Bill C-24 (Historical)

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

Criminal Code

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

moved that Bill C-349, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts (criminal organization), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that I introduced in the House and that we are going to debate today is the last step in a series of measures put forward by the Bloc Québécois to weaken organized crime. Before getting into the crux of this bill, I think it is important to talk about the steps that the Bloc Québécois has taken in the House to fight organized crime.

In the 1990s, when the biker wars were raging in Quebec, it quickly became obvious that a new law was needed to help law enforcement in their fight against organized crime. From the start, the Bloc spoke out about this reality in the House and put pressure on the Liberal government of the time. It was former Bloc member Réal Ménard who first introduced anti-gang legislation in the House of Commons in 1995.

The passage of Bill C-59 in 1997 marked a first step in the fight against organized crime. However, the amendments to the Criminal Code were too complex and demanding for effectively securing convictions in the courts. For example, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had participated in the activities of a gang and been a party to the commission of an indictable offence committed in connection with the criminal organization.

Because those two combined requirements made it difficult to secure convictions, the police quickly called for amendments, and, once again, the Bloc Québécois was the first to act and bring those calls into the political arena.

In 2000, the Bloc Québécois then led the effort to have amendments made to that initial anti-gang law, Bill C-59, and to expand its scope. Our leader at that time, Gilles Duceppe, was even targeted by threats and intimidation from criminal organizations, to deter him from proceeding.

Mr. Duceppe stood up to them and the Bloc demonstrated its determination. As a result, in 2002 our efforts led to the enactment of Bill C-24, which created two new, separate offences to assist in combatting organized crime. Participating in the activities of a criminal organization and committing an indictable offence for the benefit of a criminal organization became two separate offences. It became possible to secure a conviction against members of criminal organizations for gang-related or criminal organization offences. A person charged with committing an offence for the benefit of a criminal organization became liable to life imprisonment.

To better protect the public and the police who are engaged in fighting organized crime, the law also added provisions to combat the intimidation of journalists and of federal, provincial and municipal elected representatives, and also of any person who plays a role in the administration of the penal and criminal justice system.

In 2009, the Bloc Québécois again took up the issue with a motion to have criminal organizations such as criminal biker gangs recognized as illegal. Also in 2009, the Bloc supported Bill C-14 on organized crime, to have any murder committed for the benefit of a criminal organization deemed to be a premeditated murder and liable to a sentence of life imprisonment.

At the same time, and also at the initiative of the Bloc Québécois, the Criminal Code was amended to reverse the burden of proof and force criminal organizations to prove the source of their income. This was an important step forward in the fight against organized crime.

Earlier, following an international conference on money laundering and organized crime held in Montreal in 1998, the Bloc Québécois had persuaded the government to withdraw $1,000 bills from circulation, since, as everyone knows, they are used most of the time only to launder organized crime money.

The Bloc Québécois has always been a thorn in the side of organized crime. We must not forget that gangsters adapt very readily. There seems to have been a resurgence of criminal biker gangs since 2016.

Here again, we have a responsibility to act. Let me remind the House that the biker war from 1994 to 2002 was especially bloody. The eight-year tally was more than 150 murders, including nine innocents, nine disappeared, and 181 attempted murders. Things could very well start up again. Since the summer of 2016, organized crime experts and observers have noted that criminal biker gangs are making a vigorous comeback. Since Operation SharQc in 2009, most of the bikers who were charged have been let go because some of the trials just fizzled out, and many who were convicted have had their sentences reduced.

They have been making their presence increasingly known, and we have been seeing more shows of force too. In recent months, bikers have started gathering again, displaying their patches openly and with impunity. Our criminal justice system combats the criminal mindset at least as much as it does criminal activity itself. Just consider crimes of accessory: conspiracy, attempt, and inciting or counselling.

Only for practical reasons, such as how hard it is to prove, criminal mentality is more rarely punished than criminal acts themselves. The challenge associated with presenting full proof must not discourage punishments for behaviour that should be punished.

At present, the Criminal Code prohibits participation in a criminal organization only to the extent that it can be proven that the individual intended to enhance the ability of the criminal organization to commit or facilitate the commission of an indictable offence. This is difficult to prove, particularly with regard to criminal organizations that are not easily infiltrated by police.

With that in mind, we are proposing, first of all, that a list of criminal organizations be created, similar to the list of terrorist organizations that exists, and second, that patches and emblems associated with the organizations on such a list be prohibited from being worn in public.

The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for quite some time. In the fall of 2001, on an opposition day, the Bloc moved a motion calling on Parliament to make membership in a criminal organization a criminal offence. The same year, at the committee stage of Bill C-24, the Bloc proposed an amendment at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to prohibit membership in criminal organizations. Our amendment had the support of the criminal investigations branch of the Montreal police service, which at the time was called the Montreal Urban Community Police Department.

Unfortunately, parliamentarians rejected our motion. Then in 2009, the Bloc Québécois managed to get a motion adopted at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights calling on the committee to study the possibility of creating a list of organizations once again following the model of the list of terrorist organizations. I would remind the House that the last biker gang war claimed more than 150 lives in Quebec alone, including that of an 11-year-old child.

Organized crime is very costly in terms of human life, so we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. Witnesses from the Sûreté du Québec, the SPVM, and the RCMP all supported the creation of such a list.

They believe that adding a criminal organization to a list would help crown prosecutors, because they would no longer be required to prove the existence of a criminal organization at each trial. This would be more efficient in terms of the length and cost of proceedings, and it would be more consistent.

A QPP chief inspector had this to say:

The proposal...however, would be a major and important step forward, to avoid having to prove the criminal organization all over again at each trial, for the same organization. It would save us weeks or even months of testimony and preparation to prove aspects that have already been accepted in previous court proceedings, and would therefore be an important avenue to enable us to be even more effective in combatting organized crime on the ground.

We can agree that in the era of the Jordan decision, saving weeks or even months would have been beneficial for our judicial system. That is why we are trying again this year with two new measures.

First, make it possible for the Governor in Council to establish a list of criminal organizations and to place on that list those organizations recommended by the Minister of Public Safety.

Second, make it an offence for a member of a listed criminal organization to wear emblems such as patches.

With respect to establishing a list of criminal organizations, there is no legitimate reason to knowingly be part of a criminal group. Our bill simply prohibits membership in such a group. Currently, the existence of an organization must be proven before someone can be charged with organized crime. We saw what happened with the megatrials, where trials were literally derailed because of the sheer volume of evidence. Rather than serve the cause of justice, the time it takes to process all that evidence serves only the criminals. Obviously, that is not what we want. Establishing a list of criminal organizations will shorten trials and allow justice to take its course within a reasonable period of time and achieve its ends.

People quite rightly believe that nobody should be allowed to belong to a criminal organization. Why do people believe that? Because nobody should be allowed to belong to a criminal organization.

If Parliament passes this bill, it will send a message to the people and to criminals that the government is not sitting on the sidelines. The government is taking action for justice, for the common good, and for everyone's safety.

Members of Parliament will simply not accept something so unacceptable.

The Minister of Public Safety already has the power to establish a list of terrorist groups, a list that, I really want to emphasize, has never been challenged.

In 2005, in R. v. Lindsay, Justice Fuerst of the Ontario Superior Court established that the Hells Angels were a criminal organization across Canada. However, this ruling did not exempt crown prosecutors from having to prove once again that the Hells Angels were a criminal organization in other trials.

I realize that this measure alone would not be enough to put an end to organized crime, and that proving gangsterism is not always easy, but is that not the case anyway when it comes to each and every offence?

As for emblems, the second aspect of our bill, we are proposing that an offence be created prohibiting the wearing of emblems or patches of listed criminal organizations.

Paragraph 467.11(1) of the Criminal Code states the following:

Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence...knowingly...participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence...

We believe that—

[Dr. Larry Motiuk, Special Advisor, Infrastructure Renewal Team, Correctional Service Canada]

Thank you, Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for inviting me here today to talk about research conducted by the Correctional Service of Canada in the context of your study on the state of organized crime.

