Bill C-24 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, while we are accustomed to the bluster of the member opposite and although he may have a good point, with respect to the bill before the House, it was his government that yesterday invoked a standing order to limit the debate today, to limit the debate on another important bill, Bill C-24, and to exclude the passage of an important bill with regard to water.

Perhaps the most heinous upshot of what the government did with that particular standing order was to deny members of the House of Commons the ability to vote on the spending of $166 billion. I wonder how the member reconciles that with the righteous indignation he has just expressed toward the opposition.

What would the member say in defence of his position to strip away the right of the opposition on behalf of their constituents to have some say in the spending of $166 billion of taxpayer money?

Criminal Code

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the fact, I believe, that all parties support the bill, I would like to try again to move the motion I sought to move earlier. I understand there was one member who had asked for a slight wording change.

I would move that any divisions deferred to the conclusion of government orders today be taken at 6.30 p.m., and that after the said division the House would continue to sit to consider the third reading stages of Bill C-24 and Bill C-6, that divisions be deemed requested thereon and deferred to the conclusion of government orders on June 12, 2001, and that when Bill C-6 is disposed of the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day—and I have added the next few words—that during such extension of debate this evening the House shall not recognize any motions or requests for unanimous consent.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I know my learned friend has contributed significantly to this debate. He brought forward a number of good ideas both at the committee and here in the House, some of which were embraced and are now encompassed in the legislation.

The Conservative Party generally supports Bill C-24. We see this as a positive initiative. We see it as an attempt finally by the Liberal government to recognize and put into law shortcomings that exist for police officers and law enforcement generally across Canada as it relates to this ongoing issue of organized crime.

Previous speakers have alluded to the numerous attempts made to amend the legislation, one of which dealt specifically with the special designation or authorization that would be granted by virtue of the bill. That designation, as the Chair knows, would allow police officers, in some instances, such as in very critical and dangerous circumstances, to engage in activities that would otherwise be offences under the criminal code.

The legislation would grant a form of immunity to the police in cases where they need to prove their affinity and prove themselves to members of organized gangs in order to gain their trust so that they might infiltrate that organization and embark on an important investigation.

The Conservative Party supports that. We believe it is a necessary evil, in some instances, to allow police to do just that. However, it is the unfettered ability to do that with which we are somewhat concerned, and that is the origin of that jurisdiction, the origin of that granting of authority.

We believed very strongly and moved an amendment to the effect that it should come from a judicial authority, as opposed to an internal police decision. That is not to cast aspersions in any way on the police or to suggest outright that there would be abuse. It is just to recognize that there are normal practices currently in place which pertain to warrants and wiretaps, for example, that allow those in a position of judicial authority to review the circumstances and make a more impartial, a more informed and a more impassioned decision as to who should receive that designated authority.

The government in its wisdom does not believe this to be the case. Yet I sense a great deal of unease and discomfort on the part of many government members who were part of the committee process.

Canada has increasingly become the focus of these very notorious gangs within our own borders. We know that organized crime does not recognize or respect borders. Yet this plague or this cancer that exists in our country and around the world is spreading. Many organizations have branched out and recently, for lack of a better word, set up shop in Canada.

In my home province of Nova Scotia the Hell's Angels are becoming very prominent. They have opened a clubhouse that in terms of its outward appearance has store frontage that would rival that of Wal-Mart. It is that blatant. They have their name up in neon lights. That is very much the attitude and the cockiness that exist within many of the criminal gangs in the country.

Many concerns have been ongoing for many years about the resources and the state of our laws that create the imbalance which allows organized crime to thrive.

Bill C-24 goes some distance to bringing back some form of equilibrium, at least in the ability of police forces to combat organized crime, to penetrate the very being of organized crime, to gather evidence, to go into the field and to hurt organized crime in the same way that it is wreaking havoc in our communities. To do so they have to use extraordinary methods at times. That is surely what the legislation is intended to do.

It is also clearly a response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Campbell and Shirose. The decision was interpreted as having struck down many of the previous authorizations in police for police to occasionally break the law. The decision opened up a chasm, a gaping hole in terms of the police understanding of what was or was not permissible in pursuit of organized crime. Bill C-24 is an attempt to restore some of the power and discretion that existed for many years in Canada.

It is following the trace of authorization to permit this type of activity which causes members of the Conservative Party and I some concern, as well as members of the bar associations in many provinces and others concerned that this type of potential invasion of civil liberties is a bit stretched by virtue of the bill.

As the government would be quick to point out, the level of accountability in legislation, at least in terms of the tracing the line, goes right to the solicitor general. Quite interestingly, in probably his last speech in the House before he trundles off to the other place as a reward for his diligence and duty on the part of the Prime Minister, he would be the figurehead, the top cop, if the bill were to come into being. That causes many to shake in their boots but that is currently the case.

The solicitor general is supposed to be directly accountable. Yet the supposedly personal responsibility which rests with the solicitor general's office will not be personal at all when there is a cabinet shuffle or when he leaves for an appointment.

It cannot be personal. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. That is the type of fallacy the bill creates. If there is to be real authorization and real accountability in the legislation, there must be judicial oversight, a judicial review of who receives this type of designation.

This concern is shared by many, as I have alluded to, but it is one that is particularly prevalent in the province of Quebec. The Chair would certainly be aware that on Tuesday, September 12, 2000, Quebec public security minister, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government in some instances to use the notwithstanding clause to outlaw membership in gangs such as the Hell's Angels and Rock Machine that were a plague to the streets of Montreal and other cities in Canada. In so doing it might anticipate the fact that the courts may very well strike down as unconstitutional some of the provisions of anti-gang legislation and legislation such as Bill C-24.

At the same time we know that in the city of Toronto, under the very able and capable leadership of Chief Julian Fantino, the police have assigned a full time team to monitor Hell's Angels bikers who have brashly set up clubhouses throughout the city as they have in Halifax. Police are most concerned that Hell's Angels might be involved in drugs or arms dealing or taking over legitimate businesses for money laundering purposes. We spoke to that previously in debate on legislation before the House today.

Yet organized crime does not exist just in the large cities. Hon. members would be quick to recognize that their reach goes far beyond our major metropolitan areas. It is found in small towns and villages. Particularly in rural Canada now more and more we are seeing the activities of organized crime. Ports and coastal communities are particularly vulnerable to the importation of contraband materials.

We in the House have an obligation to recognize that Canada is becoming a target of organized crime. In so doing we are very much committed to bringing forward legislation such as this one which arms the police with the tools, the support and the resources necessary.

Resources do not just entail the concrete types of resources one might expect such as computers, firearms on occasion, weaponry, cars, surveillance equipment, helicopters and planes. It also includes legislative backup, legislative tools that allow police forces to optimize their efforts. They allow police forces to see the fruition of their efforts through the courts and prosecutorial system and the eventual incarceration of those who engage in illegal activity.

There was a reference made in previous remarks to the horrible shooting that took place in Montreal of Journal de Montreal reporter Michel Auger who was shot five times in the back. It was a truly cowardice act. I think evidence emerged recently to suggest that it was very much linked to organized crime, particularly motorcycle gangs which Mr. Auger had made the subject of many of his articles.

Therefore the bill now encompasses protection of journalists who write about, disclose and pull back the veil of secrecy surrounding organized crime. As I said, criminal gangs are branching out. Any effort that curtails their activity is such that we should be supportive.

Having said it is rampant and spreading within Canada, it is certainly recognized that it is a world problem. We have seen references to Russian mafia. Certainly Chinese triads have now set up in Canada. We have references to all sorts of organizations from the Middle East that have been active within our borders.

This is a clear indication that Canada has to be competitive and to look in some instances for information from other sources outside our boundaries. That again has to be a direction in which we are prepared to move, because just as in legitimate practices within the economy Canada stands to be left behind if we do not keep up the pace and recognize that this is something now far beyond our control and far beyond the scope of our boundaries.

There was a debate in the House on September 18 initiated by the Bloc that I would suggest very much pushed the government toward bringing forward useful and positive legislation.

The Minister of Justice repeatedly gave assurances throughout the debate and on other occasions that efforts were being made to break the back of organized crime. Yet she refused to discuss using the notwithstanding clause during the course of the debate and conceded that the Liberal government could strengthen the anti-gang laws first initiated back in 1997.

Bill C-24 would do a great deal to achieve some sense of hobbling organized crime. It certainly would not break its back but it would strengthen the definition that pertains to what comprises an organized gang. It would target various degrees of involvement within the organization, make it easier for police and crown prosecutors to arrest and jail gangsters and keep them in prison for longer periods of time by extending the range of sentencing available.

It would allow law enforcement agents to forfeit the proceeds of crime, use the property to do good work and put those resources toward necessary areas. It would also strengthen the rules protecting against intimidation of witnesses, jurors and their families in an organized crime trial, a big problem when it comes to the successful prosecution of these types of offences.

