Bill C-24 (Historical)

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

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, pursuant to an order made earlier, the House will conclude third reading of Bill C-28, the Parliament of Canada Act amendments. Tomorrow we will deal with third reading of Bill C-25, the Farm Credit Corporation amendments, as well as report stage of Bill C-24 with respect to organized crime. Those are the only bills I expect to deal with tomorrow.

On Monday we will then consider third reading of Bill C-24 regarding organized crime, then Bill S-16, the money laundering bill, followed by Bill C-11, the Immigration Act amendments, Bill S-11 respecting business corporations, Bill S-3 respecting motor vehicles and Bill C-6 respecting bulk water.

On Tuesday we shall deal with an allotted day for the consideration of main estimates at the end of the day. There has been consultations among political parties, and I would hope to take a few minutes on Tuesday to debate and hopefully receive the consent of everyone for a motion regarding Mr. Mandela.

Later next week, we will deal with any bills listed that are not yet complete, as well as the report of the modernization committee. I will consult my colleagues, the House leaders of official parties regarding business for Wednesday and the days beyond, should there be such dates. This ends my report.

Parliament Of Canada Act

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the bill I would like to split my remarks into two parts, the first part with respect to actual compensation and the second part with respect to the role and responsibilities of a member of parliament.

I will not spend a lot of time trying to compare apples to oranges to grapefruit. Am I worth more or less than a nurse or a teacher or a doctor? It is something of a hopeless case trying to compare the role and responsibilities of an MP with those of other professions. One can spend endless amounts of time saying that others are worth more than an MP or worth less or are more or less deserving. We live in a bit of a bizarre society when the entire budget of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team would more than pay for all 301 MPs.

I was elected four years ago. It was a little like getting married. I really did not realize what I was getting into. I practised law for 22 years and enjoyed it. I was successful enough to keep my family certainly at a scale of compensation quite a bit in excess of what I earn as a member of parliament. I did realize that as a member of parliament I would earn less than I did as a lawyer, but what I did not realize was that I would actually end up working harder.

I am continuously amazed at how critical the public is of our role while knowing little or nothing about what we actually do. It is almost an industry. To be fair, when I was elected I too did not know what was expected of me so I have sympathy for some who criticize our role because they only see our public role.

If I may take this opportunity, I would like to try to explain to Canadians what I do as an MP. I am sure others can in a similar fashion explain what they do as members of parliament. As I see it this is really three jobs in one. We have our work in our constituency, we have our work in Ottawa and we have our international work.

Last Thursday evening, for instance, I flew home. I dodged in on the Blue Jays game as a guest of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Godfrey and then left a bit early. No doubt they wanted to tell me about the declining fortunes of the Toronto Blue Jays baseball club. I slipped out early, went home and reintroduced myself to my kids. I said “Hi kids, I'm your dad. Remember me?”

Friday morning I was out at the constituency office and saw six rather unhappy constituents. Pretty well all had been turned down by the government for something. Each had a legitimate point to make, and in each instance I could say what I could or could not do for them.

I am quite proud of my constituency office. I would stack it up against any constituency office in the country. We speak eight languages and within our budgetary limitations provide a first class service.

The issues I dealt with that morning were in the range of a denial of a visitor's visa, why their relatives did not get so many points on the immigration scale and a deportation much like the one that has been in the papers recently.

It is not a lot of fun as a politician to have to say no. However we do have an opportunity from time to time to deal with situations which clearly are unfair and offend one's sense of fairness.

The following day, Saturday morning, I then went to four events in the riding. The first was in Highland Creek, which is one of the most degraded watersheds in all of the Great Lakes area. This was the fourth annual cleanup sponsored by me. Once we got that started, I ran off to do a parade in the Guildwood area of my riding. I frankly do not like doing parades but it is expected of us. One of the benefits however of a parade is that at the end we get to talk to people and they share with us whatever concerns they have.

I then left the parade, came back and did the Highland Creek cleanup with my volunteers, did a television interview, thanked the volunteers and then ran off to another event. The other event was at the Beare Road landfill site. With my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River and my colleague from Scarborough Centre, we presented a cheque to the Friends of the Rouge River and the Rouge Alliance. They are involved in cleaning up the Beare Road landfill site, which is a colossal eyesore in the eastern part of Toronto. These folks are doing absolutely fabulous work.

From there I went home, said hello to my kids again, got dressed and went to downtown Toronto. The University of Toronto at Scarborough was having a reunion for the class of '71 and '76 and had asked me to be the guest speaker. The principal, Paul Thompson, was quite complimentary toward the federal government and its initiatives in the area of millennium scholarships and CFI, the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The university, particularly the university at Scarborough, has been a significant beneficiary of both of those initiatives.

I took the opportunity to lobby him with respect to the university's involvement in the community, particularly with respect to the degraded watershed of the Highland Creek which flows right through the university campus and the Morningside landfill site which sits right opposite the campus.

The second part of the job is what we do in Ottawa. Last week I spent a very productive evening with my colleagues on the justice committee arguing about Bill C-24, the anti-gang bill. This is a bill that enjoys large support among all colleagues in the House. We had a pretty animated discussion for four hours on Tuesday night with some rather bizarre happenings, at least bizarre according to this place, where government members were not supporting government amendments and opposition members were supporting government amendments.

Similarly, we had other initiatives where opposition amendments were being supported by government members and being voted against by other opposition members. I think at the end of the day after a vigorous debate, we had a better bill coming out of the committee than we had going in.

I like other members want to make sure that the police have the tools to do the job. The Canadian public also needs to know that we spend a great deal of time with lobbyists. These are people with a particular point of view, some are paid, some are not paid. I frankly like interacting with lobbyists because they fill up my informational void. I wonder sometimes however why if we are so marginal, such voting machines, so irrelevant, so useless or one can name the pejorative adjective applied to us by the press, these lobbyists spend so much time, effort and money on us trying to persuade us to their point of view.

The third part of the job is the international part. It is frankly not one that I appreciated when I was in the private sector. I thought parliamentary junkets were what the newspapers described them as, wonderful pool side parties with beautiful women and drinks. However, the reality is somewhat different.

I have been to China, Mongolia and Israel this year. I expect I will be leading a delegation to Taiwan in the summer. Strangely enough, when other countries' taxpayers are paying the bill, they have the strange idea we should actually work when there. The usual experience I had was that around 6.30 a.m. in the morning they expected us to start our working day and end it around 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock that night. They expected us to do that each and every day we were there.

On the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, of which I am the president, those will be fairly extensive discussions. We have no government to government direct relationships between Canada and Taiwan. As a consequence, our parliamentary friendship group gets to be used as a vehicle for a number of exchanges between those two countries.

I was in China on the day the American spy plane was shot down. Needless to say, that led to some rather animated conversations between ourselves and our Chinese hosts. It was also a useful occasion on which to subtly remind our hosts that we took a somewhat different view than our American friends.

On the break week I was in Israel, and while there several instances of terrorism occurred, including the M16 attack. Now I certainly read newspapers with a clearer insight into what is going on there. We arrived a week after the Minister of Foreign Affairs was there, who had upgraded himself from being burned in effigy to being a respected third party interlocutor.

In the very brief time I have left this is a summary of my life as a member of parliament. I find the job stimulating and intriguing. Unlike some I think it is one that Canadians can hope that their children think to be worthy. To be sure, it has its level of foolishness and frustrations, but may I end with a quote form an 18th century political leader, who said:

Politics is the most hazardous of all professions. There is not another in which a man can hope to do so much good for his fellow creatures; neither is there any in which by mere loss of nerve he may do such widespread harm; nor is there another in which he may so easily lose his own soul—With all the temptation and degradation that besets it, politics is still the noblest career man can choose.

I would urge all hon. members to support this initiative.

Computer Hackers

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt on his private member's motion. Before I deal with the substance of the motion, I would like to make a comment.

I have read the remarks of the sponsor of the motion. He reminded us that, besides the debate he wants to initiate on computer hacking, we need to discuss the private members' business process. It is not normal that mere chance should determine how and when members will be able to introduce bills or motions. It is a lottery system that determines which business will be selected for the consideration by the House. The same system determines also which motions will be made votable.

