CONTENTS
Monday, April 21, 1997
Bill C-250. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 9961
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9962
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9965
Division on motion deferred 9968
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.52 a.m.) 9968
The House resumed at 12.02 p.m. 9968
Bill C-93. Report stage 9968
Motion for concurrence and second reading 9968
Division on motion deferred 9968
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of second reading 9968
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr.
Kilgour in the chair.) 9968
(Progress reported.) 9984
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9988
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9988
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9988
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9989
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9990
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9990
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9992
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9992
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9993
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9994
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9996
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9996
Bill C-407. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 9997
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9999
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9999
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9999
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9999
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9999
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9999
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9999
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed in committee of the whole 10000
(Amendment negatived Yeas, 4; Nays 22) 10010
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 10010
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 3 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 4 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 6 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 7 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 8 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 9 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 10 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 11 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 12 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 13 agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 14 agreed to.) 10011
(Amendments agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.) 10011
(Clause 16 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 17 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 18 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 19 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 20 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 21 and 22 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 23 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 24 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 25 agreed to.) 10012
(Clause 26 agreed to.) 10012
(Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.) 10012
(Preamble agreed to.) 10012
Motion for concurrence 10012
(Motion agreed to.) 10012
Motion for third reading 10012
(Motion agreed to.) 10012
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 10013
(Motion agreed to.) 10013
Bill C-95. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading. 10013
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 10024
Bill C-92. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 10024
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 99; Nays, 35 10025
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 10025
Bill C-93. Consideration resumed 10025
(Bill read the second time.) 10025
Bill C-250. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 10025
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 32; Nays, 97 10026
9961
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 21, 1997
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 11 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-250, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and
the Canada Elections Act (confidence votes), be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak on this important private member's initiative. I
congratulate the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster for
bringing this bill forward. It is something the Reform Party has had
as policy from its inception. We think it would lend more
credibility to the electoral process. It is something Canadians
would appreciate.
Recent public opinion polls indicate that although it is very
likely we are going to head into a federal election within a week or
so, two-thirds of Canadians believe there is no need for the
government to call an election. The government is not cooking the
books, it is cooking the agenda to get the most favourable
conditions for which to call an election.
There is nothing unusual about that. Governments have been
doing that for years. However, two-thirds of Canadians say it is
unfortunate in a democracy such as ours for the government to wait
until it feels it has enough things on the agenda to suddenly spring
an election. We are all supposed to salute the flag, whether it is
three years into the mandate or five. It gives the government a
tremendous trump card going into an election.
The agenda which was given to the media today indicates the
following: Mr. Bouchard to meet with the Prime Minister to sign an
agreement, photo op to follow; the Minister of Natural Resources
to sign a research project, photo op to follow; an agreement will be
signed with provincial fisheries officials in British Columbia,
photo op to follow. The whole agenda for this week is a photo op.
The government is able to control the agenda not only for photo
ops but for the electoral agenda. It is no longer a case of whether we
need an election, whether it is timely or whether there is an issue on
the front burner of the nation, it is whatever the government thinks
it can do to better its re-election chances and that is when it will call
an election.
There is something wrong with that. People have to ask
themselves what is going on in the country when the government
can trigger a national election based on its needs. Would it not be
better to level the playing field for all parties? Would it not be
better to have the government go to the people during the fall of the
fourth year of its mandate? Everyone would work off the same
sheet. We would all sing the same chorus. We would not wait for a
crisis to happen in a province or for the signing of an agreement to
go to the people. The election would be called at a certain time.
They could count on it. They could plan for it. That would be fair
for everyone.
When we were considering this bill in committee I raised two
things which the government has done to give itself an advantage.
One it already has, the ability to call the election. The other is to
shorten the election period itself. We are now down to a 36 day
electoral period. We will likely be heading into it next week.
(1110)
The government, by knowing when it will call an election, has
all the advantages. It knows exactly when it will call the election
and therefore it knows when to have its advertising geared up. It
can have its media buys prearranged. Its members can have their
offices open. They can have literature ordered. They can know it
all.
The back room boys over there have it all figured out. The rest of
us just hope that we know what is going on. We think it will be next
week. But money is spent, there is organization and all Canadians
are wondering whether it will happen. That is too bad.
It should be on a four year rotation. The member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster has detailed how that could be done,
how it would be fair to all parties. This does not give an advantage
to one side or the other. It is fair to the Canadian people. They do
not have to wonder whether they will be put through this process. It
is fair all around.
9962
That being said, this bill will not pass. I am sorry to break that
news to the member for Kindersley-Lloydminister. This bill does
not have a snowball's chance. It takes power out of the frontbench.
Every time there is a chance of any of the power being removed
from that frontbench, every time there is a chance for free votes,
every time-
An hon. member: Word comes down from the top.
Mr. Strahl: That is right. Word comes down from the top that
this bill must not pass. Every time there is a free vote, every time
there is power given to committee, every time there is any chance
that we can take a little power out of that little group of people
sitting in the Langevin Building, it is nuked. There is not a chance
that this bill will pass. I am sorry to break this to the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister.
That being said, it is likely we will head into an election next
week. Will this be an election issue? Will this be something that
gets carried on the stump, as we talk about the issues facing the
Canadian electorate?
This will not be the burning issue. However, this is symptomatic
of two different visions of Canada when it comes to the role of
Parliament and the role of members of Parliament representing
their constituency.
It will be a vision carried by the Liberal Party which is that the
Liberal Party knows best. Not only does it not have to listen to the
Canadian people, it does not even have to listen to its own
members.
The Liberal Party does not have to listen to people through
referendums and free votes and representative democracy. What its
members will tell Canadians is ``don't worry, be happy, we know
best; the rest of you are cannon fodder in the great democratic
process''. That will be an issue.
When we get on the stump and when we get talking about
electoral and parliamentary reform, when we talk about the need to
change things in this institution to give power to members of
Parliament to truly represent the people who sent them here, that
will be an issue.
We will be talking about recall. We will be talking about the
right to referendums and citizens initiatives. We will be talking
about free votes in the House of Commons, not just on private
members bills but on bills in general.
We will be talking about committee power and the way
committees are manhandled right now by the ministers to do their
bidding instead of truly giving an opportunity for members of
Parliament to initiate legislation and to bring citizens concerns to
the table.
All those will be issues during the upcoming federal election. A
fixed election date is part of Reform Party policy. Recent polling
results say that people like that idea. They do not like what the
Liberals are doing here, which is that they call it when they darn
well feel like it, the Canadian people can put up with it and pay for
it and that is just the way it has to be.
Although there is supposed to be a free vote, no doubt those
members have been told on the Liberal side to vote against it. It is
probably not going to pass, and that is too bad.
All that being said, the Liberals should know that if they have the
guts to call this election on Sunday, as we think, then let us have at
her. This is a good enough issue to mix in with the others. We will
see what the Canadian people really think about a government that
lords it over the people instead of listening to them.
(1115)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the intent of the bill we are debating at this time is to
propose holding a general election every four years on a set date.
A number of parliamentarians may be in agreement with this
principle of setting a date on which there will be an election every
four years. This has a lot of advantages, one of which is that all of
the organizations can get their acts together, to be ready when an
election is called.
Since the Prime Minister is the one who holds the power to
decide when an election will be held, this gives his party a
considerable advantage over the other parties, as far as the
organizational aspect is concerned: fundraising, candidate
selection, and how the business of Parliament will be conducted.
If, for example, it were known that the election would be on a set
date, the government could set itself a four-year program. The first
year, it would pass such and such a portion of its electoral program,
the second year another portion, and so on for the third and fourth
years, and everyone would know we were headed for an election on
a set date.
We were elected in October 1993. Last year, around the same
time, there was all sorts of speculation about an early election.
Some people were even willing to bet that there would be an
election last fall, so the organizations got themselves in gear and
there were nominations left, right and centre. There we were, not
even three years away from the last election, and already talking
about an early election.
To a certain extent, Parliament has been paralyzed for the past
year, waiting for the day the Prime Minister calls an election. Once
again, everything points to his making the announcement this
Sunday, which means we will be going into an election nearly a
year and half before the end of the mandate given to us by the
people.
What happens in such cases is that the government governs by
survey. The government orders the polls, the polling firms conduct
them, they conclude that the party is popular or not so popular, the
public is losing interest, one of the ministers is low in the polls in
his own riding, the Prime Minister is, the Conservative Party is
going up, the Reform Party is going down, and they are so busy
9963
playing with all these cards that in the final instance they do not
care about the public interest, only about the interests of the party
in power.
The government can use the polls to set a date when it is likely to
be reelected, or in certain other cases, as we saw with the
Conservative Party in its last term, it can delay calling an election
until the very end, in this case because it knew its popularity was
dropping considerably and it were obviously headed for a defeat.
A fixed election date would help make public debates more
transparent, more honest, better organized and at least we would
know where we are going. It would be more democratic. The public
would no longer have to cope with not knowing when the election
would take place and it would not be in the position we are in now,
when the government is accusing Mr. Bouchard of sending his
request for a constitutional amendment at the last minute, although
the government still has a year and a half to go.
Calling this a last minute request is rather exaggerated. IfMr. Bouchard had known when the election would be called, he
would not have bothered to send a request at this stage. He
probably would have waited until after the election or he would
have set his agenda with the election date in mind. Organizing the
democratic system in Canada in this way would be better for all the
provinces, as a matter of fact.
One aspect is somewhat disturbing. We hear the Reform Party
talking about referendums here and referendums there, about free
votes and constituents voting by telephone or fax. This is a
parliamentary system, a democratic system by delegation. We ask
the public to elect us to represent them. Unless we change the very
principle of the parliamentary system in Canada, we cannot accept
all these fantastic proposals by the Reform Party, which wants to
play poker by its own rules and not by the rules that suit everybody
else.
(1120)
If a party is elected with a very clear promise that it will do
something, the individual elected under the party banner
necessarily endorses the party's objectives. So there is no reason
for a decision in the House to be taken on the basis of faxes or
phone calls received. It is taken along party lines.
When we discuss bills that are not in our programs, we will
obviously consult our constituents. We will, however, always be
the ones who have to decide, since we are not obliged morally or
otherwise to vote in agreement with the 40 or 50 members of our
party we consulted or the 50 electors, who are not members of the
party but were invited to a public meeting, or according to the three
faxes we received. We represent all electors once we are elected
and we must use our wisdom and conscience as best we can and act
in the best interest of the people in making a decision, because we
were elected to represent them.
There are, of course, a lot of details in the bill before us. It would
be worthwhile to have a committee consider it, because it could
look at some of the problems in greater detail.
Personally, I find it difficult to agree with choosing the third
Monday in October as a fixed election date, because winter comes
early to many places, and the third Monday of October is surely a
bad time for elections, particularly in Quebec where it would
interfere with the campaign leading to the municipal elections,
which are held on the first Sunday in November. Should the fixed
date for federal elections be set in October, we would be in a
difficult spot because we would be in a conflict of interest.
The committee would have to take the time to look at what
happens in each province, in order to come up with a suitable date.
The idea of an election when the days get longer and warmer,
around the time of the summer equinox, holds much greater
interest. It is much easier to go from door to door when the weather
is good than pick a date like October when the days are getting
shorter, it is rainy, and there are maybe even snowstorms that
would perhaps make things difficult.
An hon. member: Unless we are not here any more.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): If the Bloc is no
longer here, then Canada can obviously do what it wants about its
election dates. They can opt for the third Monday of October and
that will not conflict with our municipal elections.
Even if we are in favour of the bill in principle, there is another
aspect that I definitely think should be looked at in committee and
that is the problem of the ensuing byelections. Dates are also given
for byelections.
What would happen if there were a minority government and a
government could not be formed? Giving authority to the governor
general does not appeal to me at all. This is a position the Bloc
Quebecois would prefer to see abolished, not one to which it wishes
to give greater authority. There would certainly be many points to
examine in this bill, although the principle is interesting for most of
the population.
Ultimately, in a democracy, it is much clearer if people know
exactly what to expect, especially since this will now be much
easier. We will have a permanent voters list. If there were a fixed
date for elections, democracy would take on much greater meaning
and would be better respected.
9964
It would also prevent abuses and irregularities, questionable
practices or allegations of such practices, which have sometimes
been made against people who were abusing their authority.
(1125)
This did not happen just under the Conservatives; it also
happened under the Liberals. It is interesting to note that the public
is not fooled by these governments that hang on to power because,
generally speaking, governments that have remained in office
almost five years have usually been defeated in the following
election.
Another possible problem with a fixed date is what would
happen if there were a non-confidence vote.
Mr. Speaker, you have signalled to me that I must soon wrap up
so, as I was saying, we are in agreement in principle, but the bill is
worth considering seriously in committee.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to support Bill C-250 put forward by my colleague from
Kindersley-Lloydminster. The bill proposes to have fixed
election dates. For instance, this year the election date would be
October 20 and elections thereafter would be held every four years
on the third Monday of October.
In his opening remarks the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster said: ``Along with the Reform Party's
other proposals for democratic reform such as recall, referendums
and citizens initiatives, we intend to show how Canada's political
system can be made more accountable, representative and fair''.
Those are three points in favour of fixed election dates:
accountability, better representation and fairness.
First, I will consider better representation. I very much believe in
this bill. It is part of the Reform platform. When I campaigned in
1993 I felt there was something wrong with our political system
because at any given time, on the spur of the moment, behind
closed doors the Prime Minister and a few of his selected
strategists could secretly determine when an election would be
held. That is a great disservice to the Canadian public. It denies the
opportunity for a lot of potential candidates who would be willing
to run, who would otherwise be willing to seek nomination and
become involved in the political process.
Some excuses used for not running are: inappropriate timing; an
insufficient amount of time to prepare for entry into public life;
insufficient time to raise money; insufficient time to become
known in the community. These excuses would be eliminated with
a fixed election date. This would affect the number of people who
would consider running for election, including women. There is a
big cry that there are not enough women in politics, that the ratio is
not 50:50, that there is a lack of balance between male and female
representatives.
This is the case because they cannot plan. If women knew there
would be an election every four years on the third Monday of
October, family planning could be a lot easier. Men and women
could decide after an election that next time one of them would run.
The quality and number of candidates who would step forward
would greatly increase. There would be more respect for
politicians.
The accountability point was put forward by the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster. Politicians who were elected knowing
that the duration of their terms would be four years would be more
interested in and intent on carrying out the responsibilities of their
portfolios, including representing their constituents. They would
do the best jobs they could and would let their records speak for
themselves. Then they would not have to rely on the prime minister
of the day prior to an election to fast track certain bills in order to
improve their visibility or their standing in the polls. They would
not have to rely on the prime minister to hand out goodies in weak
areas where they wanted to reinforce their strength.
This bill and fixed election dates every four years would provide
more stability in the political system. This factor of not knowing
when an election will be called ends up causing more doubt and
more debate about when is it going to be called. That causes more
focus on elections than it does on the issues of the day.
(1130)
I have been here for close to four years and I have not read too
much about the debt that faces this country. I have not read too
much about the rising interests costs to service that debt. All I have
heard is that the interest rates are the lowest they have ever been
and the government has done a wonderful job.
The Canadian economy is not on as strong a footing as the
finance minister and the Prime Minister would like us to believe.
There is an underlying danger in that the real problem facing this
country is not being addressed. I believe if we knew when an
election would be called, all politicians would be more intent on
identifying and solving the problems of the country instead of
talking about those issues that make a party and the member as a
representative more popular.
I feel Canada is behind the times. We are one of the few nations
that does not have a fixed election date. By having a fixed election
date we plan for it. A party or a government can be better judged
and evaluated on what its real intent and purpose is.
We had an example this past week where the Liberal government
closed more deals and did more in the space of 10 days that it had
in the first three years. Even Premier Bouchard says the transfer of
manpower training to the province of Quebec is nothing more than
a pre-election ploy. He is going to sign the agreement today. He
goes on further to say that he has to sign it as a provincial premier
9965
because he has a responsibility to the unemployed of his province
and he feels that this responsibility at his level will help more
people get work. I agree with him on that.
All provinces should be looking after manpower training, not the
federal government. Why has it taken three and a half years to
happen? Why has it been signed after no less than five days of
political pressure?
Another pre-election ploy is the anti-gang legislation for
Quebec. I am not making this up. The Bloc members have pointed
it out. The premier of Quebec has pointed it out.
It is making a mockery and a joke out of our political system.
The government of the day controls the agenda and gains an unfair
advantage on an unsuspecting, trusting general public. If nothing
else, Canadians generally trust their government. They expect their
government to perform according to the platform that they get
elected on.
We were hugely disappointed by the two Tory governments.
When these Liberal members were in opposition, when they were
trying to seek the confidence of Canadians to govern, the Prime
Minister on January 20, 1993 talking about Canadians said: ``They
have had enough of the abuses of Parliament and the arrogance of
government''.
I would need another 30 minutes to talk about the abuses that this
government, when it was in opposition, talked about. Now it is
guilty of them as government. There has been the abuse of
parliamentary committees, abuse of free votes, abuse of jobs, jobs,
jobs, abuse of Pearson, abuse of Airbus, abuse of Somalia, abuse of
Krever, abuse of devolution of powers, abuse of the GST, the
broken promise of the GST, as well as broken promises of what it
would do when it was elected. In a lot of cases it did exactly the
opposite.
I hope the Canadian public has had enough of this. I hope they
start to reward honesty rather than misrepresentation. I hope that
they give a reward to truth in politics rather than the perception of
politics.
This same man said that the Canadian public deserves good
government. He talked about the abuses of Parliament, of which his
government is even more guilty than the Conservatives, and the
arrogance of government. Consider the arrogance of the Prime
Minister who said: ``If you can't get a job, tough, move''. That is
pretty arrogant.
We should consider the arrogance of the Prime Minister.
(1135 )
Usually we are here for five years and somewhere in the fourth
year the government starts to hand out its goodies for an election. It
is only 3.5 years. I wonder what it is hiding. It is hiding something
with Somalia. It is hiding something with Krever. It is hiding,
hiding and hiding. It is hiding something with Pearson airport. It is
hiding in everything it is doing. What is it hiding about the
economy? What does it know that we do not know that it has to call
an election in 3.5 years?
This is the same Prime Minister who said: ``In politics
perception is everything''. The government is trying to create the
perception that everything is wonderful and that the Canadian
public, when they go to vote, will stay asleep. Certainly the Reform
Party candidates are going to say it. I am going to say it. I hope the
Canadian public wakes up, demands more of their politicians,
demands some honesty and truth in politics, rewards the people
who have been telling the truth, rewards the people who have kept
their promises and rewards those who vote in favour of fixed
election dates every four years, which we will vote on today.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak for a few minutes on the bill of my colleague from
Kindersley-Lloydminster on fixed election dates.
I did promise a constituent who takes an avid interest in this
subject that I would bring up what he sees as a downside of fixed
election dates and discuss that for a few moments.
He argues that fixed election dates will cause a slowdown in the
economy from six, nine to twelve months ahead of the election date
because businesses and people who are making investment
decisions will hold off making those decisions until they see the
outcome of the election.
He also feels that fixed election dates would not stop
governments from playing politics because knowing when the
election date would be it would save up its initiatives or its special
plans until it was close to the election day so it would still be able
to manipulate the agenda to suit its own interests.
There seems to be some credibility to his arguments if you take a
look at the New Zealand situation last October. A few years ago
New Zealand introduced a law that the government must notify the
electorate six months ahead of the election date. In New Zealand it
is now known six months prior to an election when that date will
be. During the six months leading up to the election the
government is required to release the public accounts. Incidentally,
standard accounting practice is used for that so someone can
actually tell what the state of the economy is instead of the
manipulated sort of figures that we tend to get here.
9966
Because of all of that information coming out during that time
an element of uncertainly develops. Quite clearly there was a
slowdown in the New Zealand economy during that six month
period. The number of jobs advertised dropped off, the amount
of reinvestment dropped off and the dollar weakened slightly as
well.
It did pick up after the election. The economy was rejuvenated
and suddenly the job situation picked up dramatically. Last week
there were 22.5 pages of jobs advertised in just Auckland city alone
in one of the local newspapers. Everything picked up again
dramatically right after the election but the point the gentleman
brought to my attention seems to have been played out in New
Zealand.
What we have to weigh, when looking at the overall situation, is
whether the benefits of having a fixed election date outweigh any
downside that might come from knowing that date in advance. My
personal opinion is that they do because on balance certainty is
always better for the economy than uncertainty. The New Zealand
example may have been an aberration because the United States
has fixed election dates. They know when things are going to
happen and it does not seem from the evidence that I have that there
is a major impact on the economy in slowdowns or speed-ups based
on an fixed election date.
Perhaps the experience that was brought to my attention by my
constituent may have been an aberration. As people get used to a
new system where they actually know the election date, over a
period of time it will not be quite as important. When you look at
the balance, the opposite side of actually knowing that date, giving
the certainty to business that a decision will be made on a certain
date and they can get on with their plans, I think we still have to go
for that fixed election date.
It also gives pressure groups and the electorate the opportunity to
works toward that date with any projects that have to be completed,
any political efforts or persuasions that need to be done.
(1140 )
As promised, I have put my constituent's point of view to the
House today. On balance, I would recommend to my colleagues
that they vote for this bill because I think the overwhelming
evidence in speeches before me has pointed that there would be a
tremendous benefit for the people of Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to begin with an aside. I want to thank my friend from Calgary
Centre who will be leaving the House after this election. I also want
to compliment him for bringing forward over the last several years
many good ideas and for generally raising the level of debate in this
place. I know that he will be extraordinarily successful back in the
private sector just like he was before he came here.
I speak in favour of Bill C-250 put forward by my friend from
Kindersley-Lloydminster. I know my hon. friend would agree
that the essence of this bill is accountability, as he pointed out in his
press release. Accountability is so extraordinarily important today.
One of the things I found a little bit alarming is when we saw a
recent poll that listed where politicians stood in the eyes of the
Canadian public relative to all the other occupations. At the top it
had teachers, nurses, doctors and people like that. It then went
down the list to business people. The clergy was very high on the
list. Then came journalists. Farther down the list there were
lawyers. Just above arms dealers were politicians. In a way it is
kind of funny but it is very sad as well because politicians are
supposed to be the cream of the crop and are supposed to represent
the best qualities of the Canadian people. However, for many
reasons the public has lost faith in politicians.
I would argue that one of the big reasons for this is because so
much power has been usurped into the hands of the government
over the last many years. Now the public feels very sceptical when
the Prime Minister and the government talk about letting the public
have more say in issues.
This bill is a chance for the government to redeem itself. Bill
C-250 would allow the public to know exactly when elections are
going to be held and it would take power away from the
government. That is a very good thing.
Last week I was back in Saskatchewan where my friend from
Kindersley-Lloydminster is from. He will be running in a new
riding called Saskatoon-Rosetown Biggar. I grew up in
Rosetown. We were out in that area talking to various people.
Whether one goes to Rosetown, Milden, Biggar, Perdue, Fiske,
D'Arcy, McGee or wherever it is, the people are out there are
extraordinarily concerned that they get good representation and
that they have a way to hold the government accountable.
My friend is a man of excellent character. He has tremendous
qualities that he brings to this place. Unfortunately, for everybody
here to some degree, all the good qualities that many members
bring to this place are frustrated because the system simply does
not allow for politicians to represent their constituents in each and
every case. I will explain exactly what I mean.
When we vote later today, it is supposed to be a free vote. I know
many members accept that there are good points in this bill. It
makes sense to have fixed election dates every four years for
reasons that my friends have pointed out. It just makes common
sense. Who wants to see the playing field tilted in favour of the
government? That is contrary to most people's sense of fair play.
9967
Canadians and most hon. members know that this bill makes a
lot of sense but that will be frustrated later today, I predict, when
the government will instruct its members to vote against it. That is
sad because the bill makes a tremendous amount of sense.
It is ironic that on a bill that deals with something as important
as accountability we will see the government members
undoubtedly vote against. That is sad. Bill C-250 was very well
thought out. If we look at what my friend from
Kindersley-Lloydminster has put into the bill, we come to
understand he has dealt with all the possible problems that could
arise from having fixed election dates. He has dealt with the
problem of minority governments and other concerns members
have raised.
(1145)
It points to the desire to have politicians on all sides of the House
more involved in determining what are good pieces of legislation.
Private Members' Business should be a more important part of
what we do in here. We have a lot of talented people in the House
who bring good ideas to the floor. I point out that this concept is
part of the Reform Party's policy. It has long believed in fixed
election dates.
The whole point of Private Members' Business is to gather the
best ideas, no matter where they come from, even if they happen to
come from my friend from rural Saskatchewan. I do not think that
should stand in the way of bills becoming the law of the land. He
brings a lot of good ideas to this place.
It is very frustrating to see good ideas such as this one get to this
point after a lot of work, only to be turned down because the
government does not want to lose power. As my friend from Fraser
Valley East said, that is what this is all about. The government is
afraid to give up any bit of power.
Power is a very funny thing. It is a fixed amount. There is only so
much power to go around. When the government has a lot of it the
rest of us have very little of it. That is precisely what we are trying
to remedy to some degree with Bill C-250. It would take some of
the power away from the government to set an election date that
suits it based on when it thinks it can get re-elected.
My friend from Calgary Centre made a very good point. He said
we spend a lot of time studying strategy. There are columns written
in the media about how the government will use the election date to
help it win the election.
I read a column in the Atlantic Monthly not too long ago by
James Fallows who has made a study of how the media focuses on
strategy. There are reams and reams of paper devoted to people
trying to predict when the government will use its power to call an
election to lever itself back into power. That is unfortunate. That
strategy should not be the issue.
We should be debating issues such as the debt of over $600
billion. We should be debating the 37 tax increases the government
has brought in over the last three and a half years. We should be
debating the fact that disposable income for the average family has
fallen by over $3,000 since the Liberals came to power. Those are
the issues that should be the subject of analysis in the media. I do
not think that there should be long columns in the newspaper and or
entire programs devoted to the strategy of government having the
power to call an election when it chooses.
I wrap up by saying that I support the bill. It puts power back into
the hands of the Canadian people, a concept the Reform Party
believes in very strongly.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly agree this is a topic worth discussing. The member
opposite who proposed the bill should be congratulated.
I listened to the level of the debate. Some members are railing at
a shadow they do not appreciate, known as the House of Commons.
They are not looking at its historical perspective in the sense that
parliament is an old institution that has evolved with time. Change
is necessary and change occurs in parliament, but change does not
always happen in the way or at the speed we want. In the thousand
years parliament has existed change has in fact occurred.
(1150)
I do not necessarily disagree with having a fixed date for
elections. It is done in the United States-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. colleague
but the time provided for debate has expired.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wondered if I might take a minute before we proceed to
government business to thank all members of the House who spoke
on the bill. Many of them spoke in favour of it and I appreciate that.
I also thank the Canadians who have communicated their support.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
9968
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I understand there is unanimous consent
among the parties to defer the matter until the end of Government
Orders today. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might suspend the
sitting of the House until 12 noon.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement to suspend
the sitting until 12 noon?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.52 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12.02 p.m.
9968
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-93, an act to
implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 18, 1997 as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that the bill be concurred in and read the second time.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred until the completion of Government Orders today.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed from April 18 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-95, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal
organizations) and to amend other acts in consequence, be read the
second time and referred to committee of the whole.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)
[English]
On Clause 1
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, it is very
important through this committee of the whole and through the
questions we have prepared for the minister that we determine the
constitutionality and the enforceability of this bill and whether this
clause and the allied clause which it creates, that is criminal
organization and criminal organization offence, are enforceable
and not hollow pieces of legislation. I have some concerns about
the wording of this section and perhaps the minister can respond.
(1210)
The first clause refers to a criminal organization which means
any group, association or body. But group, association or other
body is not defined in the bill and I do not believe it is defined
elsewhere in the Criminal Code. Could the minister please tell the
committee what he meant by the terms group, association or other
body in the bill? What did he mean when he placed these terms in
the bill?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we intended the dictionary
definition of group, association or other body. We did not think it
was necessary to define those terms. We intend them to have their
ordinary meaning. We also added ``whether formally or informally
organized'' so we would not need membership cards or a written
constitution for a group or organization to meet this definition.