Further, it would strengthen protection for federal members of parliament and improve protection for law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit certain illegal acts while engaged in undercover operations to infiltrate criminal organizations. This is the immunity clause of which we spoke earlier.

In recognition of the non-partisan efforts put forth on the committee some very useful amendments were passed. The record will reveal that all who have spoken to the bill have done so in a fairly positive and straightforward fashion as to what would be accomplished when the bill comes into being.

There was also mention of the amendments moved by other parties in attempts to improve and expand upon the status of the legislation. Under the bill the Solicitor General of Canada and provincial ministers responsible for policing would release an annual report accounting for how often law enforcement agents engage in acts which are considered illegal under the current criminal code. That would provide some record and some ability to trace at least what actions have occurred, when the immunity has been used and for what purposes.

There is some degree of comfort in knowing there will be an after the fact examination of the efforts and acts of police in attempts to infiltrate organized crime and invoke on occasion the immunity which allows them to commit illegal acts like stealing a car and using stolen property. However there are still limitations that speak in particular to offences that might involve bodily harm, sexual assault, and certainly murder and the use of violence. The limitations are there. They are real and they exist for a reason.

The amendment the Conservative Party brought forward, which in fairness emulated much of the intent and mirrored the substance of the Bloc amendment tabled at the committee, would go back to this designation. Suggesting that somehow it would slow the process down by having a judge rather than a police officer or superior law enforcement officer make the designation simply does not wash.

There is no further delay in having judicial authority in the first instance than there would be in having police authority to grant the immunity. There would be a much greater sense of ease among many if they knew the designation was coming from a judicial authority as opposed to an internal, in shop process which allows in the extreme one police officer to designate another who would in turn designate him again.

We support this type of legislation and recognize it as something that can be improved upon. Yet the authorization itself is something we would like to revisit at some opportunity. I expect we will because we know that the instant the bill comes into being there will be challenges before the courts. Who knows what the supreme court would do in its wisdom with this type of intervention and designation of authority?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

The hon. Liberal member across the way says that it takes a Bloc Quebecois member; even he has understood.

There is also another point on which I do not think we have gone far enough. We will vote in favour of Bill C-24, but I believe we could go a little further. We are going to monitor how it will be applied, we will watch how the police forces and the government are going to apply this law. In due course we will review the situation, since we consider it one of our priorities, both before it is passed and after as well. The matter of reversal of burden of proof is the aspect relating to the proceeds of crime that we believe needs to be taken further. It is still too easy to get around this.

There are many cases I could cite. For instance, when someone declares an income of $13,000 for the previous year and is driving around in a Jaguar, frequenting the most chic Montreal restaurants almost nightly, and lives in a $350,000 house, I think there is something fishy going on. The law needs to be strengthened in this area.

The government should also amend certain federal laws relating to taxation. As Canada has a police force specializing in organized crime, there should be special investigators to enter organized crime, investigate and build files. We do not have this at the moment, and millions of dollars are slipping through our fingers. We will study that closely and come back to it if the government drags its feet once again.

We will not wait for the Liberal members from Quebec. We know they never do anything. We will take the initiative and continue to defend the matter as we have done from the start.

There is also the question of financing. I know the member for Provencher, a member of the Canadian Alliance, mentioned this in his remarks earlier. He is right, especially since I put the question to the minister. I asked her, “Of the $200 million that you say you will make available for the implementation of C-24, how many millions of dollars will go to Quebec, because the provinces will apply it on a daily basis? The provinces will be going after organized crime. How many millions of dollars will be coming to Quebec?”

Do members know what the answer was? It is perfectly splendid “Zero”. The $200 million is for the federal government, for the machinery. for adjustments, for training, for application purposes, not for those working on location. And yet we know that a lot of money is needed there.

We know because we carried out operation Printemps 2001 in Quebec. We conducted the biggest operation against organized crime that Canada has seen. I no longer know how many gang leaders and members in good standing were arrested, and how many warrants were issued. I think there were about 40 in approximately 77 municipalities. So it was quite a large-scale operation.

Operation springtime 2001 alone cost the Quebec treasury around $15 million, and that does not include all the future court costs. If close to 50% of all those accused end up behind bars, several prisons would have to be adapted, because they could not all be incarcerated immediately.

In addition, we saw what it cost in terms of adapting court houses, conducting trials, and so on. The costs were enormous. The federal contribution needs to be rethought, because no funding has been planned for Quebec or the other provinces with respect to enforcement of this legislation.

This is very important. We know that enforcement is what will make the difference. Even if we have the best laws in all the world, if we are unable to enforce them, if we lack the staff or law enforcement officers, where will it leave us? In the wonderful Canadian system in which we live, it is the federal government which makes certain laws and the provinces which enforce them.

It seems to me that there is something wrong. The federal government is the lawmaker and it has money coming out of its ears, but it decides to make cuts and to look after its own interests. Fine. But we have to see about the implementation of the act as such, which is very important.

Right now, what the minister is telling us about funding is not reassuring. We will have to check and to monitor this very closely to ensure that Quebec, among others, gets the necessary funds. This will not be the first issue over which we fight. Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois has fought a number of battles to ensure that the federal government gives us the money that belongs to us, the money owed to the province under certain programs and following Ottawa's withdrawal from certain programs, including in the area of justice. We fought; we went and got money for Quebec, and we will continue to do so.

We will not wait for Liberal members from Quebec, because they never say anything in the House, they are too afraid to get any money. But not us Bloc Quebecois members. We will continue to protect Quebec's interests and to go and get the taxes that we paid.

I will conclude by saying that for us the most important issue that is still unresolved is that of making it a crime to merely be a member of a criminal gang. This is not in the bill, but I still believe in such a clause and the government is making a mistake by not taking the Bloc Quebecois up on its proposal.

We said so in 1997, when the Minister of Justice brought in amendments to the criminal code. We told her—or rather him, since the federal Minister of Justice was a man at that time—that it was a mistake. But he did not heed us. He had indeed made a mistake. Today we still feel that not making mere membership a crime is again an error on the government's part.

There is the whole matter of the Canadian constitution. Is it or is it not constitutional to make mere membership in a gang an offence? There is agreement on the definition of a gang as being a group of individuals who join together to commit crime and to live off the proceeds of crime. Such a definition naturally excludes such groups as the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of Isabelle, the Optimist clubs, the Club Richelieu and so on. Does this respect the Canadian constitution or not? I believe that it does. I believe we have everything we need in the Canadian constitution to create legislation in this area that respects jurisdictions, that respects the Canadian constitution.

That was my opinion before, continues to be today, and likely will be tomorrow as well. For the worst case scenario, that it does not respect the Canadian constitution, we have the notwithstanding clause in section 33 and it can be used in such a case. It is not true that the constitution is there to protect gangs. It does not do so in Bill C-24.

We will be voting in favour of Bill C-24 because it offers additional tools. It may not be all we wanted in such a system, but in large part it reflects what we were calling for. We are going to vote in favour of this bill. But it will have to be monitored very closely and we will not hesitate in the least to revisit the matter. We will not hesitate to invoke the notwithstanding clause if need be. In any case, there are reference procedures. We could have checked the legality or illegality of a bill that used the definition of organized crime as we understand it.

The government opposite knows about that, since it has already used the reference procedure. The Liberals were a little short on guts politically. They did not go that far. We will follow this. We will check it and closely follow the laws daily application. We will no doubt be back if certain points are not well applied, and the criminals still get away with it.

We know that criminal groups are well informed in legal terms. They are sometimes said to be better equipped legally than the crown prosecutors. They are obviously going to examine this bill and find its weak spots, try to get around it.

We will follow the law's application. We will work, as we always have, with the police and the justice system and, once again, try to bring the issue of organized crime before this House. We will try to convince the minister to go further in the procedures we raised with Bill C-24.

Probably, one day or other, the government opposite will tell us we were right, as we were right in 1997 to complain about the bill it tabled. One day or other, I am sure, the government will say it will have to go further, because the bill does not provide what Canada and Quebec need to fight organized crime.

Once again, we will be there for the people of Quebec. We will rise, unlike the Liberal members from Quebec, who say nothing in this House. From this side of the House, we will defend the interests of Quebec, because we were elected to do that.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 is an extremely important bill. Earlier, the Canadian Alliance member for Provencher began his speech in a manner he says is unusual for him, and expressed surprise that the Liberals were doing the right thing on this issue.

I think we must forgive the Canadian Alliance member, because he has been in the House only since November 2000 and perhaps does not have all the background.

The reason the Liberal members decided to take action was because there was an opposition party here in the House known as the Bloc Quebecois, which decided to press the issue.

