absent from this legislation. Can he see
any reason why it is absent? If not, is it something that the
government ought to consider amending or perhaps we can assist by
presenting an amendment later in the process ourselves?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, rest assured there will
be an amendment for a community reinvestment act. There is no
reason why we could not do what a number of American states are
doing and require a bank to invest a certain amount of their
portfolio in the region or the state or the area from where they
get their funds from the ordinary people, which would lead to
economic development in the particular area. It is called the
community reinvestment act.
I do not know why it has not been done before. Maybe it is
because the banks are big contributors to the Liberal Party. They
are putting a lot of money into its campaign fund. I also notice
that it is not just the Liberal Party any more. I noticed that
the new leader of the Alliance, that Fred Flintstone on
rollerblades, is having a fundraiser in Toronto very soon. They
are charging $25,000 a table. Those tables will be bought by
wealthy bankers, wealthy business executives and CEOs. That
shows that the Reform Party, now the Alliance, has lost touch
with its grassroots.
It is for those reasons that we do not have a community
reinvestment act. The bankers contribute to the funds of the
Liberal Party, and now the Alliance Party. They try to govern in
the interests of the big bankers and the wealthy in this country.
Imagine that, $25,000 a table. I can hardly believe what I read
this morning in the Globe and Mail.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I know you were paying attention to my colleague's remarks, but I
think he erred when he said that the Canadian Alliance was
actually having a fundraiser where people were paying $2,500 for
a table. Surely he must be wrong.
Some hon. members: Twenty-five thousand.
1355
The Speaker: Order, please. What we will do is have
statements by members as there is only a minute left. When the
hon. member reviews Hansard he will see what was truly
said. I think I have ruled on the point of order.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
JOURNALIST MICHEL AUGER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
journalist Michel Auger of the Journal de Montréal and the
Journal de Québec was attacked last Thursday. Immediately
expressions of sympathy poured out across Canada in reaction to
the horror of this attempted murder of an honest worker concerned
with keeping the public properly informed.
Michel Auger was the victim of an act that makes no sense in a
democratic society where the public has a right to information,
where law prevails in fact.
My remarks are directed primarily at Mr. Auger to let him know
of our support and our hope for his speedy recovery.
We wish you a quick recovery, Mr. Auger, in the assurance that
you will be able to return to the job that you love and do with
such love, professionalism and diligence.
The Canadian public hopes you may recover your health quickly.
Your colleagues have continued to express their support for you
since the attempt took place. You must no doubt find this very
moving.
In our own way, we in parliament offer the same support. We
wish you back among us very soon.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in June of this year the government
passed Bill C-34, the new grain transportation legislation.
Since it came into effect on August 1 our grain transportation
system has begun to crumble. Rail cars are not being delivered
promptly because the Canadian Wheat Board continues to control
and dictate to farmers and companies where the rail cars will be
delivered. This is costing farmers money as they incur increased
storage costs and are trucking their grain further distances.
As part of the new legislation, the Canadian Wheat Board is to
tender 25% of its annual capacity. The wheat board put out its
initial tender asking for 250,000 tonnes of grain. It received
contracts for only 7% of their proposal. This tendering system
is not working because the wheat board has too much control over
grain transportation. Tendering agreements will only work if
there is a completely commercial and contract based system.
The government is completely responsible for the loss of $300
million to farmers because of this flawed transportation system.
Farmers have lost $300 million and something needs to be done
right now.
* * *
BATTLE OF BRITAIN
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the 60th
anniversary of the Battle of Britain, three months that now
military strategists and historians have defined as one of the
most important turning points in the second world war.
Yesterday at the Air Force Association of Canada's anniversary
ceremony here in Ottawa, my father-in-law, Peter O'Brian,
provided his observations based on his role as a Spitfire pilot
serving with the Royal Canadian Air Force. He was among many
Canadians who heroically helped fight this vital victory for
freedom.
During World War II, Winston Churchill's valiant and
inspirational speeches brought people together to fight a common
cause. It was 60 years ago that during the Battle of Britain,
Churchill left a moving motto for humanity “to value freedom far
above their lives”. In Churchill's words “Never in the field
of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”.
The 60th anniversary provides an opportunity to thank the 99
Canadian pilots who took part in this historic air defensive and
particular the less than a dozen who are still with us again—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNALIST MICHEL AUGER
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am certain I speak for my colleagues from all the parties in the
House in expressing my revulsion at the attempt against
journalist Michel Auger of the Journal de Montréal, which
nearly cost him his life.
Of the most basic individual rights in a society, we defend
zealously the freedoms of expression and of opinion guaranteed by
the charters of rights of both Canada and Quebec.
1400
[English]
No society can function freely when random violence and threats
to human life interfere with our most cherished human freedoms,
especially the freedom of expression.
[Translation]
We congratulate Mr. Auger on his great courage in the face of
the threats he has received over the years and wish him a speedy
and full recovery.
* * *
[English]
ERIC LAMAZE
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the story of Eric Lamaze is a story of success and
accomplishment rather than failure. His first exposure to
cocaine was as a fetus. His mother was a cocaine addict and he
was effectively a street kid from the beginning of his life. He
has no father; his mother does not even know who his father is.
While there have been a few bumps in the road, through
determination and hard work Eric Lamaze has overcome his
disability. All the medical experts agree that his success is a
miracle.
There were catastrophic circumstances surrounding his latest
infraction which was put before an independent adjudicator,
Professor Ratushny. No party at the hearing disputed the
catastrophic circumstances surrounding the infraction. No party
disputed the overwhelming medical evidence. The legal process ran
its course and Professor Ratushny has agreed on the basis of all
the evidence that Mr. Lamaze was not responsible for the
catastrophic circumstances that led to his latest infraction. It
is therefore no surprise that Professor Ratushny has reinstated
Mr. Lamaze effective immediately without conditions.
I call upon the Canadian olympic—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
* * *
SIMON WHITFIELD
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I stand to salute a proud young Canadian.
With incredible determination and stamina, Simon Whitfield won
Canada's first gold medal in the 2000 Olympics in Australia and
the first ever Olympic medal in triathlon.
Only 25 years of age and ranked 13th in the world, Simon swam
1.5 kilometres, biked 40 kilometres and ran 10 kilometres to win
Olympic gold. He was in 28th place after the swim, 27th after
biking and 1st at the finish line. I was awestruck as I watched
him turn the final corner and unleash incredible energy to sprint
past his opponent as the finish line came into sight.
The only thing greater than the energy he found to sprint into
first place was his love for Canada. Simon was overcome with
emotion as our national anthem was played and our flag was raised
to the top in his honour.
On behalf of all Canadians, I salute a great young athlete.
Simon, we are all very proud of you.
* * *
TORONTO GARBAGE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is a move afoot to ship Toronto's garbage to the Adams mine in
Kirkland Lake. This concerns me greatly, not only because the
mine and I share a name.
Even if the mine is watertight, which it is not, this is no
solution for urban garbage. The only way to deal with garbage is
to reduce, reuse and recycle it. Dumping garbage is like
scratching a festering sore; it makes the problem worse. Putting
garbage out of sight and out of mind makes the real problem, the
production of garbage, even more difficult to deal with. In this
case the extraordinary cost of shipping garbage to northern
Ontario makes things worse.
I urge Toronto and the government of Ontario to reconsider this
decision at least until metro becomes a national and
international leader in recycling.
* * *
[Translation]
JOURNALIST JEAN V. DUFRESNE
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the
death of Jean V. Dufresne, Quebec has just lost one of its
greatest journalists after a remarkable 45 year professional
career with several newspapers, as well as on radio and
television.
Once Jean V. Dufresne had carried out a careful investigation
and checked his facts, he provided his readers with articles
written in a finely honed language, always beautifully expressed,
in a French of as fine a quality as it is possible to have.
He was self-taught, with a passion fuelled by his great
curiosity, which gave him a very broad knowledge in a great
variety of areas. When another journalistic great, René
Lévesque, was at the start of his political career in 1960, he
recognized Dufresne's talent and sought him out as his private
secretary.
It did not take Jean V. Dufresne long, however, to return to
journalism and to his cherished freedom. What was most important
to him was to serve the public, and the means he chose was the
essential democratic function of understanding and passing on
that understanding, of informing people.
My sincere condolences to his family and friends.
* * *
[English]
COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 16, 2000 I wrote to Hon. André Ouellet, P.C.,
Q.C. to request that Canada Post create a stamp in recognition of
the Armenian community's 1,700th anniversary of Christianity as a
state religion.
I am proud to inform the House that Canada Post has officially
announced that the stamp will be issued in 2001 to mark this
important milestone in the history of the Canadian Armenian
community.
1405
Canada is the first country to issue such a stamp highlighting
our government's commitment to inclusiveness and
multiculturalism.
I thank the many ministers, members of parliament and members of
the Canadian Armenian community who expressed their support for
this stamp initiative by writing to me and to Canada Post. The
beautiful stamp illustrating traditional Armenian religious art
will be enjoyed by everyone around the world.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today is day 47. On August 3, Air
Canada CEO Robert Milton made a 180 day commitment to improve
customer satisfaction as a result of his chaotic merger with
Canadian Airlines. He certainly has his work cut out for him.
For air travellers this has been a summer of discontent plagued
by repeated cancellations, numerous delays, lost luggage, a
reduction in service and a threatened pilots strike. Even the
transport minister and his luggage arrived at different
destinations.
It takes more than a glossy public relations campaign to fix
what is wrong with Canada's airline industry. While the Canadian
Alliance encourages Mr. Milton's initiatives, we are steadfast in
our commitment to competition and fair business practices. On
that note, I encourage the Competition Bureau to resolve the
allegations of predatory pricing and unfair competition against
Air Canada.
I call on the transport committee to invite Mr. Milton to appear
at the end of his 180 day campaign to present his progress to
Canadians through their elective representatives. Then Canadians
can present their verdict.
* * *
2000 OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
together with all residents of my riding of Oak Ridges I want to
wish all our athletes at the Olympic Games in Sydney good luck
and best wishes for success.
I know that these members of our Olympic team will represent
Canada and their hometowns with pride: Garret Pulle of Markham in
the 4x100 metre freestyle; Rob Rusnov of Richmond Hill in
archery; Carl Georgevski, an assistant coach in athletics; Tammy
Sutton-Brown of Markham in basketball; John Pearce of Stouffville
in the equestrian events of team and individual jumping, backed
up by the efforts of Donna Peacock, a groom from Stouffville;
Mathieu Turgeon of Unionville on the trampoline; and Colleen
Smith of Markham in softball. I know they will be aiming for
personal bests and giving their best efforts in the first
games of the new millennium.
Australian athletes are certainly benefiting from performing in
front of their home crowds. I hope we can look forward to the
same benefit if Toronto succeeds in hosting the 2008 Olympic
Games.
* * *
FUEL COSTS
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, winter is
coming and soaring fuel costs mean that Canadians spend more
money on energy and transportation than on food and clothing
combined. In northern Canada one community has been forced to
lay off staff in order to pay for heating fuel. Transportation
has always been expensive in the north but with rising fuel costs
it will become impossible.
The Liberal government no longer regulates energy prices or even
monitors gasoline prices. This allows unaccountable oil
companies to set prices with no concern for the hardship they
inflict. In an emergency resolution, the NDP federal council
called on the Government of Canada to ensure that the cost of
home heating, transportation and electricity remain affordable
for all Canadians.
I would like to take a moment to welcome a page from the Yukon,
Jamie Furniss. His mom phoned and asked us to welcome him.
* * *
[Translation]
SYDNEY OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Sydney Games are in full swing and the Canadian
delegation has already made its presence felt.
We have seen the magnificent win by Simon Whitfield, the
first-ever gold medal winner in the men's triathlon, and the
performance of swimmer Curtis Myden, who won the bronze in the
400 metre individual medley.
The young people on our delegation have sacrificed years out of
their lives to earn the honour of representing Canada in this
landmark event.
We wish them the best of luck and thank them for all of the
efforts and sacrifices that have brought them so far.
Thanks are also owing to those who have been behind them
throughout their careers—their coaches, their parents, and
their friends. Their contribution also deserves recognition.
Good luck to all our wonderful Canadian athletes. We are
anxiously awaiting their return home.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the escalation of violence is a sign of the
powerlessness of the police to do anything about organized crime,
which is growing faster than our efforts to come up with a means
of stamping it out. This is why, for years now, the Bloc
Quebecois has been calling for real anti-gang legislation which
would give the police the tools they need to combat this form of
crime.
On September 14, the Bloc Quebecois accordingly gave notice of a
motion calling on the federal government to introduce anti-gang
legislation before October 6, 2000.
1410
We believe that the House must make it very clear that it does
not intend to yield to criminal groups' attempts at intimidation.
Members of the House must join forces, stand firm against the
actions of members of organized crime and demand that the federal
government amend the legislation immediately.
* * *
[English]
WHARVES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, last year
when the Liberal government decided to divest itself of the Digby
wharf, the PC Party expressed concern that local stakeholders
would no longer have any input in the management of their
wharves.
Already our fears have come true. Since the federal government
transferred responsibility of the wharf to the Maritime Harbours
Society, docking fees have increased significantly and services
such as garbage removal and water delivery appear to have been
eliminated.
The federal government has given Maritime Harbours Society, a
supposedly non-profit organization, over $3 million to operate
the wharf yet our local fishermen are refused entry into the
society.
If the purpose of the divestiture was to give local communities
greater input into the future of their wharves, the Digby
experience shows it was a complete and utter failure. Wharves
are the lifelines of all coastal communities.
By failing to recognize their importance the Liberal government
puts at risk the livelihoods of all Atlantic Canadians, a
prospect I refuse to accept.
* * *
THE LATE MEL SMITH
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the late Mel Smith served as constitutional adviser to the
government of British Columbia through a number of different
premiers.
B.C. constitutional positions included the notion of the
province as a distinct society, a constitutional idea accepted
and confirmed by the present federal government in a joint
resolution of both Houses of parliament recognizing B.C. as a
fifth region within the federal constitution.
His book Our Home or Native Land? aroused lively debate as
to the constitutional status of aboriginal land claims and the
Nisga'a treaty in particular. The federal government expressly
provided in the federal legislation enacting the Nisga'a treaty
that it is legally subject to the constitution and the charter of
rights.
* * *
STOCKWELL DAY
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a new day in Canada. There is a new guy in town
and his name is Stockwell Day.
He is the conductor of the new Canadian Alliance political train
that is sweeping across the country picking up passengers from
all parts of Canada and from all walks of life. His destination
is the House of Commons. He is bringing with him a new agenda,
an agenda of respect for the House of Commons, for tax dollars
and for all Canadians.
Stockwell Day is a truly national leader with a genuine national
vision, a proven policy track record and a love for Canada.
Canadians young and old are looking for change, hope and a new
political home. They are finding it in the Canadian Alliance.
It is too bad the government has been derailed by its old style
Liberal politics, its old style Liberal governing and its old
style of Liberal leadership. In other words, the old Liberal
Party is parked on a siding and the new Canadian Alliance Party
is picking up speed.
On behalf of all Canadians and the House of Commons, we welcome
the new Alliance leader. He is ready to govern. He is ready to
go. He is the new Leader of the Opposition and the next prime
minister of Canada, Stockwell Day.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
GASOLINE TAXES
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are excited to have our new leader
in the gallery today, but we are more thrilled that he will be on
the floor of the House of Commons tomorrow.
Since he was the Alberta treasurer our new leader has been
asking the finance minister to cut gas taxes. We are headlong
into a fuel crisis now and the government is still inflating the
price at the pumps.
Why has the Prime Minister not cut the gas tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to thank the member from Pickering
who raised this subject a lot sooner than any member of the
Alliance or Reform.
We have made it very clear that if there is going to be a cut in
gas taxes it must go into the pockets of Canadians, not into the
pockets of oil companies. That means the size of that cut must be
substantial which will require federal-provincial co-operation.
I have said that we are quite prepared to sit down with the
provinces at any time to see if this is where their priority
lies.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I bet the member from Pickering does
not like that in his pocket. In the finance minister's 1995
budget he upped the gas tax by a cent and a half every litre. He
said he did that to help reduce the deficit. The deficit has been
gone for two years now but the tax is not.
Canadians are worried about their heating fuel and filling up
their cars and truckers are threatening to strike, but the
government keeps on taxing and coming up with excuses.
Why did the finance minister not keep his word?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out that we have
eliminated the deficit. That has certainly changed a great deal
of the particular debate.
I would also like to point out for the hon. member that we have
cut taxes substantially. If you take a look, Mr. Speaker, we as
the federal government have cut taxes more for Albertans than has
the Alberta government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in fact people from coast to coast
are not taking any heart from this finance minister when they are
filling up their gas tanks.
This Thursday the official opposition will put forward a supply
day motion which will call for lower gas taxes. The government
charges GST on its own tax on gas. We want that to stop. The
government upped the gas tax to lower the deficit. We want it
lowered again. These are common sense ways to bring relief to
Canadians.
Will the Prime Minister allow a free vote by all his members on
our motion? Yes or no.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it very clear that we are going to cut
taxes, that cutting personal income taxes is our priority. We
have dealt with the issue of gas taxes.
Let me be very clear. There is a lot of pain out there for
people who are paying for home heating fuel, for people who are
paying for gas at the pump. The real problem is that oil prices
are too high and it is going to take international concentration
to make sure that we get those taxes down.
That is one of the things we will be discussing at the G-7
meeting in Prague. It is one of the reasons all of the finance
ministers will be coming together to make sure that we have two
things: lower oil prices but at the same time sustainable energy
prices so that the oil companies and those—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister said that he has dealt with the
tax on gas. He has done that by raising the excise tax by a cent
and a half supposedly to eliminate the deficit which is gone. He
has done it by soaking gas consumers with the GST tax on tax.
The Liberals had a committee in 1998 which said the government
should stop the double taxation on gasoline. Even its own
members do not want to charge tax on tax through the GST.
In the middle of a gas crisis, why does the finance minister
continue to impose double taxation on consumers at the pump?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing I would like to do is congratulate the
member for Calgary Southeast on his appointment as finance
critic. I would also like to congratulate the former finance
critic, the member for Medicine Hat, on his promotion.
1420
Let me simply say that the issue of GST on gasoline taxes, an
issue that the hon. member from Pickering has been raising for
quite some time, is obviously something that the government will
look at. For the hon. member to raise the whole issue of the
GST, given what happened two or three weeks ago and the confusion
that seemed to reign in Jurassic Park—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Medicine Hat is
pleased with that and the fact that his appointment as critic has
scared off the foreign affairs minister.
For this minister to raise the GST is really something special.
This is from the government that was going to scrap, kill and
abolish the GST. This is the same government that told us in a
report that it would “consider removing the GST from other taxes
and apply it only to the wholesale price for gasoline in the
retailer margin”. That is what the liberal caucus report said
two years ago. There has been no action on that to this date.
Why will the Prime Minister not allow a free vote so his members
can represent their constituents when we bring forward a motion
to end the double taxation of gasoline later this week?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one must wonder about the crocodile tears being raised
by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. The fact is that his
party has brought forth a flat tax that would provide somebody
earning $1 million a year with a $130,000 tax cut compared with
$1,400 for somebody making $40,000.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the public is fed up with seeing criminal gangs call the shots in
Quebec and in Canada.
Is it not our duty as parliamentarians to take control of the
situation, to react, to make the public feel more secure, in
short to assume our responsibilities?
Will the Prime Minister pledge today to give his full attention
to this issue and to draft real anti-gang legislation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have shown in the past and we continue to show that we are
very concerned about this issue. This is why the Minister of
Justice and the solicitor general met last week with their
provincial and territorial counterparts to move ahead on this
matter.
I should point out to the hon. member that, in 1997, the
Minister of Justice proposed measures regarding this issue which
were supported by the Bloc Quebecois. At the time, the Minister
of Justice was congratulated by the Quebec government and he
enjoyed the support of editorial writers in Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we did support Bill C-95. It is obvious that this legislation is
inadequate as a response to the needs and the situation that
confronts us.
This week, a federal report revealed that jury members, lawyers,
police officers and even parliamentarians are being threatened.
Will the government realize that we currently do not have all
the necessary means at our disposal to fight organized crime?
Will the Prime Minister assume his responsibilities and say
“Enough is enough. Our society will not be controlled by
criminal gangs. We will react with adequate tools and we will use
all available means”? Will the Prime Minister assume his
responsibilities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will realize that we significantly increased
resources at the department of the Solicitor General to allow the
RCMP to do its job properly.
A problem of this nature is not just a federal responsibility
since the administration of justice within the provinces is the
responsibility of the provincial governments, which must also
take the necessary measures to ensure that the police can do its
job effectively under the circumstances.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in Quebec the issue of organized crime is one of great concern.
It should be of similar concern to the government opposite.
As my party leader has said, a federal report shows beyond a
shadow of a doubt that judges, juries, lawyers, crown counsel,
even elected officials, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada,
are increasingly being intimidated. The whole offensive deployed
against organized crime ends, more often than not, in proceedings
being dropped or in an acquittal.
Does the Prime Minister not see this as an indication that the
weapons we have at our disposal are woefully inadequate and that
anti-gang legislation is required?
1425
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon.
member, everyone in the House and all Canadians that this
government takes organized crime very seriously. That is why
organized crime is the number one law enforcement priority of
this government.
My colleague and I, the solicitor general, have instructed our
deputy ministers to travel to Quebec tomorrow to meet with Quebec
officials. We will be working with other provincial and
territorial colleagues. If we need new laws in this country to
break the back of organized crime, we will have those new laws.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
for the past five years the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for
legislation to fight organized crime effectively.
In 1995, there were 28 organized motorcycle gangs in Canada.
Today there are 35. Something is amiss on the other side of the
House.
Will the Prime Minister act like a real head of government,
assume his responsibilities and ask the House to debate, vote on
and pass anti-gang legislation?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that this
government has taken the threat of organized crime very
seriously. Since 1994 we have been working with the provinces,
the territories and law enforcement agencies all over the country
to make sure that we have the right laws in place.
Let me assure the hon. members of the opposition that if we need
new laws we will get new laws.
Let us look at law enforcement and what we need to do in terms
of making sure the police have the tools and the resources
necessary to fight organized crime. That is why my colleague,
the solicitor general, has been so successful in getting more
finances for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other law
enforcement agencies to fight organized crime.
* * *
DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In Canada today we spend more money on drugs than we do on
doctors. For seven straight years the federal Liberal government
has been promising to bring in a drug plan and promising to do
something to drive down the cost of prescription drugs.
My question for the Prime Minister is very simple: Where is the
drug plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Monday, exactly a week ago, the Prime Minister, all
the premiers and the leaders of the territories managed to have
an historic accord on health. In this accord the provincial
governments and the federal government have agreed on a plan to
deal with all the elements of the health of Canadians.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
only premiers who got exactly what they wanted were Klein, Harris
and Bouchard, and the Prime Minister knows it.
Today there are seniors everywhere who are being forced to
choose between the prescription drugs they need and the groceries
they require. What do the Liberals do? They applaud. One out
of ten patients in this country cannot afford to pay for his or
her prescription drugs. What do the Liberals do? They applaud
again.
I ask the Prime Minister, again, where is the drug plan?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the elements that was agreed to among all governments in
the health action plan was that we would work together to solve
some of the problems the member referred to.
Let us look at the NDP's position on health. In the 1997
election it said it wanted to move the cash floor and the
transfers for health purposes to $15 billion. We have now
undertaken, under the plan, to move it to $21 billion. The NDP
said it wanted to add $7 billion to the transfer for health care.
We have now added five times that much. It wanted to add $2.5
billion—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
FUEL COSTS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
could be faced with one of the coldest winters on record, made
worse because of the skyrocketing price of heating their homes.
Senior citizens and the less fortunate in our country will be hit
the hardest by their heating costs.
Will the Prime Minister help low income families and the seniors
of this nation by immediately cutting the GST on home heating
fuel?
1430
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that higher oil prices are causing
great pain and that governments at both levels, federal and
provincial, have to deal with it. However, let us understand
where the problem lies.
The problem lies not in the gas prices themselves, which have
not gone up, but in the fact of these very high oil prices. That is
what we as a government and other governments around the world
have to deal with. It makes no sense to have a small cut, which
would occur if only one level of government acted alone, because
it would simply disappear into the pumps or into the profits of
the oil companies. It would not benefit those people—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like us to deal with what we can deal with in the House. I would
like the government to deal with that.
Canadian truckers have seen a 40% increase in the cost of diesel
fuel and are facing difficult decisions about keeping their rigs
on the road. We must think about the effect on our economy if
those trucks do not deliver.
The Minister of Finance keeps saying that he has to talk to the
provinces. He never talked to the provinces when he raised the
taxes, so why talk to the provinces when he has to lower them?
Will the minister commit right here and now to cut in half
the excise tax on diesel fuel?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, surely the hon. member knows of the presence of the GST
tax credit. Surely the hon. member knows that in our last budget
we indexed all the benefits and that these accrue directly to
senior citizens.
At the same time, surely the hon. member knows that the last
time her leader was in government he raised the excise tax six
times. It was also his government that introduced the tax on
diesel fuel.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, back on March 5, 1998 in the Edmonton Journal,
the justice minister promised to protect prosecutors, prison
guards and police officers reportedly intimidated by members of
outlaw biker gangs. This promise was as empty as her 1997 promise
to make the Young Offenders Act a priority.
In light of the horrific incident involving crime reporter
Michel Auger, why has the minister done nothing about the bloody
turf war in Quebec and many other parts of the country?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have already made clear,
since 1994 organized crime and fighting organized crime has been
a priority of the government.
As the hon. member should know, and I look forward to hearing
his views on it, we issued a consultation paper just a few months
ago in terms of the intimidation of key actors in the justice
system.
What I find interesting is that nobody, as far as I know, from
the official opposition has bothered to comment on that paper.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I do not hear much consolation for Mr. Auger.
I have heard the minister say “since 1994”. It is now 2000
and nothing is happening. “If we have a need for legislation”
she says “then we will have legislation”. One hundred and
fifty people have died as a result of gang wars in Quebec alone.
Organized crime is threatening the economic and social stability
of the country.
No more promises. It is time for action. After six years, can
the justice minister explain to me why there is no plan to deal
with this deadly problem?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only is there a plan,
there is a plan that federal, provincial and territorial
ministers agreed to last year and reiterated their commitment to
just last week when we met at Iqaluit.
The hon. member wants to know what we are doing. Well I guess
since 1994 he has been asleep. He has missed the anti-smuggling
initiative. He has missed the witness protection program. He
has missed Bill C-17. He has missed integrated proceeds of
crime. He has missed Bill C-95. He has missed Bill C-8. He has
missed the cross-border crime forum. He has missed the joint
statement on organized crime. He has missed Bill C-51. He has
missed the Extradition Act. He has missed the $15 million for
surveillance at international airports.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Justice is quick to remind others of things they have
forgotten.
However, she herself has forgotten that the governments of
Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Sûreté du Québec,
the Press Council, the Fédération professionnelle des
journalistes du Québec, are all calling upon her to pass
anti-gang legislation. Has she forgotten this already? Is she
going to come up with it?
1435
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, my
predecessor, the then minister of justice, worked with Quebec
officials and other provincial officials to put in place an
anti-gang law that came into force in 1997.
We know by working together that organized crime is pervasive,
insidious and that it evolves. Therefore it is important that
our laws evolve. My deputy minister and the solicitor general's
deputy minister will be in Quebec tomorrow meeting with their
counterparts to see what changes we need to make to our laws more
effective to break the back of organized crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister that
amending the criminal code is their responsibility. It is up to
them. The citizens of Quebec, all of these organizations, and
all of these governments want to know this evening whether there
will be anti-gang legislation or not.
I would ask the Prime Minister to look straight into the camera
and to tell all Quebecers who will be watching this evening
“Yes, there will be anti-gang legislation”. That is what is
expected of him.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, my
officials and the solicitor general's officials are going to
Quebec tomorrow. They will be meeting with Quebec officials and
other provincial and territorial counterparts.
If we need changes to the criminal code to effectively fight
organized crime those changes will be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is of the
opinion that taking a firm position in connection with biker
gangs is too extreme.
What we in the Canadian Alliance find extreme is the current
wave of violence and the underfunding of our police forces.
Could the minister tell us again what he considers too extreme?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague heard the last
budget he would be well aware of what the government did. It put
its money where its mouth was and made sure that the RCMP and
other police forces across the country had the tools to do the
job. The RCMP received $585 million, out of which $116 million
went to upgrade CPIC to make sure that we had the most up to date
computer system across the land.
The government will continue to make sure that police forces
have the tools to do their job.
[Translation]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister's words are far from reassuring. The
Canadian Police Association is calling for a law with some teeth
and the RCMP is calling for more funding.
Is the minister of the opinion that the Canadian Police
Association and the RCMP are extremist organizations?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon.
member's question is, with all due respect, ridiculous. We are
working closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As the
solicitor general has indicated, the government has provided an
unprecedented infusion of new resources to the RCMP so it can
work with its provincial and territorial counterparts to fight
organized crime.
Let us not forget that local and provincial policing is a local
and provincial matter. However, we are at the table doing our
share. As I said before, if we need new laws to fight organized
crime we will work with our provincial and territorial colleagues
to make sure that we have those effective laws in place.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is unfortunate about EI reform
is the minister's insensitivity to the terrible consequences for
our seasonal workers and their families.
With surpluses of more than $6 billion annually, how can the
minister justify her continued assault on seasonal workers, such
as those in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, North Shore,
Charlevoix, Gaspé and lower St. Lawrence regions, and their
families?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the hon. member will
know that by statute, every five years we have to review the
employment insurance boundaries. We are implementing those
changes as we speak.
We are very concerned about the impact of these changes on
seasonal workers in western New Brunswick and on the north shore
of Quebec. Last week I along with my colleagues, the ministers
of revenue and labour, were pleased to announce changes that will
transition us over four years to these new boundaries. That is
absolutely out of respect for the impact that these have on
seasonal workers.
1440
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about a solution when, in
fact, she is keeping the workers in suspense by postponing cuts
for a few months for lack of political courage. This is a fine
example of Liberal compassion.
Will the minister admit that postponing EI cuts for a year is an
admission of failure and that her reform is ridiculous and
cannot be implemented in the regions without great hardship to
workers and their families?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Today, I met with
representatives of those workers and we had a good discussion
on the problems faced by seasonal workers. I can say that we
share the same objectives. I invited them to work with my
department to find lasting local solutions and I hope they will
accept the invitation.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister appointed Bob
Rae as mediator in Burnt Church. However what is at issue here
is not a matter for mediation. It is a matter of conservation.
Miramichi Bay is closed to commercial fishing for conservation
reasons. The minister's own office admits that the 40,000 pound
quota he allowed during this closed time has been caught. It was
caught weeks ago.
Why will the minister not act to protect the lobster in
Miramichi Bay and remove the illegal traps?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question as it gives me the opportunity to update him and the
House.
Since the Marshall decision last year a lot of progress has been
made. I am happy to report to the House that we have 29
agreements with the first nations out of 34. Twenty-nine first
nations have signed agreements. The government has made a major
commitment with the $160 million initial investment to respond to
Marshall.
I want to tell the hon. member and the House that conservation
is a priority. We will ensure that we uphold the law, but we
want to resolve these issues with dialogue and co-operation, not
through confrontation.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to sell
mediation but he is ignoring conservation. He is creating
confrontation. When will he haul the traps?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an eminent Canadian, Bob Rae,
former premier of the province of Ontario, is there mediating. He
is bringing the parties together. He is working with the
community. He has asked for a few additional days to bring the
parties together.
We should respect that request and make sure that we make every
effort to resolve the matter in a peaceful and co-operative way.
That is exactly what we are doing.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
economy is in good shape and yet seasonal workers in the regions
have again been the victims of federal government cuts.
Likewise, the average rate of unemployment among the Montagnais
Innu workers is 35%, and all too often they cannot claim
employment insurance.
When will the Minister of Human Resources Development propose
permanent solutions, real ones that take the regions and the
activities found there into account?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed the hon. member is correct. The
economy is doing extremely well. We want to make sure that the
economy does well in his part of the country as well. That means
for sure having employment insurance there for seasonal workers
when they need it, but it also means working on the ground with
employers and employees to build a new economy on the north shore
of Quebec.
I have asked the hon. member to join me and his constituents and
employers to deal with the issue because if we do not things will
just carry on as is. For this side of the House that is
unacceptable.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
week in Winnipeg dozens of young people from war torn countries
came together to share the horrific realities of their lives with
delegates to the international conference on war affected
children. One could not help but be extremely moved by their
plight.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us the outcome of
these important meetings attended by delegates from 120 countries
and other multilateral organizations?
1445
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for London West for having come
to the conference and helping to make a contribution along with
the many guests that we had from other countries.
I can report to the House that a 14 point action plan was put in
place that will bring together governments, NGOs and young people
in a network that will begin to develop a major momentum toward a
special UN session that will take place next year.
One concrete way was that we were able to successfully negotiate
an agreement with the governments of Sudan, Uganda and Egypt and
ourselves to begin the release of abducted children who have gone
into Sudan. The release actually started to take place
yesterday. It is a good example of how Canada can provide real
leadership in the world.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal ethics counsellor was
surprised that René Fugère escaped prosecution. He was an
unregistered lobbyist who documents show helped at least seven
different clients get over $1 million in HRDC grants.
It turns out there has never been a successful prosecution under
the weak Lobbyists Registration Act. In spite of this, the
Liberals just issued new rules requiring grant applicants to
identify anyone lobbying on their behalf.
Will the HRDC minister tell Canadians how new grant rules under
an unenforceable act can possibly help to protect the money of
Canadians?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to clarify a couple of things here.
First, the provisions of the Lobbyists Registration Act will be
reviewed by the industry committee in the upcoming months as was
forecast when the bill was enacted in the House early in the
administration of the government in its first mandate.
Second, I believe that any rules with respect to bidding on
government contracts are in compliance with Treasury Board rules.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister has just admitted that
the act is ineffective. That is probably why just recently there
have been three cases of unregistered lobbying by businessmen
with close ties to the Liberal Party. These cases were all
dismissed and no action was taken.
Yet just last week the HRDC minister said that new rules under
the act were part of the overall tightening of the grants and
contributions system. Why does the minister think unenforceable
rules can help to protect the money of Canadians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very clearly the Minister of Industry has
indicated that he will take action in this regard.
Let me say again that on a number of occasions in the House I
said very clearly that the administrative weaknesses in my
department were unacceptable. I would note however that we have
implemented and are implementing an aggressive and comprehensive
program. Most recently, a third party in PricewaterhouseCoopers
has identified that we are on track in meeting our commitment to
Canadians.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, by the health minister's own admission the future of
medicare requires predictable, significant federal funding as
well as plans for renewal.
Some progress has been made. We acknowledge that in terms of
past transfers. However we also know that the future of
universal public health care depends on national home care and a
national drug plan. Neither of those issues are on the radar
screen of the federal government.
My question today is simple. When will we see action on those
two long overdue problems? What is the next step of the health
minister?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I invite the hon. member to look again at the health accord that
the Prime Minister negotiated last week. In that health care
agreement among all governments in the country both home and
community care and pharmaceutical issues are dealt with
expressly.
Governments gave their commitments to work together on both to
strengthen investments in home and community care and to work to
find a way to manage the cost of pharmaceuticals so that price or
cost is not an impediment to access for Canadians anywhere in the
country.
This is an unprecedented accord with 14 governments signing on,
all moving in the same direction, combining more money with a
sensible plan.
1450
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I do not need to tell members of the House that the deal
struck on September 11 offers very little hope for Canadians in
the way of a national drug plan or home care.
Our question today is simply to try to find out when the
government intends to live up to its seven year old commitments
to national home care and pharmacare. When will the minister
live up to the words he said in March 1998, that home care is the
next frontier for medicare?
Will the minister at least give the House assurances that these
issues will be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of health
ministers due to take place in two weeks' time?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am astonished to hear how the member characterizes this
remarkable agreement.
Fourteen governments including three NDP governments signed on
to this agreement, which means a 35% increase in federal cash
transfers for health, targeted funding of $1 billion for
equipment renewal, $800 million to accelerate primary health care
reform which the member knows is fundamental, and $500 million
for information technology to integrate the system and make it
more effective.
It is apparent that Canadians are better off taking the advice
of Roy Romanow's NDP than the NDP sitting opposite in the House.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the latest infusion of money into the health care field
is the best example yet of the Prime Minister's quick fix. He is
basically saying “take the money and run, and by the way don't
get in my way because I am getting ready for an election”.
When can we expect a comprehensive national plan to deal with
the future of health care? We are tired of the quick fix. When
can we expect a date for a national plan?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Progressive Conservative Party ought to be the
second last people in the House to be critical of this health
agreement. The last people, of course, ought to be Alliance
Party members.
The Conservatives and the Alliance in their election platforms
in 1997 said that if they were ever elected they would change the
system so that all the money through tax points would go to the
provinces and Ottawa would have no role and no means of ensuring
the principles of the Canada Health Act are respected. That
would be the end of medicare in the country. That would be the
end of access across Canada to health care services.
The hon. member, his party and the Alliance should be ashamed of
that position and Canadians should be very proud of the Prime
Minister.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this is the minister that has taken a wrecking ball to
health care in the country. With all this money we are going
back to 1994 levels. Think about it for just a minute. How can
he be proud of that record?
Canadians want a plan for the future, not a quick fix. When
will he show some leadership on this file? We want a plan, a
plan for the future, as do all premiers of the country.
The document to which he alludes was written by Homer Simpson,
presently the aide to the minister.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we can refer to the commentary last week by experts throughout
the country who looked at the Prime Minister's achievement in
negotiating this unprecedented agreement and confirm that it is
good news for Canadian health care.
Michael Decter, former deputy minister in Ontario and now chair
of the Canadian Institute of Health Information, said this was an
agreement with substantive progress for medicare renewal in
Canada.
It is clear, as we have always said, that a combination of more
money with a coherent plan where governments work together toward
reforming, improving and modernizing medicare is what the Prime
Minister has achieved.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Last week
the Government of Canada reached a remarkable agreement with
governments of all political stripes across Canada.
That initiative will infuse $21 billion into the Canada health
and social transfer to the provinces. Could the minister tell us
about this initiative and explain to all Canadians, including my
constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, how this initiative will
help the health care of all Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it does bear repeating. We have been saying for some time that
the difficulties facing medicare require not just money but a
plan, and now we have that.
1455
There is $21 billion of additional money, targeted money for
specific priorities, but perhaps most important of all is that
the Prime Minister negotiated an agreement that expressly
acknowledges the role of the Government of Canada in the process
of medicare renewal. The federal government is a full partner
and participant in renewing medicare.
Unlike the Alliance and unlike the Conservatives, the Prime
Minister recognizes there is a national interest in the country.
Medicare is a national undertaking and the Government of Canada
has an essential role to play in protecting that interest.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week the minister of public works was caught red
handed doling out $1 million to his old Liberal friend, Michele
Tremblay.
The minister claims these contracts were legitimate, but it was
a non-tendered contract that guaranteed two more contracts to
Madam Tremblay. The Liberal government issues non-tendered
contracts, over $1 billion a year, contracts the auditor general
says should have been tendered. Why does the minister continue
to use non-tendered contracting as a billion dollar patronage
business?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should check the facts. He would realize that there was only one
contract at the beginning, which was a pilot project given
according to Treasury Board guidelines. All the other contracts
were tendered and the best contender got the contract. We have
been following Treasury Board guidelines and the public tendering
process.
Last spring we had this debate in the House. I tabled a letter
where we made it clear to the officials of the Canadian
Information Office that anywhere in my department any contract
above $25,000—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlevoix.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has announced a one year moratorium for the unemployed
in Charlevoix and on the North Shore.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development proposing a
temporary solution to save face before the elections, in order to
then continue to give them the shaft after the elections?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. In fact the
transition period is over four years. It recognizes that indeed
one side of the employment coin has to do with employment
insurance, but the other side has to do with diversifying the
economy.
I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the minister
of revenue, and I hope with members on the opposite side, their
constituents and employers, to broaden the economic diversity of
that region so that indeed the people of the north shore of
Quebec can benefit from the great economy we have here in Canada.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today housing activists are building a house at the site of the
housing ministers conference in Fredericton, the ministers' first
meeting in five years. The message to the ministers is quite
clear: This national crisis requires a national solution and
restoration of the federal funding for social housing.
Will the Prime Minister direct his ministers today to support
the provinces and the municipalities with real bricks and mortar
and money to build housing, rather than the straw house
announcements and statements we have seen to date? Will we get
some real housing programs?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for her question. It gives me the opportunity to inform
the House that after question period I will be going to
Fredericton to meet my colleagues, all the ministers of housing
in the country. Tonight and tomorrow we will be discussing how
we can improve the situation and how we can give Canadians some
relief and make sure that every Canadian has decent housing.
I look forward to this meeting. It is true that we have not had
a meeting in the last five years, but we are glad that we will be
there to discuss these important issues.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. When the Digby
wharf in Nova Scotia was divested, the Department of Transport
gave a cheque for more than $3 million to the Maritime Harbour
Society, a non-profit society. Within days it appears that $1
million was transferred out to a private corporation and then
another $300,000 a few months later. Some $600,00 are scheduled
to be transferred out next month.
Will the minister demand an accounting of this taxpayer money
and stop all further transfers until he is assured that this
money will benefit the users of the Digby wharf?
1500
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. member for raising
this with me before question period but I have not had a chance
to get to the bottom of it.
Under the terms of the divestiture fund, there is a specific
list of what the money should be spent on and there is provision
for an annual audit. Hopefully we will have some clarity later
on in the week, and I hope to get back to him either privately or
in the House.
* * *
[Translation]
HIGH TECH INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, according to Mosel Vitellic Inc. and the government of
Quebec, the federal government is dragging its feet in its
decision to set up a semiconductor plant in Quebec.
[English]
My question is for the industry minister. Why is the government
delaying an investment that is so important for the high tech
industry in Quebec and in Canada?
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is not a matter of delaying a decision. In reality, there is the
possibility of a very significant investment for Canada in the
semiconductor manufacturing sector.
In addition, since a large amount of money is involved, a
thorough investigation is necessary before we make an offer. We
are continuing to negotiate with the company and with other
interested parties so a decision may be made at the right time.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
what took place this morning in the House, and with the hope of
enlisting the co-operation of all the parties, I would like to
reiterate this afternoon the request for unanimous consent that I
made this morning but was asked to postpone until now so that
consultations could take place.
1505
Since opposition parties unanimously agreed to hold a debate
starting now on Motion M-428, listed under the Private Members'
Notices of Motions, and to have a vote at the end of that
debate, as is normally the case, I am asking for the unanimous
consent of the House to proceed in that fashion, namely to have a
debate followed by a vote on the issue of organized crime. This
is a crucial and extremely important issue in Quebec.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government would be prepared to
adopt a different version of the motion, which I have here with
me. We are not prepared to pass the motion as it was read earlier
today. However, I do have an alternative motion, which I could
propose, once the House has dealt with the one presently before
us.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the
leader of the government would agree to have a debate on the
issue of organized crime, provided members are not actually
required to vote? Is he basically refusing to give unanimous
consent?
The Speaker: This is somewhat unusual. Normally, we ask if the
hon. member has leave to move the motion, then it is moved.
However, it seems to me that if we are to carry on like this, we
could hear what he has to say. Perhaps the government House
leader could simply read what he has to propose, and I will then
give my ruling.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will read the motion the
government is prepared to accept. The member opposite is free
to put it in his name, because the initiative was his. I would
be in full agreement with that. A motion acceptable to the
government would read as follows:
That at 6:30 p.m. this evening, or at the end of consideration
of Bill C-38 now before the House, the House will not proceed to
adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38, but will
continue to sit for the purpose of considering Motion No. M-428;
This motion was moved by the hon. member for Roberval, the Bloc
Quebecois House leader. The motion continues as follows:
That, during the said debate, no member may speak for more than
20 minutes, followed by a 10-minute question-and-comment period,
provided that the Standing Orders respecting the division of
speaking times shall apply; and
That, during the said debate, the Chair shall receive no call
for quorum, dilatory motion or request for unanimous consent,
and that when no member rises to speak, the House shall adjourn
until the next sitting day.
The Speaker: Agreements are being worked out on the floor of the
House of Commons. I will hear from the member for Roberval for a
few seconds.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I know you like it when we get
along well here in the House. I know that you will not prevent
me from getting along well with my hon. colleague.