We are aware from our dealings with the police and others that
organized crime takes many forms in Canada. It is sometimes in
the nature of what we refer to as biker gangs. Sometimes it is far
less visible, white collar crime or business crime. The conclusion
to which we came based on the mischief we are aiming at through
this legislation is that the words group, association or other body
9969
are sufficient to capture organized crime in the many forms in
which it appears as long as the balance of the definition was
satisfied as well.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I
agree with the minister that the definition is broad enough to
encompass the groups he is targeting like the biker gangs which
probably prompted this bill. How will the minister ensure this
definition does not include other groups that are formally or
informally organized? It is a pretty broad definition. How do we
ensure that someone who likes to tip a brown at a biker club is not
included with the bikers? He may be guilty by association, which is
something I am sure the minister does not want to happen.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, this is a definition and does not create
an offence. To meet the definition a group would have to be an
organization which has as one of its primary activities the
commission of an indictable offence punishable by at least five
years in prison and whose members, any or all, have within the last
five years engaged in the commission of a series of such offences.
We are not talking about benign organizations. In the last few
days I have heard the comment that this definition might sweep up
well meaning groups like environmental groups or labour
protesters who in order to make a point may break the law as an act
of civil disobedience.
The section with the definition does not create an offence. It
simply defines the term criminal organization. It is a group, one of
the primary purposes of which is to commit serious criminal
offences and whose members, or some of them, have within the last
five years done just that. We are not talking about a sewing club or
an environmental group that pickets to protest the government's
policies. We are talking about people who are dedicated to crime
and who have formed a group for that purpose.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if the
definition would include such groups as the FLQ.
(1215 )
Mr. Rock: Again it is difficult to know what one knows about
the FLQ. If the FLQ or any other group meets the definition, it
would be included. If there is a group which is dedicated to the
commission of serious criminal offences and has as one of its
primary purposes to do that and has members who have done that
over the last five years, then it would be included in the definition.
Do not forget that the definition does not create an offence; it is
simply part of the framework that establishes access by the
investigating police to certain techniques that might not otherwise
be available. It creates a framework in relation to penalties for
those who are convicted of offences that were carried out to
benefit, or under the direction of, such organizations.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, what is meant by a primary activity
as contained in clause (a): ``having as one of its primary activities
the commission of an indictable offence''? What is a primary
activity? How is it defined? What is meant by that term? It goes on
to say: ``the commission of an indictable offence''. Does that mean
that in order to have an organization declared a criminal
organization there has to be indictable offences committed and
convictions registered?
Perhaps we could deal with this one question at a time. Could the
minister tell the committee what he means by primary activity?
We could then go back to the number five, where a criminal
organization must constitute at least five people. Why was five
chosen? What happens if one of them dies? Is the organization still
classified as a criminal organization? If one of them goes to jail,
what happens then? Why was the number five picked in this case?
Perhaps if the minister could answer that question first, I will
follow into clause 1(a) and the other questions.
Mr. Rock: Those are good questions.
I will deal with the number five first. When we were preparing
the legislation, and indeed over the period of time when we were
looking at the scourge of organized crime and trying to determine
the best course for dealing with it, we looked at statutes in other
parts of the world. Some of them were of no help because they were
in countries with different constitutional traditions and they had
approaches that would clearly not be appropriate for Canada.
In some American jurisdictions, we found some helpful
precedents. When it came to defining what a criminal organization
or what a criminal gang was, they almost invariably used a number,
sometimes three and sometimes five. We inquired into it and
concluded that the reason is that you have to start somewhere and
pick a number.
At the end of the day there is an element of arbitrariness. It could
have been three, it could have been five. At one time I was looking
at the prospect of two or more. The concern with two or more is
that it could be a husband and wife team who are engaged in a
crime spree and might be considered a gang. That was not really
intended.
We came to five as a reasonable accommodation in that we
wanted to have a sufficient number so that there was a group, not so
small that it could be a couple or a couple with a friend, but not so
large in number that we were going to end up with groups creating
subgroups in order to escape the definition. The number five is
intended to reflect our policy objective of capturing linkages
among people, more than just a couple of friends, so that there is a
9970
critical mass for a group but not so many that it becomes
impractical to enforce.
The second question my friend asked had to do with primary
activities. Again we did not define that term. We would be happy
with the dictionary definition.
We expect that a court is going to require a prosecuting crown to
establish on the evidence that one of the primary activities of a
particular group was to engage in serious criminal offences and that
is not going to be easy. The crown attorney is going to have to
produce evidence of past criminal conduct, statements or
circumstances which would lead the court to conclude that in the
common sense definition of the term, one of the real reasons for the
group, one of its fundamental purposes, one of its chief
preoccupations and one of its reasons for being is to commit
serious criminal offences.
(1220)
For example, members of a motorcycle gang might say that their
purpose is to ride motorcycles and engage in discussions about the
size and performance capabilities of their motorcycles. That is one
primary activity. However on the evidence the judge would be
invited to conclude that another of their primary activities was the
commission of offences because of what they had been doing and
what had been brought before the court. In each case it will be for
the court to conclude on the evidence on a common sense test that it
was one of their primary purposes.
The third question put to me by the hon. member has to do with
whether one needs to formally establish a fact of conviction in
order to satisfy the constituent elements of the definition, that is to
say that in the preceding five years any or all of the members have
engaged in the commission of a series of such offences. We used
the term commission of offences rather than referring to conviction
so that it would not be necessary to file a formal certificate of
conviction.
It will be open to the prosecuting crown in each case where an
effort is made to come within the definition to prove on evidence
that there was the commission of such offences. That will not be
easy either. The crown is going to have to establish to the
satisfaction of the court, and because it is criminal offences we are
talking about, on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that indeed
these people did engage in the commission of such serious offences
during the relevant period. It is not an easy definition to meet.
That is why I have a degree of confidence in responding to
people who express the concerns: Are you not casting the net too
wide? Are you not going to catch up in this well intended
legislation those who are not so bad and those who you never
intended to catch but who might be committing acts of civil
disobedience? I do not think so.
What we are creating here is a significant hurdle for the
prosecuting crown in that exceptional case where we are dealing
with organized crime and we have to prove on the evidence the
elements of primary purpose, the element of numbers-five-and
that on the evidence to the criminal standard of proof, they have
engaged in the commission of a series of serious criminal offences.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the
question about an organization and the consistency of a group of
five. What happens if one of the group can no longer be termed
within that definition and there are only four? That four then loses
that definition. Does this not encourage organized criminals to
break down into cells of four, cells of less than five and continue to
carry on their nefarious activities?
We are concerned that we have not had witnesses to debate both
sides of this issue and exhaust any flaws that they might see within
the bill. Would the justice minister give us an example of how a
criminal organization would be determined? What is the process?
Do we wait until someone is arrested for a criminal offence or
convicted of a criminal offence and then build the other four people
around that individual? How is that done? Once that organization,
whether it is Hell's Angels or some other organization, is deemed
to be a criminal organization, is it or any group of five deemed to
be a criminal organization forever?
I would like the justice minister to address these very significant
aspects of concern. It is from the viewpoint of whether or not this
particular definition is enforceable or applicable. It is so nebulous
that we may have difficulty ever having the courts determine that
an organization is a criminal organization.
(1225)
The Chairman: This is an unusual procedure and the member
may wish to look at Standing Orders 100, 101, 102 and 103 which
deal with amendments in committee of the whole.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, what must be remembered is that the
objective is not to deal with groups on the margin who may have
three or four people committing crimes. The objective is to get
tools into the hands of the police so they can gather evidence in
relation to organizations that pose a serious risk to the safety of the
community and that are engaged on a systematic basis in the
commission of serious offences throughout the country.
The hon. member asked me about groups subdividing into cells
of four in order to escape the strict terms of the definition. In my
view if any such thing happened, the court could and would simply
look beyond the artificial subdivision to the existence of the larger
group on the facts and would not permit such a ruse or artifice to
interfere with the enforcement of this law.
9971
For example, just because a given biker gang which is
internationally known and internationally active creates subgroups
of four members each and gives them a different name would not
protect them from this law. The court would be able to look at
evidence of the reality behind the artifice and would be able to
conclude that the group or association was broader than just the
four members and would apply the law as such.
Let me get to the hon. member's broader question which has to
do with how this law works. This law works in two fundamental
ways.
First of all, for the first time it establishes a formal framework
which defines organized crime. That framework provides access by
the police, if they are investigating such a phenomenon, to
investigative tools which would not ordinarily be available:
wiretaps with a different standard; extensions of wiretaps which
would otherwise not be available; prolonging the period after
which notice of a wiretap has to be given, which in other cases
would have to be given sooner. Access to income tax information is
another investigative technique or tool which would not otherwise
be available to the police.
That is the first thing it does. It establishes a new category of
organized crime. If the police are investigating it, they can do
things they would not be able to do if they were investigating other
kinds of crime.
The second thing this legislation does is it establishes different
consequences for organized crime as opposed to other kinds of
crime. Penalties are more severe. If a person commits the same
crime but does it in association with, for the benefit of, or at the
direction of organized crime, then the consequences will be more
significant than they otherwise would be.
The proceeds of crime legislation will apply to the crime.
Beyond that, the court can not only seize the proceeds of the crime,
it can also seize the instruments used to commit it. If a truck is used
to drive explosives from point A to point B to plant them for the
gang, the truck can be seized if the evidence shows it was an
instrument used in the commission of the crime.
Those are the two fundamental things in the bill. There are
others. The first is that it establishes something called organized
crime. For the first time in our Criminal Code it creates that
category. It provides for special tools for the police when they
investigate this category of crime which is very, very difficult to
do. There are also special consequences including harsher penalties
and application for the proceeds and instruments to be seized.
Those are the two items.
(1230)
There is another element my friend asked about which I would
like to speak to briefly. He asked how we prove it or how it works.
For example, if police forces thought they were investigating a
gang and wanted to have access to these provisions, and say, for
example, they were applying to the electronic surveillance board
or wiretap board and wanted to be relieved of the obligation of
proving it was a last resort as we proposed they should be able to,
they would have to show reasonable grounds to believe that what
they were investigating was an organized crime offence, that a
criminal organization was involved and that these sections should
pertain to that investigation. They would have to do that on proof.
They would need to have evidence before the court to satisfy the
reasonable grounds test and they would get the warrant under those
circumstances.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if in order to avoid being
designated a criminal organization groups did break down into
four, the onus of proof would still remain to connect the groups.
The onus of proof as contained in this section is still there and is
still in force. The onus upon the crown would be just as onerous or
difficult.
With respect, my question has not been answered. I do not know
what we do when we drop one of the five and it is now four. What
happens to that designation?
Perhaps I could ask a straightforward question. How long does
the designation of criminal organization rest upon an organization?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I should have said this earlier. I heard
my friend last time talk about a declaration in relation to a criminal
organization. Although he now uses the word designation, may I
say that neither applies.
We are not saying: ``Judge, here is the Allan Rock group. Would
you please declare it a criminal organization so that from now on
any time we are investigating the Allan Rock group we can have
access to these tools and penalties''. I do not want to hear my friend
tender evidence that there is such a group, because I would claim
that my privileges were being abused.
An hon. member: It is right behind you, Allan.
Mr. Rock: There is my Allan Rock group. It is not a declaration
or a designation. It is a question of fact in each case. If there were
only four members the act would not apply. If the group artificially
subdivided to make it only four, as I said earlier I think the court
would look past that artifice. If there really are only three or four
people committing crimes, we have made the choice of five; it
would not apply.
It is not as though we will ask the court to declare a certain group
criminal and it is criminal for five or ten years thereafter. Every
time someone brings an application for a search warrant, every
time someone alleges the participation in a criminal organization, it
will be necessary to prove afresh that there is a criminal
organization involved. That depends on evidence. As a practical
matter it may get easier the third, fourth or fifth time because the
court will be able to look at evidence amassed on the earlier
proceedings. Nonetheless, it will be a question of fact in each case
for the court
9972
to be satisfied that we are dealing with a criminal organization.
Then the consequences would flow.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, we have not gone further than
subsections 1(a) and 1(b). I understand the whole thing is in clause
1, right down to clause 2. We are dealing with not only what we
touched upon but the criminal organization offence and the offence
related to property.
To what extent has the department gone outside to get advice and
consultation regarding the constitutionality of what we have
addressed so far, which is the criminal organization in subsections
1(a) and 1(b)?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, careful consideration has been given
within the department to the constitutionality of the bill and each of
its elements. It is difficult to answer about the constitutionality of
subsection 1(a) because it is part of the whole.
(1235)
I am able to tell the hon. member that we looked very carefully at
the constitutionality of Bill C-95, those sections which create
offences and those sections which modify existing sections of the
Criminal Code. We are satisfied it is constitutional as being
consistent with the charter. That results from careful assessment of
all elements of the bill.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, to what extent were crown
prosecutors and defence counsels beyond the justice department
consulted as to the viability of the bill in their opinion?
Mr. Rock: To a considerable extent. The process that resulted in
the bill started in February 1996. At that time the solicitor general
and I began looking at different available approaches to help the
police investigating organized crime.
We conducted a seminar with police forces from across the
country in February 1996 and received an extensive factual
briefing about the nature and extent of organized crime in Canada,
including biker gangs but not just biker gangs.
Through the period last summer and into the fall we in the
department looked at possible approaches through legislation. In
September of last year we had a national forum on organized crime
to which we invited defence counsels, crown prosecutors,
criminologists, business people, experts from the RCMP and
representatives from other countries. Alan Borovoy was kind
enough to come the conference as well.
We canvassed a wide range of people including civil libertarians.
We canvassed a wide range of approaches trying to identify just
what mischief we were after and how best within the Constitution
to tackle it. That in turn gave rise to specific recommendations.
Further work was done in the department over the winter.
When the government of the province of Quebec asked us in
March for legislation to help with the biker gang problem in
Quebec, that request accelerated work already under way. Indeed it
had been under way for some extended period.
Since March we have had further discussions with
representatives of various viewpoints in the criminal justice
system. We took the concepts in Bill C-95, sat down and discussed
approaches with defence lawyers, crown prosecutors, police
officers, police chiefs, provincial attorneys general, provincial
solicitors general and ministers of public security.
We were alerted to some concerns. We went to the Canadian Bar
Association and to le Barreau du Québec. Sometimes we made
changes or adjustments in the legislation because of what we were
hearing. All the while we were conducting our own assessment of
its constitutionality.
Is it possible to have further study? Of course. It is always
possible to have further study. We do not have a monopoly on
wisdom or on knowledge. I am sure the hon. member will bring to
our attention today some useful insights with respect to the bill.
I assure the hon. member and committee of the whole that we
have done a pretty thorough job in going to stakeholders in the
criminal justice system to look at the bill through their eyes to
anticipate objections and concerns that might be expressed. We
have made changes to adjust to their concerns in some cases. Based
on that overall survey we were satisfied it was good policy and
good law and therefore we put it before the House.
Mr. Ramsay: I am looking for information concerning any
objection or concern raised about either the constitutionality of the
sections we have dealt with or the enforceability of them. I am
primarily concerned about both issues, but enforceability is very
important to me.
Bill C-27 deals with child sex tours. Renowned legal minds tell
us that although it looks good and it sounds good it is practically
unenforceable.
What objections, if any, did the justice minister receive with
regard to concern over the constitutionality and the enforceability
of what we have covered so far?
(1240)
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that concerns were
exactly expressed about the sections we have looked at so far.
Certainly concerns were expressed about the overall bill. It is not
hard to find those.
Alan Borovoy, for whose views I have the highest regard,
expressed concern about whether the bill is over broad, whether the
definitions of criminal organization are too sweeping so that we
will catch in our net those who should not be there and do not
9973
deserve to be called a criminal organization. I have answered that
to some extent in my answers to the hon. member's questions. By
the way, we took respectfully into account the views of Alan
Borovoy and others who were concerned about over breadth.
For example, in one of the many drafts we added five-year
minimum penalties for the indictable offences included in the
definition of a criminal organization. We are elevating the
seriousness of the crime, a series of which they have engaged in, by
stipulating it is only crimes punishable by the maximum five years
in prison that will qualify for the definition. We are getting past the
trivial to the more serious kinds of crimes.
Speaking more directly to the hon. member's question about
enforceability and whether it will be of practical benefit, police
forces were very directly involved in the process I have described
since February 1996. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
gave us its written proposal on what it thinks we ought to do about
organized crime in Canada. We looked at it carefully. We
concluded that at least in its present form it is not constitutionally
valid, and we told the association that. We said we would keep
working on it and that we regard Bill C-95 as the beginning of a
process, not the end.
We will keep working on it. We also told police forces what we
thought we could do in the short term based on the research done
over the last several years, especially in the last 18-month effort.
We sat down with them with these proposals. Last week the House
could see for itself the degree and nature of support in the police
community. It was very strong. Chiefs of police believe they will
be able to use these tools.
The vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of
Police, Jacques Duchesneau, is the director of the police services in
Montreal. He was closely involved in the development of the
proposals. We gave him an outline of the proposals. He responded
with his ideas. We had a dialogue. Last week he welcomed them as
a very good start in terms of helping police forces with practical
tools in their difficult task of tackling organized crime.
If we ask the experts, the actual police chiefs in the field, that is
where we get the best evidence on the question of whether the
proposals are useful and effective. I am able to report the police
community has been strongly supportive of the proposals and
believe they will be of value.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, did the police chiefs indicate they
would support reducing the number from five to perhaps three?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I do not recall that having been a
matter of discussion. We looked at the possibility of three. The
California statute refers to three. If the hon. member feels strongly
about it I would be happy to have his views.
It will not make or break the bill. If the hon. member thinks it
would be an advantage to say three, I find it difficult to argue
strongly against him. Picking the larger number of five signals to
my mind more clearly what we are after, the larger group starting to
become a network. If the hon. member has strong views about it I
would be happy to hear him and his rationale.
The Chairman: Does the member wish to make an amendment?
Mr. Ramsay: Not unless it will be supported by the government.
I would be prepared if there were support. We do not have the
testimony of the witnesses. We can only go on what the minister is
able to recall in terms of consultation.
I am concerned about the enforceability of the section. If it
would make it more practical in terms of enforcement to reduce the
number to three, I would be prepared to make the amendment.
The Chairman: The member is asking the minister if the
government would support the amendment.
(1245 )
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, yes. To the extent there has been
public comment on these proposals, my impression is that some
have been saying it should be more than five, not fewer than five.
There may be witnesses before the other place when the bill gets
there who will say that we should be increasing the number and not
decreasing it.
At least for the moment I would like to reserve our position.
Perhaps we can come back to this issue after we have had a longer
time to think about it and I have a chance to speak to my officials
about it.
The Chairman: Is the hon. member finished asking questions?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Inasmuch as this section is not
unlike the conspiracy laws that are on the books, I would be
prepared to move an amendment to reduce the number from five to
three.
The Chairman: Would the member be kind enough to provide
that amendment in handwritten form?
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, once we move beyond this can we
come back to these various sections to make amendments?
The Chairman: If the clause is approved as it is then it is too
late to make an amendment. However, if the member wishes to
make an amendment it can be debated and then voted on or perhaps
there will be unanimity on the amendment.
We can defer clause 1 if that is the wish of both sides.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, then I will not make that
amendment at this time.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I have
some questions for the minister. I have been listening to try to not
cover the same ground the hon. member for Crowfoot has covered.
9974
I am concerned about a number of issues. It is from that
perspective that I approach this legislation. I am concerned, as the
minister is, about the impact of this legislation on law-abiding
groups. I am also concerned about the importance of us passing
a law recognizing there is an immediate problem in the province
of Quebec with this issue. It is a serious issue. The police are
asking for more powers to deal with group criminal activity.
I still feel that if it goes too fast, if a bad law is passed, it will be
worse than no law. I have heard the minister say this on occasion,
especially with reference to the victims bill of rights when
answering the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. The minister
explained why he would not proceed forward with that issue. There
is that point of view.
The minister would like to avoid legislation that would allow for
the following situation: Somebody from one of these groups
commits a crime, the case goes before the courts and then either the
person gets off scot-free on a technicality or the supreme court
nullifies the court decision in six months or so. Time spent now is
time well spent versus wasting taxpayers' dollars and a horrendous
and embarrassing situation before a court somewhere down the
road after this law goes through.
Starting with clause 1, the major issue the minister and the
justice department want to cover is the definition of a criminal
organization. That is a huge starting point. Personally I feel the
definition is too restrictive and will avoid capturing those groups
that sometimes tend to start criminal activities and then grow to
huge numbers.
The minister may be addressing the problem from the wrong
point of view. If we argue for larger numbers, by that time the
groups have already committed a lot of crimes. It might be better to
look at it from the point of view of the smaller number with the
knowledge that a group has the intent to commit criminal activities.
The group is associated for that purpose. I have no problem with
the word association in this first definition.
I have a problem with the term group. I know that group means
three or more. The minister said today in testimony to the member
for Crowfoot that it is the ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning
of group is three or more, not five or more. If a group of four or
more commits a crime this law does not apply. Therefore, the
surveillance, the wiretapping and the income tax investigation
cannot be done. That is restrictive if the purpose is to nip things in
the bud.
(1250 )
I am submitting this argument for consideration for the
amendment that may come later from the member for Crowfoot.
He talked about lowering the number to three. I would argue and
support three.
The Chairman: Would it be agreeable to defer clause 1 until
later on?
Mr. Strahl: I think we may want to defer the amendments on
clause 1 but there is further debate from several others here.
Mr. Silye: I have a comment and about three or four questions. I
wanted to build the framework of where I am coming from, much
like the minister has in his response so that we better understand
what he is trying to do. I think that is important. I do not mean to be
wordy like a normal politician is. I am trying to do my job
effectively here. However, I happen to be a wordy individual so
please bear with me.
First, that is my argument, rationale and reasoning to possibly
look at lowering the number because if the minister says ``ordinary
meaning,'' a group means three or more. In light of that and
because the minister was a lawyer and worked in the courts, is there
any previous precedent that would contradict any of those three
words that he uses in his definition and that would exclude his five
or more? That is one assurance I would like to have.
Second, in terms of the impact on law-abiding groups, about the
Rock biker gang to which he symbolically referred, are we
prejudging? Will this law prejudge the Hell's Angels and Rock
Machine as criminal organizations de facto when this bill is
passed? Are there people already known to the government and the
police who have committed criminal acts punishable by five years
or less within that group presently? If so, why have not one of the
over 800 sections in the Criminal Code that are there to help police
officers in the performance of their duties been used to put these
people before the courts to try them for the acts that their group has
done?
Mr. Rock: First, Mr. Chairman, I full agree with the hon.
member, this is time well spent. I am very happy to have this
interchange with hon. members about this bill.
The hon. member referred to a problem in Quebec as having
inspired the bill. While the issue takes centre stage in Quebec
because of the open warfare between certain gangs there now, it is a
problem throughout Canada that we are addressing. I spoke with
the chief of police in Vancouver in the course of consulting when
we were drafting the bill and he was telling me about the problems
in Vancouver with gangs and organized crime. Indeed, a serious
criminal offence had been charged that very week involving a
member of a biker gang in Vancouver.
I have spoken with attorneys general in Manitoba and Ontario, to
the chiefs of police in Halifax, Toronto and Ottawa who have all
told me the same thing. This is not just a Quebec issue. It so
happens that the most spectacular aspects of the problem are
evident there now with the bombs that have gone off and the lives
that have been lost. However, we are dealing with a pan-Canadian
issue, not just Quebec.
The Chairman: Does the hon. member have any further
questions?
9975
Mr. Silye: Mr. Chairman, the minister did not answer the two
questions.
Mr. Rock: I will answer those questions now. I should not pause.
I should just keep talking straight through and not look as though I
am going to stop.
There are two questions to answer in particular, the first one
about lowering it to three. I am not aware of any court decisions
that would bind us about the definitions of groups, organizations or
associations. As I said earlier, we are happy to consider lowering it
to three. Even as we speak there are people out there watching this
and people in the justice department who are intensively examining
the proposals that are being made to see if there are any other
things we should say so we can add to this discussion. Before this
process is over we will have a position for you on your suggestion
that we lower it to three.
In your second question you asked us about the impact on
law-abiding groups. I say that if there is a group out there that has
as one of its primary activities the commission of indictable
offences for which imprisonment of five years or more is provided
in the code and which has as members people who have engaged
over the last five years in the commission of a series of such
offences, then they are not law-abiding groups and, by definition,
law-abiding groups are excluded from the application of that
section.
(1255 )
My friend also asks if we will prejudge certain organizations or
gangs, the so-called clubs. No, we will not. The very thing that the
attorney general of Quebec asked me for I simply could not give,
which is to say that membership alone in a certain group called X is
an offence and that there be a schedule to the act with the names of
the groups on it which indicate that those people are all criminals
and, therefore, they lose certain rights and we can do certain things.
We said that we will not do that. We cannot do that.
Instead, we said that we would talk concepts instead of people.
We will talk about teams and ideas instead of the names of groups.
We will give a description in the criminal law. If there is a group
which has as one of its primary purposes the commission of serious
crimes and if that group has a membership which has engaged in
the last five years in a series of serious crimes, that is a criminal
organization. That does not create an offence, it just describes what
a criminal organization is.
We then went on to say that if a person commits a crime to
benefit a criminal organization, that is more serious than it would
otherwise be because this is a particular mischief we are trying to
root out of our society.
That is not to say that particular groups are automatically
deemed to be criminal when we pass this bill. The reality is that the
crown attorney will have to tender evidence in each case: that this
person is doing this for the benefit of a criminal organization, that
gang X is a criminal organization because it is borne out in the
facts. The court will have to be persuaded that they fall within the
definition.
The last question my friend asked was why is it that the 800-odd
sections in the very thick and complete Criminal Code have not
succeeded to date in achieving all of this?
Organized crime, as I have learned from the police, presents a
unique challenge in investigation. The police techniques typically
are that an informer is sent inside, an officer is sent in under cover
or they try to persuade someone in the organization to turn and
become their informer. Also they solicit bits of information from
people who are prepared to talk. In organized crime, particularly
some of the groups which are active in Canada today, the police
cannot infiltrate because the groups require that in order to become
a member or be admitted to the inner circle that person has to
commit a serious crime to qualify. It is an initiation. Police cannot
do that.
Second, those who are inside, who police sometimes try to turn
to become informers, realize they will face the death penalty if they
are caught. That is a serious disincentive to providing information
to the police. Similarly, there is an element of intimidation of those
who might otherwise give information.
The fact is that the police find it exceedingly difficult to
investigate these groups based on the powers in the code. That is
why the police have been asking for the kind of tools that are
contained in this bill, which we believe will make a difference in
these exceptional cases.
I hope that responds to the questions which my friend asked.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Chairman, the minister did address the questions
I asked.
It is like I am acting as a director of a huge public corporation,
the Government of Canada and, with due diligence, I am making
sure as a director that the right questions are asked. I think that is
what we are all trying to do here.
The minister said that this is not specifically Quebec related. We
all know that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the justice critic
for that party have been asking questions on this issue since 1995.
March 1995 was the first time a question was asked in the House of
Commons on this issue. At that time the minister indicated that the
code had enough tools, as he has done until recently. A political
perception might be that this is being rushed through for a
pre-election purpose to build up and shore up popularity in a
province in which the Prime Minister may or may not have the
proper poll numbers.
9976
I did not create those stories. I did not allege those charges.
They are very well documented in all the press and media. That
has made me very concerned that we not rush this legislation
through in such a way that we do not show the Canadian public
that we are trying to provide good governance. It is the Minister
of Justice and his department which has that responsibility. I make
an analogy to the victims bill of rights where the argument used
was not to proceed. That addresses the answer. I just wanted to
make a comment on the minister saying it was pan-Canadian.
(1300)
With respect to criminal organizations consisting of five or more
or three or more, they will not declare in writing their intent. It is
like gun control. I hate to touch on it, but criminals who need
handguns, rifles or shotguns for the purposes of committing crimes
will not register them because it would lead to a quicker trail to
them. They will get one illegally and commit the crime anyway.
We will see if gun control will reduce crime. We will also see if this
definition of criminal organization will reduce warring activities
across the country.
With this preamble and setting the stage, if we now define
criminal organization which up until now has not been defined in
the Criminal Code, what different powers will it give police
officers that they do not have now under the 800 sections?