I think that system has to be reviewed. In fact, we had a debate in the House on this very issue on a Tuesday night, in April if I am not mistaken. I hope the House leaders from every party will examine the issue.

I do not think that the Bloc Quebecois can support this motion as it stands now. I say this regretfully, because we are always favourably disposed, in principle, toward private members' business. That is the opportunity, in the system, to stress initiative. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General may think, we are always favourably disposed, in principle, toward private members' business.

This is the opportunity, in our parliamentary system, to encourage members' initiatives and also to distance ourselves, which is critical, from the executive and Cabinet, which, as we know, often plays an inordinate role in our parliamentary system.

For purposes of clarity, I would like to reread the motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately amend the Criminal Code to create a separate category of offences and punishments for computer hackers and persons who wilfully or maliciously export computer viruses, both of whose activities disrupt the normal conduct of electronic business in Canada.

When I first read the motion, I said to myself that it made sense. We all know that it would be very hard to live without the computer nowadays. We also know that a person who has no basic knowledge of computers and who does not have at least some ability to surf the Internet will soon be considered illiterate.

New products are related to the computers and these products have a life cycle of five years. Every five years, new products are introduced, and we constantly have to adapt.

I would like to remind our viewers that each party leader has access to some computer facilities. We all know how computers are an integral part of our ability to do our work as parliamentarians, and this also holds true for a variety of sectors in society.

I have asked myself if there is something in the criminal code to meet the objectives of our colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

I read section 430 of the criminal code, and I do not understand how this section, which already exists and can be applied immediately, will not allow us to achieve the objectives pursued by the member through his motion, that is, punishing people who use computers to disrupt electronic business.

When people disrupt electronic business by introducing viruses, they destroy data banks and a part of the economy, because today we can pay bills and make business transactions through computers. With some financial institutions, we can even get authorized loans. There is a whole area of computer science that is developing, which is called domatique, and which will ensure that, as consumers, we will be able, from our homes, to make transactions that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

Section 430 provides for an offence system. I remind members that the criminal code is a legislation. Several times in the House, we have amended the criminal code. We have amended it to include aggravating circumstances. Section 718 of the criminal code says that, when a person is abusing gays, for example, the judge assessing the case will have to impose a more severe sentence. This is the heinous crime legislation.

Tuesday, in the standing committee on justice, we considered each clause of Bill C-24, which provides a framework on the whole issue of anti-gang legislation. Clause 24 says that certain offences or helping organized crime is punishable by 14 years in prison.

I could draw up a fairly long and comprehensive list of the circumstances for which the lawmaker saw fit to amend the criminal code. But I believe we should not overdo it. The criminal code is complex enough as it is, both in terms of its interpretation and its enforcement. Let us not forget that the criminal code is a federal act, but that the provinces have to enforce it.

We want to make it very clear that by taking part in this debate we will ask members of the Canadian Alliance—those who are still in it and those who have left—to explain why we need new provisions. We do not understand why section 430 would not allow the objectives sought by our colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt to be met.

We understand, of course, that economic crimes are often committed through the Internet. Mafia boy is a case in point. In an article I read, it is said that the damage caused by this young computer whiz, who is just over ten years of age, when he broke in to a number of systems, including those of the FBI, the CIA and several big American bureaus of investigation, is estimated at $1.7 billion.

As parliamentarians, we are right not to take this lightly. I suppose that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, who is very vigilant regarding the RCMP's activities, will remind us that there is within the RCMP a section dealing with economic crimes committed through Internet and computers.

Again, we understand the hon. member's concerns. There have been fundamental changes in computers. Computers are no longer for recreational purposes only, as they were when I started using them. We used them to get information, and we used them a lot for recreational purposes.

Nowadays, many services are linked to economic development. Major economic players use computers as a matter of course, for their transactions.

Only last week, I had to get involved. In Quebec, the Mouvement Desjardins is rationalizing its services and facilities. Unfortunately, there is a relationship between the fact that people are relying less on bank tellers and more on computers. The issue is to maintain jobs. It makes us realize that computers have permeated many aspects of our daily lives that we would not have thought possible just a few years back.

I certainly do not want to give the impression that we are not aware or mindful of all the ramifications of the various computer applications. However, we do not believe that a new set of offences is needed.

We should be able to reach our goals with section 430 of the criminal code. For all these reasons, we would hope to get more details on this issue, but unless we get some very convincing explanations, we will be voting against the motion.

Committees Of The House

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday April 26, your committee has considered Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and has agreed to report it with amendment.

Supply

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted prior to question period, the focus of the enforcement efforts of the Government of Canada is against high level drug suppliers and traffickers rather than individual users. This is in accordance with the law enforcement priority of the government with respect to organized crime.

Organized criminal groups control a very large portion of the drug trade in Canada. The drug trade in turn provides a prime source of profit for these groups. Over the past number of years the government has taken action against organized crime. I will outline some of the things we have done in this very important area.

The government has provided significant RCMP budget increases in the year 2000-01 in order to bolster organized crime efforts and enforcement in this area. We have also made available 13 integrated proceeds of crime units which have been set up across the country to deprive criminal groups of their profits and property.

We have also made amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that people convicted of offences related to organized crime were no longer eligible for accelerated parole review. Further, new money laundering legislation has created measures for reporting suspicious financial transactions and the cross-border movement of large amounts of currency. Amendments were made to the criminal code in 1997 to specifically address criminal organization offences. These criminal code measures against organized crime will be reinforced in Bill C-24 currently before the House.

These are some of the steps the Government of Canada has taken in the past and will continue to do in measured efforts. We know this is a very serious problem.

We recognize that despite these efforts it is likely to be impossible to completely prevent all drug trafficking in Canada. That would be ideal but it is highly unlikely and unrealistic. Nevertheless enforcement can help to ensure that efforts toward prevention, treatment and rehabilitation do not become undone in an environment of unrestricted access to illegal drugs.

We also recognize that more can be done with respect to Canada's drug strategy. Now is not the time for Canada to rest upon its achievements, many that they are. Rather it is time for further action to build on what has been achieved.

Countries around the world struggle with the issues surrounding drug abuse and addiction. Canada unfortunately is no exception. The government is clearly committed to the issue and to further action. As part of that action I think it is very appropriate for parliament to be reviewing drug abuse issues.

I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the motion. It represents the kind of forward moving thinking we need as a government and on all sides of the House to prevent the kinds of things that are taking place in this area.

On behalf of the constituents of my riding and indeed all Canadians, we need to pull together in this very important area. It behoves all of us to move together to try to see if there are solutions. In the process we must remember that treatment, prevention and rehabilitation are key words when it comes to these kinds of things, especially when it comes to our young people who I believe Canadians, wherever they live in this great country, want us to prevent going down this path because at the end of the day there is nothing but trouble there.

I can say firsthand that all Canadians recognize the problem. Certainly we as a government recognize it. We need to work efficiently and effectively to ensure that what we do in this important area produces results at the end of the day. I believe that is in keeping with the great values of the country and of the people of Canada.

The motion is timely. I think it is one that we as a government can and will support. It is something of great note to all Canadians.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of the actual number of people who may have succumbed to overdoses of drugs over the last two or three years. I can simply say that one is too many. I also agree that we have a problem. That is why we are trying to address the problem with a multifaceted and co-ordinated approach.

Bill C-24 is before the House. It would give our police forces the tools to fight organized crime. All of us here would agree that organized criminal activity is behind much of the drug activity. It requires a two pronged approach. We have to approach the issue from a health perspective and the law enforcement perspective. We will fight the war on drugs by working together and working with our international partners.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the first opportunity I have had to respond to the hon. member in that capacity. Let me begin by congratulating her on the position she holds.

This afternoon we will continue consideration of Bill S-11, followed by Bill S-16 respecting money laundering. As a matter of fact the debate on Bill S-11 may have collapsed just before question period. That means we will start with Bill S-16 respecting money laundering, followed by Bill C-14, the shipping legislation. Afterward, if there is any time left, we will resume debate on Bill C-10 regarding marine parks.