As I understand it, the government is refusing to give its
consent for a vote. It is agreeing to a debate this evening,
but does not want a vote. Is that what I am to understand?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: So let it refuse. We asked—
The Speaker: Order, please. Members can see what happens when
we take that approach. I do not think I have a response to that
and I will have to make a ruling.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, not having the motion from the Bloc in front of me
and trying to understand what the government is proposing, I am
still uncertain whether the government is talking about a vote on
its proposal. Would the government mind clarifying that to the
Speaker, please?
1510
The Speaker: Let me deal with first things first. What
we have on the floor is a motion for unanimous consent as put
forward by the member for Roberval.
[Translation]
I am going to set that aside and we will immediately proceed
with this motion.
Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion before
the House?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on another matter but still
relating to organized crime.
In order to be prudent, since this is of such importance to us,
I sent you a letter earlier today indicating that, if unanimous
consent were refused by the government, I would appeal to the
Chair in order to request, in keeping with the standing orders,
that we be allowed an emergency debate this evening on this
matter.
The Speaker: I did indeed receive the hon. member's letter,
but before that I had received another from the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. At the end of routine
proceedings, I shall therefore hear both the hon. members, and
when I have heard everyone who wishes to contribute, I shall
bring down my ruling.
For the moment, since we have decided that the motion was set
aside, we will now proceed to routine proceedings.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 50 petitions.
* * *
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these
are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a
list of which is attached.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to
the House in both official languages, the seventh report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the spring session held in Budapest, Hungary from May 26 to
30, 2000.
* * *
A DAY FOR HEARTS: CONGENITAL HEART DEFECT AWARENESS DAY ACT
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-492, an act establishing a day for
hearts: congenital heart defect awareness day.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know this is something that is very
dear to your heart in the efforts you have made as Speaker in the
House. This is an act establishing a day for hearts: congenital
heart defect awareness day.
I have a couple of statistics which will only take a minute. It
is important for Canadians to hear this. We hear so much about
adult heart disease, and rightly so, but how many people are
aware that heart disease or, more properly, congenital heart
defects affect more than 32,000 infants in Canada. One in every
100 births in the country is affected each year.
Beginning on February 14, 2001, Valentine's Day or heart day,
would be a day for hearts: congenital heart defect awareness
day.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1515
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-493, an act to
amend the Employment Insurance Act (persons who leave employment
to be caregivers to family members).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present the
third part in my trilogy on health care reform.
This bill will recognize those caregivers, in most cases those
people in what is called the sandwich generation, who look after
their children and infirmed individuals, their parents.
Any individual who has looked after a mother, father, uncle, or
anyone through the later stages of Alzheimer's knows exactly what
this bill would do. The bill would allow people who need to take
a year off work to access EI funds for up to 52 weeks in order
for them to stay at home and look after their infirmed relatives.
Relative is defined within the bill itself.
We do many things for the front end of a person's life, through
maternity or paternity benefits, however we do not do anything at
the back end of a person's life. This bill corrects that
mistake.
I hope that this bill will be part of the sweeping changes
throughout Ottawa and that all parliamentarians will carefully
review this great piece of legislation and will support it not
only to save taxpayer dollars in the health care system but to
help people as well.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
ROBERT MARLEAU
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House, desiring to record its deep appreciation of the
distinguished and faithful service of Robert Marleau, Esquire, as
Clerk of the House of Commons, designate him an Honourary Officer
of the House of Commons with an entrée to the Chamber and a seat
at the Table.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, following House leader consultations, I believe you will
find consent for the following motion. I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs be modified as follows: Joe Jordan for Gar
Knutson, John Reynolds for Jay Hill, David Iftody for Raymond
Bonin; and that the following members be added to the list of
associate members of the said committee: Garry Breitkreuz, Gar
Knutson, Jay Hill and Steve Mahoney.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
HOUSING
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from the people of the Peterborough riding and beyond
who are concerned about homelessness.
The petitioners point out that homelessness and housing
insecurity include those who are visible on the streets or
staying in shelters and those who live in overcrowded, illegal,
temporary or transient accommodation, and those at imminent risk
of losing their housing.
Shelter is a basic human need. The federal government has the
ability and responsibility to affirm a national role in this
matter.
The petitioners call upon parliament to make affordable housing
and ending homelessness an immediate priority by declaring that
safe affordable housing shall be a fundamental human right in
Canada.
1520
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from people who are interested in the
development of research into the bioartificial kidney in Canada.
They point out that 18,000 Canadians suffer from end stage kidney
disease and that those on kidney dialysis and those successfully
transplanted recognize the importance of the bioartificial kidney
approach to their problem.
The petitioners call upon parliament to work and support the
bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for
both dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from end
stage kidney disease.
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in the House a petition signed by 259 people
from Quebec, including from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area.
The petitioners are asking the Canadian government and
parliament to take all necessary action so that the public and
its representatives are consulted on the principle of importing
plutonium, commonly known as MOX.
[English]
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition which has been
signed by several hundred residents of Ontario. It has been
organized by the Save Medicare Committee and Russ Rak of the CAW
Local 222 Retired Workers Chapter.
The petitioners urge that the federal government preserve and
enforce the Canada Health Act, the foundation of medicare in
every province and region of Canada, and maintain the five
principles of medicare: universal coverage, accessibility,
portability, comprehensive coverage, and federal funding based on
non-profit administration and provision of health care.
Therefore the petitioners urge parliament to enshrine the Canada
Health Act and the five fundamental principles of medicare in the
Canadian constitution to guarantee national standards of quality
publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a
right.
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present a petition signed by 139 residents of
Vancouver Island. It relates to divorce. Taking note of the
divorce rate in Canada, the petitioners call on the Parliament of
Canada to take immediate steps to amend the Divorce Act, taking
into consideration the recommendations made by the parliamentary
Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in this House a petition signed by over 700
people from my riding regarding the excessively high gasoline
prices.
The petitioners are calling upon the government not only to
adopt a resolution to thwart the world oil cartels, but more
importantly to allocate adequate funding to research into
alternative energy sources so that, in the near future,
Canadians and Quebecers are no longer forced to use oil.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
table in this House a petition signed by 400 people from central
Quebec and the Eastern Townships.
Given the soaring price of gasoline at the pump and for various
other reasons, the petitioners are calling upon the government
to pass a resolution to thwart the world oil cartels in order to
bring down overly high gasoline prices and to allocate adequate
funding to research into alternative energy sources so that, in
the near future, Quebecers are no longer forced to turn to oil
as a main energy source.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
table in this House a petition signed by 115 people who want to
be informed about the food they eat, especially with regard to
genetically modified organisms.
Canadians have the right to know exactly what they eat.
Genetically modified foods can be cause for concern in many
respects.
Therefore, these 115 petitioners are asking the government to
make labelling of genetically modified products mandatory.
* * *
1525
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 85, 106, 107
and 108.
.[Text]
Mr. Ted White:
With respect to the customs declaration form given to travellers
entering Canada, E311-99: (a) which government departments,
agencies and organizations have access to the information
contained on the form; and (b) which laws are, or could be,
enforced using that information?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): The following is a list of government
departments, agencies and organizations that are authorized under
section 108 of the Customs Act to have access to E311 travellers'
information:
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which administers the Plant
Protection Act and the Health of Animals Act; Health Canada which
administers the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; Citizenship
and Immigration Canada, which administers the Citizenship Act and
the Immigration Act; Environment Canada, which administers the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora; and Statistics Canada, which administers the
Statistics Act and is the only department that receives
information on an ongoing basis due to its statistics collection
mandate.
Human Resource Development Canada, HRDC, which administers the
Employment Insurance Act. It is important to note that the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency previously had a memorandum of
understanding, MOU, with HRDC to share form E311 information.
However, since the privacy commissioner's challenge began before
the federal court, this information sharing agreement has been
suspended. The matter is currently before the courts.
Should a request be made for personal information by a source
not mentioned previously, authorization must be received from
the traveller specifically stating approval to release the
information, as is required under the Privacy Act.
Mr. Ted White:
With regard to the reported health effects of baby foods
containing soy proteins or soy products:
(a) has the government taken action to investigate reports
that these foods may cause medical problems such as autoimmune
thyrodoiditis, birth defects, malignancies, and other types of
diseases because of the hormone-like effects of some soy
products;
(b) if so, what investigative action has been taken; and
(c) as a result of its investigation, does the government have
a plan to require health warnings like those required by the
World Health Organization on the labels of baby foods?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): (a) and (b) The
government has investigated the reports on medical problems
allegedly caused by soy based infant formula and it has reviewed
the scientific literature related to this issue. With the
exception of infants with rare medical conditions, such as soy
allergy and congenital hypothyroidism, it was concluded that
these foods do not pose a risk to those infants that consume
them. The government is continuing to monitor the scientific
literature for evidence of any health related concerns associated
with soy based formula and its constituents.
Recently published preliminary results from a large
retrospective study that has followed up adults who were fed soy
based formula as infants indicates no significant differences
between individuals fed soy formula compared to those fed cow
milk based formula in the following variables: weight and height,
measurements of precocity and a large number of reproductive and
non-reproductive outcomes.
(c) We are not aware of a requirement from the World Health
Organization for a health warning on the labels of baby foods.
With regard to soy based infant formulas, Health Canada does not
recommend their use for the routine feeding of babies. The
statement of the joint working group of the Canadian Paediatric
Society, Dietitians of Canada and Health Canada, Nutrition for
Healthy Term Infants, published in 1998, emphasizes that
breastfeeding is the optimal method of feeding infants and
encourages exclusive breastfeeding for at least the first four
months of life. Cow's milk based infant formulas are recommended
as the standard product for healthy term infants who are not
breastfed.
Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants states that soy based
formulas should be used only for those infants who cannot take
dairy based products for health, cultural or religious reasons,
such as a vegan lifestyle, or galactosemia, a metabolic disorder
where infants are unable to metabolize galectose, a sugar in
milk. This reiterates the recommendation that was made in
“Feeding Babies” published by Health and Welfare Canada in
1986.
Nutrition for Healthy Term Infants also states that soy protein
based formulas are inappropriate for infants who are not
breastfed and who are at high risk of atopic disease or for those
infants with a documented allergy to cow's milk protein. The
formulas that should be used in these instances are formulas
based on hydrolyzed milk protein; for infants with documented
milk allergies, the protein should be extensively hydrolyzed.
Mr. Gilles Bernier:
With respect to the proposed regulations to change the employment
insurance boundaries based on statistical data on unemployment
rates in New Brunswick: (a) was this statistical data provided
by a public or private source; (b) what is the name of that
source; (c) what formula was used to evaluate this data; (d)
what period of time was used in collecting this data; (e) what
federal ridings in Canada will be affected by these proposed
boundary changes; (f) was only a sample from each province used
for calculating this statistical data; (g) what area in New
Brunswick was used for the collection of this statistical data;
(h) what number of workers were used in the collection of data;
(i) how were full time workers defined in the collection of data
and how many were part of the sample; (j) how were part time
workers defined in the collection of data and how many were part
of the sample; (k) how were seasonal workers defined in the
collection of data and how many were part of the sample; and (l)
did the collection of data include consultation with the major
employers in the region of New Brunswick Southwest?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): With respect to the proposed regulations to change the
employment insurance boundaries based on statistical data on
unemployment rates in New Brunswick, the response is as follows:
(a) The statistical data was provided by a public source; (b)
The name of the public source is Statistics Canada.
(c) The data was evaluated using regression analysis and mapping
of aggregated and disaggregated indicators.
(d) The data came from the 1996 census, from neighbourhood
income and demographics data for 1997 and from labour force
survey data up to April 2000;
(e) No analysis was made of which federal ridings will be
affected by these changes;
(f) Basic census data are collected for all households in Canada
and from one out of every five households on topics such as
education, ethnicity, mobility, income and employment;
neighbourhood income and demographics data are produced by
Statistics Canada on an aggregated basis from all income tax
returns filed; the Labour Force Survey is a monthly survey which
is based on over 50,000 households in Canada; (g) All areas of
New Brunswick were covered by the data. (h) All workers in Canada
were covered by the data, numbering 15,047,895 workers; (i) There
was no analysis done on full time workers compared to other
workers; (j) There was no analysis done on part time workers
compared to other workers; (k) Seasonal employment was
approximated on the basis of whether workers were employed for 26
weeks or less in the year, producing an estimate of 3,016,430
seasonal workers in Canada and 114,075 in New Brunswick.
(l) There was no special data collection or cnsultation aimed at
major employers in New Brunswick or elsewhere, aside from the
overall opportunity for public comments.
Mr. Gilles Bernier:
With respect to applications received by the Department of
Public Works and Government Services for the fiscal years
1998-99 and 1999-2000: (a) how many were received for the
sponsorship of community festivals and events in each province
and region; and (b) how many were rejected in each province and
region?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 1998-99 declined v received by
region are:
Region—Declined—Received
East—2—25
National—20—45
NCR—1—1
NWT—0—1
ON—21—56
Other—2—2
QC—54—221
West—3—9
The 1999-2000 declined v received by region are:
Region—Declined—Received
East—14—30
National—35—66
NWT—0—1
On—27—51
Qc—212—406
West—10—22
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Questions Nos. 50, 70, 87, 90 and 93 could be made orders for
return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson:
What funds, grants, loans and loan guarantee has the government
issued in the constituency of Burnaby—Douglas for each of the
following fiscal years: (a) 1997-1998; (b) 1998-1999; and in each
case, where applicable: (i) what was the department or agency
responsible; (ii) what was the program under which the payment
was made; (iii) what were the names of the recipients if they
were groups or organizations; (iv) what was the monetary value of
the payment made; and (v) what was the percentage of program
funding covered by the payment received?
Return tabled.
Mr. Gerry Ritz:
For each of the fiscal years from 1994 to 1998, what were the
infrastructure expenditures under the Canada Agri-Infrastructure
Program (CAIP), including but not confined to: (a) contractor;
(b) location; (c) nature of work undertaken; and (d) total moneys
awarded including supplementary funds if any.
Return tabled.
Mr. John Duncan:
How much federal money in the form of grants and contributions
has gone to assist the fin fish aquaculture business, broken down
by province, and by year, for each year since 1994?
Return tabled.
Mr. Dennis Gruending:
With respect to contracts entered into by the government with
companies, foundations, and other bodies for consulting services
from 1993 up to and including the present day: (a) what contracts
has the government entered into with Cantox Inc., its
subsidiaries, divisions and representatives for the provision of
services; (b) what is the complete list of all documents received
by the government, its departments, agencies and other bodies
from Cantox Inc., its subsidiaries, divisions and representatives
in relation to these contracts; and (c) what are the contracts
the government currently holds with Cantox Inc. or any of its
subsidiaries?
Return tabled.
Mr. John Williams:
How much money has the government provided to Intrawest
Corporation for each of the fiscal years from 1995-1996 to
1999-2000 for the development and expansion of projects at Mont
Tremblant, Quebec; and wherever applicable: (a) what were the
funds allocated for; (b) did the project have a cash flow
forecast; (c) how many jobs were created from the government's
contribution; (d) was there a budget proposal submitted to the
government; (e) did Intrawest Corporation owe money to the
government at any time; and (f) was there financial monitoring of
the project by the government?
Return tabled.
* * *
[English]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 73.
.[Text]
<*Question No. 73—Mr. Guy St-Julien:
From April 1, 1994, to January 31, 2000, in the constituencies
of Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik and Témiscamingue, what grants and
contributions did the federal government make, through Human
Resources Development Canada and, wherever applicable: (a) under
what program and on what date was the money paid out; (b) what
are the names of the groups, companies, organizations and other
beneficiaries; (c) how many jobs were created; and (d) how much
money was paid out?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the answer to
Starred Question No. 73 be made an order for return. This return
would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Return tabled.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
BILL C-3—NOTICE OF MOTION FOR TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no agreement could be reached under
Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) regarding consideration at
committee stage of Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal
justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting of the
House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for
the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
* * *
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
ORGANIZED CRIME
The Speaker: I have received two applications for
emergency debates. I received two letters today. The first one I
received was from the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
and the second one was from the member for Roberval. I will hear
the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough first because it
deals basically with the same subject. I will then hear the hon.
member for Roberval.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this Progressive Conservative request is to augment
and buttress the arguments that were made earlier by my friend
from Roberval. This is completely associated with the same
issue, the growing crisis of organized crime in Canada.
There is probably not a single member of the House or very few
Canadians who are not aware of what is taking place throughout
the country. This is not in any way meant to torque up the
debate but to bring it into a tangible form in the House where we
can discuss these issues as we should in the Parliament of
Canada.
There is an emerging crisis with respect to Asian triads, east
bloc Mafia, traditional crime families and biker gangs who are
infiltrating our communities throughout the country. I say for
my friends in Quebec that this is not just a Quebec issue. This
is something we are seeing in an acute way in the province of
Quebec around Montreal in particular but there have recently been
reports of biker turf wars happening in Kingston, Ontario. It is
happening on the west coast to a large degree.
Kingston, Ontario is the area with the highest concentration of
federal prisons in Canada yet there are no deterrents for what is
taking place. Potential criminals are being released from these
prisons right into the waiting arms of organized crime families.
The RCMP commissioner raised this issue in his earliest remarks
when he was appointed to that position. Two weeks ago new RCMP
Commissioner Zaccardelli stated that organized crime
organizations have drafted plans to use bribes to destabilize the
country's parliament. This is happening to a significant effect
and is something we have to address in this place. It is
something the Government of Canada has an innate responsibility
to deal with by bringing it to the forefront through a debate
where we can discuss methods to approach organized crime in a
significant way, the resources required and the strategy in terms
of legislation. The provincial attorneys general are similarly
calling for it.
We urge the government to act and to act swiftly. I urge the
Chair to deem this emergency debate necessary. I would be
prepared to move the motion.
1530
The Speaker: Usually when we make interventions they are
quite concise. I have read the letters from both members.
[Translation]
I invite the hon. member for Roberval to make his request.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the murder
attempt on journalist Michel Auger in Quebec last week was the
latest in a series of unfortunate events, to say the least, that
have led us to make the following statement: some 150 persons
have been assassinated in the course of the biker war in Quebec
in recent years.
The attempt on Mr. Auger was the limit and makes it clear just
how much organized crime and criminal organizations have become
an unacceptable presence in our society—a presence that of
itself is unacceptable—but of a significance today that makes
all the more unacceptable the action they have taken, what they
are doing and what they will do in the years to come.
Last year, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot was
threatened because he reported the cultivation of marijuana on
farms in his region. Last week a journalist was attacked because
he wrote about organized crime. Sometimes—according to a
federal report—judges are threatened. This points to the
extreme importance of the matter. There is no place better than
the House of Commons to consider this issue.
The criminal code must be amended and put at the disposal of the
forces of order and justice whatever means they need to get these
criminals, these people belonging to criminal gangs, sentenced.
Let us not forget—and it is regrettable to say—that most of the
proceedings initiated against these people have met with failure
because it was too hard to come up with the evidence. There is
vast evidence, and reference to the charter of rights and the use
of arguments of all sorts mean that the legal system can no
longer produce the evidence.
Accordingly, we sincerely believe that the federal parliament
must not only debate this matter. We would have liked to have
the House of Commons vote on this so as to be perfectly clear, to
have each member asked to rise and say what he or she thinks of
this matter: should the federal parliament and the Government of
Canada amend the criminal code? That is what we thought, but we
would agree to there at least being a debate of this issue, to
our sharing viewpoints and to this helping the government decide
and respond to this urgent request from the people of Quebec.
1535
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: The issue raised today is a very important
one, both for the House and for our country as a whole.
[English]
I have listened to the two members who have intervened, the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the member for
Roberval. This issue is of such importance that I will allow an
emergency debate. It will begin at 8 p.m. this evening and
continue until 12 a.m. There will be an emergency debate on the
matters which were brought up by the two members who spoke in the
House.
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that you have given your ruling
in this matter, I wish to move the following motion, and there
was consultation, at least with certain party leaders. I tried
to meet with most of them during the last few minutes.
I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the debate pursuant to
Standing Order 52 commence at 6:30 p.m.;
That proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 be suspended;
That, during the said debate, no member may speak for more than
20 minutes, followed by a 10-minute question-and-comment period,
provided that the Standing Orders respecting the division of
speaking times shall apply; and
That, during the said debate, the Chair shall receive no call
for quorum, dilatory motion or request for unanimous consent,
and that when no member rises to speak, the House shall adjourn
until the next sitting day.
The reasons we are moving these slight amendments is so that
debate can begin immediately at 6:30 p.m., using the standing
order that often applies to evening debates. I think you will
find that there is unanimous consent.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. The Chair
allowed debate to take place. I think there was an offer for a
motion to be tabled by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Is it then the Chair's opinion that this motion, when tabled,
would be votable?
The Speaker: No, in my view we will have a debate
with some modification if it is accepted, but there will be no
vote.
I am in receipt of a motion. It basically says that instead of
beginning at 8 p.m. we will begin at 6.30 p.m. and all the usual
rules for this type of debate will apply.
Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1540
The Speaker: There will be an emergency debate tonight.
It will begin at 6.30 p.m. and will deal with bikers.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This day is one of the
greatest days in the history of the Conservative Party. I
thought that perhaps the party had let it pass by. I did not
want it to not be noticed that the Right. Hon. John Diefenbaker
was born on September 18, 1895.
The Speaker: I am sure that is of interest not only to
Conservatives, but to all members of this august House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an
act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to
amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
once again, welcome back to the chair. It is nice to have you
here after the summer break. It is certainly your privilege and
pleasure to be in the chair while I give my dissertation on Bill
C-38.
First, I thank the hon. member for bringing to the attention of
the House that it is the birthday of the late Right Hon. Mr. John
Diefenbaker. It is not just useful information for members of
the House, but for Canadians in general. We recognize the
importance of Mr. Diefenbaker and the Conservative Party back
when Mr. Diefenbaker was the leader, and certainly the history
that the Conservative Party brought to this country all the way
back to Confederation. I thank the hon. member for drawing that
point to the attention of the House and to Canadians.
I have the pleasure of standing before the House today to speak
to Bill C-38. I should also indicate that this is a
responsibility that was given to me just recently.
Recently, the previous member for Kings—Hants, Mr. Scott
Brison, was the one who had carriage of this particular portfolio
in this piece of legislation to this point. I can mention his
name in the House now as he is not a member. I would like to
thank him on behalf of our party for all that he has done for us
as well as for Canadians in putting forward what I consider to be
the best of the critics' responses to the Minister of Finance. I
would almost suggest that the Minister of Finance would agree
with me on that comment. Mr. Brison is no longer a sitting
member of the House because he gave his seat to an individual who
is of the same stature as the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, the
Right Hon. Joe Clark who will be sworn in tomorrow. We thank him
for his sacrifices and his diligent work.
It is my duty today to speak to Bill C-38 on behalf of the
Progressive Conservative Party. I am sorry I was not able to
speak after the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle because it was very
important that there be some sort of segue from the NDP ideology
and the Progressive Conservative ideology with respect to the
banking industry.
I have a lot of respect for the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle,
make no mistake about that. He is an individual who has been in
the House for a number of years and is certainly very familiar
with the issue of finance as he sat on the finance committee for
some time. I look forward to working with him as well as with
the other members of the finance committee and the Minister of
Finance.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle certainly espoused his party's
ideology with respect to the banking industry and this particular
piece of legislation to the point that I almost thought that he
would suggest that the nationalization of the banking industry
would probably be better for Canadians than having it on an open
market basis in the free market system that we now have. That
may be a bit insensitive, but I suspect it is probably closer to
the truth.
1545
The banks are not the bogeymen in this scenario. The banking
industry in Canada is very important not only to us but to our
economy. I am sure Canadians recognize that the banking industry
itself employs approximately 222,000 Canadians. It is a huge
industry that is regulated by legislation. It comes on a regular
basis every five years to get legislation changed so that it can
operate within those regulations.
The banking industry also has an estimated annual payroll of
some $12.6 billion. This is very important for the people who
are employed in the industry as well as to governments which
obviously tax the people who are employed in that industry.
The banking industry we have today has more than $1.4 trillion
in assets. It has over 8,423 branches across the country. It is
a huge industry. The banks are not the bogeymen. They are simply
an industry trying to do business in Canada.
The banks today generate more
than 49% of their earnings outside Canada. Fifty per cent of
what the banks earn come from outside the borders of the country.
That speaks to the globalization of the financial industry as
well as the banking industry.
The really interesting point is
that one out of every two working Canadians in some way, shape or
form has an interest in a bank. Either directly or indirectly,
he is stockholders and shareholders in the industry. Whether
it is through a pension plan, through individual stock trades,
through mutual funds, or through other types of financial
vehicles, one out of every two Canadians has a direct or indirect
connection with the stock of a bank.
The legislation which has come forward is very comprehensive. It
has 900 pages and takes into consideration 22 separate statutes
in the federal government. It deals with approximately 4,000
pages of those 22 statutes with amendments to those pieces of
legislation.
I have with me the bill of 900 pages. I anticipate the clause
by clause study of the 900 pages of Bill C-38, but in the
meantime, I am very pleased to speak to the bill and will try to
speak to some of the issues reflected in the bill.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle spoke articulately of what was
good and what was bad within the bill. I could accept a lot of
what he said with respect to good and bad, although I could not
accept a lot of the other areas he went to with respect to
ownership being raised from 10% to 20%. He was totally opposed
to that and I will get into that later. We are not opposed to
that at all.
He also said he would not support nor vote for this piece of
legislation to go to committee. I find that very strange because
there are a number of good issues dealt with in the legislation.
We should be supporting it and taking it to the committee level
so that we can make the necessary changes, as long as the
government and the people on the committee are prepared to listen
to good, constructive amendments and changes being proposed. We
will get into those certainly at a much later date when we deal
with them in committee.
We in the PC Party have been waiting for this piece of
legislation for a long time. It is long overdue. We have been
waiting for several years to have the legislation on the table.
In saying that, I will also state the intention of the
Progressive Conservative Party to support the legislation at
second reading to get it to the committee stage so we can try to
make those necessary changes.
It has taken an awfully long time for the legislation to come
forward. It has been almost seven years that the government has
been in power.
It has been almost seven years since the government has gone
through the delaying tactics of task forces, of consultations, of
special reports, of any other type of delaying tactic before it
could come to the table.
1550
We have heard already that this process started back in 1996
with the MacKay task force. That report was presented to the
Minister of Finance on September 14, 1998. It has been over a
year since the task force reported to the finance minister and
the white paper was dealt with and we are at second reading on
September 18, 2000. It has been two years since the MacKay
report was presented to the Minister of Finance and we finally
have the bill on our desks, a fairly long delay.
In the meantime the Minister of Finance also said to the banks
that they would not be allowed to merge. Even though the MacKay
report spoke specifically to that issue, I guess the Minister of
Finance was caught off guard when some of the banks brought
forward their proposals for mergers with other banking
corporations.
For over 100 years Canada has enjoyed a competitive advantage
over the U.S. in terms of a much more enlightened system of
banking regulations. In a previous life when I actually had a
real job as opposed to simply standing in the House and speaking
to you, Mr. Speaker, and enlightening you and obviously making
your day much brighter because of that, I did have the
opportunity of working with a corporation that needed the banking
institutions that this country has. We were very competitive not
only in Canada but also in the United States because we had the
ability of dealing with a national bank within this country. We
had the ability of generating capital that would not necessarily
have been generated within the banking system of the United
States.
We in Canada have been very fortunate to have the banking
industry we have. For example, in 1987 the Conservative
government allowed banks to acquire security firms and five years
later, cross ownership was permitted across all four pillars of
the financial system: banks, security firms, insurance companies
and trust companies.
The opening up of Canada's securities industry in 1987 allowed
banks to strengthen the sector thereby maintaining a viable
domestic industry. At that point we were the strongest of the
banking industries anywhere on the globe. That has changed. We
now have some difficulty maintaining the global competition and
we will speak to that. In fact this legislation starts to speak
to that issue.
Then over the course of the 1990s Canada lost its competitive
advantage as U.S. regulators moved to an unrestricted Canadian
style system of national banking. As it stands now, the
regulatory environment south of the border is far superior to
that of Canada's.
Last fall a major new financial bill was passed in the United
States which allowed for cross ownership of banks, security firms
and insurance companies plus cross selling of services. This
means that the bank merger process in the United States does not
have to include any public hearings and little political input.
In fact a recent wave of mega mergers has reshaped the U.S.
banking sector.
Mr. Speaker, we of the elder generation, and I put myself in
that category as well, perhaps have not kept up with the changes
in the banking system, but banking has changed. Today we do not
have to walk into a bank in order to access all of the services
we require. We can do all of our banking at a computer terminal.
We can do most of our banking by telephone. We can do most of
our banking without even having to talk to a banker with respect
to loan guarantees, with respect to accessing the loans that are
required to maintain business and personal services. That is what
we are speaking of and it is not really reflected in this
legislation just yet, but we are getting there.
For Canadian banks, any interbank merger is subject to high
level political open-ended scrutiny. It would be like trying to
get through a minefield with no map. That speaks to the merger
requirements that are necessary within the Canadian banking
system. This legislation still has put in too many of those
minefields to allow Canadian institutions to compete on a global
basis with the competition from other countries.
1555
The Canadian financial services sector throughout the past 10
years has undergone more change than in the previous 150 years.
At the same time Canadians have advanced legitimate concerns
about their banking system, ranging from access to capital for
small businesses in rural communities to creating a climate for
increased competition in the provision of banking services.
In September 1998 the MacKay task force report provided a
comprehensive set of recommendations which successfully balanced
consumer interests with the global competitiveness of our
financial services sector. In his response the Minister of
Finance has focused only on short term consumer interests and has
ignored the long term interests of all Canadian consumers. In
fact, given the timidity with which the minister has handled his
response to the MacKay report, there is no reason that Bill C-38
could not have been introduced in 1994.
In framing public policy, it is very important that it reflects
realities as opposed to perceptions. There are many widely held
misconceptions about the Canadian banking industry. The reality
is that Canadian banks are delivering good value to Canadians.
We enjoy one of the most stable and efficient banking systems in
the world. Canadian banks are widely owned by Canadians. Some
7.5 million Canadians have invested in banks. These 7.5 million
working Canadians are relying on their bank shares to provide for
retirement savings, or for that matter, investment income.
Furthermore the financial services sector employs over half a
million Canadians. Its payroll, as I mentioned earlier, is $22
billion. It represents 5% of the total GDP.
Components of this important piece of legislation include
allowing single shareholders to own 20% of voting shares of the
big five banks, up from the current level of 10%. These banks,
however, have to keep Canadian headquarters and their boards have
to be three-quarters Canadian. That is a good component of this
legislation, an increase from 10% to 20% ownership.
It allows banks to set up a holding structure which could then
have separately regulated subsidiaries, including retail banks,
credit card companies and insurance firms. That is a wise move
on the part of this legislation.
Banks with between $1 billion and $5 billion in assets would be
allowed to have controlling shareholders with stakes of up to
65%. The current rule is a single shareholder can own no more
than 10%. Banks that fall into this category include the
Laurentian Bank, the National Bank and Canadian Western Bank.
Ministerial approval would still be needed to approve any
takeover, which would effectively shield these banks from hostile
takeovers.
We heard earlier about some concerns with respect to the power
of the ministerial rights and we agree with that. We believe
that the minister has substantive powers built into this
legislation. It is one of the areas we would like to see changed
quite dramatically going into the committee and going into the
hearings. We would like to hear from the stakeholders as to how
they feel that after all the processes have been followed it will
be the minister who will make the final decision. It was said
earlier that it should be parliament that has the say in those
decisions, not just the minister.
There will be a new federal ombudsman established to handle
complaints who will be independent of the existing banks. His or
her ruling would not be binding on the banks, but the ombudsman
would have the authority to make the complaints public. That is
very positive.
There will be a new consumer finance agency. The agency will be
established to strengthen the overseeing of banks. This new
agency would be an advocate for consumer issues in the financial
services industry.
All consumers will have the right to basic banking accounts and
standard services at a low cost. This is in response to past
complaints that the poor have had difficulty in gaining bank
accounts. This is a positive change and one which the PC Party
wholly supports. It was also one of the changes which the hon.
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle indicated was a very positive step
forward in this legislation. That is why I find it very
difficult that the member would not see fit to support this
legislation to go forward to committee so that this one area of
the legislation could continue forward and be a very important
part of the new regulatory system for the banking industry.
1600
This legislation, however, fails to put into place a less
arbitrary and political process for bank mergers. We have
already heard from the Liberal government experts and the people
who sit on the committee, those beacons of knowledge across the
floor who have uttered such phrases as “I don't imagine we are
going to look at a bank merger proposal anytime soon”. I find
it difficult to recognize that these people, who are the experts
in the financial industry, are now suggesting that bank mergers
are not a part of the future. Mergers are a part of the future,
have been a part of the future and are certainly going on as we
speak today internationally as well as in the United States.
In addition to putting mergers on hold indefinitely and
loosening share ownership restrictions, which could result in
foreign control of the Canadian banking sectors, Bill C-38 does
not adequately address the competition issue. If the government
was serious about increasing competition it would have adopted
the MacKay recommendations that the interact network become fully
accessible and fully functional. Full functionality of the
interact network would effectively provide any new bank with
14,000 access locations.
According to the government the aim of the bill is to allow
banks to evolve to meet competition and at the same time protect
consumers. I would argue, however, that due to the government's
slow reaction to the changes in the financial services sector
Canada has already fallen far behind. The one thing that is
clear is that after years of uncertainty from the current
government it has finally added some clarification and stability
to the banking industry.
The PC Party of Canada will be supporting this bill. We feel
that this is the first tiny step in the right direction.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the Financial
Consumer Agency of Canada Act.
We are now at an extremely important stage in terms of the
future of the Canadian banking system. On June 13, the finance
minister entered the final stage of his reflection on this
problem by introducing Bill C-38. I want to indicate at the
outset that, like my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I will
oppose this bill. I will take this opportunity to thank and to
congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
who was very effective in leading the debate on this issue.
The Bloc Quebecois will be proposing amendments to the bill at
report stage in order to correct the inequity that exists in this
bill with regard to large Quebec banks.
Why should we oppose this bill? Several aspects of the bill
concern me, particularly the fact that, under this bill, the
Minister of Finance will have the power to decide the future of
Quebec banks. I find it unacceptable that this discretionary
power is as strong as if not stronger than the act itself.
The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the fact that a single
shareholder could, with the approval of the Minister of
Finance—and this is very serious—with the approval of one man,
hold a 65% interest in the National Bank, the largest
Quebec-based bank. There is no need for the Minister of Finance
to allow this kind of excessive control to give the National Bank
the flexibility it needs to continue to prosper.
1605
How can a shareholder holding 65% of the shares of a bank give
more flexibility than 65 shareholders holding 1% each? The
answer is obvious. The risk could be enormous if this bill were
to be adopted.
Members will no doubt remember the whole matter of the
restructuring of the airline industry that received a lot of
coverage last summer. Under the former act, which was amended by
Bill C-26, a shareholder could not hold more than 10% of the
shares of an airline company, and that is an important element to
prevent excessive control by a single shareholder.
The Bloc Quebecois fought a good fight on that front, and at the
end of an opposition day on the issue, three Liberal MPs
supported our position. I hope that some of them will have enough
courage and democratic conviction to oppose the provisions of
Bill C-38.
One has to realize that there is no need, and I repeat no need,
for the Minister of Finance to authorize this excessive control
to ensure the flexibility of the National Bank. Let us be serious
for a moment. We are not talking about 10%, as in the case of
Canadian Airlines International, but about 65%. The legislation
should be there to ensure that the banks cannot be controlled by
a single shareholder, as could be the case under Bill C-38. This
is a very serious matter.
We need legislative guarantees against any negative impact these
new ownership rules might have on employment of professionals,
consumer services and small businesses. More important is the
fact that these negative impacts will hit Quebec the hardest. I
wonder if this bill was not introduced to pick on Quebec.
Let me repeat this for a third time. We have to remember that
the provisions allowing single shareholders to have 65% of the
shares will mainly affect the National Bank, which is the largest
bank in Quebec. The stakes are just too high to rely on only one
man, the Minister of Finance, especially since there are no
legislative guarantees in the bill. Bill C-38 does nothing more
than list some elements to consider that are under the sole
control of the minister.
I wonder what legislative power is all about if everything is
under the minister's control. Can anyone tell me? If some workers
lose their jobs, who will they turn to, given the harsh
constraints of the employment insurance system? Only 40% of these
workers will be eligible for EI benefits. And let us not forget
that almost 100% of all bank employees are female. Under this
legislation, it is once again women who stand to lose their jobs
at a time when 77% of them are not eligible for EI benefits. It
is bad, it is cruel, and it is tragic.
1610
This is another reason why this bill should be revised.
What will happen to the others? I doubt the finance minister
will show much compassion, given his neoLiberal policies.
Worse, Bill C-38 is full of phrases like “The minister may deem
necessary” or “such and such a section of the act will cease to
apply if the minister so decides”. Everything seems to depend on
the minister's decisions. How could we trust the minister's
decision, when he still has not decided or seen fit to tell
whether or not he will be running in the next election, whether
he will become the Prime Minister some day, or whether he will
pay his taxes in Canada, like everybody else does?
With all those ifs, and a minister who keeps shifting positions,
I really have to wonder.
Under this bill, which reminds me of Bill C-33, there will be no
duplication with the provinces, “if the minister deems
necessary”. How could I trust such empty promises?
We should not be fooled by the advantages of Bill C-38. In
Quebec, small businesses will be affected the most by this bill.
It is not obvious that the finance minister's bill will bring
about more healthy competition on the national market. But
competition is more important for our future economic
development than the creation of big banks to compete on the
world market. Nonetheless, the Minister of Finance has decided
to make a law for big banks, even if that means sacrificing
Quebec banks like the National Bank, which is the institution
for small businesses in Quebec.
What is more, the term Liberal government bill is nearly always
synonymous with interference in areas of provincial
jurisdiction. We are used to that, because that approach has
become this government's stock in trade. The finance minister's
bill established the financial consumer agency, which is
intended to protect the consumer. It is no secret that the Bloc
Quebecois is a staunch defender of consumer rights.
I would remind hon. members that there are laws for that purpose
already in place in Quebec. There is, for instance, the
Consumer Protection Bureau Act, as well as the Consumer
Protection Act, the Act Respecting the Protection of Personal
Information, the legislation on insurance, trust companies,
savings, credit and securities unions and so forth.
Hon. members can see just how well protected the consumer is in
Quebec. Why then, once again, does this government want to
trample over provincial areas of jurisdiction? The provinces
have, like Quebec, done their duty.
The creation of the agency as set out in Bill C-38 is therefore
liable to create still more regulatory overlap with measures
already put in place by Quebec, and naturally so, since this is
a provincial power.
I will never tire of repeating that this government needs to
listen to reason. If it wants to pass legislation, it ought to
do so in its own areas of jurisdiction and leave areas of
provincial jurisdiction alone.
I cannot help but be incensed with the Liberals' duplicity in
this matter, because after the 1995 referendum they passed a
totally senseless motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct
society.
1615
The problem is that Liberals ought to take this motion into
account and curb their uncontrolled urges to encroach upon
Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, if they were consistent. Now
there is another risk of duplication, such as in the case of Bill
C-33 about wildlife species at risk which I mentioned previously in my
speech.
Before concluding, I would like to refer to another provision in
this bill, about the low-fee retail deposit account which,
according to the finance minister, should make financial services
accessible for low income people.
What a nice vague provision. Nobody knows what that account
really is, except perhaps for the minister. Nobody but the
finance minister knows who will be able to take advantage of that
account. Why? Because the minister will determine these matters
by regulation. An order in council, what a nice form of
democracy enhancing the value of the role of parliamentarians.
Pardon my irony, but I have a hard time believing the nice words
of the finance minister, and these nice words hold no comfort for
me at all with regard to enhanced consumer protection, especially
with regard to branch closures and service reduction in bank
branches.
What is Bill C-38? An advance notice, nothing more. How can the
minister say that financial services will be more accessible? I
would also have liked to talk about the community role of the
banks, about community reinvestment at the local level, where
they have to be accountable to the population. My colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has been lobbying for a community
reinvestment scheme since 1995.
The bill may have positive aspects, but it also has black holes,
like the springtime black hole that the Minister of Human
Resources Development intends to maintain with the changes she
has made to EI. Seasonal workers will now have more and more
difficulty getting benefits.
I ask the government to listen to ordinary citizens. I think
that the Liberal members drifted away from ordinary citizens and
I ask them to come back to reality and to meet the real
expectations of people, taxpayers and ordinary citizens. Bill
C-38 is a vague legislative measure which is more wishful
thinking than real political action.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by saying that it is good to have you in the
Chair to continue where we left off. Before putting a question
to my delightful and charming colleague from Jonquière, I also
want to welcome the pages, who come from all over, and tell them
that they are assured of the co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois.
My colleague, as always, has made an eloquent speech, because
her roots run deep in the community of Jonquière. With
considerable interest, I would say, she got the members of this
House to understand that Bill C-38 should, to all intents and
purposes, be withdrawn. It is too unfair that the people
involved in the MacKay working group were mobilized. This group
made very specific proposals for consumers.
Do they really think the MacKay task force got a positive
response from the government side? Absolutely not. Could my
colleague tell us just how justified we are in feeling
disappointed on this side of the House and how all those who
believe in the higher interest of consumers are justified in
feeling disappointed because there are no specific measures for
consumers?
I know that my colleague is someone who is very much in touch
with the Mouvement Desjardins in her region, who attends cocktail
parties there and other similar events and who, I believe, has
long supported the values of the co-operative movement.
1620
My colleague truly believes that it is important, in a region,
to have the Mouvement Desjardins. What is the basic rule of the
Mouvement Desjardins? One vote per person and everyone has equal
status as a member. Is this logic not interesting?
Earlier, we referred to the specificity of Quebec's financial
system. What is the first distinctive feature of that
specificity? It is indeed the Mouvement Desjardins.
My colleague, the hon. member for Chambly, will correct me if I
am wrong, but I believe the Mouvement Desjardins is celebrating
its 100th anniversary this year. I am sure that between now and
the month of December we will have the opportunity to remind
everyone that it all began very modestly in the basement of a
church. There was this notion that it was important to save
money. Why? Not to squirrel money away, not to become rich, but
to truly control our destiny and have greater control over our
economy.
Does my colleague not believe that the Minister of Finance could
have taken a cue from modern Quebec's views in this regard and
shown greater co-operative or community vision in this bill? Does
the hon. member share my outrage at the fact that the minister
is, to all intents and purposes, a heartless individual who did
not listen to the MacKay commission, and does she agree that
there is nothing concrete for consumers, who have an urgent need
for additional protection?
I will conclude here because my time is running out, but in a
few moments I will have the opportunity to talk about what is
going on in the riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, about
pawnbrokers, shylocks and other bad things that happen in a
community when we do not assume our responsibilities regarding
financial institutions. I would appreciate hearing my
colleague's point of view on this.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I could not have said it
any better.
It is true that the Mouvement Desjardins is celebrating its
100th anniversary this year. I want to take this opportunity to
congratulate it and to thank it for its involvement and for the
help it has provided ordinary people over the years.
I think this Liberal finance minister is hurting ordinary people
with this bill. I will listen carefully to the speech by my
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. In a few minutes, he will
tell us that the government has not paid any attention to the
impact that regulations and legislation on the restructuring of
the banking system will have on ordinary people.
As my colleague was saying, this government is heartless, and we
can see that every day. We have just come back to the House
today and the government is already showing that it is
heartless. We have asked for an emergency debate on the issue of
organized crime. We were told that closure would be invoked with
regard to Bill C-3, which deals with young offenders—
An hon. member: There is an election in the offing.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Enough is enough. Quebecers are sick
and tired of this heartless government.
I will listen carefully to the speech by my colleague from
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the member opposite.
On what date exactly is the anniversary of the Mouvement
Desjardins?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, it was in March 2000. We
celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Mouvement Desjardins in
March 2000.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, like
my colleague, it is a pleasure to see you back in the House. I
also want to give a warm welcome to the pages who are beginning
their work here. I sure hope we do not drive them crazy before
the end of the session.
I will be sharing my time with the member for
Sydney—Victoria.
1625
I am very pleased to participate in the debate today.
Earlier today our finance critic very eloquently outlined the
NDP's work and position on this massive bill before us. Our
finance critic has certainly done an incredible job over the
years of bringing forward in the House how unaccountable and
undemocratic the banking sector is and the concerns of consumers
and Canadians. I applaud him for his very thoughtful analysis
and comments earlier today.
Yesterday in Ottawa I was sitting at a kitchen table talking
about political life with a young working couple with a newborn
baby. The new mother said “Let us talk about our banking horror
stories”. For two hours this young family and their friends
swapped horror stories about their encounters when dealing with a
big bank.