As I understand the law, if they suspect somebody of committing
a crime or they suspect somebody of being guilty of something, if
there is suspicion and sufficient evidence, police officers can
obtain warrants. Search and seizure are available. Surveillance is
available. Wiretapping with a judge's permission is available, as is
requesting tax records of somebody who has committed income tax
fraud. I am the revenue critic. I know how heavy, hard and strong
tax avoidance audit groups work. They do a darned good job. I
know the powers they have.
Now we are defining criminal organizations. Will it give police
forces that much more power when they already have the same
powers on an individual basis?
Mr. Rock: I believe so but, more important, the police believe
so.
It is helpful to have the advice of those who are actually in the
field. It certainly was on gun control. We had the support of the
chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association. They
believed it would make a difference in terms of community safety.
I know the hon. member voted for Bill C-68. He must have come to
that conclusion. I know how carefully he thinks through positions
before taking them.
The member referred to this being our opportunity for due
diligence. I do not want him to think for a moment that I do not
welcome the opportunity to discuss these features of Bill C-95 with
my colleagues. I welcome the chance to have their views. As I said
earlier, I am sure we will learn from the incite they bring to the
process. We need this kind of examination and I welcome it.
What will the bill give police forces that they do not already
have under the existing Criminal Code? Why do they think it will
be important to them in their fight against organized crime?
At the moment if police officers want to get a wiretap they have
to prove a number of things to a judge first. Among those they have
to prove on evidence that every other kind of investigative
technique either has been tried and failed or if it was tried would
fail because of the nature of the investigation. That takes police
officers to the point of having to swear an affidavit or other form of
particulars of what has already been done, go through the list of
alternative methods and satisfy the court on evidence that it is a last
resort in the investigation of a certain crime.
The bill would remove that burden. It would simplify the process
of getting a wiretap if the police officer is investigating criminal
organization offences. Similarly with warrants. Returning to
wiretaps, it would relieve police officers of a paper burden. We are
not saying we should allow free access to intrusive methods
because it is administratively difficult for police. We are saying we
should make that change because when investigating organized
crime it is almost always obvious that it is a last resort for the
reasons I have already given. It is very difficult to investigate.
We are taking a burden from the police which we think is undue
in the circumstances of offences of this kind. Some say if it is all so
easy to establish they can establish it to the satisfaction of the judge
and nothing is lost. We are trying to recognize the unique character
of these offences in the way investigative tools are available to
police officers. If we have the courage to conclude on the facts that
it is almost always the last resort, then let us say it in the criminal
law and not have the police go through the empty process of
establishing it. It sends a signal as well.
(1305)
Furthermore, police officers have told me that they get wiretaps
and the day after they start the paperwork to prepare for the renewal
because they only get it for 60 days. They tell me that in the context
of an organized crime offence it is absurd because those
investigations take an exceptional period of time. They have to put
together bits and pieces of conversations and relate them to other
information. It is a very complex process. They almost always need
the wiretap for longer than 60 days.
In the bill we are permitting the court to provide the wiretap for
an extended period so that the police will be using their resources
investigating crime rather than busily working at paperwork for the
extension application.
9977
Similarly notice of the wiretap has to be given after the wiretap
is finished to people wiretapped so that they know it and can take
proceedings. We have extended the period during which they can
give notice in these cases because some of the investigations go
on for an exceptional period of time.
At the moment there is a very narrow category of offences for
which access to income tax information can be gained. That is as it
should be. Income tax is filed on an undertaking with the Canadian
people. It is implicit the information be kept absolutely
confidential by Revenue Canada. We do permit it at the moment for
a very few offences. Officials will know the sections. Basically
they deal with drug offences.
What we have proposed is significant. It is to extend the category
of access to tax information to assist in investigations into
organized crime offences. They cannot just walk in and take the
information out of a file. They have to go before a judge, get a
warrant, establish to the satisfaction of the judge that a criminal
organization offence is being investigated, and that they need the
information and it relates to the investigation. Then the warrant can
be given and can be limited to such information as the court thinks
is appropriate. Nonetheless it is an important breakthrough in terms
of giving police more information to fit the puzzle together as to
who has what, what are the proceeds of crime, what money is being
laundered or what illegal activity is taking place?
Similarly we are proposing for the first time to extend the
proceeds of crime legislation beyond drug offences and the like to
organized crime offences. It is not only the proceeds. Cash can be
taken from their desks during the arrest. It can be instruments as
well possibly including real estate if it has been fortified or
modified to facilitate the commission of an offence. That is a very
important point.
We spoke to the mayor of St. Nicolas or other communities
where there are headquarters of organizations of great concern to
the citizens. We can imagine a gang setting up in a municipality
somewhere, taking over a house, fortifying it, setting up barriers so
that the police could not raid it, putting concrete in front and
surveillance cameras on top, modifying it and selling drugs out the
back door or using it to store explosives or some other such thing.
If the real estate is modified or fortified to facilitate the
commission of criminal offences, the real estate could be regarded
as one of the instruments of crime and could potentially be seized
after conviction for an organized crime offence. That is an
extremely important tool.
The bill includes serious increases in sentences for crimes
committed in association with or for the benefit of criminal
organizations. I could have explosives illegally on my person and I
would be subject to a maximum of five years in prison. If I am
doing it for the benefit of a gang, if I am delivering the explosives
to a gang or have planted them for the gang, whether or not I am
part of the gang I could face up to 14 years in prison. Why?
Because we are targeting organized crime which in turn is targeting
us, our families and our children. That is why.
That is not only important because it reflects society's
denunciation of organized crime activity. It is also an important
tool for the police that may be in a position of having picked people
up, arrested them and charged them. Then they have a potentially
serious sentence facing them. Police officers can say they are
prepared to discuss with them the charge they will be brought
before the court on or what submission they will make to the court
in relation to the sentence if they co-operate by providing them
with information they need. It is a very important tool for police
that should not be underestimated.
(1310)
Then there is the so-called peace bond provision which is not
there now. It will let police officers bring someone before the judge
and say they have reasonable grounds to fear the person will
commit a criminal organization offence.
They can ask the judge to look at the evidence, at the people he
associates with, at what he has done in the past, at what the wiretap
has turned up and at all the other circumstances. Then they invite
the judge to conclude there is a reasonable basis to fear the person
will commit a criminal organization offence. They can tell the
judge that he has committed a number of them in the past and is
still with the same group of people. They can ask the judge to look
at what he has said publicly and privately.
In those circumstances the court can impose for up to a year
conditions on the person's liberty such as prohibiting him from
communicating with other members of the group. This would
seriously undermine the ability of the leadership of groups to carry
on their business. The police believe that is also a valuable tool.
I take the member's point. I should have to satisfy him that what
we are proposing here is not only lawful but will be effective. I am
able to report from my dealings with the police, the crown
attorneys and the attorneys general of the provinces that we have a
collection of measures. They are not enough in and of themselves
but they will make a difference. They will make it that much easier
for the police to tackle this dreadfully difficult problem.
We will be back in the future with more proposals. This is only
the first phase of what we will do. Organized crime is a menace in
the country. I do not think most of us have an appreciation for what
a serious threat it is to the economy and future of the country.
It is a good start. These measures will make a difference for
police and that is why we are here.
9978
Mr. Silye: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question. I would
just rephrase a good start to a fresh start because I feel it is a fresh
example of co-operation between all parties. In any event, because
of the nature of the amendments to the Criminal Code the concern
is that they not be thrown out by some future supreme court
justice.
There is a lot more to discuss in the bill. Why does it have to be
done by Friday of this week? Why can we not take two to three
weeks? We fast track bills through the House at second reading,
report stage, third reading, over to the Senate and back, with
exception of the blood bill of last year. Why can we not take two to
three weeks from today and do it a little more slowly for the sake of
not infringing upon the civil liberties of honest, law-abiding
citizens, groups, associations or other bodies?
Mr. Rock: We have asked for all-party agreement to deal with
the bill now. My hon. friends have been kind enough to agree. We
are dealing with, as I have said, a process that has been methodical.
For some time we have been working at it, but it has been
accelerated by reason of the request of the Government of Quebec
for help in the present circumstances.
Over the last couple of years there have been almost 50 people
killed in the gang war in Quebec. I met last week with Mrs.
Desrochers, whose 11-year old son, Daniel, was killed in August
1995. He was walking down the street in Montreal on an errand for
his mother. The police believe one of these gangs detonated an
explosive that was intended as another offensive in their gang war.
A piece of shrapnel blew across the street and took the life of the
11-year old boy.
I met with Mrs. Desrochers last summer in my office. The hon.
member for Hochelaga was kind enough to introduce me to her.
She asked how much longer she must wait before something was
done about it. I told her we were working on it and the police were
working on it. She met with me again last week. She said she
wanted the bill in place and she wanted the police to have these
tools. The most important thing to her was that the bill might help
the police to find the people who are responsible for her son's
death.
There are few more eloquent explanations of why we are moving
quickly on the bill. I think of that grieving mother. I think of that
11-year old boy who lost his life. I think of a gang war that
continues. We do not know from day to day where another bomb
might be found or where it might be exploded. The criminal law is
not something that can react on an hourly basis either to judicial
decisions we do not like or crises that arise in terms of crimes in the
country. It is an instrument that should be brought to bear in those
circumstances where we feel as parliamentarians it can help in a
lawful, practical way.
(1315)
This is a problem of long standing which is of significant
concern to our second most populous province. It has asked for our
help and our urgent action. We have produced a bill we think is
lawful and which will make a difference. It is under those
circumstances we have asked that its adoption be expedited.
I am sensitive to those who say that greater care should be taken
and a longer look should be taken at this bill. It may be that the
other place may have its own ideas too about when and how the bill
is considered.
If it does become law in the next little while, I can see us saying
that we will commit to monitoring its progress, to reviewing its
operation, to seeing what we have learned from it in operation. I
have discussed this matter with officials. They think it may need a
period of a couple of years or three years before we are able to look
meaningfully at what we have learned from it by the time the
wiretaps are in place and there is some empirical data by police
across the country.
I would be happy to say to the hon. member that the government
will return within three years with a statistical assessment of how
this bill has operated, what the effect has been, what judicial
decisions have been reached under the bill, whether there have
been challenges to its validity, what the police say about how
valuable this is as a tool in their hands, what changes might be
desirable from a policy or practice point of view. That would be
useful. It should be done anyway, but I would be happy to
undertake to the member that the government will do so if he would
find it of assistance.
Mr. Silye: I respect the example the minister gave me about the
11-year old boy and his mother, and the need to move quickly. That
is no different from the pleadings and representations made to the
minister by Debbie Mahaffy in terms of having a victims bill of
rights, victims impact statements and things like that being clearly
identifiable in the law.
Is the minister sure that he is not being pressured by a pending
election when he rushes forward with this bill?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, it is a good question. The Minister of
Justice and Attorney General holds a place apart in any cabinet. He
is a politician by definition but he has another responsibility as
well: to be the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law.
He or she is there to focus issues of principle on questions of
politics, to borrow a phrase from Ian Scott who served with such
distinction as Attorney General of Ontario for five years. I can tell
the hon. member that I have considered that question at every stage
of this process. I can tell him with honesty that in my view this is
good law. It is needed. It is good policy.
9979
I can tell him that if the request from the province of Quebec
had come under different circumstances at a different time, I
would respond in the same way. Within two days of getting a call
from the minister of public security, I was in Quebec City to meet
with him and 14 mayors of the region because I was aware of the
depth of their concern and the extent of the problem.
I promised to look immediately at the proposal they gave to me.
I did and I concluded it was unacceptable, but I also put something
else on the table. I said: ``Here are tools that we think are legal but
that will make a difference''. I solicited the involvement of others
in the process I have already described in terms of consultation.
What we produced is before members now in Bill C-95. It is an
urgent response to a very difficult and serious problem. I believe
focusing issues of principle on questions of politics is the right
thing to do.
Two years ago, members were kind enough to look carefully at
Bill C-104 which had to do with adding DNA testing to the
criminal law. We went through a similar process. I was here in this
chair in committee of the whole, on clause by clause study for Bill
C-104.
We passed that bill in a day. It went on to the other place and was
adopted very quickly. It became law. Again, it did not go through
the long, extensive process that we associate with legislation. We
did it because we came to the common view that here was
something that was needed and was not already in the criminal law.
There was a case to be made that it was going to make a difference
to police inquiries so we went ahead and acted quickly. There was
no election pending; it was not as though the House was going to
rise and we were all going to go on the hustings. It was two years
ago, in the middle of our mandate.
(1320)
My point is that there are times, quite apart from elections, when
the need arises and circumstances require that we act quickly. I
believe this is one of those cases. As a general rule, as I said in
connection with Bill C-104, it is better to take the extended period.
On this bill, with the facts and with this law we are in a position to
act quickly and it is in the public interest to do so.
The Chairman: Would the member indicate whether he wants
this clause deferred until the end of all of the clauses?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes, but there are more parts to this clause that I
would like to discuss with the minister if that is in order, Mr.
Chairman.
The DNA bill came about as a direct result of the member for
Wild Rose assuring the justice minister that he would have our
support if they moved forward on that bill. It was as a result of that
initiative that the DNA bill came forward because it was clear,
simple and straightforward.
With regard to this bill, a little 11-year old boy died two years
ago. There is no question in my mind that we had enough time to
bring this bill forward and give it the due diligence it should have
had. I am still concerned that we have not had witnesses from both
sides. I would like to hear from prosecutors and ask them some of
these questions, those who stand in the courts each day and have to
bear the weight of providing evidence to bring forward the
conclusion that they want. I would like to hear what they have to
say.
I appreciate the time we are taking but it is not the same as
having witnesses come forward with the various perspectives that
this bill should have before we go forward with it. We are here
because we do support the thrust of this bill.
I am concerned with the vagueness of some of the terms we have
dealt with. I want to deal with more of them. There is a vagueness
that is left to the courts to interpret. We know what happened with
Bill C-41 on the conditional sentencing issue. Even the justice
minister himself admits that rapists should not be walking free, yet
that is the manner in which that law is being interpreted and
administered by judges across the country.
When we say we will leave some of these definitions or these
words to be defined and interpreted by the courts, we have had
unpleasant experiences in the past that I do not think are in the best
interests of society.
Nevertheless, I would like to turn to (b) of that first clause at the
top of page 3. It states:
any or all of the members of which engage in or have, within the preceding five
years, engaged in the commission of a series of such offences;
There is another word without definition and that is ``series''.
What does that mean? What did the justice minister mean when he
placed that word within this statute?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, we intended it to have its ordinary
meaning. I would be happy if a court would look at the ordinary
dictionary definition of that term when it comes to interpreting it
and applying it.
May I say it is quite common in legislation, not just justice
legislation but bills in general, that Parliament does not define all
the terms that are used. We could scarcely do that because we
would never get out of the definition section. Even if we were to do
so, the definition sections themselves are open to interpretation by
the courts. The courts will have the last word on all legislation; that
is just the way things work in this democracy.
What we intended was to communicate the idea that where
members engage over the last five year period in more than one of
these criminal offences and indeed a series, then it should catch the
definition of criminal organization. We are not talking here about
an isolated event. We are not talking here about an exceptional
event. We are talking about a series of events and therefore we are
9980
giving the court the nature of the organization that we have in
mind.
(1325 )
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if the justice minister means that a
series is more than one, that clarifies it in my mind, but I do not
read that definition anywhere in the bill. What does a series mean
to the various judges across the country? Would the justice minister
be prepared to define ``series'' as more than one?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I said the dictionary definition should
govern. Perhaps we should have that before us. I could ask one of
my officials to provide me with a copy of the dictionary definition
of ``series'' and we could read from that.
The Chairman: Does the member have a further question?
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to wait until the
minister has responded to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question and a comment. Earlier, I was relieved
when I heard the hon. member for Calgary-Centre, because I was
afraid we were getting into something close to a filibuster. That
would have been disappointing, I must admit. But the hon. member
was most reassuring, and I know his reputation for style and fair
play. I really had the feeling that the three parties had reached an
agreement to ensure that the bill would be passed as soon as
possible.
I am grateful to the minister for recalling what happened in
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. The minister knows how concerned I
am about the whole issue of organized crime. I have two
comments, since I will not speak again on this bill because I really
want us to proceed as quickly as possible.
I had an opportunity, for which I thank the minister and his
officials, to ask some questions during a briefing session. I imagine
the same opportunity was offered to our Reform Party colleagues.
During this session I was able to discuss technical aspects of the
bill.
So I would appeal to all members of the House to let us proceed
as quickly as possible. I also want to explain to my Reform Party
colleagues who are very close to the police community that three
major demands made by police associations across the country
have been documented in a report.
I would be delighted to table this report which is about the
management of the proceeds of crime in Canada, if the House were
to give its unanimous consent. One of the document's main
recommendations is that there should be aggravating
circumstances when an offence is committed in relation to
organized crime. I understand why this provision found its way
into the bill, and the minister can confirm my statement.
My question to the minister is as follows: Could he ask his
officials to make a list of the offences covered by this bill, so that
we have a better understanding of the legislation? I do not know
whether departmental employees have already done so. I do know
that there is a reference to all offences punishable by more than five
years imprisonment, and these are mainly offences already
included in the Criminal Code. However, to give all members of
this House a better understanding of the legislation, it might be
useful if the Department of Justice promised to distribute this list
before we finish our business or by the end of this week. I think it
would be very interesting for all members to have this list.
Finally, I want to make one last appeal to have this bill passed
with all due dispatch, and I can assure the minister he will have our
full co-operation.
[English]
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, in the definition the reference is to
offences for which there is a maximum of at least five years
imprisonment as a punishment. It is for indictable offences with
that consequence. It is not only in the Criminal Code but in other
federal statutes as well. I am not sure if it would be helpful to
provide that list because it is very long.
In terms of penalties, the Criminal Code is divided into a
series-to use a word-in which there are groups of offences
punishable by six months, two years less a day, two years, five
years, ten years, fourteen years, and life. Those are the distinctions
in terms of Criminal Code penalties.
Those offences punishable by a maximum of five years on
indictment make up a very considerable group both in the code and
in other statutes. I do not know that it would be helpful to have that
list. What we are trying to do here is give the court a sense of the
degree of seriousness to which we are looking when we say that
someone is involved in a criminal organization. Therefore we have
picked those offences which have the maximum of five years,
which are up on the scale. They are not six months or two years
plus a day or two years, they are in the medium range of
seriousness and beyond. These are significant offences.
(1330)
In response to the question put by my friend from Crowfoot on
the issue of series, I am reminded as I look at the Oxford concise
definition of series that the element that would be missing if we
used two or more, rather than series, is the element of successive or
the temporal relationship between the offences. In other words, if a
person committed both offences in the same day, both having to do
with the same event, for example, robbery and assault, that would
be more than one but they would both be in connection with the
same event and would not capture the notion of series in the sense
that there would be successive occasions on which such events took
9981
place; a person committed a crime in February but also committed
the crime in October and so on.
As we look back over the five year period the notion of series is
to connote not only a number, more than one, but that they were
successive, in temporal relationship, one to the other, and there was
a pattern which demonstrated that on more than one occasion the
person had engaged in that criminal conduct. That is what series
gives us that two or more would not.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if that is going to
make this any easier to establish without a definition more
definitive than what I just heard from the minister.
The clause indicates what a criminal organization offence is. I
ask the justice minister whether the criminal organization offence
applies to youth gangs. I do not see that anywhere in the bill. I
wonder why this bill is not applicable to youth and, in particular,
why the definition of criminal organization does not apply to youth
gangs.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, it does. It applies to anybody who is
subject to the criminal law, anybody 12 and older. If there are
13-year olds, five or more of them, who formally or informally
organize themselves into a group which has as one of its primary
activities the commission of an indictable offence for which a
maximum of five years imprisonment is provided by Parliament
and any or all of whom have engage in a series of such offences
over the last five years, regardless of the age of the participants,
they could be found to be a criminal organization. A criminal
organization offence could be committed regardless of the age of
the participants so long as they are subject to the criminal law
sanction being 12 years of age or older. There is no distinction here
in terms of age.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the justice minister could
explain why under the Young Offenders Act it is only murder that
carries an offence greater than the three years. How would this new
sentence apply without a transfer to adult court?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, the Young Offenders Act is only the
jeopardy to which the individual young person is subject, but the
offence itself is punishable in the Criminal Code by five years or
longer. If the offence itself is punishable by a maximum of five
years on indictment, then it meets the definition.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be clear on this. If
the justice minister is saying that the definition of a criminal
organization applies to young offenders and also that the criminal
organization offence applies, that is different from the legal
opinion we have received. It was on short notice, nevertheless it is
different.
When I look at this, from my understanding there is no penalty
under the YOA that exceeds three years. The person who was
charged for manslaughter, the young offender who was involved in
the torture death of Sylvain Leduc, received the maximum penalty
that could be received under the YOA of three years. That means
that individual, for that offence, does not fall within the category of
having committed an indictable offence with a penalty of five years
or more. That person, with that record, would not fall within the
category or definition.
(1335)
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree. In reality if the offence
carries under the Criminal Code a penalty that is indictable with a
maximum of five years or more, then it falls within this definition.
The fact that an individual offender, because of the Young
Offenders Act, would be subject to a lessor penalty because of their
own age is beside the point.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I want to make this clear. Is the
justice minister saying that the young offender who was convicted
of manslaughter in the Sylvain Leduc torture death and was granted
or given a three year maximum penalty allowed under the YOA
falls into one of these categories as a person who has been involved
in an indictable offence with a penalty of at least five years
imprisonment? Is that what the minister is saying?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, we have to unravel that and put it
another way. I think I have the member's point but I do not think
we can relate it to that particular crime. It was not alleged that there
were other crimes.
If there is a group of five or more persons, formally or
informally organized, having as one of their primary activities the
commission of indictable offences under the Criminal Code
punishable by a maximum of five years or more, and any or all of
whom have engaged in a series of such offences over the last five
years, they do not fall out of the definition for reason only of their
age, that they would personally be subject to a maximum of three
years under the Young Offenders Act. My officials take that view
and I do as well.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, in order to make it clear for the
record as well as for those who may be listening, for this young
individual who was sentenced to three years maximum for
manslaughter under the YOA, if it could have been established and
this bill had been in force prior to the death of Sylvain Leduc, could
he have been charged under this new criminal organizational
offence?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, this statute is for criminal
organizations. I do not know enough about the facts of the case.
The member keeps referring to that one case. I would prefer not to
talk about a case that is still before the courts.
We are not dealing here with one person committing one offence
on an isolated basis. We are talking about criminal organizations
which are five or more people dedicated ruthlessly to a life of crime
and committing a series of such offences over the last five years.
9982
Then we are talking about criminal organizations and criminal
organization offences.
One person committing one offence on a specific occasion is not
intended to be caught by this bill.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, this person is alleged to have been
a member of Ace Crew, a gang, involved in drug trafficking and in
the kidnapping of at least two people, one of whom was tortured to
death. If this bill predated the commission of that offence, could
that young individual have been convicted and sentenced under this
new charge, this new offence that has been created, the criminal
organizational offence?
Mr. Rock: No.
Mr. Ramsay: Why could he not? If the minister is saying these
two new definitions, criminal organization and criminal
organization offence, would apply to youth gangs, and it was
alleged this person was a member of a youth gang, why would it
not apply to this young individual who got only three years for
manslaughter if this bill had predated the offence? He has said that
it would not apply. I do not understand.
(1340)
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I will do is expressly
decline to discuss the case of Sylvain Leduc. I think it is wrong to
talk about that case because it is before the courts.
Let me then go to a broader level of generality and talk about a
gang of youths engaged in a series of criminal acts over time. As I
have already said to the member, if there is a group, association or
other body consisting of five or more persons, whether formally or
informally organized, one of whose primary activities is the
commission of indictable offences under the Criminal Code or any
act of Parliament punishable by a maximum imprisonment of five
years or more, and whose members, any or all, have engaged over
the last five years in a series of such offences, then that would be a
criminal organization and it would not fall short of the definition
only because members were below the age of 18, so long as they
were 12 years of age or more. The determination of the predicate
offences would be in reference to the penalties provided in the
Criminal Code.
The fact that the Young Offenders Act put a cap of three years as
the maximum for any individual because of their age alone would
not disqualify them from the definition if the other elements were
present. I said that earlier and I cannot say it more clearly than that.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, the justice minister has certainly
confused me on this issue. Would a young offender have to be
raised to adult court for the indictable offence that has been
committed before this new bill is applicable to him?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, if the crown were seeking the 14 year
penalty then it would have to seek transfer to adult court. If it were
content to seek a maximum of three years, the matter could be dealt
with in youth court.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be an anomaly here
that youth gangs could still be sentenced under the Criminal Code
and that this additional sentence which will be served concurrently
under this new section can be applied only if the individual is tried
in adult court. Am I correct in saying that? Is that my
understanding of what the justice minister has told the committee?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, as with all young offender matters, if
the crown wants penalties under the Criminal Code to apply, it has
to seek transfer of the young offender from youth court to adult
court. It does not change the nature or the character of the
organization. It permits the police to make use of the provisions.
But if a person is going to be sentenced as an adult they first have to
be transferred to adult court.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if I gather what the minister is
saying, at least the penalties cannot apply to young offenders unless
they are transferred to adult court. Is that true?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, yes, as in every other instance.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if the court decides on this reverse
onus that the justice minister brought in with Bill C-37, that the
individual should not be tried in adult court, then they are immune
to this law.
(1345 )
Mr. Rock: No, Mr. Chairman, but the penalties that can be given
are limited to those provided in the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Ramsay: If we want to split hairs, then I will put it this way.
If the judge says that the young offender has to be tried in youth
court, then he is immune to the penalties provided in this new
section. Is that right?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, as in every other case, if the court
decides not to transfer the young person out of youth court, then the
Young Offenders Act penalties apply.
As the hon. member knows, in Bill C-37 we took the most
serious crimes of violence and changed the transfer provisions. We
said in Bill C-37, which is now the law of this land, that if one is 16
or 17, namely at the upper range of the age limit covered by the
Young Offenders Act, and is accused of one of the most serious acts
of violence-and we included murder, attempted murder,
manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault-then that person will be
tried in adult court unless the person can satisfy the burden of
showing to the satisfaction of the judge that it is consistent with the
public interest that they be tried in the youth court.
9983
That was to demonstrate that we are not going to tolerate serious
crimes of violence from young people and we are going to react
to it with swift and certain punishment.
If the youth is transferred to adult court, then that youth is of
course subject to all the adult penalties. In connection with Bill
C-95, that is the 14 years for explosives, for example, the 14 years
for the participation in the criminal organization offence, that is the
extended period where the youth cannot apply for parole, that is
consecutive sentences if the youth is sentenced for other offences
as well. If the youth is transferred to adult court, that youth faces
those very significant sanctions. But as in any other case, if the
prosecuting attorney does not seek a transfer-of course, that is up
to the provincial crown attorney-or if the court says it will not
transfer the youth, then that youth is subject to the Young Offenders
Act in youth court and the maximums under that statute apply.
Mr. Ramsay: It is pretty clear that young offenders who are
gang members, simply because of the transferability of some of
these offences-and it is a narrow series of offences that Bill C-37
covers-that this new offence does not apply in youth court. It only
applies in adult court. On the penalty, what difference does it
make? Unless it applies to adults who are using youths, as they did
in the Ace Crew organization, that gang that led to the torture and
the death of at least one individual, and the individual was left in
youth court and received only a three year penalty for
manslaughter, which would have been much higher had he been
transferred to adult court.
It is very clear then that this new penalty and by and large the act
itself, does not apply to anyone heard in youth court.
I would ask the minister this question. If an adult was charged
for committing an indictable offence, and the punishment was
more than five years, and it could be proved that the individual was
a member of a group, association or other body, and the other four
people that made up the organization were youths, would the
definition still apply?
Mr. Rock: Yes, in my view it would.
Mr. Ramsay: All right. Then I will move on to the offence
related property which is the final grouping. The justice minister
touched on it in his earlier testimony. I would like him to advise the
committee the difference that this will make over the laws that
presently exist. Could he enlighten the committee on the change
that this new bill brings in.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member's reference to
offence related property?
Mr. Ramsay: Yes.
(1350 )
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, at the moment the criminal law
provides that in certain categories of crime, the court can seize and
forfeit the proceeds of crime. Indeed, in some circumstances the
court can make an order, even before conviction, that the property
be tied up or suspended, that the accused person be deprived of its
use or operation in the period pending trial.