Since 1994-95, we have been talking about organized crime, in a much more structured way since 1997, and we have never given up, because we believed, and we still believe, that the whole issue of organized crime is a very important one. We must do what it takes to give our law enforcement officers and the legal system all the tools necessary to combat organized crime.

The Bloc Quebecois has raised this frequently and regularly in the House, because there was a special problem in Quebec.

But the real question the member for Provencher should perhaps have asked is how it is that it is an opposition party which has kept this issue alive all these years, while the federal Liberal members from Quebec have never said a thing on the topic, even though they are supposed to defend the interests of Quebec. At least, that is what they said during the last election campaign.

Throughout the years that we have been questioning the government, why is it that we never saw members from Quebec, Liberal members opposite, rise in this House and tell the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice the exact same thing that the Bloc Quebecois has been saying, which is that we need additional tools within the Criminal Code?

The Liberals opposite, the federal Liberals from Quebec, do not utter a word in this House. They take their cue from English Canada, and in particular the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada, and if these people say yes, then they say yes. But if the people from English Canada do not ask questions, you can be sure that the Liberals from Quebec will not ask any either.

And that is not just on the issue of organized crime. The same thing goes for several other bills. However, to stay on the subject of justice, let me digress here from a moment to talk about the Young Offenders Act. Where were the federal Liberal members from Quebec? They were crawling on their knees.

This is how they defend Quebec's interests. They get down on their knees and they watch what English Canada does, what the justice minister who is from Alberta does, to find out if they should get up on their feet or not. They watch the Solicitor General of Canada, who is from the Maritimes, to see if they should say yes or no. That is how they defend Quebec.

However, that is not how the Bloc Quebecois in the opposition sees things. It is not true, and it is not the way we saw things with regard to the Young Offenders Act. We fought hard and we will keep on fighting because it is too important.

It is not the way we saw things with regard to organized crime either. We did not crawl, we did not grovel on our knees before English Canada. We took on that issue and we defended it. We even sacrificed opposition days to get members opposite, particularly federal Liberals from Quebec who never say a word in this House to defend Quebec's interests, to understand that they should introduce a bill that would include certain tools in the criminal code. We made numerous proposals over a period of several years. We asked questions and finally, the government gave us Bill C-24.

I think I just gave a brief history of this issue, but I will remind members that, with the war that was raging between criminal biker gangs in Quebec, with the bombs that were going off here and there, this was an issue of great concern to everybody, something people read about in the newspapers practically every day.

Innocent people died because of that, people who tried to bypass the system somewhat to defend their territory, their vested interests as well as democracy. It is indeed a matter of democracy when one looks at the influence criminal groups can have on a justice system such as ours.

These people died. A young boy named Desrochers lost his life in a bomb blast. There was also the young owner of a bar in Terrebonne who was murdered by organized crime. There were bombings. There was the case of journalist Michel Auger, who received threats. Then, someone shot him on orders from organized crime. Luckily he survived. But this is a very important issue.

We in the Bloc Quebecois tried in every possible way to make the government opposite listen to reason. That was the case in 1997. I clearly remember that the issue of organized crime was discussed during the 1997 election campaign. We raised important elements in our election platform to make the government understand. We fought throughout the 36th parliament to have amendments made. It was also true during the last election campaign in November 2000, when the Bloc Quebecois put the issue of organized crime at the forefront.

We were committed to making Ottawa take action. We were committed to spending the time and the energy to make the government opposite do something and we got Bill B-24.

Hon. members probably remember that I was pleased when Bill C-24 was introduced, because it included about 80% of what we had been asking for. Some clauses were even taken from a memo that I had sent to the Minister of Justice at the time. I have before me a note on gangsterism dated June 1, 1999, asking to redefine a gang as a group composed of three or more people. Simplification was called for because the bill was, to our minds, too complex despite the minister's protestations to the contrary, that everything was fine and it was just me who could not understand any of it. Now it can be seen that I was right in saying it was complex.

The minister has, I see, finally understood something about this matter, and has proposed the amendments I had submitted long before Bill C-24 was introduced. I submitted them to her in writing as long ago as June 1999.

Certainly we are in agreement with the main thrust of the bill. It is what we wanted, but there are some unanswered questions. Time will tell, really, as the legislation is applied, whether the government has gone too far or not, whether or not it ought to have listened to the opposition as far as granting immunity to police officers who commit illegal acts is concerned.

Yes, I do believe we must give police officers carrying out an investigation the permission or legal protection for them to commit certain offences with complete impunity. If we want to be able to infiltrate certain groups, to gather evidence, to fight organized crime on an even footing, then I believe that in a free and democratic society such as ours, we have no choice but to confer these powers.

That said, however, I am not necessarily in agreement with the way it will be done. Bill C-24 gives the final blessing to the solicitor general. I find it dangerous to have both the political and the legal mixed up together in this cocktail that allows police officers to commit certain acts.

I moved amendments in committee and I defended them. I can say that if I had had a little more time, I think I would have convinced the government representatives of the dangers of having the authorization in the hands of the Solicitor General of Canada. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated by two votes, I think.

I would have preferred, even today, to have the authorization given by a judge, who gives the police this immunity to enable them to commit offences, just as a judge issues a search warrant before proceedings or permits wiretapping, for example. This would have ensured total detachment.

I have faith in the Quebec and Canadian legal system. I have faith in the judges, who are very well trained, perfectly competent and very professional. To my knowledge, as far as anyone can remember, there has been no major abuse in the legal field as compared with what has happened with the police.

I am working in close co-operation with the police. I know them well and I know they are very professional. I know they do an excellent job, and I have a lot of respect for the work they do. Yet, in a big family, such as that of the police, we cannot know or keep tabs on all the family members.

From the way immunity is given in the bill, abuse is possible. In any case, the possibility for it is there, and I can see it. I find that dangerous. This is why I moved the amendments that were defeated.

It is obvious we will be closely following all the developments and especially the implementation of this bill in daily matters along with everything connected with police immunity. I would also have preferred that immunity be given only in cases involving organized crime. The Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association, other prosecutors and specialists in the field, and the Bloc Quebecois find it dangerous that this immunity applies to almost all spheres of criminal activity, and not just to organized crime.

The title of the bill before me is an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime). In reality, Bill C-24 applies to much more than just organized crime. I introduced amendments which were rejected, but I would have liked its application to be limited to organized crime, so as to limit the potential for abuse. Once again, we will be following the implementation of this bill and watching how the solicitor general, with his authorizations, and the police enforce the legislation on a daily basis.

The police are delighted with these powers, but I remind them that they now have an obligation, but not the means, to produce results. There is zero margin for error. They do not have the right to abuse their authority and commit illegal acts. I do not know whether they realize this, but there will be enormous pressure on them and many people will be watching.

I also won a point when the bill was being studied in committee, of course. I would point out, in passing, that the federal Liberal members from Quebec did not introduce any amendments. Once again, they did not have a thing to say in committee, as though there were no members of the government from Quebec. The point that I won concerned protection. In Bill C-24, members of the House of Commons were protected. That is wonderful. The senators in the other place were protected. Fine. However, I wonder why organized crime would want to infiltrate the Senate. I do not know whether anyone can draw me a picture that would help but, in any event, the bill protected them.

But members of the Quebec national assembly and of any other legislative assembly were not protected. Nor were city councillors. Yet, we are well aware that, because of zoning, anti-bunker and other types of bylaws, organized crime can exert a great deal of pressure on these people.

Journalists were not protected either, even though we had a striking example in the case of Michel Auger, from the Journal de Montréal , who was the victim of attempted murder by organized crime, because he was reporting on their activities, because he had a power, the power of the press, which is an extremely important democratic power. The bill was totally silent on this issue.

It is not federal Liberal members from Quebec who defended these people. They did not say anything. It is the Bloc Quebecois which moved amendments in committee and these amendments were adopted. As was pointed out by the Progressive Conservative member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who was present when the bill was reviewed in committee, I managed to get these amendments adopted. How? By asking for a roll call vote and telling those federal Liberal members from Quebec who were present “If you vote against these amendments I will give your names to the media. If these amendments are not adopted it will be because of you”.

This is how, in the end, the two Liberal members from Quebec found the courage to say yes to my amendments. I had to threaten them with giving out their names to the newspapers, otherwise they were not going to agree to provide protection to journalists. This was not very proper on my part, I know, but it was the only way to get this amendment adopted.

I was pleased by what I saw later on at report stage in the House. The minister moved an amendment to strengthen the amendment that I had proposed in committee to protect journalists, but that the Liberals had initially rejected. Bravo.

I can say that it took a long time to get the people over there to understand this. Who would have defended Quebec if the Bloc Quebecois were not here? Not the Liberal MPs from Quebec, who never say a word in this House. They always just parrot what a minister has said. That is not what we in Quebec need, and the people of Quebec know that very well. A striking example of this is evident in Bill C-24, and an even more striking one with the Young Offenders Act. Quebecers need Quebecers to defend them, to represent only the people of Quebec in this House.