I cannot think of any issue that would unite Canadians, whether
nationalists in Quebec, people in Vancouver, people in the
maritimes or wherever, in terms of the suspicion and contempt
that people have and, dare I say, even a sense of outrage at what
happens in the banking sector. We can all think of our own
personal experiences of what it is like to deal with these
massive institutions that bleed the Canadian public.
A young student I talked to a few weeks ago was outraged when
she went to her bank, the Royal Bank, and found out that there
was now a $1.50 service charge for using the Royal Bank ATM
machine. We all know that if we go to another bank we have to
pay a fee but now even the bank we deal with is charging a fee.
This is a young student with a huge debt who is getting dinged
again. The stories go on and on.
This piece of legislation, the 900 or so pages, is a very
important piece of legislation but it demands that we, as members
of parliament, examine whether the bill sets out what it claims
to do, which is to reform the financial sector and truly protect
Canadians from some of the appalling practices and gouging that
takes place.
One of the biggest complaints I hear from the constituents in my
riding of Vancouver East, which probably has the highest
incidence of poverty and more low income families in the country
in an urban setting, is that people who are poor cannot access
financial institutions. The discrimination that exists is awful.
It is hard to believe that it could exist in today's society. It
is so subtle and people are treated with such disrespect and
contempt that it makes people on welfare or social assistance
feel like nothing. They feel devalued as human beings.
As a new member of parliament, over the last couple of years I
introduced motions in the House of Commons to deal with this
issue and to draw attention to the discrimination that poor
people and low income Canadians are faced with in the financial
sector and which absolutely has to change. The bill takes some
steps to do that but there is no guarantee that it will actually
happen. No basic package has been set out to ensure there will
be a no frills bank account. A lot of research has been done
which shows that this is entirely possible and administratively
easy for the banks to do.
For example, one of my motions called on the government to work
with community groups to not just change the legislation but to
change the culture and attitudes of the big banks toward poor
people and to make it unlawful for someone to be denied access to
banking services as a result of his or her income.
1630
Anyone who does not believe this is happening should go into any
of the big banks on an assistance cheque day to see the kind of
mayhem that takes place and the kind of anxiety and anguish that
people go through trying to get their cheques cashed. People end
up going into the marketplace, into the money marts and so on,
and paying huge amounts of money from their meagre low incomes to
get cheques cashed that may be from a provincial government or
the Government of Canada. It could be pensioners with pension
cheques and so on. It is a very fundamental issue of equality
and ending discrimination in Canada.
The situation became so alarming in Vancouver East that our
provincial government, in co-operation with the local community,
established a very successful community savings financial
institution called the Four Corners Community Savings at Main and
Hastings. In actual fact it is situated in an old Bank of
Montreal building that was closed down like many other branches
that moved out and closed down. We now have a very successful
community model of accessibility and non-discrimination. Poor
people can now say they have a few bucks they want to put in the
bank without being penalized and looked down on. They do not
want to go into special line-ups. The big banks force them to go
into special line-ups because they are poor. I am disappointed
because the bill does not adequately address this fundamental
concern.
We in the NDP have some other concerns with the bill. One of
them is the fact that it does not deal with the issue of
corporate concentration. We have six major banks with assets and
profits worth multibillion dollars, and the bill would encourage
and allow greater corporate concentration and ownership by
changing the rule from 10% to 20% in terms of the number of
voting shares that one can own and from 10% to 30% for the number
of non-voting shares. That seems to me to be a non-reform item.
This is not about reform. This is about giving the banks a
massive hand up, something that they do not need, and allowing
for corporate concentration.
It is positive after many years of work that credit unions will
be recognized by being allowed to have a single service entity to
support credit union membership. We have in Vancouver a highly
successful model, probably the most successful and largest credit
union in Canada Van City, which is providing a real alternative to big
banks for these people. To give credit to the government, there
is that positive aspect of the legislation.
Another issue that is quite amazing is that the bill is silent
on taxation. The combined after tax profits of the six big banks
amount to $9.1 billion. What does the Government of Canada do?
What does the finance minister do? Does he deal with that issue?
Does he bring fairness and equity to the taxation system to give
modest income Canadians and low income Canadians a break? No,
the opposite is true. We actually see a corporate tax cut by the
finance minister from 28% to 21%. This means that these banks
are getting more powerful. They are getting more influence. They
are getting more money. This is completely contrary to
democratic reform.
It poses a question. Who will stand up to these banks? I do not
think it will be the Liberal government. It is quite cozy in its
relationship with the banks. It sure as heck is not the Canadian
Alliance. We have to shake our heads and wonder what the heck is
going on.
The Globe and Mail today quotes that wallets are being
opened at events that include a $25,000 table dinner with Mr. Day
in Toronto, expected to draw 2,000 executives. It indicates that
executives are genuinely attracted to the Alliance's position on
flattened taxes, deregulation and a diminished role for the
federal government within Confederation. Here we see the hand in
glove, the nice cozy alliance between these fancy executives and
this political party which purports to speak up for the little
guy.
There we see it. The evidence is there in terms of where they do
their fundraising and who they seek to attract.
1635
The question of who stands up for the banks is something that
should be addressed by parliament. In our party we have taken on
this issue. We have consistently called for democratic reform.
We have consistently called for an ombudsperson who has real
clout and teeth and is not just a paper entity.
One of the real concerns with the bill is that more power is
given to the Minister of Finance, not parliament. Power is being
taken away from parliament.
At this point we are clearly not in support of the bill unless
there are major changes. What we need to do in debating this
legislation is truly examine whether or not it is protecting the
consumer.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleagues for their kind solidarity, which makes
itself known every time we are called on to evolve together,
whether in caucus, general council or here in parliament. We
form a solid and unshakeable block.
That having been said, I also wish to thank my colleague for her
speech. We are familiar with the social concerns she has
defended since first entering parliament in 1997.
I wonder whether I could count on her lively, committed and
outspoken support for an upcoming amendment.
I think that I can speak on behalf of the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is also very strong on social
commitment. We have been fighting since 1996 to have banks
reinvest in the community.
I have to say that in 1996 I went to the United States to meet
Joe Kennedy Jr., who was behind the second generation of
community reinvestment by the banks because, incredible though
it may seem, in 1977 the United States passed legislation known
as the community reinvestment act, which I will speak about
shortly.
The United States cannot be called a country where freedom of
entreprise is in any danger.
It cannot be said that the American banking system is not
subject to cutthroat competition because, unlike the Canadian
banking system, the American one is much more fragmented. There
are regional and even local banks.
So I ask my colleague whether she thinks that the superintendent
of financial institutions should assess the effort made by the
banks to meet the credit needs of all consumers, including those
in less well off communities?
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I could not have come up
with a better question myself. I thank the hon. member for the
excellent question because I actually did not have time to cover
that point.
I want to say most strongly and categorically that our party
absolutely and very clearly supports the community reinvestment
act. What they have been able to accomplish in the United States
is a clear demonstration that when we lay down clear legislation
and make it clear which side we are on, that is to protect
Canadians and consumers, we can force these banks to be socially
responsible through legislation. It can work.
I know communities where local businesses cannot get a bank loan
because they are considered to be in a blighted or devastated
area. That is the situation in my own community. There are
whole blocks which are boarded up and empty, partly because they
cannot get access to financial institutions. This is what
happened in Chicago and in other cities.
A community reinvestment act which says that some of these
massive profits have to go back to the community good, to
community benefit, is a sound, democratic and rational principle
that is not in this bill.
I am glad to hear that my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois are
speaking out on this matter too. We should be pressing the
government and asking why there is no community reinvestment
legislation contained within this 900 pages, why it is so
glaringly absent, and why the Liberals are again bailing out
these banks.
1640
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the House
to the member of the Alliance Party, the hon. member for
Souris—Moose Mountain, who on August 18 with his wife celebrated
their 50th wedding anniversary. I congratulate him on behalf of
all of us in the House of Commons.
I have a question for my hon. colleague from Vancouver East.
Years ago the Government of Canada made a fishing czar out of the
DFO minister by allowing him more unprecedented powers ever than
any other minister in the House. Now it appears that this
legislation will make a banking czar out of the Minister of
Finance. I would like comments from my colleague for Vancouver
East on what she thinks of the new banking czar this bill may
create if it is passed.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. In fact, earlier today our very excellent finance
critic, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, made the point
precisely that one of the real problems with the bill is that it
gives unprecedented powers to one minister, rather than
conferring powers on parliament as a whole where democratic and
open debate takes place.
This is one of the real nasty bits in legislation that gets
sneaked through. Canadians do not understand that this is being
paraded as consumer protection but is really vesting control in
the banks and in one minister. That cannot be healthy.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise. Like others who have risen in the
House today I want to say how good it is to be back. It is
almost like we never left.
We are debating today the government's Bill C-38, the financial
sector reform bill. One would think there is probably no greater
institutions in need of reform than those in the financial
sector. This is in some part a response to the great outcry of
the Canadian people a couple of years ago when there was some
discussion of bank mergers. We know where the Canadian people
stood on that.
I want to make a few points. Many of the points with regard to
my party's position on this issue have been made by our excellent
finance critic, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. We bring a
balanced review to this piece of legislation. He indicated, and
we support him in that, that we will be opposing it at this point
because while there are some good things in the legislation,
there are many other areas that need reform and changes.
I think it is appropriate and I am glad to rise to speak to this
piece of legislation. This summer, when I was home meeting with
constituents and dealing with matters in the constituency, I
received a phone call late one night from a local manager of the
Bank of Nova Scotia, calling to give me a heads up to advise me
that the next day they would be announcing closure of one of the
small local branches that services a number of people. Luckily,
he indicated to me, there would be no job losses. Some of those
jobs would be moved to another branch.
It goes to the heart of some of the things we are talking about
and some of our concerns. We have a huge monopoly in the banking
sector of this country. Many of the rural and smaller
communities are suffering when banks withdraw. I will touch on
that briefly in a few minutes.
It is interesting that we have some differences of opinion.
Clearly the spokesman for the Conservative Party could not
understand why the NDP might oppose some aspects of the
legislation. It says something that both the spokesperson for
the Conservative Party and I think the Canadian Alliance were in
tandem on a couple of aspects of the bill.
Let me start by saying we will bring a balanced approach to this
piece of legislation. I do not think it behoves anybody to
simply be critical of the government for the sake of being
critical. We in this party like to give constructive criticism
and bring the concerns of the Canadian people to the fore. There
are some good things in this piece of legislation.
1645
First, as has been mentioned, there is some help for credit
unions. That help will come by allowing the creation of the
single national service entity to support credit union
membership. We of course would agree with this and I personally
would agree with it.
The credit union movement in the country has always been strong.
It is one that I would argue found its birth in Cape Breton.
Reverend Moses Coady and Father Jimmy Tompkins began working with
local fishermen in my part of the country a long time ago,
helping farmers and fishermen organize so that they would have
control of their own assets. They began building the local
credit union and co-op movement out of Cape Breton. Out of that
and out of the province of Quebec came the two strong legs of the
credit union movement. We would support that.
The increase in power and organizational flexibility of credit
unions in the long run will help them be more significant players
in the banking industry. That is vitally important. For a long
time credit unions have not been on equal footing with the banks
nor have the same ability to compete with them.
When I was a young lawyer and first engaging in the practice of
law, I wanted to set up my trust account at the credit union and
found out that under provincial legislation in Nova Scotia it
could not be done. I had to go to one of the chartered banks.
That is being rectified. This bill goes some way toward
recognizing the importance of credit unions.
Likewise, one of the positive aspects of the bill is the
creation of the financial services ombudsman. This is not a new
idea. As has been pointed out by the member for
Regina—Qu'Appelle, this was an NDP initiative 10 years ago. A
private member's bill introduced by a member of this party sought
to establish that very thing only with real teeth so that
consumers who felt that they were in some way being
disenfranchised or unfairly treated by the banks had somewhere to
go. We would support that. It is something that this party
proposed more than 10 years ago. I am glad to see the government
is finally catching up with some of the innovative ideas from
this party.
The Conservatives wonder why we do not support the bill. There
are some areas that require closer scrutiny. One of those, and
it was mentioned by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, has to do
with bank taxation.
The member from the Canadian Alliance was sympathetic to the
banks. He said that they do not get the same breaks that many of
the other corporations get. I think he mentioned Shell Canada
and some other great big oil companies.
The banks, because of the historical position they hold, have a
privileged position in this society. They have been protected.
They have been nurtured and supported for over 130 years as major
institutions. To suggest that when they report such record
profits we should be sympathetic and they should not pay more
taxes is not on the radar screen with most Canadians.
Indeed, I think the banks provide the bulk of credit to
Canadians. They manufacture the money in our economy and they
reap huge profits. It only seems sensible to me that when we
assess how we tax those profits, the taxes should be levied on
their profits before dividend distribution because those are huge
profits made by the banks.
That is one area where we have concerns and we do not think the
legislation goes far enough.
Another area that causes me some concern is in terms of bank
closures. I will refer to the local bank in my community.
At the current time for the rural banks where there are no other
deposit taking institutions within a 10 kilometre radius of the
bank being closed, six months notice will be required. The
legislation sets down requirements for when the banks have to
give notice that they are closing their local branch.
1650
I represent an area where there is a large component of senior
citizens. I represent an area that has a large rural community
where there may be one bank in the entire area. Again we are
talking about monopolies.
I had an interesting experience this summer when I went to get
gas. This is a bit of a side note. I went to the local corner
store that for 80 years has provided petrol to the residents of
Margaree Harbour. When I went to get gas I was told that the big
companies would not sell gas to the corner store any more because
it did not have enough volume. This is happening in rural
communities all across the country. Now people have to drive
five, six or ten miles to the nearest large conglomerate because
those companies have a monopoly.
The same thing is happening with banks in many of the rural
communities. I am thinking of Ingonish in my riding. I am
thinking of the town of Baddeck. I am thinking of other smaller
communities with one branch where people do their banking face to
face. There ought to be some requirement that the banks maintain
those outlets unless they can show for some reason that it is not
profitable, that they are losing business.
Sometimes this works to the advantage of the local credit union.
What has happened in some of the communities in my riding is
that when the bank withdraws, the credit union goes in and sets
up and people then have access to community capital.
There are many other aspects I would like to talk about. My
colleague from Vancouver East talked a little bit about the
community investment and reinvestment fund. That is the kind of
direction in which we should be going.
I hope we can bring a balanced discussion to this legislation. I
hope that some of the important recommendations the NDP has
brought forward will be considered in committee and we can
improve the bill. There are some aspects that are good, and I
commend the government for that, but as is our job in the
opposition, we like to provide what I think are important,
critical, constructive suggestions on how to make the bill
better.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from my
beautiful home province of Nova Scotia and beautiful Cape Breton
Island on his well thought out remarks.
The government holds a majority position and in many aspects it
is blatantly arrogant toward the people of Canada, especially in
rural and small communities. In order that small and rural
communities can have adequate banking services, what does the
member suggest that Canadians who are watching us today do to
point out the deficiencies of the bill to the Liberal Party and
to other parties who would support the bill?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, because I get
correspondence from people who watch CPAC and people who read
Hansard, I know there will be people who will hear some of
those suggestions. There are a number of things.
I would ask those watching the debate or reading Hansard
to recognize some of the comments and other objections we made,
such as the wide ownership rule. I did not get an opportunity to
address it in my speech, but perhaps the single most important
thing that this bill will allow is a concentration of ownership
in the banks.
There was an initiative from Lester Pearson's government to
prohibit any one particular group from owning, operating and
directing banks because, as has been said by a Liberal leader,
once we lose control of our economic house, we lose control of
our sovereignty. It speaks to how far that party has moved to
the right, away from what were once core Liberal values, that the
initiatives of Lester Pearson ensuring that only 10% of a bank
could be owned by any one individual are being expanded. It
talks about how far to the right the Liberal Party has moved in
its efforts, I suppose, to compete with the Canadian Alliance and
the Conservative Party.
1655
For people who are concerned about rural banking in their
communities, who are concerned about foreign ownership of
Canadian banks, I would urge that they write to their members of
parliament. That is a legitimate course. Every so often I send
out correspondence with cards that people can check and send back
to me. People should organize petitions. They should telephone
the office of their local member of parliament. That is the way
direct democracy can happen.
Once people understand that we are moving in a direction where
the wide ownership rule is being narrowed, for example, as has
been said by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, one, two or three
wealthy individuals or organizations might be able to take
control of what are now Canadian institutions and control the
banking, I think people will respond by writing to and phoning
their members of parliament.
It is interesting that the member for Vancouver East identified
the dinner that the Canadian Alliance leader is hosting where
people are paying $25,000 a plate.
An hon. member: Wrong.
Mr. Peter Mancini: I am being corrected on that. It is
$25,000 a table.
For those Canadians who think there are vested interests who
would like to have control of the banks, we understand that there
are and they can afford to pay to influence government direction.
Therefore I would urge people to contact their members of
parliament.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think I will be going to that dinner. I wonder
whether you will be going but I understand you cannot answer a
question in the House so I will put one to my friend from Cape
Breton instead.
It strikes me as very strange that the new Alliance Party, which
is the old Reform Party, which was the old Social Credit Party at
one time was very much in opposition to what the banks did to
ordinary citizens. I remember the member for Souris—Moose
Mountain for example railing against the banks and their
insensitivity to rural communities in small-town Saskatchewan and
the like.
I am wondering if the hon. member would conclude with me that
perhaps with this big dinner in Toronto that is coming up for
$25,000 a plate, and some of those folks would probably be
bankers from the different banks, that it has probably caused the
Reform Party, now the Alliance Party, to be a bit muted in its
once traditional criticism of the banks. I can remember that
used to be one of its favourite themes over the years. When my
friend from Souris—Moose Mountain was a Social Creditor many
years ago, he used to campaign among his neighbours about the
powers of the banks being too big and too massive. That of course
is the case for many of those people who all of a sudden have had
a change of heart.
There is now a $25,000 a plate dinner which of course is not for
ordinary people, which means the party has lost touch with the
grassroots ordinary people. Does the hon. member think that might
be the reason for the change of heart?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I know the Canadian
Alliance purports to be a grassroots party, but I can tell you
they are pretty rich roots. I cannot think of anyone in my own
community who would buy tickets to a $25,000 a table dinner. It
is a Bay Street dinner. It tells us something about who is
controlling the priorities of that party. It tells us something
about who is setting those priorities and who is in control of
this new supposedly grassroots party.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today when I was preparing for my duties as I have the
responsibility for House duty for our party, I was not informed
that I would have to speak to this bill but I believe it is
imperative that I do so. The bill before us contains over 900
pages. It is of critical importance in terms of updating the
banking industry within the country.
Mr. Speaker, you have been watching the debate. I find it hard
to believe that over the course of the day the government has put
forward only one speaker for one of its bills, a bill that has in
excess of 900 pages.
When I think that through, it is another signal of the arrogance
that the government has for this place and for the democratic
process.
1700
The majority of these 900 pages is technical in nature. Very
little vision is included within the bill. The bill is not a
signal of a fundamental direction that the government wants to
take the country in with respect to financial institutions. It
is a housekeeping bill.
I know from my critic position on the environment that the
government has been in place for over seven years and has yet to
pass an environmental initiative of its own. We should not be
surprised that the government really has a very empty legislative
agenda before Canadians.
We heard that the Prime Minister would like to go to the polls
sooner than later, but he cannot find a reason to do it because
he does not have anything that would strike the interests of
Canadians in order for the Liberals to be returned to another
majority government.
I remember when leadership was commonplace by the Government of
Canada. My first thoughts are the issue of free trade. Many
members across the way actually opposed that initiative in 1988.
That bold initiative transformed the country. Our trade with the
Americans at that time was at about $90 billion. Today,
compliments of free trade and its successor, NAFTA, trade with
our American cousins is $320 billion a year. That was the kind
of initiative and vision that was taken by a government that knew
Canada needed to maintain its competitiveness in this
increasingly global world. In contrast, when I look at this
particular act it is merely housekeeping.
There are five basic principles that are going to be covered in
this bill: the promotion of efficiency and growth within the
financial institution sector; measures to empower and protect
consumers; initiatives to encourage further domestic competition;
the regulatory environment within the financial institution
sector; and finally, the bill provides for a five year review of
the legislation, as has been the case in the past. Those are the
five points we are going to review.
One of the very contentious issues that was brought forth about
financial institutions is that it would be permissible for a
single shareholder to own as much as 20% of a financial
institution as opposed to only 10%. To some individuals that is
a major problem but to me it is a reflection of what is required
to spur more competition and to bring more individuals within the
financial sector.
I think everyone knows that bashing banks is a very popular
function. We also know that they have achieved their solid
performance and their strength within our society because of a
protected environment which we fostered and nurtured over a
number of years. At the time that was probably the best
financial policy for us to have to ensure that we had a solid
sovereign banking system. We only have to look at the commodity
crash and the financial institution crash that took place along
the Pacific Rim three years ago and what happened to its
financial institutions.
Today we have more deregulation. Foreign competitors can come
in and offer products to Canadians. The more competition there
is, clearly the better.
1705
However, we need to afford the banks an effective way to be able
to defend their position within our economy. When people see the
record profits in terms of what the banks actually bring in, it
is healthy to keep this in perspective.
My learned colleague, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, who
is our party's new finance critic and temporarily replacing
another very learned finance critic, Scott Brison, the former
hon. member for Kings—Hants, pointed out a very unknown fact.
One in two Canadians own a bank share or bank stock. It may be
through owning the exact share on a direct basis. It may be
through participation in a mutual fund. There is a virtual array
of stocks in numerous funds of that nature. It could be due to
the fact that they are a contributor to a pension plan. Pension
plans invest heavily in our banking institutions.
The return on investment is not exorbitant for banks when we
look at the size of the financial institutions themselves. The
ROI for banks may not be much greater than a lot of other
successful companies on a percentile basis, but the record
profits that show up are related to their actual size.
There is one comment that was brought forth by our cousins in
the NDP. Usually when it comes to money issues, financial
initiatives and issues related to taxation or the like, I
disagree with the socialist wing of the House on almost every
single occasion, with the exception of what was brought forth in
the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. She
touched on something very appropriate, that we need to ensure
that banks must open accounts for any individual to cash federal
cheques for non-customers, provided that identification is
provided. A minimum deposit and employment cannot be a condition
of opening an account.
We see discrimination of Canadian citizens who are indeed at
lower income levels. The more we can do to ensure that the banks
do their part and that they are much more welcoming for
individuals of lower income, the better. Banking institutions
have to be open to all individuals. The comments made by the
hon. member for Vancouver East were dead-on on that aspect.
This is an initiative to ensure that the banking institutions
modernize and recognize the very fact that how we bank today is
drastically different from what we did only five or ten years
ago, even only two years ago. I suspect many members of the
House now bank via the Internet. I started to do that about six
months ago. We pay our banks en masse through telebanking. We
use ATMs to do the majority of our banking functions. How we
deal and interact with our banks has changed. That is why it is
imperative we have legislation which reflects that reality.
We also have to understand that the government has missed out on
one aspect in particular. That is with respect to how it would
potentially deal with the issues of mergers. There was the
fracas when the finance minister claimed that he learned the
Royal Bank of Canada wanted to merge with the Bank of Montreal
over the news while he was brushing his teeth or while he was
drinking his morning coffee and reading the newspaper that day.
This finance minister has probably been the most connected to Bay
Street in the history of Canada, yet he was not plugged in
enough to be able to know what was going on in the financial
sector. To be quite honest, I find that very hard to believe or
an incredible event.
1710
The finance minister missed an enormous chance to upgrade the
financial institution sector within Canada during the merger
debate. I remember the CEOs of the Royal Bank, the Bank of
Montreal, the TD and the CIBC were willing to make blood promises
in terms of how this would benefit Canadians to permit the merger
process to proceed. I am not advocating a position by any means
on whether to permit the mergers at that time was right or wrong.
However, it was definitely wrong to cut off discussions at that
point in time.
For instance, they were willing to make a blood promise on
maintaining the number of rural banking institutions. They were
willing to make a blood promise in terms of increasing and
augmenting the risks of lending funds to the small business
sector. I remember reading that they were willing to make
another blood promise in terms of holding the line, if not
rolling back, en masse, service charges to customers.
Whether those blood promises would have been in the best
interests of Canadians or whether to permit the mergers are
questions that Canadians and legislators never had a chance to
publicly debate because the finance minister chose to be a
populist. He said that banks were unpopular. He was not going
to proceed to give them anything because it may jeopardize his
leadership aspirations down the road. I suspect that was likely
the greatest issue during the debate at that time.
We are here to talk about improving and modernizing the banking
sector, the financial institution sector. I hope we see
legislation in the near future that will augment and increase the
fundamentals of the economy. If we look at our rates of
taxation, Canada has the second highest corporate tax rate as a
per cent of our economy of all G-7 nations. We know that as a
per cent of our economy our personal income taxes are the highest
of the G-7 nations. We also know that as a per cent of our
economy, the dollars we spend paying down the interest and not
really addressing the national debt is an immense drain on our
economy.
Instead of a 900-page bill, which the government does not care
to have its members defend or even talk about its attributes, I
would like to see some vision to get our economic fundamentals in
order. Let us do what the Progressive Conservative Party has
advocated and pay down our national debt in a legislative way.
We need to lower taxes.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Where did you get that idea?
Mr. John Herron: The hon. member from the Alliance has
just asked where I would get the idea that the Progressive
Conservative Party wants to pay down debt and lower taxes. I
will read from a note of earlier today which in fact says that in
many instances the policies of the Progressive Conservative Party
and the reform alliance are almost identical. This is definitely
the case when it comes to one of the most important issues for
Ontarians which is fiscal policy, including taxation, debt
reduction and the overall management of Canada's pocketbook. I
ask the member for Brandon—Souris if he knows who actually wrote
those words. It was the Canadian Alliance MP from the riding of
Markham who endorsed the Progressive Conservative economic plan.
That is where I get those particular ideas that he referred to.
I would like to be able to ensure that we pay down debt in a
legislative way to ensure that those individuals who want to
invest in the Canadian economy will do so because they are not
doing that today.
1715
That is why the Canadian dollar is at a mere 66 cents. That is
why it is perhaps at its lowest levels in a modern era compared
to our principle trading partner, this time being the Americans.
My concern is that it is a very clear signal that foreign
investors are challenging whether investing in this country is
the right thing to do in the future. We need to send out some
signals that we will not threaten any provincial profits by
excessive rates of taxation, both from a personal income tax
perspective and from a corporate tax perspective, and that we
will get our economic fundamentals in order by paying down debt.
The high dollar helps our trade ratio to some degree, but in the
long term it is a signal that Canadians as global competitors are
becoming poor. Our capacity to buy goods in the global market
has indeed been weakened.
Obviously the government has very little vision or interest in
the legislative agenda of the great nation of Canada. There are
900 pages and so far we have heard from one government speaker. I
do not know whether this has ever been done to this degree in the
history of the parliamentary process. It has been amazing to
watch it unfold. There have been 900 pages and one government
speaker.
If the government is lacking vision let individuals speak who
are ahead of their time. Some people call the Right Hon. Joe
Clark yesterday's man. He will be in the House to actually
augment the parliamentary system in the next number of months. He
is an individual who wanted to pay down debt and balance budgets
in 1979 when everybody thought it was a kooky idea.
He may have been yesterday's man because he was ahead of his
time yesterday. We need to be able to show the kind of fortitude
and leadership that Mr. Clark demonstrated with his budget in
1979. We need to see the same kind of vision and fortitude that
we saw with the free trade agreement in 1988. In both instances
it was done by Progressive Conservative prime ministers. That is
what we need to be able to see to augment and maintain our
position in the global community, not just technical bills on
banking institutions. We need to get our fiscal house in order
by paying down debt, lowering taxes and investing in our priority
areas of health care and post-secondary education.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate hearing the comments of the hon. member, and
particularly his concern that it is very curious members of the
Liberal Party are not speaking to this bill. Neither is the
Canadian Alliance.
This strikes me as bizarre on such a major piece of legislation,
900 pages that will affect every Canadian who has a bank account.
As I mentioned in my remarks people are outraged about the way
the banks operate. There is a huge amount of interest in
ensuring that consumers get a fair shake or deal. It is quite
alarming to note that government members are not even willing to
debate the issue. What are they afraid of?
The hon. member has expressed his concerns and those of his
constituents. However I know one concern of the NDP is that
there is an absence of a community reinvestment provision within
Bill C-38, particularly for regions of Canada such as the hon.
member represents where there is economic disparity, where local
communities are hurting.
To have reinvestment by these vastly profitable banks is
something that would be very healthy for local economies. It
would help small businesses, individual entrepreneurs, the local
economy and would have a spin-off effect. Should we not be
legislating that kind of community reinvestment in the banking
industry? I would appreciate hearing whether the member and his
party supports that and whether or not they will put pressure on
the government to do that.
1720
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver
East brings forth a very interesting issue but something that
would have perhaps been even more difficult to do in a modern
context even a few years ago.
Banks sometimes may be the only visible financial institution
within a small town. They obviously would benefit from revenues
from profits from Visa cards, small business loans, mortgages and
all the financial products they sell. It is very difficult in
this modern context to look at companies such as Citicorp, ING
Direct or many other companies that are basically virtual banks
which provide their products by electronic media. Obviously
their direct investment within those communities or even in the
country would be essentially nil.
This has provided Canadians with more competition and more
choice. I support categorically being able to put a ratio in
terms of what their investments would actually be. This is why I
am a little reticent from my perspective to merely bank bash. The
issue is far more complex than it use to be.
When we deregulated financial sector institutions on February
14, 1997, we said it was okay for Citicorp, MNBA and ING to have
access to some small business loans, profitable mortgages,
personal loans or even credit card business. Yet the banks were
losing some of their most profitable dollars. Now they are in a
situation where they are hard pressed to find new products to
deliver to maintain their position.
As I said before, bank bashing is not in anybody's interest. One
out of every two Canadians owns a bank stock in some way, shape
or form. The role of parliament and the role of legislation is
to keep financial institutions in check and to define roles and
regulations that are responsive to consumers.
I compliment the member for Vancouver East on her commitment to
having a regime that would ensure that low income Canadians are
not discriminated against at our banks.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, would my friend in the Conservative Party agree with me
that there should not be a change in the wide ownership rule?
For many years we had regulations brought in by the Pearson
Liberals which stated that a person could own no more than 10% of
the shares of any bank. That was done to protect the Canadian
banking industry, to keep it Canadian. At one time there was a
rule that said no more than 25% of the shares could be owned by
foreigners. That rule went by the wayside during free trade.
That will be changed. It will be moved from 10% to 20% of
voting shares and 10% to 30% of non-voting shares for big banks
with equity of more than $5 billion a year.
Medium size banks are defined as banks with between $1 billion
and $5 billion in equities per year. There is concern in the
province of Quebec that the National Bank will come under
different rules. In terms of medium size banks the rules
indicate that only 35% is to be widely held. In other words,
somebody could buy 65% of the Banque Nationale. The member
mentioned ING Direct, Citibank or Chase Manhattan which could go
in there and buy the Banque Nationale, the Laurentian Bank or the
Bank of Western Canada.
Would he agree that the same rules should apply to medium size
banks in terms of being widely held as applied to the large
banks? Does he also agree that going to 20% opens the door to
more foreign control influence in our banking system, something
that now is truly Canadian?
The Alliance is not participating in this debate so I ask the
more progressive of the two conservative parties in the House to
respond to that.
1725
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member
asked me two questions. I have a problem with moving it from 10%
to 20%. I am not as concerned by that aspect given the fact that
the Canadian banking sector has indeed far more foreign
investment, far more foreign competition, far more foreign
involvement than it had before. If that is a result of the
situation then in order to maintain our sovereignty we need
strong Canadian banks. My initial reaction to 20% is that I am
not overly concerned about it. That is something that we can
flesh out during the clause by clause process.
To address the hon. member's second question, I think the 65%
issue is a very real concern. Perhaps it is potentially
something that should be discussed and addressed at the committee
level, particularly relative to the National Bank or the
Laurentian Bank. It is something that warrants further debate. I
am not at all close to investigating the 20% ratio to the same
degree, but I can see where 65% is an area of concern as a start.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am glad the member of the Conservative Party is
willing to take a look it. The concern in that regard would be a
takeover of the National Bank or the Laurentian Bank. Then we
would have the headquarters moving out of Montreal, out of the
province of Quebec and indeed out of Canada, if it were bought by
a foreign entity. It seems to me the same rules should apply to
mid-size banks as apply to larger banks.
Would the member be in agreement that it is kind of puzzling the
National Bank, which is quite large and not that much smaller
than the smallest of the big five or six, should come under
different rules, particularly when we look at the politics of the
national union, and be treated differently because of where its
headquarters are located than those in the rest of the country?
Mr. John Herron: Madam Speaker, as I said to the hon.
member before, that is something we can flesh out during the
clause by clause process as the bill goes to committee. That is
why we are supporting actually sending the bill to committee so
that we can start analysing these 900 pages since the government
is not interested in debating them in the House.
Ultimately I think a higher ratio is probably a natural
progression as smaller banks move into becoming medium banks.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in this important debate on a bill that,
disappointing as it may be, still merits consideration.
For those just joining us, this is a bill concerning bank
reform. Bank reform is connected with democracy and with our
conception of equal opportunity.
If we have anything for which to fault the government, it is
that it has been, and continues to be, extremely timid about
something that would have enabled us to set down a resolutely
social-democratic foundation, one that was strongly in favour of
equal opportunity and would have enabled us as
parliamentarians—I take advantage of the presence here with us
of the hon. member for Quebec to say this—to finally fight
poverty effectively. I will have an opportunity to come back to
this.
Anyone who has been keeping abreast of the way the banks have
been changing, as well as their strategic positioning, can see
that there are whole areas, whole communities, in which there is
no bank or branch. A few years ago, Option Consommateurs, a body
which obviously, as its name implies, is concerned with defending
the consumer in the area of finance, did a survey on where banks
located their branches.
1730
It was found that the map showing where there were no bank
branches corresponded rather perfectly with the map of poverty.
As I clearly recall from having seen the map, whether in Cape
Breton, Newfoundland, eastern Montreal or southern Ontario, whole
communities are being deprived of financial services.
I would like to begin by reminding hon. members that the
government mandated a task force some months ago.
This task force went down in history under the name of its
chairman, Mr. MacKay. He and twenty or so commissioners looked at
the Bank Act and at all the vehicles available in relation to the
existing credit needs across Canada and made extremely specific
recommendations to the government.
The MacKay commission was concerned about banks closing branches
in certain Canadian communities without giving any advance notice
or giving a second thought to the impact the loss of access to
credit can have on a community. With this in mind, I have to say
it will be difficult for the Bloc Quebecois to support Bill C-38
if the government decides to maintain the status quo.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois know full well that, since 1993,
our colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, has been
extremely preoccupied with all social justice and consumer
protection issues. I understand that, through him and through me,
our party will be bringing forward amendments in committee as
well as at report stage. I hope such an important debate will not
suffer from partisan politics. I hope that, when they vote on the
amendments that will be put forward, all members will have only
one consideration in mind, which boils down to the following
question: will the proposed amendment improve the bill and
enhance consumer protection? That consideration must override any
partisan objectives.
Before going into the substance of the amendments I wish to
propose with the help of my colleague, I must say that we will
not support Bill C-38 because it seems to suffer from a serious
imbalance.
When we consider the Bank Act, we realize that there is a
balance to be achieved in the ownership of the banks. There was
consensus, a rule within the world of Canadian banking to the
effect that no one could hold more than 10% of the shares of the
banks. This formula meant relative success.
I say “relative” because we must not think that the banking
sector is not a concentrated sector. There are six or seven
chartered banks, defined under the first schedule of the Bank
Act, controlling a significant portion of the capital held by the
banks and holding much of the power relating to the banks.
Nevertheless, it appeared that the rule of 10% was a sort of
guideline, a safeguard, a rule of caution that permitted too high
a concentration.
I think that the member for Quebec, who is following this
matter, like many others, knows as I do that there is a provision
in the bill allowing the mid-size banks to hold 20%. A single
shareholder could hold 20%. We do not fully understand the
rationality of all that. As my colleague for Quebec has pointed
out, there are even banks in another category that could be held
by a single owner.
1735
We do not quite understand the rationale of changing this
balance, which was considered healthy in the world of banks. We
can count on the fire, the determination, even the tempered
aggression of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to wage a
proper battle. We hope the members on the government side will
understand common sense at least once in their life and will
comprehend the need to vote in favour of the Bloc's amendment.
For the time being, I would like to discuss a matter I have been
familiar with since 1996. I know that when I rise in this House
that I still look like I am in my thirties and that the years
have stood still.
However, the fact is that this is already my second term and I
am pleased to announce that I will seek a third one. I am taking
this opportunity to mention that, as we know, the Bloc Quebecois
is first in the polls.
Therefore, I believe that the hon. member who left the
Conservatives to join the Liberals must have some regrets about
such an ill-advised move, because in Quebec the party that is
most popular among Quebecers, that is number one in the polls,
is definitely the Bloc Quebecois.
My colleagues on this side of the House will agree that we are
very confident that we will win the riding of Compton—Stanstead,
where we have a very good candidate.
Having said that, I would like to continue on the issue of
community reinvestment by banks. In 1996, I travelled to
Washington to meet Joe Kennedy Jr., who quit politics in a
context that there is no need to mention here in this House—things
happened with the maid and he had to resign—but this
does not fundamentally belong to the public domain.
In the United States, they have a second generation of
legislation on community reinvestment by banks. I took a very
close look at the purpose of what is called the community
reinvestment act, the CRA, to make it clear for all
parliamentarians.
I think members will agree with me that it would be perfectly
possible to have a provision in the Bank Act that would be very
closely patterned on that legislation.
A regulated financial institution is required to show that its
deposit facilities, the branches, are serving the deposit and
credit needs of the community for which it has been given a
charter—and this is very important and I emphasize this—it has
an obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local
communities associated with that charter.
A very interesting point is that the United States has someone
similar to the superintendent of financial institutions, someone
who takes an annual look at what the various banks are doing to
meet the credit needs of the community as a whole.
Naturally, when one owns three SMEs, is independently wealthy,
and is a prosperous businessperson, one has no trouble obtaining
credit. But when one is in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve or
Saint-Sauveur or certain areas of Rosemont, my colleague must
realize, or certain parts of Trois-Rivières—I would qualify this
somewhat for Chambly, but I think there are areas of poverty in
Chambly—when one is in certain communities where poverty is
widespread, the fact is that the banks are no longer there.
I will give an example. Twenty years ago, in
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, there were 20 banks. How many are left
today? Four. To all intents and purposes, there are no banks in
my riding.
If we had legislation allowing the superintendent of financial
institutions to assess how the chartered banks are meeting the
credit needs of all communities, we, as legislators, would have a
mechanism for putting pressure on the banks.
1740
The banking system in the United States is far more fragmented.
There are local banks, regional ones and ones that are more
nation-wide. However, if a bank wants to expand and do business
in more than one state—such is the control the American
legislator has over the banks—if a New York bank wants to expand
to Illinois for instance, it must respond to the credit needs of
the entire community. A rating of A, B, C or D is given, and
made known to the public.
The American system is not, first and foremost a coercive one;
it is a system focused on consumer protection. It is
understandable, however, that when the First Bank of America has
a poor rating on its dealings with disadvantaged communities and
that rating is released to the public and the consumer
associations become aware of it, it is pretty hard for that bank
to justify that it is a good corporate citizen. The entire
American system, while not coercive, is based on pressure from
the public and from consumer groups.
I have been involved in a few battles in my life, but this one
is an important one. I would like to think that all hon. members
of the House are going to support the amendment the Bloc
Quebecois is going to introduce.
I have sensed a certain openness in the minister. Examination of
the white paper the government has made public, and of this bill,
does lead one to feel that any openness is rather cautious and
has not reached maturity. The government could have gone a lot
further than it has, but there is a desire to have low-fee retail
deposit accounts. There would, of course, have to be a
definition of everything that this would mean, but it seems to me
that the community reinvestment act would be part of the
philosophy.
The American legislation exists within a framework of four
monitoring bodies. I would like to give hon. members a few
examples of the form community reinvestment by the banks may
take.
It could be low cost operations. As we well know, for every
banking transaction there is a charge, whether for a debit, a
credit, cashing a cheque or paying a bill. It could be $1.75,
$2, or $2.75.
Certain American states permit exemptions in banking business
for the most needy. This is an example of the very specific
form bank community reinvestment may take.
It could also be in the form of accounts set aside for consumers
writing a limited number of cheques. It could also be the banks
in certain parts of the northeastern states that have agreed to
provide mortgages for home improvements in low income sectors.
It could also be an economical chequing account including a
minimum account. It could be the processing of five cheques at
no charge every month or the cashing of government cheques for
free. I think generally this is already the case in Quebec and
Canada.
I do not think that a person receiving income security or who
has an old age security cheque has to pay charges. This should
be checked, but I do not think there is a charge on these
cheques.
Armed with this information, I did my duty as a parliamentarian
and introduced, as I mentioned earlier, a bill in 1996, which I
have to say got a lot of support from my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois. It was in such a moment that I really felt we formed
a strong parliamentary team. I criss-crossed all of Quebec to
get bank books signed. I do not know if the members recall
that. It was a sort of petition in the form of a bank book. I
was in the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic and I went to Quebec
City, and I have warm memories of that visit. My colleague, the
member for Québec, met me.
We visited the Saint-Roch mall, which had been renovated.
1745
Quebec City truly made a considerable investment. I was there
not too long ago. I sensed that throughout Quebec people were
strongly in favour of having legislation similar to the United
States legislation on community reinvestment by banks.
My bill had five major objectives. To achieve fairness in
community reinvestment, which was the object of my bill, the
banks located in poor communities would have had to review their
operations, systems, rules and practices and then measure the
gap between the deposits and the loans granted to designated
people in a given community.
Once that review had been completed, the banks would have had to
table a report indicating which measures they intended to adopt
if a gap was found between the deposits received by the banks
and the loans granted by them in their communities.
Third, and this was perhaps the most important aspect of the
bill, the superintendent of financial institutions would have
had an obligation to propose evaluation criteria that were
likely to promote the implementation of the notion of community
reinvestment. A report was to be tabled in the House by the
Minister of Finance to allow us to understand, to have a global
idea of the effort made by banks in poor communities. I believe
that was an excellent bill.
Bill C-38 allows us to take another look at this provision and it
is our hope, as parliamentarians, to encourage banks to be
present in every community.
In conclusion, I remind the House that when banks are not
present in communities, other groups take over. I recently spoke
about pawnbrokers. Pawnbrokers exploit poor people.
As parliamentarians, we must realize that when banks are not
present in poor communities, they are replaced by others, but
this is not always to the benefit and well-being of consumers.
I invite all members to reflect on these issues, to show
openness and to support the amendment that the Bloc Quebecois
will move in favour of community reinvestment by banks.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the brilliant speech by my colleague, the member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
I have just learned something and I thank the member for it.
With regard to community reinvestment—I am sorry but that is
what I had in mind—I thought the obligation to give money to a
particular sector or a particular activity was automatic. I see
this is not the case.
My colleague seems to have a good knowledge of all the aspects
of the American banking system. In the United States, where they
have community reinvestment legislation, have banks or bankers
been exempted from paying taxes elsewhere in compensation for
these investments in the community?
I am wondering if such compensation exists.
Has the member studied this side of the issue? I agree with the
kind of reinvestment he is proposing, namely a reduction of
service fees for low income users.
In the United States, has the government found a way to
compensate the banks by taking less money from them?
1750
The member will understand why I am asking this question. When the current
Minister of Finance brought down his 1999 budget, the Bloc
Quebecois spoke out against the fact that the minister was being
very generous to the richest, namely the banks, and that they
should be paying a lot more taxes than they had been up to that
point. Despite a slight tax increase in that sector, it clearly
was not enough to create social justice as well as tax fairness.
I want to ask my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve if the
Americans do the same kinds of favours as our good finance
minister does to his banker friends.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon.
member for Chambly and notary in a former life, for his question.
His question falls, it seems to me, half-way between wholly
financial concerns and his endless thirst, which I acknowledge,
for social justice.
That said, the hon. member for Chambly is right. I could never
produce for the hon. members any examples of hypocrisy off the
top of my head that would equal the actions of the Minister of
Finance, because I do not know of any. The fact is that our
colleague from Hyacinthe—Bagot could be more accurate than I.
I believe that in the last budget we raised the matter of $180
million in taxes the banks had to pay from 1994 on. We were not
all that comfortable with the idea that it was necessary to
lighten the fiscal burden of the banks because we acknowledge
their right to make money. They operate within a highly protected
environment under the Bank Act and schedule 1. Thus there is no
true competition in the banking sector. There will perhaps be
more in future but that has certainly not been the case in the
past.