We have taken over such things as ski chalets under the
provisions of that law where it has been possible to prove that the
proceeds of the crime can be traced into assets.
In Bill C-95 the ambit of the proceeds section have been
extended so that they cover criminal organization offences as well
as the offences to which they apply at present. However, we have
done something else and this is the first time it has been done. We
have extended the powers of the court to include the
instrumentalities of crime. This has been under discussion for
many years in Canadian law. It has never before been done.
This means that you can not only seize the money that is made
from the crime or the property to which you turn it but you can also
seize the property used for the purpose of committing the crime. If
an organized crime syndicate is using boats to take contraband
across the border, using trucks to drive explosives to the scene of
the crime, using a building, especially fortified or modified, to
facilitate the commission of a crime, then the court will be
empowered to order the forfeiture of that property as an instrument
of the crime as well as the proceeds which would be in keeping
with the practice in Canada to date.
We believe this is going to give the authorities an important new
tool to take from the criminal organizations those assets which they
use to commit their crimes and to provide a way of shutting them
down by depriving them of the very tools they need to carry on
their nefarious trade.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question. I want to
go back to the youth application. In light of what the justice
minister has told the committee with regard to the manner in which
this new bill is applicable or not applicable to young offenders,
would he consider an amendment to the YOA that would extend the
transfer to adult court of any offence the penalty of which holds a
maximum penalty in the code of more than five years?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I would want to see that in detail to
consider it. Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to let
me have that proposal over the period we take for question period
so that we can look at it and consider its implications. I am not
quite sure that I understand what the hon. member has in mind but I
am sure that by discussing it with him over that period we can
9984
develop a better understanding of it and provide him with an
answer.
The Chairman: Further questions? With respect to clause 1
again?
Mr. Strahl: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do thank the minister for this
opportunity to question him. I quite enjoy this kind of give and
take. I think this committee of the whole is a very useful provision.
People watching on television and going through the Hansard
proceedings will see that there is a lot of value in the give and take
between the minister and opposition members.
I want to reiterate a problem we have. The Quebec chiefs of
police asked for legislation like this back in 1994. We are probably
five days away from an election call and now, because we want to
be good folks here on this side, we find that we have to pass the bill
in a day because if we do not the bill will not become law before the
election. That is unfortunate because it taints an otherwise honest
attempt by the minister to address a serious problem. It also taints it
with that feeling like this is another one of those photo ops in the
last week before the election, which is too bad.
However, I take the minister at his word that this has been in the
works for a long time. It is just too bad that we are forced to deal
with it at the 11th hour. I believe it is going to throw out a lot of
questions and comments on this bill that were unnecessary. I have
all kinds of newspaper articles that state that politics are coming
before good legislation. I am sure the minister does not need that
on his resume. It is unfortunate that it has happened.
(1355 )
To continue on that same line, I remind the minister that 10 days
ago some amendments on sentencing provisions of Bill C-41 and
Bill C-45 had to be brought in. Things slip through when we are in
a hurry. Again we agreed to do that in a hurry to allow the minister
to correct some imperfections in the bills. Even Bill C-68-about
which we consistently chastised the minister-the first set of
regulations that came down were all withdrawn and reintroduced.
All those are signs of things done in haste. I hope the minister is
right that this bill will stand the constitutional challenge and will do
what he wants it to do. But things done in haste this close to an
election run the risk of not being done properly.
This is not a huge and long bill but it amends many sections of
the Criminal Code. Some received the bill Friday or even this
morning. We had people who worked on the weekend. Many of us
tried to find out exactly what the bill would mean with
consequential amendments and all that stuff. It was very difficult to
do.
I have a couple of questions for the minister about this. Am I
right that in the first part of the definition of criminal organization
where it consists of any body consisting of five or more persons
that persons refers to anybody older than 12 years of age? Is that
what I heard the minister say?
The Chairman: The time for question period is upon us. We
will have to continue again with clause 1 after question period.
(Progress reported.)
The Speaker: It is almost 2 p.m. We will begin statements by
members.
_____________________________________________
9984
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Grantham Lions Club of St. Catharines was given its charter on
May 2, 1952 and is celebrating its 45th charter night later this
month.
Since 1952 the club has worked to promote the principles of
good government and good citizenship, to be of service to those
less fortunate, to provide a forum for discussion and to encourage
service minded citizens to serve their community.
The results of these worthy objectives include the development
of one of the finest sports parks in the city of St. Catharines and
assisting programs and organizations like the Cubs and the
Beavers, local hospitals, the Ina Grafton Gage Home, support and
assistance for the visually and hearing impaired and much much
more.
The Grantham Lions Club has been a key community organizer
and supporter over the last 45 years in helping our youth, our aged
and our less fortunate. As we celebrate this important milestone for
the club, two club members are of special mention. Charles
Boyagian and Lee Nichols are charter members of the club. I
congratulate them and all club members on their excellent work,
their dedication to the community and their true spirit of giving.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
health minister explicitly stated in the House that Bill C-7, then
reintroduced as Bill C-8, was a narcotics bill and that it did not deal
with natural health products.
However, the Liberals then declared vitamins, minerals and
herbs with any therapeutic value to be drugs. Now, without any
evidence that these products are unsafe, the Liberals are actively
removing vitamins, minerals, herbal and natural extracts that have
been on our shelves for years. In addition, Canada Customs is
9985
arbitrarily seizing natural health products at the border or refusing
their entry into Canada.
(1400 )
Under the new rules, companies must provide these products are
safe beyond a shadow of a doubt. Only the big pharmaceutical
companies can afford to market their products under these rules.
The bottom line is that what is taken off the shelf in the public
interest is put right back on in an official bottle at double or triple
the price.
The issue is not about safety; it is about money and power. Under
the Liberal government, consumers and small businesses are losing
to big corporations.
* * *
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to bring to the attention of this House that April 21 to April
27 is National Textiles Week in Canada.
The textile industry is an excellent example of a sector that has
restructured and has aggressively pursued new product markets
worldwide. In fact, industry exports have almost tripled since 1989.
National Textiles Week, which is organized by the Textiles
Human Resources Council, is an excellent example of partnership
at work. Companies, unions, suppliers and industry organizations
have all come forward to sponsor this week of important events
which opens with FUTUR*TEX, a major conference in Montreal.
Other events during the week will feature open houses, school
visits and press conferences.
[Translation]
All these activities will make Canadians more familiar with the
textile industry and ensure it a promising future in Canada's
economy.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government is ahead in its fight against the
deficit, but it has not been as successful in reducing its own
expenditures.
If we look at the figures we see that, between 1994-95 and
1997-98, Ottawa cut its internal expenditures by only 9 per cent
and not the 19 per cent promised in the 1995 budget.
According to Treasury Board's latest release, federal
expenditures, excluding transfer payments, will reach $50.2 billion
in 1997-98, or $8 billion more than predicted two years ago.
In the meantime, 54 per cent of spending was cut by reducing
transfers to the provinces. Cash transfers for health and social
programs dropped by 35 per cent.
Federal government revenues and departmental expenditures
exceed forecasts, while the debt service is lower than predicted. In
fact, the only prediction of the Department of Finance that has
come true is the one concerning transfers to the provinces. The
federal government has definitely reduced its deficit on the backs
of the provinces and the unemployed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, later today I will be presenting a petition with over 1,700
signatures opposing the cutbacks to the CBC. This is a small part of
a petition which was started by a single individual in B.C. and now
has over 36,000 signatures and continues to grow. There has been a
groundswell of grassroots support from every province and
territory.
The petition started from the outrage over the Liberal Party's
failure to honour its 1993 red book campaign promise to maintain
stable long term funding for the CBC. It also started from an anger
against the Liberal Party's shortsightedness in dismantling the
single most effective institution supporting Canadian unity by
promoting communication and celebrating the unique values,
strengths and aspirations of Canadians.
Another $100 million in cuts are scheduled for next year. For the
sake of the future of Canada as a free, independent and democratic
nation, they must be stopped.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have heard the words that the future is so bright we need
to wear shades. This morning, I saw the best and the brightest of
our young Canadians when I had the honour of attending a
breakfast for the YTV achievement award winners from all across
this great country.
The eighth annual YTV achievement awards are sponsored by
the YTV Network and CIBC. Unlike any other awards, the YTV
achievement awards give a glimpse of future Canadian stars and
hometown heroes.
It is my pleasure to congratulate the following achievers: Soup
from Halifax, N.S. for the best musical group; Sabrina Perri from
St. Leonard, Quebec for innovation, science and technology;
Benjamin Bowman from Toronto, Ontario for instrumental music;
Nava Mizrahi from Vancouver, B.C. for public service; Travis
Knight from Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Quebec for specialty
performance; Joseph Radmore from Kemptville, Ontario for
sports;
9986
Kimberly Richard from Pierrefonds, Quebec for the Terry Fox
award; Michel Irving from Moncton, New Brunswick for visual
arts; Holy Heart of Mary Chamber Choir from St. John's,
Newfoundland for vocal; and Jérôme Gariépy from Montreal,
Quebec for writing.
(1405 )
The Speaker: My colleague, you might be interested to know
that I will be formally introducing these young people to the House
at the end of question period.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have with us in the gallery today the national finalists
in the Stand Up, Speak Out, and Be Heard program sponsored by
Canada's brewers.
The program asked young Canadians to submit ideas and
concepts for an ad campaign designed to promote awareness of the
importance of responsible drinking.
I would like to congratulate my constituent, Brad Swaile of
Vancouver; Scott Robertson of Yellowknife; Brian Brintell of
Brighton, Ontario; Justin Antippa of Trois-Rivières; and Anthony
Slade of Timberlea, Nova Scotia.
More than 5,000 young Canadians from across the country sent
in videos, computer animation, short stories, poetry, music and
posters. Their efforts are a testament to the creativity of Canada's
youth.
I praise all the young participants who contributed to the
responsible drinking campaign. I recognize the brewing industry
for sponsoring this important initiative.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, on Radio-Canada's
Raison
passion, Aline Chrétien spoke about her famous husband. One of
the topics raised in the interview was his unpopularity and Mrs.
Chrétien said: ``Of course it hurts. I would be happier if he were
more popular in Quebec''.
I have great sympathy for her, but it hurts me too to see the Prime
Minister, a Quebecer, making a career of walking all over Quebec,
something he has been doing for the last 30 years. How can he be
popular when his friends are Clyde Wells, Howard Galganov and
Guy Bertrand?
Do you remember the night of the long knives, his pride in
having been Pierre Elliott Trudeau's hatchet man when the
Constitution was patriated in 1982 without Quebec's agreement.
Last week marked the 15th anniversary of that sad event.
Yes, Mrs. Chrétien, Quebec remembers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the city of Trail has a long history of contributing to the
sports culture and the economy of this country. This small West
Kootenay community has weathered good days and bad as
Cominco, its primary employer, went through some difficult times.
Now nature has thrown a devastating flood at Trail and some
other nearby communities. They need the help of this country to get
back on their feet. A flood of this magnitude is disastrous for any
community and more so for a town the size of Trail and the other
surrounding communities.
The flood also claimed the life of Ken Plotnikoff Jr. while he
toiled to help save the family business. I am sure that the entire
House joins with me in offering condolences to the family and a
pledge of financial support for Trail and its neighbours in their hour
of need.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure of welcoming a very special guest to
the House of Commons, Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A.
Macdonald.
My predecessor as the member for Kingston has returned to
Ottawa after a 106 year absence. He has asked me to invite all
members of the House to visit Kingston this summer to watch actor
John Blackwood portray him in the musical ``Sir John, Eh?''
This musical, written by Jim Garrard and Grant Heckman, takes
place in Cataraqui Cemetery where Sir John is buried. In the
musical, the Macdonald family visits present day Kingston and
their story-triumphant public achievement set against personal
adversity and heartbreak-is told.
The show also tells the story of Canada and how the acts of Sir
John continue to affect our nation today. It is a fascinating,
engaging and truly entertaining play with great music. It opens,
appropriately, on Canada Day.
On behalf of Sir John, I invite all Canadians to visit Kingston
this summer and take in this imaginative and humourous piece of
theatre.
The Speaker: Sir John, welcome to your House. It is good to
have you back.
9987
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April
is Parkinson's awareness month. Over 100,000 Canadians, 1,500
Newfoundlanders, are suffering from symptoms of Parkinson's
which affects one in every 100 adults.
The symptoms, which typically strike people who are over the
age of 55, include: muscle stiffness, slowness of movement, tremor
in limbs at rest, difficulty with co-ordinating movements, loss of
volume of speech.
The cause of Parkinson's is still unknown and currently there is
no cure. The St. John's regional chapter of the Parkinson
Foundation of Canada is making a special effort this month to
increase awareness of Parkinson's disease. Knowledge about its
symptoms, medication, exercise and therapy is the key to give
sufferers the power to maintain control over this disease.
(1410)
I would ask my colleagues in the House to join me in the effort to
raise awareness of this disorder today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Wednesday, the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of
Manitoba signed the Canada-Manitoba agreement on labour
market development.
This agreement, the fourth federal-provincial agreement signed,
is extremely important for my province, and includes important
differences in services in the language of the official minority, in
this case French. The province of Manitoba will provide these
services where numbers warrant, in accordance with the Official
Languages Act.
[English]
In addition, the province is committed to making best efforts to
maintain support of the French language community of Manitoba
by using its own policy in French language services.
[Translation]
This agreement shows that the federal government is committed
to working in partnership with the province in order to improve
services to Canadians, and the province appears ready to do its fair
share for its citizens.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, our homes, our schools and our streets echo with voices
demanding changes to our justice system.
Three years ago thousands marched in Port Moody-Coquitlam
to demand changes to the Young Offenders Act, changes which
have been ignored by the Liberal government.
Community anger again erupted recently over government
inaction that allowed a serial killer who walked our streets to
revictimize the families and communities of those original victims.
Tragically last month a brutal home invasion in Coquitlam
robbed a new Canadian family of their parents within weeks of
becoming citizens.
Along with my colleagues in the Reform Party, I commit on
behalf of all Canadians to press for legislative changes to recognize
our victims bill of rights and restore a system of justice that makes
the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens a priority in the
criminal justice system, including the repeal of section 745.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of
Canadian Heritage have all voiced their support of SOS Montfort in
preserving this francophone hospital which is unique in Ontario.
Yet the past actions of this trio contradict their words.
The Prime Minister closed the sole francophone military college
in Canada, in favour of the one in Kingston, an anglophone bastion.
Moreover, the President of the Treasury Board forced numerous
francophones to work in English, by neglecting to enforce the
Official Languages Act, which entitles francophones to work in
French in the national capital region.
Finally, by imposing upon CBC the worst cuts in its history, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the fact that CBC
French-language services to francophones outside Quebec are only
a shadow of their former selves.
The moral of this sad story is this: Mr. Harris, please do what
they say, and not-we beg of you-what they do.
9988
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, day by
day the Red River continues to rise. It will continue to do so for the
next 10 days, threatening people throughout the Red River Valley.
We are prepared and are hoping for the best, but no one will relax
until the crest has passed.
We are so prepared because of the activities of thousands and
thousands of volunteers. They have worked throughout the last two
weeks preparing dykes, sandbagging homes, organizing volunteers,
feeding volunteers, transporting volunteers. I particularly want to
note the efforts of city councillor John Angus, who has worked
incredibly hard to make sure that this whole activity is co-ordinated
in the south end of the city.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week, the Minister of Justice announced the key
legislative measures aimed at helping those involved directly and
indirectly in the battle against crime.
Most of the stakeholders agree that this bill responds in large
part to the needs expressed of late, and provides the tools required
for the fight against crime.
(1415)
Among these reactions was that of the Director of the Montreal
Urban Community Police Department, Jacques Duchesneau, who
was unabashedly enthusiastic in stating that this bill was a good
start.
Many have been pleased with the speed with which the Minister
of Justice responded to the pressing needs of the community. His
work reflects our government's desire to enhance Quebecers'
quality of life.
_____________________________________________
9988
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
After years of discussion between Quebec and Ottawa on the
important issue of manpower training, an agreement in principle
has finally been reached and was signed this morning by the two
governments.
For 32 years, premier after premier in Quebec made the same
request, over and over again. Ottawa dragged its feet until an
election was imminent and has now, for the second time, signed a
manpower agreement, as it did in 1993, when the parties were
Bourassa and Campbell.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House what has changed since
the famous statement in which he said Quebec was being
capricious when Premier Johnson asked for the patriation of
manpower training? Is it because he almost lost the referendum or
because an election is imminent that the Prime Minister has
suddenly become so flexible?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder why there is such a difference between the position of the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois and that of the Premier of Quebec on
this issue. I think the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of
Canada were very pleased when they signed this very important
document on manpower this morning.
So I wonder why the Bloc Quebecois House leader is
complaining about this great achievement of the federal
government and the Government of Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect for the hon. member, he may not be
talking about the same agreement. Perhaps that is the problem.
In July 1965, Premier Jean Lesage, who was not, as far as I
know, a sovereignist, already wanted Quebec to have full
constitutional authority over manpower training, not an
administrative agreement, but full constitutional authority.
Will the Prime Minister admit that an administrative agreement
is only a first step, that Quebec is not getting back its jurisdiction
over manpower training and the agreement in principle signed this
morning in an almost friendly fashion is far removed from the
initial request made by Premier Lesage in 1965?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I just want to repeat the facts. What the Premier of Quebec said this
morning was the exact opposite. He accepted this agreement with
great pleasure, and I wonder why the position of the Bloc
Quebecois in this House is at odds with the position taken by the
Premier of Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am astonished that someone with the hon. member's
experience is surprised that Quebec members do not take exactly
the same position. In Quebec, we are used to watching the
federalists, and they do not necessarily take the same line they do
in Quebec City. This has happened before.
He said he was surprised, but I am not sure he listened to the
same press conference. Of course Mr. Bouchard is pleased, of
9989
course he signed the agreement, and of course it is a first step, just a
first step in the right direction. But a very small step.
(1420)
We can hardly say this is a great step for mankind, as they said
when they walked on the moon. This is a small step. So we should
get the facts straight. The jurisdiction remains with Ottawa. We are
still bound by an administrative agreement. We are not sovereign in
this respect.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House why Ottawa did not, as
requested by Quebec, do a full transfer of jurisdiction over
manpower training, which after all would only reflect the
Constitution?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois in the House just made a very
important admission. She admitted that she does not want to
separate from Canada but only wants to amend the Constitution.
That is an important point.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
For weeks, the official opposition and event organizers have
asked the Minister of Health to change his anti-smoking
legislation. Each time, they met with refusal. On the eve of federal
elections, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health are
promising that by the end of 1997 they will introduce a bill to
amend the anti-smoking legislation, which would meet
international standards on sponsorships.
How does the government explain its decision now, on the eve of
elections, to promise amendments to the legislation on tobacco
industry sponsorships, when these amendments were proposed by
the Bloc Quebecois and all rejected by the government in
committee and in the House?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have to keep in mind that the tobacco legislation is a very
comprehensive and very effective piece of legislation. It puts
restrictions on the price, on the product, on the place and even the
promotion. This will be effective in curbing smoking in this
country.
With regard to the letter that I have provided to the individuals
she has referred to, the hon. member is very much aware that both
in the House of Commons as well as in the other place I have
indicated to groups across the country that I am prepared to consult
in a very meaningful way and if necessary, as I indicated in the
letter, changes will be made.
I do not think the hon. member should prejudge what those
changes might be.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone
remembers the broken promise to scrap the GST.
Now that we know the worth of this government's promises,
could we also know, before the elections, the amendments the
minister intends to make to this legislation?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am sorry that members of the Bloc have decided to be partisan on
this issue.
Let us keep in mind that on second reading members of the Bloc
were in favour of the bill. But when it came to third reading they
voted against the principles of this bill, thereby doing a flip-flop in
terms of their position as it relates to tobacco.
I suggest to the hon. member and to others that one should not
venture into the field of prejudging amendments, whether they be
in the form of regulation or thereafter.
We have to embark on a period of consultation. That is part and
parcel of the bill and it is part and parcel of what I will do in the
future.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the finance minister, record high bankruptcies in
Canada in January are a good thing.
If he thinks it is such a good thing he must be laughing himself
silly over the 78 months in a row of unemployment over 9 per cent
in this country. The 800,000 people out there who are moonlighting
just to put food on the table must be a real knee slapper for the
finance minister.
Can the finance minister explain to Canadians his hare brained
theory of how record high bankruptcies, record high debt, record
high unemployment and record high taxes are good for the
Canadian people? Let us hear the Liberal logic on that one.
(1425 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
would probably advance the cause of the Reform Party a bit more if
it were able to cite people accurately and not create straw men on
the premises of its questions.
Of course nobody ever said that bankruptcies were a good thing.
What I did say was that business bankruptcies were down and the
normal procedure is that personal bankruptcies decline following
9990
business bankruptcies. As a result of that, it may well be that we are
seeing light at the end of the tunnel.
I have also said very clearly that the high number of personal
bankruptcies in Canada, the United States and in most western
countries is in fact a source of considerable concern. Most people
think they are due not to high levels of unemployment, as the hon.
member is alleging, and the same situation exists in the United
States, but that they are due to a very high use of credit.
The member opposite clearly did not understand what I said.
That normally happens with this member. The member is
incredibly eager but I will give him an opportunity because I must
say that there is nothing I enjoy more than responding to his
questions.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to contribute to the minister's pleasure.
The finance minister says that Canadians should be managing
their debt better. That is what he said. Do they really need to take
advice from a minister who has added $100 billion to the Canadian
debt in the past 3.5 years, someone who has sprinkled armouries
around the country like Johnny Appleseed over the past week and
who has doled out hundreds of millions of dollars in pre-election
goodies?
How does the minister have the nerve to lecture Canadians on
their debt levels when after this past week he has practically worn
the numbers off the national credit card? Where does he get the
nerve?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the very high level of household debt that exists in Canada is a
direct result of the recession, 1989 to 1992. What we saw was that
personal debt rose, disposable income dropped and Canadians
found themselves, as a result of policies largely recommended by
the Reform Party, in rather deep difficulty.
Since 1993, when we took over, the levels of household debt
have dropped. The levels of household net worth have risen. The
levels of household income have stabilized.
However, there is one level of bankruptcy in this country that
shows no sign of getting better, the degree of intellectual
bankruptcy in the Reform Party.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
is under this government we have record high levels of personal
debt, record high bankruptcies, record high levels of personal taxes
and record levels of unemployment. That is the Liberal record.
Canadians know why that has happened. One of the big reasons
we have all these problems is the government has driven tax levels
through the roof.
After 3.5 years of doing diddly, after 3.5 years of shrinking
incomes and after 3.5 years of rising debts, can the finance minister
explain to voters why they should be masochistic enough to have
that done to them for another four years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think it was two weeks ago that the hon. member's expression was
rinky-dink, now it is doing diddly. I want to congratulate the
Reform Party on its extensive vocabulary.
If the hon. member would like to know the Liberal record
perhaps I could remind him. In the month of February
manufacturing shipments rose. In the month of February housing
starts rose 24,700 units. Real merchandise exports increased by 1.3
per cent. The nominal merchandise trade surplus increased by $2.5
billion. The real net worth per household rose 2.7 per cent. Gross
domestic product up again, unemployment down, employment up
and retail sales increases. That is the Liberal record and we will
stand behind that.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members not to use props during
question period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
(1430)
According to national defence department estimates, it will cost
$242 million to decontaminate 21 of the 42 American radar bases
on the DEW line. It is therefore likely that it will cost $484 million
to decontaminate all the sites. We know that the United States will
pay $100 million in damages to Canada for decontamination of
these military sites.
By burying the waste, as the Inuit claims it is doing, instead of
decontaminating it, which would eliminate all toxic substances, but
which would also be more expensive, is the government merely
trying to save money?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the work that
was to be done following the departure of U.S. military forces was
considered, at the time, to be normal and reasonable. Obviously,
the Government of Canada recognizes its obligations with respect
to the environment and we recognize that we must take all means
necessary to try to clean up the sites to which my hon. colleague is
referring.
I would like to point out, however, that as a general rule the
American government has never paid any compensation for
problems that may have occurred following its departure from
military installations.
As for the situation involving Canada, we have succeeded in
negotiating an agreement whereby the American government will
9991
pay US$100 million, which is a considerable amount and which is a
first. Regardless of what the Americans do in this connection, the
Government of Canada will respect its environmental obligations.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
burying PCBs or other toxic substances, Canada is creating a
veritable time bomb, which, very soon, will contaminate the water
table and the fragile habitat in northern areas.
Should the minister not immediately impose a moratorium on
burying wastes until his department has made a complete and
exhaustive assessment of the environmental situation at military
sites and found an ecological manner in which to destroy these
contaminants?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
phenomenon that several sectors of the government and of the
private sector must address. It is now recognized that situations
that were acceptable in the past are no longer tolerable.
The Government of Canada has undertaken to do as much as it
can to protect the environment, both in the north and elsewhere in
the country. The agreement signed with the United States, which
has not yet been approved by Congress, will make it possible for us
to do some of the work.
There is no doubt that the sites to which the hon. member is
referring are not the only locations where there is a problem. The
Department of the Environment, the provinces and the federal
government are aware that there are several locations in the country
facing the same problem.
While it is not just up to the Department of National Defence, I
would like to reiterate that the Government of Canada will do its
utmost in all circumstances to ensure the integrity of the
environment in a contemporary situation such as the one with
which we must contend and in the situations she has raised today in
the House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the separatist government and the Liberal Party of Quebec
affirmed or claimed that Quebec alone can determine its future
regardless of English, aboriginal or other minorities in that
province, regardless of what the rest of Canada thinks and
regardless of the rule of law as stated in Canada's Constitution. Mr.
Johnson went so far as to say: ``It is our right in Quebec to take over
ourselves, our development and our destiny''.
During debate on Bill C-95 earlier today the attorney general
stated that he is the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Has he communicated to Mr. Johnson and to the separatist
government in Quebec that last Wednesday's rhetoric is
unacceptable to the government and will not be acceptable in the
coming election campaign?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have shown over the period of
the last period of years that to this government, actions speak
louder than words. We have done better than talk about this. We
have referred to the Supreme Court of Canada fundamental
questions about the constitutionality of the position taken by the
Government of Quebec which claims that it can proceed entirely
without reference to the courts and the Constitution.
We believe that is wrong. As a result we have put to the Supreme
Court of Canada in a reference questions to determine the answer:
Can the Government of Quebec unilaterally act to separate from
the rest of the country without reference to the Constitution?
(1435 )
We believe it cannot. We have put our position before the court.
We have done the responsible thing with respect to the
Constitution. We have asked the Supreme Court of Canada to rule
that the Constitution applies throughout this country.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the minister should get his Quebec counterpart to join in
the intervener stage to see if he could come to some agreement on
that plan.
We are promised by the leader in Quebec that by 1998 we will
have another referendum and that he will be going to the people at
that time. Has the justice minister decided what he will do if such a
thing occurs to ensure that the question is fair and that the
unilateral declaration of independence does not have any weight in
Canadian law?
We are unwilling on this side of the House to let the Quebec
separatists manipulate the question, set the agenda and destroy the
country-
Some hon. members: Sit down.
The Speaker: I find the question to be hypothetical. If the hon.
Minister of Justice cares to address it he may.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
9992
On April 10, the official opposition brought up the tragic case
of Suzie Robitaille, whose children are still in Egypt, having been
abducted by their father nearly two years ago. In this case, as in
many others, the government is dragging its feet, even though one
of the children is seriously ill. We have learned that Canada is
currently involved in negotiating a bilateral agreement with Egypt
concerning child abduction.
Does the minister commit to making signature of the bilateral
agreement with Egypt conditional upon the settlement of cases in
dispute, in particular the one concerning the children of Suzie
Robitaille?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first let me clarify that negotiations are under way.
Officials are in Cairo right now negotiating a new consular
agreement with Egypt that would allow us to have a better set of
rules, disciplines and initiatives to protect Canadian rights.
Unfortunately, Egypt does not adhere to the Hague convention
with respect to the abduction of children. It has not signed that
covenant. Therefore, we have no standing in international law that
would require Egypt to return the children.
We will continue to work as actively as we can with Egyptian
authorities and impress on them the necessity to give Mrs.
Robitaille her rightful place in court, to make sure that she has
access to the children and, if at all possible, to adhere to the
Canadian judgment, which is to return the children.