My name is Dr. Larry Motiuk. Currently I am a special advisor, on assignment, with others, on an infrastructure renewal team in CSC. Also, I am an adjunct research professor in the Department of Psychology at Carleton University. I have a doctorate degree in psychology and a master's degree in clinical psychology.

I began my correctional career at the maximum security Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre and was an employee of the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services until 1988. During this period, I provided direct clinical services to remanded and sentenced offenders, and I conducted research and have co-authored publications on restitution, halfway house selection, and inmate classification. Until recently, I served as the director general of offender programs and reintegration, from 2006 until 2010, at CSC national headquarters. In this position I provided advice on policies, planning, and legislation relative to institutional, community, and operational management of offenders. As an employee of CSC for the past 22 years, I have served as director general of research for 13 years, having supervised and evaluated operational research projects on a national scale. These include mental health, offender intake assessment, risk management, offender reintegration, substance abuse, security, and health care. Over the years, I have published widely, and I have worked directly with various departments of corrections in jurisdictions abroad.

In 2005, the corrections policy unit of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada requested assistance and offered support to the CSC research branch to conduct focused research on federal offenders admitted with criminal organization offences.

In collaboration with Mr. Ben Vuong, a CSC research officer at the time, we developed a research framework and conducted preliminary analyses of available information related to exploring the impact of organized crime legislation in general and offenders who are required to serve sentences for organized crime offences in particular. Consequently, I was intimately involved in the research and co-authoring of two research briefs on federal offenders with criminal organization offences and as such have knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to.

Basically there were two studies. The first study was done in 2005 and was entitled “Federal Offenders with Criminal Organization Offences: A Profile”. By way of a little bit of background, in 1997, the Government of Canada took action against organized crime by amending the Criminal Code to make participation in a criminal organization an indictable offence, and it enhanced the investigative powers of police. On December 18, 2001, strong new legislation to fight organized crime, Bill C-24 at the time, received royal assent. Bill C-24 further amended the Criminal Code and introduced three new offences and tough sentences that targeted various degrees of involvement with criminal organizations. Criteria used to construct the specified population to be studied involved the selection of all admissions to federal corrections serving sentences for organized crime offences since 1997, both pre-Bill C-24, which was 1997 through to 2001, and after Bill C-24, from 2002 to 2004. Admission data were drawn from the service's automated offender management system, known as OMS, over an eight-year period. Admission trends, sentence lengths, related offences, demographics--gender, age, ethnicity, criminal background, correctional history and criminogenic factors, such as criminal associations, drug abuse, etc.--were explored.

Here are some highlights from the study, and these studies are both available on the CSC Infonet or Internet site.

A total of 220 cases met the initial criteria for selection into the study using the Criminal Code descriptions for organized crime offences in the offender management system. As previously noted, Bill C-24, in 2001, introduced three new Criminal Code offences--and I won't go into the sections--that replaced the one offence that was in place at the time. More specifically, 134, or 61% of the sample, were identified for participation in a criminal organization; 16, or 7.3%, were identified for participation in activities of a criminal organization; 62, or 28.2%, were identified for the commission of an offence for a criminal organization; and there were 8, or 3.6%, identified for instructing the commission of an offence for criminal organizations.

In this study we observed that the Quebec region had the largest number of new admissions serving sentences for organized crime, over 80%. Interestingly, there were no cases admitted at that time with organized crime offences in our Pacific region.

It was observed that new admissions with criminal organization offences also received additional sentences for other offences, resulting in the majority of cases serving sentences of more than three years. So 80% of that group were serving sentences greater than three years in federal custody.

As a group, federal offenders with criminal organization offences were serving medium to long-term sentences for a new set or category of offences, coupled with other offences, mainly drug offences. Eighty percent of them were serving sentences for that as well, and in some instances, for other serious crimes, such as attempted murder and robbery. They presented with prior criminal records and strong attachments to family and criminal groups.

Particularly noteworthy, however, was the finding that offenders with criminal organization offences demonstrated more lifestyle stability. That means they were more likely to have been married, employed, and healthy than their correctional counterparts.

The second study was a follow-up of this group. Initially we wanted to profile the population that had been convicted of these offences. We then wanted to observe what happened to them while they served their sentences in federal custody. So the second study was entitled “Prison Careers of Federal Offenders with Criminal Organization Offences: A Follow-up”.

By October 2005, a total of 114, or roughly 50%, of the 220 cases who had met the initial criteria for selection in the study--using those Criminal Code descriptions of organized crime offences--had been released from prison. Therefore, we could capture the whole period of time they served while in federal custody. To construct a matched group for comparison purposes, we got 114 released offenders with those organized offences and then applied criteria to set another sample.

We used a sampling population that was created for federal offenders who had been released between 1997 and 2005 without organized crime offences or any gang affiliations. For each federal offender with an organized crime offence, a similarly situated federal offender without an organized crime offence was identified based on year of admission, sentence group, admitting region, gender, and aboriginal status. The average age for both groups was 33 years of age at that time.

Here are some highlights from the study. A follow-up of prison careers found that federal offenders with criminal organization offences were not significantly more likely than their matched correctional counterparts to be involved in security-related incidents, to be placed involuntarily or voluntarily in segregation, or to be transferred upward in security level. However, these observations may be an artifact of their being placed at relatively higher security levels than their matched counterparts. Therefore, there was more control of their movements.

Similarly, the finding that this group did not participate in programming to the same extent as their matched counterparts may be due to the fact that they do not present as broad a range or array of criminogenic factors. This is deemed to be consistent with their general lifestyle stability apart from organized crime affiliations.

As a group, those with organized crime offences were found to be statistically more likely to be released later than their matched group without organized crime offences. A closer examination of these released organized crime cases revealed that 55% had been granted a discretionary release versus 66% of the matched group.

Not surprisingly, a higher percentage of the organized crime cases had been released on statutory release than their matched group: 45% and 33% respectively. The added time served in custody might explain why a higher percentage of them had been granted escorted temporary absences, and they were significantly more likely to be granted an unescorted temporary absence simply because they had a longer length of stay. Again, the aforementioned may be due to longer periods of stay.

In conclusion, taken together, these two studies suggest a group of offenders who at time of admission are likely to present themselves as good risks from a traditional corrections perspective and whose prison experience would be remarkably uneventful.

The key issue is any interpretation of these findings has to be prefaced with a caveat concerning the limitations associated with available data on which waves of analysis were conducted.

As one might appreciate, the three years since the legislation had come into effect was recent at that time, so definitive statements were difficult to ascertain about the full impacts of the legislation that may be occurring in the long run. Nevertheless, there continues to be limited research on Canadian legislation that places people convicted for organized crime offences into prison. To date, there is only one study profiling the federal offenders convicted for organized crime offences. There is one other study that I'm aware of that follows the sample, and it was the one just referenced, of federally incarcerated offenders who were convicted of organized crime offences during their stay in federal custody. Finally, a longitudinal post-release follow-up is required before such a conclusion can be drawn about their correctional careers.

What is the research impact? CSC policy directives were modified and scoring options for offender classification tools were revised to take into account involvement in criminal organizations for which a conviction has been registered. More specifically for organized crime, ratings of street stability, which are found in many of the classification tools, were adjusted, and the conviction for a criminal organization offence was duly noted.

I would like to conclude by saying that Canadians have always been able to take pride in being international leaders in corrections research and rehabilitation. From the creation of scientifically derived assessment tools for security classification, program assignment, and release risk, to the development and delivery of state-of-the-art rehabilitative programs, Canadian researchers and correctional practitioners have always been at the vanguard of best practices. Canada's advantage is primarily due to the talents and efforts of researchers and practitioners themselves. Building on our correctional technology and research advantage is more important than ever.

I look forward to the discussions here today. It is important that the correctional perspective is represented at these kinds of meetings and that all components of the criminal justice continuum work together to achieve an effective and positive public safety outcome.

Thank you.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, a little background is in order. Earlier, in a tone of voice neither friendly nor courteous, and certainly not the sort of tone one would expect from a man whose job it is to work toward achieving consensus on these issues, the Minister of Justice suggested that the party I represent, the Bloc Québécois, has not taken a serious enough interest in organized crime issues. I would like to take another look at some of the facts.