In conclusion, in order to provide my colleague with an accurate
answer, I do not believe there is any interconnection. From my
examination and understanding of the community reinvestment act,
it is my belief that its objective is definitively to provide
better access to credit to all communities in the United States
and that we must not look for connections with income tax and
other tax matters. They are, in my understanding, totally
independent of each other.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would ask
my colleague to be a little more specific about how Bill C-38
will upset the financial system in Quebec.
Earlier, he mentioned percentages, the percentages of shares
that could be held and how Bill C-38 would be at odds with
practice in Quebec. What the Bloc Quebecois says in its
dissenting report is that Bill C-38 on bank mergers would pose a
threat to the National Bank, for instance, which is the bank for
SMBs in Quebec. What specifically would happen—that is what I am
asking my colleague for the benefit of those watching—and could
he expand a bit on the difficult balance faced by our banking
industry?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Québec. As
members know, I respect her and what she stands for and, of
course, continues to stand for.
I think that the most eloquent answer came from Quebec's
minister of finance, one of the best as we know to have sat on
the government benches. With the House's permission, I will
quote what he said to the federal Minister of Finance last
December at the meeting of finance ministers:
We made known to you our concerns with respect to your planned
amendments to the rules governing banks in Canada.
Your proposal would provide different treatment for banks with
large, medium or small capital. In the case of large banks, that
is those with over $5 billion in capital, it would be possible
for an individual to hold not 10% but 20% of the voting shares.
The status of banks with $5 billion or less in capital is
different. They can opt for a limited ownership regime.
1755
The important thing to understand is this:
A given individual could have in excess of 20% of the voting
shares, up to 65% for banks that have between $1 billion and $5
billion in capital, and up to 100% for those that have less than
$1 billion in capital.
So, there is a risk that banks with less than $5 billion in
equity could be owned by a single individual holding all the
voting shares. But the banks that provide the greatest support
to small and medium size businesses in Quebec are banks like the
National Bank and the Laurentian Bank, which would be
reclassified in the small bank category or in those with capital
of less than $5 billion.
This is a legitimate concern because we believe that having a
number of voting shareholders is a safeguard for democracy,
since it goes against a concentration of ownership.
I hope I answered the question of the hon. member for Québec,
whose intellectual curiosity is almost insatiable.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it was a very interesting summer for the Canadian
Alliance. We chose a new leader. Canadians across the country
are excited. As the NDP members were complaining this afternoon
about the cost of my leader's fundraising dinner, I will tell
them that Canadians are willing to pay to listen to the new
leader. I am sure that if NDP members wanted to do fundraising
they probably would not be able to attract too many people. I
presume that is why they were complaining.
It my pleasure to speak to Bill C-38, an act to establish the
financial consumer agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in
relation to financial institutions.
When we talk about financial institutions, Canadians in general
have some concerns. They are concerned about the way in which
banks have been operating, about the monopoly they have had over
the years and about how their profits have been increasing. These
concerns arise from the fact that there is not much competition
in the financial sector and that historically the banks have been
protected. There were reasons in the past for doing that, most
importantly to ensure the viability of the banking system in
Canada, which at that time worked.
As we know, the business environment in Canada and around the
world has changed. Today the environment calls for choices for
the consumers. Canadian consumers have seen how much they
benefit from deregulation and what happens when a government lets
businesses loose. Lower costs for long distance telephone calls
shows how a competitive environment can help Canadian consumers.
The demand by Canadian consumers, and rightly so, is for choices
in the banking sector. The Canadian consumer is looking for
lower service costs and better services. To some degree the
negative image that the Canadian consumer has was brought on by
the banks themselves. I am sure the banks can do a better job in
letting the Canadian consumer know of the services they can
provide.
1800
There is the recent example of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines
and the disaster it turned out to be during the early stages of
the merger. Canadians are strongly concerned about the lack of
competition in the airline industry. The government is dragging
its feet as it does most of the time in coming up with solutions
Canadians are looking for.
The government's go slow approach can be seen in this bill
itself. It took seven years of foot dragging on the part of the
government before it was able to bring forward some kind of
legislation that has opened up the banking industry to higher
competition.
We in the Canadian Alliance will live with this bill because we
see it is opening up the financial sector as demanded by
Canadians. We have a lot of concerns on many issues. We feel
the financial sector is not completely open. There are other
levels of bureaucracy being installed in here. Nevertheless
there has been enough in this bill to allow competition to take
place.
Members will remember the bank merger fiasco that took place and
the hue and cry made by Canadians, and rightly so. Canadians
felt there would be too much concentration of banks and less
competition. Therefore there was a need for this kind of bill to
come forward allowing the consumer to make choices and opening up
the sector. Once the sectors are opened up, banks can merge and
become global players in today's market.
As the critic for international trade I see the opportunity for
banks as markets are being opened up all over the world.
Definitely Canadian banks have a role and they can play a leading
role in that they need to have bigger capital, bigger markets and
a bigger pool of expertise as well. That is fine, but Canadians
are concerned about what happens to the domestic market. Is it
going to suffer at the expense of banks going into the
international arena with mergers and consolidations?
That is a concern to our party as well. It is important that
the Canadian banking sector be opened up to other players who can
get in and pick up the niche if Canadian banks feel that they
want to be out of the domestic market. Personally, I think it
would be foolish for them to do so. Nevertheless, we need to
allow competition to take place. Canadians need to know that they
have choices and this bill to some degree will do that.
We have heard from our Bloc colleague as well as our colleague
from the NDP. A very vague answer was given by my colleague from
the PC Party in reference to medium size banks. Clearly, if we
open up financial markets there are players who would be willing
to pick up the niche. Medium size Canadian banks can become big
banks, but we have to let the market forces play to some degree.
Let them consolidate. Let them ensure they can seize the
opportunities that are presented.
The question that will always remain is, what will happen to the
Canadian consumer? We feel that with competition opening up,
Canadian consumers will be very well protected. They will
benefit from the opportunity of financial services that will open
up in this country.
1805
I will give an example. As the critic for international trade
and with my work on the foreign affairs committee, I see the role
of the Export Development Corporation. The committee heard from
numerous witnesses involved with international trade who
recognized the need for greater availability of capital for them
to do business overseas. Close to 43% of the GDP is tied to
exports and Canadian companies are always looking for capital.
This is one area where the banks can now take advantage and
should be able to offer to Canadian companies this
opportunity by giving this service. In the past and until now
they have been curtailed by EDC. EDC is kind of a crown
corporation. It does not pay taxes. It has been politicized for
so long that even many Canadians do not know what EDC is and what
its role is.
We feel that the government competes directly with the banks
through the Export Development Corporation. The Canadian
Alliance feels that this competition should be abolished and that
EDC should get out of the business of short and medium term
export financing.
It is in the interest of all Canadians that banks are able to
play a vital role in our economy. As it expands and we go into
global markets, it is the banks that will be in the forefront to
seize this opportunity in partnership with Canadian companies to
create an economic environment that will benefit all Canadians.
That is a key element in why the Canadian Alliance is in
agreement to some degree with this bill which will allow the
banks some flexibility.
Of course as usual the government has ensured that there are
some tighter controls as well. It has introduced the financial
consumer agency and the ombudsman. To some degree it looks very
good. It looks like the government is trying to ensure that
Canadian consumer interests are protected. However we have our
past experience with the government. Who is going to be there?
Will all the appointments be at arm's length or will they be more
patronage positions for the Liberals to fill?
Every time the government introduces some kind of control or
bodies where it has the absolute authority, perhaps a
parliamentary committee could look at the appointments instead of
the finance minister looking after those appointments. That would
give tremendous confidence to everybody over appointments to
these boards.
We notice that the government did not go very far in expanding
the credit unions' role. That is one sector where it could
expand and provide Canadian consumers with choices. We sincerely
believe that choices for Canadian consumers will in the long run
work to bring lower service costs, lower fees and better services
to consumers. That does not mean to say that at this time the
banks are not trying to provide service to consumers, they are.
However with greater competition, innovative ideas will come
forward. In order for the banks to retain their business they
would definitely listen to the consumers.
At the end of the day that is where the Canadian consumer is on
all this opening up of the market.
1810
In conclusion, the Canadian Alliance will be supporting this
bill based on the fact that it provides more and better choices
for the Canadian consumer. We would like to see more competition
in the market and I am sure our critic will bring in some
amendments to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, again it amazes me that the
Alliance Party, the former Reform Party, thinks that competition
always has to be in terms of foreign competition. On the airline
policy, it would like to have more American carriers up here
which eventually would destroy our Canadian airline industry. It
also wishes to have more foreign control of our financial
institutions which would probably mean the end of Canadian
control of our banks.
When talking about the banks, as they do about the post office,
most Canadians do not say very many positive things about the
banks but they do speak about the poor service or bank closures
in their communities.
This bill will give a tremendous amount of power to an
individual finance minister. He or she will have tremendous
powers and will become a banking czar, taking away parliamentary
responsibilities or even the ability of members of parliament,
duly elected by the people of Canada, to have any input. This is
similar to the minister of fisheries whom we now call the fishing
czar who has tremendous powers within his ministry which override
the will of parliament.
Could the hon. member comment on the fact that the bill would
make the finance minister a banking czar who would sometimes
override the will of parliament?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond
to my colleague from the NDP. We definitely have a philosophical
difference in how we would like to approach this for the benefit
of the Canadian consumer. I am sure at the end of the day the
member is thinking of the same thing, how the consumer can be
protected, I will give him that but we have different ideas of
how to do that. He wants government regulation. I tell him to
look back in history and he will find that is not what has worked
for Canadians. There are examples that at the end of the day
competition, deregulation and less government control have
benefited the Canadian consumer and the Canadian public.
Concerning his question about the finance minister becoming a
powerful banking czar, I share the same concern with him. We do
not want the finance minister to become a powerful czar.
Nevertheless we feel that the parliamentary committee could have
a role, at arm's length, as I said. It would ensure the finance
minister would not have that much of a powerful role. Parliament
has to play a role, MPs have to play a role and the committee
could play a definite role in ensuring that one person does not
have that much control.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will only speak for about five
minutes in order to allow my colleague from the Bloc to speak on
this issue as well.
I just want to say to the hon. member that it is quite ironic
that those members wish to have this bill passed, and fairly
quickly I would assume. It is no coincidence that RBC Dominion
Securities—and correct me if I am wrong but they are the same
ones who had trouble with some sort of fraud situation that
happened a while ago—will be one of the customers buying a
$25,000 table at the Alliance dinner to meet with Mr. Day.
1815
I find it quite ironic that the CBA, the Canadian Bankers
Association, on which the Royal Bank is a member, wants very
quick passage of this bill. One just has to tie the links
together; $25,000 for a table indicates quick passage of a bill.
It is quite obvious from where the Alliance is speaking, and it
is not in terms of the grassroots community.
I have two letters in front of me. One letter is from a person
in Fredericton, New Brunswick and the other is from a person in
River John, Nova Scotia. Both of these individuals are small
business people who are very concerned about the closure of their
banks in their communities. This is what happens when one has a
central based government that thinks from Windsor to Quebec City
and ignores the rural parts of the country.
Throughout, people have been very concerned and very passionate
about their banks and, in most cases, myself included, have been
very proud of our banking history, but lately the banks have
forgotten what their purpose is in terms of service to the
community and service to rural parts of Canada.
No one will ever deny that banks are very generous when it comes
to donations to various arts, sports and culture, and they should
be congratulated for that, but what small communities require is
a banking presence in their communities.
Many seniors and people with disabilities are finding it very
difficult to access banking services. Some people do not have
the technology or the finances to afford computer services in
their homes. The majority of Canadians still do not have
computers in their homes. Many people are very distrustful of
the ATM services. In some cases the ATM services are restricted
in their ability to provide services to the majority of people.
As a party we are also very concerned about the powers this bill
would give one individual in parliament or, as in this particular
case, in cabinet. As I mentioned before in questions and
comments, what happens is that the DFO minister, who I call the
fishing czar, has incredible powers throughout his ministry to
make changes. A recent example of that is the arbitrary decision
to move 1,500 metric tonnes of northern shrimp away from the
Newfoundland and Labrador people and into the hands of the people
of Prince Edward Island, completely forgetting the adjacency
principle of that.
However, the finance minister can now make similar decisions,
overriding the will of parliament or, for that matter, even
overriding the will of the people of Canada through their elected
officials by doing basically whatever he would like to do. He
would have the power to do that through the bill. I find that
very disturbing.
It is amazing that a document, which is 900 pages long, has to
be rushed through the House so quickly. If anything, a bill that
has 900 pages should be extremely and carefully scrutinized.
There should be no time limit on that. It should be available so
that every Canadian understands thoroughly, in very simple and
plain language, exactly what this means in their daily lives.
My hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle has gone through the
bill very carefully and has mentioned some very serious concerns.
He has mentioned the lack of community investment and the fact
that a particular bank, like the Banque Nationale, could actually
be absorbed and moved to the United States. Those are very deep
concerns not only for the province of Quebec but I am sure for
other areas as well.
What the bill will eventually do is lead to the slippery slope
of American or foreign control of our financial institutions. I
believe most Canadians would fear that indeed.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one of my real concerns about the bill before the House
today is the change in the wide ownership rule. The government
is now proposing we go from 10% of the shares being held by any
one individual to 20% for voting shares and 30% for non-voting
shares.
We have already sold out or given up so much of our country, it
seems to me that if we change the wide ownership rule we will be
inviting more concentration on the banking industry and more
foreign ownership of the banking industry. In essence, a couple
of billionaires could control a big national bank.
I talked to some people in my home city of Regina over the last
couple of days who were also concerned about losing one of these
last industries that really control the country.
So much has changed with the free trade agreement. This is one
of the few that is still left.
The other concern I have is that the government is now proposing
to treat medium sized banks and large banks differently. For
large banks a foreigner, a wealthy individual or an institution
could buy up to 20% of the shares. For a medium sized bank, a
bank with between $1 billion and $5 billion in equity, a single
person could purchase 65% of the shares. In other words, the
Banque Nationale in Quebec could be purchased by the Chase
Manhattan or by anybody else and suddenly that bank would be out
of the province of Quebec and out of the country. With its
headquarters gone jobs would be gone. We would lose a very
important part of our country.
1820
I want to ask my friend from Nova Scotia whether he shares these
points of view. They are really two different questions in terms
of the threshold rising and in terms of treating the three medium
sized banks differently. It is not just the Banque Nationale, it
is also the Laurentian Bank and the Bank of Western Canada.
For smaller banks, banks with an equity of less than $1 billion,
there are no rules or restrictions at all. They can be owned by
anyone, a foreigner or a Canadian. There is a difference there
as well.
Those are the concerns I have in terms of the wide ownership
rule and losing something that we have as Canadians, something
that we have regulated and made work to a pretty decent degree
over the years. I am concerned that with the lack of debate
going on in the House it will be be hard to mobilize public
opinion to put pressure on the government.
Liberal members are not even participating in this debate. The
minister spoke for about 12 minutes and that was it. The
official opposition spoke for a few minutes by putting up one
speaker and that was it. They are not even rising on questions
and comments when we are debating a very important issue.
This is a bill that is over 900 pages in length, a bill that
affects many other pieces of legislation. This is not just 900
pages, but the consequential changes in other legislation amounts
to another 4,000 pages of legislation as well. Much of this will
be done by order in council, by memorandums of understanding and
by guidelines. The minister will have tremendous power in terms
of being a banking czar.
Those are the concerns that a lot of us have. I hope we can
engage some of the members across the way in this debate. It is
a very important issue. They talked a lot during the bank merger
campaign in 1998-99 about changing the rules and putting more
power back into parliament and giving less power to the
bureaucrats and the minister and here is their chance to do that.
Let us have some real engagement in this debate.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I
believe this is the very quick, slippery slope to foreign control
of our banking institutions as well as the re-engineered talks of
the bank mergers themselves. Even the banks have said that if
they were allowed to merge thousands upon thousands of Canadians
would lose their jobs and thousands of branches would be closed
throughout Canada. I believe, as is the case with most other
institutions in this country, that we will eventually lose control
of these institutions and they will be moved over to American or
foreign control.
I find it astonishing that the Canadian Alliance and the Liberal
Party have refused to debate this issue. Usually when they
refuse to debate that means they are trying to hide something or
trying to slip something through on the Canadian people. I find
it disgusting that they will not even engage Canadians on this
very important topic.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know how the hon. member feels about
deep tax cuts, the type of tax cuts that would mean that every
single family across the country would pay less tax?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. I am sure that he
is talking about tax cuts under Bill C-38.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I know we are switching
the topic here but I do not think there is one Canadian who does
not think that he or she is paying too much taxes. However, what
they also want is accountability for the public dollars that they
send to Ottawa, and that, unfortunately, is not helping right
now.
It is okay to think about tax cuts but if they turn into user
fees we have a bigger problem. As I have said many times in the
House, we need a full and open debate on taxation from the
municipal, provincial, territorial and federal levels. We also
need a full debate on what programs Canadians want, how much they
are willing to spend and on the accountability of
parliamentarians in order to spend their hard earned tax dollars.
1825
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is rather puzzling to
see no one from the official opposition getting involved in this
debate except for that last very short question, which was really
a question on a different topic. I wonder if this has something
to do with the big dinner coming up in Toronto where the Canadian
Alliance is selling tables for $25,000 to very wealthy people.
This shows that it is a party that has moved a long way from
ordinary citizens and a long way from the grassroots. I wonder
if this has had some impact on members of parliament as to
whether or not they were willing to get up and debate the issues
respecting banks because some of the people buying these tables
will surely be bankers. They will not be ordinary people living
on the east side of Calgary or at the north end of Regina. It
will be wealthy people on Bay Street and a lot of banking people.
I also noticed that the profits of some of our big banks have
been escalating in the last few years. If we go back to 1992,
for example, the profit of the big six banks was $1.8 billion, in
1994 it was $4.3 billion, in 1997 it was $7.6 billion and in 1999
it was $9.2 billion. With that kind of money I am sure some of
these people will be buying tables at $25,000 a pop.
Then we have questions about big tax cuts for wealthy people and
millionaires. Today somebody in the House said that the 17% flat
tax promised by the Alliance Party would give someone making a
million dollars a year a tax cut of $130,000 a year.
This is quite a metamorphosis for a party that started off as a
grassroots party. It is now a party of Bay Street, a party of
big business and a party of the wealthy and the privileged. I
wonder if that is why its members are not participating in this
debate.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I will quickly answer
that question with another question. How many individual members
of the Alliance Party will actually be able to afford the dinner?
I doubt that very many of them will be there.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I sat today listening to the various
speeches on Bill C-38. I would like to throw out some questions
as this hour concludes.
Canada has the healthiest banking system. No, I do not own any
shares in a bank, but Canada does have a banking system that is
the envy of the world. I wonder what Canadians would think today
looking in on this debate.
I heard members say that banks should be required to stay in
business. Would the government require Dairy Queen to stay in
business if a town was folding up? I heard people say that the
banking industry is an evil institution because it charges for
its services. I heard people say in the House that there is no
competition.
There is more competition in the banking industry today than
ever in the history of Canada. Everywhere we go there is more
competition.
What we should be doing, instead of trying to drivel out some
1955 or earlier speeches about how to nationalize the banking
industry in Canada, is talking about the fact that the
institutions that are providing competition to the banks are
valuable institutions.
Why would members want to paint a picture, not only for the
investment community but for all Canadians, that our banking
institution is something of a very evil nature? That is the
message they are putting out. I am ashamed as a Canadian to have
to listen to this drivel about the banking institution, which is
world famous, being an evil institution.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone on
this side of the House said we should nationalize banks. I also
do not think anybody on this side of the House said that they
were evil.
The member is right, our banking institutions are the envy of
the world. They are extremely profitable and communities in
River John, Nova Scotia and Fredericton, New Brunswick are very
concerned about the closure of their banks.
We do not demand that they provide this service. They are
making billions and billions of dollars. One would think that
they would have some community spirit left in their banking souls
in order to provide service to Canadians.
EMERGENCY DEBATE
1830
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 52 and to order made earlier this day, the House
will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the
House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important
matter requiring urgent consideration, namely organized crime.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
[Translation]
—Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a very important issue.
[English]
As you have outlined, Mr. Speaker, this emergency debate is as a
result of a situation that has evolved in recent months and years
but which is escalating. It is a situation that has become very
critical in the country. Organized crime is becoming more rooted
daily in various communities across the country.
It is certainly something that is not limited to any province.
It may be argued that in the province of Quebec there is an acute
presence of organized crime activity and established gangs which
could be due in part to the headquarters located there and the
length of time they have been involved in their various heinous
activities in that province. However, they are branching out.
They are spreading out like a plague across the country.
Organized crime is something that is not new to Canada, but it
is becoming increasingly sophisticated in its nature. It is
becoming increasingly diverse, like an industry that has
diversified. Organized crime is a problem in rural Canada as
much as it is in the cities.
I begin my remarks by indicating that this is truly a
non-partisan issue. This is not an issue with which anyone wants
to play politics. This is an issue on which we should be united.
Of all things in this place, it is an issue on which we should
be working together to try to eradicate and address and at least
discuss matters in which we can do so in a civil fashion.
Like the old Neil Young song Rust Never Sleeps, crime
never sleeps. This is something which is taking place day and
night across the country. It is happening at all times. It is
not prejudicial. It takes place in communities where there is
perhaps less money and wealth. It preys on the weak. It uses
intimidation. It is insidious in its approach.
Representing the district of Kingston, I know this will be of
interest to you, Mr. Speaker. Being an area where there have
been reports of increasing biker turf wars taking place and where
there is a concentration of Canada's federal penal institutions,
it is a prime area for organized crime. Individuals are often
released from prisons right into the waiting arms of organized
crime.
Last Saturday more than 70 motorcycle gangs, including dozens
from the Rock Machine, were in the city of London, Ontario for an
annual social event with outlaw biker gangs. They were trying to
forge relationships. Just like corporations, they are forming
mergers and working together to gain allies in their continuing
war with the Hell's Angels in this instance, for strength and a
lion's share of the organized crime activity which is going on.
As part of that continuing war, the Hell's Angels, in this
escalating war between them and the Rock Machine, are talking
about control of the illegal drug trade, adult entertainment,
extortion and racketeering.
The problem is apparent. People no longer feel safe in their
communities. They feel that much of what the police do now is
simply monitoring instead of having the ability to intervene and
strike at the heart of the issue. Much of that I suggest is due
to the lack of resources. Where the police fall down in this
regard is that they do not have the ability, the financial
resources, to compete with organized crime in the fashion in
which they should. Nor do they have the legislative teeth, which
is what they have been calling for. They want the ability to
gain access to warrants so they can move quickly. In most
instances, the police are facing a critical situation where they
have to quickly act with great force in a very prudent fashion.
They are dealing with limited resources.
1835
Similarly, organized crime does not have to stay within the
bounds of the law. Those people do not have to follow certain
established procedures. They do not have to wait for a warrant
to arrive or ensure that certain legal remedies are adhered to.
That is fine. We all accept the fact that the police have to
adhere to the rule of law but they are being curtailed. They
have one hand behind their backs when compared with the organized
crime they are seeking to eradicate.
In the province of Quebec there have been a number of instances
in recent days and months. Journalists who have exposed and
written about this problem have become the direct targets and
have been attacked. There have been attempted assassinations.
This is escalating and reaching new and dangerous levels. We in
this place certainly should be discussing ways to address and
remedy the situation, if at all possible.
Two weeks ago the minister from the province of Quebec, Serge
Ménard, urged the federal government to consider the use of the
notwithstanding clause when dealing with membership in gangs like
the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine. During the same period
when the issue was being discussed, Michel Auger was shot five
times in the back for writing about this exact scenario. We do
not know the perpetrators of that offence but the timing
certainly leads one to believe that it was related to those
articles and that subject matter which he had chosen to write
about in the public forum.
Criminal gangs are present in virtually every province.
Organized crime has infiltrated almost every element of society.
Most recently, smuggling rings have been appearing with alarming
frequency on the west coast. The Chinese snake head gangs or
triads are becoming increasingly present. They are becoming most
blatant and almost unrepentant in trying to bring people into
this country illegally, the human trade, as it has been called.
It is dehumanizing and a threat to the very underpinnings of
democracy that this is taking place. Yet the police, our
internal security service, feel curtailed in their efforts to
deal with this threat. Obviously it is not limited to any one
element of organized crime. There are the traditional mafia type
syndicates in place. There are increasing reports that eastern
bloc countries, in particular the Soviet Union, have staked out a
market here in North America. They are perceived by the police
as being a real threat because of their ruthless nature. There
are the Chinese triads which I have referred to. Right across
the board in every corner of the country we are seeing elements
of organized crime.
In my own constituency, in Antigonish, we have seen a biker gang
crop up. They are becoming blatantly apparent to all in the
community of Antigonish. In Saskatchewan there have been new
openings of chapters of the Hell's Angels. It is right across
the board. We are seeing it in Manitoba and Ontario.
The drug war often plays itself out on the streets and roads of
every community. Innocent bystanders are very often caught in the
crossfire of these exchanges. The bombs that are planted by
criminals are intended to intimidate, shut down or infiltrate one
another but very often innocent people become the victims.
Even when organized criminals and those who engage in this
activity are caught and arrested and due process takes place,
they wind up in jail but they continue to recruit. They continue
to actively organize and to communicate with one another. As an
example, last Wednesday, September 13, a Millhaven penitentiary
inmate serving a 17 year sentence was charged again with drug
related and weapons offences and conspiracy to commit escape
after using a cellphone to import Colombian drugs into Canada.
It is appalling to think of the blatant and outright flaunting
of the law that takes place when criminal gangs are involved. The
recruiting that is going on has to be addressed as well.
There is a great deal of outsourcing of criminal activity. Want
to be criminals are brought into the fold and told they will be
rewarded if they will do this bidding, if they will involve
themselves in drug trafficking, prostitution and violence, to
ingratiate themselves to their organized crime masters. This is
happening with increasing frequency.
1840
Criminals are recruiting young people to do their crimes. This
is happening. It is something we cannot ignore and is something
the government itself has to address in a more active way.
I know we will hear from both the solicitor general and the
Minister of Justice about this issue. The Minister of Justice
will rightly point out that the government has brought forward
legislative initiatives. That is welcome. It is welcome in the
community. However in most cases the government refers repeatedly
to the money that has been put into the CPIC system and the
recent cheques that have been sent to the RCMP, but they are
postdated. The money will not be there for years to come.
The money has to come now. The legislative initiatives have to
occur immediately because it is creeping into society at every
element. Making announcements, either in the House or in the
press gallery, as the government is prone to do, does not do
anything but encourage organized crime when they find out that
the money is not actually there. The resources are shadow
resources.
We hear time and time again about the priorities of the
government. Its number one priority was health care. Then the
defence minister said the number one priority was dealing with
the lack of helicopters. We heard today the number one priority
is organized crime. These priorities are shifting like the sands
of the Sahara. They are shifting perhaps like the sands in the
sand traps where the Prime Minister plays golf.
This is not going to help the problem. It is not going to
address the lack of resources the police have and the lack of
legislative initiatives that are needed to allow the police to
attack the problem, to engage in the warfare against criminal
activity and gangs in Canada.
We presently have a committee in place of which I am proud to
say I am a member. The justice committee has been tasked, at the
initiative of the Bloc and with the endorsement of the entire
House, to look at this issue in detail, and we will. There is a
great deal to examine. This is a very complex and involved
matter. There is no way to dumb down this issue as some in this
place would like to do.
We have to attack organized crime at its root. We have to cut
off the flow of resources that they are using. That may involve
bringing in tougher legislation with respect to the proceeds of
crime. I know there are initiatives currently in place. We can
do more. We can always do more when the problem is as acute and
apparent as it is today. Part of that certainly involves
discussion here, but hopefully we will see concrete examples of
the government reacting and acting in a responsible way, bringing
forward concrete legislation, not talking about it here and in
the press.
Let us actually do something. Let us show Canadians that this
place can work forcefully and in a timely fashion. Let us bring
it about for all Canadians to see that the government is behind
our policing agents and is behind the courts in their efforts to
address and eradicate organized crime.
The commissioner of the RCMP is an individual with a long
history of dealing with organized crime in a very practical way,
on the front lines. Perhaps the commissioner will, more than
anyone else in the organization, have firsthand knowledge and an
understanding of just how bad it is. To demonstrate that, we
heard a warning from the commissioner in his very first week in
office. He addressed this issue and specifically pointed out how
bad it had become. He talked about this in a serious fashion. A
warning was issued that should give us pause for reflection. He
is telling us that organized crime is ready to purchase
parliamentarians.
I was listening with interest to the discussion about
fundraising and how political parties are often trying to raise
money. That is accepted; that practice has always been there. But
when parties put themselves on the auction block and they have
high priced fundraising efforts, dinners set up for $25,000 a
table, they are naively putting themselves forward and are
vulnerable to exactly the type of purchase that Commissioner
Zaccardelli has referred to and which he has warned us about.
1845
A lot of potential influence can be bought with $25,000. Why
would the players in organized crime not want to get in line?
They certainly have the money. They certainly have the resources
and they are prepared to do it. They have tried to do it in
other fashions.
Organized crime is out there. It is actively undermining the
moral fabric of communities. It is out there every day working
to do so. It is coming out of the shadows. It is not in the
alleys. It is not in the old flophouses the way it used to be.
It is out there. It is on the Internet. It is in the homes of
people we may know.
Heaven forbid that it ever makes it into the very home of
democracy, but this is what the commissioner is talking about. He
is indicating that parliamentarians, like other Canadians, are
just as vulnerable. It is sometimes that intangible element of
intimidation that the organized crime players like to trade in.
This is very much on their agenda.
We have to act swiftly. Most important, we cannot back away
from this issue, try to bury it, try to ignore it or to pretend
that it is not as acute as it is. Organized crime is beginning
to run rampant.
I have indicated that all sorts of different elements are
competing for their market share. We do not need to torque up
the rhetoric. We have to torque up solutions. We have to torque
up tangible and very real ways to address what is going on.
Jumped up promises or post-dated cheques for any element of this
just will not do it. We do not need to talk about the
priorities. We have to realize that it is a priority.
I do not mean to diminish or make this a joking matter, but the
time is certainly here. I hope this debate will be the beginning
of a real focus, not only by members of the opposition but more
important by the government. The RCMP recognizes it. Municipal
police forces, which are certainly doing the lion's share of
policing in rural Canada, realize it. They continually make this
an issue.
The minister herself will know, having attended a recent
conference, that provincial ministers are looking to the
government for co-operative efforts. They are looking to the
government for leadership and initiatives that would help them.
The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the
criminal code, and that is part of the solution. That is part of
where the change has to begin, whether it is through changes to
organized crime elements of proceeds of crime or whether it
involves giving the police greater latitude to seek warrants, to
enter premises and to work in some effective way that they can
move toward attacking crime where it begins.
Recruiting is becoming a bigger problem. We may have to draft
entirely new legislation that will deal specifically with the
element of recruitment. The suggestion that has been put forward
and discussed already to some degree is the element of outlawing
membership in these criminal organizations. I know that those
with tendencies toward protection of civil liberties are correct
to have legitimate trepidation about how we do this in an
effective way. Part of it comes from a very specific definition
of what encompasses organized crime. What will that definition
be?
The wearing of colours that signify membership in a criminal
organization is simply wrong. It is flaunting it in the faces of
the authorities to go around flying the colours of an organized
crime band. We have to take decisive action here that
demonstrates we are not only not intimidated but will push back
and act in a more proactive rather than reactive way.
We have seen it in the United States. I do not always want to
hold up the United States as a shining example, but it has given
sufficient resources to help deal with the problem at its root.
The disbanding of the coast guard and the ports police by the
government has opened the ports for business. It has signalled
to organized crime that we can no longer control entry into the
country of contraband materials. That has led to all sorts of
problems for local police and RCMP because they simply do not
have the capacity to police those ports.
There are other glaring examples where the resources have been
cut and the police have been left feeling like they are spinning
their wheels.
1850
The government has an opportunity to step forward, to step up
and show some leadership, to show some initiative and to give the
police the help and the support through resources and legislative
initiatives for which they are crying out.
Today can be evidence of that. I am hoping that we will hear
from the minister more than just the usual rhetoric and more than
just the talk about what has been done already. Let us talk
about it in a proactive way in terms of what we can do to help
our law enforcement community and what we can do to help shore up
the doubt out there that we are losing ground, that we are
falling behind and that organized crime is becoming an increasing
threat.
We need to do that in a non-partisan way. I think we will find
that all members of the Chamber are looking to the government to
agree to making that a commitment, to making that a priority. If
the Liberals are headed for an election, perhaps this will be an
election issue. Let us do something now while we have an
opportunity.
This is a life and death scenario. I know we hear that all the
time, whether it is health, whether it is environment or whether
it is justice. This is something that is affecting lives in this
country as we speak. We not only have a responsibility and a
mandate to do something about it. We have an absolutely
undeniable obligation to Canadians to do something about it now,
quickly, in a timely fashion to use the minister's words, and to
do so in a clear and decisive way.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for
his excellent remarks. I would like, though, to observe that he
concentrated mostly on trying to bring improvements to policing
and he directed his remarks fairly to the justice minister and
the solicitor general.
I would like to observe that the problem with organized crime
and the way to really get at it I would have thought, and he only
alluded to it, would be to attack the profits of organized crime.
I would like to draw to the attention of the member that for
years now in the House I have been campaigning to get the
government to write legislation that would make non-profit
organizations and charities publicly accountable for the way they
raise money and spend money.
The solicitor general has had representations from international
police organizations complaining that Canada has become the
centre in the world for laundering money, for laundering the
profits of organized crime, not to mention the money that is
raised on behalf of ethnic conflicts and terrorists abroad. I
would suggest to the hon. member: Would he not support pressuring
the government to take positive steps toward making charities and
non-profit organizations financially accountable, transparent?
Does the member realize, for example, that non-profit
organizations do not have to disclose anything? Even their
financial information returns to the government are not available
to the public, much less to journalists and MPs.
Second, I would also like to draw to the attention of the member
opposite—and I take advantage of the fact that the justice
minister and the solicitor general are in the House and of course
are very interested in this debate—that just a few days ago I
had a person in my constituency office who was engaged in
import-export. He told me he is aware that 16 shipping
containers left Canada for Jamaica without inspection.
The member opposite alluded to the difficulty the police
authorities have to inspect shipments coming into Canada for
contraband, but does he realize that there is almost no
inspection of shipments going out of the country and that in fact
Canada has become one of the grand opportunities for shipping
anything one wants to anywhere in the world?
If we go to Nigeria today we will see stolen vehicles still with
the auto dealership on the their licence plates. They do not
even change the licence plates in Nigeria after a car is stolen
in Canada and is shipped over to African countries.
I wonder if the member opposite would comment. Are we not
really in a situation where it is not a matter of limiting the
right of association and it is not just a matter of increasing
the police, which is of course the favourite answer for the
Canadian Alliance? Increasing the police is always the answer to
everything. Is it not really something we as parliamentarians
should insist upon, that all organizations out there that are
engaged in moving money around should be transparent and
accountable to the public at large?
1855
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
across the way for his question and his commentary. I know that
this is an issue very near and dear to his heart. I do agree
that this is certainly not a simple issue. There are many facets
and many levels to it.
The hon. member is correct to point out in the latter part of
his discourse that there is a lot of export from this country. I
was very aware as a crown prosecutor of a number of auto thefts
where great numbers of vehicles were being stolen and sent
abroad, sent to Europe, very expensive vehicles that were getting
on to the ports, getting on to ships and away they went.
This again highlights the need for international co-operation of
which I know the hon. member is very aware. The element of
transparency and the element of cutting off the flow of money and
the flow of resources to those who engage in this activity are
what is needed.
I take very much to heart and am very encouraged by his own
critique of the failings of his own government members in this
regard. They have every opportunity to do that. This is the
government's sole responsibility. They have to be the
legislative initiators in this instances.
For example there is legislation in the United States, the RICO
act which talks about racketeering, influence and corrupt
organizations. This type of legislation is exactly what is
needed in this country. I know this is something of which the
minister is aware, has heard much and probably read much about. I
am encouraged to see that both the solicitor general and the
Minister of Justice are here ready to take part in this debate.
We look forward to hearing from them about what initiatives we
are going to hear.
With respect to this international co-operation that we must
have, surely we will not hear that it involves having a computer
system that can be accessed the way the situation arose over the
summer where there was a trap door left open and even our allies
could get in to see the way that we were approaching organized
crime. I hope we will not hear that as the answer.
Information sharing is one thing but leaving the door open so
that everyone knows what we are doing, including organized crime,
including those who engage in that type of activity, is another.
Because it is very sophisticated and very high tech they have the
ability to find out what the government may be planning to do
before it does it.
I hope there will be safeguards in place to deal with the
computer system that was extremely vulnerable and left us, I
would suggest, with our pants down looking very embarrassed
before our allies in this regard.
We look forward to hearing further from members opposite, from
the government and from all other members of the House about this
very serious and very compelling issue.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member can comment on this statement if he cares to.
While the Liberals point out that the Alliance is looking for
more policing, the Liberals are looking at spending millions and
millions and perhaps even billions of dollars going after duck
hunters, deer hunters and gopher shooters. They are spending
money like crazy. That is what they have been spending. That is
their answer to fighting crime.
Having travelled around with the police and seeing the
difficulties they face throughout many of our cities, I agree
with the hon. member when I saw so many young people wearing
identifiable jackets indicating that they belonged to an
organization. I see this as being a problem that is affecting
the most vulnerable of our society, and that is the children of
this nation.
I see legislation coming out of some provinces that want to do
something about it. For example, in Alberta the police were
authorized by legislation to take young teenage prostitutes off
the streets, not arrest them, not charge them, but detain them to
try to help them. I am talking about taking 12 and 13 year olds
off the street. Some judge has declared that to be
unconstitutional. Along comes other legislation that allowed the
police to stop identifiable gangs at roadside checks and along
comes a judge who rules it unconstitutional.
I am wondering if the member sees the picture of what is going
on. What is wrong with giving our officers the authority to put
a stop to a lot of the actions that are happening? Their hands
are tied constantly by silly legislation and the spending of
money in areas that is not addressing the problem.
1900
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, while I take the comments
of the hon. member for Wild Rose very much to heart and I know he
has a great interest in this subject matter, I do not think we
can simplify this issue by saying it is only the courts that are
causing or exaggerating the problems.
There are certainly occasions where we need a more streamlined
system. We need the ability to sometimes cut to the chase and
get to the very heart of what is taking place when organized
crime is active in a community and manipulating the system. There
will always have to be checks and balances. That is why I would
be very reticent to jump quickly to the use of the legislative
atomic bomb, the use of the notwithstanding clause. However, it
is there and it is written into our law for a purpose. It is
there like the sword of Damocles. It should be hanging over the
courts, and sometimes lawyers and judges, to be used to remind
Canadians that parliament is the supreme creator and supreme
enactor of legislative initiatives. This is where the House of
Commons comes into play, as well as the Senate, in proving that
we are the ones who make the laws.
I agree about the use of scarce resources at a time when
officers are crying out for more overtime, more technical
advances in terms of the use of computers and sharing of
information. We are continually pouring money into this
cumbersome bureaucratic nightmare that we call the gun registry,
knowing it will not impact on organized crime, knowing first and
foremost that criminals will not participate and knowing that the
police will not be able to rely on it as accurate. Not only is
it being set up and the infrastructure being put in place at a
cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, it has now undertaken an
aggressive advertising scheme to sell it to people who do not
want it. All this is a big ruse and sale of misinformation,
pretending that this will make our streets more safe. It simply
will not work and will not change of course until the government
changes.
Just as in health care, throwing money at the problem is not the
only answer. It is part of the answer to get the scarce
resources into the hands that need them. Legislative initiatives
and co-operative efforts will help to turn the corner at least in
addressing organized crime head-on in a forceful and effective
way.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the
Minister of Justice.
First, I would like to join with others who have in the past
days expressed deep concern with respect to the shooting in
Montreal. The case is under investigation by local police in
Montreal and will follow due course. I know that is what
parliamentarians want to take place.
We know that the use of violence and intimidation by criminals
has the potential to undermine the criminal justice system and
other democratic institutions. It is an issue that many
countries around the world are wrestling with and is something
that Canada will not tolerate.
At a recent meeting in Iqaluit, the Minister of Justice and I
and our provincial and territorial colleagues confirmed that
combatting organized crime is a national priority. Ministers
recognize that the use of intimidation by organized crime is a
serious and pressing concern for Canadians.
As the new commissioner of the RCMP indicated, nobody is immune
to organized crime. What he wanted to indicate quite clearly is
that it is everybody's concern and we all must be cautious.
Organized crime is the number one law enforcement priority of my
ministry. It is a national and international problem and it is
growing in complexity. More important, it is a social problem
and a community issue in Canada and for Canadians.
Its effects are broad and serious across the country. It
affects our youth, our families, the economy and our quality of
life in general. This government has a solid record in dealing
with organized crime from coast to coast.
1905
We know there is no single easy answer to the problem. It is
not only a question of legislation or resources or co-ordination.
In fact, it is all three.
The federal government has made investments in law enforcement.
In 1997 we established 13 integrated proceeds of crime units in
the RCMP. These units include provincial and local police. This
adds up to more than $180 million in new investments in proceeds
of crime enforcement over the past number of years. The IPOC has
seized more than $140 million in criminal assets to date, taking
the proceeds out of crime. Of these seizures $70 million in
forfeitures have been ordered by the courts.
In April 1999 we provided $115 million to modernize the Canadian
Police Information Centre which supports police in all areas
including the fight against organized crime. In June 1999 we
announced new funding of $15 million for the RCMP to provide for
its presence in the three largest airports in the country;
Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That way we can prevent
organized criminals from seeking to enter Canada to do business.
Also, in June 1999 we injected an additional $78 million over
the next four years to the anti-smuggling initiative launched in
1994 with resources for the RCMP, Justice Canada and Customs
Canada to target cross-border crime.
Last but not least, in this year's budget the RCMP received a
substantial funding increase totalling $584 million over the next
three years. A portion of that of course will be used to fight
organized crime.
This government has worked to give the police the tools they
need to do the job of fighting organized crime. New anti-gang
legislation was put in place in 1997 and is being used now by
police and prosecutors across the country to target gangs. We
know that many of the provisions that were introduced are being
used widely and effectively. We also know that some see certain
elements as complex and we are consulting with police and
prosecutors to monitor how the legislation is being used and
whether and how it can be improved.
We put new anti-money laundering legislation in place this past
June when Bill C-22 was passed. It helped police target the
profits of crime. We have also worked with the public to develop
community based strategies and responses to criminal gangs.
Is there more to do to fight organized crime? Yes, there is
more to do. Organized crime is a complex problem with many
manifestations. Violence and intimidation are two aspects. They
are two of the most troubling aspects, to be sure. There are the
effects of the illegal drug trade on our youth. There is the
fear and anxiety among the public and in our communities that can
be created because of gang violence. There are the effects on
our economy and our environment.
Migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings are also a
growing international concern and certainly have an effect on our
country. Telemarketing fraud artists victimize elderly persons.
Credit card frauds are increasing dramatically according to the
industry and police. Organized crime is involved in
interprovincial and international auto theft and our insurance
premiums reflect this. It is honest citizens who pay for the
lifestyle of organized crime in this country.
The diverse nature of the problem requires that we deal with
this on a number of fronts. We have done so. This has been our
strategy. We will continue to do so by investing in legislation,
in enforcement resources and by working with communities
across the country.
1910
We are continuing to develop new initiatives now by
collaborating with provincial governments, the police and
communities across the country. We are also working closely with
the United States and our other international partners to
co-ordinate law enforcement and to set shared standards in a
global effort to combat organized crime.
I want to emphasize the need for governments in Canada to work
together. We are faced with a national problem and we need to
deal with it in a co-ordinated way. This is my top priority as
solicitor general and I am personally committed to ensuring that
what needs to be done will be done.
The Canadian public is the biggest factor in the fight against
organized crime. The public knows that biker gangs and other
organized criminals are not romantic figures or rebels. Those
who think otherwise are quite simply sadly mistaken. Outlaw
gangs and other organized criminals are a cancer to our society.
They exploit the freedoms that we cherish so much in this great
country. They exploit our honest young people and the quality of
life that honest hard-working Canadians work to achieve and
maintain. The public must recognize that gangs and organized
criminals victimize us all.
We must collectively and individually refuse to provide any
support to criminal gangs. Zero tolerance must be our policy.