On Friday we will begin consideration of Bill C-22 respecting income tax amendments at report stage and third reading. We will then return to the list I have just described should we not have completed Bill C-14, Bill C-10 or Bill S-16, for that matter.

On Monday next, if necessary, we will resume consideration of Bill C-22, followed by Bill C-17, the innovation foundation bill, at third reading. We will then return to the list that I described a while ago.

On Tuesday it is my hope that we will be able to commence and hopefully complete the third reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco taxation bill, as well as the second reading of Bill C-15, the criminal code.

Next Wednesday it is my intention to call Bill C-7, the youth justice bill at report stage. We also hope to deal next week with Bill S-3 respecting motor vehicles, Bill C-11, the immigration legislation, if reported, and Bill C-24, organized crime. As well there has been some discussion among political parties and hopefully we can deal with Bill S-24 respecting the aboriginal community of Kanesatake at all stages in the House of Commons, provided that it has been reported to the House from the other place.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough just mentioned to me, are also recipients. In fact I will refer to my notes so this will be on the record. Seven provinces are currently recipients of equalization payments, namely: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Those payments are made by the federal government from federal revenue sources to which all taxpayers contribute. It is not coming out of one pot of money. It is coming out of general revenues.

Before my colleague from Newfoundland gets on his feet to drive home what I think is a more regional message—I may be mistaken on that, but I think it is—I do want to go through the history of equalization in the country.

It is a long established practice in the country to share the wealth, so to speak. I refer to an article written by Kenneth Norrie, Richard Simeon and Mark Krasnick entitled “Federalism and the Economic Union in Canada”. It is a summary of major developments with respect to equalization.

For the record, this practice began in 1867, at the very birth of our country, in the BNA Act, with what were then called the BNA Act statutory subsidies, payments made to provinces in return for surrendering indirect taxes to Ottawa. There was a formula already established, then, for having given up direct taxation. In 1940 that was renewed with what they called then the national adjustments grants, which were recommended by the Rowell-Sirois report. These grants were paid on the basis of fiscal need.

In 1957 there was another look at equalization. The first formal equalization plan was established in 1957. It was part of the 1957-62 fiscal arrangements. The federal government at that time agreed to bring per capita yields from three standard taxes up to the average yield in the two wealthiest provinces, hence bringing us up to a higher level based on the prosperity of some of the other provinces that happened to be doing better.

In 1958 there was another look at it, with increased equalization for personal income tax. Again it was a trade-off. The provincial share of personal income taxes paid to the provinces increased from 10% to 13%. This entered into the equalization formula.

Between 1958 and 1961 there was another look at it. The government came up with the Atlantic Provinces Adjustment Grants and Newfoundland Additional Grants Act, an act of parliament. Additional unconditional grants at that time to the Atlantic provinces were rationalized on the basis of the provinces' low fiscal capacity, in other words, not as much strength in their economies.

In 1962 we revisited again as a nation what was then called the 1962-67 fiscal arrangements agreement. Again the personal income tax share rose up to 16% in accordance with the tax arrangements and there was the introduction of 50% of the three year average of provincial revenues and taxes from natural resources. The equalization standard was again reduced to the national average level.

From 1962 to 1967 another look was taken at it. The provinces acquired an increased share of personal income tax. In 1964-65 there were some changes to the natural resources act. Then we move on to our centennial year and the federal government introduced the representative tax system of equalization. In 1972 the same thing occurred and that program was extended. An addition of three new tax sources brought the total level to 19 tax sources at the time. Revenues from these three tax sources, racetrack revenues, medical premiums and hospital premiums, were previously equalized under miscellaneous revenues. There were some changes there.

In 1973-74 school purpose taxes were included. In 1974-75 there was energy revenue modification. In 1977 the equalization component of the Fiscal Arrangements Act was passed by parliament. In 1981 Bill C-24 had two provisions: withdrawal of the sale of crown leases category from the program and a personal income over-ride with no province eligible for equalization if its per capita personal income exceeded the national average level in the current preceding two years.

As we can see, various Liberal and Conservative governments were taking steps all along the way and provincial governments were doing the same thing in recognition of equalization and how important it was for the stability of the country.

In 1982 a new tax source was added. In the 1982-87 fiscal arrangements there was the new representative five province standard equalization program.

I have one minute left and will conclude by saying that April 17, 1982 is a date every Canadian will remember. That was the date of the new Constitution Act. The new Constitution Act of 1982 was struck, signed onto by the provinces and the prime minister at the time. There was a provision in the act ensuring that equalization was enshrined in Canada's new constitution.

Canada has a long and good history of sharing the wealth in our country. I think the present government's position and attitude are very meanspirited. I look forward to hearing the comments of the member for St. John's West, who will carry on.

Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 1919 at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, a doctor summoned some medical students to an autopsy saying that the patient's disease was so rare that most of the students would never see it again. It was lung cancer.

This story is from a December 1992 article by Dr. John Meyers entitled “Cigarette Century” from Time magazine. It illuminates like a lightning flash this fact: much, probably most, of our hideously costly health care crisis is caused by unwise behaviour associated with drugs, eating, driving recklessly, sex, alcohol, violence, insufficient exercise and especially smoking.

Focusing on wellness, on preventing rather than causing illness, will reduce the waste inherent in disease oriented hospital centred high tech medicine. The history of the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer illustrates the fallacy of associating health with the delivery of medicine.

One of those 1919 medical students later wrote that he did not see another case of lung cancer until 1936. Then, in six months, he saw nine cases. By the 1930s advances in immunology and public health measures such as sanitation, the handling of food and so on, were reducing the incidence of infectious diseases. However we were about to experience an epidemic in behaviourally driven disease.

The lung cancer epidemic can be said to have sprung from the 1881 invention of a cigarette making machine. Prior to that commercial manufacturing of cigarettes was largely a cottage industry. However by 1888 North Carolina's James Buchanan Duke, whose wealth brought Duke University to life, was selling nearly a billion cigarettes annually throughout North America. Between 1910 and 1919, cigarette production increased by 633%. The U.S. national cigarette service committee distributed cigarettes free to soldiers in France during World War I.

In 1930 the lung cancer death rate among men was less than five per 100,000 per year. By the 1950s, after another war in which cigarettes were sold for a nickel a pack, were distributed free in forward areas and were included with K-rations to soldiers, the lung cancer death rate among men had quadrupled to more than 20 per 100,000. Today it is more than 70 per 100,000. Women's lung cancer rates are soaring and lung cancer is far and away the leading cause of cancer deaths.

According to the World Health Organization, about half of all long term smokers die from tobacco related illnesses and half of those die in middle age, losing 20 to 25 years of productive life.

We have come a long way from the early days of television when sponsor-anchorman John Cameron Swayze's The Camel News Caravan required him to have a lit cigarette constantly visible to the audience.

The social disaster of smoking addiction illustrates why behaviour modification, especially education, is the key to containing health costs.

To that end, legislation such as the bill we are debating today, the tobacco excise tax act, can serve the public good. However the government must address concerns about the increased smuggling that may result from a spike in tobacco costs and the difficulty of policing our vast borders.

We must not forget that when combating smoking, drugs, foul language and other mischievous activities, especially among the young, social stigma has its place, as the member for Elk Island put it. Information campaigns about the public health dangers of smoking have a role to play as well.

The addictive qualities of tobacco and the craving for the product at the lowest possible price could spur a dramatic increase in cigarette smuggling. On January 27, 1994, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the current government House leader, recognized these concerns when he told the House:

Our country is faced with a serious smuggling problem. As a non-smoker, I am generally in favour of high taxes on tobacco to help discourage young people from smoking. However, the reality in Canada today is completely different. Because of the smuggling problem in our country, almost any young Canadian can buy cigarettes cheaply, even illegally...We have no choice, Mr. Speaker. We must put an end to this illegal activity by reducing, however temporarily, taxes on tobacco. We have to work together to enforce the laws of our country.

This was followed by an ambitious crackdown on cigarette smugglers. The government told MPs it would dedicate 700 RCMP officers to anti-smuggling operations and that anyone participating in the tobacco smuggling trade in any capacity would be subject to the full range of sanctions and penalties under the law.