We will continue to do what we can, but we are limited by the
fact that Egypt has its own laws and we must work within that legal
framework. However, I can promise the hon. member that we will
continue to work very closely with Mrs. Robitaille to do whatever
we can to help her in this very difficult situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is
a law. Egypt is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child, and is not respecting that convention.
Given the health status of Mrs. Robitaille's eldest child, which
continues to deteriorate, can the minister, at the very least,
implement emergency repatriation measures for this seriously ill
child?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intend to be in contact with my counterpart, the
Egyptian foreign minister, within the next day or two to make these
representations.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister has advised Mr. Sheppard of Calgary, Alberta that he will
not be compensated for the loss of his private property. The justice
minister's order in council which prohibited Mr. Sheppard's
firearm forced this Calgarian and thousands more Canadians to
turn over their property to local authorities without compensation.
How can the Minister of Justice seize property that was legally
acquired and lawfully held without compensation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-68 the government took
steps to take off the market those handguns which are small, easily
concealed and cheaply manufactured. They are called Saturday
night specials in the United States and they account for more police
killings than any other form of firearm in that country. We also
took off the market some military type assault weapons.
The government does not believe that Canadians want a country
in which people can have access to military type assault weapons
and Saturday night specials.
(1440 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister failed to answer the question. Yes, he has taken this
property from Canadians, but the question was why he has not
compensated them. That property was legally acquired and
lawfully held.
How can he say that he stands for the rights of Canadians when
he takes their property from them without compensation? How can
he do this? Will he answer the question?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well
that, when we passed orders in council which took guns out of the
hands of people, we compensated them for the cost.
For those that were prohibited, they were grandfathered. People
were allowed to keep them and use them for the rest of their lives
and to sell them to others in the same class of ownership.
The real difficulty this hon. member has is that he and his
members are against gun control. The Reform Party, the
Conservative Party and the NDP are against gun control.
The time will come in the not distant future when the people of
Canada will have the opportunity to express themselves on the
subject. On that occasion, this member, the other members of the
Reform Party, the Tories-wherever they may be-and the NDP
9993
are going to find out the cost of opposing what Canadians want:
gun control.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
On a number of occasions, we have called for the federal
government to set up a fund to compensate for the negative effects
of the closure of the St. Hubert military base and we have insisted
that the region be treated just like other Canadian communities,
where bases were closed, like Cornwallis, for example, which
received over $7.5 million.
Could the minister confirm today his government's intention to
provide compensation for the closure of the St. Hubert base?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the
military bases were closed or reduced, in certain regions,
evaluations and analyses were done to assess the economic impact
on the region.
Obviously, there were a series of closures that had significant
impact. The hon. member mentioned Cornwallis, for example. In
my province, however, the military base at Chatham was closed at
a cost of 1,000 civilian and military jobs.
I think that, in all the reductions we have faced at national
defence and in the Canadian forces, we have been as fair as
possible and have applied similar criteria, as circumstances
dictated, across the country, including in St. Hubert.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder whether the minister does not intend to use the upcoming
campaign to announce the payment of compensation, which we
estimate at several million dollars, for the loss of 1,400 jobs, when
all we want is for the government to give St. Hubert what it is
entitled to.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that a
number of communities were affected by the restructuring, and
reduction in the number of military facilities across the country.
However, I think the Government of Canada made a major
contribution in the St. Hubert region. I was there about ten days
ago, and I saw the facility the Government of Canada set up in St.
Hubert. We would have much preferred to have that, in northern
New Brunswick, rather than limited economic spinoffs as the result
of the closure of the Chatham base.
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Montreal a few hours ago, the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Human Resources Development, signed an agreement in principle
between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec
on manpower development.
Can the parliamentary secretary explain to the House what this
agreement in principle means for the men and women of Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is a
very important day for Canada and the Government of Quebec.
As my colleague has said, today we have officially announced
the historic labour market agreement in principle with Quebec.
(1445 )
We must consider how many years the discussions have been
going on. There is a consensus in Quebec on labour market
development. The importance of the agreement is considerable in
that some $3 billion will be transferred to Quebec over the next five
years. It will have immediate benefits for workers in Quebec.
I think we can say this is an historic occasion. We hope the
agreement will be completed very soon and the active measures of
the employment insurance system will go toward helping
employees and employers put people back to work in the province
of Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice knows very well the Reform Party is not against
gun control. We are against the confiscation-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): We are against the confiscation
of lawfully held property by the government without
compensation.
Now the government is falling over itself to pass anti-gang
legislation for Quebec before the Prime Minister calls the election
this Sunday.
Could the Minister of Justice explain why the victims bill of
rights has languished in his office for more than a year when it
could benefit all Canadians? Why has that bill not received the
same high priority he is giving to the anti-gang legislation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member heard the
9994
peals of laughter extending across the country from sea to sea to
sea as he tried to change the lamentable position of his party at the
last minute. His party is against gun control and always has been.
The hon. member asked about victims. I can do no better than to
point to the record of the government time after time, whether it is
through amendments to the code on sentencing or the gun control
bill. I well remember the day when the victims came to this
building, having lost loved ones to crimes of violence committed
by firearms, guns in the hands of people who should not have had
them. They asked us to pass Bill C-68 to provide for the
registration of all firearms, a bill and a plea to which his party
turned a deaf ear.
I say to him, his colleagues in the Reform Party, the
Conservatives and the NDP that they will have to answer to the
Canadian people in coming months why they did not listen to the
pleas of victims and join with us to adopt meaningful gun control.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
nothing wrong with asking the government to compensate people
for confiscated property that was lawfully obtained. The minister
can stand there and say people are laughing about that. People are
upset the government would take their property without
compensation.
In terms of the anti-gang legislation, if the minister would give
the same priority to the victims bill of rights it would have much
greater impact not just on gangs but on everybody across the
country.
Why will the minister not admit he is playing election politics
prior to the election and has no intention of ever passing the victims
rights bill?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what draws laughter is the pretence
by members of the Reform Party that they are not against gun
control. We all know they are and they are going to pay the price
for it, as are the Tories and the NDP.
As for the hon. member's question, he talks about victims rights
as though they are something that can be achieved by writing out
something on a piece of paper and calling it a bill of rights.
Let me tell him something about victims and their rights. Last
week I was in Montreal and I met a woman whose 11-year old son
was killed by a bomb explosion on the streets of Montreal. The
Reform Party does not like to hear this because it is truth and
reality as opposed to rhetoric and superficiality.
That woman whose 11-year old son had been killed in the gang
war asked me as the Minister of Justice to do everything I could to
get Bill C-95, the anti-organized crime bill, through Parliament so
that the police would have more tools to try to find the people who
killed her son.
(1450)
That is what we should do to achieve victims rights and that is
what the government has done to achieve victims right. We have
passed meaningful legislation that makes a difference instead of
just talking a good game.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
On December 3 of last year, the Minister of Human Resources
Development made the following statement: ``I would like to
reassure the House that, if the former Singer employees take their
case to court, our department will proceed with all due speed. I
have asked my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to act
accordingly, in order to facilitate matters''. Notification of the
lawsuit was given on December 13, and these pensioners continue
to suffer from inhumane delays.
What has the Minister of Justice done, in concrete terms, to
settle the situation of the former Singer employees?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that matter is in the hands of the
Minister of Human Resources Development. I am sure everything
possible is being done to carry the matter forward as quickly as
possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, judging
by the minister's response, it is perfectly clear that he is not up to
date with the case in the least. Yet, four months ago, he said: ``I will
proceed with all due speed, as will my colleague''. This is not the
case at the moment. The average age of these people is 80 years.
When does the Minister of Justice intend to produce his defence?
Normally, a defence takes a while to produce, and the federal
government's lawyers have not yet produced one. When does the
Minister of Justice intend to come up with it? How, once and for
all, is he going to settle the case of the former Singer employees?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as is normal
in this place when former employees are in front of the courts
presenting a lawsuit, it would be inappropriate for us to get into the
lawsuit per se.
9995
We can say we are willing and we are aware. We are trying to
minimize delays. Once we deal with the delays and the court case
is through, we would certainly be willing to look at the results
of the court case.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have bungled their responsibility for
grain transportation. Grain shipment delays have cost prairie
farmers almost $100 million this year alone due to demurrage
charges and lost sales. The Liberals have created a cash crunch on
the prairies.
Tragically the best the minister can do is announce he will
merely start to probe the problem sooner rather than later, knowing
that we are on the verge of an election call.
In light of his failure to create a more efficient and accountable
grain transportation system, and given current world prices for
wheat, does the minister intend to increase the interim prices paid
by the Canadian Wheat Board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Canadian Wheat Board
indicated a short time ago, it has made certain recommendations
with respect to initial payments. Those recommendations are in the
normal course under consideration at the present time.
The hon. gentleman will know that under this government we
have dramatically shortened the response time to that kind of
recommendation from the Canadian Wheat Board. Under our
predecessors recommendations sometimes took several months to
be acted upon. In the case of this government we have shortened
the time to a matter of a few days when the consideration is
completed.
The Canadian Wheat Board will announce the result in the
ordinary course taking into account the very important
consideration that one would not want to put the guarantees in
jeopardy, which is a matter of very significant concern to the
Minister of Finance.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the Liberal government is currently
attempting to paper over 3.5 years of failures in a frantic
pre-election flurry of deal making and vote buying the minister of
agriculture has the cloak of secrecy around which the Canadian
Wheat Board operates, allowing him to use the timing of increases
and interim prices for political purposes.
The crop year is nearly three-quarters complete. Will the
minister of agriculture announce any increases in interim prices
prior to the pending election, probably this week? Or, is he saving
his announcement as yet another Liberal election goodie for during
the campaign?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should
know-he may have missed it in his dramatic search for hyperbole
and overblown rhetoric-that I do not make these announcements.
The Canadian Wheat Board makes these announcements in the
ordinary course of events. As rapidly as the Canadian Wheat Board
is in a position to do so and taking into account all relevant
circumstances the announcement will be made, election or no
election.
* * *
(1455)
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
Considering the fact that we are approaching the 11th
anniversary of the imposition of the visa requirement for
Portuguese persons wishing to travel to Canada, considering the
fact that the Portugal alone among European Union countries is
subject to the restrictive visa requirement policy, and considering
the policy's negative impact on business between our two nations,
could the minister indicate to the House the government's position
of visa requirements for Portuguese persons wishing to travel to
Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that on
May 1 citizens of Portugal will no longer be required to obtain a
visitor's visas to visit Canada.
We all know the Portuguese community has contributed
enormously to the social and economic development of the
country. We hope the decision of visa free access will improve
business, economic and cultural exchanges, as well as promote
tourism between the two countries.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Only a few months before Hong Kong is returned to China, the
latter has announced that it intends to tighten up the regulations for
public demonstrations, in addition to banning all contacts abroad in
the case of political parties. The situation is disturbing, to say the
least, as regards the freedoms the Hong Kong Chinese will enjoy
after China takes over.
Could the minister tell us whether Canada intends to take action
against China to prevent the erosion of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of the Chinese living in Hong Kong after the
changeover?
9996
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made consistent representations. As late as today
at lunch the secretary of state for Asia and myself met with Mr. Lu
Ping, the Chinese minister responsible for the transition in Hong
Kong. We brought to his attention our concern about the proposed
changes. Those changes have not been made yet. They are still
being considered by the Hong Kong legislature.
We have certainly made our views known. We think a maximum
amount of consistency must be maintained in terms of freedom of
the press, the right to demonstration and the right of political
parties to maintain their autonomy.
We are making all efforts to ensure that both the Chinese
authority and the Hong Kong authority know exactly where Canada
stands.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals promised to scrap and abolish the GST.
Instead of scrapping the GST as it promised, the government has
not only expanded the GST into the harmonized sales tax in the
Atlantic provinces but is now charging Canadians outside Atlantic
Canada the expanded tax as well.
Effective April 1 the new Liberal postal tax grab means that
Canadians across the nation will now pay Atlantic Canada's
harmonized sales tax, an additional 15 per cent surcharge, on
parcels and courier mail sent to the three Atlantic provinces with
the harmonized sales tax.
My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Why are all Canadians being forced to pay the 15 per cent HST on
parcels and courier mail sent to Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member ought to know, a sales tax has always been paid by
recipients in provinces where the tax is imposed. There is no
change in this.
What change has been brought in is that Atlantic Canada has
been given a tremendous opportunity to lower its costs so that its
small and medium size business can create jobs. At the same time
Atlantic Canadians have been given a lower consumer cost on a
vast range of goods from refrigerators to automobiles. It is very
clearly an important part of the rebuilding of the Atlantic Canadian
economy.
That is why Atlantic Canadian premiers are going across the
country. It is something Atlantic Canada and its premiers can be
proud of.
(1500 )
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Later today I will be introducing a petition signed by over 1,700
people. This is part of a larger petition signed by over-
The Speaker: No props, please.
Mr. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the government in the red book in
1993 promised multi-year funding. What kind of long term stable
funding results in hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts? How can
government members face voters and claim that the red book
commitment has been honoured without at least blushing?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister announced recently
that there will be stable funding for the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. This is an opportunity for the CBC to start looking at
how it fulfils its mandate, to look at how it does things more
effectively and efficiently.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of International Cooperation.
[English]
Some of my constituents are concerned about the lack of food,
medicine and affordable energy in Bulgaria. The country recently
elected a coalition government to replace the previous unstable
communist regime. Can the minister tell me what Canada is doing
to help alleviate the humanitarian instability in Bulgaria?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1992 the federal government has provided some $2 million of
assistance to Bulgaria. As well, a few weeks ago Canada agreed to
activate a $10 million untied line of credit which can be used for
the purchase of, among other things, Canadian wheat and other
commodities. We feel this would be truly beneficial to the people
of Bulgaria. Canada has also supplied election observers to
Bulgaria and we intend to continue to do so.
As of yet the Government of Bulgaria has not made an
international appeal for humanitarian aid. Nevertheless we have
extended the line of credit I have just described.
9997
The Speaker: Colleagues, that brings to a close our question
period.
[Translation]
It is a pleasure to welcome to our gallery a group of young
Canadians who have done so much for their country.
[English]
They are young men and women who have distinguished
themselves in many fields. They are talented and very hardworking
young Canadians who have made a difference and they are symbols
of excellence.
Please welcome the winners of the 1997 YTV Achievement
Awards.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
9997
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 64th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on the business of
supply.
(1505)
[English]
The work on the business of supply was undertaken by a
subcommittee which I had the privilege of chairing. I want to thank
the members of the subcommittee for their dedication and hard
work on an issue which has very little public profile and not much
more in this House but which touches on the very core of
Parliament's responsibility to tell the government how and how
much money it may raise and spend.
I also want to strongly recommend to the House that this report
be brought to the attention of the members of the 36th Parliament
for consideration. The procedure and House affairs committee has
already agreed to ask House officials to draft amendments to the
standing orders based on this report.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-407, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill to amend the
Canada Elections Act to address the situation I encountered last fall
in which a private company tried to launder its corporate
contributions to the Liberal Party by asking its employees to donate
directly to the party and promising to reimburse the employees the
full amount of their donations.
This practice hides the donations of companies which have a lot
of influence with the government. It puts unethical pressure on
employees who do not wish to support the political party of the
company's choice and it rips off the taxpayer because donations
from individuals receive higher tax exemptions than corporate
donations.
Elections Canada agrees that this practice needs to be prohibited
in the act and I hope to receive the support of all members for this
proposal.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present on behalf of my constitutions.
In the first the petitioners are asking for the federal government
to remove the GST and other tax on reading materials. They urge
Parliament to remove the GST from books, magazines and
newspapers. They ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's
repeated promise to remove federal sales taxes from reading
materials.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition is from constituents who are upset with some recent court
decisions on the age of consent. They are asking that the age of
consent be raised to 18. They say the majority of Canadians believe
that the age of consent laws are designed to control adults who
want sex with minors.
Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament will amend the
Criminal Code of Canada to set the age of consent at 18, with the
exception of husband-wife relationships, so as to provide
protection from exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition from almost 50 people in the riding of Peterborough who
are concerned about the immigration tax.
Whereas the federal government has imposed an immigration
tax of $975, whereas this tax is discriminatory with respect to
perspective immigrants from developing countries where the
average annual income is sometimes even less than the amount of
the tax, and whereas this tax is particular odious when it applies to
refugees who are among the most destitute of our immigrants, the
9998
petitioners call on the government to appeal this immigration tax
immediately, particularly in the case of refugees.
I know there have been changes in this tax very recently but even
so I support this petition.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I caution hon. members
not to refer to whether they support or oppose a petition.
(1510)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
first petition comes from Delta, B.C. The petitioners draw to the
attention of the House that our police officers and firefighters place
their lives at risk on a daily basis as they serve the emergency needs
of all Canadians.
They also state that in many cases the families of firefighters and
police officers killed in the line of duty are left without sufficient
financial means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the benefit of families of police officers and
firefighters killed in the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families that choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition is from Amherst, Nova Scotia.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome
and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable
by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and other of the risk associated with alcohol consumption.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in
Calgary North requesting Parliament to affirm the duty of parents
to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 of Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently written.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege of introducing a petition with some
1,700 signatures.
The petitioners point out that effective April 1, 1997 about 33
per cent of CBC radio and TV programming, both national and
regional, will be lost. This is because of insufficient financial
resources due to the Liberal Party's failure to honour its 1993 red
book commitments.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to immediately
restore CBC funding to the promised level of financial support
which existed as of January 1, 1994 so that the cutbacks and the
layoffs at the CBC can be rescinded.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 60 of my constituents
who are concerned about the GST on reading material.
The petition reads that the GST is the first federal tax in
Canadian history to apply to the bible and other reading material.
Taxing reading material is unfair and wrong. Literacy and
reading are critical to Canada's future. Removing the GST from
reading material will help promote literacy in Canada.
Therefore the petitioners urge Parliament to remove the GST
from books, magazines and newspapers.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present a petition dealing with section 43. I
have in my hand petitions from over 175 individuals from
Manitoba, 350 from the New Market-St. Catharines-Beamsville
area, 25 from the Calgary area, 125 from Beamsville, Ontario, and
another 25 signatures from Calgary.
These people draw to the attention of the House that section 43
recognizes the primary role of parents in raising and disciplining
their children, that the federal government is under pressure from
various sources including the UN to change section 43, that the
removal of section 43 would strengthen the role of bureaucrats and
weaken the role of parents, and that the government now continues
to fund research by people opposed to its removal.
9999
These petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of
parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as well I have a petition regarding the age of consent.
This is from 185 individuals from Maple Ridge, Burnaby and
White Rock in British Columbia. These citizens call on Parliament
to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to raise the age of consent
for sexual activities between a young person and an adult from 14
to 16.
(1515 )
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions on the same topic. One petition has 54 signatures, the
other has 28, and most of them come from the Ottawa area.
The petitioners state that the national highway policy study
identified job creation, economic development, national unity,
saving lives and avoiding injuries, lower congestion, lower vehicle
operating costs and better international competitiveness as
benefits. They call on Parliament to join with the provincial
governments to make the national highway system upgrading
possible.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Helen Hawthorne,
and 24 others who are concerned that paying income taxes which
go toward the Canadian military is an infringement of the freedom
of conscience of those who object to participating in military
activity.
The petitioners ask Parliament to establish peace tax legislation
by passing into law the conscientious objection act which
recognizes the right of conscientious objectors to not pay for the
military but to apply that portion of their taxes that was to be used
for military purposes toward peaceful, non-military purposes.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is with great sadness that I table
this petition.
The petitioners grieve that whereas Jacqueline Mariana
MacLellan, born as a Canadian citizen, was kidnapped by her
father on October 27, 1996 and taken to Bermuda; whereas the
mother, Marguerite M. Kopaniak, holds a custody order awarded
by the Supreme Court of Ontario which found that the father, Peter
R. MacLellan, is in contempt of said court; and whereas Bermuda
is not a signatory to the Hague convention, thus eliminating the
generally adhered to rules to return abducted children to the
country of original jurisdiction, the petitioners call on Parliament
to take action to have the Bermuda authorities recognize and
honour the Canadian jurisdiction over this child and cause for the
child to be returned to Canada into the care and custody of the
mother.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a second petition which I wish to present concerning NATO.
The petitioners ask that central and east European countries be
allowed to enter an enlarged NATO, excluding non priori.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a third petition which I wish to present concerning co-op
housing. The petitioners call on the government not to cave into the
Ontario government but to preserve co-op housing as it exists
today.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present petitions on behalf of hundreds of constituents and
concerned citizens from across the country who have a number of
issues which they would like Parliament to address.
First, over 600 petitioners pray that Parliament will enact
legislation to establish a national pedophile registry.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, other
petitioners pray that violent offenders not be eligible for parole
until their full sentence is served.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition requests that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition requests that Parliament provide core funding to
ensure that all women diagnosed with breast cancer have access,
through survivor list support groups, to information on the various
treatments available in their community.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker,
another petition requests that the federal government join with
provincial governments to make the national highway system
upgrading possible in 1997.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, the
final petition requests that Parliament declare and confirm
immediately that Canada is indivisible.
10000
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10000
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1520)
[English]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-95, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organizations) and to
amend other acts in consequence, Mr. Milliken in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman: House again in committee of the whole
on Bill C-95. When the committee was interrupted at 2 p.m., clause
1 of the bill was under consideration. Is there a desire for further
consideration of clause 1?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at two
o'clock, questions had been put to me by the member for Fraser
Valley East. In fairness to his questions, it may be best that I record
my responses now. I can do so very briefly.
The hon. member asserted that the chiefs of police have been
asking for this legislation since 1994 and here we are five days
before an election call with the bill.
First, I do not think that any of us knows when there will be an
election nor should our actions in the House be based on those
calculations. We should act as we see it in the public interest, and
that is what the government is doing.
Since at least 1984, the chiefs of police and the police
community in general have been asking Parliament to give them
more effective tools to deal with organized crime. The fact that the
government has listened to the police community saying it needs
more tools is evidenced by this legislation which has not been
developed over the last few weeks, but rather emerges from the last
18 months of methodical preparation and consultation.
On March 21, senior ministers of the Quebec government invited
me to a meeting at which they told me in the presence of some 14
municipal mayors that they wanted us to accelerate the work which
was already under way to deal with organized crime. It was in
connection with that we completed the work we had started 18
months ago and produced Bill C-95.
The hon. member made reference to some newspaper stories
about how law and politics may commingle. I dare say that these
issues should not be determined on the basis of the volume of
newsprint that is generated for one side or the other. Not only do I
think that the hon. member might find that the volume is very much
in favour of the government acting decisively to save lives through
this legislation, I also think we should make our own judgment. As
parliamentarians it is our duty to do so.
We are here today to consider in detail the clauses of the bill. I
welcome the opportunity and I think we should use our time in that
way.
The hon. member also made reference to some sections in Bill
C-42, which he said had slipped through the House. I want to assure
the hon. member that nothing slipped through in Bill C-41. Bill
C-41 was a comprehensive reform of the sentencing laws in the
Criminal Code. Among other things it provided for conditional
sentences, another alternative available to sentencing courts in
appropriate cases. It did not slip through. It was considered over
many years and was the subject of broad public comment. It was
concluded as a strategic decision by the Parliament of Canada to
provide sentencing courts with a useful alternative.
The fact that the section has been amended through Bill C-17
ought not to discourage parliamentarians. A wide variety of
legislation can be improved through amendment after experience is
gained with it. That is exactly what happened with the conditional
sentencing provisions of Bill C-41. We have now made it clear
through an amendment, to which all parties agreed, that before the
courts award a conditional sentence they should have regard not
only to whether the person might be a danger to the community
which was the original test, but also all of the principles that
traditionally govern the determination of sentence, including
repudiation, deterrence, denunciation and protection of the
community.
Nothing has slipped through. Legislation was enacted by
Parliament to achieve a purpose. I think it has now been improved
with the amendment we all agreed on and which forms part of Bill
C-17.
The hon. member then turned to the substance of Bill C-95, and
he raised questions in relation to the definitions and whether the
definitions are appropriate for the purpose we are trying to achieve
with this legislation. I suggest that they are, that they have been
designed and drafted to catch those who have dedicated their lives
to the commission of serious crime as a career and who are acting
in groups for that purpose. That is exactly what we are intending to
achieve with the definitions that we have chosen.
10001
(1525)
The hon. member made reference to victims. As I said earlier
today, if we really want to serve the interests of victims, not just
talk about it with a so-called victims bill of rights-most of which
deals with provincial jurisdiction anyway-but if we want to cut
through the rhetoric and get to the results, if we want to set aside
the slogans and get to the substance, if we want to go beyond the
symptoms and deal with the sources of the problem, then we should
look at what Bill C-95 does for us.
Last week I met with a victim, a woman who had lost her little
boy to the gang wars in the Montreal area. He was an 11 year old
whose innocent life was taken because he was at the wrong place at
the wrong time, walking down the street on an errand for his
mother. She is a victim. She is asking Parliament for help. She met
with me last week and asked me to do everything I could to have
this bill enacted so that the police would have the tools they could
use in an effort to find those responsible for taking the life of her
little boy.
Here is something we can do for victims that will mean
something. It is not just an empty rhetorical flourish to capture the
newspaper headlines but substantive action that will improve the
criminal justice system so that we might have fewer victims in the
future. That is a much more laudable objective and it is for that
purpose we have introduced Bill C-95.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Minister, I find it very refreshing to hear you in the debate on this
bill saying that your department has been working on it for 18
months.
However, I find that rather strange, because barely four weeks
ago the Prime Minister was saying that it did not come under his
jurisdiction and that he was washing his hands of it. I am very glad
though that the government changed its position and agrees that it
is within its jurisdiction to legislate in this area.
I would like you to convince me about one thing, because I heard
you speak on a number of occasions, and when I look at the
definitions and the wording of the bill, I see that we do not perhaps
agree on an important point. I wonder if you would tell me clearly
what clause in this bill applies to the leaders, since you say to the
press that the bill deals with the leaders?
I must say, at the outset, that this bill is a step forward and the
government is going to do everything it can to get it passed. The
step you have just taken is something we have been asking for since
1995. What the government realized just now, we have known
since 1995. However the government failed to act.
Had it acted in time, we would not be considering this bill one
week before an election call, even though you say you do not know
the date. Let us not bury our heads in the sand, we are adults and
we can see what is going on both in this House and outside it. I do
not understand why the government did not act faster. That having
been said, Mr. Rock, where exactly in the bill does it refer to the
leaders, since, the way I understand it, according to the definitions
in the bill, a crime has to be committed?
The Deputy Chairman: The hon. member will address the
Chair, even if we are in committee of the whole.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, earlier the minister spoke
directly to someone for 15 minutes and you did not call him to
order. I will address my remarks to him through you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bélair: It is because you are a member of the Bloc
Quebecois.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, it is because we are in the Bloc
Quebecois that we are called to order as the Liberal member across
has said. However, I will address the Chair, because I am pleased to
do so.
An hon. member: How sad.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Earlier we listened to the Liberals, and we
made no disparaging remarks. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to
ask the members opposite not to make any disparaging remarks
either, and we will get along just fine.
(1530)
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the minister tell me where in
the bill the leaders are mentioned, because, according to the
definitions in the clause under study and in the subsequent clauses,
an individual must have committed an offence. We know perfectly
well that the leaders are not the ones committing the crimes, but
rather their subordinates.
I would like to know from the minister where the bill deals with
the leaders and how he intends to implement these clauses, if it
does.
Mr. Rock: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I must respond to the hon.
member's comment that everyone has been waiting a long time for
the government to take action on this matter. In fact, we have been
working on it for a long time, for years. We have heard the views of
chiefs of police and of police forces throughout Canada. We have
studied the entire issue and we have acted in consultation with and
with the backing of police forces.
A few days ago, here in the House of Commons, the Prime
Minister said that responsibility for dealing with this problem did
not rest solely with the federal government. The provinces also
have a responsibility, under the Constitution, for the administration
of the justice system.
Everyone knows that there is no miracle solution. People know
that an answer will not be found overnight. We must all do our part.
10002
With Bill C-95, the federal government has begun to do its part.
Now, provincial authorities must ensure that they give police
officers and counsel the resources they need, and do their part as
well.
In my opinion, we will only be able to move forward if both
levels of government work together. That is the position taken by
the Prime Minister, to which the hon. member referred during oral
question period here in the House.