This means refusing to buy contraband goods. It means working
with local police when problems arise in our communities. It
means not allowing gangs a place in our communities.
The Minister of Justice and I met with our provincial and
territorial counterparts in Iqaluit. They believe as we do that
it has to be a co-ordinated effort on all fronts, with the RCMP,
provincial police departments and municipal police departments.
They certainly appreciate some of the moves that we have made
such as the DNA databank which is so important in helping to put
criminals where they should be, and that is behind bars.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has issued a white paper
on the judgment of the supreme court in Campbell and Shirose. We
are waiting for submissions from our colleagues from across the
way and across the country to make sure that we give the RCMP and
other police forces across the country the tools to do the job.
I remain firmly committed to doing all I can, working with
provincial governments and Canadians to deal with the serious
organized crime problem we face in Quebec and across the country.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I will make this very quick and very short. I have two
questions. They are not difficult to answer and I am going to
listen carefully to the answers.
The solicitor general stated a solid record in dealing with
organized crime. Regarding the anti-gang legislation enacted in
1997, over three years ago, I ask the solicitor general how many
convictions have taken place under that legislation? If the
answer is more than zero, I want to have the information
regarding those convictions.
Second, could he explain to me the heading in the press release
from the police which states “Police Plead for Tougher Measures
to Fight Organized Crime: Less Talk, More Action, Says Canadian
Police Association”. We have not had any at this time.
Could he explain his comments at his press conference and tell
me how many convictions have there been?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the
number of convictions, but the law in place is certainly a
detriment to the organized criminal and to people who belong to
gangs. They are well aware that if they break the law and they
are associated with a gang they can receive consecutive
sentences. They do not even have to be associated with a crime
that takes place down the road.
That is important as a deterrent to gangs.
1915
The second question my hon. colleague asked concerned what tools
we have given the police. There is something very important
taking place right now and that is the white paper my hon.
colleague has put out. I wonder if my hon. colleague for Wild
Rose, who seems to be very concerned, has made any submissions or
any suggestions as to how things should be done on a very public
front.
The Minister of Justice and I and our counterparts across the
country want to take action. We want a co-ordinated approach.
Grandstanding in the House of Commons does not help anybody who
is suffering from the effects of organized crime. We need to
make sure that we do not just put on a big show. We must put the
laws in place that are needed to fight organized crime, and that
is what we will do.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that was a wonderful response from the solicitor
general, but I cannot reconcile from those remarks and from his
previous remarks that if the government has done so much and
brought in so much legislation and given the police so much by
assisting them why organized crime is still escalating. Why is
it still getting worse, which he has acknowledged in his own
remarks? That does not jibe.
I want to focus my question on a very specific aspect of his
responsibilities as solicitor general. We know that there have
been a number of serious instances within the present confines.
In 1997 prison guards Diane Lavigne and Pierre Rondeau were
gunned down in separate attacks and ambushes attributed to the
Hell's Angels. Last week, after the August shooting, a Quebec
prison guard was shot while driving to work.
I would like to hear from the solicitor general. What is he
doing specifically to protect his guards? I hearken back to the
issue of the 50:50 release program. What is he doing to help his
own prison guards?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague
from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The government is not
taking $83 million away from the RCMP as was proposed by the hon.
member's party.
In fact the government had to adjust the financial mess that was
left by the Conservative government. There were no resources for
anybody. That is why, after very careful progress by the
government, we are now able to supply the RCMP and other law
enforcement agencies with the tools they need to do their job.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that all members share
a concern about the serious problem of organized crime. It is a
problem that affects all provinces and communities in Canada, be
they urban or rural.
Events in Quebec and in other provinces in recent years have
shown us that organized crime has many faces. It involves drug
trafficking, prostitution, gun running, money laundering and
migrant smuggling.
High profile crimes, trials and investigations in Quebec,
Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and other provinces
have engaged the attention and concern of all Canadians. The
recent events in Quebec, in particular those involving the murder
attempt on a respected and courageous Montreal journalist, have
brought the problem of organized crime front and centre in the
national consciousness.
In the wake of these disturbing events my colleague, the
solicitor general, and I have affirmed that the criminal
legislation of Canada will be re-examined to see if the tools
available to police and to prosecutors are being used to their
fullest effect and whether they can be improved.
1920
We and our officials at all levels will be working with the
authorities at the provincial and local levels, especially the
police who are in the frontlines of this battle, to ensure that
adequate and focused resources are available and are applied in a
co-ordinated way.
[Translation]
Let us be clear. As I mentioned earlier today, we will be
working with our provincial and territorial counterparts to make
sure that, if we need new laws, we will get them.
[English]
Before we talk about new tools or resources I would like to
focus on some of the actions that have been taken in the last few
years to address the challenges of organized crime. For example,
the anti-smuggling initiative targeting in particular the
smuggling of drugs, guns and other contraband by organized crime
gangs was introduced in 1994 and I am pleased to say was most
recently refunded in June 1999.
The Witness Protection Program Act came into force in 1996. We
should ensure and we must ensure that this program is being
applied effectively and is adequately resourced.
The Controlled Drug and Substances Act was enacted in 1997.
Together with the police enforcement regulations adopted under
the act it provides for exemptions for police officers involved
in important undercover work in drug cases and for the ability to
seize property that is used to commit those crimes.
Bill C-22 was enacted earlier this year and introduced new tools
to improve the detection, prevention and deterrence of money
laundering in Canada, which is key to attacking the complex web
of organized crime. As we all know money is the lifeblood of
organized crime.
Most important, in regard to the threat posed by biker gangs and
other criminal organizations we put in place measures in Bill
C-95. The cornerstone of Bill C-95 was a new offence that made
participation in the illegal activities of a criminal
organization an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years
in prison to be served consecutively. This provision establishes
an offence covering anyone who participates in or substantially
contributes to the activities of a criminal organization and who
is a party to the commission of an indictable offence for the
benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with that
criminal organization.
It has been proposed, however, that it should be enough to prove
that someone is a member of an identified criminal organization
without being able to or being required to prove that he or she
has been guilty of any criminal activity. If necessary, it has
been suggested that we invoke the notwithstanding clause to
support such a proposal.
Such an approach has the advantage of simplicity, but while I am
prepared to entertain all proposals to strengthen our existing
laws and while I do not outright reject any suggestions, a simple
membership offence will have to be carefully and rigorously
scrutinized from all perspectives.
It is clear that action against organized crime continues to be
a top national priority and that progress has been made on the
agenda established in 1999 for this effort. This national effort
will employ existing legislative, regulatory and administrative
tools as well as new and innovative approaches to do the
following: first, to target criminal assets and proceeds;
second, to enhance the investigation of organized crime by such
means as a better sharing of information; third, to enhance the
prosecution of organized crime; and fourth, to safeguard the
integrity of the criminal justice system from threats by
organized crime in particular by preventing the intimidation of
police, prosecutors, judges, jurors, witnesses and other persons
who play a critical role in our justice system.
One example of a new and innovative approach is the concept of
civil forfeiture. This technique attacks the assets and proceeds
of organized crime in a way that is different from traditional
criminal law.
1925
This approach is being considered at the provincial level and by
officials within the Department of Justice. The constitutional
division of powers in Canada poses challenges to this particular
approach, but there is a strong will among all governments in
Canada to work together to find new ways of dealing with
organized crime.
Senior officials from my department and of my colleague, the
solicitor general, will be meeting tomorrow morning with their
counterparts in Quebec. They are examining together the
investigative, evidentiary and other problems being experienced
in that province with regard to using the existing legislative
provisions that target organized crime. No doubt there will be
meetings at all levels with other provincial officials. Organized
crime is a pervasive problem that exists throughout Canada, and
so we need to work in concert with all our provincial and
territorial colleagues to find the solutions.
I believe that improved legislative tools are possible and that
their use must be made as effective as possible. Co-ordinated,
effective and adequately resourced enforcement efforts by police
and prosecutorial authorities at all levels in Canada will be the
key to the effective use of new legislative tools.
The justice committee is already examining the problem of
organized crime through a subcommittee that began its work
recently. The issue of intimidation in the criminal justice
system is one issue that I know the committee will no doubt be
examining closely along with the many other facets of the problem
of organized crime. I encourage the committee to move forward
with its work quickly. It is important work.
The problem posed by organized crime is serious. We must be
willing to review our laws to see if we can improve them to make
them more effective. We need also to look at the efforts we must
make to aggressively investigate and prosecute those involved in
criminal activity of this kind, but we must also think very
carefully before we concede that we cannot in a free and
democratic society fight organized crime with effective tools
that also respect civil liberties and fundamental justice.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the government talk about the
legislation it has brought in. I have the same concern as my
colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that while
legislation has been brought in to fix the system, we still have
a system that is worse than it was before.
I refer to the section of the criminal code which was brought in
in 1997. It is the aspect about participation in criminal
organization, which I believe is actually reasonably well
written. I studied whether or not people have been convicted
under this aspect of the criminal code. I understand one person
has been since 1997. I also understand that a number of cases
have been plea bargained. The plea bargaining that took place
eliminated that aspect of the law which in effect gives
consecutive or additional sentencing to anything that happens. I
agree with that.
Therefore the problem in my mind is not just necessarily that
there is no law. The problem is the legal industry and the
courtroom. Many a victim in the country will say that therein
lies the difficulties they have.
Is it possible to have a comment from the justice minister on
whether or not she thinks it would be possible to get around the
plea bargaining aspect and where an individual is proven to be a
member of organized crime a penalty between two and fourteen
years exists and is not plea bargainable within the court?
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. It is an important one.
1930
The hon. member has stated that if one looks at the existing
organized crime provisions in fact in 1997 amendments to the
provisions introduced much tougher sentences. In fact we have
the prospect of imposing up to 14 years in the form of
consecutive sentencing.
I cannot comment upon provincial prosecutorial decisions in
relation to plea bargaining. There is a former prosecutor here
this evening in the form of the justice critic for the
Progressive Conservative Party. He probably would be much better
placed to talk about what goes into a decision being made by a
provincial prosecutor and the provincial attorney general in
terms of pleading out or agreeing to a plea bargain in a given
situation.
What I want to do is acknowledge the fact, as the hon. member
has, that the sections are there. We need to think about why
plea bargaining takes place in the justice system. We all know
why, but it is frustrating for all of us on occasion to see that
these sections are not tested, that the consecutive sentencing
provisions are not used or the courts are not given the
opportunity to use them because a plea bargain arrangement has
been entered into.
The hon. member has raised a serious matter. It is one which I
think I should take up with my provincial and territorial
colleagues because they are responsible for the prosecution of
these sections. We are not. Provincial attorneys general guard
that jurisdiction jealously, as the hon. member knows. Therefore
I will take the hon. member's legitimate and sincere concern and
find out from some of my provincial colleagues why they made the
decisions they did in the given cases to agree to plea bargains.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will try to be brief, although this is very important.
I missed the beginning of the minister's speech because I was
doing telephone interviews on the radio on this very issue.
People are very concerned. They do not understand why we will
not be voting this evening on something to give some teeth to
effective legislation on crime and criminal groups.
Since 1995, we have tried to amend all sorts of laws to provide
the police with tools, including the criminal code, the Food and
Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the Parole Act. The
minister can make a fine speech, but it does not work. Something
else is needed. We have to try other things to put a stop to a
very complex situation.
My question is quite simple: Is the minister prepared to
seriously consider the use, if necessary, of the notwithstanding
clause to really give teeth to anti-gang legislation?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today,
and I will reiterate, the solicitor general and I will be sending
our officials to Quebec tomorrow to meet with their counterparts.
They will meet with other provincial counterparts. You may
shake your head, but let me say that officials in Quebec have
done some very good work in relation to how we can amend the
provisions in the criminal code without using the notwithstanding
clause to make them more effective.
Unlike you, I would actually like to know about that work. I
would like that work shared with provincial and territorial
colleagues to see if we are able to put in place—
The Speaker: I would remind you, hon. colleagues, to
include me, rather than speaking to each other. I am feeling a
little lonely up here. I know you are just coming back after the
summer. The time for questions and comments is over.
Before the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford begins his
debate, I would ask if he is going to take 20 minutes.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be taking 20 minutes and you know I will
address my comments through you. I would not be like the justice
minister.
It is a pleasure to talk about this issue tonight. It is
interesting the comments we get from the government side.
Let me quote the justice minister today and the solicitor general
tonight. The justice minister said that organized crime is the
number one priority of the government.
1935
It is ironic that it is the number one priority today, when we
heard very little about it last week, last year and on and on.
Why is it that with this government it seems that the number one
priority begins when something moves it to move in that
direction? It is really sad indeed that all of a sudden we are
here in the House in a special debate when something that set it
off was a reporter who was shot in the back five times in Quebec.
I remind the government that there have been things going on for
years in this country that have been involved with organized
crime. I remind the government that last year alone 400 people
died in two cities, Vancouver and Toronto, from drug overdoses.
Those drugs came from organized crime up at the top. The year
before that there was well over 300 in Vancouver alone, and there
is the year before that and the year before that. So why is it
we are here today, the first day of the sitting of the House of
Commons, in an emergency debate, when this has been an emergency
for years? Yes, the government has developed laws, but they have not
worked. That is the main message we are trying to get across.
I know the government is saying it will examine it and that it
is studying it, but the time for study has past. This has
been a problem for a long time.
Some of the responsibility for this has to lay at the feet of
the government because whatever action is going to come out of
this exercise could have and should have been done some time ago
in my opinion. The comments from the solicitor general tonight
were “We will not tolerate this”. “This is my highest
priority,” he said.
We have been telling the solicitor general for years there is a
serious problem in the prisons. There is a serious problem with
parole. But on Monday, September 18, 2000, the highest priority
is organized crime because something happened to move the
government in that direction. That is not the way to run a
country or a government, in a reactionary mode.
There is much talk about the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine
in Quebec. I remind the government and others listening that one
only has to live around the triads in British Columbia to know
how deadly a group those people are, how ruthless they are. We
only have to go to Manitoba to understand what the Warriors are
like. There is the Satan's Choice in Ontario, the Para-Dice
Riders, the Vietnamese gangs, the Big Circle Boys and on and on
they go. It is not about two groups. It would be a mistake to
identify two groups in particular in the criminal code because
that excludes a lot more than it includes. That is important to
remember.
I would like to know why two or three years ago the government
eliminated the ports police. We were told at the time it was a
cost cutting measure. I spent a good deal of time with the ports
police. I know the role they played on both coasts, in Halifax
harbour port in particular and in Vancouver.
It is interesting. Almost immediately after the ports police
left Vancouver, one of the organized crime groups immediately
moved into the Vancouver port and set up operations.
1940
How does organized crime benefit? How does it expand? It
expands by eliminating organizations like the ports police, or
cost cutting in the RCMP. I wish I could have a debate here with
the solicitor general on what the government did with the RCMP
budget. It was only a year or two ago in the House when we were
practically begging the government to give the RCMP money. In
fact, after all that duress the solicitor general was under, he
finally gave in and gave it money, which he is bragging about
here tonight. That is reactionary mode. It is not good for the
country.
I have some examples of what organized crime really is. I want
to read them into the record for the House. People across the
country will understand just how serious organized crime is.
The Big Circle Boys is another group. Triad member Wing Fu Ha
was arrested in Vancouver for the murder of an infant in what
police suspect was a gang rivalry incident. Wing remained in
Vancouver despite an earlier deportation order against him.
I will have some recommendations a little later on what to do,
but I can tell the House I have dealt with this personally as
well. One of the problems with organized crime is the lack of
strength and conviction of the Liberal government to deport
people who break our laws. That is a fact. I just read of one
of them here, a triad member. He should have been out a long
time ago.
Contrary to the unanimous advice of law enforcement, the ports
police were disbanded and immediately thereafter an organized
crime linked company was granted docking container facilities in
the port of Vancouver. The amount and quality of heroin now
available in Vancouver is such that in August of 2000, heroin
addicts, that is, those who have not died, marched to protest
government inaction. Heroin addicts are saying there is too much
heroin on the streets. That is a fact. I have been there. I
have seen it. I have talked to them.
In June 1999, more than a year ago, Vancouver police cracked a
heroin importation ring run by Simon Kwok, whom they identify as
a member of the 14K triad group, responsible for drug
importation, prostitution, credit card fraud, home invasion, and
extortion of members of Vancouver's large Chinese community.
That is what an individual like that does. That is organized
crime. That is reality. That hits the streets of my community
every day, and everyone else's community, including Halifax,
right across the country.
We know about the ongoing violent warfare between the Rock
Machine and the Hell's Angels in Quebec resulting in shootings,
bombings and more deaths, but here is what is not said about
that. A fellow, Michel Auger, a decent individual, a
professional in his own rank, gets five bullets in the back. I
read that a couple of days ago in Halifax a fellow was shot
twice.
Shootings like that are an everyday occurrence in the country
now. What happened to the government's gun legislation? The
major comment we had in the House of Commons when that
legislation came in was that it would help to curb crime, but
that is not the case. It has become a revenue generator.
Mr. Peter Adams: Rubbish.
1945
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, one of the Liberals is
saying “rubbish”. The fact is that Bill C-68, which brought
in the gun law, did not help Michel Auger did it? It did not
help five people in one night in my riding two years ago. Who is
it helping?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, 80% of deaths are from
hunting rifles.
Mr. Randy White: They do not like to hear this across on
the other side.
Violent episodes of shootings and bombings between Vietnamese
and various triad gangs occur on an ongoing basis in Vancouver,
Edmonton and Toronto. The 1998 solicitor general's report
confirmed that organized crime was responsible for the illegal
entry into Canada of approximately 16,000 people annually; money
laundering in excess of $10 billion a year, which costs
Canadians in excess of $10 billion a year; attempts to influence
or corrupt public officials which is expected to occur in Canada
and in fact even commented on by the new commissioner of the
RCMP; and the illegal entry into Canada of persons claiming
refugee status who subsequently become involved in organized
crime activities.
The Toronto police busted a prostitution ring run by the Big
Circle Boys triad involving young Chinese and Asian women brought
illegally into the country and forced into prostitution.
The reason I gave those examples is to ask a question of the
other side. The Liberals said that they brought in this law and
that law, but what have those laws done to stop this? This is
occurring every single day in our country and all we have heard
thus far from the solicitor general and the justice minister is
“We will not tolerate it. It is our highest priority. We will
re-examine it”.
We also heard that improved legislative tools are necessary. We
may agree with that but thus far we have seen an escalation of
organized crime in just about every area that it can get into.
What has legislation really done in the past?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Why does the member not bring up
the drug busts?
Mr. Randy White: The solicitor general wants me to bring
up the drug busts. If I brought up the drug busts I could assure
him they are minor compared to the amounts of drugs that are sold
to our children. They are very minor indeed.
In Vancouver, the Province newspaper has confirmed that
the RCMP has listed Stanley Ho as the lead member of the triad
organized crime group since 1991. Despite this, Ho has received
multiple visitor visas, has extensive holdings in Canada, is a
donor, personally and corporately, to the Liberal Party, and has
actually hosted a cocktail reception for the Prime Minister
during the Vancouver APEC conference. That information was in
the paper and I trust it to be accurate.
I am in no way suggesting that there is an attachment. What I am
suggesting is that known organized crime agents are entering and
leaving this country on a regular basis. The government knows
that and I know the immigration department knows that. The only
thing that happens is that the criminals get caught in a legal
wrangle, in appeal after appeal, if they even are asked to be
deported. It is not working.
No legislation has been mentioned by the immigration minister.
The justice minister and the solicitor general are here. The
immigration minister should also be standing up in the House to
say that we have some problems and that we need some legislation
but that has not been done.
The finance minister or the revenue minister should be standing
up in the House saying “Under the Income Tax Act we should make
it easier to seize assets and sell them”. It is just not two
people in this. The whole government has to sit down and look at
this situation. It is not sending two, three or four people to
Quebec. It is a lot bigger than that.
1950
I recognize what the provincial and territorial justice
ministers are saying, but that is not the point. The point is
that I do not think the government is co-ordinated in its effort.
It is futile in my mind to take a section out of the criminal
code, section 467.1, and make an adjustment to it in the hope
that this will all go away. It is a lot bigger than that.
Mr. John McKay: Use the notwithstanding clause.
Mr. Randy White: If the member had been listening, I did
not say use the notwithstanding clause. One of the government's
problems is that it does not listen too well. That is why it is
in the fix it is in today.
There are quotes from an RCMP report detailing triad and Russian
Mafia control of bringing young women from eastern Europe into
Canada for prostitution and exotic dancing using illegal entry,
visitor visas and refugee claims. I again get back to the
comment that this is just not a justice-solicitor general issue.
Many of these issues come back to immigration into Canada, open
borders and the refusal to refuse people coming in.
I want to make a statement and pose a question at the same time.
I heard the justice minister's answer a while ago when I asked
the question about plea bargaining. While I am not a lawyer and
do not want to be, I can understand and appreciate that there are
differences between federal and provincial legal systems, whereas
the administration of the courts are within provincial
jurisdiction. However, there has to be some way the federal
government can influence the courts in a province to prevent such
plea bargaining from taking place. The difficulty with plea
bargaining in many cases is that the only person who gets hurt is
the victim. That is a fact.
It seems to me that if we have laws that are going to be worth
anything, to allow the legal industry in a courtroom to take away
what just might be the answer, a consecutive sentence for being a
member of organized crime, is a shame. I think the concentration
for the solicitor general and for the justice minister should be
in that area; apply the laws. That is all Canadians are asking
for.
I had a number of recommendations, and I suppose I have covered
most of them, but I will give a couple more. We have to create a
mandatory minimum five year jail term for smuggling or criminally
exploiting illegal immigrants into Canada. We have to prohibit
conditional release of any kind for an offender ordered deported.
We have to amend the Immigration Act to require the deportation
of a person found to be a member of an organized criminal group,
among many other things that I have mentioned.
If there is one thing the justice minister and the solicitor
general take away tonight, I hope it is that we in Canada are
looking for action and not more studies. Once a law is a law it
must be applied in our courts for a change.
1955
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member who
just spoke. He is an excellent parliamentarian. I would like to
ask him a question that I wanted to ask either the solicitor
general or the justice minister but I could not because of time
constraints.
The question is both at the same time the easiest and the
hardest in this debate. The question is quite simple. The
solicitor general is the chief policeman of the country.
Canada's tradition is that our police are responsible for
upholding the law. That is the fundamental charge that we give
our police.
Finally, the ultimate law in Canada is the charter of rights and
freedoms. Does it not therefore follow that whatever we do and
whatever steps we take that the justice minister, the solicitor
general and this parliament must protect the principles of the
charter of rights and freedoms?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty we have with
the charter is the many rulings within it in the courtrooms. We
only have to look at child pornography to see that.
The reason it is necessary to have a notwithstanding clause in
there is because what has been put into the generalized charter
of rights and freedoms has been misinterpreted by the judiciary.
Most court cases today are brought on by lawyers on behalf of
clients who want to interpret this and are moving in that
direction. The notwithstanding clause is an absolute necessity.
As far as the charter of rights and freedoms is concerned, I do
not have a problem with it other than the misinterpretation by
the judiciary, which is where the major flaw has existed over the
last 12 years. It has become a fad in the courtroom to go after
it and amend it.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my question as
brief as possible, although I have some background information I
would like to read.
I am sure the House will recall that back in 1995 we passed a
bill known as Bill C-68 which required the registration of all
firearms in Canada. What Bill C-68 essentially does is it lays a
piece of paper beside every gun in the country. That law is not
yet fully implemented. Less than 25% of the firearms in Canada
have registration certificates beside them. In fact, that
percentage could even be below 10% if we could get the
information from the government.
Back in 1995 a man by the name of Bob Runciman, the Ontario
solicitor general, made a statement before the committee. I will
read it to the House because I think it is very indicative of the
missed priorities of the government. Mr. Runciman said:
Our position is that the sections of Bill C-68 that provide for
compulsory registration of all firearms will divert police
resources from more important tasks. Those sections (of Bill
C-68) will reduce the number of officers and the amount of money
available to deal with serious crime. They will make the real
task of gun control more difficult and more dangerous for the
police officers who undertake it. And those provisions will
ultimately have no significant impact on violent crime, or the use
of firearms by violent criminals.
He then went on to say that if we were to spend $500 million on
this registry we could put 5,900 more police on the street. Those
5,900 extra police on the street would make a significant impact
on that. What is happening today?
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I know where my colleague
is coming from and he makes a very good point.
One of the things we are missing here already, and which has not
come up in the discussion about organized crime, is that when a
murder takes place in Canada it is usually done with a gun.
2000
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can say that as a former
head of the Waterloo Regional Police Force with 700 police
officers and knowing where the chiefs of police stand and where
the rank and file for the most part stand, Mr. Runciman was wrong
in 1995 and he is wrong now.
What we have heard from the party opposite is nothing more than
fearmongering and scare tactics. We saw Mr. Day in the House
today. Imagine, there were spouts of water flowing and other
things. He wants to bring a new tone of civility into the House.
What we see from the member opposite is nothing but. What we see
is the kind of code words for anti-immigration and code words
that bring the race card into play. We saw that happening. Look
at the last names of the people mentioned in the transcripts. Is
the new tone of civility where the Alliance Party is really
going?
I ask the members opposite, because they are always caterwauling
away about gun control, to name me one victims group in Canada
that supports their position when it comes to gun control. The
reason I ask the question is that they repeatedly go out of their
way to say they are on the side of victims and they are on the
side of victims' rights. What I want to hear from them is the
name of one group of victims that supports their position. I
know the answer to that. There is not one.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the
hon. member said that. I was the original writer of the national
victims' bill of rights. It is a sad commentary coming from the
other side.
This is the problem when we try to debate issues like this.
Accusations come across on a racial ground. I certainly did not
indicate anything like that. It is sad when we try to get our
points across to the solicitor general and the justice minister,
who are obviously listening because I saw them writing notes,
that some backbencher would stand up and tell us that we have an
ulterior motive. I have no ulterior motive here. The fact is
that when these members on the other side do not have a
legitimate argument within debate, we get these kinds of—
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask hon. members to listen
to one another.
Mr. Randy White: I am glad to
continue with the civility in the House of Commons rather than
listening to that.
I want to say that in all honesty I stood up here tonight to try
to provide what I thought were at least motivating suggestions to
the two people of the four or five who are responsible for this.
That is what is necessary. I am sad that it deteriorated into
something less.
My bottom line and the message is that we have been waiting for
change for years. Drug addiction in this country and the tens of
thousands of young people on drugs did not just happen. It has
been happening for years. It is not time to start studying this.
It is not time for the government to say that it is its number
one priority today. That was 10 years ago. Now it is time to
take some concrete action. I sincerely hope that within this
Chamber tonight the government listens to the suggestions we are
making, rather than accepts our comments as some kind of terrible
criticism that nobody should make.
Our job is to give suggestions in a concrete way and that is
what we will do whether the Liberals like it or not.
2005
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the attack on reporter Michel Auger a few days ago was the straw
that broke the camel's back.
There are many reasons why Quebecers have had enough of the rule
of terror that criminal organizations, biker gangs and other
groups impose upon our society, in Quebec as well as in Canada. I
am talking more specifically about the situation in Quebec since
it affects us directly.
I was reading a report that was released yesterday by the
federal Department of Justice. I assume our colleagues opposite
would be interested in such a report. The report tells us that
witnesses, jurors and lawyers have been threatened by these
groups. I will add that parliamentarians have also been
threatened by these groups.
There have been 150 victims in Quebec over the last five years,
30 of whom were innocent victims, men, women and children who had
the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, who
just happened to be nearby when a bomb went off. Thirty innocent
victims.
The recently appointed RCMP commissioner, Mr. Zaccardelli,
expressed some fears with regard to the corruption of
politicians. This is not coming from me, but from the head of
the RCMP.
The number of such organizations has increased since 1995. Even
after passage of Bill C-95 in 1997, we saw the number of biker
gangs in Canada increase from 28 to 35. Is this not evidence that
we do not have the necessary tools to address the problem? What
should we do to deal with this situation? Remain passive? Talk?
I think our duty as parliamentarians—because we do have duties
to fulfill—is to stand up and respond to the call of the public.
Some have said we are doing this to score political points. This
is certainly not true in the case of the Bloc Quebecois. We have
been raising this issue in the House for years, since 1993.
Obviously we have made some gains: it is thanks to the Bloc
Quebecois that $1,000 bills have been taken out of circulation.
Mr. Speaker, you and I have never had pockets full of $1,000
bills, but those people count their money by weighing hockey bags
on a scale. Thousand dollar bills take up less room. That is
exactly what has happened, and the hon. member across the way
ought to realize that there is nothing funny about it. He may
think it funny, but the victims did not.
No, we do not have any vote-seeking motives. We are, moreover,
not the only ones calling for this; the Bloc Quebecois motion is
supported by the government of Quebec, Quebec Liberal Party
leader Jean Charest, as well as the government of Ontario, the
Sûreté du Québec, the Canadian Police Association, the Quebec
Press Council—not a repressive body—the Fédération
professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, the Montreal Urban
Community Police Department, and the NDP governments of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These are not all nasty sovereignists
who are seeking to take advantage of a situation in order to gain
votes.
This is a serious problem, and perhaps it is high time there was
some realization of this over on the other side of the House.
What does our motion say? We will be coming back to it. Today
will not see an end to it. This late night debate is not going
to do away with it when there is no provision for a vote. We
are not afraid to vote, we are not afraid to stand up, we are not
afraid to say what we think. We will never be afraid, and we
will be back with it. There will be other opportunities, and it
will be moved again here, in the House.
With the support of all of the opposition parties, I would
remind hon. members, the motion refers to “making it a crime to
belong to a criminal organization, if necessary—I emphasize that
it is “if necessary”—invoking the notwithstanding clause of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
2010
That created quite a stir among the Liberals. This reminds me of
a headline that I recently saw in an Ontario newspaper. I could
not believe it. The constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels
were violated by the Ontario police because these people have
rights.
I can just imagine the Prime Minister delivering a speech at the
UN to tell them about the best country in the world and saying
“In our country our democracy is so developed that even the
Hell's Angels have constitutional rights, and so do the Rock
Machines and the Outlaws”.
Is it not nice that, in Canada, these groups have constitutional
rights? Our democracy is so advanced that these people have
constitutional rights. But the government does not even want to
think about using something legal. The notwithstanding clause is
in the charter, but the government will not use it against
criminal groups. That would lower the level of democracy in
Canada, since the Hell's Angels are entitled to their
constitutional rights, just like the Rock Machines.
Go tell the mother of young Daniel Desrochers that you are
not even considering using that clause because of the
constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels. This is unbelievable.
It is ridiculous, but the result is also dreadful.
The Liberals' attitude is deplorable.
First of all, the Prime Minister, worse than ever—and this is
saying something—says “They want me to meddle in provincial
jurisdictions by intervening on the criminal code”. But, good
God, for someone who was the Minister of Justice and has been
here for over 35 years and is the Prime Minister, not to know
that the criminal code is under federal jurisdiction—I will
believe anything, but not that. Unless he does not know this. It
is true he did not know that he does not pay employment
insurance. But he knows about the criminal code. Meddling in
the affairs of the provinces is his greatest joy. For once this
is his jurisdiction and he does not intervene.
Subsequently, the Liberals refused to debate the motion now
before us because it was a votable item. In other words, it is
fine to talk, debate, discourse but certainly not to take a
stand, because the constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels are
too important.
However, these people solidly support the young offenders. When
it comes to imprisoning children of 10 or 12 years of age, they
are brave. Come on kids, we are going to put you in the corner.
Instead of a spanking, it is off to prison you go. However, on
the subject of the Hell's Angels, the Rock Machine and so on,
they are fearful, silent, they hide, they say “We must not touch
the constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels and the Rock
Machine. Never mind what they do, they have rights. That would
be lowering the level of democracy”.
Is that a responsible attitude? Is that the way a responsible
parliamentarian should behave? In the case of young offenders,
Quebec asked that the legislation be left as it was because it
was working. The results prove it. The government is doing the
opposite. Our request this time is based on our expertise. If
there is more pressure in Quebec—and the federal report says
there is—it is because the police are taking tougher action
against these groups. It is not just a coincidence. The
Liberals are reacting because they know that we do not have all
the resources we need, while they are sitting pretty. In this
case, they are imposing it on Quebec.
What does the motion say? Does it say that the notwithstanding
clause must be used? Absolutely not. We are asking the
government to consider acting on our proposal to make membership
in such groups a criminal offence and, if legislation is not a
possibility, to consider the notwithstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause is part of the charter. It was not
Quebec that imposed the notwithstanding clause. We signed
nothing. It was the provinces of English Canada which would not
have agreed to the charter without the notwithstanding clause.
Now that it is available, they do not want to use it. The
constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels are more important.
We cannot accept this state of affairs. What am I going to tell
the young men and women in my riding who are prostituting
themselves because they are drug addicts, the victims of these
groups? I am going to tell them that the Minister of Justice
loves and understands them, but that she does not wish to use the
notwithstanding clause.
2015
According to the members opposite, the constitutional rights of
the Hell's Angels are more important than the fate of these
young people.
What am I going to tell restaurant owners in my riding who are
paying protection money? What am I going to tell all the
innocent victims? The Hell's Angels have constitutional rights.
The minister is shaking her head. Well, for God's sake, if what
I just said is not right, can you tell me what is? I am right.
Because they refuse to consider the notwithstanding clause, they
oppose our motion. It is sheer hypocrisy and nothing else.
What should we say to the families of the victims? “Our prayers
are with you, Mrs. Desrochers.
We may go sing a song for you, free of charge”. But there is no
way we can infringe upon the constitutional rights of the Hell's
Angels. They are too important. This is the standard by which
our democracy will be judged.
Democracy is such a beautiful thing when the constitutional
rights of these gangs supersede the fate of our young people who
represent our future. The constitutional rights of the Hell's
Angels, what more can we say.
There is much more to be done, of course. We now have a
subcommittee. After two years of hard work by the Bloc a
subcommittee on organized crime was set up. Yet there are many other
aspects to consider. I can think of international ramifications,
money laundering, and interference in legal businesses, because
these criminals create legal businesses with their dirty money.
It is hard to believe what they have achieved, on which boards of
directors they sit, which business circles and which political
circles they have penetrated. That takes time.
But, in the meantime, what are we telling future victims?
Some future victims are listening to us tonight. Some
young people will use drugs tonight. Not a word. We do not think
about that. Because, you see, the constitutional rights of Hell's
Angels are at stake.
We do not want to use a tool that we have at our disposal. We
are refusing to use it. Is Canadian democracy not wonderful? We
are going to deprive ourselves of this tool.
The objective is not to use this clause. We are not saying that
this clause will necessarily be used. We are saying that it will
be used if necessary. If there is no other way, what should we
do? Should we just give in or should we tell people that there is
no other way? Should we tell them that we have thought about it
long and hard, but that we would have had to use the
notwithstanding clause and that is against our principles?
Some countries have done it. I am thinking of France in
particular. France is not a dictatorship. It has a law against
criminal gangs with penalties of up to ten years imprisonment, if
I am not mistaken. Have any of the labour unions disappeared
since then? Are there not protest groups on every issue in
France? Were those who blocked the roads arrested because it
could be criminal? Come on, it is ridiculous. We know full well
who this law is for.
Because such groups have rights, is their existence a measure of
our democracy?
These are the questions we must ask because our democracy is
being attacked on all fronts, including on the political front.
Threats have been made to some members of parliament. The RCMP
commissioner tells us that attempts have been made to corrupt
some people and perhaps there is some corruption.
The power of the judiciary is being attacked through threats
made against witnesses, lawyers and jurors. Threatened is the
word the report uses. The attack on Michel Auger was an attack
on the freedom of the press. There has also been an attack on
Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, now the speaker of the Quebec National
Assembly. Our economic institutions are also in danger because
the clean money that is created by money laundering becomes dirty
money as well. That is a self-evident truth.
But these people have been creeping slowly ahead. They have
front men. The small fry are arrested while others are
strutting around openly in society. Some of them have what they
call “filthy few” tattoos on their shoulder. If the minister
is not aware of this, let her come to my riding. To earn that
tattoo a person has to have killed someone. These killers are
grouped together as the “filthy few”. If a Liberal over there
wants to play at being one, let him just get such a tattoo and
spend ten minutes on Sainte-Catherine in the east end. Those
would be his last ten minutes on earth.
We know these people and we know what they do. If anyone does
not know what the Rock Machines, the Outlaws, the Devil's
Disciples, the Hell's Angels are, they must be from another
planet. These are not clubs where people get together to play
cards or go bowling. We know what they are involved in.
Of course, the former minister—I do not believe the present one
would serve up this pontification totally devoid of logic—said
that people are not being attacked for who they are, but what
they do.
I am telling you that these people act the way they do because
of who they are. That is as simple as that, and those who do not
understand this are off track.
2020
Who is the charter made for? For those groups or for law-abiding
citizens? Can we not take the United Nations charter as an
example? Section 20 refers to the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association. Someone would have to prove to me that
these are peaceful groups. The burden of proof is on you to
show us that these are pacific groups.
People are not arrested because of who they are, but because of
what they do. I am telling you that this government will be
judged on its actions.
Which side will it take? That of the constitutional rights of
the Hell's Angels or the Rock Machine or that of young people,
the future and democracy?
People demand that we take a firm stand. They cannot accept
those meaningless, sophisticated and pontificating speeches
which are perfectly useless. We do not accept that. This fight
will continue; those people will soon be made accountable.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am a former journalist. As a journalist, I know that
the most famous journalist in Canada and Quebec was René
Lévesque.
He was a journalist who defended human rights here in Canada and
abroad. I admired René Lévesque. He was the veritable image of
a journalist, with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and a
good sense of humour. He was a very honest man who understood
well what it was to be a journalist.
Quebec is proposing that the right to freedom of association be
limited. I wonder what René Lévesque would have thought of this
proposal to limit the rights included in the charter of rights
and freedoms.
How does the hon. member think René Lévesque, who defended all
these rights, would have reacted?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I have often noticed that
admiration for René Lévesque has unfortunately been much greater
here since his death than when he was alive.
That having been said, these are the same Liberals who did not
hesitate to steal membership lists for the party led by René
Lévesque at the time—
An hon. member: They set fires.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: —who did not hesitate to set fire to barns,
and worse yet—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Yes, members of the RCMP did set fire to
barns. This was proven by the McDonald Commission. And what is
more, they were rewarded with promotions.
It is hypocritical to delude oneself about what went on, what
was done.
What I have just mentioned really happened and can be verified.
As to limits being imposed on the rights to organize and
associate, I would point out that there are limits to freedom of
expression and that hate propaganda is prohibited. No one with
any sensitivity in Canada protested because people were
sentenced for disseminating hate propaganda, and quite rightly
so.
I am in agreement with that. Hate propaganda should not be part
of the right to freedom of expression, and neither should giving
constitutional rights to the Hell's Angels.
2025
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I heard the hon. member
speak, I asked myself what annoys and upsets him the most. Is it
that Canada is in fact the best country in the world, the Canada
he wants to break up, or is it the fact that, as he said,
ordinary Canadians, people across the country, should have
rights? He seemed to allude that they should not and I find that
most surprising coming from that party opposite. It is a party
which one tends to think would have a little bit of common sense
in this area.
After all, our charter and constitution are fundamental to the
very grounding of the country. It is fundamental to who we are
and the values we represent. To listen to that leader opposite
and that party go on about how they would reduce a very complex
issue down to whether or not it is a choice between Hell's Angels
and the youth of the country, which is exactly what he said, is
ludicrous in the extreme.
It was quite a theatrical performance, do hon. members not
agree? Great sarcasm, great theatre, great mocking, mocking the
justice minister and the solicitor general. It was great theatre
on behalf of a so-called libertarian party.
Well, it was a little bit too thick. At the end of the day, the
leader opposite and his party should hang their heads in shame
for saying that the very constitution on which we base this
country and the very charter by which the rights of all Canadians
are guaranteed are at the whim of something as easy as a
notwithstanding clause.
I want from the hon. member another example of when he would use
the notwithstanding clause. I want to see another example of
when he would invoke that if he were in a position to do so. I
want to see precisely the rights he is prepared to strip not only
from Quebecers but from Canadians as a whole. I would like him
to answer that precisely and to the point.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague said that
he had thought during my remarks I said to myself “This is an
improvement over the past”.
When I listened to his remarks I could see that it was not
particularly elevated thought. I did not say that the
notwithstanding clause absolutely had to be used. I said
consideration had to be given to using the notwithstanding
clause, which is part of the charter.
Could the member listen to what I have to say? I listened to
his insipid remarks. He should give me time to talk, perhaps it
will help him think better. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to you.
It is true, it is more interesting than what this firebrand has
to say.
We hear this member say “You will be depriving ordinary
citizens of their rights”. The Hell's Angels and the Rock
Machines are not ordinary citizens. For a former policeman to
not know this, I have to say he must have been just as effective
as he has been as a member of parliament, and that is not saying
much. That sort of remark is unacceptable.
If anyone has been fastidious about respecting individual and
collective human rights in the past, we have. We do not intend
to use it for pleasure. We say “Should we use that, an existing
clause”. We say that because it exists.
If this is the Liberals thinking it is like that of their
leader, who does not know that the criminal code is under federal
jurisdiction. However, the member will never repeat these things
as the Prime Minister does, because it is clear from listening to
him that he will never be a minister.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington say a few things. Does it not concern the
hon. member as a member of the House to hear somebody who is
supposed to represent the government more or less stick up for
the criminal element in our country?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would keep
quiet, I would reply.
I do not think he is doing it intentionally or voluntarily. This
requires judgment.
2030
I think that for several people it is a dogmatic position. Yet,
the notwithstanding clause is in the charter. This House voted in
favour of the notwithstanding clause. It voted to have a tool
that could be useful. I am not saying that it should necessarily
be used, but it is in the charter.
I hope this is the only reason why some members opposite have
this attitude.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the leader of the Bloc Quebecois for his
speech.
[English]
My question is specifically on the legislation that would
address the problem. It is good to see the Minister of Justice
present. She gave a very good speech as to what the government
would like to do in an ideal world.
Is legislation aimed specifically at outlawing participation and
membership in a criminal organization that was brought in
quickly, in a comprehensive way, emphasizing deterrents and
showing a strong governmental response to mere participation and
the wearing of colours and the act of participation in a criminal
organization indeed what the hon. member is suggesting is needed
quickly and decisively to address this problem before it expands
further outside the province of Quebec and throughout the country
the way we have been seeing it in recent days and months?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly that. My
colleague expressed exactly what we are proposing. We also
mentioned that maybe we will have to use the notwithstanding
clause, not necessarily but if necessary. That is the only thing
that is stopping the Liberals from supporting the motion.
We should concentrate not on a dogma but on need. We have to
stand to answer and give an example to the population of Canada
and Quebec that we are here to represent them, to defend them and
to make them secure.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will be using the entire time. I will pick up this debate where
it began with the comments of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He said in his opening remarks
that this was a most serious issue. It is. We are here in an
emergency debate. It does not happen often in the House of
Commons that the Speaker rules that there is sufficient gravity
to a motion to warrant an emergency debate. We are here on a
matter of sufficient gravity.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough began by saying
we should have a non-partisan debate because it is too important
to deteriorate into the usual kind of blaming that sometimes goes
on. I hope we can revive that spirit because this debate is not
about gun control. The debate is not necessarily about the
notwithstanding clause. The debate is about organized crime and
how as a parliament we are to respond to it.
The Speaker has ruled that there is an emergency. Is there a
crisis in the country? I do not know if crisis is perhaps too
strong a word but there is an emergency. That emergency was
brought to a head, galvanized by the recent shooting on September
3 of Quebec journalist Michel Auger. On behalf of my party and
all parliamentarians I want to extend our sympathies and our
concern to both him and his family. He gives real truth to the
words spoken by Robert Kennedy that moral courage is a far rarer
commodity in this society than strength in battle or great
intelligence. The moral courage demonstrated by this journalist
ought to be commended and respected.
The shooting has galvanized the debate around organized crime. I
suppose it has also galvanized the debate around freedom of the
press. I say in passing that it is of great importance that
freedom of the press is a cornerstone to democracy. No
journalist should have to fear for his or her safety if they want
to delve into a story.
2035
I remember when I was questioning the Minister of Transport
three years ago about the ports police, that a young journalist
who was covering that story for CBC Radio, whom I came to know,
was under police protection because she was exposing at that time
in 1997 some of the serious effects of gangs in the Halifax area.
No journalist should have to fear that. No member of parliament
should have to fear addressing those issues. No judge or no
jurist should have to fear any kind of organized crime.