Presumably enthused by the new found enforcement of our laws, on October 20, 1994, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca called on the government to restore the tax on tobacco to the level that existed on January 1 of that year and to put the increased revenue into health care financing. His call was opposed by the current government House leader who told members the smuggling situation persisted and that the Minister of Health had tabled a report two months earlier which had showed the reduction in taxes had not resulted in an increase in smoking.

The government House leader was wrong. From 1979 to 1991 the real price of cigarettes in Canada increased by 159% and teenage smoking fell from 42% to 16%. In 1994 Canada's reduced tobacco taxes, which were in response to concerns about smuggling, caused the real price of cigarettes to fall by one-third. As a result, teenage smoking increased from 16% to 20% and total tobacco consumption began increasing, especially among young Canadians.

From a health point of view this was a clear and significant failure. Revenue losses were equally acute. The February 1994 tax cuts resulted in a combined federal and provincial revenue loss of over $1.2 billion for the fiscal year 1994-95. The federal loss was $656 million, more than twice what the government had predicted.

In 1998 the government increased cigarette prices to try to reduce consumption. On April 20 of that year the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier rose in the House to inform his colleagues that the morning's papers showed that the increase had brought back cigarette smuggling with a vengeance to southern Quebec and Ontario.

The government has dropped the ball on this file in the past, both on the taxation side and the smuggling side. The government's batting average has been far from good.

On May 9, 2000, during a debate of Bill C-24, the so-called sales tax and excise tax amendment act, the member for North Vancouver reminded the House that up to that point, despite the government's dedication of over 700 RCMP officers to the cause, not one person had been charged with cigarette smuggling.

During that same day's debate the member for Elk Island told the House:

It was about three, four or five years ago that cigarette smuggling was a huge issue, so the government decided to reduce the taxes on cigarettes to make the price differential between smuggled cigarettes and those purchased at the store less so there would be less demand for the black market, thereby reducing smuggling. The government tells us that this has had some effect.

Bill C-24 will once again increase cigarette taxes...However, I have to ask the question: If high taxes were part of the reason for developing the smuggling industry in the first place, would it not be possible that by increasing these taxes, as Bill C-24 will do, the problem will return?

I was not a member of the House when those comments were made and yet today we are considering the same question with Bill C-26.

Having worked in Ottawa in 1997 and 1998 and travelled to and from British Columbia extensively at the time, I can tell my colleagues that straight prices for cigarettes in Ottawa were roughly the same as duty free prices for cigarettes at Vancouver International Airport.

At that time federal cigarette taxes were high in Vancouver but dramatically reduced in the Ottawa area in an attempt to reduce smuggling in this part of the country. If taxes are to have the universal benefit of reducing smoking they must be applied at the same level in every part of the country. There cannot be a gap in the cost of cigarettes across Canada. This has been a failure in the past.

As a person who is interested in discouraging smoking from coast to coast, I remind the government that unless it deals effectively with smugglers and enforces the laws of our country, the problems that have plagued past efforts to reduce smoking will return to haunt the government.

Upon passage of the bill it is important that the government carefully and aggressively establish a plan to fight an impending surge of smuggling. If it does not, the good intentions behind the bill will fail to produce what most Canadians want: a healthier country inhabited by fewer smokers.

Criminal Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you know how much I have been concerned about organized crime and the fight against organized crime as the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

I have to say right off that I find this bill introduced by the Minister of Justice and her colleague, the Solicitor General of Canada, extremely positive. We will certainly have to work in committee to improve it, but I think our colleague, the member for Berthier—Montcalm and Bloc Quebecois justice critic, has also said he is relatively pleased.

I recall that in the early 1990s, we learned as parliamentarians with some stupefaction just how deep the roots of organized crime went in our societies. We were used to calling ourselves a country of law and order, where basic freedoms thrive and where there is essentially no political corruption. This remains the case and continues to be relevant.

We came to realize in the early 1990s that the real threats we faced as parliamentarians representing a challenge for the future for all of our societies included those related to organized crime.

I think members will remember that the catalyst, the event that triggered this realization, was the killing, the car bomb that went off in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on August 9, 1995, which for the first time in the history of crime claimed an innocent victim, a young lad of 11, Daniel Desrochers.

I do not think I am wrong to say that because of this event we as politicians realized the scope of the threat of organized crime in our societies.

This was followed by action, which I and other parliamentarians joined in. Not only did politicians realize the scope of organized crime. So did the agencies responsible for law enforcement. Police forces also called for more resources.

Members will also remember that in 1997, two years after the car bombing, the House passed a bill creating the new offence of participation in a criminal organization. A new offence was added to section 467.91 of the criminal code, namely the offence of participating in a criminal organization, of gangsterism.

That bill was passed very quickly. We were fairly convinced that it would provide a useful additional tool to law enforcement bodies and police forces.

One must admit that we had underestimated the incredible adaptability to change of biker gangs.

When we think about organized crime there are two or three realities to keep in mind. The first one is that organized crime exists across Canada. There are 36 biker gangs in all the provinces. The most powerful ones are those that have ties with the Hell's Angels which have managed to set up chapters across Canada. For a long time they had been excluded from Ontario, but last year they managed to move into the Ottawa—Vanier area.

Organized crime has three features. It is a criminal organization that is motivated by the prospect of money and it is generally a transborder organization. It must be realized that organized crime is involved in the import-export business. Some conditions must exist for organized crime to prosper.

In the early 1990s, when I began to take an interest in this issue as a member of parliament, I met a number of police officers. The officer who has been the most helpful, the best trainer and the one who gave me the most judicious advice was at the time the officer in charge at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the officer in charge of organized crime in the Montreal urban community police department. This officer was Pierre Sangollo, who today is on duty in the small city of Sainte-Julie.

Pierre Sangollo had told me “Never forget that in order for organized crime to proliferate, prosper and expand in a society it needs at least three conditions”. It needs a society with a minimum of wealth since organized crime gets richer through extortion, plundering, robbery and fraud. Therefore organized crime needs an environment where there is a minimum of wealth.

It needs a society where there are rapid means of communication. When we look at the strategies used by organized crime we see that its members often have contacts in the harbours, in air traffic and in areas where one can make rapid connections with various continents.

To proliferate, organized crime also needs a bureaucratized society. The Canadian charter of human rights is a positive document, in its own right. Everybody is in favour of a society where the rule of law is paramount, where everyone is equal before the law and where constitutional protections exist. I am sure parliamentarians who passed the charter of human rights in 1982 never expected there would be such obstacles to the fight against organized crime, for the charter has proved to be in certain respects an ally in the proliferation of organized crime.

I will give you an example of this. Some clauses of the charter provide that everyone has a right to full justice. Some natural justice principles are entrenched in the charter of rights. My colleague and friend, the member for Chicoutimi, knows that principles of natural justice are entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the early 1990s the supreme court handed down a ruling, called the Stinchcombe ruling. Under this ruling crown attorneys have to disclose all the evidence they have against the accused.

When the subcommittee of the justice committee was struck it travelled across Canada. Crown attorneys told members that a criminal investigation involving some shadowing of members of organized crime can easily cost the state, the crown, $1 million.

With the Stinchcombe ruling members can imagine the reproduction and reprography costs involved when there are tons and tons of documents by the boxful.

When I travelled to Vancouver I was shown, while the crown was preparing the trial of some members of organized crime, a room the size of the House containing full boxes of documents used by the crown to prove its case. These documents had to be copied and provided to the defence.

This had to be done because of a principle entrenched in the charter of rights. One can imagine how complicated it can be for those implementing the act to deal with such situations.

In order for organized crime to prosper a certain number of conditions are required: a bureaucratized state where there are constitutional guarantees for all, a society where routes allow transborder trade, and a society which is bureaucratized and often acts as an ally of members of organized crime.

In spite of all this, in 1997 we passed it in good faith. I remember that the five parties in the House at the time were unanimous. We passed the bill in less than one week at all stages. In committee everyone worked in good faith; everyone acted quickly.