The hon. member is asking me the following question: What
clauses apply to leaders of gangs and of organized crime? My
answer is that all the clauses in the bill have this objective. All
aspects of the bill can be used to prosecute gang leaders. For
example, we have suggested changes to augment and improve the
methods of investigation used by police forces against leaders and
members of gangs and of criminal organizations.
The same applies to the clauses dealing with the proceeds of
criminal activities and the means used to carry out those activities.
It also applies to the sentences proposed in the bill. They are
tougher and are aimed at leaders as well as members.
Finally, one clause will deal with the order to keep the peace and
will give the court authority to make an order limiting an
individual's freedom if the court is convinced there is a reasonable
fear that the individual might commit a crime described in the bill.
This is a very valuable tool against leaders of organized crime.
(1535)
We discussed this particular aspect with police forces and I can
say today, in response to the hon. member's questions, that they
found this a very useful approach, particularly with respect to gang
leaders.
So, this bill provides for a whole range of measures, and
concrete and specific stages for improving the Criminal Code, for
giving police forces very useful tools against organized crime in
general, but in particular against leaders of organized crime.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister either did
not understand my question or could not find the clause.
I realize that according to the bill-and now I am going beyond
clause 1, because this goes further than clause 1-the individual
must have committed a criminal offence. As for ``possession
without lawful excuse of an explosive substance'', we do not see
the leaders going around with sticks of dynamite in the trunks of
their cars. And as for ``possession in association with a criminal
organization'', the person who manufactures explosive substances
or has them in his possession is not one of the leaders either.
Among all the offences the minister included in Bill C-95, not
one has a direct impact on the leaders, not one, otherwise the
minister would have told me which clause. Even if we consider the
definitions at the very beginning under ``criminal organization'', it
says ``having as one of its primary activities the commission of
indictable offence''-we know that the dirty work is not done by
the leaders. We do not see the mafia bosses installing dynamite.
Neither do we see the leaders of biker gangs installing dynamite
and doing all these things that are harmful to society.
I do not understand the hon. member opposite who says it is not
enough, who says he has the support of Canadian chiefs of police
and all police forces in Canada and in Quebec and who tells me that
in Quebec, people are very satisfied with this. Sure, we are very
satisfied, but once the minister got going, he should have done
more. It is not true that all chiefs of police and all police forces say
that this bill mainly affects the leaders. This is a misrepresentation
of the truth, because this is not what is happening in Quebec. It is
not the opinion of the people who commented on this bill.
I realize this is a step forward, but that is not enough. I again
want to ask the minister to show me which clause in the bill refers
specifically to the leaders, to those who are responsible for the
biker gangs, those who do the planning, who give the orders for
jobs in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada.
The minister said in the House earlier that he met the mother of
young Desrochers. According to this bill, the police is given
additional powers to carry out investigations and to try and find out
who installed the bomb and why. Unless I am mistaken, the person
who ordered this particular job, the leader who was behind all this
is not affected by Bill C-95, and correct me if I am wrong. So I am
asking the minister where in Bill C-95 we can find the provisions
that affect leaders.
Even so the bill is a step forward. Before, there was nothing.
Thanks to the Bloc Quebecois, the government decided to act. The
minister says he has been working on this for 18 months, but we
have been asking questions for at least two years about this issue.
He said there was no problem, that the police had all the elements
they needed to conduct their investigations, and so forth.
And then all of a sudden, he told us he had been examining this
aspect for 18 months, probably very secretly, because he never told
us he was looking into this. He even said that the Bloc Quebecois
was mistaken and that it wanted to make political capital with an
issue like this. By the way, I think it is odd we are considering this
bill one week before an election is called.
(1540)
So again I want to ask the Minister of Justice who he is very
knowledgeable on the bill before us, to tell me exactly where this
clause is. I also have legal training. I am a lawyer, and I will
understand. Let him say which clause it is. I see no clause that deals
specifically with leaders. And this is one of the weaknesses of Bill
C-95.
10003
I am very anxious to hear the minister say specifically which
clause concerns the leaders. Is it in a definition? Is it under a
particular offence? Where is it? I wish someone would tell me
exactly where we can find the clause that affects the leaders. After
that, I may have another question for him.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I do not claim that this bill represents
everything we need to fight organized crime. It is just the first step.
It is one bill to start things off. It is the first phase in our work.
There is much yet to be done, but it is a very good start, a very
valuable start.
The hon. member has asked which clause applies to leaders of
organized crime. As I said, the entire bill can be used against them:
wiretapping, search warrants, changes to regulations for obtaining
search warrants, access to tax information-very important for the
crime kingpins-the fruits and instrumentalities of crime, harsher
sentences, reversal of the burden of proof for bail, recognizance to
keep the peace. All of this can be used directly against the leaders.
As I said, those on the front line, that is to say, the police forces,
agree that these measures will be highly effective in attaining this
objective.
Another important point is that these measures can be used
indirectly against the leaders. In other words, if, using these
investigative means, a person can be found who worked with a
group in an act of gang violence or is associated with a gang and if
that person can be accused of an offence under our bill, with a harsh
sentence of 14 years to be served consecutive to all of the other
sentences, we have an indirect means of obtaining evidence against
the leaders. The police forces have told me that, with such a tool,
they can get information out of an accused in exchange for a
reduced sentence, if they act as an informant and help the police in
their investigation.
Directly or indirectly, this bill gives us concrete and effective
means to investigate and put an end to organized crime.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, what the minister just said
about harsher sentences, bail and peace bonds clearly applies to
gang leaders. That is not the issue.
The issue is: Where, in the bill, are the additional powers given
police authorities so they can get to the leaders of these biker gangs
or criminal organizations?
If it makes the other side react, it is usually because we hit a
nerve.
(1545)
Once these leaders are grabbed by police, they will indeed be
subject to the provisions on harsher penalties, bail and peace bonds.
I agree and I have no problem with that. However, the bill does not
give police officers more power to go after these leaders.
Let me go back to the example provided earlier by the minister
himself, the case of the Desrochers boy. It is not the leaders who
went out and put the bomb under the vehicle that exploded. The
leader simply told one of his henchmen: ``Mr. X is starting to get on
my nerves. I want him out of the picture. Do what you have to do''.
The leader gives the order to his henchmen who then go out and set
off the bomb. However, under this bill, it is the person who sets off
the bomb who will face the harsher penalty, who will have more
difficulty getting bail, who will be slapped with a peace bond or
what have you. It will not be the leaders.
I will ask the question for the third time, and I promise it will be
the last time. If the minister does not mention the specific clause,
then it is because the clause does not exist. I will be convinced of
that beyond a reasonable doubt. Will the minister tell me exactly
where in the bill are these additional powers given the police to go
after the leaders? Because if we do not go after the leaders, we may
end up having more hit men in jail, but the leaders will always be
able to find others to do the job for them.
For the last time, I ask the minister: Where, in this bill, are the
provisions that specifically target gang leaders? All the provisions
on offenses clearly stipulate that they must have committed the
offence. So before the minister tells me which specific clause of the
bill provides for such powers, he must answer this question: Does
he agree that those who commit such offenses are usually not the
leaders, but their henchmen?
If the minister answers yes to that question, maybe he can tell me
where in the bill are the specific provisions targeting gang leaders.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, since the question was repeated, I
have to repeat the answer. As I have already pointed out, we have
taken all the measures needed to deal with gang leaders. Even in
the question he put, the hon. member provided us with an example.
He said that the explosive charges are not set by the leaders, but by
those who help the gangs.
As the hon. member mentioned, it is necessary for gang leaders
to communicate with others to let them know where to set the
explosive charges. So they must be able to contact their members
or their associates.
First of all, we improved the Criminal Code provisions
concerning electronic surveillance to make it easier for the police
to monitor and record communications between gang leaders and
their members. So the changes relating to electronic surveillance
can be used to catch the leaders.
Then we have a peace order that can prohibit a gang leader from
contacting another person. If the leader does so anyway, he may be
charged for violating the order. The bill provides for a prison term
in such cases. So, all of these clauses and all of these measures can
be used against gang leaders.
10004
(1550)
We do not need one specific clause dealing with leaders. All of
the bill's provisions empower the police. So, I have to repeat
myself, because I already have answered this question. It is the
same question, so I have to give the same answer as before.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,
just before question period I posed a question to the minister and
probably as a classic mistake gave him and his department all kinds
of time to put together a long political type of an answer in which
he charged back that the Reform Party was not interested in
specifics. He knows full well that if the Reform Party had not
agreed to go to this procedure of committee of the whole, if we had
not agreed to fast track this bill, it would not have a snowball's
chance of becoming law.
Of course we are interested in specific proposals. The minister
knows that. I am interested to know how he picks one bill over
another.
This bill will likely become law tonight. I am not thrilled with
the process. I still think it is a lousy process not to have a day or
two in committee to hear witnesses and consider amendments.
That being said, I am interested to know how the minister chose
this bill for fast tracking. He has our agreement to do it. We are
here today to do that. Why for instance did the minister not choose
to fast track the DNA legislation also or instead of this bill? What
was his criteria in picking this bill as the premier bill to get through
before the election?
Mr. Rock: First, I undertake that the answers I give will be no
more political than the questions I receive from the party opposite.
Before two o'clock I had to listen to a question that was steeped,
that indeed was suffused in partisan rhetoric and so it was
necessary for me to respond by setting the record straight.
This bill will not be law tonight because it has to go to other
place. It may be passed in this House today and if it is, I think we
will have done a real service.
The hon. member asks about the priority of bills and why the
DNA bill is not going forward at the same pace. As the solicitor
general made clear when he tabled that bill, the DNA legislation,
Bill C-94, covers some matters which are still truly controversial.
There are real debates in policy and in law about the better course
to pursue. The solicitor general has chosen to ask the committee to
consider that bill after first reading and before adoption in principle
by the House so as to leave open to parliamentarians the
opportunity to question the basic approach suggested on the main
issues in that legislation.
The Canadian Police Association has its own viewpoint as to
how the bill should operate and when samples should be taken and
the rules of access to samples in the data bank. If we speak to civil
libertarians or women's groups we receive very different
responses. Questions arose the very first day when the bill was
tabled that demonstrate the extent to which there is controversy on
those subjects. In relation to the DNA legislation, Bill C-94, there
are still important policy issues to be canvassed and resolved.
In relation to this legislation, the proposals are of a different
order. Here we propose specific, concrete, practical changes to the
Criminal Code that will take existing investigative techniques
which have been part of our criminal law for generations and
change access to those techniques in the unique circumstance of
investigating organized crime.
We also have a definition of organized crime which has been
carefully crafted to encompass the most serious offences
committed over an extended period of time and a group which is
dedicated to that serious kind of crime.
We have resorted to traditional criminal law techniques such as
increasing sentences, providing that membership or association in
organized crime is an aggravating factor in determining the
sentence.
(1555 )
There is also an elaboration of an existing peace bond provision,
through proposed 810.3 in a way that builds upon sections that are
already in the Criminal Code and which have been tested for some
time. The same can be said of the fruits of crime and the
instrumentalities of crime.
Whereas in DNA we are embarking on a brave new world with a
technique which has been in place in only three other countries that
we know of, with Bill C-95 we are building upon existing
mechanisms and existing laws, elaborating on them to meet a
specific threat, the threat of organized crime.
I think this is far more appropriate for the disposition of the
House. It could very well be that the other place will hold hearings.
As far as I understand it, it intends to hold hearings. If the hon.
member wants an occasion to hear other voices, I believe the other
place will provide that.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, this is a free question which the
minister can bat out of the park.
Some people will say that once again this is a bill that is catering
to the headlines: ``Liberals under attack on Quebec''. They must do
something and therefore they are responding with this bill today
because it is a Quebec issue and that is the reason for the bill
coming forward now in its present format.
What does the minister say to those critics? Does he say that this
bill is not a Quebec bill? Does he say that it is a Criminal Code bill?
I am practically putting the answer in his mouth. Is that the answer?
Is this a Quebec bill, or is this just a bill whose time has come?
10005
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the best way to respond to
that question is to use an example that the hon. member will find
relevant from his own personal experience.
Three weeks ago I spoke with the chief of police and the mayor
of Vancouver. I told them of our intensified work in seeking to craft
legislation which would provide police with better tools in their
fight against gangs and organized crime. Chief Canuel and Mayor
Owen enthusiastically encouraged me in my work and asked for an
opportunity to comment on the proposals we had under
consideration.
Chief Canuel told me of incidents in Vancouver involving gang
activity, involving organized crime. He reminded me that the need
for this legislation is as great or greater in other parts of the country
than it is in Quebec. The mayor of Vancouver took the same
position. When I spoke to the Attorney General of British
Columbia, the hon. Ujjal Dosanjh, he was most constructive and
enthusiastic. He encouraged me in this work. He asked me to work
quickly, as did colleague attorneys general across the country.
I received a letter from the Vancouver police department
proposing specific measures to be included in this bill. We were
able to include five or six of the specific proposals that the chief in
Vancouver said he would find very important in his work.
This bill does not concern a specific province. It does not
concern a particular place. The bill seeks to address a problem
which can be found in various forms throughout this great country.
It is an affliction which we have to deal with in every province and
in both territories. One of the enduring values of the legislation is
that it will put useful tools into the hands of police forces
throughout Canada.
Let the headlines say what they will. Governments are always
either before or after elections. If something is introduced within
six months of an election, it is branded as a cynical ploy. I would
rather remember the image I have in my mind of the mother with
whom I met last week in Montreal who lost her son in a gang war.
She said to me: ``Put aside politics. Get this legislation in place.
Give the police the tools. I want them to find the people responsible
for taking the life of my son''.
(1600)
That has nothing to do with elections. It is doing something
meaningful in criminal law to help a victim, to help police and to
try to achieve a common objective, which is to rid the country of
organized crime.
Mr. Strahl: I agree with the minister that the legislation needs to
be passed. Of course we will support it. The minister knows that.
We are happy to do that, except for the reservations I mentioned
earlier.
I am interested, however, in the motion the House passed more
than a year ago regarding distinct society. It might be called the
distinct society motion. All legislative branches would treat
Quebec as a distinct society and keep that in mind when they are
drafting legislation. That was the instruction that came from the
House, or words to that effect.
When the minister is drafting legislation does he take the distinct
society clause into consideration? Did he have it in mind when he
drafted the bill? The minister has been instructed to do so. I would
be interested to know what impact it had on the legislation.
Mr. Rock: This is not one of those ways in which Quebec forms
a distinct society within Canada. This problem is not unique to
Quebec. It is found throughout the country. The legislation speaks
to a problem which is pan-Canadian. I wish sometimes the problem
of organized crime was confined to a particular area but it is not.
In February 1996 the police sat the solicitor general and I down
and took us through virtually a full day's briefing on the state of
organized crime. We heard from the Criminal Intelligence Service
Canada, the RCMP and the organized crime committee of the
chiefs of police. They talked about the different forms in which
organized crime is found whether it is in Atlantic Canada, in
Ontario, on the prairies or on the west coast. It is remarkable the
number of forms in which corruption, intimidation and violence
can be found, all in a ruthless effort to squeeze profit out of
innocent people and to victimize others.
This is not something distinctly associated with one province or
one area of the country. It is a problem which is Canada wide and
requires a Canada-wide solution if we are to deal with it. That is
why the legislation is of general application.
I spoke with the chiefs of police in Halifax, Toronto, Ottawa and
Winnipeg. I spoke with the attorneys general of Manitoba and
Ontario. In all those conversations I was encouraged in this work.
The methods we were looking at struck a responsive chord because
all those law officers know we are not dealing here with a distinct
Quebec issue but with a scourge that afflicts the country as a whole.
Mr. Strahl: I do not deny that. I confirm that. I affirm the
minister's statements. I am sure he would have support for that.
I was merely trying to establish whether that distinct society
clause the House past more than a year ago had any effect on
drafting legislation, especially when it was at the request of the
Quebec government. I agree with the minister that it is a
country-wide problem. Like most problems in the country it does
not lend itself to the distinctiveness of any one province. It needs to
be addressed in a Canada-wide way.
10006
The question I left with the minister just before question period
concerned a clarification that criminal organization means any
group consisting of more than five persons. If I understood his
argument before question period, persons are anybody over the age
of 12. Is that what will be applied in this case, or when is a person
a person in this law?
Mr. Rock: Person will have its usual and ordinary meaning.
(1605 )
As I said before in the first segment of this committee meeting,
the definition and the measures contained in Bill C-95 apply to any
group of persons consisting of those who have engaged in the
commission of serious indictable offences over the last five years
and where the group has as one of its primary activities the
commission of those offences. There will be no exemption from the
definition by reason of age.
The criteria are dependent upon offences in the code which are
indictable and punishable by a maximum of five or more years
imprisonment. That does not disqualify young offenders. Anyone
who meets that definition will be covered. As I said in answer to
the questions put by the hon. member for Crowfoot, it may be that a
particular accused because of the Young Offenders Act will face
the jeopardy governed by the Young Offenders Act. That does not
mean that Bill C-95 does not apply.
Mr. Strahl: That is the point people want to know about. Young
offenders are being used as mules in the drug trade. It is commonly
done in the west. People want assurances in that regard. There
could be a group of five of which only one is of legal age. However
it would still cover that person.
We could call it a gang. We could get the guy who is living off
the avails of and corrupting youth. We could charge him under all
kinds of jurisdictions. Even if no one in the gang is of legal age, we
could still use the legislation for enhanced wiretap accessibility and
all the other good things the minister mentioned.
I assure the minister that out west organized crime is often made
up of largely under age people. That is the shame of it. Two or three
kingpins frequently use young people because they get off with
lighter sentences or with immunity if they are young enough. That
has been documented on the west coast and I am sure across
Canada.
People need assurances that it will cover groups even if they are
not of legal age.
Mr. Rock: That is exactly what we intend. In relation to my
interpretation of the act, I invite the member to look at section 20 of
the Young Offenders Act as an example of what I am talking about.
It relates to young persons being found guilty of offences for which
the punishment provided by the Criminal Code or any other act of
Parliament is imprisonment for life.
In other words, section 20 of the Young Offenders Act speaks
about offences provided for in the Criminal Code for which the
punishment may be more than that which can be given under the
Young Offenders Act. It does not mean the offences do not apply to
young people. They certainly do. It simply means that if a person of
that age is charged, they are transferred and the maximum
contained in the Young Offenders Act applies.
I know the situation described by the hon. member is true. I have
spent evenings travelling with the youth gang section of the
Winnipeg police force. I went out in their cars with them. I watched
while they cruised the streets. I listened to their explanations of the
kinds of crimes they investigate. I walked the beat with police
officers of the Edmonton police force. I spent an evening on the
streets of Vancouver with members of the Vancouver police force,
sometimes driving and sometimes walking along the streets and the
back alleys of downtown Vancouver. I saw for myself the extent to
which young people are tragically caught up in crime and all too
often at the direction of older people.
I spent time driving through the streets with the Calgary police
force, seeing young people involved in unlawful activity and too
often under the direction or encouragement of older people.
I well recognize the same could be said of Toronto, Halifax,
Quebec City and Ottawa. In each of those places I have travelled
with the police in their cars to watch them at work and to see for
myself very troubling, very serious situations.
(1610 )
Our intention with this statute is to catch the kind of case to
which the hon. member has referred. The investigative tools will be
available to police officers looking into groups that involve people
under the age of 18 to see if they are engaged in the commission of
offences for which penalties are described under the Criminal
Code. That is the intention and based on this wording I believe that
is the effect.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, we are
talking about serious offences, offences that carry a minimum
penalty of over five years.
The minister has provided that kind of penalty in Bill C-68. That
means a group of hunters or a group of farmers or a group of people
who own firearms like .22 calibre gopher rifles and do not want to
register them fall within that category. I suppose they could be
designated as members of a criminal organization if there were five
of them.
If their primary activity could be determined to be failure to
register their firearms and challenging the gun law in court, it could
10007
be considered to be a series of offences. Would they fall into the
category of a criminal organization?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, it is remarkable, no matter what the
subject, how the hon. member somehow finds a gun in it
somewhere. Such is his dedication and his passion of commitment
to opposing gun control in Canada. It is regrettable.
I happen to think the hon. member is completely out of step with
the vast majority of Canadian people who want to see us take
military type assault weapons off the street. I think the vast
majority of Canadians support the fact that we banned the future
sale and import of most cheaply made handguns called Saturday
Night Specials that have killed so many police officers in the U.S.
We do not want them in Canada.
The majority of Canadians support gun control which gives
police officers the tools they need to take guns out of the hands of
people who should not have them. It is regrettable that no matter
what the subject, the bill, the measure or the objective, the hon.
member will find some way to bring it back to his passionate
commitment to oppose gun control which is so broadly supported
in the country. It is odd and curious, but it is something I have to
live with. In living with it let me do the best I can to respond to the
question in which the hon. member has laboured to make firearms
somehow relevant to anti-gang legislation.
I do not think the example given by the hon. member could
possibly be. I suppose we could invent facts to make it happen, but
he is talking about individuals acting on individual occasions and
not respecting the law passed by Parliament. I hope all Canadians
would respect the law passed by Parliament. He may know some
people who do not or will not. That is interesting.
Let us get back to what Bill C-95 is all about. Let us get back to
what the anti-organized crime bill is all about. It is all about those
who band together in groups or associations to ruthlessly dedicate
their lives and their efforts to profit at the expense of others and
sometimes at the expense of the lives of others.
It is about giving police tools to deal with those who would put at
risk the lives of families and of children by battling over turf for
illegal drug distribution. It is about finding a way to deal with
hardened criminals, career criminals who over the last five years
have committed a series of serious criminal offences and are
committing indictable crimes punishable by five years or more in
prison.
This is the hard core of organized crime in Canada. They are at
war right now in the province of Quebec. The cost has been
measured in human lives, in the peace of mind of communities. I
met people from towns and cities in Quebec who are not able to
take their children for a walk down their own street, who tell me
they are afraid to go to parks in their towns and who feel their
communities are under siege.
(1615)
[Translation]
They live in fear in their communities. This is unacceptable in
Canada. The conditions described by the people who live in these
towns and villages in Quebec cannot be tolerated. I met with the
mayors of some of these communities. They told me straight off
that these conditions were unacceptable, and I agree with them.
That is why we took action. We have now done our share to amend
the Criminal Code and to propose measures that will help our
police forces fight these offences.
[English]
That is what this bill is all about. As much as the hon. member
might use his creativity to imagine ways to make his opposition to
gun control relevant to an organized crime bill, it is interesting,
creative and mildly amusing. It is even charming in a way because
the hon. member has made such a career out of it. However, it is
hardly relevant, not helpful and it is broadly off the point.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, what is regrettable is that the
justice minister, in creating that bill, placed the maximum penalty
of 10 years for a person knowingly failing to register their .22
gopher rifle. That is what he has done. He has gone to great lengths
in his answer to suggest that this is not an issue that should be
raised and overlooks the fact that he has created such a severe
penalty that it makes anyone who chooses to challenge that law in a
court, like the three provinces and the territories are doing, come
under at least the eaves trough of this bill.
That is what is regrettable as far as the justice minister's
response is concerned. Some concerns were indicated in some
newspaper articles about how the bill may be applied in such a way
that it was not meant by the justice department or justice minister
to be applied. We have good evidence of that kind of legislation
going through the House and Bill C-41 is a good example. He, by
his own admission, did not expect the conditional sentencing to be
used in the manner that allows rapists to walk free.
We have to look at the minister's rationale in this when he
suggests that we do not have to worry about this. Maybe he does
not have to worry, but as representatives of the people of this
country and as the guardians of their rights when it comes to
legislation like this, it is very appropriate that not only do we
examine this bill but its ramifications as may occur through the
interpretation of the very clauses of the bill and the terms that lie
undefined.
I would like to ask the justice minister the following question.
There have been over 60 gang related murders in Quebec since
October 1994 to 1995. Eighty gang members were arrested and
charged for some 200 offences. Outside of the extension of the
wiretap laws which may help the investigating peace officer to
investigate a murder, how is this bill going to help those
investigating police officers apprehend those responsible for these
murders, including those who set the bomb off that killed the little
11 year
10008
old boy? How is this bill going to help other than perhaps the
extension of the wiretap laws?
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has told me that he
and his colleagues in the Reform Party support this bill. I hope he
has a better understanding than he has indicated of how the bill is
going to help.
When you have a medical problem you go to a doctor. When you
have a legal problem you go to a lawyer. When you want to know
what will help the police in what they are doing to combat crime on
the streets you go to the police. That is what we did. We went to the
police.
(1620)
[Translation]
I spoke with Chief Duchesneau, the director of the Montreal
Urban Community Police Department. I met with Chief Richard
Renaud from Quebec. I met with a dozen chiefs of police and
directors of police departments three weeks ago in Hull. I talked
with police forces about their needs and about the changes that
could be made to the Criminal Code to give them better tools to
fight organized crime. Most of the measures contained in Bill C-95
were proposed by police officers. They have been working with us
for months to find ways to deal with this problem.
The police themselves think that these measures will improve
the law and help us arrest and prosecute those responsible for the
murders referred to by the hon. member.
[English]
We did not develop these proposals in a vacuum. We did not
develop them in the absence of practical advice from the police on
the street. We worked very closely with the police community in
devising these measures. We have given the police tools that will
help them.
The hon. member asks how and he referred to wiretaps. Far more
than that is given by this bill. It is permitted to seal up information
on which warrants are obtained in order to protect the
confidentiality of informants, in order to protect the lives of
informants, in order to make it easier for police to derive
information from third parties to help them in their war on
organized crime.
It is provided that, under certain circumstances, with court order,
investigating officers can get access to income tax information in
the course of investigating organized crime. That is a rare event. To
the present, Revenue Canada and Finance, because of the
traditional confidentiality of income tax information, has
permitted access to investigating officers only in a limited category
of cases. We propose to expand that to include the participation
offence in organized crime.
The legislation will permit the seizing not only of the proceeds
of crime but any property used to help commit organized crime,
including real estate if it is fortified or modified to enable or
facilitate the commission of those offences.
The legislation provides for stern, stiff prison sentences for those
who engage in organized crime. Let me make that point clear so
that the hon. member sees the full force and effect of these
provisions.
Not only the leaders that the hon. member for the Bloc was
asking about, but members and even strangers to the group who are
enticed for cash, for example, to transport, to store or to place
explosives on the part of a criminal organization, these stiff
sentences will stand in the way of anyone who is complicit with
organized crime.
The onus on bail applications for those arrested on organized
crime offences are reversed. The court in sentencing for organized
crime offences and for explosives offences committed in
connection with organized crime are required not only to impose
the stiff sentence but required that it be served consecutive to any
other sentence the person is then serving or to which they may be
required to serve as a result of other infractions.
The police, with the authority of the attorney general of the
province, will be given the powerful tool of seeking a judicial
restraint order where there are grounds on which a judge can
conclude that there is a reasonable basis to fear that someone will
commit an organized crime offence.
(1625 )
That is determined on the civil balance of probabilities and not
the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. The court will be
empowered to make an order limiting the liberty of that person,
requiring that person to comply with conditions that are
appropriate, that may, for example, prohibit one member of such a
group from communicating with others.
These are powerful and important tools that the police welcome.
If the chiefs of police believe that these tools will assist in their
efforts against organized crime, if those who are on the ground
dealing with these problems day after day who have developed
expertise, who have experience, believe that these tools are
powerful and useful, to be a first step, to be the first phase,
establishing a framework to which can be added more in the
months and years ahead, then I say we should conclude that not
only in our own judgment but based on the advice of those who
know from their own experience that this bill is going to make a
difference out where it belongs, in the real world.
10009
Before I conclude, in answer to the hon. member's question,
he referred to registering guns. In a pattern that has become all
too distressingly familiar over the years, as he has returned with
his remarkable attachment to his opposition to any form of gun
control, the hon. member seeks to instil the hysterical reaction
which he seeks in others by overstating his case.
The hon. member knows full well that if someone fails to
register the garden variety .22, we have provided not in the
Criminal Code, but in the firearms act, for a remedy which falls far
short of the draconian consequences to which he has referred. The
hon. member takes a hypothetical case and attaches to it the most
extreme result.
I think the country is on to his pattern of activity by now. Just in
case there is anyone out there who has not seen the hon. member at
work in the past on this subject, for the record it should be noted
that he has once again misstated the case in order to encourage over
reaction to legislation that he has been opposed to from the outset
because he just does not like gun control.