Points Of Order

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among House leaders to extend the hours this evening to complete consideration of two bills.

I would like to seek consent to propose a motion to the House which was negotiated with House leaders, that any divisions deferred to the conclusion of government orders today be taken at 6.30 p.m., that after the said divisions the House continue to sit to consider if necessary third reading stage of Bill C-24, as well as Bill C-6, that divisions be deemed requested thereon and deferred to the conclusion of government orders on June 12, and that when Bill C-6 is disposed of the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day.

I am asking to extend the hours to complete Bill C-24 and Bill C-6. There is a third bill but negotiations are not complete on it yet. I believe we now have consent regarding Bill C-24 and Bill C-6.

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to do something that does not happen very often, at least for me, and that is to praise a government bill. I am actually surprised that Liberals would do the right thing on this issue. I know it was very difficult for them given the fact that in committee most of the Liberals had trouble supporting the bill. In fact, in committee the Canadian Alliance had to encourage them to do the right thing.

I am pleased to see that the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice have brought the bill forward and have, I think, moved in the right direction. I would like to thank the minister for bringing forward this bill as well as the members who have worked so hard to get this vital legislation before the House.

Both government and opposition members have taken the proposed legislation very seriously during the course of debate in committee work and I am relatively satisfied with what has been accomplished here to date. At long last we have legislation that gives the police many of the tools they have been asking for and, I might add, not simply because the police have been asking for it. I believe that they have been asking for these tools for solid public policy reasons.

We have known for years now that our law enforcement officials are at a severe disadvantage in their efforts to combat organized crime. We know that sophisticated criminal organizations have access to virtually unlimited resources, state of the art technology and unlimited funds, all derived from their illegal activities, while our police forces are barely getting by.

When the solicitor general indicated that this was not a blank cheque for the police, it would have been nice of him to say at least that it would have been a bigger cheque in order to fund some of these operations. I do not think the police forces expect a blank cheque in terms of either the legislation or the funding, but I think an increase in the amount of money available to conduct this very worthwhile endeavour is of course necessary. Frontline officers feel that they are fighting a battle without ammunition.

Bill C-24 is in many ways a long overdue response to a number of concerns raised over the years by federal, provincial and municipal law enforcement officials.

My praise is not entirely unqualified. Bill C-24 is a great step forward but we must not close the book on this issue. We must continue to ask ourselves as elected representatives what we can do to ensure that our law enforcement officials have the necessary tools for keeping Canadians safe and secure in an ever changing world.

We must recognize that police power must be exercised for the common good of the public. Police power is certainly a very important one not simply for itself but for of us to enable society to proceed and to develop in an orderly fashion.

I echo the comments of RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli who said that Bill C-24 was a work in progress. He said that many of the amendments in Bill C-24 were absolutely critical, but he hoped for more work in this area. He hoped that we as parliamentarians would keep the radar screen alive. The commissioner is all too aware of the ever changing nature of organized crime and that these kinds of criminals always seem to be two or three steps ahead of the law.

Beyond the very real need to continue our legislative work in the area of our justice system I have to say, as I alluded to earlier, that I continue to be disappointed with the level of funding that the government has provided to fight organized crime. Given the fact that a relatively simple prosecution under legislation like this could cost up to $10 million or more, the $200 million over five years the minister has announced is really a small amount of money.

It seems strange to say that $200 million is a small amount of money, but when we look at each individual case and the costs involved, it is a staggering amount. I have had experience in the provincial sphere of being responsible for the costs and the administration of those types of cases.

We must make the money available for our police. If we do not, it does not matter how good the legislation is or how good our intentions are. If organized crime realizes that frontline police officers do not have the necessary funding in place, all of this is for naught, and that would be a disappointment.

During committee testimony on May 10, Toronto city police Chief Fantino and Winnipeg police Chief Jack Ewatski both indicated that the new funding they were to receive was insufficient. Chief Fantino said he felt totally inadequate in his ability to direct resources away from the day to day pressing issues he had to contend with. He stated:

I do not have any direct federal funding to help me dedicate the necessary resources to sustain the very labour-intensive, difficult work that has to be done in this area to the extent that we should.

I have to wonder about the $100 million we are putting into a failed long gun registry. Everybody has acknowledged that the long gun registry has failed. It is not doing the job and it will never do it. Yet through blind political allegiance to a failed idea the Liberal government continues to pump $100 million into a registry that has not worked and will not work. The only thing it is doing is destroying the hunting industry and the tourism industry in my area.

I do not understand it. If we gave that $100 million to frontline police officers and asked them if they could do better than the long gun registry, there would not be a police officer or even a police chief who paid lip service to the long gun registry who would not say, given that choice, that they would put it into frontline policing. Why? It is because every police officer in the country cares about reducing crime and is not concerned about a failed political agenda.

Directing resources into very complex investigations often puts tremendous pressure on routine policing operations. Our frontline police officers are saying that they feel like beggars trying to find the resources to do the things of national priority. Because of the lack of resources our municipal forces may not be able to support additional investigations regardless of the legislation we pass today.

I urge the minister and the solicitor general to take a look at areas where we can find existing funding that is not being used appropriately. If we want to find $100 million today, we can find it in the failed long gun registry which is making criminals of ordinary hunters and farmers and destroying tourism and other industries in constituencies such as mine.

Why will the minister not listen? Why will the minister not do anything? The answer is simple. The minister would rather spend $100 million a year than face the political embarrassment of saying that they have made a mistake and have to find a policy that will stop criminals.

There has been a fair amount of public debate on certain aspects of the legislation, particularly in the area of the immunity provisions for peace officers. I should like to discuss that briefly because it is a very important topic.

The legislation would not give police officers any additional rights that they did not enjoy over the last 100 years or so. They always assumed that they had a measure of protection when conducting investigations where in certain situations they were called upon to break the law. That is a very difficult thing for a police officer or anyone to do. Yet it was a necessary aspect of carrying out some very delicate operations.

Police chiefs and crown prosecutors knew about it. It was accepted. It was done in the vast majority of cases in a responsible manner because police officers knew of their responsibilities to our citizens. Crown attorneys and police chiefs who supervised police officers understood it was necessary but uncomfortable, given the fact that it was a breaking of the law.

Therefore the legislation sets out in statutory form with clear criteria the conditions under which this may occur. This is not granting police officers new powers or new steps that they did not exercise before. It simply is a response to the Supreme Court of Canada.

For those concerned about constitutional issues, if one looks at the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada and the legislation in place, I do not think the Supreme Court of Canada was asking that there be any pre-authorization by judicial figures in this matter. It simply said that police officers do not enjoy an immunity in respect of these matters.

If we as a society expect police forces to do the necessary things on our behalf, we must give them legal sanction to do it. I liken it a bit to war because when we are dealing with crime we are at war. In the context of war, our soldiers must do things that would not be otherwise acceptable in society. Our soldiers kill on behalf of our country when it is necessary for them to do so. All of us regret the killing and no one believes that killing is good. Yet as a civilized society we understand that at times it will occur and we give police officers that legislated common law immunity.

In the very same way we are giving our police officers that immunity, but that immunity is very clearly defined and closely supervised. It complies in every respect with the concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada in its judgment in Campbell and Shirose. Given the nature of undercover operations and general policing activities, this immunity is essential in continued efforts in our war against crime and organized crime in particular.

Despite initial misgivings many concerned people, including a number of committee members and witnesses, ultimately expressed support for these provisions in Bill C-24. Provincial and municipal leaders and law enforcement officials alike have recognized that there may be concerns regarding the potential for abuse of these powers that could harm innocent third parties.

However, in light of the fact that criminal organizations have increased in sophistication to such a degree that police cannot keep up with them, there is a general consensus that police must have the ability to conduct undercover operations and reverse sting operations to make a significant impact in this area. Later I will talk about innocent third parties because it is an important issue that the bill overlooks.

After careful consideration of the provisions in Bill C-24 members of the committee as well as a number of witnesses decided that these concessions were necessary to allow police to carry out its duties effectively.

Legislation is not always a precise art. I recognize the difficulties the minister had in weighing some of the concerns on both sides of the issue. I am satisfied the minister has been reasonably prudent and careful in ensuring appropriate checks and balances are provided in the legislation to protect the public.

At the same time these protections are not so overly restrictive that they would impede police investigations. They would also provide police protection from prosecution in very specific and carefully delineated circumstances. I put on record that there are only clearly delineated circumstances where this authority can be exercised.

Ultimately by supporting these provisions we have respected the decisions made by justice department officials who have reviewed the law, who have considered the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Campbell and Shirose, who have dealt with police officers on a day to day basis over the years, and who have listened to the provincial attorneys general across Canada that are on the frontline of fighting crime.