We had with Bill C-95 a new tool that we thought would be effective in the fight against organized crime. What was that tool? It was a definition in the criminal code creating an infraction for gangsterism. When five people were convicted of a crime punishable by a five year term in prison they were considered to be a gang. To take part in a gang crime, to take part in its money making schemes and to commit a crime for gang members was punishable by a 14 year prison sentence.

We were convinced that with this tool, Bill C-95, we could bring down the heads of organized crime. In 1995 there were 36 biker gangs: Hell's Angels, Rock Machine, the Outriders and so one. There were 35 of them across Canada. Believe it or not, in five years, with Bill C-95, we have been able to press charges in only three cases.

Between 1995 and 2000 no more than three trials in all of Canada were conducted on the basis of Bill C-95 and the new infraction in the criminal code.

Why were we not able to bring the leaders of organized crime to justice? Because organized crime is smart. Organized crime has means. Organized crime is rich and has a formidable capacity to adapt.

What did the leaders of organized crime do? They set their various groups up as satellites. The Hell's Angels created affiliate clubs: the Spartiates and the Nomades, to name them. These affiliates recruited young people without records, people who had not in the previous five years committed an offence punishable by five years' imprisonment and who could not therefore be brought before the courts.

This is why the crown prosecutors told us “The tool you gave us with Bill C-95 does not work, and the definition of organized crime has to be changed”.

I would like to give an example of how ineffective the tool we adopted was. I have to say that the government did not drag its feet with respect to organized crime. There are at least six laws that were amended, including the proceeds of crime legislation, the Witness Protection Act, and the law that permits shadowing and setting up storefronts legally. As lawmakers we have been extremely busy with legislation on organized crime. It has not been a partisan issue in recent years.

I have a number of examples. Dominic Tozzi, one of the greatest money launderers ever caught in Canada, got out of prison two years after being sentenced to 10 years in penitentiary for laundering $27.2 million. Dominic Tozzi laundered $27.2 million. He was sentenced by a court of law to 10 years in prison, but with the applicable rules of law he was released after two years.

Antonio Volpato, one of the major figures in the Montreal Mafia, was released after serving one year of his sentence instead of six. The sentence arose from a charge of plotting to import 180 kilos of cocaine. It is rather a lot in terms of an offence.

There is also Joseph Lagana, a former lawyer and financial adviser to the mafia who served two and a half years of a 13 year sentence for importing 558 kilos of cocaine and laundering $47.4 million.

Even after passing Bill C-95 and amending six acts recently, there have been situations involving known members of organized crime. We are not dealing with young offenders subject to the Young Offenders Act but rather known criminals capable of laundering $47 million with the support of a huge network.

These are all challenges we had to overcome in order to fight organized crime. I am sure members all have in their ridings, and there may even be some in the gallery today, people who think it is easy to crack down on criminal organizations. As parliamentarians we now know that it is extremely hard and that we need much more powerful tools than the ones we have now.

Faced with this problem the justice minister, with whom I regularly train in the gym, introduced a bill that would change the definition of organized crime slightly. The organized crime offence will be much easier to prove in court. It will no longer be necessary to have five people who have committed punishable offences in the last five years. Organized crime and the related offence of gangsterism are now defined as participating in or contributing to any activity that helps a criminal organization achieve its objectives.

It is also provided that a well known leader of a criminal organization like Mom Boucher is liable to life imprisonment. This is interesting. For a long time that was the problem. We were able to convict members of criminal organizations but not their leaders.

With the proposed amendment to Bill C-24 this should be much easier to do.

I will conclude by pointing out another positive aspect of the bill. The notion of offence related property will be broadened so that the proceeds of crime money laundering act will be used a lot more. This is another very positive aspect of the bill.

In conclusion, every citizen must feel concerned by the issue of organized crime. Organized crime affects all communities. It does not affect only poor communities.

I believe that Bill C-24, which can be improved on in committee, is an excellent piece of legislation. I will be pleased to work with the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm and with members from all parties to improve this bill in committee between now and the month of June.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to stand in the House again to debate a bill that is being brought forward. Our party commends the government for bringing forward Bill C-24.

Organized crime poses an enormous threat to Canada. It poses an enormous threat to Canada's national security and economic stability. Therefore we on this side of the House welcome Bill C-24, the subject of today's debate. It is a piece of legislation that the Canadian Alliance has been demanding for some time.

In the Canadian Alliance Party we believe we need to put in place the resources to fight crime, to fight all elements of crime. As we look at the daily papers and as we turn the television sets on, we see that organized crime is becoming more prevalent on a daily basis. In 1998 the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Philip Murray, said:

Organized crime in Canada is now so pervasive that police have been reduced to putting out isolated fires in a blazing underworld economy.

What Philip Murray was saying was that in regard to organized crime there is a huge bonfire, with the whole land ablaze, and our police force has very limited resources to put out what we might call small brush fires.

An Ottawa Citizen article dated March 3, 1999, explained the prevalence of organized crime. It states:

Canada is particularly vulnerable to drug trafficking—the principal source of revenue for most organized crime groups—according to the Drug Analysis Section of the RCMP. Smugglers are attracted to Canada because of the low risk of arrest due to limited police resources that have stymied investigations, relatively light penalties, and our sprawling, largely unmonitored borders.

This article highlights three of the huge concerns dealing with drug trafficking as well as organized crime. The first is limited police resources. The second is light sentences. With the light sentences being handed down, people understand that crime sometimes does pay. Of course the third point is the geographic location of Canada and the fact that it has such huge, long, unmonitored borders.

International drug trafficking is an organized criminal activity that threatens democratic institutions, fuels terrorism and human rights abuses and undermines economic development. Drug trafficking is an inherently violent activity. Violence is used by involved organizations to protect turf, settle disputes and eliminate those who oppose them. Some of those who oppose them are government members, the judiciary, investigative journalists and reporters, individuals who are willing to take a stand. We all, as a joint body here, need to be willing to take a stand.

The Canadian government estimates the revenue involved. It shocked me when I heard that the amount of revenue our Canadian government estimates is in the underground illegal drug market in Canada is $7 billion to $10 billion.

The Canadian drug market is dominated by many foreign organizations. We know of many of the countries that are involved. There are Italian based organized criminals who are involved in upper echelons of the importation and distribution of many drugs. Asian based groups are active in heroin and, increasingly, in cocaine trafficking at the street retail level in Canada. Colombian based traffickers still control much of the cocaine trade in eastern and central Canada. As well, outlaw motorcycle gangs play a major role in the importation and large scale distribution of cannabis, cocaine and other chemical drugs.

Motorcycle gangs and those involved in organized crime are not in only one or two provinces. Provinces throughout this nation are now recognizing and understanding the concerns in regard to organized crime as they deal with the motorcycle gangs and especially the drug trafficking of those gangs.

Most illicit drugs arrive in Canada by aircraft, marine container or truck. More than 9 million commercial shipments enter Canada each year, 75% at land borders and the rest at international airports, marine ports, postal facilities and bonded warehouses. Approximately 1 million marine containers holding illegal drugs enter Canadian ports annually and another 200,000 enter by truck or rail after being unloaded at United States marine ports and then moved out.

In 1995, 5.2 million trucks entered Canada from the United States. Three years ago it was estimated that by the year 2000 this number would reach 6 million to 6.8 million. We have a customs inspection rate of less than 2% and we are talking about 5.2 million vehicles that are estimated to contain drugs and are crossing the border.

At least 100 tonnes of hashish, 15 to 24 tonnes of cocaine and 4 tonnes of liquid hashish are smuggled into Canada each year. Some 50% of the marijuana available in Canada is produced in Canada, but the other 50% is brought in from other countries.

The domestic production of marijuana is estimated to be at 800 tonnes. In 1994 an RCMP operation found that $10 million worth of marijuana was exported from British Columbia to the United States.

To exemplify this point I again quote from a news article, this one appeared in the Globe and Mail in April 1999, just two short years ago:

Dale Brandland, a sheriff from Washington State, testified that many marijuana growers have moved to Canada in recent years to escape harsher U.S. drug laws. U.S. police have said that organized crime groups, including the Hells Angels and various Asian gangs, are shipping the highly popular drug back into the United States, sometimes swapping it pound for pound for cocaine.