I was elected in October 1993. The Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Chrétien, had to go to a NATO meeting, so Parliament was convened in January. In August 1995, a car bomb took the life of young Daniel Desrochers. That was when the impact of motorcycle gang wars on civil society began to receive broad media coverage. I would like to point out that what people in British Columbia, particularly the greater Vancouver region, are going through now, unfortunately, is something we experienced to an even greater extent between 1995 and 1998.

In 1995, I introduced the first anti-gang bill. I well remember my discussions with senior federal officials. At the time, Allan Rock was the Minister of Justice, and some of his officials convinced him that we could put an end to organized crime using conspiracy provisions. I cultivated my police force contacts. A man by the name of Pierre Sangolo taught me a lot about organized crime. He was the Montreal police officer in charge of the file. I was a young member of Parliament then, just 31 years old. I had been elected a little over two years before, and I had never in my life had any need to pay attention to organized crime. I had vague memories of my parents taking an interest in the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime (CIOC). I was young, and I knew that organized crime could poison the communities it targeted.

Pierre Sangolo, a Montreal police officer, explained to me that a certain number of conditions have to be in place for organized crime to flourish. For example, organized crime is not necessarily the same here as it in in developing countries. In order for organized crime to exist, there have to be some indicators of wealth and lines of communication. Organized crime operates in the import and export markets. Not only does organized crime make itself at home in wealthy societies with good lines of communication, it also at home in societies with a certain amount of bureaucracy. In the case we are interested in, it is a question of the bureaucracy of the legal system. This bureaucracy has grown up mainly because of the charter and the multiple appeals that are possible when one goes to court.

And so, I introduced the first anti-gang bill. At that time, the Liberals formed the government. It took up a bill that became a government bill, Bill C-95, which created the criminal organization, or gangsterism, offence. That reinforced the idea that there was more to worry about than crimes committed on an individual basis, conspiracy, premeditation and organized criminal attacks. It meant that the ringleaders had to be targeted. Those who give the orders and plan the operations are not the ones who carry them out. In the legal system as it existed then, we had the means to deal with those who carried out the orders, but we did not have many tools to attack those at the top of the organized crime pyramid.

In large part thanks to the inspiration and leadership of the Bloc Québécois, Bill C-95 created a new offence. When five people belong to an organization and any one of those people commits a serious offence, an offence punishable by more than five years of imprisonment and from which the individual stood to gain financially, that was considered a new offence called participation in a criminal organization.

The bill was passed in 1997. From what I remember, all parties supported that bill. The next year, in 1998, the Montreal police service and other police forces told us that the number five made enforcing the law too difficult. What they were seeing was the creation of all kinds of satellite gangs and it was difficult to find five people who had been convicted of offences punishable by more than five years in prison. In Bill C-24, which, if memory serves, was introduced by Anne McLellan, the number was reduced from five to three. It was the Bloc Québécois that worked hard and got results. At the time, Richard Marceau, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, was the Bloc's justice critic. We managed to get the government to remove $1,000 bills from circulation, since we knew that $1,000 bills helped drug traffickers and people involved in organized crime. I am convinced that if I did a quick survey here and asked my fellow members how many have a $1,000 bill in their pocket, I doubt that anyone here, whether MPs, clerks or the Chair, would have a $1,000 bill in their possession, even though we all earn a good living.

It was also the Bloc Québécois that managed to create a new offence allowing for reverse onus of proof regarding the origin of the proceeds of crime acquired by criminal organizations. Of course, we realized that reversing the onus of proof is always a means of last resort in law. Given that the Crown and the defence do not have the same means, the Crown must prove that an offence was committed. However, we felt that the problem was serious enough that, once a guilty verdict was pronounced, there should be a reverse onus of proof regarding the proceeds of crime.

The Bloc Québécois led the way in having these measures adopted. That is why I take exception to the fact that the Minister of Justice, who too often is narrow-minded in his interventions, implied that we were negligent, that we were not steadfast, that we were not concerned about the issue of organized crime. The police services I have worked with for a number of years—as did my predecessor, the member for Charlesbourg, and Michel Bellehumeur before him, who was once the Bloc justice critic—can confirm that we have always been very concerned about organized crime.

I say to the government that we will support this bill. We are in favour of its objective. I met with the Attorney General of British Columbia. He explained the situation in his province. He proposed three measures. We truly hope that two will be implemented. The first concerns deducting from the sentence double the amount of time served in detention prior to trial. I will come back to this. The second concerns the issue of accelerated release. This is a longstanding demand.

The third measure on which we need a bit more reflection and information is the whole notion of the Crown's ability to restrict the disclosure of evidence, which would of course be contrary to certain Supreme Court judgments, Stinchcombe in particular. We must therefore ensure, when it comes to the disclosure of evidence during the preliminary inquiry and the trial, that this is not in contravention of the rules of fairness that must exist when a trial is involved, particularly a criminal trial where it may be a matter of imprisonment and life imprisonment.

We are going to support this bill. Can I tell the Minister of Justice and the government that we will not be presenting any amendments? Certainly not. The purpose of referring a bill to a committee is to hear witnesses. We want to work with diligence. We are aware that there is a worrisome situation in British Columbia, but we are not going to rush things. We are going to work seriously but we are not going to make a commitment to present no amendments.

For example, the matter of mandatory minimum sentences is an obvious problem for us. Each time a provision of the Criminal Code contains a mandatory minimum sentence, we are sending the message that we do not trust the judiciary. Each case before the courts is individual, and justice needs to be individualized as well. We are not comfortable with anyone wanting to tie the hands of the judiciary. It is possible that the Bloc Québécois will bring in some amendments concerning mandatory minimum sentences. We have always maintained the same position. We are consistent on this.

I am also well aware that organized crime is an extremely changeable reality, a highly dynamic phenomenon. When I first began to take an interest in organized crime in 1995, at the age of 31, there was very little reference to street gangs. It was motorcycle gangs, the Hells Angels, the Rockers. There were gang wars in various communities. In recent years, another phenomenon has emerged: street gangs.

What characterizes street gangs? As far as intelligence gathering is concerned, this different phenomenon presents some difficulties. First of all, they are groups that are far harder to do surveillance on, far less organized, far less structured. I do not know whether anyone here has had the opportunity to look at an organization chart of the Hells Angels, with their sergeants at arms and their presidents. It is a highly structured organization with implacable rules and regulations. We are well aware that any Hells Angel who does not stick to the rules is liable to be killed. Not that I am sorry about that in any way, but what I am saying is that, when street gangs are involved, they are less organized groups, and so harder to wiretap, harder to do surveillance on, and less predictable in their criminal behaviour.

I was told that when it comes to street gangs, we are seeing a bit of a second generation. People in street gangs tend to be a little older. These people are not, on average, 14, 15 or 16. They tend to be a little older than that. Street gangs are not necessarily based on ethnic origin alone anymore. We know that there have been some alliances with organized crime groups and that there are now Caucasians—white people—who are in important positions in the hierarchy of street gangs. Those are some of the realities that we must try to understand more at committee.

The main new feature in this bill is the following. We are told that when a murder—a homicide—is committed for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal organization, as set out in section 467.11, 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code, it will automatically be deemed a first degree murder.

Murder in the first degree means that it was premeditated. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, as a former justice minister, was quite right to remind me that the difference between a first degree murder and a second degree murder is the deliberate nature, the use of violence and the use of a weapon in the case of first degree murder.

I do not oppose the creation of this offence in the Criminal Code. I simply want to understand. It is my impression that, already at this time, if someone commits a homicide for the benefit of a criminal organization, that individual can be sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

How will the creation of the new offence change anything? I am not saying it is irrelevant, but I want to understand.

I thought that the reason was that, when members of organized crime are brought before the courts, they might plead guilty to manslaughter. That must be the reason, I told myself.

Just now, when I put this question to the minister with my habitual courtesy, the minister got a bit annoyed. Not only did he get annoyed, but he raised his voice. Not only did he raise his voice, but he did not want to answer. Not only did he not want to answer, but he accused me of being an ideologue. Paradoxical, that. The Conservatives calling me an ideologue. What kind of a crazy world are we living in?