However, should these provisions require improvement, an amendment was passed in committee that would provide yet another check. With this amendment parliament would now conduct a mandatory review of the sections in the criminal code dealing with these provisions every three years.

The three year time frame is appropriate and prudent. If any concerns arise in the operation of this bill, and I certainly hope that is not the case at least in respect of substantive concerns, in three years we will be here to review the matter and make appropriate corrections. We should not leave it for the next group of members to fix any problems that might arise.

While many of us recognize that the legislation may not be perfect, our support for these provisions stems from the fact that the safety and security of Canadians continues to be a considerable risk as a result of criminal activity, and citizens want protection by our police who they understand must be governed by reasonable laws and reasonable conditions. Generally speaking, the bill reflects that reasonableness.

I was also pleased to see that the minister took the suggestion from the Canadian Alliance to include provincial leaders in the list of justice system participants, thereby extending to them additional protection against intimidation from criminal organizations. That protection must be recognized given that they, even much more than many of us, are involved in the front lines of fighting organized crime.

The minister took this one step further and added municipal leaders to the list, and I commend her for that initiative.

I would also like to thank my colleague from the Bloc from Berthier—Montcalm who brought forth an amendment to extend this protection to journalists as well. We are all aware of the important role that journalists play in our society. They are fundamental to free speech in a democratic society and as a part of the exercise of free speech, they are engaged in the fight against organized crime.

As a number of recent cases demonstrate, journalists who serve the public interest by reporting on organized crime are very much in need of and deserve enhanced protection under our criminal law.

I want to briefly deal with the concern that I raised in committee and which, unfortunately, the committee voted against. I introduced an amendment that would have ensured the right for innocent third parties to sue for damages that were caused by a peace officer carrying out his or her duties.

I was disappointed that the amendment was defeated, since it was a very worthwhile amendment that deserved our consideration. The main thrust of the amendment was that a private, law-abiding citizen should not be penalized if his or her property was destroyed in the course of a police investigation or action, even when the police were acting in the context of the authority of this proposed legislation.

Some of the members in committee said that it was a matter for provincial rights because they dealt with civil property and civil rights under section 92 of the Canada Act, 1867. That is not entirely correct. What in fact we may be doing is granting an immunity from civil process by this section. I simply wanted that amendment, given the priority of criminal law when it comes into conflict with the property and civil rights, as a matter of clarification so every that judge was assured that this legislation would not interfere with property and civil rights and that the innocent third parties would still have the right to sue where their property was damaged.

If we expect our citizens to co-operate in this fight, the least we can do is compensate them for any damage that they might suffer as a result of police actions. Although the amendment was not supported in committee, it is an important issue to consider for the future.

The bill is a very important step forward, but I express the concern that there is a lack of funding. I hope the justice minister will ask her colleagues to consider allocating to our police forces and to frontline police officers, the funding they so desperately need.

I certainly hope she will be open to consider future amendments to the criminal code that will further streamline our justice system. We have made great gains with Bill C-24 but we must not become complacent. We need to continually revisit this issue in order to combat organized crime effectively at a national level and to offer all Canadians the greatest possible protection from this kind of criminal activity.

I also want to stress that this bill is an example where all parties in the House can move together. Yes, we might disagree on certain aspects, but I think that the disagreements were relatively minor. What I appreciated about dealing with this bill was that I did not feel that there was an underlying political agenda to embarrass one political party or another.

I wish the minister would take the goodwill she has earned and the good work she has done on the bill and turn that goodwill and that good work to Bill C-15, where I think the most crass Liberal politics is at work. That is very unfortunate.

Government members have placed together child protection laws, firearms long gun registry laws and treatment of animal laws into one bill. Of course we know what the politics behind it are. They want us as opposition members to vote against the bill, then they will come into my riding and say that I did not like children, or that I did not want the protection for children, or that I did not want police officers to have additional protection and therefore I voted against the disarming of police officer section, or that I did not want to see an increase for penalties for home invasion so I voted against the bill.

In fact government members know what the truth is. They knew that we could not support amendments to the gun registry, which is sending $100 million a year literally down the toilet. That and that is why they put it all into one bill. They knew that people in my riding, hard-working farmers and those involved in the animal husbandry industry, in food production, in livestock and otherwise, had legitimate concerns about the treatment of animals laws. What did they do to avoid discussion? They put it all into one bill.

If I ask my colleagues to vote for the bill, because we want to protect children, or we want to create an offence of home invasion or at least increase the penalties in that respect, then they will go to my constituents and say that I flip-flopped on Bill C-68 and now voted for provisions of long gun registry. They may say that I do not care about the livestock industry because I voted for the treatment of animal sections that may imperil their livelihood.

The people of my riding work hard. They are an industrious people. Yet government legislation has destroyed their livelihood in respect of the hunting industry. It has destroyed their livelihood in respect of tourism. Political pride, nothing less, prevents the government from standing up and saying it made a mistake and can we work together to fix that problem.

I want the members opposite to know that on Bill C-15, I am prepared to work in the same open way that members of the opposition, regardless of party, worked to get Bill C-24 through to protect our people. I would be willing to do that with Bill C-15. Why will Liberals not do it? Political pride.

I would ask the minister to reconsider her position, look at the good she has done here, take that good and put it to use in terms of the political mileage she has gained now on this bill and do the right thing, which is split Bill C-15.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, for Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on third reading of this very important bill, Bill C-24. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has reported the bill to us with only a few changes. The bill deserves to be sent to the Senate without delay. We know that police and prosecutors need better tools to fight organized crime and criminal gains.

The bill is important because fighting organized crime is a key part of ensuring safer communities and that is why the government tabled the bill.

We know that the actions of organized criminals are felt across the country and around the world. They are at the heart of serious social problems like illegal drug use and organized prostitution. Telemarketing, Internet and credit card fraud cost victims thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, and stolen cars from Canadian communities end up around the world to feed illegal markets. Sometimes the costs are not obvious but the impacts and costs are real and they often can be very significant.

This is why the new definition of a criminal organization in the bill targets those who seek “material benefit, including a financial benefit”, through crime. These new provisions would allow police and prosecutors to target the professional criminal at the heart of so many of the criminal problems that we face. In addition, the three new offences in the bill related to the criminal organizations would further help us to focus on those who lead gangs, those who participate in offences to benefit criminal organizations and those who participate in order to enhance the criminal organization's ability such as recruiting youth or others into gang activities.

These tools are what the RCMP, other police forces and provincial governments have told us that they need to deal with the organized crime problem today and in the future. The provisions on intimidation are very important for Canadians and for the health of our institutions.

Intimidation of witnesses and jurors and criminal justice officials can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice process. Likewise we are all aware that parliamentarians and other legislators can be subject to intimidation. This is unacceptable in this democratic society. The new offence of intimidation of a criminal justice system participant would help us address this threat and take firm action against those who would seek to undermine our institutions.

The standing committee did amend the bill to include journalists in these provisions. This is very appropriate. The media are a very important part of the democratic process and public debate free of intimidation is crucial.

I would like to note the importance of the provisions in the bill regarding proceeds of crime. Right now there are a number of offences in which illegal profits can be seized by police and ordered forfeited by courts, like drug trafficking or murder.

The bill also expands the range of offences to include almost all indictable offences. This would mean that police could take away the proceeds of crime from criminals more effectively.

On the question of protection from criminal liability for law enforcement officers, the bill would put in place important new provisions to provide for limited justification for law enforcement officers. It would allow designated officers, under strict conditions, to perform for the purposes of investigations acts and omissions that would otherwise be offences. The supreme court has recognized that officers operating in good faith may need to have such powers. It also recognized that it is up to parliament to provide for them. That is exactly what we do in Bill C-24.

During the committee hearings on the bill we heard from police and other witnesses on the need for these provisions. Since the supreme court's decision two years ago, many investigations have been affected. It has been felt most strongly in complex undercover operations against organized crimes. A number of the operations have had to be suspended, modified or stopped entirely, but the effect of the decision has not been limited to organized crime investigations. It also has affected other operations such as law enforcement purchases of contraband tobacco and alcohol and counterfeit currency in order to gather evidence.

Few would dispute that enforcement officers should have the power to gather this kind of evidence, but the statutory authority must be put in place. Also, there are serious crimes outside the area of organized crime where these powers are needed. Investigations in areas like murder and kidnapping sometimes require undercover operations where officers must gain the confidence of their targets before making arrests and bringing an operation to an end.

The need for the limited justification for the police has been well established, but the debate on how it should be put in place has been useful and important. One of the main issues has involved the question of judicial authorization. It was rightly pointed out that certain law enforcement powers, like wiretapping and search provisions, require judicial authorization. However, it is not appropriate for this law enforcement justification system. That was made clear during the standing committee proceedings.