The 1998 sentiments expressed by the former commissioner of the RCMP regarding the prevalence of organized crime was recently echoed by the president of the Canadian Police Association who has said that organized crime is gaining the upper hand on law enforcement and it is time for tougher laws. Canadian Police Association president, Grant Obst, said:

Things are going out of control and it is time to do something about it. The biggest problem organized crime has is they have too much money. And our biggest problem is we do not have enough.

Regarding resources this is what the president of the Canadian Police Association said:

We are fighting a battle with a group of individuals who have it would seem an unlimited amount of dollars available to them.

The old saying goes that it takes money to make money. In Canada it takes money perhaps to be involved in organized crime and it would be very obvious that they seem to have that money.

We need to put in place resources for those individuals who are willing to fight organized crime. It is time our country takes a stand and provides them with the right resources.

Through Bill C-24 the federal government is injecting $200 million over the next five years to implement the legislation and related prosecution and law enforcement strategies. This funding is to build on the $584 million that the RCMP received in the 2000 budget to help fight organized crime.

Although the money is a welcome addition it simply is not enough. I have already discussed that the drug trafficking could be close to $10 billion per year and we are throwing $200 million more at the problem. It seems to be a drop in the bucket.

Canada's national police force cannot fulfil domestic obligations, let alone our international obligations to provide legal and police assistance in countries such as Colombia and Peru due to the previous cuts. The report on plans and priorities for the RCMP funding for 1998-99 to 2000-01 showed a continuous decline in spending for federal policing services.

The cuts affected policing services in the area of drug enforcement, customs and excise, proceeds of crime and international liaison. The cuts affected policing services in the area of drug enforcement. That is organized crime. The area of customs and excise is directly related to organized crime. The area of proceeds of crime and international liaison is also related to organized crime.

There was to be a 65% reduction of the 1996-97 funding levels for the anti-smuggling initiative despite the fact that larger sophisticated criminal organizations continue to successfully engage in the smuggling and distribution of contraband goods.

Without adequate increased funding and more highly trained skilled provincial police and RCMP officers, the bikers, the Mafia and the Asian based organized criminals will continue to have a free run and to smuggle drugs across our borders.

As we have seen in Edmonton and Calgary they will have the ability to kill innocent bystanders who are caught up in turf wars and caught up in money laundering. They will continue to intimidate and threaten. They will continue to injure and kill members of the judiciary, crime reporters, correction officers, and maybe even some day members of parliament.

I would therefore urge and recommend a significant increase in the expenditures proposed in Bill C-24. I do so with the confidence that the majority of Canadians would agree that fighting organized crime is a top priority.

A 1998 report of a national survey on organized crime and corrections in Canada revealed that Canadians support increased funding for the RCMP to combat organized crime. I will quote from page 3 of that document:

Virtually all respondents want government to spend more money to fight organized crime; in a forced-choice situation, respondents picked organized crime as a spending priority over all other proposed options except health care.

I have only scratched the surface of this most important piece of legislation. I hope to get another opportunity in the near future to speak again to this criminal law bill. Some of the other points in the bill are well worth supporting.

We need to have a concentrated effort on everything it would take to fight organized crime. Canadians want to feel safe. We want to feel safe in our homes, in our communities, in our provinces and in our country. When we look at the survey we understand why Canadians want more money for health care. They want to feel safe. They want to feel if they become ill that the resources are there to help them.

Canadians want to be safe on their streets. They want to know the Canadian government is absolutely committed to keeping communities safe. The great fear many Canadians face is the onslaught of crime. I do not mean petty crime although we want to fight that as well. They fear organized crime because it is a direct threat to our society, to the well-being and safety of our communities, and to our children and our grandchildren.

Canada Elections Act

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

moved that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak briefly today on the bill which proposes a few amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

As members of parliament will know, from time to time we need to revisit our laws to make sure they keep up with the changing needs of Canadians.

Sometimes this entails introducing totally new legislation as happened with Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act, in the last parliament.

While the impetus for change usually comes from the public or this House, it can also be the result of rulings by the courts. An example is the Figueroa case heard recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In this case the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the provisions in the Canada Elections Act relating to the registration of political parties. He argued that requiring a party to nominate 50 candidates before it could be declared a registered party, and thus before having tis name appear on the ballot, violated section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since smaller parties could not achieve this threshold and were therefore denied some of the financial benefits accorded to registered parties.

In its ruling, the court ruled that it was in fact reasonable to require parties to have 50 candidates before they qualify for financial benefits. I repeat that the court said it was okay. The reason it did so and I quote the court. It said that the requirement “is a reasonable method of distinguishing between parties whose involvement reaches the appropriate level of participation and parties whose involvement does not”. That was a quote from paragraph 88 of the court's decision.

The provision of the Canada Elections Act pertaining to the eligibility for financial benefit remains unchanged.

The plaintiff also challenged those provisions requiring parties to have 50 nominated candidates before their names could appear on the ballot.

The argument was that having a candidate's political affiliation on the ballot was desirable since it provided voters with important information they needed before making an informed choice. In other words, if there were two John Does on the ballot and one of them was John Doe from such and such party, as opposed to John Doe, independent, voters would have the right to know that it was John Doe from such and such party.

In this case the court ruled that this use of the 50 candidate threshold was not valid and represented an unjustifiable limitation on the right of voters to make an informed choice since it denied them important information about candidates, as I have just shown.

As such, it violates section 3 of the charter. Consequently the court referred the offending portions of the act back to parliament and gave it a specific time frame to take remedial action. This is why it is important to respond to its ruling.

The bill before us responds to this part of the ruling by proposing to lower the threshold for including party affiliation on the ballot, in other words the informative part, to just 12 candidates, which is less than a quarter of what it would have required before.

I spoke in committee to why the number 12 was used. It was used because it is a threshold with which we are familiar. It is one that exists elsewhere for political parties, namely 12 is the minimum number of members of parliament to be recognized by the Speaker as a party for the purposes of the House. That would suppose that a party with 12 candidates would elect all of them all of the time. Although that is unlikely it is at least possible, and that is the number we used.

We could have used a slightly higher threshold, namely 15, because it was the one recommended by the Lortie commission. The Lortie commission, appointed by the previous Conservative government, had made such a recommendation in the past. In any case, certainly if 15 works 12 is a number that is even less onerous and therefore would work not only as well but some would argue even better.

All these issues were studied by the parliamentary committee. I thank the committee for the excellent issues that were raised. I did not always agree with everything that was raised by some hon. colleagues in committee, but largely they were very constructive, as they usually are. I hope my responses to them in committee were as equally informative as their questions were interesting.

During these hearings the question of how many candidates should be required was discussed at length. There were members who called for a far greater number than 12, while others wanted to lower the number. As a matter of fact, there is a private member's bill before the House by a member of the Canadian Alliance arguing for a stronger threshold.

There must be a threshold some place. The court spoke to this eloquently. It said the designation on the ballot had to be what it called a party in the real sense of the word. That was the expression used by the court. One person is not a party. I, running under my own party, would not have the status of a party. A party that would bear only the individual's name would not satisfy that criterion. Again the court referred to that in its decision.

The balanced approach was required. To use a threshold that had foundation in law, the number 12 certainly has that and the number 15 as well. Both were reasonable and we used one of them. It is the balanced approached. Mr. Speaker, you will be very familiar with the government's usually balanced approach to most things, if not everything.

Voters could be, as I said, misled if a ballot indicated a candidate was affiliated with a political party that was in fact not a political party. That would not serve to make the system more transparent but could arguably make it less so.

As a matter of fact, one colleague was very concerned about the fact that people could put their names on a ballot for the purpose of giving publicity to a commercial enterprise. In other words they could simply satisfy the criteria for the ballot and advertise. One hon. member gave the example of her real estate office or something like that. That is not what the ballot is designed to do. It is difficult to reconcile all these things, but we tried to use the number that would make it all work.

As I mentioned, the rationale for choosing 12 is already found in our parliamentary system. Once passed, this measure would allow political parties with at least 12 candidates to have their names appear alongside those of their candidates. In other words the ballot would say that John Doe is running under the XYZ party, if that happened to be the name of the particular group of people.