I was trying to get the Minister of Justice to explain this new offence to me, one which may be pertinent, well-founded, rational, but he did not answer the question. That will not stop us from supporting the bill in principle, but I believe it may not be a provision that is as original as the minister would have us believe.

This bill disappoints us in some ways as well. For example, we would have liked to hear about pre-trial detention. It is true that there was a time in the justice system—the older ones here will remember it—when people awaiting sentencing were kept in difficult conditions in penitentiaries. That we acknowledge, but has there not been a significant change in this area? Do we still need to say that, for every day of detention before trial, there will be two days deducted from sentences?

The Bloc Québécois wonders whether this practice ought not to be reviewed. We were concerned about this getting rushed through. How is it that a person who has had a fair trial can be released after a sixth of his sentence? Is there not something about this that should worry us as far as the peace we desire for our communities is concerned ?

I repeat, we are anxious to look at this bill in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are not going to take a partisan approach. We have a full picture of what is going on in communities, in Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia. Moreover, there is no community anywhere that is sheltered from violent confrontations between criminal groups. I am not guaranteeing that we are not going to make amendments, but we do support the bill in principle.

I hope that all members of this House are not going to start impugning motives, and that they will all agree that we are all concerned by the safety of our fellow citizens and that we are going to bring to our work in committee a high-minded approach and broadness of outlook, as all serious parliamentarians must.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-10 concerning offences involving firearms. This bill is a follow-up to Bill C-9, concerning reduced access to conditional sentences.

I would like to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois is concerned about and condemns all offences involving firearms. Everybody understands that offences involving firearms are serious, and that is why, since 1997, the Bloc Québécois has been steadfast in its demands for a mandatory gun registry, a public registry that police officers consult 6,500 times a day. We believe it is inconsistent to seek to implement a mandatory minimum sentencing strategy for offences involving firearms while attacking the very existence of a gun registry, which is a true public safety tool, as I will demonstrate.

Bill C-10 imposes mandatory minimum sentences. Right off the top, there is a problem with that because when it comes to sentencing, when a court must sentence an individual, the first consideration must be individualization. The judge must consider all of the factors that shape the context of the offence. That is the first consideration.

It is certainly true that the Department of Justice—not the Bloc Québécois, not the NDP, not the Liberals—awarded contracts to carry out studies. It asked professionals, in this case criminologists, to carry out studies. They looked at the experience of countries that had adopted mandatory minimum penalties, in particular for crimes committed with a firearm, to see if that had any deterrent effect. After all, that is the goal. There are certainly some maximum penalties in the Criminal Code. Those penalties must be severe when one is dealing with crimes committed with a firearm because the potential for destruction is extremely high and very real. Usually, we put our trust in the judge and we can say that a judge or a magistrate, whether in a trial court or an appeal court, should be able to give proper weight to the facts and circumstances and determine the appropriate sentence.

Every time there is a mandatory minimum penalty, there is cause for concern. I recall that the Department of Justice called on one of the most renowned criminologists, Professor Julian Roberts, of the University of Ottawa, who testified before the Standing Committee on Justice during the review of Bill C-9 and Bill C-10. What did that criminologist say about a study carried out in 1977 by the Department of Justice? He concluded that mandatory prison sentences had been introduced by many western countries, among them, Australia, New Zealand and others. He emphasized that the studies that reviewed the impact of those laws showed variable results in terms of the prison population and no discernable effect on the crime rate.

Julian Roberts, who was asked to review all the existing studies on this subject, concluded that, in the case of mandatory minimum sentences, in those countries where there are mandatory minimum sentences no positive or negative effect on the crime rate can be seen.

When the Minister of Justice appeared before the committee, he was unable to table any scientific evidence to contradict those words.

The bill provides that, for some 20 offences—of which the most serious are attempted murder, discharge of a firearm with intent, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion—where there is a minimum sentence of three years, a minimum sentence of five years should be imposed and that where a five-year minimum sentence is now provided, a sentence of seven years should be imposed.

Initially—and this was defeated in committee—there were even offences for which, in the case of a second offence, the minimum sentence could be up to 10 years. I emphasize that minimum sentences remove any kind of discretionary power a judge may have to consider the circumstances and evaluate the factors related to the incident. That is extremely prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Why should we not worry about a government that says it wants to get tough on criminals? Committing an offence with a firearm is certainly reprehensible, and we are not being complacent about that. We recognize that there may be cases where the judge will impose a 10 year sentence. There may even be cases, for example if there was an attempted murder or a homicide, where the sentence could be as much as 25 years. It is quite acceptable to have such sentences. But it is never acceptable to rely on an automatic process and to remove the judge's discretion in assessing the events which led to the offence.

Let us take a look at societies. If imprisonment through mandatory minimum sentences really were useful in making societies more secure, reliance on such penalties would necessarily have a visible positive effect. The United States would be a model society. The incarceration rate is 10 times higher in the United States than in Canada. Mandatory minimum sentences are used much more in the United States than in Canada. I have some statistics that show that following the American model with more imprisonment, for longer periods, is a bad strategy. Here are some of the statistics: three times more homicides are committed in the United States than in Canada. Fewer violent crimes are committed in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada.

Look at the Conservatives and their legal activism. They have introduced about 10 bills. When they are good, we support them. For example, we supported the bill on street racing. We supported the bill on DNA data banks. In the 1990s, it was the Bloc Québécois that applied pressure, especially my former colleague from Berthier, Mr. Justice Michel Bellehumeur, who was appointed to the bench because of his merits. Mr. Justice Michel Bellehumeur campaigned, with my support, to create a new law to deal with a new phenomenon: organized crime and criminal motorcycle gangs. There were 35 of them in Canada around 1995. I well remember the former justice minister Allan Rock—who became Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations but has been recalled since, if I am correctly informed—who was kind enough to let me meet some senior public servants. He attended the meeting as well. At the time, criminal biker gangs were fighting among themselves for control of the narcotics trade in our big cities, including Montreal. I well remember discussing this with senior public servants, who felt we could break up organized crime using just the existing conspiracy provisions in the Criminal Code.

I was convinced, as were Michel Bellehumeur and all the hon. Bloc members then, that a new offence was needed. At the Bloc’s initiative and thanks to its resolute leadership—the government and public service did not really see things this way at the time—some new offences were created, such as working on behalf of an organized gang. At the time, we had the three-fives theory: if five people committed five offences for a gang over the previous five years, they would be charged with a new offence established by Bill C-95. However, the police told us that this was not working and we had to go from five to three. This amendment was taken up by the government in Bill C-24.

All of this is to say that the Bloc Québécois is not soft on crime. When we need to clamp down and ensure that our toughest criminals are behind bars, we are ready to do so. We have always brought forward very positive proposals. In just a few days, the Bloc Québécois is going to announce its proposals for improving the criminal justice system. That is our responsibility as parliamentarians and as a party with seats in the House of Commons.

It is extremely contradictory—and I am sure this has not escaped my colleagues—to repeatedly introduce bills to toughen sentences and yet not attack the root of the problem, which is granting early parole to some offenders. We in the Bloc Québécois will have an opportunity to express our views on this in the near future. But I am certain that all my caucus colleagues would agree that the government should have tackled the parole system in January, when this Parliament began. That would have been a wiser course of action.

Moreover, a parliamentary committee had expressed concern about a number of provisions that could raise concerns among members of the public. My colleague Pierrette Venne was sitting on the committee at the time. Instead, the government chose an approach that implied that Canadian communities are safer when mandatory minimum sentences are in place, even though scientific literature does not support this view. Few witnesses aside from the police testified before the committee that our communities would be safer if we had mandatory minimum sentences.

I would like to quote an eminent criminologist, André Normandeau, who has researched and written extensively about the concept of neighbourhood or community policing, which has become a reality. I do not know whether community policing exists in English Canada, but it has become commonplace in Quebec. I will quote him directly so as not to be accused of misrepresenting what he said.

André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal, said:

Minimum sentencing encourages defence lawyers to negotiate plea bargains for their clients in exchange for charges that do not require minimum sentencing.