Unlike wiretapping and searches, this system does not involve precisely defined police actions that can workably be made subject to prior judicial authorization. As well, the broad nature of decisions about police operations that a judge would be asked to make during the investigations themselves would lead to inappropriate judicial involvement in investigations.

Another important question also raised was whether the limited law enforcement justification should be restricted to investigations of organized crime. The effect of the supreme court decision has not been limited to organized crime investigations. An appropriate system must recognize this and provide for the full scope of activities where the justification is needed.

However, the concern about these powers being used for minor operations is understandable. The concern is addressed in the bill. A fundamental requirement of the bill is that the use of the law enforcement justification must satisfy a condition that the conduct is “reasonable and proportional” in the circumstances. Enforcement officers would weigh matters like the nature of the act or omission that would otherwise be an offence, the nature of the investigation and the reasonable availability of other means for carrying out of duties. Failure to respect this requirement would be serious. The justification would no longer apply and officers may be subject to criminal liability in the courts.

There are many other safeguards in the bill. First and foremost is the role of ministers responsible for policing in designating those who are eligible for the law enforcement justification.

As solicitor general, I will be responsible for designating members of the RCMP. This role would provide an important measure of control and accountability. The designations will be based on the advice of senior law enforcement officials and reviewed with them before they are made. They may be subject to specific conditions. If designations are misused, they will be taken away. I should also stress that the bill is clear that this role would not involve ministers in individual investigations.

Still more safeguards under the bill include: the exclusion of certain types of conduct such as causing bodily harm, sexual offences, or the obstruction of justice; the provision for a public annual report; and the requirement to notify persons whose property may be lost or seriously damaged.

As I said, if the enforcement officers step outside the condition of the provisions, they would be subject to criminal liability in the courts. Officers would remain subject to internal discipline for unprofessional behaviour or other misconduct and public complaint mechanisms would continue to apply.

New provisions added by the committee include: specific examples of conditions that ministers might apply; clarification of the requirements on the police agents under the system; and the requirement for a parliamentary review after three years. The government supports these changes.

The law enforcement justification under Bill C-24 is not a blank cheque for law enforcement officers, far from it. It is a balanced system with strict limits and conditions. It responds to very real and substantial law enforcement needs. Together with the other provisions on criminal organizations, intimidation and proceeds of crime, the bill represents a major step forward in the public safety agenda.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her remarks. She obviously grasps the importance and the relevance of this issue at this time in Canada.

In response to concerns raised by the Senate banking committee and the important efforts and work it did in that regard, we see Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act, coming forward to legislate in the areas of solicitor-client privilege, the disclosure of information and records retention.

I should indicate at the outset that I had intended to split my time with the hon. member for Kings—Hants. Subject to his arrival I may just carry on.

Money laundering, as we all know and are very aware, is the process by which criminals attempt to conceal profits earned from crime so that the money looks as if it came from very legitimate sources. It is literally an attempt to clean dirty cash. It is also an attempt to hide or cover up the illegal means and sources from which the money originated. Typically it involves vices such as extortion, prostitution, illegal gambling, drugs and other contraband. The particular legislation is aimed at attempting to track the origins of the money and to get at the source itself.

The legislation speaks of abilities to trace the origins of money because the origins themselves are those which are most often concealed and erased. If the money is successfully covered up, it can then be used to buy goods and services the way any other type of cash or exchange takes place.

It is estimated that somewhere between $5 billion and $17 billion in money from nefarious sources is laundered in Canada each year. I do not mean to put too fine a point on it but that sort of vague estimate indicates the size of the black market out there. It is very disturbing. Exact figures are very difficult to come by in that regard.

Obviously the black market is thriving in Canada. It is straight profit that is hidden from Revenue Canada and from government generally. The money is very often shifted between countries, financial institutions and investment brokerages without a paper trace that would allow law enforcement to get to the source or to get to the origins. The more complex and convoluted the trail, the more difficult to trace, eventually prosecute and bring to justice those involved in money laundering.

It is fair to say it is a world problem against which even the world's most powerful nations struggle. For example, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, just last week held a conference on money laundering in St. Petersburg. He outlined efforts to crack down on the global illegal industry and the expansion of this industry in Russia. Russia is currently a member of the FATF's blacklist of nations because of its money laundering legislation, or lack thereof, which does not meet international standards.

We do not want this to happen in our country. That is why it is encouraging to all that the legislation is before us now. We must ensure our global partners and neighbours, not to mention our citizenry, that we are doing everything in our power to address and confront this problem.

Corruption is a growing problem in Canada and most countries recognize this point. They recognize the fact that it is very diverse and takes many forms just like legitimate industries. Any effort aimed at curtailing this type of underground economy and outsourcing of money from illegal means is where we should be focusing our attention. The magnitude and the reach of this problem are staggering.

Canada has come under heavy criticism in recent years as being an easy place for criminal organizations to launder their money. Our biggest ally, the United States, has sent signals which clearly indicate that we are leaving our neighbours to the south open and more vulnerable to criminal activity respecting money laundering because of a failing security system in our country. The lack of resources contributes to that. The lack of government support whether it be through funding or innovation indicates to members of our law enforcement community that in many instances their government is not behind them.

The response has been legislation such as Bill S-16, albeit late. Bill C-22 originally imposed new reporting and record keeping requirements and created financial transactions in the reports analysis centre of Canada to receive and analyse information. Bill C-22 was the predecessor for the legislation before us. It died on the order paper when the pre-emptive and very opportunistic election was called.

The banks would be required by law to adhere to a new reporting regime that would be put in place over the next year. It would help reorganize and report dubious transactions. It would present banks with the obligation to act upon information of which they might be in possession and report where there is a suspicion of organized crime activity. It is clearly there to try to unveil and unmask efforts by organized crime to use financial institutions such as our major banks and other financial institutions for illegal purposes. A failure to report would result in certain sanctions. Those sanctions include fines of up to $2 million and five years incarceration. Therefore, this reporting scheme does have some teeth.

Concerns have been expressed however about the privacy and the disclosure of certain information. Those were voiced by the privacy commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association and other groups.

The Senate banking committee looked at the bill in June of 2000 and felt that there were numerous flaws and areas where it could have been improved. The government at that time was unwilling to entertain amendments to the legislation because it was late in June and the House of Commons was going to recess. We know that at this time of year ironically we are facing a similar attitude on the part of government.

However, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions gave a written undertaking to the committee that certain changes would be made in a new bill to be introduced in the fall. Those changes formed the substance of Bill S-30, introduced in October of 2000. This bill was identical to the bill we see before us and it went beyond those changes agreed to in the letter from the secretary of state.

The Senate banking committee reported the bill with the observation that the government should have given consideration to other amendments that would further ensure that solicitor-client privilege was protected by adding the phrase law office in any clause where the term dwelling house appeared.

Second, the first annual review should be held after three years not after five years as was indicated in the original legislation. We find far too often that we are becoming very slack in our review process that was initially intended to ensure that the bill was living up to the breadth, width and intention.

Third and finally, it would require regulations under the act to be tabled before a committee of each House of parliament. Sadly, this bill does not include those further changes that were recommended by the committee.

The Law Society of Upper Canada has asked for the deference of the worst sections of this legislation. In many legal circles around the country court action against the federal government is not only being discussed but is being planned. This has happened time and time again. It is a given that with legislation such as this, and Bill C-24 is another bill, the lawyers are already writing the briefs, and the games will begin as soon as this law comes into being.

This bill will focus on the following legal aspects of this particular legislation. Solicitor-client privilege is one, which I mentioned previously. Where as Bill C-22 only dealt with instances where there was solicitor-client privilege involving legal counsel, Bill S-16 now clarifies that the officials of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre may not examine or copy documents that might be subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege where the document is in the hands of someone else until a reasonable opportunity has been made for that person to contact legal counsel. This responds to concerns raised by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

It is very much akin to the situation we see with the information commissioner in Canada who would like to examine the Prime Minister's agenda books. He would hold that information in privacy and counsel and determine its relevance to the individuals who have requested disclosure. It follows a longstanding tradition that allows judges to determine relevance and admissibility of certain information. So we support that particular initiative.

Privacy under Bill S-16 will also allow individuals or the privacy commissioner to take the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre to court if they are denied access by the centre.

This legislation has come under some criticism in the banking committee because the bill creates onerous and very involved new responsibilities. In fact, Margaret Beare, one of Canada's leading experts on organized crime, recently stated that the new legislation requiring banks to report suspicious transactions was contradictory to some of the banks' principles, mainly that they would be making a profit and reacting to customers' wishes.