That brings me to the question of how we came to this point
today. How is it that we are having an emergency debate in the
House of Commons on the issue of organized crime? It is no
mystery. As I said, in 1997 I urged the Minister of Transport at
that time to reinstate the ports police. That has already been
brought up time after time.
I am not happy to say that my party or I was right at that point
in time because of the effects that have developed from the
dismantling of the ports police. I met with the police on the
docks in Halifax, people in the ports police who showed me
clearly what the effects would be as a result of the dismantling
of that police force.
It meant that in effect the ports in Canada, whether in
Montreal, Halifax or Vancouver, became open territory for
organized crime. Repeatedly I pushed the Minister of Transport
on that issue. Repeatedly he came back to me and said he had
every confidence that the provincial police forces and the RCMP
would be able to deal with the issue of organized crime in the
ports. Today, three years later, we are having an emergency
debate in the House of Commons on the issue of organized crime.
We got here because of cost cutting measures put in place by a
government that was adamant. It was not alone. It was prodded
in many ways by others. There was a debt and deficit hysteria
and come hell or high water it was here to eliminate the debt.
Today we have a $30 billion surplus and unfortunately hell and
high water are here.
There have been cuts to the provinces over the last six or seven
years. The moneys in equalization payments have been cut to the
provinces and the provinces are charged with the administration
of justice, as we have learned in this debate. When a province
does not have the money to pay its prosecutors, to hire
prosecutors and to provide the resources to its provincial police
force, we find ourselves in an emergency debate.
The provinces went on to cut municipal budgets and so police
forces at the municipal level felt those cuts. It is no mystery
and no surprise that we find ourselves after all the slash, burn
and cut in a situation where we do not have the resources to do
the job. The coast guard, the ports police, and the educational
and training facilities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have
been cut. Now the chickens have come home to roost.
It does not mean that we cannot do something about it. I do not
want to dwell on the past because I said this should be a
non-partisan debate. My objective here is not to cast blame as
much as it is to try to work with all members of the House to
find a solution to what is a serious situation in the country
today.
The situation is serious. I commend the members of the Bloc
Quebecois and others who have been pushing for some time to
address the issue of organized crime. It is a serious matter.
There are many types of organized crime. When many people think
of organized crime they tend to think of the old Mafia movies. We
have gone far beyond Godfather type movies.
There are Asian based organized crime rings in the country that
specialize in trafficking in human beings. They specialize in
heroin and cocaine importation. There are east European gangs
that are involved in extortion, murder, prostitution, and in
drug, tobacco and weapon smuggling. They are involved in
immigration fraud and counterfeiting.
2040
There are the traditional historical types of organized crimes,
the mob that we know of. There are the outlaw motorcycle gangs
which have brought this debate to a head. They are the Hell's
Angels. They are the Rock Machine. We read about them in Quebec
but we know that they are not exclusive to Quebec, that they
exist across the country.
In my province in Halifax a couple of years ago I remember when
the Hell's Angels were present and the Rock Machine, their rival
group, was trying to buy property in Dartmouth across the
harbour. We could see what was coming. We could see where this
would lead.
There are serious issues of organized crime in the country
today. There are serious issues in Manitoba. I have heard from
my colleagues who represent the city of Winnipeg their concerns
for safety in their communities. We know that they had to build
a special courthouse in that province to deal with the trial of
members involved in organized crime who ultimately pleaded
guilty.
There is a real problem. There is a real emergency. When
journalists are shot, when people are concerned, when members of
parliament are threatened, we have an emergency.
There is no benefit to fearmongering. There is no benefit in
trying to play politics with that kind of an issue. In the same
way as we have a real problem, we have dedicated, determined
police forces in the country who despite the lack of resources
have worked very hard to do their jobs. We see the results of
that. Too often those results do not get the kind of press they
deserve, but this summer we saw drug busts that appeared to break
all records. We know that on both coasts the police did their
jobs. We know that the new commissioner of the RCMP is committed
and is determined to take on organized crime.
The citizens of the country who listen to this debate and who
read Hansard should know that while we have a serious
situation with organized crime we have a dedicated and determined
police force to take on the issue.
However those police forces require resources. In the same way
I have indicated that resources have been cut over the years, it
is time to reinvest in those police resources. The Minister of
Justice has commented that in 1997 provisions in the criminal
code were brought in. She is correct. As has been said by the
member of the Canadian Alliance, those sections are well worded.
They should result in the criminal prosecution of members of
gangs and organized crime.
Rightly some members asked the Minister of Justice why there
have not been any convictions. There was some discussion about
plea bargaining, judicial intervention and whatnot, which I think
are side issues. The reality is that all the laws in the world
will do no good if the police do not have the resources with
which to bring the case to court. To do that properly without
infringing upon the rights of the rest of us, which ought not to
be sacrificed on the altar of hysteria, and to work within the
charter of rights the police need to have the resources. The
police make mistakes and perhaps infringe on the charter when
they do not have the adequate resources to do the job they need
to do.
The solicitor general has indicated there has been some
additional funding for the RCMP but I think there needs to be
more.
2045
We can take a page from the Canadian Police Association who met
in Halifax this summer and discussed this issue. I had the honour
to speak to that organization. My parting remarks to the people
of that organization, and this was before we had an emergency
debate and before the unfortunate incidents in Quebec, was to
pledge to work with them in the fight against organized crime in
Canada. I asked them to work with the subcommittee on organized
crime of which I am proud to be a member.
I have also had an opportunity to look at some of the
suggestions they offered in the fight against organized crime.
Some of them make sense and I offer them to the Minister of
Justice and the solicitor general for consideration.
The association has asked for the development and implementation
of a strategic national response to organized crime providing
greater priority, funding, support and co-ordination for local,
provincial and federal policing jurisdictions in the battle
against organized crime. I have said that we have to begin to
reinvest in the police. I also asked that we work in a
co-ordinated effort with the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, customs and excise, national police services, the
criminal intelligence service of Canada in partnership with the
federal and provincial police forces.
I am glad and I commend the Minister of Justice and the
solicitor general for going to Quebec tomorrow to meet with their
provincial and territorial partners. I think we can listen to
the Canadian Police Association and involve the other ministers,
including the Minister of Transport, because the reinstatement of
the ports police would go a long way.
The police association also asked for a national border
protection service. Call it what you will, Mr. Speaker. Call it
the ports police or a national border protection service, but the
association has asked that it be established and that is
something that we as a parliament should push for.
It has also asked for an examination of election financing and
candidate financing criteria to provide elected representatives
with clear guidelines to prevent infiltration from organized
crime.
There are solutions to this problem. They need to be
implemented right away. We cannot afford to spend a whole lot of
time studying the issues. We know the issues and we know some of
the answers. That should not prohibit further investigation. The
subcommittee on organized crime can play a vital role here.
The original motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois asked
for a law to be introduced in the House of Commons by October 6.
There is no reason that any law could not be vetted through the
subcommittee on organized crime that already exists. I would
pledge my time and I know the other members of the committee
would to try to ensure that the law as crafted would be charter
proof, would be efficient and would be effective.
There are ample suggestions from the Canadian Police Association
and ample suggestions from members of parliament on how to deal
with this situation. We need to do that.
As I have said, the minister has pledged, and I think her words
were, to re-examine the code to find if there are ways that she
can with our help fight organized crime. She certainly has my
pledge and the pledge of my party to work with her in that
regard. I take her at her word on that.
There has been discussion of the notwithstanding clause and
whether or not it ought to be invoked. The original motion
brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois read “That this House
request that the government prepare and bring in by October 6 a
bill making it a crime to belong to a criminal organization”.
As I have indicated, people should know there is such a law
already on the books which makes it a crime to belong to a
criminal organization. In response to a question from the member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois clarified that and said they wanted to go further and
make it a crime to wear the colours to be identified with a gang.
The resolution goes on to say “if necessary, invoking the
notwithstanding clause of the charter of rights and freedoms”.
The leader of the Bloc went on to say that they were not
necessarily calling for its invocation but only if necessary.
2050
One of the reasons we fear and fight organized crime is to
protect the liberties we have as citizens. Surely within this
House, surely within the resources that the Department of Justice
has, surely within the resources that the solicitor general has,
surely working with the Canadian Police Association and the
chiefs of police across the country, surely working with the
commissioner of the RCMP we can as a democratic institution draft
the necessary laws to protect our citizens without taking away
the guaranteed rights of those citizens.
I feel compelled to say there are no rights for criminals in the
charter of rights. There is no section in the charter of rights
that says “These are the rights of men. These are the rights of
women. These are the rights of victims. These are the rights of
criminals”. There are guaranteed rights to all citizens. When
we suspend those rights to tackle one group, we have to bear in
mind that we suspend the rights to all of our citizens. That does
not happen often.
It happened with the War Measures Act before we had the charter
of rights and freedoms. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the
War Measures Act suspending what were then the civil liberties of
Canadians which were defined not just through the bill of rights,
but through precedent and through a long constitutional history.
We look back on that today and wonder if it was the right thing
to do.
I urge us to act swiftly and decisively to find a way to protect
this country from organized crime without doing it at the expense
of the freedom we all enjoy.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for lowering the tone of hysteria in the
House and congratulate him on his thoughtful speech.
To state the problem in my respectful view is relatively easy.
To come up with examples of organized crime is also relatively
easy and to gauge the concern of Canadians about the issue is
relatively easy. But crafting a legislative response is
something far more problematic.
I ask the hon. member two questions. The first question is with
respect to his views on section 467 of the code, formerly Bill
C-95, a bill which I might suggest was crafted in haste for which
we now repent in leisure. The evidence that has come before the
committee at this point is that this section which parliament
passed three years ago is unworkable. It is onerous. It is not
likely charterproof. The police will not use it. The crown will
not use it. They are fearful of jeopardizing their
investigations. Would the hon. member consider the implication
of the notwithstanding clause on what is arguably a problematic
law with respect to section 467?
The second question is with respect to the resolution as to
bringing before the House by October 6 a law wherein membership
in an organization is illegal. I would be interested in knowing
his views on both section 467 and the proposed resolution.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond.
2055
I think the hon. member is correct in some respects when he says
that section 467.1 was passed in haste. It is not the first piece
of legislation in the House and in the criminal code that we have
seen passed in haste for which we repent at leisure.
The child pornography section of the code falls in the same
category. It was rushed through the House of Commons and today
stands before the Supreme Court of Canada subject to all kinds of
acrimonious debate. Had the job been done properly the first
time, we might not be going through this agonizing debate. He
may well be right when he says that section 467.1 falls into the
same category.
The answer to that is not necessarily to invoke the
notwithstanding clause. It is to replace the section. If the
section has been poorly drafted and passed in haste, the worst
thing we could do is respond in haste again and make another
mistake. The answer is to properly draft the section. That is
the best reason that we should not make the same mistake again.
Let us craft the law so that the police can work with it, give it
the kind of teeth it needs, and make sure that it is workable.
Let us not panic and do it within two weeks and be back here,
some us and some of us maybe not, in three years saying we have
another bad piece of legislation and in the meantime organized
crime in the country has increased.
I think I have answered both of the questions in terms of what
we should do with that section and should we bring it back by
October 6. Not necessarily unless we can put together a proper
bill. That is where I think the subcommittee on organized crime
can play a legitimate role in reviewing the legislation and
making sure that it is adequate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for
Sydney—Victoria for his speech. There was one contradiction in
his speech that was glaringly obvious to me but perhaps not to
anyone else in the House. He said that this debate is not about
gun control but then he went on to make a big point about the
fact that it was about resources.
I was cut off earlier in my comments with regard to the Ontario
solicitor general calling upon the government to scrap this and
put 5,900 more police on the streets instead. That is where this
is relevant.
The latest information we have through access to information is
the government is spending over $300 million on something that
has really no measurable impact on organized crime. It does not
affect the criminal element in this country in any way. Up to
this point the government has only collected $17 million in user
fees and it will have spent up to $300 million this year alone.
Should we not examine our laws to see if they are cost
effective? If they are not cost effective should we not be
putting those resources into areas where they would be very cost
effective in improving justice in Canada?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I think we are mixing
apples and oranges here and I say that in the most sincere way.
I appreciate what the member is saying, that we should examine
our laws to see if they are cost effective.
The platform of the New Democratic Party in 1997 was to do
exactly that with Bill C-68, to have a federal audit done of the
bill. That of course becomes even more important as we see how
much money is being dished out in this regard.
To me that is a separate issue. We do not have to choose
between gun control or the fight against organized crime. I do
point out, as has been pointed out, neither the chiefs of police
nor the Canadian Police Association have asked that we do that.
They have asked for both.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will be brief because a Liberal member asked a similar question
to the hon. member.
I did indeed meet him in Halifax on September 1, because the NDP
member spoke just before I delivered a speech before the
Canadian Police Association in Halifax.
2100
In my speech, I referred to the difficulties that police forces
encounter when they use the anti-gang legislation. I think it is
wrong to call it the anti-gang legislation, but this legislation
has been in effect since 1997.
Could the hon. member tell me if there is a police force in
Canada, in any province, that said that it is an instrument that
is easy to use, that it is what they need to be effective
against criminal organizations? My question is simple. When we
passed this act, which has been in effect since 1997, did it
meet the expectations of police forces and since we have had
this tool called the anti-gang legislation, have things really
changed?
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, it was indicated in an
earlier question that this section of the criminal code has not
met its objectives. I do not think there is any debate about
that. The police are not happy with it and the courts and
parliamentarians have concerns about it. The answer is, no, this
section of the code is not working. As I reiterated earlier, the
answer is to bring in a clear, sound piece of legislation that
has real teeth.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention. I want to commend my
hon. friend for his learned, insightful and thoughtful remarks.
He always contributes to the debate in that fashion. I was
particularly pleased to hear him pay tribute to the need for more
prosecutors and resources. I know that he was sincere in those
remarks.
I want to turn my question to him specifically with respect
to what we can do in a concrete fashion to deal with this issue
in terms of a legislative initiative. I am referencing comments
made by the Ontario attorney general with respect to this need
for legislation that calls for a broadening of the definition of
criminal organizations, the criminalization of participation and
recruitment of those who engage in this type of activity, the
prohibiting of the wearing of identifications and clearly
designed insignia that signify membership in a gang, and the
establishment of mandatory sentences for certain types of
activities that are associated with criminal organizations. Those
seem to be the concrete steps that have to be taken and embodied
in the legislation, which we are all here discussing today, and
expanding police powers to search and attend to crime scenes
where there is suspected criminal organization. These seem to be
the concrete steps that are being suggested by the Ontario
attorney general and which are being discussed here in the
Chamber.
I know the hon. member has significant criminal law experience,
but I was wondering if those and others he may be aware of are
the areas that we have to go into as a committee. As the justice
committee, of which he is a member, and the House deliberate over
this issue, are these the areas that we have to touch on if we
are going to bring forward legislation that will also stand the
test of time? It will not be done in haste but it will be done,
to use the minister's words, in a timely fashion that will send a
strong deterrent message. I know this is something which the
hon. member knows.
The need now with organized crime is to send a deterrent message
not just to those currently engaged but to those who might
willfully engage in criminal activity. I believe that has to be
encompassed in the legislation. I look forward to his response.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I do see the need for
more prosecutors. I also see the need for more resources to
legal aid, as the Canadian Bar Association has called for. I
know my hon. friend agrees with me on that.
To go directly to his question, I do think that we need to look
at expanding police powers. I do not often agree with the
attorney general of Ontario but on some of these comments—
An hon. member: He is a Tory, isn't he?
Mr. Peter Mancini: I think he is a Canadian Alliance
member but I am not sure.
I seriously think that on these issues we have to look at
expanding police powers.
2105
The member will know that we have already talked about ways to
allow police to sometimes contravene the law in terms of
infiltrating gangs. We may have to look at that. Expanding
police powers to search, but with the necessary safeguards of
judicial warrants, may be a way to go. I am prepared to explore
those options.
I hope the Minister of Justice, when she says she is prepared to
re-examine the legislation, is being sincere with us. There is
no reason to think that she is not and I expect I and my
colleague will work together on this as we have on many other
issues.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks by
saying that organized crime is a very serious situation. I want
to emphasize not only to the House but to all Canadians that the
Government of Canada, the justice minister, the solicitor
general, the Prime Minister and all members of our caucus take
this, as I am sure all members of parliament do, in a very
serious fashion.
I can tell the House that with my police background I have
attended many conferences and was involved in many situations
where this was discussed. We looked at this in a very concerted
way trying to determine what exactly should be done in this area.
We wanted to bring together partners from across Canada and from
all levels of government: provincial, federal, territorial,
municipal, regional and others, so we could operate effectively
and ensure that the kind of policing, policies and laws that we
put in place would work in concert to ensure that the scourge of
organized crime would be diminished if not eradicated.
I take this very seriously. I, along with the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, was in the Ukraine and Russia not so
long ago where they have huge problems with respect to organized
crime and the criminal element. It is of grave concern,
especially as it relates to Canada in terms of people trying to
get into our country and trying to contaminate the very fine
country we have.
We need to redouble our efforts in terms of making sure that our
borders in that sense are safe and secure so that our Canadians,
no matter where they live in this country, are safe and secure,
not only themselves but their families as well.
I will take a moment to recap some of things that have been said
in the Chamber tonight. We of course heard the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough lead off with respect to this
motion. He made some very interesting comments.
However, the one thing that I take a little exception to is the
fact that he said we should look to the United States for a
template in terms of how to manage this problem. That really is
outrageous when we think about it. The Americans have high crime
rates, high murder rates and whole inner cities that have given
up as result of criminal activity. People are now living in
suburbs with walls around them. The Americans, I say with all
due respect to the member, are hardly an example for us to
emulate. In fact, they are the worst example.
I also want to point out that during the 1997 election the
Progressive Conservative Party actually campaigned, and members
of his party were elected as a result of campaigning, on reducing
the budget by $83 million in this all important area. I think it
is fair to say that it is a little disingenuous for him to get up
tonight and say that we should be putting in more money when he
campaigned on quite the opposite.
We were also treated to the justice critic for the Alliance
getting up and talking about things like not having laws in place
to keep criminals out of Canada. I want to again make reference
to the Ukraine and Russia where I was not so long ago with the
minister. I can tell the member that he, as are all those
Alliance members, is point blank wrong. There are in fact laws
in place. The minister has made it very clear that people who
are undesirable coming to this country will not be admitted.
Those directions and operations were given concertedly and with
great and due diligence.
2110
The members of the Alliance who keep perpetuating these myths
should really take a look in the mirror and give their heads a
shake and try to determine why they keep perpetuating this kind
of nonsense. What they should do is read the laws. They should
understand what the laws stand for and how best to implement them
instead of the fearmongering that they are so good at doing.
Those extremists opposite with their right wing agenda are always
trying to stir up Canadians and pit people against—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order,
the hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here while the
member has been speaking and our debate is not assisted at all by
him name calling and saying things about us which, frankly, are
not true. I think that you should call him on a point of order.
He should be relevant to what we are talking about today, and
that is criminal gangs and how to deal with them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As always in a
debate there are two points of view, generally speaking, one from
one side of the aisle and the other from the other side of the
aisle. I too was listening and in my opinion there was not a
problem with relevance.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which part of
my speech the member took umbrage with. I assume it was when I
called them extremist right wingers. I suppose that is where he
was most upset, but if the shoe fits I suppose he can wear it and
I am sure he does.
The other point I wanted to make with respect to the justice
critic from the Alliance—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): At least for the
moment, we are not going to bring in through the back door that
which we will not bring in through the front door. I would ask
the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington to withdraw the last
comment, which had to do with shoes fitting and being worn.
Mr. Lynn Myers: I certainly withdraw the shoe from the
member's foot.
What I want to say has to do with gun control. We actually
listened to the justice critic say—and my head was spinning at
this point thinking he could actually believe this—that if the
gun control legislation was as good as it was purported to
be—and I am paraphrasing here—Mr. Auger might have been spared
the danger and the five bullets. I had to think about that for a
minute because that really is twisted logic. If one really comes
down to the brass tacks of it all, it is twisted logic.
What I would say instead is that what we have in place with
respect to gun control is something that the vast majority of
Canadians support. The reason they support it is because they
know it is an effective tool for the police, for CPIC and for
Canadians wherever they live in the country in terms of the
reduction of crime. It is a Canadian value. It defines us
differently than our neighbours, for example, to the south.
Along with their NRA friends, Mr. Heston, the Michigan Militia
Corps, the minutemen and those right wing nutbars that exist in
the states, the Alliance members actually counsel people to break
the law and not register.
If we had the reverse where people had registered their guns, if
we had the Alliance members helping in this regard as opposed to
hindering it and dragging their feet as they have been doing over
the last number of years, we would have had in place a system
that would have worked.
I reverse that and say shame on them for not bringing safety and
security to something that not only the police chiefs of the
nation endorse but the association of police as well. They
should know and recognize that as being something fundamental to
the country. They should be proud to do that as opposed to the
shameful way they have conducted themselves with respect to this
whole gun control issue.
We also heard the leader of the Bloc, with great sarcasm and
great mockery, take on the whole business of the constitution and
the charter of rights and freedoms that all Canadians enjoy. I
had to absolutely wonder where he was coming from. Is that in
keeping with the wishes of the people of Quebec? Is that in
keeping with the wishes of the people of Canada in terms of our
great charter of rights and freedoms, that great document that
helps define us as a people and unite us as a nation?
2115
Mr. Myron Thompson: Hogwash.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Listen to the member of the Alliance
saying “Hogwash”. Imagine. He does not understand the
charter. He would not know diddly-squat about the charter and
the rights and freedoms of individuals if he fell over them. He
does not understand any of that. The Alliance people have no
regard for the individual rights and freedoms of people. They
would have us all become monoliths just like they are. We will
have no part of that.
For the Bloc leader to go on at length and talk about destroying
the rights of individuals was astounding to hear. One would have
thought that party would have had a better position when it comes
to something as fundamental as our great charter of rights and
freedoms, something that is envied around the world, something of
which we should be proud, something we should stand up for and
defend at every opportunity, and something we all can hold near
and dear to our hearts.
We heard the justice minister today and repeat again tonight
that she will do everything that is required to ensure that we do
not succumb to the scourge of criminal activity and organized
crime. She said categorically that we on the government side
will ensure that the kinds of measures will be in place that are
required in this all important area. The reason she did that is
because that is what Canadians want. They want a government to
act when required. They want rights protected. They want
criminals brought to justice and victims in that sense helped and
assisted.
We on the government side are prepared to do that unlike members
opposite. If we listen very carefully to their speeches they
offered not one solution. All they did was go on about problems,
circumstances and situations. They offered not one solution,
unlike those of us on the government side.
We have added money to CPIC. We have beefed up the airports in
terms of security. We have added a great deal of resources to
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have continued on our
immigration track in terms of making sure that we have the money
in place and the resources necessary to ensure that we keep
criminals out of this great country of ours as best we can in a
fashion that is in keeping with what the Canadian people want. We
have produced the tangible evidence required by the government to
ensure that safety and security are in place.
Is this perfect? Absolutely not. Is it all we can do?
Absolutely not. Is there more to do? Absolutely yes. We need
to carry on doing the kinds of things required to ensure that
organized crime as we know it is eradicated as best we can, given
the circumstances in which we find ourselves. That we will
continue to do.
We heard the Minister of Justice along with the Solicitor
General of Canada say that those efforts will be taken in a
meaningful and consistent way in recognition of the charter and
the fundamental rights and freedoms all Canadians enjoy. That
seems to escape some members opposite. It seems to escape
them that it is not always a world of black and white as they
would like to portray. Rather, there are nuances and things that
have to be considered and weighed. As a government that is
precisely and exactly what we are doing. I would argue, given my
experience, my background and my knowledge in this area, that is
the appropriate way to proceed. I commend the government. I am
proud to be part of a government that does so in that kind of
concerted and proper way.
If through legislation we require additional tools to assist our
police to stop money laundering or to bring into place agreements
to pool enforcement agencies between local, regional, provincial
and federal—in this case the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—then
we should get on with it. We know those are the kinds of things
that may need to be done and we are prepared to do them.
We know that there needs to be an effective sharing of
information and intelligence among all levels of police across
Canada. We need to provide it in a seamless way where instead of
jurisdictional tugs and pulls there would be a concerted effort
to make sure that knowledge is shared and people act as one when
it comes to this all important area.
I will take a little time to briefly outline some of the
arrangements that are in place right as we speak to ensure that
there is enforcement, co-ordination and intelligence sharing and
to make sure that takes place among all partners in the fight
against organized crime.
2120
Intelligence and information on crime groups and their
activities are the foundation of effective enforcement. We know
that and we know that exists. We need that kind of intelligence
and information sharing. That is what is used by police to
determine what groups or activities impose threats to Canadians
and to the Canadian system, the Canadian economic way of life,
and indeed the morality of the country for that matter.
Police use this information to set priorities and target their
resources so that they have the greatest impact given the
resources at hand. Intelligence and this information are
together the primary building block in anti-organized crime
enforcement.
The Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada was formed in 1966.
It is a national organization that links the criminal
intelligence units and the Canadian law enforcement agencies in
fighting the spread of organized crime. CISC is comprised of a
central bureau located in Ottawa in the RCMP and a network of
nine counterpart bureaux in the provinces, again in keeping with
that kind of co-ordination fanning out into various regions and
provinces across this great country.
Currently more than 120 police forces contribute intelligence
information to the CISC network. The structure and the computer
network help police and other enforcement agencies to share
information and co-ordinate action on organized crime across the
country. This is important because it ensures that we work
together and we work co-operatively.
There is another point I want to make and that is co-ordinated
enforcement. Individual agencies cannot expect to tackle
organized groups by themselves. That is impossible. It is much
better to bring in a number of jurisdictions at any point in
time. By bringing together agencies from a number of
jurisdictions, police widen and strengthen the enforcement net.
It also allows diverse skills, talents, expertise and knowledge
to be brought to bear at once to mutual benefit for all.
A good example of co-ordinated enforcement can be found in the
13 integrated proceeds of crime units established in the RCMP in
1997 as a result of legislation, I might point out, and the good
judgment of this government. These units combine the resources
and expertise of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; local,
regional and provincial police officers; Canada Customs and
Revenue officers; crown counsel; and forensic accountants to
target and seize the proceeds of crime of organized criminal
groups.
The units have seized more than $140 million in criminal assets
so far. That is important because it underscores the commitment
of the Government of Canada in this all important area.
In the greater Toronto area the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,
the Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto, Peel and York
regional services work together in a number of joint force
initiatives aimed at combating national and international
organized crime groups. These include a combined forces Asian
investigative unit, a combined forces special enforcement unit
and a combined forces Toronto integrated intelligence unit.
The units are co-ordinated by the RCMP and have had some very
major successes against national and international crime groups.
The bust of a multimillion dollar international debit and credit
card fraud ring in Toronto last year is one example.
A number of other important joint force initiatives have been
developed and led by provincial governments and police as well.
The Quebec government has created an anti-biker gang squad based
in major cities throughout the province. These squads are
currently operating in Montreal, Quebec City and the Outaouais
region. They are comprised of provincial and municipal officers
and the RCMP.
In Ontario there is a special squad of the Ontario Provincial
Police that cracks down on biker gangs. This OPP squad works
with the RCMP, the criminal intelligence service in Ontario and
16 local police services. It gathers intelligence and executes
enforcement actions aimed at larger and growing outlaw biker
gangs.
I could go on in this area in terms of what the government is
doing and what our police services across this great country are
doing. Do we need to do more? Absolutely. Must we do more? We
absolutely must and we will.
2125
At the end of the day we will work co-operatively together. We
will ensure that we work in partnership in a seamless way to
ensure the safety and security which Canadians repeatedly over
the history of this great country have taken for granted. We
will do so in an effective way that underscores the commitment
not only of the justice minister and the solicitor general but of
all members of the government who ensure and want to ensure that
Canadians feel safe and secure in their homes. We will ensure
that we do not take for granted the kind of law and order system
that we have, but rather that we work concertively along with
everyone in the House to ensure that Canadians have the best
enforcement system possible, given the resources at hand and the
priorities underlined, to ensure that we do the right thing and
to ensure that we have safety and security not only for
individual Canadians but for their families and for the country.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I commend the member opposite on his remarks. He
outlined very clearly, in my estimation, that he has a grasp of
the scope of the problem, as I think have most members who have
risen in the House and participated in the debate. What is
prevalent throughout his remarks unfortunately when he talks of
co-operative approach is a very partisan approach. He never
hesitates to point the finger and to point the blame elsewhere.
The evidence is clearly before us. Although there have been
initiatives taken by this government and previous governments to
attack this problem, the problem persists. The problem expands.
It is a testament to the scope and the magnitude of the problem
that we are here. In spite of all of these initiatives and in
light of scarce resources the problem is getting worse.
Dialling up the rhetoric, pointing the finger or engaging in
polluting the air during this debate with this poisoned partisan
attitude does not further the debate at all. In fact it
exaggerates the problem. If the hon. member is sincere about
this co-operative approach perhaps he could address his remarks
in a less partisan way.
I must admit it was very refreshing to hear the Minister of
Justice acknowledge that there are times, certainly pivotal
points in the country's history, when the legislative branch has
to exercise its superiority with respect to its obligation to the
citizenry in using the notwithstanding clause. The one that
immediately springs to mind would be an issue pertaining to child
pornography. That certainly would be something that would
warrant that type of legislative response and the invoking of the
notwithstanding clause.
Organized crime, I would suggest, is certainly in the same
category of seriousness and of a problem that has such magnitude.
Does the hon. member attach himself to the remarks of the
Minister of Justice in saying that there are occasions when
perhaps they will find the inner fortitude and the strength of
conviction to actually use the notwithstanding clause in light of
the situation before us? Does the hon. member agree that there
are such occasions? I know as a former police officer that he
sincerely believes in the rule of law and the need for a strong
justice system, but does he believe that there are occasions when
the notwithstanding clause is the last possible option? I am not
suggesting that it ever be used lightly or with unfettered and
unchecked regard, but are there times when his government would
be justified in using the notwithstanding clause in our
constitution?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I take the justice system of
the country very seriously. I know that around the world it is
regarded as second to none in terms of what it represents not
only for jurisprudence in this country but on international
levels as well.
I also take the charter of rights and freedoms, what was signed
into law in April 1982, very seriously. I know that all
Canadians do as well because it is a defining value which
underscores the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian.
I also know that due process of law is fundamental. For
Canadians it is something that they not only want but something
that Canadians from coast to coast to coast expect us as a
parliament and as a government to ensure is in place in a manner
consistent with the values and the foundations of the country.
2130
What I do know is that last week the justice minister and the
solicitor general were in Iqaluit. They have met with provincial
and territorial partners to ensure that we look at this very
important program and this very important situation vis-à-vis
organized crime. They will be meeting in the next little while
in Quebec to ensure that there are ongoing discussions because
unlike the Bloc leader who tried to paint it simply as a federal
jurisdiction, that is the criminal code, it really is a shared
responsibility between the jurisdictions. I was quite astounded
frankly at his naivety.
That aside, it is important that we work together with our
provincial and territorial counterparts and that we do so in a
manner consistent with what Canadians expect from their
government, in a manner consistent with the underlying values of
freedom, the charter, due process of law and justice for all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the hon. member who will be sitting on the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
I know he was a member of the Standing Committee on Health.
Perhaps he was used to hearing some things about health, but I
would invite him to be more realistic, to wake up and to see
that the problem is extremely serious.
In particular, I would invite him to read the Canadian
Constitution. The hon. member will realize that the criminal
code is not a matter of shared jurisdiction. All the sections
that are found in the criminal code were passed by the federal
legislator, here in this House.
This is not a matter of shared jurisdiction. However, the
administration of justice is the jurisdiction of provincial
legislatures.
We are asking the government to wake up, to look properly at the
issue of organized crime and to amend the criminal code to
provide real tools to the judiciary, the police and the
prosecutors.
This is not an issue of shared jurisdiction. There is only one
entity that can amend the criminal code, and it is the federal
parliament, all of us here.
I would invite the hon. member to wake up and to take an
upgrading course in constitution 101 to learn the difference
between a matter of federal jurisdiction and a matter of
provincial jurisdiction.
Only then will we be able to talk and listen to the member.
Right now, all he can do is smile and strut about the House, but
his understanding of the issue of organized crime is nil. It is
rather scary and frightening to see what kind of parliamentary
secretary the solicitor general has.
Nothing much will happen at the justice committee if the member
opposite keeps on talking through his hat, if he knows nothing
about the foundation of the Canadian Constitution.
When the constitution was signed—he might even have forgotten his
history—who was the Minister of Justice? It was the current Prime
Minister, who was then the Minister of Justice.
The then Minister of Justice included section 33 in the Canadian
charter, which allows us as legislators in Ottawa to use the
notwithstanding clause if we want to deprive a group or an
individual of certain rights under the charter. If the
legislator included this section in the charter, it was to use
it at some point.
That is all we want, and only if necessary. There might be other
things to do before using it, but we should not be shutting our
eyes and covering our ears like the member opposite is doing.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, the Bloc members
are touchy tonight. They are very sensitive. They can dish it out
but they cannot seem to take it. I do not need to be lectured on
constitutional law. I know exactly what constitutional law is in
Canada.
I do know that if the Canadian government and the justice
minister and the solicitor general proceeded without meeting in
Quebec in the next couple of days, those people opposite would be
screaming to high heaven. They would be saying that once again
they are victims, that once again they have been left out, that
once again they have been cut off from the Canadian mainstream.
They would be up on their high horse going into all kinds of
pretzel-like gyrations.
2135
The point is that in the next couple of days we are proceeding
to go with the Quebec counterparts, ensuring that we work in a
co-operative fashion. The hon. member cannot seem to get that
through his head. He should rethink his position, tone it down
and think through what he is saying, instead of getting all
emotional and proceeding in a ludicrous way. But that is fine.
Perhaps it is part and parcel of who he is.
All I am saying is that the government, the justice minister and
the solicitor general have made it very clear. We will be
dealing with this issue with our provincial and territorial
partners in an effective way. We will make sure that we continue
to work in a way which is consistent with Canadian values which
are fundamental to the country.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Okanagan—Shuswap.
The debate has had some low points but it has had some high
points tonight. As far as I am concerned, we are talking about
putting personal freedoms up against our personal safety as it
were. The issue of the freedoms we have in Canada is sacrosanct.
Those freedoms have been fought for in two wars and other
skirmishes. People have fought and died for the freedoms we have
here. Before we talk about using the notwithstanding clause to do
away with our own personal freedoms, we have to take a very long,
hard, analytical look at the issue. We need to look at what has
precipitated this focus.
First, we are talking about an allegation that a biker gang shot
a reporter. That is what we are dealing with. We have to
understand that there are totally different actions taken by
different types of gangs. The bikers are noted for taking a very
blunt instrument approach to problems as they come across them.
There are aboriginal gangs, the mafia, other ethnic
organizations. There are gangs of common interest, for example,
the Colombian gangs around the importation and distribution of
heroin.
To say that bikers represent organized crime is both
unfortunate and inaccurate. It has been helpful in this terrible
situation. As has already been stated, our hearts go out to Mr.
Auger and the people around him. It is difficult to realize that
that shooting, if indeed it is proven to be an action of a biker
gang, is just one of probably thousands of potential
manifestations of organized crime.
We have to realize that trying to cure the plague of organized
crime with a broad action such as using the notwithstanding
clause would be like using a malaria treatment for a typhoid
infection. When we break our leg, we do not put our arm in a
cast. We need to define the problem. We have to understand that
in the House we must always stand for personal freedom of
association because it equates to the issue of our personal
safety in a very real way.
My final analogy would be that we could cure the common cold or
a more serious flu by taking a lethal dose of arsenic. We would
not have the cold or the flu anymore. We would not have to worry
about having the cold or the flu. The cure may be successful,
but the patient could die.
How does organized crime affect us and what do we have to do to
get organized crime under control? We are aware of different
situations in our society. For example, there are environmental
dumps and organized crime involved in intentionally and
aggressively polluting our society and our environment. We are
aware of the situation with the snake heads. We are also aware of
the situation of the weakening and compromising of our police
forces, not through anything that our police forces are doing,
but by the actions of organized crime toward them.
2140
I will not be intimidated by the member for Waterloo—Wellington
when he uses the club of political correctness so that supposedly
we cannot talk about the fact that there are ethnic gangs. There
are. The people most disadvantaged by those ethnic gangs are of
the same ethnic group. They came to Canada to get away from
that.
The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the
Tamil tigers. In Canada we have an excellent outstanding
community of Tamil people who came to Canada to get away from the
suppression, murder and mayhem, to build a better life for
themselves and their families. Unfortunately they were followed
by people of the Tamil tigers who represent a national security
threat to Canada, an international security threat to people
around the world and who also represent organized crime in its
very worst form.
Also, in terms of ethnicity or being able to identify people on
the basis of a particular group, I think of the Russian gangs. We
know, and this has been in the public domain, that there was an
attempt to compromise politicians in this Chamber. Political
contributions were made to high ranking politicians in this
Chamber. To the honour and credit of those politicians, the
second they found out that political contributions had been made
to them, they immediately transferred the funds out of their
accounts and into trust accounts. The only way this became public
knowledge was that the wife of the Russian mobster tried to get
the money and so it became a story.
Would other people in public life, if not in this Chamber, have
fallen to the threat? Would they have fallen to the threat of
compromise or embarrassment? What about financial coercion that
can happen to people like ourselves in this Chamber who are
charged with the responsibility of making laws to protect all
Canadians? What about the threat of death to the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and to his family, and the fact that
within this parliament he has had to have a bodyguard for himself
and his family? This is a very serious threat.
Canadians have to realize that although the debate we are having
tonight unfortunately has had some low points, it is nonetheless
absolutely vital. All Canadians, and not just this Chamber, must
collectively work to protect the liberties that we have as
citizens.
Do the law enforcers have sufficient resources to get the job
done? Our answer is an unequivocal no. As a result of dollar
cuts we have seen the disbanding of the ports police. A critical
example in the issue of the ports police occurred at the time
they were being wound down. The ports police were asking the
Vancouver port authority about an individual it had hired who was
a Chinese national based in Beijing. They wanted to know whether
a security check had been done on the individual. It had not.
At about that time the Vancouver ports police were disbanded.
That individual within the next couple of months brought three
so-called students from the port of Dalian into the port of
Vancouver. Those three so-called students had access to the port
of Vancouver, to all the security, all the intelligence within
the Vancouver port. And we wonder why the Vancouver port is a
leaky sieve for every drug we could possibly imagine.
At exactly the same time this was going on an agreement was made
with an international shipping company that Vancouver would be
the first port of call. Containers would go from the port of
Vancouver directly to Chicago. Do not stop, do not collect $200,
do not pass go. The drugs all of a sudden went from the golden
triangle to Chicago just like that as a result of the shutdown of
the Vancouver ports police.
2145
In CSIS and the RCMP, not only at the personnel level, there is
a real competition as a result of the legislation that covers the
evidence gathering of the police and the way in which CSIS ends
up getting its information.
I suggest there are two things we need to look at long before we
would ever look at the potential of shutting down our own
personal rights and freedoms.
First, legislatively, we must examine and rationalize existing
laws and change those laws where those laws conflict. Second,
under resources, we must co-ordinate law enforcement agencies and
other enforcement agencies. We must end the competition between
the agencies. We must expand training and sharing of
information. We must be in a position to be able to purchase
contemporary equipment.
We must recognize that our response must be one of dealing with
the larger issue, the broad picture. We can craft a response to
enhance our personal safety and national security, but we must
craft that response in a way that will stand for individual
personal freedoms. We must not kill the patient with the cure.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate the member
opposite.
It is rare in the Chamber that I rise and say that I agree with
everything that was said by a member in the opposition party. The
member is absolutely right. We must not be stampeded into
compromising our fundamental rights because of the activities of
organized crime. When we do that organized crime wins. We must
never do that.
I agree with him, as I mentioned earlier and I will be
mentioning when I speak myself, that the way to get at organized
crime is to get at the way they make their money. The member
opposite pointed out very correctly that our ports are leaky
sieves in which all kinds of contraband is going out of the
country. I have had many reports and have made many
representations to my ministers saying that we must do something
to stop it. It is not checking the contraband that is coming in,
it is the contraband going out that is the problem.
What happens is that the Americans send their contraband across
the border because it is an open border. It is then shipped out
of Canada to Africa, to Jamaica and to countries that want the
illegal goods. We have a real problem there.
I would like to ask the member if he agrees that if we were to
compromise freedom of association as a response to the motorcycle
gangs in Quebec, would we not be jeopardizing the very freedoms
that the Bloc Quebecois itself enjoys? I recall a time when the
RCMP attempted to read the mail of the Parti Quebecois because it
was a separatist organization. There was outrage in the entire
country. Everyone was angry.
I would like the member's comment on this. Surely the Bloc
Quebecois, of all the parties in the House, should be saying that
we should not use the notwithstanding clause, that we should
protect freedom of association and find other means to combat the
problem.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this is a scary night
because I agree with the member opposite. This really is a very
scary night.
In all seriousness, I agree with him totally. The
notwithstanding clause was put into the constitution for a
specific purpose which was to cover an eventuality that could not
be foreseen at the time. If we are ever going to use it, it must
be used as an absolute last resort. I believe at some point it
may be appropriate to use it.
In examining the entire issue of organized crime, it forms part
of a whole national security issue. It is not just crime. It is
a whole national security issue as well as a personal security
issue. We must examine this in its totality to see what other
solutions there are. Indeed there are many solutions totally
apart from anything legislatively. I agree with the member
completely.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree entirely with either member but I
certainly take delight in much of what they have said in their
remarks, particularly my hon. friend from the Alliance Party who
I believe has a real grasp of this problem.
Coming from the part of the world that he does, I would like to
draw him into the debate a little further on the issue of ports
police. Although we are certainly a massive country, we have two
large virtually undefended coastlines where we are most
vulnerable to organized crime and contraband materials that seem
to slip in under the radar on both coasts. Even in the Arctic we
have a great number of coastlines that leave us vulnerable. That
is one area that has to be addressed in a comprehensive way
through legislation, through resources and through a co-ordinated
effort.
2150
Similarly, I would elicit some response with respect to the
problem within our prisons where all members know and anyone
familiar with the situation realizes that the officials within
the penal institutions are particularly vulnerable as well to
intimidation and to forms of blackmail and bribery. Again, I
think this is something that has to be addressed, not necessarily
just through the resource and legislative branch, but through
internal changes that can be made to assess and buttress their
efforts to deal with those in the organized crime community that
they now have within their mix and who continue to operate from
the inside of prisons across the country.
There is more that can be done. It is certainly discouraging to
those members of the penal community who see individuals being
ushered out the door after a very short period of time in custody
by virtue of for example our statutory release in this country.
I would like to get the hon. member's comments in that regard.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, for sake of time I would
like to deal with just one aspect of my colleague's comments and
that is to do with the ports police.
The shutting down of the ports police was against every possible
piece of advice that the government received. Absolutely
everything went against it because we had a gathering of
information and a gathering of intelligence. In particular, we
had a gathering of experienced officers. There was a wealth of
information. On the day the ports police were disbanded around
Canada was the day that information fundamentally evaporated.
Many of the files physically evaporated when that took place.
This is part of the co-ordination that we have been talking
about. My colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, myself
and others have been talking about having a co-ordinated effort.
This information must go into a pool. We must develop a way to
enhance the pool of intelligence and the pool of experience of
our police and enforcement forces. In that regard I absolutely
agree with my colleague from Pictou as well.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for
Kootenay—Columbia for sharing his time on this very important
matter.
I am not going to stand here and presume that Canadians who are
listening and that members in the House do not know there is
organized crime in this country, not like some government members
who seem to think that this is just not the case and that this
does not happen in Canada. We know full well that it happens.
When the government says that it transbounds borders and
boundaries with regard to provincial jurisdiction, in some cases
it does and in some cases it does not. We know for a fact that
we have organized criminals who have been linked to criminal
organizations that have been charged. They are not Canadian
citizens.
What do we do? We do not deport them. No, they go up before
different boards. They have different appeal systems which cost
the Canadian taxpayer bundles of money. That is federal. They
know that. Yet we keep on doing it.
We know it in our federal penitentiaries. If we want to talk
about gangs and gang affiliations, our prisons are loaded with
them. We have prison gangs in just about every prison. They
bring drugs into the prisons. The government knows that and the
members on the other side know that. Yet they say it is not
really a big problem.
It is a major problem particularly in the prisons. It creates
threats to prison guards, police officers and parole officers. To
give an example, let us take a look at the National Parole Board
which has been threatened. This candid memo by recently retired
chairman, Willie Gibbs, represents the latest evidence of
attempts by criminals to intimidate players in the justice
system.