This shows the perverse effect of plea bargaining between defence lawyers and lawyers for the crown to drop charges that carry mandatory minimum sentences for charges that do not. Mr. Normandeau added:

Minimum sentencing can also force a judge to acquit an individual rather than be obliged to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances, for cases in which an appropriate penalty would be a conditional sentence, community service or a few weeks in jail.

It was evidence like that that prompted all my predecessors, be it Richard Marceau, the former member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, or all my predecessors in the Bloc Québécois, to consistently say the same thing. My position in this matter is not original.

I am part of the long tradition in the Bloc Québécois. Every time we have mandatory minimum sentences and someone is trying to cut into judges' discretion to impose the sentence they consider appropriate, we think that it is not going to be in the interests of the administration of justice.

Some witnesses even took this line of reasoning farther, and gave us an example that much ink was spilled over at the time, and that got a lot of media coverage: the Latimer case. I do not know whether our colleagues will remember the Latimer case. He was a father in western Canada who helped his daughter to put an end to her horrific suffering. It was a case of assisted suicide. However, assisted suicide was not recognized as such by the court, and he was found guilty of homicide.

Consider what the witnesses told us in committee. To demonstrate the rigidity of mandatory minimum sentences, we can cite the case of Robert Latimer, the father who killed his severely disabled 12-year-old daughter. He killed her—and we have to remember this—out of compassion. This man was convicted of second-degree murder. In the Criminal Code, second-degree murder is an automatic sentence, so the judge was automatically forced to sentence him to 25 years in prison, when the jury—because this was a jury trial—wanted a much more lenient sentence.

These are some examples, and I know that if my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin has an opportunity to speak today he will also point out flaws in Bill C-10 and the extremely pernicious and perverse nature of mandatory minimum sentences. This does not mean that we are lenient when we have to deal harshly with crimes that are committed with a firearm.

I said earlier that the Bloc Québécois would have been extremely happy if, when we began our examination, we had been able to discuss the entire question of parole. That is quite unfortunate. I do not know whether the expression "dishonest" is parliamentary, but I will use it. What is dishonest in the Conservatives' discourse is that it suggests, when we look at what is in their legislative arsenal and the nine bills that have been introduced, that we are living in a society where violence is getting worse, where crime rates are on the rise, a society that is therefore much more disturbing than the one we lived in 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

Statistics show a completely different reality. That does not mean that we must avoid imposing sentences or controlling some individuals. We can all easily understand that imprisonment is the appropriate solution in certain cases. That is obvious. However, let us look a little more closely at the statistics. In the recent past, from 1992 to 2004, the number of violent crimes has been decreasing in Canada. When I say violent crimes, I mean homicide, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault, kidnapping and robbery. There were 1,084 of those crimes per 100,000 inhabitants.

At the beginning of the period, there were 1,084 of those crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2004, that number had fallen to 946 per 100,000 inhabitants. In fact, Quebec, with 725 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants is the place with the fewest violent crimes. The number of homicides also diminished. In short, in general terms, the Conservative logic does not stand statistical analysis.

In concluding, I will say that we are taking all crimes involving firearms very seriously. We remain convinced that the best way to counter such crime is obviously a public firearm registry with compulsory registration. We know that the present registry is consulted 6,500 times daily by police forces across Canada.

We do not believe in the reasoning behind mandatory minimum sentences and that is why we cannot support Bill C-10.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

No. In Canada, we have the organized crime legislation that defines what a criminal organization is, and then it sets offences for belonging to a criminal organization, directing a criminal organization, and so on. For example, we've had the Hells Angels in Ontario identified as a criminal organization as a result of the Lindsay–Bonner case in Ontario. There are also several other cases that I'm aware of right now that are being prosecuted under the organized crime legislation.

We have what was Bill C-24 at one time and is now section 25.1 of the Criminal Code. It is the law enforcement justification that allows designated police officers—they have to be designated by the minister responsible for policing, and in the case of the RCMP it's the Minister of Public Safety designating individuals under section 25.1 of the Criminal Code—to commit any “acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute offences” in the pursuit of an investigation.

For example, if you are infiltrating a criminal organization in an undercover capacity—and that's mostly what it's used for—and you have to commit an offence, then that legislation provides you with the justification to commit the offence. Some can be committed by the police officer himself, and some have to be approved by a senior official, of which I am one. They include either the direction to an agent to commit an act or an omission or to cause damage to property.

There are also certain things within that legislation that no one can commit, regardless of what authorization they have, such as murder or perjury. There are some things that cannot violate the sexual integrity of an individual. Those are things that are a “no go” zone.

And then, of course, we have the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It allows us to traffic, import, or export drugs, again in the purpose of undercover operations.

To that extent, we're satisfied. Conditional sentencing and things of this nature cause us concern, but I understand they are being looked at right now.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter the debate on national security which remains a key concern for all Canadians I believe. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.

On behalf of the solicitor general, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of parliament that national security and public safety continue to be the number one priority and the top priority for the Government of Canada.

The Solicitor General of Canada has a leadership role within the Government of Canada for protecting Canadians and helping them to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

Many other ministers of the government, including departments and agencies, are also key partners in this very important area in the fight against terrorism, including my hon. colleagues from justice, CCRA, CIC, DFAIT, national defence, Transport Canada and Health Canada. We all work closely with our federal partners on a daily basis through a variety of informal and formal meetings to ensure that the government's overall public safety strategy is co-ordinated and effective.

The ad hoc ministers' committee on public security and anti-terrorism as well as the deputy ministers' committee on public safety are prime examples of interdepartmental co-ordination.

The portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada also co-operates with federal, provincial and territorial partners in a number of ways to share information, consult on major initiatives and to reach consensus on proposed criminal justice reforms. These include, for example, ministers responsible for justice, deputy ministers responsible for justice, co-ordinating committees of senior officials and several subcommittees and working groups to examine specific policy issues.

In particular, a new federal-provincial-territorial deputies committee has just been formed to ensure co-ordination among all jurisdictions in their approach to anti-terrorism and public safety issues.

Strong partnerships with stakeholders is vital to the work of the Solicitor General of Canada. We encourage and actively support co-operation with our non-governmental partners, including provincial and municipal police forces, and emergency firstline responders through consultation, information sharing, exchange of expertise and knowledge, training and the provision of resources.

It goes without saying that since September 11 counterterrorism is a top priority for police and security agencies the world over. It is a top priority here at home too for the RCMP, for CSIS and for law enforcement officials across Canada.

The primary role of the Government of Canada is to lead this fight against terrorism at national and international levels. The government is doing so through new legislation and several important initiatives announced in the last two federal budgets.

Since the year 2000, the Government of Canada has dedicated a total of $9.5 billion to public safety and national security, including $7.7 billion in the December 2001 budget. The comprehensive set of measures outlined in budget 2001 are designed to keep Canada safe, keep terrorists out and keep our borders open. To this end, it includes major investments to equip and deploy more intelligence and frontline investigative personnel, improve co-ordination among law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies, and to boost marine security and safety to the tune of $1.6 million. It also includes improving the screening of immigrants, refugee claimants and visitors to the tune of $1 billion; creating a new air security organization, assigning armed undercover police officers on Canadian aircraft, purchasing explosive detection equipment and enhancing policing to the tune of $2.2 billion; and finally, enhancing border security and improving the infrastructure that supports major border crossings to ensure the legitimate flow of people and goods, which is so important to our economy, to the tune of $1.2 billion.

Furthermore, under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, key federal agencies responsible for public security, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will receive substantial new funding to enhance their counterterrorism capacity and priorities.

CSIS will receive an additional $334 million over five years which will be used to boost its frontline security intelligence capacity. The RCMP will receive an additional $576 million which will bring new technology on line and put more officers to work on national security matters.

Under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, specific federal support for provinces, territories and municipalities include the establishment of new integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs, and increased integrated border enforcement teams, IBETs, by the RCMP with provision for the salaries of INSET members seconded from other jurisdictions.