As to the other provisions, I will mention them briefly before concluding. These tend to be technical amendments designed to correct a few anomalies that have become apparent since the new Canada Elections Act came into force and terminological changes aimed at making the English and French versions more consistent. As such, they should make our existing electoral laws even better.

I wish to thank parliamentarians from all parties who took part in this exercise, and I mean this sincerely. I also wish to thank those who worked hard on drafting Bill C-9: the people at Elections Canada, the Department of Justice, Privy Council, my own team, and of course all those working on the bill right now.

I will conclude by repeating the promise I made to the parliamentary committee. What we have before us today is not an overhaul of the Canada Elections Act. It is simply a response to the court and the correction of certain technical details, certain anomalies.

Nevertheless, we remain committed to again overhaul the Canada Elections Act, as must be done, particularly on the heels of an election and following the report and recommendations of Canada's chief electoral officer, which will probably be released shortly.

Later there will have to be consultations with the political parties, not just in the House but within the parties themselves because sometimes political parties have important things to say and they are not just said by parliamentarians. There will have to be this kind of consultation with them and with the general public in due course.

That is not what is before us today. We are looking only at the corrections I have just mentioned, but the firm undertaking to improve the Canada Elections Act in general remains and I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate this in the House, as I did in committee a few weeks ago.

On that note I will close because I know that parliamentarians will soon want to move on to Bill C-24. In order to speed things up a bit, I will conclude my remarks here.

I thank my colleagues in advance for the contribution they will make to this debate.

Criminal Code

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate, an important debate.

Why is it important? Bill C-24 amends the Criminal Code and related laws, specifically to clarify a major social problem.

The Bloc Quebecois, long before this bill, wanted to do battle. My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm naturally headed this battle. He spearheaded this important bill, which he could have tabled, but which the government tabled.

This bill could very easily have been tabled by a member of this party, the Bloc Quebecois, because for many years the Bloc Quebecois has called for a vigorous law, tighter legislation, to limit and reduce crime, and criminal gangs in Canada.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm was not the only one. I recall very clearly from an event in the Montreal riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that my colleague who represents that riding introduced a motion under private members' business and initiated this debate in this House to ensure that the government was taking the necessary steps to establish legislation to fight organized crime.

What is being tabled today concerns basically six elements, six legislative means to fight organized crime. One concerns the question of participation in a criminal organization, which becomes an offence under the bill.

Another is the whole issue of protection given to persons participating in the legal system against certain acts of intimidation.

The third aspect is the simplified definition of criminal organizations. This is essential, essential because we wanted to see a clear definition of what a criminal organization, what a gang, is. Right at the start of the bill, in clause 1, in the explanatory notes, the definition is clear:

—“gang”. Group or association or other body consisting of five or more persons, whether formally or informally organized,

(a) having as one of its primary activities the commission of an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more;

(b) any or all of the members of which engage in or have, within the preceding five years, engaged in the commission of a series of such offences;

This bill provides clarification of what a criminal organization is, because we feel that the current legislation—not the bill we are looking at today but the present legislation—is in my opinion complex and to some extent provides organized groups with loopholes about which we as parliamentarians have a duty to do something.

The other aspect addressed by this bill is the whole matter of seizure and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime.

There is also the matter of protection for those mandated to monitor application of the legislation, what is termed immunity.

Lastly, there is the matter of non legislative measures, the budget in particular.

I will close on this point. It is not merely a matter of equipping ourselves with legislation. We also need the financial means to be able to enforce it. We are waiting for a budget that will allow us to meet the challenge.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code. It deals more specifically with organized crime and law enforcement. As usual, when such a bill is presented, it also makes consequential amendments to other acts.

I would first like to say that the Bloc Quebecois will also support this bill. We feel somewhat involved in this bill, since the minister has included in it approximately 80% of what our party has repeatedly asked for since our arrival in the House. There is a small portion, about 20%, left that we would have liked to see included also. But we can talk about this later, when the bill is considered in committee and when the time comes for amendments.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm will certainly be happy to remind the minister that we would like to bring forward some amendments. We will also have our say at the third reading stage, but we hope that the minister will keep on thinking about it until the end of the third reading stage, so that she really can try to put it on the agenda for 2001.

For the benefit of the people who are watching and who may read the proceedings, I would like to give a brief historical background. You surely remember, Mr. Speaker, when you were with us in the House at the time, that, in 1997, in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, a boy of only eleven, who was playing quietly on the sidewalk, became the unfortunate victim of organized crime because some gangs were fighting each other. Poor Daniel Desrochers was killed, a totally innocent victim of organized crime.

For us, it was quite a shock. We felt as though everyone knew this dear Daniel. We thought that something had to be done to try to make the government react.

Then, as my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party was reminding us, there was the unfortunate event where reporter Michel Auger was shot. However, he was luckier and received medical attention. He recovered and went back to work.

Another person who had no luck was Francis Laforêt, a young man from Terrebonne who was a bar owner and who thought he was able to live in our society. Unfortunately, organized crime also got him.

These three cases are very fresh in our memories and are painful. There was also, a little later, an event related to the bikers' war that traumatized the village of Saint-Nicholas, on the south shore, just outside Quebec City. There was a bunker, a hideout for criminals. When some bombs exploded, they damaged a youngster's room.

We are very glad to see that the minister has taken the issue of organized crime seriously. In Canada, it has become an industry. We are told that drug sales alone reached $5 billion. During the weekend, at the Summit of the Americas, it was the president of Columbia, I think, who expressed the hope that we could help him deal with the drug problem in his country.

In February 1999, during a Commonwealth mission to Barbados, the justice minister told us that one of the biggest problems in his country was drug trafficking.

With $5 billion in sales only in Canada, it has become a thriving business that causes a lot of problems. If we consider only the Hells Angels who were arrested recently, their drug sales generated $100 million in profits. That is quite an amount of money, enough to realize that we need to deal with this problem.

The 1998 data released by the RCMP are troubling: 79 murders, 89 attempted murders, 129 cases of arson and 92 bombings, and that only includes offences committed during gang wars where bikers fight against each other. It does not include the people who were killed or forced to commit suicide, as is often now the case, because they could not pay back the money they owed. The RCMP's numbers for 1998 only cover the gang wars.

In 2001, “Printemps 2001”—spring is the time of year where everyone gets into a cleaning mode—allowed police forces to do some spring cleaning of their own: they arrested 160 criminals in 74 municipalities in Quebec.

Had the minister heeded what we have been telling her since we have been here, we would have had Bill C-24 long before 2001. Today, we would be reassured if the 160 people who were arrested could be judged under Bill C-24. We would be reassured about the end result of this spring cleaning exercise.

With the current act as it is—those who were arrested will have to be judged under the current act, not under the new one that is coming—how many of these 160 people will remain incarcerated? Out of 160, how many will be prosecuted with all the evidence and convicted? Two, three? Maybe ten if we are lucky.

However, if these people were to be judged under this bill, about 120 or 130 out of the 160 could be proven to be criminals and remain incarcerated.

As I was saying at the beginning of my speech, this bill responds to about 80% of the Bloc's wishes.

One thing is extremely interesting, and I refer to clause 5 of the bill, which amends section 2 of the act. It says that anyone who directs threats against a member of the Senate or the House of Commons is guilty of a serious offence. It then goes on to list other persons, including: b ) a person who plays a role in the administration of criminal justice, including

(i) a prosecutor, a lawyer—

When we look at the list of persons mentioned here, we cannot help thinking that it would have been nice to include our colleagues from the provincial legislatures and the Quebec National Assembly. It would have been interesting to see paragraph (a) read as follows: “a Member of the Senate, a Member of the House of Commons, a Member of a provincial legislature or a Member of the Quebec National Assembly”. We must think about our colleagues who occupy the same position as we do, but at other levels of government.

It would also have been a good thing if that list had mentioned the members of municipal councils, individuals who occupy elective positions, who represent the people, who serve the public in their community, their county or their riding. These persons give their time for the collective good and are, all of them from the first to the last, worthy of being protected by the law.