2155
The retired chairman of the parole board stated this. He also
went on to state that it appeared to be most common in Quebec, a
pattern that may have something to do with inmate population in
Quebec, including the larger number of inmates with organized
crime connections. Gibbs stepped down as board chairman in July
and his replacement is yet to be named.
Let us look at what else was said. This was recently obtained
under the Access to Information Act and submitted to the federal
justice department last January in response to a consultation
paper. It said “Fear affects the decisions you make. The
process could lead to new laws or procedures to protect parole
officials, lawyers, jurors, witnesses, police and prison
guards”. We are talking about a number of people who put their
lives on the line to protect us so that we feel safe. They have
stated this in report after report and the federal government
does absolutely nothing in this regard. We have to wonder.
Correct me if I am wrong, as I know the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington surely will, but as I grew up I was always
led to believe, as I think most people in Canada were, that a
government's first and foremost priority was for the safety and
well-being of its law-abiding citizens. I heard this as I grew
up and I was led to believe that. Yet since I have come to the
House and before that time, I have done nothing but read papers
and listened to victims' groups. They all say the same thing.
They cannot seem to get protection from the Government of Canada.
The sentencing is not there. The criminal justice system likes
to talk a good fight yet it absolutely does nothing. It supplies
money to the lawyers. It keeps the appeal systems ongoing. It
has a turnstile system that allows criminals back out on the
streets just as fast as they can be charged and in many cases
before the paperwork is done. This is Canadian justice.
They think I am fearmongering. Let us look at this report that
said that police were also targets of intimidation ranging from
simple warnings to open threats. David Griffin, the executive
officer of the Canadian Police Association said “that is a
concern for police officers”. He said “Organized crime will
not hesitate to resort to bullying, threats and violence”. We
are talking about a breed of people that has chosen to live
outside the law. Let us say that David Griffin is fearmongering.
He is only the executive officer of the police association. This
association represents 30,000 officers. It expressed frustration
yesterday that organized criminals operate with virtual immunity
in this country while police are hampered by weak laws, a lack of
tools and inadequate resources.
These are our people who are trained to fight crime. They
warned the government and the government still has done nothing.
We have members on the other side saying there is no such thing
as organized crime in this country. When we mention the Asian
gangs, the Indian gangs and the white gangs we are fearmongering.
That is all the members can say. Yet ask the victims and talk to
the their families. Talk to the guards in the federal
penitentiary who are too afraid sometimes to go to work. Talk to
them and not this bunch. They would rather sit here where it is
nice and safe and have a cup of coffee. Talk to the guards and
talk to their families.
Mr. Myron Thompson: They have never been there.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: No, they have never been there nor
will they go there. They might have to do something for a
change. They would finally find out what it is really like to do
something for a change, instead of just saying we are
fearmongering. It seems strange.
Before I ran for nomination in 1993, I remember this was the big
issue. This has been a big issue for a long time yet all of a
sudden the minister says it is now a priority. The government is
going to study a white paper. It will study it and study it and
then it will hire some more people to study it again and it will
do nothing.
The government will do absolutely nothing in regard to that
outside of doing the study on it. We know that and everybody
else knows that.
2200
This has gone on for years. I have to wonder exactly what all
is involved here. As a matter of fact I cannot wait for the
questions and comments because I have a few answers to a few of
the questions that I am sure will come from one side or the other
in regard to what is taking place here in organized crime.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in listening to my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap
I know he comes to this debate with a tremendous amount of
passion.
Perhaps he could help us understand his understanding of the
issue of this being all part of a larger picture. We are talking
about organized crime. We are talking about some terrible event
that happened to the reporter Mr. Auger. The allegations that it
had something to do with bikers seem to be well founded.
However, that kind of violent activity, that kind of
manifestation of organized crime, is just one of the very tiny
manifestations of organized crime. It is part of an overall
picture that has the power to immobilize us to neutralize our
police forces. Also many of these gangs end up funding national
and international terrorist activities. There is no line now
between security issues and criminal issues, between organized
crime and national terrorism.
I wonder if my colleague would like to expand on that.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely
right. It has gone through everything. People are desperately
looking for answers particularly from a government such that we
have now.
An article in the Vancouver Province confirms that the
RCMP have listed Stanley Ho as the leader of the Kung Lok triad,
an organized crime group since 1991. But despite this, Ho has
received multiple visitors visas, has extensive holdings in
Canada, is a donor personally and co-operatively to the Liberal
Party and actually hosted a cocktail reception for the PM during
the Vancouver APEC conference. This certainly has to raise lots
of concerns for the people of Canada. The list goes on.
RCMP Corporal Reid revealed a massive penetration of the
immigration computer system in Hong Kong by triads which resulted
in the loss of thousands of visas as well as widespread improper
issuance of visas to triad linked individuals.
There has to be lots of questions and fear about how far this
really goes. Even the members over there all of a sudden have
stopped. What is going on is well known. It is not a small
little group. This has been reported in the papers. Do we not
think this brings fear into the hearts of average Canadians when
they hear things like this, that this is where some of these
party funds are coming from? You bet it does.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member
opposite with some but not a great deal of interest.
What really has me on my feet is the allegation that he is
trying to make with respect to party funds. If he has any
allegations to make, he should make them to the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. If you have any, you make them directly and you
then take it outside and make them outside. Because if you do
not, you do not have the fortitude to repeat what you just said
in this Chamber out there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): May I respectfully
suggest that members refer to other members through the Chair.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite really
should get his facts straight. Less histrionics and more facts.
The facts are quite simple. We as a government have repeatedly
injected resources and money not only into the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, but into CPIC which is something I am familiar
with given my police background. We have injected funds into
immigration, into revenue, into the ports of entry and others.
We have done all kinds of things with respect to assisting in
this very important area.
2205
Have we done enough? No, we have not. There are additional
things that we need to do in terms of co-operation, for example,
with our provincial and territorial partners. Have we done enough
with respect to making it seamless with respect to the police
services across Canada, at the local, regional, provincial or
federal levels? No, we have not and we need to do more. Will we
do more? Yes, we will.
The member opposite should listen instead of fearmongering and
trying to upset Canadians, as those people opposite are always so
prone to do. It is their forte to always try to pit region
against region, people against people and province against
province. Instead of the politics of negativity, they should talk
about what is positive and what we in the Government of Canada
are doing that is positive. They should listen. They should get
their facts straight and they should proceed accordingly.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: My, my, Mr. Speaker, is the hon.
member ever an upset little Liberal.
Let us look at what he said. The Liberals expanded upon the
ports authority? They disbanded it. What are you talking about?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure everyone
in the House understands the importance of my intervention in
suggesting that these two members in particular speak to each
other through the Chair. I am insisting upon it.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I must say you are far
more knowledgeable and far better looking than the member on the
other side, so I will keep that in mind.
The ports authority has been disbanded. The Liberals know that
full well, but they will go on and on and on about it.
As for my making allegations, I think it is the Vancouver
Province newspaper and the RCMP that the hon. member had
better take this up with. It was the RCMP that made these
allegations, not me. I am just reading about it. I could read
some more if the hon. member would like.
I thought I would be nice and gentle on him today because it was
the first day of parliament. I know how upset the member gets
when his shoes are too tight or his shirts do not fit, but that
is just the way he is, and I accept that as one of his downfalls
or one of his pitfalls. I do not mind that he has that type of
temperament. I understand that. I do not think the people in
the rest of Canada understand where he is coming from, but I am
sure that his family and his one friend do, so I will just say
goodnight on that one.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, public
safety and protection are fundamental objectives of Canada's
criminal justice system.
Last week's deplorable shooting of Journal de Montréal
reporter Michel Auger once again brings home the need for
effective action against such criminal acts. Combating organized
crime is a key part of maintaining public safety.
I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members a recent
report by the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, CISC. CISC
is the organization responsible for assembling the information
and intelligence needed by law enforcement to carry on the fight
against organized crime.
One of the keys to success in the fight against organized crime
is partnerships between governments, between enforcement agencies
and between the police and individual members of the public. CISC
operates entirely on the basis of co-operation made available by
such partnerships. It provides a network by which police across
Canada come together for the common purpose of fighting the
spread of organized crime.
What does CISC have to say about organized crime groups in
Canada? The CISC annual report for 2000 reviews organized crime
groups and their activities in Canada. I should note, as the
report itself does, that none of the references to criminal
activity associated with ethnic or other groups is to be taken to
suggest that all members of that group are involved in organized
crime. The report does make it clear from the police perspective
that organized crime extends its influence into many parts of our
society.
For example, CISC reports that the Hell's Angels remain one of
the most powerful and well structured criminal organizations in
Canada.
2210
Mr. Speaker, I should mention that I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Scarborough East.
CISC notes that the armed conflict which started in 1994 between
the Hell's Angels and the Quebec based Rock Machine is likely to
escalate, with expansion of the Hell's Angels and the Rock
Machine's recent move into Ontario.
Members of the Hell's Angels continue to be involved in the
importation and distribution of cocaine, the production and the
distribution of methamphetamine, as well as the cultivation and
exportation of high grade marijuana. Members use a vast network
of associates to assist in growth and harvesting of the drugs and
with its illegal trafficking.
CISC also reports that the outlaw motorcycle gangs are involved
in the illegal trafficking of firearms, explosives, the
collection of protection money for both legitimate and
illegitimate businesses, fraud, money laundering, prostitution
and the use of intimidation and threats.
The CISC annual report goes on to describe the activities of
organized criminal groups. According to the CISC annual report,
Asian based organized crime groups are involved in the
importation and trafficking of narcotics, counterfeit currency,
software, credit and debit cards, prostitution, illegal gambling,
extortion and a variety of violent crimes, particularly in
western Canada, but I might say also in my own region of York.
During 1999 the Asian based organized crime gangs continued to
exploit Canada's ports of entry, attempting to import illegal
contraband and illegal immigrants. As members well know,
Canada's public safety agencies thwarted several such attempts
over the last year.
CISC expects Asian based criminal groups to increase such
activities in the future. That is why we are exercising
increased vigilance and increased intelligence sharing to counter
these efforts.
These groups are expected to build greater alliances with other
organized criminal elements. They rely increasingly on new
technologies to facilitate their illegal activities.
CISC notes that in the past, eastern European based organized
crime groups have been involved primarily in extortion,
prostitution and other street crimes. It is reported that these
groups are becoming involved in a variety of white collar crimes,
including counterfeiting of credit cards and debit cards, as well
as immigration fraud, organized theft and automobile smuggling.
The police have also taken note of the increased involvement of
eastern European based groups in drug smuggling and money
laundering. The CISC report also states that traditional
organized crime groups remain a threat to Canada, despite the
success of law enforcement efforts against the Sicilian Mafia.
In western Canada illegal gaming continues to be the primary
activity of such groups. Elsewhere these groups are reported to
be involved in drug trafficking, extortion, loan sharking and
money laundering. CISC notes that increased criminal activity is
being reported in tobacco, alcohol and diamond smuggling. It
also reports increased criminal activity in the illegal import of
firearms primarily from the United States.
Similarly, illegal gaming is reportedly being used to finance
many organized crimes and other criminal activities such as drug
trafficking.
Lastly, CISC reports an increased likelihood of organized
criminals to use computer hackers and individuals with
technological skills to forge credit and debit cards, all of
which gives a sophisticated edge to criminals and makes detection
and enforcement that much more difficult.
These facts compiled from Canada's most knowledgeable law
enforcement officials by CISC underline the seriousness of
organized crime activity in Canada.
In response to these threats, governments at all levels in
Canada are working together in the fight against organized crime.
First, we must know the problem and that is why the efforts of
the CISC and law enforcement across Canada in intelligence
gathering and sharing are so important.
2215
Armed with this information the government and its provincial
and territorial partners have come up with new strategies to
fight organized crime.
The government's record of achievement is clear. We brought in
Bill C-95, the anti-gang bill that introduced the concepts of
criminal organization, criminal organization offence and
participation in a criminal organization offence. This was a
tool the police asked for to investigate outlaw gangs, and the
government acted.
The CISC report talks about money laundering. We now have Bill
C-22 in place which has one of the most comprehensive anti-money
laundering regimes in the world. With this legislation
authorities can target cross-border currency movement and other
superficial financial transactions.
We have a very vigorous proceeds of crime law in effect. There
are now 13 dedicated units in major centres across the country
investigating and seizing the assets of criminals. Some $70
million in fines and forfeitures have been levelled against crime
figures since 1997, a big blow to organized crime.
We have bolstered our anti-smuggling initiative, increased RCMP
presence at airports to fight organized crime and dedicated $30
million this year to develop ways to help police deal with the
use of new technologies by criminals.
The CISC report contains some troubling information and so it
should. Governments and Canadians need to know the extent of the
problem we are dealing with and how organized crime targets us.
Such reports have been of great use to us in developing
appropriate strategies, developing the right enforcement tools
and identifying areas for further research.
The fight against organized crime has been and will continue to
be a key part of the government's longstanding commitment to
safer communities. The same commitment was again demonstrated by
federal, provincial and territorial ministers in the outcome of
their meetings in Iqaluit last week.
The federal government will not relent in its efforts to provide
national leadership in the fight against organized crime,
building on the advice of the police community across Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to what the member is saying, everything is fine and
dandy in the fight against organized crime in Canada and the
government seems to have been doing its job.
He mentioned the solicitor general's report on organized crime.
If he read it, he would see that things are not as rosy as he
seems to think they are.
He bragged about the government seizing some $37 or $57 million
in proceeds of crime—I do not remember the exact amount—when money
laundering and hard drug transactions in Canada total some $15
billion a year.
What our police forces can do in the fight against organized
crime is just a grain of sand in the desert, and maybe this is
due to the fact that we do not have the right tools.
In 1995 we passed a few amendments to the criminal code which
took effect in 1997. These amendments were made under the name
of anti-gang legislation so it would be easier to gain public
support in that regard. But this name does not ring true because
all those responsible for enforcing this legislation come to the
conclusion that it is not anti-gang legislation since the desired
results cannot be achieved. It is too difficult to enforce.
2220
I hope the member read section 477 of the criminal code. One has
to prove that an individual was party to the activities of a
criminal organization, that this individual knew that the gang
members had engaged, within the preceding five years, in the
commission of indictable offences under the criminal code, for
which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years.
All this being cumulative it is very cumbersome and complex to
enforce and it is not needed to fight organized crime.
The member heard the speeches, he heard the comments made by
members of the Bloc Quebecois. We have been studying the issue
since 1995: We are not talking through our hat, and neither are
we reacting to what happened to one journalist.
The situation is serious. Quebec and Canadian society is facing
a complex problem, namely organized crime.
Does the member opposite agree with the Bloc Quebecois that we
need further tools? We need legislation with teeth. If we have
to use the notwithstanding clause, if we cannot do otherwise to
eradicate organized crime, is the member willing to go along
with it?
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his question. I do not think that talking about trafficking
of narcotics, illegal gambling, extortion or prostitution is
making light of the fact that this is a very serious issue.
I pointed out those issues very clearly in the CISC report. The
government has information and has acted. The hon. member said
that Bill C-95 was not much legislation at all. It was passed in
two days with the consent of all parties including his own. I
would suggest on reflection that maybe if it was not what the
member wanted in 1997, his party should not have given it the
support that it did.
Very clearly we have said that we are prepared to deal with this
issue. We have brought in legislation and we will continue to
fight organized crime wherever it exists.
In my region of York we have a problem with Asian and eastern
European gangs. There was an excellent report done by our police
force on this issue. It is very disturbing to see the influence
and the depth at which organized crime operates both in my own
region and elsewhere in the country.
The Minister of Justice clearly indicated today that in
consultation with her provincial and territorial counterparts she
is prepared to look at whatever additional tools are needed, but
I do not think an artificial date of October 6 will necessarily
be the answer. We need to make sure that the proper tools are in
place, that those tools will meet the test of law, and that at
the end of the day they can be used for the very purpose which we
all in the House want to see, that is an end to the role of
organized crime wherever it exists in the country so that people
are not in fear.
The CISC 2000 annual report is very important reading for all
members. That is the base on which the Minister of Justice and
the Solicitor General of Canada have indicated that they are
prepared to work with their counterparts and policing agencies
across the country to provide additional tools for enforcement.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when hon. members rise at this time of the evening they usually
say something like it is a great pleasure to participate in this
debate and that it is an important topic. Then they say some
platitudinous things and sit down.
There are times, in particular in the context of the debate this
evening, when one wishes that hon. members would confine their
speeches to areas in which they have some knowledge. I like to
remind hon. members from time to time that we are in the
Parliament of Canada.
The House referred this subject matter to the justice committee
for study and a report back in a timely fashion with respect to
the recommendations.
That is a committee on which I enjoy sitting. It is a committee
that faces many of the most problematic issues of the day. This
is probably one of the most problematic issues. We frankly have
struggled on the justice committee to try to get a handle on this
massive subject which goes to the very roots of our democratic
institutions and is a real and palpable threat to our community.
2225
One of our dilemmas was speaking to the press, making speeches
and conducting our deliberations publicly. We all agreed on a
self-imposed gag rule which turned out to be a bit of an oxymoron
when it comes to members of the House. We did that to provide
some level of confidentiality so that when witnesses came before
us they could feel some confidence that what they said would be
held in confidence. We in turn would get the real goods rather
than the platitudinous speeches we so often hear about resources
and funding, et cetera.
We felt that this level of confidentiality would in fact make
our report more meaningful so that we could then move to
recommendations to the House which in turn might lead to useful
legislative initiatives. That is why it is my view that this
call for an emergency debate is counterproductive. It will
pretty well guarantee that the work of the subcommittee will be
compromised or possibly even useless.
The report will be meaningless because we will not get the real
goods. Witnesses will not tell us the real story. They will go
off record or speak to us outside the committee room about what
they really mean to say. They will not commit to writing and we
will therefore be limited in what we can say in our report.
This is a classic case of parliament shooting itself in the foot
partly because of hysteria. It is easy to state the problem, but
it is much more difficult to apply one's mind to the resolution
and to reply to the problem without lapsing into some generalized
government bashing about cutting back, et cetera.
The last example of parliamentary ineptitude in this area is in
my view with respect to Bill C-95, incidentally also sort of a
pre-election response to a real problem. Bill C-95 is now
codified in section 467 of the criminal code. It defines
participation in criminal organizations. This is a classic case
of legislate in haste and repent in leisure.
Arguably Bill C-95, now section 467 of the criminal code, is one
of the most useless bills parliament has ever passed. The crown
will not touch it because it is afraid it is not charter proof.
The six elements of the offence, heaped upon a predicate offence,
make the burden of proof sky high.
Everyone in the court house knows that accused x has links
to organized crime, but the crown is unable to prove all six
elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The police do not use it
because of the ability to wiretap for in excess of a year. The
time is too long. Investigations change directions over the
course of a year. They question whether using this section will
expose their whole case to a charter challenge. Therefore
literally years of work will go out the window because they are
afraid that section 467 will not withstand a charter scrutiny.
The disclosure requirements expose years of police work to
defence lawyers and therefore to their clients.
They can get everything they want with a normal application of
wiretap provisions of the criminal code and not risk wasting
thousands of hours of work.
2230
In summary, parliament, in a pre-election knee-jerk reaction to
a substantive problem, gave the police and crown useless or
marginally useless tools. I respectfully submit that is what
this debate invites us to do once again. We apparently do not
learn. As the famous Yogi Berra once said “This is déjà vu all
over again”.
Compound legislative sloppiness with judicial laziness in the
area of ever expanding definitions of disclosure and of
relevance. Crowns have an obligation to disclose to defence that
which may be relevant to the accused presenting a full defence.
Since defence is under no such obligation to disclose its
defence, even if it does not have one, disclosure becomes one
grand fishing expedition. Crowns and police end up providing
volumes and volumes of material because the judiciary will not
circumscribe definitions of relevance. Therefore almost
everything becomes relevant.
It has become so bad that certain jurisdictions will not share
information with Canadian authorities for fear that their own
investigations will be compromised by permissive Canadian courts
that allow this ever-expanding definition of relevance.
People's lives are at risk. Police spend endless hours vetting
disclosure binders and needless time and resources are devoted to
wild goose chases. Then the defence, in an ultimate act of
arrogance, will say “It is not in the right format” or “I want
it tabbed and correlated”.
This is serious stuff and frankly an emergency debate is
counterproductive. It is a little like bringing gasoline to a
fire. It is a pathetic response by members opposite to attempt
to show that they are doing something when in fact they are being
counterproductive to the work of the committee.
Last week the committee spent the entire week in Vancouver. We
walked the streets of east Vancouver with the police. We spent
some time on the docks and were there when containers were
opened. We went to the border and looked at how massive the
problem is. We went to the airport and even got on an airplane
with customs officers and examined all the places where one can
put contraband. We were all profoundly affected by this.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I hate to interrupt the hon. member who was speaking very
well, but he, I and many other members are members of the
subcommittee. As subcommittee members we are under gag orders.
While the member is speaking on this issue he is discussing in
the House what we are not supposed to discuss. If that is the
case, why are certain members of the House under gag orders but
not the government members?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure that
anyone who is listening is listening with heightened interest to
the hon. member for Scarborough East. It is a question of
debate. It is not a question for the Speaker to settle. It is a
question for the House. That can be settled in some other venue
but not here.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been
here at the beginning of my speech he would have noticed that
hon. members on the subcommittee have basically ignored the gag
orders, as has the hon. member opposite, and we are being reported
in the newspapers. Frankly, our confidentiality has been
completely compromised. We asked that this emergency debate not
occur but it has occurred.
In my view the ability of the subcommittee to produce a
meaningful report with confidentiality restrictions is completely
shot. I feel betrayed and disappointed that we cannot conduct
the subcommittee in that matter.
To finish off, all of us were affected by the lives that we saw.
The undercurrent of violence is always there and the threat to
our democratic life is profound and it is real.
2235
The subcommittee is not ready to report and this evening's
debate and the compromise by members opposite of these gag orders
will make our report very problematic. I am quite disappointed
in the ultimate result.
This is an enormous and significant problem. It goes to the
very root of our democratic way of life. People in good faith
could arrive at some meaningful legislative responses and the
couple of suggestions I put forward with respect to 467 and with
respect to the ever-expanding definitions of relevance are areas
we should seriously explore. I think that members in good faith
could well arrive at some reasonable resolution of this matter
and prepare a useful and a meaningful response for Canadians.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for a
clarification with regard to the subcommittee. I heard and was
led to believe that the subcommittee report was under a gag
order. I heard the member from the other side say that this was
no longer the case. Is it my understanding that the member is
now free to speak to us and the public about what went on in that
subcommittee?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the committee started out by
exploring the issue of confidentiality. It is clear that it is
not working. It is clear from the newspaper articles printed
time and time again and quotes attributed to certain members of
the House who are on the subcommittee that there is no realistic
possibility that we will have the confidentiality we all wish to
have. As a consequence, this does not lead to the conclusion
that the work of the subcommittee is without relevance.
The material that we have had and I expect we will have over the
course of the next few weeks is substantive, is useful to
deliberations and will help us, I hope, suggest to parliament
some reasonable legislative responses which will be of assistance
in responding in a reasoned and deliberate fashion so that the
government may draft legislation in response.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
guess we can blame the statements of the hon. member on the late
hour. He is a bit confused and, with all due respect, I will try
to correct some of the things he said.
We one this side, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois as well as
the Alliance members who sit on the subcommittee, feel bound by
the rules of confidentiality. I do not think that the members
who have already spoken tonight or who will speak later on will
break the confidentiality of the work being carried out by the
subcommittee.
Second, I do not agree with the member that a more dispassionate
and civilized debate, based on the insight parliamentarians
should always demonstrate, could prejudice the future findings
of the subcommittee.
As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie said, the subcommittee on organized crime is
involved in a long term process where it will have to address a
whole series of problems. What the Bloc Quebecois is asking for
in the short term, by mid-October or in the near future, is that
the government take very specific and time specific measures to
declare illegal a number of criminal biker gangs.
2240
I would like our hon. colleague to tell the people who are
watching tonight's debate that we can act at both levels, we can
uphold our oath and also exercise caution and take our
responsibilities.
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon.
member opposite. I think our work is affected. I think our work
is compromised by the debate and that it will be politicized.
The consequence of that will be legislation, which we already
have an example of in Bill C-95, which in my view was legislation
in haste, repent in leisure. Bill C-95 was a knee-jerk response
to a difficult problem, the result of which we are now reaping
the whirlwind thereof.
My view is that the work of the committee, which I thought was
going at a reasonable pace, has now been compromised. We probably
will not enjoy the level of confidence from witnesses that we
might otherwise have come to expect. However, I hope that will
not totally compromise the work of the committee. Nevertheless,
we will continue to vigilantly work at this problem. I hope we
will be able to respond in a timely fashion to this issue with
meaningful legislative initiatives and suggestions which the
committee can put forward to parliament and parliament in turn
can put forward to the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before we get
to the next intervention, and without making any editorial
comment, it was pointed out to me earlier that the Chair has
become involved in issues relating to the in camera proceedings
of committees in parliament. While everything raised in the
House was, in my opinion, raised legitimately in debate, it might
be wise for all of us to remember the issues that have gone on
before relating to committees and in camera proceedings of
committees. Again, I say that without making any editorial
comment about any of the interventions by any members but we need
to be mindful of our responsibilities in that regard.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin my speech, I wish to inform you that I will share
my 20 minutes with my colleague, the hon. member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
We have to look at why the Bloc Quebecois felt the need to
debate this issue today. In fact, it is not just today that we
have felt the need to address this issue.
The whole thing really began with the events that occurred in
Montreal in 1995 when young Daniel Desrochers was killed by a
bomb blast. We immediately felt the need to look at this issue.
Later on, we had Bill C-95.
It is true that the Bloc Quebecois supported that bill. Members
will remember that it was passed on the eve of a federal
election call. In other words, it was that or nothing.
I would ask members opposite to read the comments that we made
back then. We said, among other things, that the legislation
would never allow the police to catch the leaders, that it would
never allow it to gather evidence. The leaders are always those
who call the shots. Those at the bottom of the pyramid carry out
the orders and pay for those at the top, who are never caught.
We said that it would be much too difficult to collect evidence
against these leaders and that crown attorneys and the police
would come to the same conclusion.
Then in 1996, since that legislation was not enough, the Bloc
Quebecois member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is just behind
me, introduced a private member's bill that basically sought the
same objective as today's motion, namely a tougher act to fight
organized crime. This is nothing new. That was in 1996.
2245
During the election campaign in 1997, we debated this issue. We
were calling for strong laws to fight organized crime, which is
very active in Canada and Quebec.
In the fall of 1999 a motion to establish a sub-committee to
study organized crime was unanimously passed. This did not come
out of nowhere, it was once again the Bloc Quebecois that had
deemed it important to study the issue with every
parliamentarian from every political party gathered around the
table to work out a solution. It was adopted unanimously, and
the sub-committee is in the process of studying the whole issue,
but I will get back to this later on.
In June 2000, the three Bloc members on the sub-committee on
organized crime issued a letter in the media saying that every
available tool should be considered, including the use of the
notwithstanding clause if necessary. That was in June 2000. If
we were talking about it at the time, it was not as a result of
some incident or an attempt on the life of a journalist.
On September 1 I addressed the Canadian Police Association in
Halifax. I raised the issue in my speech. I said “I think we
have reached the stage where we must consider the possibility of
using the notwithstanding clause should it be necessary to reach the
goal we are pursuing, namely an efficient legislation to fight
organized crime”. This is nothing new.
During the day, I heard the Liberals say that the decision to
raise this issue today was an emotional reaction to the shooting
of a Quebec journalist. This is not true. We want to debate this
issue today because it is our first opportunity to do so and
especially because all kinds of events took place, including
that one. There were other events as well. The biker war has
killed 150 so far. That is a lot of people, and it is nothing
new.
Our position has not changed since 1995. There is nothing new.
What is new, however, and I have to say it, is the arrogance
shown by the government which has refused to allow the House to
vote on our motion, to vote on a very concrete measure forcing
the government to introduce, by October 6, effective legislation
to fight organized crime. On top of that, on the same day, the
Minister of Justice has announced that she will propose a motion
to limit debate on another bill, the one dealing with young
offenders. As a Quebecer I must say that I find this rather
bizarre.
On one hand we have the Young Offenders Act which works well
in Quebec.
Quebecers are telling the minister “Do not touch the law, it
works fine. We do not need your Bill C-3”. Yet the minister has
informed us that she is going to steamroller over anyone who
opposes this bill and ram it through.
On the other hand Quebecers are nearly unanimous in calling for
legislation with teeth to battle organized crime effectively.
The government tells us “There will be no discussion”. We did
manage to get some discussion tonight, at last. And the
government tells us “There will be no vote either”. How can
Quebecers find anything of themselves in this government?
I do not seek to win any votes with this. The Liberals are the
ones looking for votes. For the Liberal government, the
equation is this “What do we have to do to get more votes?”
Attack 12-year-olds, maybe lower the age to 10, put them in jail.
As far as major criminals are concerned, there is the Canadian
charter of rights. That protects them. They have the same
rights as anyone else.
2250
I believe the Minister of Justice's thought process makes no
sense. Since 1995, coming back to the subject, certain things
have been done. The witness protection legislation has been
amended. There is an act aimed at improving penal legislation.
There is the 1997 anti-gang legislation to which I have already
referred; the legislation regulating certain drugs and other
substances has been changed, as has the legislation on the
proceeds of crime. The criminal code has been amended in just
about every possible way imaginable, as has the Narcotics Act.
The $1,000 bill has even been withdrawn, something the Bloc
Quebecois has been demanding for the past three or four years at
least.
Today, however, there is one thing that must be pointed out.
What is it? In 1995, there were 28 criminal biker gangs in
Canada; in 2000, there are 35 such gangs on police files. The
police have all the details on who the gang members are and so
on.
They are more organized and richer than ever, and the government
opposite is saying that everything is fine, that everything is
under control and that there is no real need to change anything.
There is especially no need to invoke the notwithstanding
clause and section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. This is alarming. People are worried, and with good
reason.
There is a real need for the sub-committee on organized crime.
Everything that I have heard here represents facts that can be
found in public documents.
The only member who broke his oath, the only member who passed
on privileged information that he received in the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is looking at the
issue of crime, is one of the members of the Liberal government
across the way.
I think that members opposite are looking for a way out because
they are finding all this too much work. They are either lazy
or irresponsible. We, however, will not back down. This
evening the debate is about whether it should be a crime to
belong to an association of criminals. If so, we will sit down
and look for a solution up to and including using the
notwithstanding clause, but that is not an end in itself.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is
studying the whole issue of organized crime, has a long road
ahead of it. From it we will learn exactly what needs to be
changed in the long term.
There are things to do: protection of jury members, the way
criminals move about across the country, the border problem. A
number of things are involved.
I have taken part in many open line shows. When I say that
people are anxious it is because they are, but they are also fed
up with a do-nothing government. What they want is something
that moves. We are no longer in consultation mode with respect
to criminal organizations. We are in action mode. Something
has to be done and the public expects that from a responsible
party and from a government that claims to be responsible.
Today I invited the Prime Minister to assume his
responsibilities as the head of the government and demanded that
parliament vote on this important issue of fighting organized
crime. He did not assume his responsibilities at the
appropriate time. I would hope that there are people on the
other side who will wake up and put the Prime Minister straight.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as we now know criminal gangs of all kinds are expanding and do
not hesitate to impose their law wherever they can and wherever
it is profitable.
In Quebec a criminal gang like the Hell's Angels does a lot
more than simply manage some trafficking. These people do not
hesitate to use all means at their disposal, including of course
illegal ones, to eliminate all those who put themselves in their
way. Not long ago, I was against the adoption of an anti-gang
legislation.
2255
At the time I was convinced that police forces and the judicial
system had all the tools they needed to stop the activities
of all criminal organizations in Canada without exception and
put all their members behind bars.
With passage of Bill C-95 in April of 1997, I believe like many
others, that some provisions of the new act, namely those on
search and seizure, penalties for gang members, electronic
surveillance, explosives and crime proceeds, could actually stop
the illegal activities of most of these criminal organizations.
Unfortunately I now have to change my mind since I see no real
improvement in the fight against the activities of these
criminal gangs.
I therefore urge members of the House to seriously consider
any new reasonable measure that could help to put a stop to this
high level criminality. Under the present circumstances, it
seems almost impossible to put these offenders behind bars
because they use the current legislation to thwart the very
provisions that are supposed to put them out of business.
How is it that we cannot connect certain shifty individuals with
organizations like biker gangs or well-known mafia groups? And
how is it that it is almost impossible to connect many criminals
with violent crimes or some other offence like drug trafficking?
Obviously I would not want to see the Canadian authorities go
on a purposeless witch hunt across the country. I am quite
capable of seeing the difference between ordinary people and
notorious criminals. I also know, however, that there are many
dangerous individuals out there who are members of the 35 biker
gangs known in Canada who are ready to do anything and who brag
about having committed criminal acts without being bothered by
the authorities.
I therefore think it is important for us to adopt new anti-gang
legislation that would give us the tools to separate the good
citizens from the bad criminals, members of all kinds of
organizations whose ultimate aim is to commit offences that will
give them enormous financial benefits and even more power.
In other countries such as the United States, France, Italy and
Russia there are laws that try to improve the tools the police
and judiciary have at their disposal to help them fight
organized crime.
For example, our neighbours to the south have the RICO Act, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which
targets four violations related to infiltration of businesses by
gangsters. About fifty offences are clearly mentioned in that
legislation and offenders are liable to a life sentence or
twenty years in prison.
Contrary to what some parts of our Bill
C-95 provide for, in the U.S. a person charged with an offence
does not have to be convicted of the criminal activities
mentioned in the RICO Act. The prosecution just has to prove
that some crimes, such as extortion, theft, arson, abduction,
fraud or the printing of counterfeit money, were committed.
Furthermore, with the RICO Act, contrary to what happens in
Canada, there is a procedure called the reverse burden of proof.
Under this procedure, once certain criminal activities have
been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, the accused has to
demonstrate to the court that the source of his assets is
legitimate.
In Quebec as everywhere else in Canada, if members of the
House were to promptly pass some new anti-gang legislation, we
could, from then on, require any member of a criminal gang to
explain before the court where he got luxury items, such as
residences, cars, jewels and so on, when his income tax return
shows a very modest annual income.
Another good example is section 265 of the French criminal code,
passed in February 1981. It is the only one to explicitly forbid
membership in a criminal organization. It says, and I quote:
Anyone found guilty of membership in an association or
involvement in an agreement designed to take one or several
measures in preparation for one or several crimes against
persons or property offences shall be sentenced to a period of
imprisonment of five to ten years and may be denied entry.
As people say in France, it is a well-known fact that membership
in a crime syndicate is illegal.
2300
Unlike what we see in Quebec and in Canada, criminals in France
do not operate openly. If they were still in existence, the
Bonnot gang would not be allowed to have a bunker or use calling
cards. Some of its members would not be using complimentary
tickets to attend a boxing gala.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois recently reminded us that
organized crime is responsible for over 150 violent deaths. He
also added that we now have a consensus in Quebec to act quickly
to fight organized crime.
The Bloc Quebecois, the Quebec government, the Quebec Press
Council and the Montreal Urban Community Police Department are
among the groups urging the federal government to introduce
harsher legislation against organized crime.
In our view, a partial suspension of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms is not to be excluded if it could help to
achieve the desired effects, namely to quickly quash any
increase in violence and the feeling that these criminals are
untouchable, as they would like the population to believe.
Believe me when I say that I am not trying to score political
points when I stand here in the House to demand changes to the
criminal code.
In fact, because the illegal sale of all kinds of drugs brings
every year some $10 billion to drug traffickers, we have to deal
swiftly and firmly with such criminal activities. Are members
aware that some young prostitutes hit the streets as soon as
6 a.m. because they need a fix?
The work of the House sub-committee on organized crime will
surely continue for some time, I hope, in spite of the remarks
made a little earlier by our Liberal colleague. However, we feel
it is urgent to act in order to deal swiftly and effectively
with those who treat the laws with contempt.
Personally, I think it is urgent to act to quickly better equip
ourselves to effectively counter organized crime because the
situation is catching up with us.
In conclusion, I urge members of the House as well as government
members to act as quickly as possible in order to repress more
effectively all criminal gangs at work in Quebec as well as
across Canada.
I feel that the shortcomings of several of our laws are major
assets for organized crime and its supporters. I would even add
that the strength of organized crime lies in the weakness of our
actions.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate and I regret that the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois has made fun of my kind words concerning Mr. René
Lévesque who was a journalist and a Premier of Quebec.
How arrogant of me, an anglophone, to dare say something
positive about a famous Quebecer. I truly admired Mr. Lévesque
as a journalist. Mr. Lévesque understood human rights and
liberties.
Mr. Lévesque must be turning in his grave at this proposal of
the Bloc Quebecois to limit freedom of association. This is the
very freedom Mr. Lévesque defended as a journalist and as a
premier of Quebec.
2305
How ironical. The members of the Bloc, the sovereignists want to
reduce the scope of this legislation. That is impossible, for if
we reduced basic rights, criminal groups would win.
[English]
I have something to say in this debate and I
have waited a long time. I am one of the few people in this
Chamber who is a former journalist. I can assure you, Mr.
Speaker, that in my view, René Levesque, as one of Canada's most
celebrated journalists, would indeed be turning in his grave at
the very thought that his colleagues in Quebec would be proposing
to lessen the rights of Quebecers, lessen the rights of Canadians
as an instrument to get at criminal organizations.
I must tell a story, Mr. Speaker. In my early young days as a
reporter I myself had my own encounters with organized crime. I
have great sympathy for the Quebec journalist who found himself
wounded severely in the recent incident that has led to this
debate. When I started out at the Hamilton Spectator many
years ago as a police reporter, the city editor at the time
really admired the way I seemed to be able to get information out
of anyone. At that time I was only a reporter for two years.
Hamilton has had a Mafia problem for some time and I imagine it
still has a Mafia problem now. It certainly did then. There was
a particularly notorious Mafioso by the name of Johnny Papalia
who lived in town. A couple of years ago he was gunned down in a
contract killing. Even for 20 years he has obviously had quite a
reputation in his own organization and it cost him in the end.
He was notorious and he used to operate from a little company
called Monarch Vending which is on Railway Street, a little blind
street in Hamilton.
What was happening was the Globe and Mail was running a
series of exposés on the Mafia and the city editor in Hamilton
wanted to match the exposé. The exposés were about a different
Mafia leader altogether, but he suggested I go down and get
Johnny Papalia's reaction. No one had ever interviewed Johnny
Papalia. He was notorious. He was a tough guy.
Anyway, I dutifully decided to take a taxi rather than my own
car because of course even journalists do worry about these
things and I did not want Johnny Papalia's friends to get my
licence number. I took a cab down to 10 Railway Street. The
cabbie said to me “You are going to see Johnny Pops”. I said,
“Well, yes”. The cab dropped me off. He was kind of interested.
He drove down to the end of the street and backed up into a
driveway. He wanted to see whether I would come out.
I went into Monarch Vending and there was this great big guy.
There were lots of thugs around in those days and they looked
like thugs. I said I wanted to see Johnny Papalia and they were
so amazed. This Mafioso guy came out. He was a tough looking
hombre and he said “I will tell you once, take off. How dare
you come here”. I said, “Look, Mr. Papalia, I just came here
to get your side of this article in the Globe and Mail”.
He raged at me and I backed up and out of the door and down the
driveway and past his Cadillac. He had a Cadillac in the
driveway. I got a little mad myself and I said “All right, if
you do not want the damned story” and I took the newspaper
article and spiked it on the radio aerial of his Cadillac. I
have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, for some time afterwards I did
look under my car in case there was a bomb or any other thing but
there was not.
In those days, I think generally speaking, there was an
unwritten rule. That unwritten rule was that one did not
intimidate, harass or threaten the life of journalists.
Why we are having this debate tonight and why it is so very
important is that organized crime has broken that code. They
have attacked a journalist in the course of his duty. I have
great admiration for the Quebec reporter. I am glad he survived
but we should all be desperately concerned when an event like
this occurs.
I think it is absolutely right for this parliament to go on the
attack against this kind of threat but I caution everyone that
there is no journalist in this country, I am sure, who would
really want to sacrifice our fundamental liberties just because
one or two of us get killed because that is what does happen. I
lament the Bloc Quebecois. They do not realize it is the same
tradition of journalism in Quebec as it is in the rest of Canada.
Nothing is different.
2310
[Translation]
Quebec journalists follow the same tradition of defending basic
rights.
[English]
You do not sacrifice a fundamental right like freedom of
association because a journalist has been attacked, but what
parliament must do is it must make these organizations pay. The
only way you can make organizations like this pay when they
attack journalists, when they attack politicians, or when they
attack justice officials, is to take business away from them.
I proposed earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I really do think that the
government has been going at this problem in bits and pieces. In
fact over the last five or six years the government has failed to
comprehensively address the ways in which organized crime is
making money.
I have followed this debate this entire evening and a lot of the
debate has focused on increasing policing. There were some very
good comments about taking the ports police away. I do believe
that our open ports and the ability to export any kind of
contraband out of Canada is one of the major things that is
fueling profits for organized crime. That has been a very good
suggestion.
But just adding police is not the answer. As I alluded to
earlier, we have to stop the ability of organized crime to
make money in Canada and to launder money in Canada, and to
engage in easy cross-border transportation, both in money, and
information is another thing, and contraband. We have not done
very well there.
We have had an opportunity in the past and we have not exploited
it. We need to go after, as I mentioned, non-profit
organizations and charities. I know this sounds preposterous
that I should be bringing charities into a debate about organized
crime, but I can assure the members opposite that this is very,
very serious. The charity industry is over $100 billion.
I was going through my pile of correspondence as I was listening
to the debate. I had a number of annual reports from major
charities. I will not name them because it is a little hard on
them in the context of this particular debate, but some of these
charities were very prominent charities. They sent their annual
reports out and there is no financial detail. There is no
audited financial statement.
Major charities are operating with no transparency and it is an
absolute invitation to organized crime. One can set up a charity
anywhere in this country and there is no requirement for them to
report. So the charities have become famous, I think worldwide,
Mr. Speaker, for the ability for organized crime or ethnic
organizations to finance terrorism abroad, you name it. They are
able to finance everything through the various charitable
non-profit organizations in this country.
I have complained about this issue many times. I
regret that the government has been slow to respond, but
I regret also that I have had very little
support from the opposition benches. The opposition benches are
constantly looking for opportunities to embarrass the government,
and when a backbench MP comes along with something that really is
central to solving the organized crime problem—or not solving,
nothing solves it—but making it costly for organized crime to
operate, I just have not had the support. I regret that
because I really think that many of the members on the
opposite side are very sincere in what they try to do. I think
that by and large this debate, except where it entered into the
delicate ground of interfering with our fundamental liberties,
has been well aimed.
I have to be a little careful because I do not want to cast
aspersions on the justice minister and the solicitor general who
very patiently took part in this entire debate and I hope receive
some very good suggestions, but the responses from the justice
minister and the solicitor general are still partial. No one
seems to recognize or appreciate that the Internet and electronic
communications and the global marketplace are a boon to organized
crime, an absolute boon to organized crime. What we really have
to do is have an open debate.
2315
It was quite a revelation to me to know that the subcommittee on
organized crime was having in camera discussions. That is pretty
useless, I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, because I am a person
who did not happen to be on that committee. I can tell you that
I would have had some input in that committee. I can tell you
that it was one of the places where I would have liked to have
had some input.
I learned tonight the subcommittee received a submission to
which the justice minister alluded. It was a consultation paper
on the intimidation of key players in the criminal justice
system. This consultation paper arose from a survey that was done
in 1998 following a court case involving the Hell's Angels in
which Quebecers were asked whether or not they feared reprisals
if they did jury duty on a case involving organized crime like
the Hell's Angels.
I think 81% of them said they feared intimidation, so the
justice department issued a consultation paper which the
subcommittee on organized crime is supposedly considering. It
seeks laws, regulations or penalties specifically aimed at
intimidation of people in the criminal justice system like
judges, juries, policemen and prison guards, but they left out
politicians and journalists.
This whole way in which we try to control the bad side of
society, the way that we try to get control over the negative,
shadowy forces that would steal, that would kill, is through our
politicians and journalists as well as through our criminal
justice system. I would submit that it is more so with our
politicians and journalists. The journalists are the ones who
write the stories and put their lives in danger, and the
politicians are the ones who act upon those stories and pass
legislation.
There is ample opportunity for organized crime to get at
politicians. There is the instrument of blackmail. I believe
that there have even been instances where politicians in this
parliament have been physically threatened. That is possible.