These are all important measures and, while the focus is on counterterrorism, initiatives undertaken on this front have had ripple effects that will benefit organized crime investigations, community policing and policing and law enforcement in general. What these measures do is establish a framework to ensure a high level of public security and safety for Canadians wherever they live in a national security framework.

Federal anti-terrorism initiatives will clearly strengthen the criminal justice system on a national basis. All jurisdictions will benefit from the resulting tools, expertise, new or expanded programs and infrastructure. These benefits will continue over a long period of time.

As a result of the events that took place on September 11, the Government of Canada and the U.S. administration have been more attentive than ever in ensuring security and safety at our joint border. Both countries have formally agreed to co-operate on border security and regional migration issues and have signed a smart border declaration which includes a 30 point action plan to ensure a safe, secure and efficient border.

The goal is to facilitate the movement of legitimate goods and people while preventing terrorists and undesirable individuals from entering Canada or the United States.

The Government of Canada has long realized that the fight against organized crime is not a task it can take on alone. Since the adoption of the joint statement on organized crime in 1998, we have been working very closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts to address this problem.

The national agenda to combat organized crime identifies a series of new legislative initiatives to enhance the investigation and prosecution of organized crime. Bill C-24 was a good first step and an important first step.

The police community told policymakers there was a need to improve legislation and that is exactly what happened and what we did. Bill C-24 will assist in addressing serious problems like biker gangs and other forms of serious crime.

We all know that criminals are making full use of technological advances to facilitate and provide leverage for their crimes. In order to respond effectively, we need to capitalize on the new technological tools available to us.

An excellent example of this is the Canada Public Safety Information Network which is designed to link criminal justice agencies across Canada to allow for better detection and prosecution of offenders. In October 2001, the Solicitor General of Canada announced that $4.9 million in new money would be dedicated in part to enhancing this program.

Furthermore, encryption technology is becoming cheaper, stronger, widely available and easy to use. Criminals and terrorists increasingly use some form of encryption or password protection to secure their communications. That is why the Department of the Solicitor General has implemented an action plan to provide technical solutions and to conduct a comprehensive legislative review.

Here, as with organized crime, the challenge is for our laws to keep pace with the changing face of technology and crime.

The Government of Canada does not take public safety and national security for granted. As I have just outlined, we have introduced numerous initiatives designed to enhance both national security and public safety.

Parliament and parliamentary committees continue to play a vigorous role in this area. We have only to point to parliament's work on Bill C-36, Bill C-24, Bill C-11 and continuing debate regarding Bill C-42 and Bill S-23.

I look forward to the continued input of all parliamentarians as we work together in this very important area. I will conclude by saying that public security and public safety remain a top priority. As a government, along with all Canadians, we need to work in this very important area to ensure that at the end of the day we secure a safe and good place for Canadians wherever they live in this country.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act--Chapter No. 40.

Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 32.

Bill C-31, an act to amend the Export Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 33.

Bill C-32, an act to implement the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica--Chapter No. 28.

Bill C-34, an act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter No. 29.

Bill C-36, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism--Chapter No. 41.

Bill C-38, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act--Chapter No. 35.

Bill C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect--Chapter No. 34.

Bill C-44, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act--Chapter No. 38.

Bill C-45, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2002--Chapter No. 39.

Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs)--Chapter No. 37.

Bill S-10, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate)--Chapter No. 36.

Bill S-31, an act to implement agreements , conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Slovenia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Senegal, the Czech Republic and Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income--Chapter No. 30.

Bill S-33, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act--Chapter No. 31.

Criminal Code

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from other parties, I will be keeping my remarks on these amendments quite brief. I rise on behalf of the coalition to add some thoughts on this issue.

As others have said, there is more than just a touch of irony that the unelected other place was successful in getting these two substantive amendments to Bill C-24, despite the best efforts of opposition members, especially at the justice committee, to get similar amendments through in the House of Commons. Unfortunately that speaks volumes to the attitude of the government in its approach to legislation, specifically its approach to the consideration of amendments to its legislation.

Unfortunately something very similar transpired with Bill C-36 more recently, despite assurances from the government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that adequate consideration, and a common sense approach, would be given to representations from individuals, groups, opposition MPs and its own backbenchers. Once again we saw a flawed process brought to a very speedy close with the use of time allocation.

I would like to congratulate the Senate for bringing forward these two amendments to Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation. I refer specifically to the one increasing independent review or civilian oversight. That is especially appropriate, but not only for this legislation.

Similar concerns were put forward not only by opposition members of parliament, but by groups concerned about the rights and privileges of individual Canadians and the risk of abuse by police forces in how they would implement the new powers contained in Bill C-36. Very serious efforts were put forward by a number of organizations, including the PC/DR, to have an independent oversight agency or individual hold the police and law enforcement agencies that would have the new powers, such as CSIS, accountable rather than individuals going to court to hold the government and law enforcement agencies accountable, if they felt their powers were being abused.

That is an important amendment to Bill C-24 made by the other place. Hopefully, something similar will be included in Bill C-36. The same concerns are being expressed about Bill C-42, which we are just now beginning to debate.

The fact that the system had to ultimately rely upon the Senate to bring forward amendments successfully points to a serious flaw, as other members from other parties have said, at the committee level and in the House of Commons. We do not have a system of free votes. I would argue very strenuously that if we had that, much better legislation would be passed in this place. That legislation would then go to the Senate and it might not be required to make amendments that should have made here originally.

Hopefully it is something the government will consider in the future. It is hoped the government will free up its members to vote more independently, especially when dealing with something as common sense as amendments being put forward to legislation at the committee stage. It could ultimately have the effect of parliament being more democratic and also of the House of Commons operating much more efficiently and effectively.

Legislation would come back from committee properly amended. I suspect there would be fewer amendments put forward at report stage on the floor of the Chamber. In many cases that is one of the few tools the opposition members have to draw public attention through the television cameras to what they feel is flawed legislation. They bring their amendments forward at report stage in the Chamber.

Obviously the legislation, as has been said before, is targeted at organized crime, specifically at some of the horrific activities of biker gangs, especially in the province of Quebec. We are all aware of those activities. We do not need to rehash those ongoing issues. We want to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the necessary resources, powers and the tools to combat organized crime wherever it occurs.

On that one specific issue, concern has been expressed by the coalition and by other parties about the financial resources available to our law enforcement agencies. In the eight year history of my involvement as a member of parliament I have spoken many times about the need to ensure adequate resources for the RCMP.

As the previous speaker for the Canadian Alliance alluded to, the legislation once it goes into effect can easily involve substantial expenditures by our police forces. That obviously would be at the local or city police level, provincial police forces or the RCMP, or presumably even an agency such as CSIS, in combating organized crime. It is much similar to the need for all those same agencies to wage the successful war against terrorism.

We want to ensure that we provide the tools that these agencies and law enforcement organizations require to do the job, to go head to head with organized crime and terrorists. We want to ensure that they have the adequate financial resources as well.

It is little help to them if we only say that we will make the necessary legislative changes to ensure that they have the power to do their jobs effectively and hold those individuals to account, whether those individuals are in organized crime, or undertake terrorist activities, or encourage others to undertake terrorist activities. It is simply not enough to give them the necessary legislative tools without giving them the financial resources.

Obviously all of us in this place and all Canadians will be watching with great interest the presentation of the finance minister's budget on Monday. We will be watching to see what financial resources will go hand in hand with the legislative tools to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the resources and funds necessary to take on organized crime and terrorists wherever they may be lurking and hiding and conducting their filthy business in our country.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois on the role of the Senate in this debate and on the amendments to Bill C-24.

It is odd indeed that the very things we tried to achieve in committee, which could not be achieved because of a docile Liberal majority on the committee, can now be achieved because presumably we have a less docile Liberal majority in the Senate. These things have come back to us to address concerns that needed to be addressed, and which were raised in the House of Commons, the elected Chamber, but were not dealt with because of the excessive ego of the government when it came to its legislation and the excessive docility of government members.

Very briefly, we welcome these amendments. They address concerns we had about Bill C-24. We hope that from here on in this bill, even though there are problems with it, can proceed expeditiously and we can find out the extent to which this legislation will or will not be effective against organized crime in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-24, but I will be very brief.