Criminal Code

[John Manley, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-24, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 13 with the following:

`justice system participant or journalist),”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-24, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 36 on page 18 with the following:

“423.1 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) with the intent to provoke a state of fear in a ) a group of persons or the general public in order to impede the administration of criminal justice; b ) a justice system participant in order to impede him or her in the performance of his or her duties; or c ) a journalist in order to impede him or her in the transmission to the public of information in relation to a criminal organization.

(2) The conduct referred to in subsection (1) consists of a ) using violence against a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them or destroying or causing damage to the property of any of those persons; b ) threatening to engage in conduct described in paragraph ( a ) in Canada or elsewhere; c ) persistently or repeatedly following a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them, including following that person in a disorderly manner on a highway; d ) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them; and e ) besetting or watching the place where a justice system participant or a journalist or anyone known to either of them resides, works, attends school, carries on business or happens to be.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-24, in Clause 81, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 68 with the following:

“justice system participant or journalist),”

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the amendments to the bill.

First I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, for originally bringing forth the amendments to extend additional protection from intimidation to journalists. I think journalists play a very special and important role in our society. They are fundamental to free speech and in covering organized crime. The case of the journalist in Quebec being shot in the way he was last year demonstrated that fact.

As a number of recent cases demonstrate, journalists who serve the public interest by reporting on organized crime are very much in need of and deserve enhanced protection under our criminal law. Again I thank my colleague from the Bloc for bringing that forward originally in committee.

I thought it was interesting, too, that in the course of our committee certain government members appeared to only vote in favour of this amendment brought forward by the Bloc once it was implied that their names would get out to the media if they did not.

This is somewhat amusing, but in fact is kind of sad at the same time. When a member has to be persuaded—I do not like to use the word coerced—to extending protection to journalists by the threat of his or her name being published in the media, it is quite an interesting state of affairs.

I think it demonstrates the power of the media and indeed reveals the exact importance of the role of the media in uncovering matters of interest. Indeed, it is crucial to our democratic process.

Even that small situation confirmed to me the importance of this amendment because of the significant role that journalists play.

I will, however, be supporting the government amendments as opposed to the Bloc amendments. The Bloc raised the matter, however, a government member denied unanimous consent for the matter to be placed in the correct positioning and therefore the amendment proceeded as it did in committee. However, in listening to the government's explanation, I think the appropriate amendment would be as proposed by the government.

In respect of the amendment brought forward by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I cannot support it. I would indicate that under Bill C-24 only the Solicitor General of Canada for the RCMP or provincial ministers responsible for the police are given the authority to designate police officers who may commit offences during the course of a legitimate criminal investigation. The amendment says that public officials will have the authority to designate these police officers only after acquiring authorization from a competent judicial authority, in other words, a judge. I cannot support that amendment. I do not believe that this is a process that constitutionally or otherwise requires the supervision of a judge.

We have heard from police evidence and other evidence that such a requirement which this amendment would impose would unnecessarily encumber police investigations without a real enhancement of the quality of justice or the quality of the police investigation. I think it is unnecessary to have judicial intervention at this time. There are unique circumstances that apply to undercover and other police investigations in this context, which I would think would grind to a halt if this process were adopted.

One has to remember that police officers regularly exercise this authority without legislative sanction. It was as a requirement or as a consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada that this amendment became necessary. It is a good amendment because it does set out clearly the legislated extent to which police officers may embark upon this course of action. I think it takes a lot of the guesswork and discretion out of it. It becomes a transparent process. Canadians and those enforcing the law will understand exactly what is required. I think most police forces would agree that the Liberal bill as it stands on that issue is a reasonable compromise.

I think the amendment brought forward by the member does not enhance the ability of police to get the job done in an appropriate and timely fashion. The bill already outlines quite clearly what police officers may or may not do and in which circumstances they may do it. It takes away that hidden discretion, the discretion that is unencumbered by legislation. I think this is a very good step.

In general I support the amendments being brought forward by the government. I again commend the member for the Bloc for bringing forward the matters related to the journalists. I also want to point out that there is a review process which was proposed in committee, that is, that this legislation would be reviewed within three years. That is important when we are adopting this kind of legislation.

We have listened to the police forces. We have listened to the public. We have listened to journalists. I think this bill as proposed by the Liberals, together with the amendments suggested by the government and the Bloc, is appropriate.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code in relation to organized crime and law enforcement and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The standing committee has completed its consideration of the bill. I am pleased to say that the committee endorsed the bill with only a few amendments. Bill C-24 has been reported back to the House of Commons with those amendments.

I want to first thank my colleagues on the committee for their work with respect to the bill. In particular, I would point out that there were members on the standing committee who had participated in the subcommittee on organized crime during the last parliament. It was their report and the recommendations contained therein that are reflected in the government's legislation before us.

As we all know, it is a matter of utmost importance that we expand and enhance the tools available to law enforcement authorities and the criminal justice system to address the serious problem of organized crime. The committee members examining Bill C-24 understood this and recognized the need to move forward quickly with the bill.

At the same time, they recognized that we must ensure that the tools provided are the correct tools. Bill C-24 includes provisions of some complexity that would make important additions to the law of Canada. The committee members considered the provisions of the bill very carefully and with a clear understanding of its objectives. We can be confident in their work.

I must also highlight the assistance provided to the committee by the numerous witnesses who appeared before it. These witnesses provided substantial, thought provoking testimony and often did so on very short notice. Their efforts in preparing and presenting testimony were vital to the committee's proceedings.

The House will recall that Bill C-24, as approved at second reading, included proposals that fall under four main categories.

First, it would improve protection from intimidation for persons who play a role in the justice system.

Second, it would create an accountable process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an investigation.

Third, it would broaden the powers of law enforcement officers to seize and forfeit the proceeds of crime and property used in crimes.

Fourth, it would create important new offences targeting involvement in criminal organizations.

While endorsing all four main elements of the bill, the committee made a number of amendments in its report to the House. The amendments would not alter the main thrust of the bill but rather make improvements upon it. The amendments would reinforce the effectiveness of the bill and refine the application of certain law enforcement tools.

I will briefly discuss the principal amendments.

With respect to protection from intimidation, the definition of a participant in the criminal justice system has been expanded to include members of provincial legislative assemblies and municipal councils. The definition already included members of the Senate and of this House as well as persons playing a role in the administration of justice. Expanding it to include members of legislative assemblies and municipal councils would recognize that other legislators have been called upon to play a role in the fight against organized crime and could be vulnerable as a result.

A further amendment was adopted which would extend the intimidation offence to include situations where journalists are threatened. Committee members felt that journalists play a vital public role by reporting on organized crime. Groundbreaking investigative journalism has assisted Canadians in understanding the nature and extent of organized crime in Canada. However, as we are aware, reporting on organized crime can come at a price. That is why the committee decided to amend the new intimidation offence to include journalists.

The government accepted the change to include journalists. However, upon further examination, it recognized that improvements to the amendment accepted by the committee were necessary to achieve the intended objective.

We are therefore presenting an amendment on behalf of the government that would add references to journalists to the intent provisions in subsection 423.1(1) and the description of prohibited conduct in subsection 423.1(2). The change to those provisions would add the specific intent of impeding journalists in the fulfilment of their role in reporting on criminal organizations.

There is no definition in the criminal code of what organized crime means. There has never been an agreement, either domestically or internationally, as to exactly what such a term may comprise. However a definition of criminal organization was added to the criminal code in 1997. Bill C-24 would refine and sharpen that definition.

A new paragraph in the bill, 423.1(1)(c), would thus make it an offence to intimidate a journalist:

—in order to impede him or her in the transmission to the public of information in relation to a criminal organization.

The motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois would address the same issue but in far too broad a manner. The motion from the member for Berthier—Montcalm would make it an offence to intimidate a journalist with the intent of impeding the performance of his or her duties. That would mean journalists would be covered by this serious offence regardless of whether their work involved organized crime or any part of the criminal justice system.

The government agrees that journalists who report on criminal organizations are in danger and should be protected by the new offence. We should not underestimate the implications of such a broad amendment. It is a very serious offence indeed, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment.

As a result of another provision in Bill C-24, a murder which occurs as a result of this offence would be first degree murder. The application of the offence to journalists must be limited to those whose work puts them in danger from criminal organizations. The government's motion would do exactly that.

Under the amendment made by the government's motion, it would also be an offence to intimidate a journalist when the intent, under paragraph 423.1(1)(a), is:

—to provoke a state of fear in a group of persons or the general public in order to impede the administration of justice;

There were technical problems in the amendment adopted by the committee. To address these problems, the amendment I have presented would add references to journalists to subsection 423.1(2). Such references are necessary to ensure that the definition of prohibited conduct includes conduct aimed both at journalists and at persons known to them. This would ensure that acts which seek to intimidate journalists through their family and friends are caught by the offence, as I am sure the committee would have wished.