As I say, it is regrettable he is so out of step with the vast
majority of Canadians. I guess that is something he is going to have
to live with.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to reassure
Reform members. Everyone in the House knows that the distinct
society motion agreed to has never been used to pass any
legislation whatsoever. It is a meaningless motion, and Quebec as a
distinct society is in no way at issue in Bill C-95. In this regard, I
must say that the minister is right. The problem of gangs does not
exist only in Quebec, but is spreading and is also very present in
Ontario and in the other provinces of English Canada.
That having been said, my other comment concerns the answers
the minister has given to a number of questions. Several times, he
said it was unacceptable that people should be afraid to walk on the
street in towns in Quebec, that, in Canada, mothers should be afraid
to let their children go outside, and so on.
I am very pleased that the minister has said this in the House, and
that he has also admitted that it was urgent to act in such a situation,
given that, I remind you, we have been asking the minister to act
for two years now. I congratulate him on having seen that what the
Bloc Quebecois was calling for made good sense and on
introducing legislation along the lines of what we have pointing out
for at least two years.
But what strikes me is that the minister said several times that
this is a first step. It is a step in the direction of what police forces
have been calling for. It is a first step. He has repeated this at least
ten times since oral question period.
My first question, and later on I will have another, is that, while
they were drafting such a bill, why did the minister not take more
than that one step?
(1630)
Why did the minister not go a bit further regarding leaders,
among other things, and regarding the demands made by Quebec
City and certain mayors as well that the minister met with? I am
very happy that he met these demands because, once again, it was
the Bloc Quebecois that really backed him into a corner, so he
decided to go to Quebec City. The air in that city did him good,
because when he came back it was an urgent matter. Before he left
for Quebec City, there was no rush. So this is an extremely
important point. The air in Quebec City did the Minister of Justice
a lot of good.
Given that he himself admits it is a first step, and it seems to be a
small one because he has mentioned it so many times, why did the
minister not decide to take more steps in the fight against crime?
Mr. Rock: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out
that, as a government, we have acted promptly and effectively in
response to the demands, not only from the Government of Quebec,
but also from police forces throughout Canada, with respect to
organized crime.
Not only have we reacted with Bill C-95, now before us, but we
have also passed Bill C-17. When I was in Quebec with my
counterpart, Quebec Minister of Justice Paul Bégin, he asked me to
act to fight organized crime in the Criminal Code, and also to get
C-17 through rapidly, which we did. That bill is now in the other
place.
We also passed Bill C-8 against the drug and narcotic traffickers.
These are very valuable measures for the police forces, including
the organized crime squads.
But with Bill C-95, we decided not to go with the option whereby
mere membership in an organization would constitute a criminal
offence. That proposal came mainly from Nr. Bégin and the
Government of Quebec, who asked for an amendment to the
Criminal Code making mere membership in a criminal
organization a criminal offence. The idea, I presume, was to have a
schedule to the legislation which would list the criminal groups and
gangs
We looked seriously at that option. We studied the consequences
and concluded that such an approach would be unconstitutional; it
was neither desirable nor necessary to go beyond the law or the
legal framework to have an effective and durable bill. We therefore
decided on other measures, which are now in Bill C-95.
We are convinced that our approach is valid and constitutional. It
is very important to me to avoid raising false hopes. For us,
10010
adopting a measure such as the one proposed by Mr. Bégin, only to
have the courts toss it out in six months, would be an approach that
would raise false hopes among Quebecers and Canadians. So we
found a response or a valid approach to this situation.
(1635)
The hon. member asks why we went no further. In my opinion,
this bill is the start, the first phase in our legislative response to
organized crime. Without a doubt, we are going to find the other
approaches in the months and years to come. For the moment,
however, the measures before the House are valid, constitutional
and also, I believe, effective.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, what I understand is that they
are introducing the first phase because they do not know what to
propose in the further phases. The minister has just said so. I
understand.
What I do not understand however is when he says that it was
quick and effective. Again, I remind members that we have been
asking the government to introduce this bill for two years now.
The same thing can be said about Bill C-17. The minister spoke
about it three or four times. I remind him that this bill had been
introduced back in 1994. The Bloc Quebecois had to threaten the
government to propose anti-biker amendments in order to get the
minister to bring that bill back to the House and have it passed.
There is another point I want to raise with the minister. The
government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois raised on several
occasions the issue of crime proceeds and money laundering in
Canada. Again today, a newspaper mentioned that legislation on
money laundering is very difficult to implement because there are
so many loopholes. Reference is made to Canadian policemen; they
must be the ones the minister says he has met several times. I also
met several chiefs of police and policemen in Quebec, who told me
almost the opposite of what the minister has been telling this House
for the last little while, in particular about the legislation on money
laundering, about which they were almost unanimous. I have even
talked to judges and attorneys general of Canada. So, we read in the
paper this morning that the police in Canada would love to have
half or even one quarter of the measures that exist in similar
legislation in the United States.
As for the whole issue of anti-biker or anti-gang or anti-crime in
general, we in the Bloc Quebecois have said repeatedly that stricter
legislation is needed on money laundering.
I realize that Bill C-95 contains provisions concerning the
seizure of real property or other property. I know that Bill C-95 is a
step forward. However, this is nothing compared with what chiefs
of police have been asking for years in the way of legislation on
money laundering.
While the minister was at it, why did he not add some
amendments on money laundering, in order to make this activity
more difficult in Canada? Now we are known as the drug
trafficker's paradise. We already knew that Canada was a tax haven
for money laundering. The minister should realize there is some
urgency in this case as well, and even the Bloc Quebecois would
have liked to see him pass legislation to deal with this.
As far as money laundering is concerned, when we talk to the
police, they say that between 20 and 30 billion dollars are
laundered annually. A judge of the Quebec Superior Court told me
it could be as much as 50 or 60 billion dollars.
Again, considering the urgent nature of these demands which, I
think, we made very clear to the government, the same way we did
in the case of anti-biker legislation, I want to ask the minister why,
when he was working on this bill, he did not introduce legislation
to make it well nigh impossible to launder money, an activity that is
today a disaster for the economy? And tomorrow it will be even
worse for Quebec, for a sovereign Quebec, but for Canada as well.
(1640)
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member mentioned his
interest in the issue of money laundering. As I said before, we
already adopted Bill C-17. In this bill, sections 27 to 39 deal with
money laundering. Most of the improvements mentioned by the
hon. member have already been passed in Bill C-17.
Of course we need more. As I said before, we do not see Bill
C-95 as the last phase of our efforts but as an initial step. So let us
start with the first step, and then in a few months or a few years we
will propose other measures, but for the first time, this bill will
provide a legal framework for dealing with organized crime.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would move
an amendment to clause 1:
That the word ``five'' be changed to read ``three'' in line 23 on page 2.
The Deputy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question
on the amendment?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1645 )
(Amendment negatived: Yeas, 4; Nays 22)
The Deputy Chairman: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(On clause 2:)
10011
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, we have
here another term that is not defined. Would the justice minister
tell us what he means by the term explosive substance in clause
2.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I believe the relevant section of the
code is section 82 which provides for the original offence. The code
also contains the the definition of explosive substance. It includes
anything intended to be used to make an explosive substance;
anything or any part thereof used or intended to be used or adapted
to cause or to aid in causing an explosion in or with an explosive
substance; and an incendiary grenade, fire bomb, molotov cocktail
or other similar incendiary substance or device and a delaying
mechanism or other thing intended for use in connection with such
a substance or device.
That definition has been in the code for some years. It has been
the subject of jurisprudence. It is well known in the courts. We used
it in this section, intending it to have the same meaning it always
had for many years.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
(Clause 3 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
(Clause 8 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 9 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 9 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 10 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 10 agreed to.)
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 11 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 11 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 12 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 12 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 13 agreed to.)
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 14 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 14 agreed to.)
[English]
(On clause 15:)
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will find unanimous consent for two technical
amendments. I move:
That Bill C-95, in clause 15, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line
36 on page 10 with the following:
``les biens infractionnels soient confis-''
I also move:
That Bill C-95, in clause 15, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line
15 on page 12 with the following:
``un juge doit ordonner la contestation des''.
The Deputy Chairman: Are the amendments proposed by the
parliamentary secretary agreeable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendments agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 15, as amended, carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.)
10012
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 16 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 16 agreed to.)
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 17 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 17 agreed to.)
(Clause 18 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 19 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 19 agreed to.)
(1650)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 20 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 20 agreed to.)
(Clause 21 and 22 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 23 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 23 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 24 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 24 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 25 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 25 agreed to.)
The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 26 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 26 agreed to.)
(Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.)
(Preamble agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): When shall the bill be read
for the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It is my duty pursuant to
Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Davenport-Marine Protection.
[English]
Mr. Rock moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a couple of brief points of order. If there is unanimous
consent, I would dispose of these matters now. I move:
That, no later than fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time allotted for the
consideration of Government Orders on April 22, 1997, all questions shall be put
without further debate or amendment as are required at that time for the disposal of
the third reading stage of Bill C-93, the report stages and third reading stages of Bills
C-37, C-39 and C-40 and the second reading stage of Bill C-75.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent for the parliamentary secretary to move the motion at this
time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have another motion to move, if the House is so predisposed:
That on Friday, April 25, 1997, until members return from a ceremony granting
the royal assent to a bill or bills, the House shall not adjourn for any reason except
pursuant to a motion by a minister of the crown provided that, if no such ceremony
has occurred by the ordinary time of adjournment, the sitting shall be suspended to
the call of the Chair which may come for the sole purpose of attending such a
ceremony, after which the House shall be adjourned to the next sitting day.
10013
(1655 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Does the parliamentary
secretary have unanimous consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There is no consent.
_____________________________________________
10013
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the following
motion. I move:
That, in accordance with subsection 54(3) of the act to extend the present laws of
Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of
Canada, Chapter A-1, of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, this House approve
the reappointment of John Grace as Information Commissioner, to hold office until
December 31, 1997.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party is prepared to accept the motion of the parliamentary
secretary on the basis that the Information Commissioner is
approved not only by the House of Commons but by the Senate.
That process being in place is a good precedent for other persons
appointed by government into a variety of positions.
Mr. Grace was appointed on July 2, 1990 and his term will expire
on July 1, 1997. Certainly it would be of benefit to extend it to the
end of the year.
In principle the other 2,000 appointments that are often
considered as patronage appointments by government should
receive some kind of scrutiny just like this appointment. That
certainly would make for a better understanding by the general
public and would most likely bring forward a better quality of
person.
John Grace, the current Information Commissioner, has been
extremely fair and diligent and has served Canadians well. We are
prepared to move and support the extension of his term for six
months.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Does the parliamentary
secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
10013
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank all
the members of this House, my colleagues from all parties, for
agreeing to pass this bill today. The Reform Party, the Bloc
Quebecois, all the parties have co-operated in allowing the
government to pass this bill today.
[English]
It is a reflection of the importance all members of the House
place on the effort to give police forces the important tools they
need in combating organized crime.
The House has joined together today to clear the way for the
adoption of legislation which I believe and contend is both valid
and effective in helping the police achieve the objectives we all
share.
[Translation]
Finally, we believe that all our proposals will help the police
achieve their goal, which is to stop criminals.
(1700)
[English]
We believe that these proposals to fight organized crime will
help police put out of business those whose business is committing
crime in this country.
[Translation]
We have proposed a new approach to fighting gang activity by
criminalizing participation in a criminal organization and adding to
the Criminal Code a new definition of criminal organization
offence. But this new offence does not outlaw membership in a
criminal organization. In fact, combined with the new definition, it
provides the basis for the implementation of new investigative
procedures and Criminal Code provisions.
[English]
We propose this new approach to fighting gang activity by
creating the offence of participation in a criminal organization; not
criminalizing mere membership, but rather creating a new
framework by establishing a new category of crime, allowing
police access in that category to exceptional methods of detection
and investigation, providing for tougher penalties and sending the
message that we are devoting specific efforts to battling organized
crime.
10014
[Translation]
We have proposed giving the police new powers to seize the
proceeds of crime in relation to a criminal organization offence
and, with prior judicial authorization, have access to tax
information regarding the activities of criminal organizations.
We are adding to the Criminal Code new offences and new
sentences regarding the use of explosives as part of a criminal
organization's activities.
We are adding to the Criminal Code new sentencing provisions,
especially with respect to parole eligibility as relates to certain
criminal organization offences.
We will allow measures to be taken in support of police
surveillance of gang activities.
Concerning criminal organization leaders, a new power is being
given to sentencing tribunals to preserve peace by preventing them
from engaging in their illicit activities.
To us, this is a first step in the right direction, and more will have
to be done to put organized crime out of business and put an end to
gang activities.
I want to emphasize that, although the pace has picked up these
past four weeks at Justice Canada, these proposals were in fact
nearly two years in the making. During this past year, the Solicitor
General of Canada and myself had discussions with the police
community and held a national forum on organized crime eight
months ago. These proposals are the result of this thorough and
systematic review.
I also want to say that, even though biker wars have been raging
primarily in Quebec, this phenomenon is also a problem in other
regions of the country. According to the RCMP, biker gangs are
active everywhere in Canada.
I had long discussions with police chiefs from various Canadian
cities, with officials from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of
Police, and with my colleagues, the provincial attorney generals. In
my opinion, the proposals in Bill C-95 are an initial commitment to
fight organized crime across the country, and not only in Quebec.
[English]
In my conversations with chiefs of police and attorneys general
throughout the country in this past period and particularly while we
have been drafting and preparing Bill C-95, I have been impressed
at the unanimity among law enforcement officials throughout
Canada about the need for specific legislation to deal with
organized crime.
(1705 )
I spoke with the president of the Canadian Police Association
who urged me to deal with this as a national issue requiring a
national solution. I spoke with the chief of police in Vancouver who
told me that there are motorcycle gangs active on the criminal side
in that city. I spoke with the chiefs of police in Halifax, Ottawa,
Winnipeg and Toronto, and to a person they have urged us to
proceed with this legislation so that they may have these tools
available to confront issues that arise in their own communities.
I have spoken with the mayor of Vancouver. I have spoken with
the mayor of Winnipeg. I have spoken with the attorney general of
British Columbia, the attorney general of Manitoba, the attorney
general and the solicitor general of Ontario to discuss these
measures with them. In each case I have found only enthusiastic
encouragement for us to pursue this course.
This is not an issue that exists only in one province. Organized
crime is a scourge that afflicts this country from coast to coast to
coast. We must through legislative means as well as by all other
means available see that we treat it with the seriousness that it
merits.
[Translation]
Of course, improving the legislation is only one weapon in the
arsenal that we must deploy to fight violence associated with
criminal organizations and organized crime. All the provinces have
a major role to play, since the Constitution provides that the
administration of justice comes under their jurisdiction. The
provinces must allocate adequate resources, so that police officers
can do their job, and so that, when people are arrested, they are
prosecuted by specialized crown prosecutors expressly mandated
for that purpose.
At the federal level, there is a need to co-ordinate the fight led by
police forces across the country. Organized crime is a national
concern which requires national measures. That is why the solicitor
general agreed to table in Parliament an annual progress report on
the fight against organized crime, and on the situation across the
country. The solicitor general also announced that he will set up a
national committee and five regional co-ordination committees to
address police concerns regarding the need to co-ordinate measures
to enforce the act.
[English]
I must say that I am very much indebted to those who consulted
and worked with us in the preparation of this legislation. I am
speaking first of all about those mayors of municipalities in
Quebec who met with me.
[Translation]
In the past three weeks, I met with the mayors of Quebec to
listen to their concerns, discuss various approaches, and assure
them that the federal government intends to take action.
I also met with Quebec's chiefs of police, who worked with us to
identify concrete and efficient measures, which we included in Bill
C-95. I also want to mention the Barreau du Québec, which
co-operated with us by reviewing our bill and expressing its
10015
concerns about certain clauses. We listened and we sometimes
changed our approach in order to deal with these concerns.
I also want to thank officials from the Société des avocats de la
défense de Montréal and, finally, my Quebec counterparts, Paul
Bégin and Robert Perreault, the Minister of Public Security.
(1710)
I truly enjoyed co-operating with the Quebec ministers and their
officials. We worked constructively and we welcomed ideas and
proposals. We accepted a number of them, but it was not possible to
include every suggestion made by Mr. Bégin. However, the various
levels of government worked together to make sure we have
legislation that will help police forces do their work.
As I said earlier, the province has a responsibility to make sure
adequate resources are provided to police officers and to crown
prosecutors.
[English]
I have also to thank the Canadian Bar Association,
representatives of the Criminal Lawyers' Association and
representatives of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who
worked with us in our preparation of this legislation.
I do not pretend for a moment that we have addressed all the
concerns that they have expressed. I know there are many among
the groups that I have mentioned who have concerns about some of
the aspects of this legislation. They were good enough to give us
their commentary and to react to some of the proposals that we
were considering. Because of their commentary and their reactions,
our reference has to that extent been enriched. I am grateful to them
for the time they took in that consultation.
I commend to the House this legislation which the government
believes will improve the criminal law of Canada, will give the
police the tools they need to fight a particular, a specific and a most
difficult scourge, that is organized crime. Difficult to investigate,
tough to prosecute, but one of the greatest challenges we face in the
criminal justice system is to take on organized crime in a serious
minded way. This legislation represents a good first start in that
regard. I commend it to the House, expressing all the while my
gratitude to colleagues for collaborating with the government in
this effort.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I really feel that today we are experiencing the British
parliamentary system at its best, with the opposition co-operating
and the government taking action.
You will recall that, in August 1995, a tragic and totally
unexpected event-there had been no warning sign-happened in
the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve when an 11-year-old boy
walking back from the toy library, a very popular place in my
community, was killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong
time.
I must say that since that event, people have been mobilizing,
first in my community, and then throughout Quebec and Canada. I
am very grateful to the minister; I recognize that when dealing with
an issue such as this one, there is no room for partisanship among
MPs.
I thank the justice minister and his assistant, David Rodier, as
well as Yvan Roy, who bent over backwards to keep the dialogue
going on a number of legislative measures we thought had to be
looked at in order to come up with concrete solutions to fight
organized crime.
Before going any further, I would also like to thank my
colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, our justice critic,
who has been very active and perceptive in supporting the need for
an antigang law.
We must be very clear with our fellow citizens. Nobody in this
House claims that Bill C-95 will solve all the problems. None of us
believes that passing this piece of legislation will eradicate
organized crime. But what we are saying is that today we are
sending a very strong message to the community as a whole to the
effect that neither the official opposition nor the government will
give up on this scourge.
(1715)
One could ask what is organized crime and how come that
phenomenon has grown so much over the past few years. I would
like to propose a definition that is commonly used by police forces
and to remind viewers that whenever we speak about organized
crime, we are referring mainly to four elements.
First, there are the proceeds of crime. Naturally, the purpose of
organized crime is to make money. The second element is power,
control over a specific territory. Then come fear and intimidation.
The fourth and final element is corruption.
You could say that organized crime does not exist in every
society and you would be right. Some specific, precise conditions
are required for organized crime to thrive in a society. There are at
least four conditions which make cities like Montreal, Toronto,
Calgary and Winnipeg, and the maritimes, good locations for
organized crime.
For organized crime to thrive, it needs a wealthy community
where it can make money. That is why we talk about corruption in
the third world, but in those countries, organized crime is quite
different from its usual manifestations in urban environments.
In order for organized crime to take root somewhere, it needs
convenient access to major routes. Since it is an import-export
trade, organized crime in Canada is concentrated in major centres
10016
across the country. For organized crime to prosper, it needs a free
society, a society without dictatorial powers and oppression.
Fourth, and probably the most important, is that, to prosper,
organized crime needs a society where there are rights, charters and
bureaucracy. We know full well-that is what police officers told
me, and probably told the Minister of Justice also-that the
greatest ally of organized crime is the charter of rights and
freedoms, which has given it some immunity. It has been a
powerful tool for organized crime.
Once these conditions are met, organized crime proceeds in
phases. Operations of organized crime and its representatives have
three different phases. The first one is control of a territory. Control
of a territory is gained by intimidation, by generating fear. Such a
territory becomes the exclusive turf of a particular group.
After you control a territory, you get into money laundering. I
will come back to the importance of money laundering for
organized crime. I should mention that money laundering in
Canada accounts for about $20 billion, invested in legal or illegal
activities.
Once money has been laundered, it can be invested in legal
enterprises. In Montreal, to give you an example that I know very
well, organized crime has invested mostly in restaurants, bars and
the like, although I do not think this is unique to Montreal. I know
it is the same in other communities.
So, we welcome the minister's bill. We agree that, as hon.
members and as legislators, we cannot give up, that, we must
assume our responsibilities and take action on such an important
issue.
Of course, we would have preferred to have this debate much
earlier, because, as Bloc members, we have been pleading with the
Minister of Justice for two years to look into what is going on in
Canada's big cities.
Today, we have a bill and we will co-operate. I say to the
Minister of Justice that, if I can be of any help, wherever he wants
me to speak or whatever he wants me to do, he can count on my full
co-operation, because, once again, partisanship has no place in
such an issue.
(1720)
I would like to mention an extremely troubling fact. We have
known for three months now that organized crime has changed the
way it operates. Criminal organizations must not be
underestimated, they are intelligent, well organized, and they have
many means at their disposal to carry out their activities.
In the past, these organizations used to limit their operations to
60 days. They were active in counterfeiting and they could detect
wire tapping devices, and they were aware that, when their lines
were being tapped, the warrant could not go beyond 60 days.
In that sense, I find the measure the minister is providing in the
legislation most appropriate, making it not only easier to get
warrants to authorize wire tapping, but also not necessary to prove
that it is used as a last resort and the only investigative tool
available to the police. It will be a lot simpler and easier to get such
a warrant.
However, I must say that the way bombs are made now, the way
explosives are handled by both major gangs, and I am referring of
course to the Rock Machine or the Hell's Angels, is that these
people now put in devices to make sure that the bombs will
explode. The police had come to be able to identify which gang the
bomb came from by the way it was made, and the way the
explosive device was put together, the way the bomb was
assembled often gave an indication of which group was responsible
for it.
To counter that, criminal organizations began to equip explosive
devices with a timer so that no bomb ever misfire.
The reason I am telling you this is obviously not to scare people
but to make them understand that organized crime and its various
manifestations are not something transitory that will go away and
that we will not have to worry about a few weeks down the road.
The justice minister is right to put forward such a bill because
organized crime is a permanent fixture.
Even though we passed Bill C-61 on the laundering of the
proceeds of crime, organized crime has prospered.
I think the measures being proposed here will be relevant and
effective in helping police forces conduct investigations more
quickly and produce much stronger evidence. Ultimately, attorney
generals will be able to dig up evidence and initiate legal
proceedings. Criminals will stand trial and we will be able to
dismantle or at least shake up the higher echelons of organized
crime.
This bill contains 10 specific provisions I would like to explain
to the people listening to us.
First of all, the essence of this bill is that it creates the new
offence of participation in a criminal organization. The bill
provides that any offence for which the punishment is five years in
prison or more will be deemed a criminal organization offence.
Indeed the minister has cast a wide net. The bill covers drug
offences, possession of stolen goods, influence peddling, and all
other criminal organization offences.
This is a judicious bill that defines criminal organizations as any
group consisting of five or more persons. I tend to agree with this
number. I know that Reform members have suggested that this
number be reduced to three. But I think that, given the way
organized crime works, we will be able to meet the objectives of
this bill while maintaining this number at five.
10017
(1725)
So a new offence has been created. The minister did not agree to
the request made by the Quebec government to add a provision on
crime by association. Since the beginning of this debate, the
minister has been extremely reluctant to create a crime by
association. I do respect the legal arguments behind his position.
I think we could have created a crime by association, which
would have been in compliance with both section 1 of the Charter
and the legal guarantees in sections 7 to 14 of same. What is
important however is not to determine if I was right, if the minister
was right, or if the Quebec government was right, but to dismantle
any known criminal gangs.
So, a new offence is created. New provisions concerning
explosives have also been added. That was also something the
Government of Quebec had requested. The bill says that any person
who possesses, uses, or handles an explosive substance for the
benefit, in total or in part, of a criminal organization is guilty of an
offence, under aggravating circumstance, and liable to
imprisonment for 14 years.
I think it is very important to understand how crucial this
provision is, because as we know, explosives are very often used to
commit crime, especially by biker gangs.
This will now constitute an aggravating circumstance. This
notion of aggravating circumstance is already included in the
Criminal Code, since, a few years back, we had section 718.9
modified to add a number of factors that, taken into consideration
by the judges, lead to tougher sentencing.
If a criminal offence is committed by an organized gang, this
will be considered an aggravating circumstance, especially when
explosives are used. I think this is an extremely positive measure.
Judges will also be given the possibility of deferring or
postponing parole, or restricting eligibility to parole. It will be
possible for them-and this is quite clear in the bill-when an
individual is sentenced for gangsterism, to order that 50 per cent of
the sentence must be served before the individual can be eligible to
parole.
I think this measure is extremely important because it
encourages informers. One of the extremely modern ways to fight
organized crime is to encourage informers to come forward.
Nobody in organized crime will ever confess, agree to testify or
co-operate if he or she knows that three, four or five months down
the road, the person he or she informed against will be free to make
trouble for them.
Measures like postponing parole or aggravating circumstances
are very important measures because they favour informers, which
is a key weapon, often used, to track down organized crime.
Another extremely important measure I talked about a little
earlier is that it will be easier to obtain a warrant for electronic
surveillance. Nowadays, electronic surveillance is a last resort
measure. One has to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a judge that
this is the ultimate way to conduct investigations.
Thanks to the provisions of this bill, it will be easier to not only
get authorization to proceed with electronic surveillance but also to
extend the warrant as much as up to one year. This is extremely
important.
(1730)
Another clause will make it easier and faster to obtain search
warrants, for which one needs evidence, of course. The judge will
always have to be satisfied. The bill contains an extremely
interesting and original provision which provides for the forfeiture
not only of the proceeds of crime, but also of vehicles used to
commit offences. For example, if a truck is used to commit a crime,
it could be confiscated. If a building is used-because the bill also
applies to buildings-it could be confiscated.
At present, there are provisions in a number of laws which allow
for the forfeiture of property, but it is always done by a court order
and it always pertains to property deemed to have been used in
laundering of proceeds of crime. We will now be able to confiscate
not only property used for the laundering of the proceeds of crime,
but also property, such as a vehicle, used to commit a crime.
Another extremely interesting provision is that the judge will be
able to issue an order to keep the peace, to refrain from seeing
certain persons, from leaving the country, a judicial order against a
person if there is sufficient evidence that that person will take part
in the commission of a crime by a criminal organization. In other
words, it is a preventive measure. The price of not keeping the
peace could be an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment.
The final measure the minister referred to concerns information
and provides that the solicitor general will table an annual report on
organized crime, on what progress has been made, where organized
crime is active and, obviously I hope, on suggestions for fighting it.
It is overall an interesting bill. It combines a number of measures
called for by police and the Government of Quebec, particularly
with respect to explosives.
We must nevertheless realize today that we as parliamentarians
have become aware of what is going on in organized crime because
people have taken action. Some of them are fellow residents in my
riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, including the mother of young
Daniel Desrochers, Josée-Anne, who circulated a petition and who
used every public forum to awaken parliamentarians.
10018
I think that whoever we are and wherever we sit in this House
we owe a debt of gratitude to Josée-Anne Desrochers. The police
also acted and created CAPLA, the Comité d'action politique pour
une loi anti-gangs. There was all sorts of pressure. As well, there
was my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, who took
the lead in this matter and very early on spoke to the minister on
a number of occasions. He was very stubborn, obsessive and
persevering, I would say. It helped, because his efforts were not
in vain. The proof is that today we have legislative measures.
(1735)
Here are a few indications of the scope of organized crime,
showing how its effects are felt throughout society, and how
important it is for us, as legislators, to be extremely vigilant.
In 1992, the underground economy was estimated at 5.2 percent
of the gross national product, some $36 billion. That is in 1992
dollars. In today's dollars, those numbers would be a lot higher.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that annual losses
associated with unrecovered stolen vehicles-which is also one
aspect of organized crime-amount to $293 million; $293 million
per year for stolen vehicles. A pretty considerable sum.