One can have one's family physically threatened. I am not
talking about the Quebecois member. I think the problem is a bit
more general than that.
We cannot allow that to happen. If there is to be a
consultation paper that seeks to put in place new penalties or
new laws preventing the intimidation of people in the criminal
justice system, then those penalties, those new innovations,
those initiatives, should apply also to journalists and
politicians because there is no doubt about the seriousness of
what has occurred.
I welcome this debate. I am just a little saddened that members
of the Bloc Quebecois do not appreciate that they allow the
criminals to stampede the politicians into passing laws. That is
what they are proposing, the notwithstanding clause to circumvent
the constitution so that in one particular instance somebody can
be arrested because they are wearing a Hell's Angels jacket. That
is unacceptable, because if we had a law like that it could be
used by another government against a separatist party or against
any other kind of organization, the flavour of the time
shall we say, decided was a threat to peace, order and good
government.
We must never allow that to happen. The final analysis
is that when we allow criminals to diminish our fundamental
rights and freedoms then crime wins.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his words tonight. I
certainly understand what he is saying, particularly with respect
to organized crime. When we hit the pocketbook, touch the
financial resources, it will hurt and have an effect. There is
no doubt about that.
I am really concerned that the member alluded to an incident
where a journalist was shot and that there was a knee-jerk
reaction. Over just a short period of time over 150 people in
Quebec alone have died at the hands of organized criminals. These
include not only gang members but also innocent bystanders. That
is just in Quebec. That is not to mention what has happened
across the country in many other areas where people have died.
That is not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of young people,
the most vulnerable, who have died of drug overdoses, who have
been hired by organized crime.
2320
There is violence galore. I do not think we can ignore the
fact that violence is prevalent and that people are dying. It is
not a knee-jerk reaction to one incident. When is somebody
going to wake up, take the bull by the horns and say that is
enough?
Maybe it will infringe on the rights to belong to an
organization, providing that organization is definitely connected
to all these problems. There might be even another one and
another one. I really think that the hon. member is missing the
boat by simply saying that taking away all the methods of earning
money will be the answer. I think it has to be a combination. We
have to start acting like we mean business. Maybe it would be a
drastic measure.
It is true that we want to protect the liberties we are used to,
the things to which we are so accustomed. All of us want that.
It was not the politicians. It was not Mr. Trudeau and the
charter of rights that brought in all these liberties. It was
the soldier over many years of protecting the country. That is
what brought us all these freedoms.
I would suggest a lot of these soldiers who died in wars to
protect the freedoms we have would be turning over in their
graves knowing how many people are being pulverized by these
criminals. Sooner or later we must get a little stronger in our
thinking, other than what can we do to break the backs of their
economy. That is part of it, but in the meantime there will be
an awful lot of violence to prevent that. What are we to do
about that combined complex problem?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, so we invoke the
notwithstanding clause and we pass legislation that makes it a
crime to belong to Hell's Angels, for example. What if Hell's
Angels organizers or the real Hell's Angels grab some kids off
the street and say “Wear this jacket with Hell's Angels on it?”
The kid is going to wear the jacket because he is going to know
that if he does not wear the jacket he is going to be beat up and
then he is going to be arrested by the police.
Do you not see, Mr. Speaker, how simple it is to destroy that
very principle? We are talking about sophisticated criminals. I
suspect, as a matter of fact I am sure, that the head of the
Hell's Angels is somewhere over in Taiwan or out in the Indian
Ocean. Organized crime is a vast octopus even though the all
powerful President Clinton cannot get a grip on where the
leadership is coming from. It is just like a bad James Bond
novel. They will be clever enough that they will embarrass this
government and they will embarrass this country so much that if
we actually restrict the liberties they will make sure the
people we grab will be the innocent.
What I ask the member opposite, who cannot reply because it will
not be his turn, is what he will do then if we circumvent the
constitution, if we erode a fundamental right and we put innocent
people in jail, and the Hell's Angels and the other motorcycle
gangs go on in their lovely gun running, drug businesses as
before? It is not the answer. It is the abyss and we must not
step into it.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to address the
debate tonight. I appreciate the hon. member across the way for
staying as late as it is and hearing what I have to say. At
least we have one over there. If it is all the same, I will go
by the rule of Ecclesiastes where it says “The heart of the wise
looks to the right and the heart of a fool to the left”. I am
going to look directly at you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to start by saying that the hon. member is talking
about some very hypothetical situations: what if, what if, and I
can understand why he would do that. There is a lot of
situations that are rather hypothetical in what would happen.
Nevertheless, it is not addressing the problem.
2325
I am sure I will get a reaction from the hon. member by making a
couple of comments. There is no doubt in my mind, I say
unequivocally, that the charter of rights has set up many
barriers to accomplishing good judicial answers in the country.
I concur with the Quebec minister of public security that the
federal anti-gang laws are too complex. They are costly and
timid in stopping the province's brazen motorcyle gangs. It is a
charter of rights involving freedom of association. It should be
temporarily suspended in cases of suspected organized criminal
activity. I am sick and tired of criminal rights superseding the
collective rights of law-abiding citizens. I think on this point
Canadians would agree.
I refer to Supreme Court Judge L'Heureux-Dubé's 1997 comments in
response to the Feeney case. In her dissenting opinion Justice
L'Heureux-Dubé suggested that now that the charter was 15 years
old it might be time to reassess the balance courts construct
between protecting the individual rights of the accused and
preserving society's capacity to protect its most vulnerable
members and to expose the truth.
In terms of the most vulnerable members I think of the young
people. I think of the number of funerals I attended of students
who died from drugs when I taught high school for 22 years back
in the eighties and early nineties. It was all part of this
problem.
It is high time we opened up the debate the judge is suggesting.
We should determine whether or not the charter of rights should
be extended to those convicted of committing a crime. I am
confident that the charter of rights should be reserved for
law-abiding citizens.
The basic rights belong there: the right to a fair trial with an
assumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to an
attorney. All basic rights have to be there but once convicted
how far will we allow the charter to apply to those convicted
people? It constantly puts up barriers and has created the very
victims groups the other hon. member mentioned several times
tonight.
The victims groups exist because they are not happy with the
justice that has been prevailing in the land. CAVEAT, CRY and
all such organizations which represent thousands and thousands of
Canadians did not organize because they were happy with the
justice system. It was just the opposite.
The next item that bothers me is the ongoing rhetoric about how
we have given the tools to the police and done all the wonderful
things we need to do in order to help them fight crime.
I have a press release of September 15, 2000, about three days
ago. Its leading comments are “Less Talk, More Action, Says
Canadian Police Association”. It continues:
“This week's shooting of Montreal journalist Michel Auger is yet
another example of the scourge of organized crime in our
communities”, says David Griffin, Executive Officer of the
30,000 member Canadian Police Association. “While organized
criminals conduct their activities with virtual immunity, police
are increasingly frustrated and thwarted in their efforts to
fight back, due to weak laws, lack of tools, and a woeful lack of
the necessary resources”.
It is their press release. It is not mine yet I have heard
rhetoric all night about what wonderful things they have done.
According to this press release it is nonsense. It continues:
“Canada has gained third world status as a haven for organized
criminals,” said Griffin. “The attack on Mr. Auger is just the
latest example of the violence and intimidation tactics used by
these gangsters.
Our democratic institutions are being threatened by the influence
of global criminals. Two Quebec prison guards were murdered, a
Member of Parliament and his family were under police protection
last fall after the member spoke out, and now a member of the
media has been gunned down in an apparent attempt to muzzle his
voice. While politicians at all levels continue to point fingers
in other directions or promise to do more, the reality on the
frontlines is that we are barely fielding a team”.
2330
I repeat, this is the Canadian Police Association. It is not
the Canadian Alliance saying that. It says that this government
constantly insists that it has given all the tools necessary to
do the job. This press release of three days ago is very
contradictory to those comments.
Despite the national and international attention that has been
drawn to this issue, the Government of Canada has done little to
bolster enforcement in order to keep pace with sophisticated
organized criminals...We have weak laws, weak budgets, weak
technology and little support. Our front-line officers are
extremely demoralized. On the other hand, organized criminals
have billions of dollars at their disposal and are literally
banking on the lack of enforcement resources to track their
movements.
Enough of the rhetoric about how much we are doing to help our
police force get the job done that they need to do. Let us take
a look at the latest report of the Criminal Intelligence Service
of Canada which stated, as reported in the Hill Times:
The article goes on to state:
In 1998, RCMP Superintendent Ben Soave, who heads the
Toronto-based organized crime squad, warned organized crime
groups are trying to corrupt politicians and police with bribes
and blackmail. They are a threat to our national security.
In other countries this statement would have been sufficient to
appoint a royal commission in order to find a solution to this
dangerous problem. Sadly, not in Canada where politicians sit
idly by.
Another government organization is saying that this government
continually insists that we are happy with the situation. Those
are their words, not mine. This is their press release. It is
not mine. Hon. members can point their fingers at this party all
they want to.
Hon. members should hear this factual story from the Ottawa
Sun of April 25, 1999. I will read it to them.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police began tracking the 30-metre
pleasure yacht named the Blue Dawn in October of 1997, when
it sailed east across the Atlantic Ocean from the quaint Nova
Scotia town of Lunenburg...More than 150 officers had worked
thousands of extra hours on the investigation, which would become
the largest drug bust in British Columbia history. But as the
Blue Dawn waited some 400 miles off the B.C. coast in the
chilly November air to transfer its treasure of Pakistani hashish
onto a smaller vessel, the long and complex RCMP drug sting
suddenly hit a snag...we had to tell our officers that they
couldn't be paid. There was just no money around to do it. We
told them they could complete the operation, but they wouldn't be
paid for it...to their credit, (the officers) decided to complete
the operation without pay...Had the officers decided not to
proceed with the bust, however, nearly 15 tonnes of hash destined
for the large cities of eastern Canada would have entered the
country...the Blue Dawn was not the first time officers
were forced to donate their time. And I don't know how much
longer their dedication to busting criminals will carry thus
through this financial crisis we're under.
We are asking them to do that for nothing? That is a fact.
Check it out. Do not take my word for it. Ask the police about
the Blue Dawn, the big sting and all the donated time by
police because we have not got the money to pay for it. It is
strange that we have money for all kinds of silliness. When we
look at the public accounts and the way they spend money on that
side of the House, it drives us nuts, yet they cannot afford to
pay the police in a major sting operation. What is going on?
2335
To talk about all these problems is not any good without
suggesting some solutions. Let me try.
First, monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the
anti-gang legislation enacted in 1997. I think there was one
conviction but I understand that through plea bargaining that was
thrown out; one conviction since 1997.
Second, review the effectiveness of the proceeds of crime
legislation.
Third, improve the ability of the police to investigate money
laundering and introduce legislation creating new financial
reporting requirements for banks regarding suspicious
transactions.
Fourth, significantly increase penalties for drug smuggling and
trafficking.
Fifth, amend the criminal code to include a penalty for
contributing to the delinquency of a minor, for people who use
minors for drug trafficking and for prostitution. It is high
time we socked it to them. Instead we do nothing.
Sixth, increase surveillance and controls along the borders, at
ports in Canadian waters and abroad. I stood at the Canadian
port in Port Erie and asked the guards what were in the boats
that were coming across. They said they did not know for sure.
I asked if they had any idea what they might be. They said that
if it was one level, it was probably cigarettes. At another
level it was probably booze. At another level it was
probably people. If it was at another level it could be guns.
Who stops them? Nobody.
I watched the boats go the other way to the U.S. Guess what?
They did not get half way across the water. There was a patrol
that stopped all of them.
Seventh, increase the sophisticated technology to better detect
drug shipments. Do that.
Eighth, create a special investigative and tactical unit
comprised of RCMP, Customs Canada, national defence, CSIS, solely
used for combatting organized crime. Do those things.
The government has been in for seven years. Organized crime has
been here longer than that. It has done nothing except implement
the anti-gang thing in 1997 which did not accomplish a thing.
That is what it has done.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Absolutely rubbish.
Mr. Myron Thompson: The member says “absolutely rubbish”.
The government has done nothing else.
I could go on and on with stories from prison guards who talk
about those who have been shot at or who are being threatened.
Their families are being threatened in their homes and they are
afraid to react against the gang activities in the penitentiaries
because of the dangers it imposes upon their families.
We put up a drug detector machine, a fancy several million
dollar machine. I forget what it is called but it has a name.
They put that machine in the penitentiaries. I have been to
practically every penitentiary in the country and to many of them
several times, visiting of course. I have always insisted that I
should go through this drug machine. I am very fortunate that I
passed all the time. I asked who was tested by the machine. I
was told that the guards, the people who worked there, the
volunteers and the lawyers who work for the inmates were not, but
the visitors were. Guess what they told me at one penitentiary
when I asked what it did when drugs were detected on a visitor?
The answer was “Go home, clean up and try again tomorrow”.
What kind of regulation is that? That is what they are telling
me in the penitentiaries. Then we wonder why drugs are so
heavily prevalent in these penitentiaries. There are more drugs
inside the prisons than there are on the streets.
I am really tired of the constant rhetoric that comes from that
side of the House about the wonderful things that the government
has done. Yet the problem goes on and on. One member would say
“rubbish, it does not”. Talk to all the victims of people who
have died from these kinds of activities. There are thousands of
them. It is not so easy to see when the only thing the member
does in the House is jump from seat to seat to get camera
attention.
2340
It is late and I do not want to keep us here any longer than we
have to. There is one more thing that I want to say. I want to
quote from an article in the Ottawa Citizen from RCMP
Commissioner Philip Murray who retired not too long ago. He
said:
Organized crime in Canada is now so pervasive that police have
been reduced to putting out isolated fires in a blazing
underworld economy. Canada is particularly vulnerable to drug
trafficking, the principal source of revenue for most organized
crime groups, according to the Drug Analysis Section of the RCMP.
Smugglers are attracted to Canada because of the low risk of
arrest due to limited police resources that have stymied
investigations, relatively light penalties and our sprawling,
largely unmonitored borders.
All these comments are coming from police commissioners, the
police association, prison guards, victims, the cries from Quebec
and the number of lives that are lost.
Can somebody suggest to me that the charter is not a barrier to
good justice in this land? I would suggest that it is time to
review that statement. It is time to open up that debate. Let us
not protect this document to the point that it allows all of
these problems to continue to exist. Let us heed the words of
the supreme court justice who said it is time to review this
after 15 years. Is it having the effect of its intent when it
was brought into being? I am not going to attack it and I do not
think the hon. member across the way would attack it, but I think
he would be willing to discuss it and see if we can improve it.
At no time do I believe for a moment that Prime Minister Trudeau
intended this document to be a political protective paper for the
worst criminals of all kind. I do not think he intended that,
but it is happening.
The provinces do their best. Alberta passed legislation to take
11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 year old prostitutes off the streets of its
cities. Not to arrest them, not to convict them, but to get them
off the streets and try to help them. A complaint was laid and it
was determined by our courts that under the charter of rights it
is unconstitutional to do that. If my hon. colleague and I were
driving down the street and we saw an 11 year old girl on the
street prostituting and we did not try to help her get off the
street, I would be disgusted with him and I am sure he would be
disgusted with me. That is what they are trying to do and we are
letting a document such as this stop that kind of activity. That
cannot continue.
We will let the courts decide that it is okay for a 56 year old
man to own, possess and enjoy child pornography. It was only
going to be a temporary thing. It would not take long. We are
still waiting two years later. Why? Because of one document.
I love Canada. I love our freedoms. I have the greatest
respect and regard for the soldiers who died to build and protect
those freedoms. If we are ever going to lose any freedoms, it is
because of our failure as parliamentarians to implement the most
elemental duty that we have, and that is to provide protection
for the safety of our citizens. We had better start doing it.
2345
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, It is a
pleasure to actually stand here in the House and represent them
and have them formally named each time that I do stand.
The member opposite, the member for Wild Rose, spoke
excellently. I think he came up with a number of very good
suggestions on how we could stiffen the laws to get at organized
crime. However, I invite him to review his own words in
Hansard tomorrow and he will find that nowhere in his
speech did he actually make an argument for using the
notwithstanding clause to adjust the constitution or the charter
of rights to limit association, to make it a crime to join
motorcycle gangs.
The closest he came to a criticism of the constitution was when
he brought up the issue, as he alluded to it before, of the child
prostitution legislation that was attempted in Alberta. I am
absolutely on the same wavelength with him there. I think it was
good legislation and it should have survived but it was overruled
by an interpretation of a lower court.
I think if he really thinks about it, the member for Wild Rose
will realize that the problem is not the constitution. The
problem is the interpretation of the constitution that is taken
in varying forms by the courts.
I would like to get his reaction here because we are having a
debate in which we have an opportunity to put forward novel
suggestions. I think one of the problems that has bedevilled us
as a society since the constitution came in and since the charter
of rights came in is that there have been interpretations of the
charter that we as parliamentarians know, from our own feelings,
from contacts with our constituents and from our own sense of the
nation, are sometimes not right.
What I would suggest to the House is that one of the reasons why
we get this feeling is that we are never invited to appear before
the courts for these interpretations. We make the laws but we
never have the opportunity to explain to the courts what we mean
by the laws. We never get to go before those courts.
I would ask the member to respond to this right now. When there
is a challenge before the supreme court, the justice department
sends lawyers. I am not always sure that our justice department
can advocate for the laws we pass in the way that I would wish,
as indeed, Mr. Speaker, in our debates here, I often find myself
at odds with our own justice department. Would he think that it
might be a good innovation, a good initiative, if we brought more
lawyers into the House of Commons so the House of Commons lawyers
could advocate on behalf of parliamentarians? It is this place,
parliament, that creates the laws, not government. It is a myth
that it is government. Government brings them in and they go
forward but in the end it is the vote of the parliamentarians
here that determines the legislation.
The courts never hear the opposition arguments when legislation
goes through. They only see one side. Unfortunately, as it
stands now only the government advocates on issues pertaining to
interpretations of the charter.
I would suggest that the member opposite and all opposition
parties should get on side and pressure the government, pressure
the Board of Internal Economy and pressure the Speaker to create
more lawyers in this House to sit at that table who would act for
we parliamentarians and advocate for the interpretations of the
legislation for us on all sides of the House.
Then perhaps someone can say that maybe the charter should not
apply to children in this circumstance. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if I
had an opportunity to plead before that court, I would say that
my intention as a parliamentarian is never to put children at
risk in that context. The charter was never intended to do that.
However, I cannot do it alone. We need to have another voice in
interpreting the charter. It is not the words that are the
problem. If you start monkeying around with the words, Mr.
Speaker, you will get into trouble. That is exactly what Hitler
and Stalin did. They limited the right of association and that
is how we got the night of the long knives or the night of the
broken glass. That is how we got the genocides in the Ukraine.
We cannot do that. We cannot limit the words of the constitution
but we can certainly try to get parliament represented when
interpretations of the constitution are going forward in the
courts.
2350
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I was going to take
notes but that was a fairly lengthy thing to which I do not know
how to respond.
I would like to add to the hon. member's words about what
happened in terms of Stalin and Hitler. I also remember the
registration and confiscation of guns along with all the rest of
it.
There are a couple of things the member said that really
frightened me. The first one was that we need more lawyers in
this place. That is a little frightening to me. I know what he
is talking about. He is not talking about sitting in the seats
there but about sitting in the lawyers pew. I do not think that
would work.
I am sure the hon. member has gone through creating a private
member's bill. I have gone through several of them now and I
find it really frustrating when the bill keeps coming back and we
have to do more work or when it does not meet the charter test. I
do not have the expertise on just exactly how to word a bill in
order to make it pass the test. We say to those who are supposed
to be able to do that “This is what I mean. This is what we want
to happen with this bill”, but very few bills make it. In fact,
how many pieces of legislation have been rejected at the level we
now have available to us because we feared it would not meet the
charter test?
I would like to visit the courts with the hon. member some time
on a bill that we can agree on—and I am sure we might find
one—and say “This is the intent of the bill. What is wrong
with it? What can we do to prevent it from ever being
challenged?” We cannot do that. It cannot happen.
It was a lower court that made the decision in the pornography
case but it is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. We keep
saying “Let the process work”. How many times do we have to
continue to do this to protect those people who are a menace to
our society?
I think Canadians are really tired of that procedure and we need
to look at better ways of delivering justice. We need to stop
the barriers in the charter that have allowed this to happen. I
do think it is a good one to debate but we could not debate it in
this place without being called an extremist, a racist or all the
other garbage that keeps flowing over. The Liberals do not know
how to debate. They only know how to call names. When will that
ever end? I doubt if it ever will. As long as we have fools in
here it will never happen.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member very well. I
have travelled with him to a number of prisons. I know the hon.
member was contacted by the Metis Association with regard to gang
controlled child prostitution in Winnipeg. I would like him to
comment a little bit on that.
We heard a comment a few minutes ago from the other side about
judges interpreting the charter. If judges are allowed to
interpret the charter is there not something weak in the charter?
Should it not be up to us as parliamentarians, particularly the
government, to close any loopholes in interpreting the charter?
Why should the charter be open to interpretation?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that
the basic ideas and principles behind establishing a document of
rights is necessary to be open to interpretation. I think that
is absolutely a waste of time. I do think that the intent of any
document should be clearly illustrated. If it does take better
wording, then let us do it. However, I do not think we have any
trouble with the intent of the legislation.
We should go at it and do it in that fashion but it is very
difficult in a partisan setting.
2355
As far as the Winnipeg problem goes, it is a shame to see the
number of under age, under 18 gangs running around the city
wearing jackets to be identified. They are responsible for home
invasions and causing a lot of grief but our hands are tied and
they should not be. We could do something about it but we need
the courage and the fortitude to do it, which is something this
government is lacking.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
understand there will be only one other speaker after me in this
debate, barring any last minute changes. I am saying this for
the benefit of our security people, those who work in the
cafeteria and our pages, who just started working today. Surely
they will find it was a rather hard day's work. I want to assure
them that it is unusual for the House to sit until 12.30 a.m. on
a Monday night.
I did not want to miss tonight's debate even though today's
legislative menu was rather substantial.
In 1996, as the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I was the first
member to introduce an anti-gang bill. The government used 80% of
my bill in its own legislation.
I mention this because in 1997 we were all convinced that we
were doing the right thing. It was not a partisan debate. The
Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, the NDP,
the Bloc Quebecois and the government acted quickly to pass that
bill. We did it in two days, which is rather exceptional.
There was a climate of terror at that time.
In 1995, in my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, a car bombing had
claimed the life of an 11-year old boy, Daniel Desrochers. At the
same time, biker gangs were trying out a new strategy based on
intimidation of the people within our justice system. Some
people had been shot to death in our prisons. More importantly,
for the first time in our history, biker gangs were using
explosives on a large scale.
That is why Bill C-95 contained nine very important provisions.
The first one—I will list them rapidly—was to create a “criminal
organization offence”, which we included in the criminal code,
whereby profiting from a crime or committing a crime for the
benefit of a criminal organization was a new offence punishable
by a 14 year sentence. Possession of an explosive substance was
also liable to imprisonment for 14 years. There was an
obligation for the solicitor general to report to the House once
a year.
There was another extremely important provision which I will
have the opportunity to come back to: the possibility of
obtaining from a judge wiretapping warrants for more than three
months, from three months to one year, in fact.
This provision was welcomed by the judiciary community as it
hampered investigations to have a warrant for one or two months
and then to have to go to court to ask for an extension. At the
time, the legislator was extremely well-advised to allow
wiretapping warrants for one year.
There were also more generous provisions concerning searches
and, of course, allowing a judge to subpoena individuals where
there were reasonable grounds to fear that they would commit a
crime, to issue probation orders, and to order them to keep the
peace.
Bill C-95 was good legislation. I am convinced that, as
parliamentarians, we went as far as we could in view of the
information we had.
2400
Bill C-95 contained another feature, that is to not allow a
criminal sentenced for gangsterism to be paroled before having
served half of his sentence.
What I would like to remind the House tonight is that we must
talk about these issues with serenity, of course. We must talk
about these issues on the basis of all the information available
to us and we must do so in a non partisan manner. We in the
Bloc Quebecois are all doing this and I am convinced that our
government colleagues are doing the same thing because the
lives of our fellow citizens are at stake. And it is more
fundamentally the way in which we want to see democracy.
It is not possible for us to be members of parliament while
outside, in communities, there are people who get away with
bearing the colours of the Hell's Angels, the Rock Machine or
any another criminal biker gang, and these people can make
terror reign in communities. It is not possible that, year
after year in February, we pass a budget, parliament's budget,
and that, parallel to this an underground economy is put in
place.
I remind hon. members that the underground economy, the activity
of the underworld on the Canadian territory, is estimated at
$200 billion.
I want the debate to proceed with serenity as much as I am
convinced that we must act quickly. We do not have much time in
front of us.
In 1997 when we passed the anti-gang bill we took stock of the
state of the underworld at the time and especially the
criminalized biker gangs. Everything has changed since then. As
parliamentarians, we should know that as long as we do not
outlaw criminalized biker gangs, our legislation will have an
extremely limited impact.
Why is that? It is because the underworld is very dynamic, well
informed, extremely rich and powerful. We should be talking
about the way the underworld operates in the year 2000.
Bill C-95, which created a new offence concerning gangs
activities, prescribed three things. The organization had to
have at least five members. It had to have committed five crimes
punishable by five years in prison, under the criminal code, in
the last five years.
What did the underworld, the Hell's Angels and other
criminalized biker gangs do to circumvent this new provision?
They made sure those who committed offences associated with
gangs by planting bombs, killing people and benefiting from the
underground economy did not have a criminal record.
People who did not have a criminal record or previous sentences
under the terms of section 487.1 could not be brought to court.
As parliamentarians, we should give serious thought to the fact
that since 1997 not a single crown attorney in Winnipeg,
Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick or Newfoundland has
succeeded in getting a conviction under that provision. And that
is not because of a lack of skill, hard work or knowledge of
the law.
2405
None of the attorneys was able to lay a charge so there was no
trial in Canada and therefore no sentence, since no charges
were laid. This is the worst part about the way organized crime
operates in the new millennium.
It does not mean we should throw in the towel and capitulate.
Fatalism would then be our worse enemy. It means we must
seriously consider invoking the notwithstanding clause.
Why should we consider using this clause? Because we have
considerably amended the laws over time. We amended the
criminal code at least eight times.
And they were not minor cosmetic changes or marginal amendments.
We substantially amended the criminal code and therefore our
criminal system.
We amended the Witness Protection Act to ensure better
protection for informants. We know quite well that, in the area
of criminal activity it is impossible to complete an
investigation without some kind of co-operation, without the help
of informants.
We modified the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act to
withdraw the $1,000 bill from circulation. If we were to ask
police officers or those present in the House how many have a
$1,000 bill in their pocket, very few would raise their hand.
Casinos, travel agencies and people doing cross-border trade were
compelled to report suspicious transactions.
On eight occasions extremely significant amendments were made
to the criminal code. Despite all that, organized crime has
never been as powerful as it is now. This is why it would be
very unwise to refuse to consider invoking the notwithstanding
clause.
I want to remind hon. members that the notwithstanding clause is
a legitimate one. We are not breaking the law and we are not
violating the constitution by using the notwithstanding clause.
Under the Constitution Act, 1982, we can restrict some freedoms
that are considered fundamental, but not just any one of them.
For instance, we could not restrict the judiciary guarantees
provided for in sections 7 to 14 of the act; we could not limit
language rights nor mobility rights. But very conveniently it
was provided in the Constitution Act, 1982, that under certain
extreme circumstances we could limit freedom of association.
This is precisely what this is all about. The Bloc Quebecois,
the Fédération prpofessionnelle des journalistes du Québec, as
well as other intermediary bodies asked the government to create
an offence of association. Thus, membership in a gang such as
the Hell's Angels, the Rock Machines or any other criminal group
known to the RCMP or CSIS would be forbidden by the legislation.
Membership in those gangs, working for them or acting in such a
way as to making them richer and benefiting from membership in
those gangs would be forbidden.
What is the objective of the legislation? It is not merely gang
membership. If members of the Hell's Angels, the Rock Machine,
the Bandidos or any of the others joined together to do sports
or some other activity, as legislators we would not be
concerned.
We know very well that these people are joined together for
illegal gains. What must be banned is membership in these biker
gangs, linked with illegal gains, and thus with the acquisition
of property, and of course the laundering of the proceeds of
crime. I do not believe that there is anything excessive in
this.
At any rate, the notwithstanding clause needs to be renewed
after five years of use. We could very well use the
notwithstanding clause.
I sincerely believe that the bill must define the gangs
currently referred to.
2410
“In particular” could very easily be added, along the lines of
section 15 of the 1982 Constitution Act. Some may say “Yes, but
if an explicit reference is made in a bill to the Hell's Angels,
the Rock Machine, the Dark Circle, or any other biker gang, they
are just going to reorganize under another name”. If they did
so, but continued the same type of activities, recourse to the
phrase “in particular” would enable us to prosecute them.
I believe the question we need to ask ourselves is this: If we
do not act now, how far is this going to go? We are familiar
with the strategy used by the biker gangs.
They began by infiltrating the economy. Then they infiltrated
major law firms, followed by major accounting firms. In the
last three years they have deliberately set out to intimidate
the judiciary.
After that it is very probable that the
strategy of intimidation will extend to judges. They could very
well go after a judge, a parliamentarian and finally a head of
state. If we do not take tough action immediately, we can bet
that there will be no limits on their strategy. As we know,
these people are driven by the desire for gain.
Once again, I repeat, we must act quickly, with vigilance and
diligence. There are enough good jurists and the legal
community has enough talent and experience to come up with a
bill whose wording is sufficiently precise to allow us to
achieve the goals we seek.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to work together with all the
opposition parties. In the past, when we made gains in the
struggle against organized crime it was because we worked in a
very consensual manner.
I am thinking back to when the bill on the collection of DNA
material was passed. It was when young Tara Manning had been
brutally murdered and all parties in the House worked together
in a very mature manner. That was how gains were made.
In conclusion, I will say that the best thing we can do for the
security of our communities, for our senior citizens, for our
young people who are listening to us tonight and waiting for us
to take concrete action, is to recognize, with all the serenity
that must characterize our decision making, that we are now at a
point where the only way we will win the war against organized
crime is by invoking the exemption clause, which is a legitimate
clause, a tool that exists in the constitution of 1982.
After having struck down the leaders of organized crime we will
be able, in a few years, to re-examine the situation. I am
convinced that we will win the battle against organized crime
and once that has been done, it will be much easier for
our fellow citizens to reconcile themselves with our democratic
institutions and to have confidence in our decision-making
process and, hence, in our parliamentary process.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
participate in the debate tonight. We are debating the issue of
organized crime and what Canadians want the federal government to
do to fight organized crime.
For the benefit of Canadians watching this debate, I am honoured
to represent the Canadian Alliance as a recently appointed member
of the subcommittee on organized crime which is currently
conducting in camera hearings.
2415
Committee members are under a gag order that the Liberal
dominated committee has insisted on applying. Therefore, I will
be careful not to violate that order in my remarks tonight. I
will not be able to say certain things which I may have been
tempted to say otherwise. I will also be careful not to point
fingers at any organized groups or organizations. I will be
diligent not to reveal any proceedings nor compromise the secrecy
or security of the witnesses appearing before the subcommittee.
I can declare that this committee is a facade. My constituents
and I and most Canadians are used to this kind of inaction by the
weak Liberal government. After seven years of being in power the
government has finally created this committee to investigate
organized crime. Where has the government been for the last
seven years? Did it not know about the magnitude of organized
crime? The government struck this committee simply because we are
on the eve of the next election and the Liberals want to be able
to say that they have done something about organized crime. What
a sham. By the time the committee submits a report it will be too
late for the government to do anything about it because the
Liberals will not form the government after the next election.
Tonight our brothers and sisters from Quebec are demanding that
the government do something before October 6 of this year. As
everyone knows, last week in Quebec there was a brutal organized
crime related shooting of a journalist, the well known crime
reporter Michel Auger.
I am sorry to say that this tired, weak, arrogant Liberal
government that lacks vision will not be responding to Quebec's
plea for immediate action against organized crime. The hearts of
the people of Surrey Central go out to the people of Quebec.
They have our sympathy.
I hope the committee does good work. I wish it could work fast
and that we could get on with the work of combating organized
crime and its effect on our society. Organized crime in Canada
takes many forms and is flourishing due to mismanagement and lack
of vision and action by the government.
International drug cartels use Canada as a point of transit for
distribution of their illicit and life destroying products. There
are many cross-border issues that bring organized crime into our
country, including our close proximity to the U.S. and our lax
laws.
There is no clear, precise definition of organized crime. It
includes money laundering, drugs, weapons and commodities
smuggling, counterfeit currency, credit cards, passports and fake
identification, telemarketing, loan sharking, insurance fraud,
theft, human smuggling, prostitution, extortion, home invasion
and trafficking in stolen goods. These are all areas within the
purview of organized crime.
Corruption in our industries and political corruption in
particular are the result crime that is highly organized and
aimed at achieving the corruption of our public officials and the
captains of our industries.
Violence is a byproduct of organized crime. It is a trap that
criminals use to get what they want.
The cost to society is huge. According to a CSIS report
released in December 1998 it is estimated that the Canadian
economy lost $14.8 billion to international organized crime. The
underground economy is big. It is a threat to our society and a
threat to civilization.
In my opinion it is almost a national emergency. It is already
late. The government should have taken solid action many years
ago.
For many years our governments were asleep at the wheel. The
various Liberal and Tory governments failed to realize and even
acknowledge the problem of organized crime, let alone the action
plan to counter it.
2420
If politicians in our country deny or downplay the importance of
organized crime and refuse to talk about it publicly because it
may antagonize an ethnic community, or because it may upset the
image of Canada or a province or a city as a crime free area,
then organized crime has a licence to do what it pleases.
Despite the evidence, the infrequent official Canadian
commissions into organized crime in the 1960s and 1970s all
concluded that organized crime did not exist in Canada. It was
not until the 1977 report of the commission of inquiry on
organized crime that the concept was finally documented.
A CBC program in June 1977 provided Canadians with six hours of
television about the mafia and triads in Canada, which finally
brought the topic into the open for the general public. Since
then, none of the Liberal or Tory governments have taken any
concrete action to curb it.
Our current Prime Minister believes in a don't worry, be happy
policy. Organized crime seems to be a campaign issue in the next
election. The government is soft on crime in our foreign
missions and is weak in control and management of every
department. We regularly read about it in the newspapers these
days.
For example, in British Columbia, my constituents always watch
for and pay close attention to excellent new articles by Fabian
Dawson of the Vancouver Province newspaper. He has been
diligent in chronicling the evidence and details of incidents of
abuse totalling millions of dollars in over a dozen Canadian
missions abroad.
Canada had about 2,000 blank visa forms allegedly stolen from
our Hong Kong office. By failing to deal with corruption in our
foreign missions, the government is providing a means for
criminal entry into Canada and has hung a welcome sign on
Canada's back door.
Another example is 788 files containing sensitive background
information on businessmen and criminals have been deleted from
the computer assisted immigration processing system in order to
allow undesirable people and people who otherwise would not
qualify to enter Canada. The files will be altered simply to
bring the criminal element back into Canada. This information is
given according to Brian McAdam, a former investigator and
internationally renowned expert on triads. McAdam also knows all
about the so-called sidewinder investigation that has been tanked
due to political pressure. What a bag of snakes that one is.
Since my election I have been working with the RCMP to pursue
reports from my constituents about harassment they receive from
corrupt officials in Canadian offices abroad. For example, my
1998 report to the RCMP concerning visa scams resulted in the firing
of local workers at Canadian missions in New Delhi, India and
Islamabad, Pakistan. Alleged bribes, stolen money, compromised
interests of officials, and corruption from locally hired staff
in many of our foreign missions is left unaddressed by the
government.
The criminal element is now light years ahead of our law
enforcement agencies.
They have state of the art equipment because they have no
shortages of resources. They have unlimited money at their
disposal. They continue to exploit the lack of action. That is
typical of the Liberal government's poor record in preventing
corruption to begin with and getting to the bottom of it once
detected.
2425
The government gives terrorists and organized criminals their
tax free status in Canada. About 50 so-called terrorist
organizations enjoy tax free status according to CSIS. Taxpayers,
through our federal government, are helping terrorists and
organized criminals to send money to finance weapons acquisitions
to commit terrorist activities in other countries. Even the
federal ministers help them raise funds by attending their
fundraisers. These things are public knowledge.
Last spring before the House rose for the summer recess I met
with a group of Tamils who came to Parliament Hill. There was a
huge number of people. There was a big gathering, a rally. I
passed to the Prime Minister the petition they brought with them
calling on the government to go forward with Canada's recent
agreement to support the United Nations declaration to fight
terrorism.
At about the same time Canada Post was scrambling to try to
prevent a so-called vanity stamp of a Tamil tiger from being
released. A stamp had already been issued to a Tamil tiger
supporter even though that person was deceased before the stamp
was issued which is contrary to vanity stamp guidelines. As it
happened, by mismanagement of our federal government our
departments were not working hand in hand. Foreign affairs could
have shared with Canada Post the details or pictures of
individuals being proposed for vanity stamps.
The worst criminal element already considers Canada a haven due
to the lenient criminal justice system operated by the Liberals.
Why is it that the Liberals only means of detecting criminal
activity at our foreign missions and HRDC is through routine
audits? The Liberals refuse to implement a system of
self-detection and self-correction in the operation of Canadian
offices in foreign lands. Indeed, they apply a cover-up
mentality to internal audits that reveal serious and daunting
information concerning abuses. They try to hush up and discredit
information pertaining to mismanagement. The Liberals should not
rely on the media or members of parliament and whistleblowers to
protect Canadian interests and the loss of taxpayer dollars to
the criminal element operating in foreign nations.
Finally, they seek to punish whistleblowers who come forward
with information to help correct the system, save taxpayers'
money, protect our sovereignty and territorial integrity. I am
prepared to table in the House very shortly a private member's
bill entitled the whistleblower protection act. It has been
delayed due to translation problems.
On behalf of my constituents and Canadians I can recommend that
to fight the effects of organized crime our federal government
should have an integrated approach to the various departments
such as justice, various law enforcement agencies, immigration
and citizenship, foreign affairs and international trade,
defence, revenue and customs, finance, transportation,
telecommunications, even agriculture, fisheries and oceans
because they have vessels to patrol, the RCMP, CSIS, the passport
office and many other departments. This is common sense.
We should also have an integrated approach at various levels of
government, the federal government, provincial and territorial
governments and municipal governments. We should also have
co-operation between politicians, the judiciary and bureaucrats.
They should complement each other in an effort to combat
organized crime. Organized crime is like a cancer and its
control should be treated like a process.
2430
We should give effective legislation to our law enforcement
agencies. We should reduce the unnecessary paperwork load that
keeps the hands of law enforcement agencies tied.
We need better wiretapping regulations to assist the agencies.
We need to amend proceeds of crime legislation. We need to amend
the Immigration Act. There is a need to review penalties for
organized criminals and drug dealers. We should pass legislation
with teeth, and there should be no more revolving doors.
Legislation like disclosure provisions should not be used as
fishing expeditions by lawyers for the criminals. Laws
pertaining to disclosure need to be amended.
We should be working closely with our foreign allies, our
friends and other nations that want to combat organized crime.
There should be a high level of co-operation and sharing of
intelligence and resources.
Organized crime is a systemic problem rather than a bad apple
scenario. We have to get tough and smart. The lazy Liberal
government should either effectively lead or simply get out of
the way.
In the end, today I see our young promising new team of pages. I
would like to welcome them to the House of Commons and wish them
all the best. Today I was the first member to speak in the House
and I forgot at that time and now I am the last member to speak
as well. It was really a serious issue. I believe that all
members of the House contributed to this issue and we should
effectively deal with organized crime in Canada.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the
member opposite. Where has he been when the government passed
legislation with respect to additional money for CPIC? Where has
he been when we added additional money for the RCMP? Where has
he been when we bolstered the immigration services? Where has he
been when we have co-ordinated such so that we have CSIS and the
RCMP reporting to immigration when it comes to organized
criminals coming into Canada? Where has he been when we have
negotiated either bilateral or multilateral arrangements with
respect to other embassies in foreign lands and with respect to
co-operation and sharing of information? Where has he been when
the government has acted repeatedly with respect to organized
crime?
Are we doing enough? I said in my comments that no, we have to
continue to work, continue to pull together and to meet with the
provinces and the territorial people to find solutions that are
beneficial for all Canadians.
I really would like to know where the hon. member has been
during all these times when the government has acted and
continues to act. It is very easy to get into the politics of
blame, negativity and hurl things like “They are soft on
crime”.
As the former chairman of the Waterloo regional police and
having been in charge of 700 police officers, I can tell the
House that the government is not soft on crime. We continue to
work hard when it comes to crime issues, when it comes to justice
and due process, when it comes to things like safety and security
in our communities. That after all is fundamental to the very
fabric of the country.
I ask the hon. member, with all due respect, to read what the
government has done, brush up on the statutes and the
legislation, take a look at the strides and efforts that we have
made in the past little while, especially in the last seven years
since we have been in power. Perhaps then he will get a better
understanding of where we are heading as a country.
2435
It is easy for the Alliance Party opposite to always try to find
the wedge issues or the leverage issues that tend to pit
Canadians against Canadians, region against region, people
against people, and group against group. That is its raison
d'être.
I reject it as do most Canadians because that is not what Canada
is all about. Canada is a much better place than the Alliance
people opposite would paint it.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the
issue the hon. member has raised. He asked where I was. I want
to ask him where he was when organized crime was taking place in
the streets. Where was he when the moral of police and law
enforcement agencies went down? Where was he when a major drug
dealer was deported from the country in 1995? He changed his
name, came back to Canada in 1997 and is still dealing drugs in
the country.
Where was he when he saw the revolving door and that people were
selling drugs on east Vancouver streets? I went for a ride along
with the RCMP one evening. They showed me all around the back
alleys where the drugs were sold and the druggies were using
them. The system is a revolving door. The officers told me that
as soon as Honduran refugees on the streets see the police car
stop they raise their arms because they know the process. They
will stick their tongues out because they know they have to be
checked. No one is talking but the action is still taking place
because the people are used to it.
I invite the member to come to the streets of east Vancouver
where people have been dying from drug overdoses. The dealers
are entrenched into the system and are not legitimate refugees in
Canada. The officers said that when they search the people who
are selling drugs every one of them would have a certain amount
of money of all denominations in their pockets. They searched
them and it was true.
The officers said that if they were to search them they will
have a business card of only one lawyer. We saw probably 16 of
them. At every corner of the street they had the business card
of the same lawyer.
I invite the hon. member to visit east Vancouver to see it and
not to sit here and simply make a political attack in the House.
I invite him to look through the lens of issues, not through the
lens of politics.
It has been the mentality of government members that when
opposition parties raise some issue they first ignore it. Then
we increase the volume and they reject the premise like the
member is doing. When we increase the volume even more they
steal the ideas. They should have vision. They should have
taken action on organized crime many years ago. The Liberal and
Tory governments time and again denied that there was any
organized criminal activity taking place anywhere in Canada.
If they had taken action then and had vision we would not be
facing this problem today. Government action is many years
behind. It should have taken action probably 10, 15 or 20 years
ago.
It is never too late but it first has to acknowledge that there
is a problem. The Liberals time and again throughout this debate
have rejected and failed to acknowledge that there is any problem
with organized crime at this moment in Canada.
There is a proverb in English which explains the learning
philosophy.
I said it in the House some time ago but I will repeat it: He
who knows not and knows not that he knows not can never learn.
The person will never learn until he recognizes that he does not
know.
2440
That is the Liberal mentality. Hon. members of the House have
time and again given many analogies and examples and quoted many
experts about organized crime. Even I can quote one. Recently
the new head of the RCMP, Commissioner Zaccardelli, said members
of organized crime were trying to corrupt and threaten parliament
and other Canadian institutions.
Crime is everywhere. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I
am a member of the subcommittee. I heard what other members did
not hear. The member probably is a member of that committee and
he was not there. I want to ask him where he was when the
committee was having hearings.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker I rise on a point of order.
For the record I want to inform the member opposite that while I
was on the organized crime subcommittee and still am, I was in
Ukraine and Russia taking a look at organized criminal
activities.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We did not really
need that bit of information either. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member
this question because he asked me where I was. It is important
that we take this issue in totality and try to help Canadians and
to help future generations.
This is an integrated effort, team work. All of us should work
together. This is a very serious issue. This is no time to play
politics or political games.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising on debate, I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Accordingly this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12.43 a.m.)