We are proposing in the same motion limited amendments that would: first, add the word “criminal” in regard to the administration of justice in paragraph 423.1(1)(a) in order to be consistent with the definition of justice system participant in clause 1 of the bill; and second, add the words “provoke a state of fear” in the opening words of subsection 423.1(1) so that it describes the intent involved in all the paragraphs of that subsection rather than just paragraph (a) as is now the case.

This would better express the bill's original intent to penalize conduct which seeks to intimidate by causing fear. It would also address concerns expressed by witnesses before the committee that the new offence might be interpreted to apply to peaceful lobbying or protest activity aimed at legislators.

In connection with the amendments to section 423.1, we are also presenting two other consequential amendments. These involve the reference to the new offence in section 423.1 in the list of offences under section 183 of the criminal code, both in the main part of the bill and in a co-ordinating clause. The change simply reflects the addition of the application to journalists in the description of the offence.

I return now to the other amendments that were endorsed by the committee and that have been reported back to this House. With respect to the limited protection for law enforcement officers and agents who work under their direction and control, an amendment was added to provide specific examples of the conditions that ministers may impose on the designations that bring officers under these provisions. The protection from criminal liability is subject to important controls and limitations, and this amendment helps to clarify the nature of one of these controls.

Another amendment to the provisions on protection from criminal liability clarifies the requirements for the application of the protection to agents acting under the direction of law enforcement officers. This refinement adds a further safeguard to ensure the proper operation of these provisions.

A further amendment provides for a parliamentary review of these provisions within three years of their coming into force. This review will examine the sections dealing with protection from criminal liability. Parliament will then have an opportunity to consider whether improvements are needed. The supreme court has indicated that parliament has a responsibility for providing for protection from criminal liability for law enforcement officers. The three year review provision emphasizes this parliamentary authority and responsibility.

With respect to the provisions defining a criminal organization, an amendment was made to clarify that a criminal group will fall under this definition whether its members are situated inside or outside Canada.

This amendment recognizes the international nature of organized crime and ensures that the new offences of participating in, benefiting and directing a criminal organization will have the corresponding adequate scope. The criminal activity affected will still have to have a substantial connection with Canada and the amendment thus does not involve any extraterritorial application of Canadian law.

The committee also made a number of other technical amendments to improve Bill C-24. These are included in the amended text of the bill that has been reported.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee for its work on all these amendments, substantive and technical, and for its work in examining the bill as a whole. The result is an effective and balanced bill that would substantively improve our ability to fight organized crime in this country as well as improve law enforcement generally.

We look forward to the debate at third reading.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-24, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 4 the following:

““competent judicial authority” means a Judge of any Court in Canada.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-24, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 4 with the following:

“25.2 to 25.4, only after acquiring authorization from a competent judicial authority.”

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by saying that the PC Party views this as a very positive bill. As members know, it is legislation that comes about as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, Regina v Campbell and Shirose. Bill C-24 is meant to remedy an anomaly that resulted from that decision. It left law enforcement officers throughout Canada in the unenviable position of confusion about their ability to, on occasion, act outside the bounds of the criminal code in an effort to infiltrate or to apprehend those engaged in unlawful activity.

Specifically, the legislation is aimed at organized crime, hence the title of the bill itself. It focuses on the neverending efforts of our brave men and women in law enforcement who are faced with the tremendous task of trying to curtail organized crime in Canada. This problem has been exaggerated and exacerbated over the past number of years to the point where many people in communities throughout Canada, but particularly in the province of Quebec, are feeling threatened in their communities and very ill at ease in their homes and in their towns.

The legislation is meant to address the fallout from the Campbell and Shirose decision. It is meant to provide police a level of immunity from prosecution for acting in their capacity as law enforcement officers, but allowing them to, on occasion, transgress the law. There are certain limitations that have been placed upon that, such as serious crimes involving sexual assault, bodily harm and murder. These are obviously the types of offences that would be completely out of bounds when it comes to police officers acting in the line of duty.

There are certainly exceptional cases. The case can be made where police officers must demonstrate to potential gang activity and those engaged in unlawful gang activity that they are part of that gang. They must demonstrate that they are prepared, given certain circumstances, to break the law in order to ingratiate themselves or get into the club so they might infiltrate and gain information by attaining the trust of those who are involved in this nefarious activity in the hope of bringing them to justice. The police, by doing this, hope to collect evidence that will eventually lead to prosecution.

The bill in its current form grants police officers this special designation that allows them to transgress the law. That discretion or authority is now vested in the police, albeit through superior officers, and in some instances attorneys general. In some instances there is reference to the solicitor general being the top minister in the department.

That is fine and dandy. However, in terms of direct accountability, knowledge and discretion over who should be immune from prosecution and who should receive this special designation, it is my submission and earnest suggestion that the competent authority be a judicial authority. Simply put, it should be a judge. Judges understand the law and could make learned and competent decisions as to who should be granted these very special powers.

I have worked in the justice system and have a great deal of respect and admiration for our police. However we all know that there have been instances, sadly, where police officers have gone outside their duties and have in some instances undermined public confidence.

I strenuously suggest that for the new system and the new law to take effect, win public confidence and operate in a smooth and satisfactory way, judges should be granted the discretion to make decisions as to who is granted immunity. That would be a much more practical and professional way to go about it and would be very much in keeping with current practice as it pertains to wiretaps and to warrants for search and seizure.

Once the designation is made there would be a greater level of accountability and review. As contemplated in the legislation, the designation would be for an indeterminate period. However, that is not to say that no supervision or checks and balances would be in place or that reports would not be made to those in authority.

I again strongly suggest that it would make greater sense and be more consistent with our current legal practices to have the judiciary make the designations. Judges in Canada practise criminal law daily and are aware of recent developments in the law and of the practices that take place in courtrooms across the land. They should have the power vested in them. That is the direction in which we should be going with the legislation. That is the sole purpose behind the amendment.

There have been quite animated discussions along this line at committee level. I would go so far as to say it was one of the most productive committee hearings I have had the pleasure to take part in during my short tenure here in Ottawa. There was a full and open exchange of ideas. Members of parliament were fully engaged in the debate as to where this very special, extraordinary power should rest.

The special designation granting this form of immunity would not apply only to organized crime. That may come as a surprise to many, given the title of the bill and the intent of the legislation as it was presented and sold to the general public.

The designated special power would apply to police officers deemed immune from prosecution in their efforts to infiltrate organized crime. It would apply to their general practice of law enforcement; that is to say, they would be given powers that used to exist under common law. There was, after the fact obviously, a judicial examination of those acts and those actions on the part of police.

Once the designation is made, subject to the amendment being accepted by a judge for a police officer or superior officer, or a provincial attorney general in the case of municipal or provincial police forces, it would not be for the sole purpose of dealing with organized crime. That must fully be understood by the Canadian public. Police officers would return, subject to the legislation passing, to having discretion in the field to act in emergency situations.

That is what the legislation is intended to do. It is intended to correct the fallout and the upshot from the supreme court decision which threw into disarray the understanding of police officers as to what they could do in a given circumstance.

It goes without saying that police often find themselves in dangerous situations where they must make split second decisions as to their actions. They must apply force but within reason. They must on occasion enter premises. The practice has always been to use reason and a certain discretion as to how much force they should apply and how much of a transgression of the law they should embark upon.

However, given the size, scope and breadth of Canada and the many rural communities that exist, it is virtually impossible for police officers on every occasion and in every instance to receive prior judicial authorization when contemplating whether to enter a premise or take a vehicle or other property that may not belong to them.

All of this is aimed at allowing police officers to carry out their very important role of protecting the public. The amendment is aimed at putting a balance in place so that checks will exist to allow judges the opportunity to intervene and make a proper designation and thereby allow police to act appropriately.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

There are six motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2.

Motions Nos. 3 to 6 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: a vote on Motion No. 3 applies to Motions Nos. 4 and 6; an affirmative vote on Motion No. 3 obliterates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 5; a negative vote on Motion No. 3 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 5.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by some members to clarify the business statement, given the time of year, and perhaps I could take a moment to give an updated business statement, particularly for the benefit of all House leaders.

Assuming that the debate on Bill C-25 is completed at third reading and Bill C-24 is completed at report stage later today, the business for Monday would be as follows: Bill S-11, respecting business corporations; Bill S-3, respecting motor vehicles; Bill S-16, respecting money laundering. I understand those three bills are perhaps briefer than others. We would follow this with the third reading stage of Bill C-24, regarding organized crime, which I know is of considerable interest to many members. If any time is left it would be taken up on Bill C-11, respecting immigration, and Bill C-6, respecting bulk water.

On Tuesday, of course, it will be a supply day. It is my intention at the present time to call any unfinished business for Wednesday and the debate on the modernization committee report.