I hope the necessary amendments will be implemented. I hope the minister will be sensitive to those comments and that she will also add a category which seems extremely important to me, that of journalists. We know that Mr. Auger was the first victim and I hope he will be the last. It might be appropriate to add a dissuasive measure specifically for journalists so that they are included in the category of threatened persons. If they were in that category, then the criminals attacking them would receive appropriate sentences and those persons could continue to work in peace.

One significant plus of this bill is that the minister has finally accepted to define gangsterism. In the bill she had passed in 1999, which initially amended the Criminal Code and provided a few more teeth to deal with organized crime groups, there was what is known as the rule of three fives, which provided that conviction required a group of five persons. That was the first five.

For the second five, the five individuals had to have had a police record during the last five years. They were to be arrested, and these five people with a police record in the previous five years had to have committed a crime serious enough for them to be charged under the Criminal Code and liable to five years or more of imprisonment, hence the rule of the three fives.

This time, the minister is going further. For the benefit of all of us, I think it is extremely important to refer exactly to the text to see what clause 27, which amends section 467.1 of the Criminal Code provides.

It provides, and I quote:

“criminal organization” means a group, however organized, that is composed of three or more persons—

This is progress. From five to three. I continue:

—and that has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission—

There is one or other of the alternatives.

—of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the group. It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.

So here they distinguish between the two. It does not mean three people, for example, who decide that to pay for their drugs, they will hold up the Caisse populaire at the corner. They have never seen one another or met, but the three of them know that, by chance, they all owe money to the same gang. They say “Tonight we will do a hold up”. That is not it. They have to be an organized gang.

So, if we continue reading this magnificent bill, we will see interesting things on prosecution. I quote:

467.11(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1)—

It is the offence I have just read. I will read it slowly enough so you will remember it:

—it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that—

This is interesting because, from the outset, it excludes certain things which do not have to be proved beyond a doubt. a ) the criminal organization actually facilitated or committed an indictable offence; b ) the participation or contribution of the accused actually enhanced the ability of the criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence; c ) the accused knew the specific nature of any indictable offence that may have been facilitated or committed by the criminal organization;

Here we have some extremely interesting elements that were introduced into the bill to facilitate the job of those who have to do so.

Now there is an interesting element. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we were 80% satisfied with this bill and 20% dissatisfied. Those might be considered good stats but there is still room for improvement.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm has asked a question of the hon. member who spoke just before I did, in connection with merely be a member of a criminal organization. Might steps not be taken to ensure that mere membership in a criminal organization is an offence in itself?

The reason we stressed the need for this so heavily was that we wanted to be able to get the gang leaders. They are the masterminds. They are the ones pulling the strings. They send out the new recruits to earn their colours by doing the dirty work for them.

I see the clock is moving on and there are still a lot of things I could say. This is an amendment we find extremely interesting. There is also the matter of reversal of the burden of proof in connection with the proceeds of crime, to which we shall return in committee and in subsequent debates.

In the short time I have left, I would like to say how important it is for the minister to proceed with this bill, to get it in force promptly, for the House not to be recessed before it is passed, and for her to ensure the funding is made available, the cash required to make it enforceable.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, for the record our party generally supports Bill C-24. Our justice critic will put forth amendments as we go through the debate, but generally we support it.

It is important for the listening public to understand where we are in this debate and what prompted it. The truth is Bill C-24 would fight organized crime.

One thing that prompted the government to take action on this was when RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli stated that organized crime had drafted plans to use bribes to destabilize the country's parliamentary system. This is pretty scary stuff when we think that the members of this House or any other provincial legislation, who draft the bills and the laws, could be subjected to a plan by organized crime to sabotage our democratic process. That would scare anyone. That raised eyebrows across the country and gave a pretty clear indication of how much of an epidemic we were really facing.

Then we can go back to last September when the Quebec public security minister, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause to outlaw gang memberships, which provoked a controversy in Quebec and across the country. One of the victims of that, within just a day or so, was the Journal de Montréal reporter Michel Auger. He was gunned down and shot five times by organized crime, sending out a message that the criminals were not going to stand for this. He stood fast, as did many in that province, in an attempt to fight organized crime. They are still working to do something about it.

Hopefully this bill will do something because it is an epidemic not only in the urban areas but also the rural areas.

Let us focus on some of the things that the bill might do, should do and obviously would do if implemented properly with some attention given to the amendments which I am sure will come forward from the House.

Bill C-24 would simplify the definition and composition of the criminal organization. This is very important. It would target various degrees of involvement with these organizations. It would make it easier for police and prosecutors to arrest and jail gangsters and keep them in prison for longer periods of time. It would allow law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of crime from these criminal organizations and to seize property that was used in a crime. In other words, it would send out a message that crime did not pay. It would strengthen rules protecting against the intimidation of witnesses, juries and their families in an organized crime trial.

Last on my list is to strengthen protection for federal members of parliament and to improve protection for law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit certain illegal acts while engaged in undercover operations to infiltrate criminal organizations.

That sounds good. We are hoping the government does eventually come up with a bill, obviously with the help of the opposition and some of the fine amendments which I am sure will be coming from all of the parties on this side of the House because, Mr. Speaker, as you will remember, last September it was the opposition, particularly the Bloc Quebecois, that brought forward this emergency debate on organized crime in the House.

If the history of the government is any evidence of what it might do or what it should do, not much is going to happen. The minister in her press release brags about the many bills that she brought into the House to fight crime. She mentioned seven in particular. That goes back to 1993 in the life of the government.

I want to remind the House and the Canadian people of an example. The youth justice bill has been introduced in the House three times and has never passed. Obviously that in itself is not going to fight organized crime, but it is an example of the absurdity of the government's position on fighting crime. We do not expect anything to happen in a hurry or at all if the government has its way.

In terms of the money the government is putting into this, again it brags about the $200 million in addition to the $584 million that is being provided to the RCMP every year by the Government of Canada, or in other words, the taxpayers of Canada. At first glance the $200 million looks mighty good, but it is like the funding for health care. It is spread over five years.

Instead of the government being honest with the Canadian public and telling us there will be another $40 million this year and again next year to fight crime, it comes up with the $200 million because it looks better on paper. How this money starts to flow or will flow, nobody knows. If the recent health accord is any example, I will not be holding my breath because not much is going to happen.

Of that $200 million, the government mentions $50 million that is going into fighting smuggling, which I assume is smuggling of products and people. As we well know, that is an epidemic in the country as well. Another $150 million is going to the RCMP for hiring new officers and training and so on and so forth.

An example of inconsistency of the government is that in 1994 there was the biggest capitulation in the history of Canada when it came to fighting organized crime. Do hon. members remember when the government caved in to the cigarette smugglers? That was a double-edged sword. Not only did the government capitulate to the smugglers and turn a blind eye to smuggling, there was a reduction on the excise tax on cigarettes. Instead of enforcing our laws and cracking down on smuggling, the government capitulated and reduced the tax.

The result of this obviously was not good. It was not good simply because every year 45,000 Canadians—I am getting off topic a little bit—die from smoking cigarettes. Instead of the government attacking smuggling in 1994 and putting the resources back in when it could have made a difference, it chose not to do it.

It has only taken seven years for the government to get the message on both of these areas, smuggling and health care. There is a connection between the two of them. If past history is any example of what the government can do, let us not hold our breath. We will not expect much. Of course the government always falls back on whether or not it will be charter proof. Basically the government makes it up as it goes along and hopes that it will work, but it does not do the research and the fundamentals before bringing in the legislation. This issue is important to all Canadians, both rural and urban.

Another point I want to make is in reference to the port police. If you remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, in the House the member for Saint John, the former mayor of that New Brunswick city, suggested that when the government did away with the port police it was a huge mistake. Obviously ships come in from all parts of the world and there are no police to enforce Canadian law at the ports. The government has recognized that it also made a mistake there, so it is going to put more money into this. The government is going to put more money into securing our borders. Maybe it is time we take the examples of other jurisdictions, possibly the U.S. The U.S. has a border patrol to protect the sanctity of its borders.

We do support the bill. We will bring in amendments. However, as is the case with much of the legislation the government brings in, it is just a first start. We are prepared to support that first start.