I will briefly discuss the background of Bill C-24, which seeks to fight organized crime. The Bloc Quebecois repeatedly asked the government to take measures. We will not go so far as to say that we are the sponsors of this bill, but we pressured the government regarding several clauses in this bill. Indeed, we were relentless in asking the government to provide Canada with proper tools to fight gangs, including criminal biker gangs.

We worked very hard to propose some changes. We also made gains. When I say we, I mean Quebec, since Quebec was among those asking for major legislative changes.

So, the House passed Bill C-24, which was then sent to the other place. Senators examined it and felt the need to propose amendments. I took a close look at these amendments—we are not against them—but I sincerely think that the bill would have been very acceptable without these changes.

It is true, as the Canadian Alliance member said, that it is a bit funny that the other, unelected, chamber seems to have more power than duly elected representatives of the people, those who were actually chosen in a very democratic ballot.

But that is how the system is. As people know, the Bloc Quebecois would like out of this system. But, for now, we are still part of Canada. We therefore live with the rules dealt us. The Senate has put forward amendments. Do we have a major objection in this regard? No. Should this bill be passed quickly? Yes. Are we already late passing it? Yes again.

I will conclude with this. Before even studying Bill C-24, before even studying the bill which is intended to do something about the problem of criminal biker gangs, the Senate preferred to start out in September by looking at Bill C-7, which is intended to something about the problem of young offenders, instead of assuming its responsibilities and doing something about organized crime, so that Canada will have the legislation it needs.

We are past the point of worrying about commas, dropping periods and fussing over wording. We have reached the point where we must pass this bill. We must do so quickly so that the public knows that we have taken action, so that people feel safe as well, but especially so that the police and the system will have the legislative tools they need to combat organized crime for once and for all.

The government has taken so long reacting that even before Bill C-24 becomes law, organized crime has already examined the legislation and is getting ready to challenge it. That is how very slow the system is, with its two chambers, among other things. The bill has therefore come back here and we will have to pass it again, and then it must receive royal assent. Some of Bill C-24's provisions probably already no longer apply.

We will still be very vigilant. Yes, it is a step in the right direction. Yes, we must pass Bill C-24 quickly. Yes, the Bloc Quebecois will continue to be vigilant and push the government to take appropriate action if ever any provisions of this bill are no longer adequate to deal with the present organized crime and biker gang situation. It is no to violence, no to intimidation and yes to Bill C-24. We must act quickly.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the parliamentary secretary, the import of the amendments is to increase clarity and independent review with respect to the designations of public officers.

The amendments are timely. They are born of the rapid succession of bills brought forward by the government to deal with public security matters. There is a growing unease among Canadians that the government is not concerned about debating the principles or details of bills it brings forward. The unease has increased as a result of the Liberals' imposition of closure with respect to Bill C-36.

While the position of my party vis-à-vis the Senate, the other place, is clearly in favour of democratic reform and accountability, it is ironic that non-elected members of that house have more freedom to take steps to safeguard the security and traditional liberties of Canadians.

This is because of the shameful conduct of the Prime Minister. It is shameful that the House is no longer permitted to vote in accordance with the values of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the government consistently use the dispensation of political favour or the withholding of political favour to ensure government members vote in accordance with the Prime Minister's personal wishes.

I am prepared to recommend support for the amendments, perhaps as a result of the troubling conduct of the government over the past few months. The amendments are more necessary now than they were a few months ago.

Bill C-24 still has serious shortcomings. It is procedurally cumbersome. It would do nothing to streamline prosecutions. It would require substantial expenditures on the part of provincial and local police authorities. At the same time the federal government demonstrates increasing reluctance to fund the operations and prosecutions flowing from the legislation it passes.

Law enforcement in the country is being crippled by cumbersome legislation and inadequate resources. It is ironic that the member opposite stands and talks about improved definitions. We have seen this type of legislation add detail to the process without an appreciable increase in security.

I am prepared to recommend the amendments born of the concerns raised in the Senate. I urge the government to review this type of legislation and re-examine the principles underlying many of the bills it is passing. They are not effective. Nor do they do anything to enhance civil liberties in the country.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the two amendments passed by the other place would maintain the essential strong elements of Bill C-24. I will summarize these. First, the bill would provide an enhanced definition of criminal organization and create a new offence to target involvement with criminal organizations.

Second, it would improve measures to protect people from intimidation who play a role in the justice system. This would include members of the news media investigating organized crime.

Third, it would create an accountable process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an investigation. This element of the bill is the subject of the two amendments from the other place.

Fourth, the bill would broaden powers to forfeit and seize proceeds of crime and property used in a crime.

The two amendments which I urge members of the House to support wholeheartedly deal with greater accountability in the lawful justification sections of the bill.

First, they would provide that when the minister designates officers to be under this protection he does so on an individual rather than a group basis as had been provided for in the bill passed by the House.

Second, they urge that the designation only take place in a jurisdiction of Canada where there is civilian oversight of police activities and a body to investigate public complaints concerning them.

The two amendments are immensely important. They would maintain and enhance the elements of the bill as passed in the House. I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of them.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation, which is currently before the House, and at least consider the Senate's amendments to Bill C-24.

This will be followed by Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments, as I announced yesterday to the House leaders of the other parties.

Then, if there is any time remaining today, we will continue with Bill C-27, the nuclear safety bill.

Tomorrow, we hope to pass Bill C-46, the ignition interlock device bill sponsored by the Minister of Justice, at all stages. I thank the leaders of all parties for having consented to move this through all stages before the holidays.

We will then call report stage and second reading of Bill C-23, the competition legislation. If there is any time left tomorrow, we will turn to report stage and third reading of Bill C-43, the technical amendments bill.

On Monday, we will return to the bills I have listed, and those that have not been completed, that is unfinished business from today and tomorrow.

I would remind hon. members that the budget will be presented at 4 p.m. on Monday, of course, and the budget debate, that is the debate on the amendment to the amendment—in the improbable event of some hon. members wishing to propose an amendment to the amendment—would take place on Tuesday and Wednesday, with division at the end of the day, on Wednesday.

The business scheduled for Thursday and Friday of next week, if the House is sitting, would be Bill C-42.

Criminal Code

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, Bill C-24 was introduced on April 5 and received approval at third reading on June 13. The bill has now been passed at third reading with amendments by the other place.

The amendments made in the other place do not change the essential nature of Bill C-24. As members will recall, Bill C-24 is intended to strengthen Canada's ability to deal with organized crime and to make a number of related changes to improve our law enforcement capability.

As passed by the House in June, the bill included four main elements, all of which are attained in the bill as amended by the other place. Very briefly, the four elements are: first, a new enhanced definition of “criminal organization” and the creation of a number of new offences targeting involvement with criminal organizations; second, measures to improve the protection from intimidation of people who play a role in the justice system; third, the creation of an accountable process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an investigation; fourth, the broadening of powers to forfeit and seize proceeds of crime and property that has been used in a crime.

As I have indicated, these elements in all of their essential nature remain in the bill as amended. Rather than change the essential nature of the bill, the amendments made by the other place make enhancements to the bill. In particular, the amendments provide enhancements to control and accountability under the law enforcement justification for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an investigation. These amendments were made by way of two motions which were carried in the other chamber.

Members of the House will recall that an essential condition of the law enforcement justification is that it can only apply to designated public officers. Both motions to amend Bill C-24 that were made and carried in the other place relate to this designation requirement.

The designation requirement is a key aspect of control and accountability under the scheme. Under the requirement the responsible minister has a “competent authority” and must turn his or her mind to the need for and qualifications of the particular officers who are proposed to have this special jurisdiction and justification under the criminal code. The minister will be accountable for these decisions with respect to designation.

As originally passed by the House, Bill C-24 allowed the responsible minister to designate individual public officers or groups of public officers. In the other place it was pointed out that allowing for group designation instead of just for the designation of individual officers may undermine to some degree the key ministerial control and accountability function. It was suggested that greater control and accountability would be achieved if ministers were required to exercise this function with respect to each officer. This would directly require the minister to turn his or her mind to the essential characteristics of each officer in respect of the appropriateness of and eligibility for designation.