In 1994, Canadian chartered banks estimated their losses due to
fraud at $143 million. Within organized crime, there is a sort of
specialization. Some groups have become expert in what we call
counterfeiting bank notes and putting them into circulation. I think
this is a specialty of Asian groups, who have become quite expert at
it. In 1994, the banks reported they had lost $143 million because
of fraud.
The most interesting number comes from very knowledgeable
people in the field-the police forces-and concerns the income
generated by organized crime, which is estimated at $20 billion.
The figures for revenues from crime are close to the figures for the
Canadian deficit. How much is the Canadian deficit? My colleague
for Berthier-Montcalm, who follows these issues closely, could
tell me the exact amount, but I believe it is $19 billion. The
Canadian deficit is about $19 billion while revenues from crime
total $20 billion per year. Is it possible, as legislators, to remain
idle when confronted with this fact? I think not.
However, despite all the good things I said concerning the
government-and believe me, this is extremely
circumstantial-the fact remains that it could have done much
more. We made representations to the government. So did other
groups, that is police forces and other people involved. We know
perfectly well that the next step will certainly be the laundering of
money. We know that. The fact that Canada is a money laundering
paradise is very well known. Canada is extremely liberal on that
matter. This cannot go on.
I must tell you the police community made a very important
demand, that is the obligation for the major chartered banks to
report any suspicious transaction over $10,000. This is extremely
important for those who investigate to be able to trace back the
origin of suspicious transactions. Right now, chartered banks must
keep a record of all operations that they think are suspicious, but
they are under no obligation to report them.
I think it would have been worthwhile to include a legal
provision specifying that failure to report such operations may be a
punishable offence. I am convinced that banks would have
co-operated, because the Canadian Bankers Association has taken
some internal measures to detect dubious transactions, but all this
must become an obligation.
(1740)
Police officers had also asked that $1,000 bills be taken out of
circulation. Is there anyone in this House naive enough to think that
ordinary people walk on the street with $1,000 bills in their
pockets? Mr. Speaker, if I you were to do a survey in this place, I
am sure that very few of us-including yourself, the pages, the
members of this House and the people in the gallery-would have a
$1,000 bill in their pockets.
We know full well that the $1,000 bill makes it possible for some
people to carry large amounts in their pockets and we know for sure
that the $1,000 bill is a boon to organized crime. The Canadian
Police Association has asked that the $1,000 bill be taken out of
circulation, and that is something that will have to be considered.
Here is another extremely important demand: I was telling you
earlier about the need to have banks divulge dubious transactions
of more than $10,000, and I think that must not be restricted to the
banks. Casinos could also be included in that list, as well as travel
agencies and all those businesses trading in luxury items that may
eventually be infiltrated and help us trace the criminal chain of
command.
These are some measures we are suggesting. I think the justice
minister will welcome them. I want to remind him that the reality
of organized crime is not temporary. It is a huge threat. To this day,
organized crime has managed to poison the life of entire
communities, and I am thinking of course about the eastern part of
Montreal with what happened in the riding of
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but it is not only the eastern part of
Montreal that is deeply affected by this reality.
This reality is also a daily concern for the people of
Saint-Nicolas, who have mobilized to fight this problem. Is it
acceptable that bunkers can be built in urban centres, near
residential areas, and that people can openly and publicly make
money through illegal means and disturb the peace within our
communities? I think not. As parliamentarians, we have a
responsibility to do everything in
10019
our power to stop these people, to hold them accountable, to send
them to prison and to launch investigations.
Too often, over the past few years, I heard people say that it was
the police's fault, because they did not build good cases. I took part
in public debates, open lines and television shows where the easy
argument that was used was: ``If the police did a better job, it would
be easier to fight organized crime''.
I think this argument does not withstand scrutiny because each
time a police force wants to press charges, there are prosecutors
and lawyers who study these cases to see how well the evidence
would stand up in court, to determine if it could be challenged or
not. It is not just about police resources; it is also about the
Criminal Code and giving the courts the interpretation tools they
need.
I am not saying that adding police resources is not a good thing. I
am thinking of course about the Carcajou squad, in Montreal, and
GRICO. It is indeed a good thing. When, in a special squad, you
have the means to shadow individuals, the more people you have in
your squad, the easier it is not just to build solid cases but to act
quickly.
(1745)
There is something that must never be forgotten. You know how
devious the whole field of law is. You know the effect one decision
can have on case law and how it can change the course of law. I
know that my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm,
who is a lawyer, one of the best I would say, but not a criminal
lawyer, is aware of the 1992 Stinchcombe ruling. How did this
affect case law? It meant that, with respect to disclosure of
evidence, the public prosecutor is obliged to file, before the trial,
all the elements that contributed to the evidence.
This means that all information regarding a tail, personal notes,
videotaped material, everything that contributed to the evidence
must be handed over to the defence. This is fraught with
consequences, because it forces those building cases to be
extremely imaginative, extremely innovative in order to outwit
their opponents from one trial or investigation to the next.
On the whole, I think this is a bill that deserves our support. As
the opposition, we are going to co-operate. We did so today. We
have acted very expeditiously.
I say again to the minister that, whatever we can do, whatever
forum he would like to send us to, whatever demonstration we can
take part in to ensure that this bill is passed before the imminent
election that you know will see us back here as the official
opposition, just as we are now, we will co-operate.
If the minister wants us to make representations to the other
House to help things along, we are prepared to do so because we
have known for several months that partisanship has no place in
this issue of organized crime. All my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois agree with me that, when public safety is at stake, when
the tranquillity of entire sections of the community are threatened,
we have a responsibility to act quickly, not to be complacent.
That is what we have done as the official opposition and that is
what we will continue to do in the coming days.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we heard
quite a bit about this bill today in committee of the whole. I would
like to point to something that was not discussed. Underlying the
whole question of the new authorities and powers granted in the bill
is the fact that the government and the justice system have failed to
deal adequately with the trafficking of drugs. They have failed to
deal with it to the point where it is now so lucrative that the biker
gangs are warring over who will control it.
What has happened over the last 30 years? Our laws have
become too soft. The tools have been taken away from our law
enforcement agencies to the point where drug trafficking is so
absolutely lucrative that gangs are killing one another over the turf.
That is what the turf war is all about, the right to control drug
trafficking.
What does that say? That is something that has not been
discussed. It is a sure indication of the failure of the justice system
to protect our families and our children, to protect every Canadian
citizen from that kind of influence.
(1750 )
If we go into any public school in this country, particularly high
schools, we can see evidence of what the justice system has failed
to do, which is to protect our children against those people who
would kill in order to make a profit from drugs. They are turning
our society into bedlam.
There is drug trafficking in my little city of Camrose. The
children in the high schools are becoming addicted because the
government and those before it have eroded the criminal justice
system. Laws have been changed. The tools have been denied to
law enforcement agencies to the point where we are not fighting
what we should be fighting, we are fighting the fact that two groups
of criminals are fighting over who is going to control the $20
billion drug industry in Canada.
It is a shame. It is a disgrace. That has not been touched on in this
debate. It is something people across the country know about. They
are talking about it. They are sending petitions to their members of
Parliament about it. They are writing to us about the general
climate which allows crime to flourish.
When this bill was introduced we knew it could not be passed
with the election looming. We knew it could not be brought before
10020
committee and have witnesses come forward on both sides of the
issue so that we could understand if there are flaws and weaknesses
in the bill. Those weaknesses are on both sides: weaknesses
concerning the police and weaknesses in that it might encroach on
the rights of innocent people. We knew that we would not have the
time to do that, so we had to agree in order to give the police some
degree of enhancement of their operations against criminals. We
had to rush the bill through.
I talked to some of the police chiefs and others in criminal
justice enforcement. They told me that they need this bill, not
because it contains such powerful tools for them, but because for
the first time we are introducing into the criminal justice system
laws dealing with organized crime.
I asked them if this legislation would enable them to solve the
offences which are occurring, the bombings and the murders, they
were not sure it would. When I asked that question at least one of
them quickly changed the subject and pointed to some of the
positive aspects of the bill with which I agree.
The extension of wiretapping could have been done two, three,
four or five years ago. It should have been done 10 years ago. Then
there could have been investigations into drug trafficking and
organized crime. It would have given the police the tools they
needed to prevent the spread of drug trafficking.
The peace bond is a good idea. That could have been brought in
years ago as well. It could have been brought in to deal with
organized crime for the very purpose for which it is being brought
in now. It was not brought in. Why? I do not know.
The access to income tax records could have been brought in
years ago for the specific area of organized crime.
Then we have offence related property. In other words, we are
enhancing the powers of the police and the state to seize the avails
of crime, but that will only come after an accused has been
convicted of a criminal organization offence. Let us look at the
possibility of anyone ever being convicted under this new offence
that will allow the police and the state to seize the avails of crime.
How easy is it going to be?
(1755)
First, someone has to be convicted of an indictable offence
carrying at least a maximum five year penalty. Then the crown has
to establish that the individual was part of a crime organization.
Four others will have to be brought into the picture to show that
they were associating and one of their primary objectives was to
commit this kind of crime and that there had been a series of crimes
committed by one or more of the group.
Mr. Speaker, you understand the law. You are a lawyer. You
understand exactly what I am talking about when I say to
Canadians: Do not hold your breath expecting reams of convictions
under this new offence. It is not going to happen.
I hope my prediction is wrong. It reminds me a little of Bill C-27
where we passed this wonderful law that is going to discourage
pedophiles from going to other countries to have sex with young
children. How is the child sex tourism bill going to be enforced?
We had legal minds appear before the committee on Bill C-27
and they told us that it is a wonderful looking bill and that part of it
sounds good and might make people feel safer and more assured
that the state is doing something about what is happening in other
countries by the pedophiles from Canada, but how is it to be
enforced?
When I look at the enforceability of this new section, I have
grave concerns. Those concerns were not alleviated as a result of
my discussion with the police chiefs to whom I spoke. They
pointed to other aspects of the bill and the fact that for the first time
legislation was being introduced into the Criminal Code dealing
with organized crime and they hoped in the years to come it would
be expanded on.
The fact of the matter is former governments were supposed to
stand on guard for this country. Every Wednesday we sing our
national anthem. We promise in that anthem that we stand on guard
for thee, Canada and for the citizens who live in this country.
But have they stood on guard? No, they have not. As I said
earlier, drug trafficking is so widespread and the police so unable to
deal with it, now we are hoping for laws that will be able to deal
with the consequences of our laxness in this area. Murders are
being committed, innocent people are dying, the criminals are
killing one another off in order to gain control over an illicit traffic
that should never have developed to the extent that it has. It has and
we are facing that now.
I listened to the debates, as short as they were, on this bill. No
one, neither the justice minister nor anyone on the government side
nor from the Bloc side addressed the underlying cause of the
situation that has brought about Bill C-95. Why not?
Have we embraced it? Have we given up? Is the next step to
legalize hard drugs? Is that the next step? We see some people
advocating the decriminalization of soft drugs. Is that what we are
coming to? We have taken powers away from the police over the
years, lightened the offences. Why? People say too many people
are incarcerated. The jails are full.
The justice minister attacks us and criticizes us for not
supporting some of his bills. We support this bill. We do not know
everything about the bill that we should know but we are
10021
supporting it. We support good, sound initiatives by this
government.
(1800)
We support it today and we have in the past. The justice minister
has attacked us and criticized us for not supporting some of his bills
such as Bill C-41.
We are going to go across the country telling the people in the
forthcoming election why we did not support Bill C-41. That is
because of the alternative measures that are being extended to
violent offenders, the conditional sentencing that is now being used
by some judges to allow rapists and violent offenders to walk free.
That is why we did not support Bill C-41 and will not support it.
We have asked over and over again for the justice minister to bring
in a simple amendment that would deny the courts the power, the
tools, to allow violent offenders to walk free through this
conditional sentencing clause. He refuses to do it.
Therefore we will not be taking this to the people in this
forthcoming election, we are taking it to them now and we are
showing very clearly that we are prepared to support good
legislation but will not support legislation like the Bloc does that
allows violent offenders to walk free. We will not support that.
A Reform government will repeal that bill and we will plug the
hole that allows the courts in this land to send rapists back on the
street after they destroyed the lives of their victims. When we look
at this bill and we look at the whole gamut of the justice system and
where we have arrived, the justice minister has become so partisan
in his answers today that I saw no reason to go any further.
In the forthcoming election the people will be examining his
laws. They will be examining his attitude. They will be examining
his response to victims and they will vote accordingly.
This government will be weighed and it is going to be found
wanting. Certainly anyone who examines the bills that have come
through this House over the last 25 or 30 years knows that
something has gone wrong. They do not have to examine the bills
at all, they simply have to see the consequences of what has
happened to our society where two gangs of thugs are fighting over
the turf of the illicit drug trafficking that has occurred in this
country.
Our criminal justice system has allowed that to happen. If it did
not happen, we would not be asking for this kind of a bill. We
should have had these tools in the hands of the police years ago. We
brought in a charter of rights and freedoms that now can be used as
a shield by many of these people in this illicit trafficking that is
destroying the lives of our children, destroying the undergirdings
of society.
Therefore we have asked the justice minister and we have asked
this government to protect the rights of victims, to protect the lives
of our children by bringing in reasonable, common sense laws, by
giving back to the police the powers and the discretion to use those
powers in a manner they think is in the best interests of society.
I do not know why we do not see a proper response or a better
response by the Liberal government and this justice minister. I
cannot understand that. We came to the House in 1993 with a
promise from the government that it was going to work more
co-operatively, it was going to change the way we did business
here, more free votes and that kind of thing. We were willing to
give it a chance and we have supported every measure we thought
was for the benefit of society. Yet the justice minister will stand in
this place and accuse us of not supporting a bill like Bill C-41
which allows rapists to walk free.
I do not understand that. It seems the only thing some of the
people on the other side understand is a message in neither of the
official languages; it is an X on a ballot at election time. We will
see.
We will let the people judge whether they feel society is safer
than it was before, whether they are better off economically than
they were before and whether this government deserves another
mandate. Will we see. It will be up to the people.
(1805)
I heard today from the Prime Minister on television, from the
justice minister, and it bothers me so much, the pretence that they
do not know when the election is going to be called.
If an election were not evident or imminent we would not be
rushing this bill through without having witnesses. All the people
the justice minister suggested to us he has consulted we should
have heard from. We should have had their opinions. The members
of the House, through our committee, should have had those
opinions placed on the record so we could determine whether this
bill should have been amended and if so in what areas. We should
have had that opportunity.
The justice minister pretends that he does not know when the
election is going to be called. When they have their war rooms all
rented and up and running, when they have everything on the move
and he says to this House, as the Prime Minister said on TV two
days ago, he does not know when the election will be called, it
sounds to me like their GST promise again.
We will be asking the people of this country in the election that
will be called within a week or so to weigh the legislation and
weigh their own circumstances as to whether they feel safer in
society, whether their economic situation has improved or
deteriorated. If they feel that the government has done a good job,
it deserves another mandate. If they do not then we are asking them
very clearly to look at an alternative that will listen and will be
guided by the will of the majority so that our Minister of Justice
can go to Saskatchewan and can talk to the gun owners, the
10022
law-abiding, hardworking taxpayers, stand in front of a crowd and
not be concerned.
He can come to Dauphin, Manitoba where I was last Saturday,
where 450 people turned up to learn what? More about Bill C-68.
Imagine that, after two years. They are still punching holes in the
air out there over what they consider to be a horrible injustice. It is
a piece of legislation directed at them rather than at the criminal
use of firearms.
We will support this bill. I am hoping that we are not missing
anything. The justice minister heard from people on both sides of
this issue. I am hoping there is nothing that has been held back
from us in terms of their cares, their worries or their concerns. I am
hoping that this bill will do the job we all want it to do.
It is really unfortunate that we would allow the drug trafficking
situation to get so well entrenched in this country and so expansive.
We feel it now in every school. We feel it in every community
across this country. The absolute proof of that fact is we now have
two bands of thugs fighting over the turf to control this.
I lay the responsibility clearly on the shoulders of past justice
ministers, past Liberal and Tory governments that had an
opportunity to do something about it but did nothing. Now the wolf
is at our door and we think this bill is going to solve it. I hope it
does but I am not holding my breath in the expectation that reams
of convictions under this new bill will occur.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak at this stage on Bill C-95.
As my hon. colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has just said,
we have co-operated throughout the day and the Bloc Quebecois
proposals are what accelerated the process of getting Bill C-95, an
aAct to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organizations) and to
amend other Acts in consequence, passed as quickly as possible.
(1810)
For us in the Bloc Quebecois, this is not just a matter that has
been debated here for the past week. It is a very important subject.
From the start, the Bloc Quebecois has been highly aware of the
problem, because it is very much present in Quebec. As far back as
1995, we tried to convince the minister of the importance of
legislation on gangs, of anti-biker gang legislation, of legislation to
fight the scourge of organized crime.
You will recall that the Bloc Quebecois had to question the
government on several occasions sine 1995, that we in the Bloc
Quebecois, the official opposition, had to make speeches in this
House in order to convince the minister. Press conferences had to
be held.
On several occasions, the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve met with the police chiefs. He even
played a lead role in a pressure group lobbying for action to finally
be taken in this area, for the passage of legislation against the biker
gangs.
You will recall, as well, that we even applied to the Speaker of
the House for an emergency debate to be held on the whole matter
of motorcycle gangs, organized crime and money laundering. You
will recall that we were told there was no emergency. In 1993, the
Bloc Quebecois promised its electors to give them real power and
to defend their interests and it kept asking the federal government
to take action, to do something that would put an end to this
scourge.
Though we are not responsible for introducing legislation,
because we do not have the millions of dollars and the hundreds of
lawyers who work in the Department of Justice-our means are
very limited-we proposed in 1995 and later in private bills some
definitions and means that would allow us to really go after
organized crime and gang leaders. We proposed that in good faith
to the government. We tried to force it to do what it is expected to
do, and that is to legislate in its own jurisdiction.
But that was not enough. We had to have bombs. How many
bombs went off in Quebec before the minister decided to take
action? There had to be murder attempts. We had to find dynamite
across Quebec. There had to be murders. There were marches in
Saint-Nicolas, demonstrations by mayors and public pressure.
Some innocent people were injured. Members will also recall that
young Daniel Desrochers was killed in that gang war.
I remember very well that one day I asked the minister what he
was waiting for to legislate. He kept saying there was no rush and
that no legislation was necessary. The same day, we had six
incidents connected with the biker war. Bombs exploded, someone
was killed, a Molotov cocktail was thrown into a restaurant in
Quebec City. Dynamite was found in Longeuil. There was a
shooting in Saint-Nicolas. And the minister said there was no rush.
Do you know what convinced the minister that perhaps he should
do something? It was when we threatened to amend Bill C-17
which been languishing in the House for at least two or three years,
to amend it and include anti-biker provisions. The minister decided
to act.
More than that, after repeated questioning in the House, the
minister decided to go and see for himself the problems they had in
Quebec City. Fortunately, the air in Quebec City had a very salutary
effect on the Minister of Justice, since he came back saying there
was some urgency. There are those who fell from their horse on the
road to Damascus and there are others who went to Quebec City to
realize that action was urgently needed on the whole issue of the
biker gang war in Quebec.
10023
(1815)
So the minister came back from Quebec City saying this could
not go on, a situation where people stayed home because they were
afraid of being shot, because they were afraid of the biker war that
was going on in a number of municipalities in Quebec.
The problem is not recent. Back in 1982, a municipality, I think
it was Sorel or Tracy, asked both levels of government to intervene,
to pass legislation to help them fight what was starting to come to a
head, in other words, all the bunkers being built and all the
organized crime connected with all this.
The government of the day failed to act, and today's
government, the Liberal government opposite, was not doing
anything either. It took the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who
are here solely to look after Quebec's interests, to make them
understand that there was a problem and that immediate action was
required.
As I said earlier, we worked together to help the government get
the bill passed as quickly as possible, in view of the fact that
everyone knows elections are in the wings. We need only listen to
the Prime Minister and his wife if we have any doubt at all.
However, what surprises me today is that the Minister of Justice
says this is just a first step.
We are delighted the Minister of Justice has taken this course, as
we have been pointing it out since 1995. We would have liked a bill
that went further in fighting crime, but we accept the bill as it is.
We will pass it in the hope that we can someday amend it as we
would like in order to reach the goal we set ourselves.
The Minister of Justice says it is a first step, a first stage. I asked
the minister why, since he said that it was a first stage, a first step,
he did not decide to go further. Quite candidly he told me that he
will continue to look into this matter and see what he can do.
Finally, he does not know what to do as the second, third and fourth
stages.
I encourage him to reread the entire private member's bill my
colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve introduced. I also
suggest he reread the letters I wrote him in 1995 providing certain
definitions in order to get to the leaders. Perhaps then the Minister
of Justice will include a second stage, which we will soon have in
another legislature. I hope that the Bloc Quebecois will be as strong
then in order to defend Quebec's interests. I expect the minister
will continue to move in the direction of the claims we made in this
matter.
I can tell you right off two points the minister should consider
for the second stage: the leaders and money laundering. On three
occasions today, I asked the justice minister, who says that his bill
goes directly after gang leaders, to show me where in Bill C-95 I
could find something that dealt directly with gang leader. On three
occasions he answered that it did so in a global way, that the bill
had to be looked at in a global way. The minister never told me
precisely where to look, and I will tell you why. It is because there
is nothing in this bill which really deals with gang leaders. True, it
is a step forward; true, it gives greater powers to the police; true,
these are things the Bloc Quebecois had been demanding; true, we
are satisfied and happy, but this bill does not go as far as we would
have liked it to go.
I would invite the minister not to misinform the public, but to
tell what is truly in the bill; one thing that is definitely not in it is
provisions dealing directly with gang leaders.
(1820)
Among the definitions that the minister has put in this bill, there
are certainly good ones. This is the first time that a criminal
organization and an association have been defined. These are
things that we have been asking for in the House since 1995, and
we were told that it was not appropriate, that it could not be done.
Of course, we are very happy to find that in a bill. This is a step
forward. The Bloc Quebecois has helped the government, has
contributed to the drafting of a new provision that had never been
seen in Canada. Thanks to the Bloc Quebecois and its repeated
representations, the government was convinced to proceed. We are
very happy about that.
However, although a gang and an association have been defined,
the provision is drafted in such a way that it is still related to an
individual, to the committing of a crime. We know full well that it
is not the gang leaders who do the heavy work. It is not the leaders
who set the bombs that exploded. It is not the leaders who gunned
down an individual. It is not the leaders who threw a Molotov
cocktail in the restaurant in Quebec City or who hid the dynamite
sticks in Longueuil. It is not the leaders, but people who work for
them and who get orders from them. How can we catch the leaders
if the bill only helps us catch those who do the work and not those
who order it?
On three occasions, the minister has been unable to answer this
question, simply because the Bloc Quebecois is right. This bill does
not reach all the way up to the leaders, and something will have to
be done about that very soon. If we are to put an end to this plague,
we must deal not only with the ordinary members, but also with the
leaders.
Another issue that would have been very easy for the Minister of
Justice to address in the bill, as we repeatedly asked him, is money
laundering. As you know, Canada has the dubious honour of being
the G-7 country where the most money is laundered every year.
According to the statistics and to judges and law enforcement
officers, it is estimated that between $30 billion and $60 billion is
laundered in Canada every year. Some judges say $60 billion, while
law enforcement officers say between $30 billion and $40 billion,
based on how much they have seized, which represents about10 per cent of all the money laundered in Canada. Given that they
seize approximately $3.5 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion per year,
10024
they estimate money laundering to represent approximately $30
billion, $40 billion or $50 billion.
But regardless of the exact amount, even it were only $20 billion
per year, as my hon. colleague said earlier, this is about as much as
Canada's annual deficit. It is a awful lot of money.
To cover all the bases and provide a comprehensive solution to
the problem of biker gangs, organized crime and money
laundering, provisions dealing with these specific issues could
have been included in Bill C-95. For instance, the production and
distribution of $1,000 bills could have been prohibited. Canada
may be the only country in the world where such large
denominations are used. According to our information, no country
in the world has banknotes worth as much as $1,000. As we know it
is not every John Doe that walks around with a wad of $1,000 notes
in his pocket.
My notebook, here, has less than 30 pages, but if it were a wad of
$1,000 notes, I would have $30,000 in my hand. It is easy to carry,
to pass from hand to hand. Money laundering is easy. We could
simply prohibit that. It would have been very easy to include in Bill
C-95 a provision about that. It would have been easy also to include
in Bill C-95 provisions requiring financial institutions to report any
dubious transaction of $10,000 and more. It would have been easy
also to require casinos, travel agencies or any other groups which
are paid or see carried about huge sums of money of $10,000 and
more, to report such facts.
(1825)
One judge told me that, because of the current state of the
legislation, he was unable, despite the bank's co-operation, to find
guilty of fraud an individual who went to the bank to deposit a
hockey bag full of money. He came in with the bag which he put on
the counter saying he wanted to deposit some money. The bag held
about $1 million in $50, $100 and $1,000 notes.
Even if the bank did co-operate and even if the police did its
work, there are so many loopholes in the Canadian legislation that
the judge was not in a position to convict this man. Everybody goes
around with bags full of dollars. Everybody does that in Canada.
Oh, sure.
It is total nonsense. It makes so little sense that on the very day
when we are dealing with Bill C-95, we read this headline in a
newspaper: Thanks to the weakness of our legislation, Canada is a
paradise for traffickers. This news report says exactly what we
have been repeating for two or three years: our legislation is
ineffective.
The report says that the Canadian legislation on the laundering
of money has so many loopholes that it is extremely difficult to
enforce. The Canadian police, and even those the justice minister
brags about meeting a couple times, are dreaming of the day when
they will have half or even only the quarter of the provisions
existing in the United States.
In Canada, we have to prove beyond any doubt that the money is
the proceeds of criminal activities. In the United States, the onus is
on the accused. Why did the minister not take the opportunity, with
Bill C-95, to amend this legislation, when the government can
count on the co-operation of all parties in the House to have
legislation with teeth, and legislation that would meet the demands
of many groups and political parties, like the Bloc Quebecois or the
police association?
I will conclude by saying that this is a step in the right direction,
but I would have liked the minister to listen more to the official
opposition, the Bloc Quebecois. He did not agree 100 per cent with
the Bloc, which would have been hard for him to do in this election
period. However, I think the Bloc Quebecois made some
remarkable progress here and will continue to fight and will still be
here, after the next election, to ask the government for some
amendments to this legislation, in order to meet the needs and the
demands of Quebecers in this area.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried on division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from April 18 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules and another act related to the Income Tax Act, be
read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the
motion at third reading stage of Bill C-92.
Call in the members.
(1855 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
10025
(Division No. 327)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Collins
Comuzzi
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Duhamel
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lincoln
Loney
Maloney
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Parrish
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Wood
Young
Zed-99
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Brien
Crête
de Savoye
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Johnston
Langlois
Laurin
Marchand
Ménard
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Sauvageau
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-35
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Arseneault
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Campbell
Canuel
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dion
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Finestone
Gagliano
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Lalonde
Landry
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manley
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mercier
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Proud
Rocheleau
Rock
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Whelan
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find consent to apply
the results of the vote just taken to report stage and second reading
of Bill C-93.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 327.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time.)
_____________________________________________
10025
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-250,
an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada
Elections Act (confidence votes) be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
10026
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on Bill C-250.
(1900)
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 328)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Brien
Crête
de Savoye
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Johnston
Langlois
Laurin
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Sauvageau
Solberg
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)-32
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bertrand
Blondin-Andrew
Boudria
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Collins
Comuzzi
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Duhamel
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lincoln
Loney
Maloney
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
Parrish
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Simmons
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Wood
Young
Zed-97
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Arseneault
Bachand
Bakopanos
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Campbell
Canuel
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Crawford
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Dion
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Finestone
Gagliano
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Lalonde
Landry
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manley
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mercier
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Proud
Rocheleau
Rock
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief
Venne
Walker
Whelan
After the taking of the vote:
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair assumes the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester did not vote both ways, that he intended to
vote the second time.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I am voting with the government
as usual.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
(1905 )
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the member for Carleton-Gloucester
mentioned that he voted with the government, but of course this is a
free vote and I would think that he would understand that under a
supposed free vote one has to vote one's mind.
_____________________________________________