Members in the other chamber evidently agreed that allowing only for individual designations would be preferable. A motion was carried that eliminated authority for group designations in the number of places where it appeared.

Upon full consideration of this change, I believe the House should fully support it. The change enhances the control and accountability mechanisms under the scheme. Although these mechanisms already were strong, it is appropriate that they be made stronger by requiring individual consideration of each officer for whom designation is proposed.

Further, the change will not undermine the effectiveness of the scheme. While there may be some additional administrative burden in requiring that designation be done on an individual basis, this is a small and acceptable price to pay for enhanced control and accountability.

The additional motion to amend which was carried in the other place relates to the function of civilian oversight for police officers. It has been pointed out previously that the control and accountability mechanisms directly incorporated in the law enforcement justification scheme are in addition to, not a replacement for, existing control and accountability over law enforcement officers in Canada. Among the ways that this currently takes place in Canada is through the work of the bodies established for the civilian oversight of police. Such bodies are widely employed in this country.

The exact manner in which they are constituted and function can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Nevertheless effective methods of civilian review of police conduct, most notably through jurisdiction to receive and consider public complaints, is well established in Canada.

Nothing in Bill C-24 removes or undermines the role of civilian oversight. It is fully expected that civilian oversight bodies established in the various Canadian jurisdictions can and will play a role in reviewing the conduct of police officers under the law enforcement justification in the same manner as they currently play a role in reviewing law enforcement conduct.

Some have argued however, that because of the nature of the law enforcement justification and the absolute need to guard against abuse, we should make it a condition that civilian oversight bodies must be in place with respect to any enforcement officers sought to be designated under the scheme. As it has been suggested that civilian oversight bodies have an important role to play in relation to the law enforcement justification scheme, it has in turn been argued that we must ensure prior to designation that this role can be carried out. In situations where this civilian oversight capacity does not exist or where it may conceivably not exist in the future, although it is certainly not a trend to eliminate civilian oversight in Canada, perhaps the special authority granted by the law enforcement justification should also not exist.

Members of the other place evidently accepted these arguments. A motion to amend Bill C-24 was carried. It adds two subsections to proposed section 25.1 of the criminal code.

The first new subsection, subsection 3.1, provides that a competent authority may not designate a member of a police force unless there exists a public authority composed of persons who are not peace officers who have the power to review the conduct of the officers proposed to be designated. This achieves the condition on the scheme that I have discussed, that a civilian oversight authority must be in place to allow designation.

The second new subsection, subsection 3.2, allows the governor in council or a lieutenant governor in council as the case may be, to designate a person or body as a public authority for the purpose of the other added subsection and provides that this designation is conclusive evidence that this person or body is such a public authority. This will avoid any uncertainty of the existence of civilian oversight and avoids collateral attacks on the competence of the oversight bodies.

These are changes that the House can and should support. It is vital that the law enforcement justification scheme be subject to review and we can rightfully anticipate civilian oversight bodies will play an important part in this review. In order to assure the House and the Canadian public that this civilian oversight review capacity is in place in relation to the law enforcement justification, it is appropriate to make it a condition of the scheme.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-36, known in short form as the anti-terrorism act. Bill C-36 was introduced in the House to provide needed enhancements to Canada's ability to address terrorism under the criminal code, to make related changes to other laws and to amend Canadian law to improve our ability to respond to discrimination and hatred.

The bill responds to the events of September 11 and the new face of terrorism that was revealed that day. While more than two months have passed since the events of that day, I am sure that none of us can forget the horror of the mass murder that took place.

Since that time this government and other governments around the world have taken significant and immediate steps to improve security. Also, through military and other efforts we have taken very significant steps toward dismantling the base of Osama bin Laden, a terrorist network in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless it would be very wrong to conclude that the threat of terrorism has disappeared, whether from al-Qaeda or from other potential terrorist organizations. We must remain vigilant as a country. Further, we must act in concert with other countries in the global effort against terrorism. It is recognized throughout the world that we need a long term approach to the problem.

The measures in Bill C-36 are a key part of Canada's long term plan to address terrorism. While as I have said the bill is responsive to the events of September 11, it would fill gaps in Canadian law that need to be filled regardless of the events of that day. September 11 has given us a great impetus to act without delay. It is important to emphasize, as the Minister of Justice has done, that these are not emergency measures but rather measures that would allow us to remain vigilant to an ongoing threat.

I will take a few moments to go over the major elements of Bill C-36. I then intend to review the changes accepted by the standing committee which have been reported back to the House.

I now turn to the major elements of the bill. Bill C-36 would implement the international convention on the suppression of financing of terrorism and the international convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings, the two remaining international conventions on terrorism that Canada has not yet implemented. The term terrorist activity is defined under this bill. The definition makes reference to offences that are set out in international conventions relevant to terrorism.

In addition, a general definition is provided referring to acts or omissions undertaken for political, religious or ideological purposes intended to intimidate the public or compel government to act and cause death, serious bodily harm or a number of other serious harms specifically set out in the definition.

The bill would provide for a list of terrorist groups and persons to be made by order of the federal cabinet on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada. Under Bill C-36 comprehensive new terrorism offences under the criminal code would be created.

These include offences relating to participating in, facilitating or instructing terrorist activity and harbouring others who carry out terrorist activity. These offences would criminalize a full range of activities related to terrorism.

The bill would provide for limited and strictly safeguarded preventive arrest as a means of assisting law enforcement officers to disrupt the planning of terrorist attacks.

The bill would also provide for investigative hearings under the criminal code. These hearings, permitted under limited conditions, would be judicially supervised and would require the individual to give evidence to assist the investigations of terrorist offences. Such evidence could not be used against that individual and so protects a person's right to remain silent in his or her own criminal proceeding.

The bill would implement an aggressive sentencing and parole regime for terrorist offences including a maximum of life imprisonment for many offences as well as restricted parole eligibility.

Under Bill C-36 measures would be added to the criminal code on the financing of terrorism. Included within these measures are provisions on the seizure, restraint and forfeiture of terrorist property.

In addition, the bill would amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act. The mandate of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, Fintrac, under this act would be expanded to gather, analyze and disclose information on terrorist money laundering.

Also, as a way to assist in drying up the source of funds for terrorist groups and to prevent abuse of Canada's laws on charities, Bill C-36 would enact the charities registration security information act. This act would allow for the removal or denial of charitable status from organizations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the organizations make their resources available to terrorists.

The focus of these measures is the prevention of terrorism. While our current laws allow us to charge and convict terrorists after they engage in terrorist acts we clearly must be able to do more. The measures in Bill C-36 would significantly enhance our ability to charge and convict those who are in the planning stages of terrorist attacks, to go after those who direct terrorist activity even before the activity occurs, to arrest and impose conditions on the release of persons where this is necessary to prevent terrorist activity, to dismantle the financial networks that support further terrorist activity and to incarcerate for a long period of time those found guilty of terrorism.

There are a number of other significant provisions in the bill. The bill would update and refine the Official Secrets Act to better address national security concerns. The bill would also amend the Canada Evidence Act to allow for enhanced protection of sensitive information during legal proceedings. I also highlight measures under Bill C-36 that are relevant to targeting discrimination and hatred within Canada.

Under the bill a new criminal code offence of damage committed against religious groups and their places of worship would be created. This new provision would send a strong signal that behaviour such as destroying or damaging a church, mosque or temple or interfering with religious activities is completely unacceptable in Canada.

As well the bill would provide a new power to order the deletion of hate propaganda made available to the public through computer systems such as the Internet. The Canadian Humans Rights Act would be amended under the bill to clarify that communication of hate messages using new technologies such as the Internet is a discriminatory practice.

It is now my intention to explain some of the amendments that were accepted by the standing committee and that have been reported back to the House. Under these amendments the major elements of the bill would remain. However the amendments would make a number of improvements and refinements to these elements.

Certain of the amendments would help to clarify aspects of the bill for which misunderstandings might otherwise have arisen. The changes would reflect the government's intent in the bill but would help to ensure that this intent is clearly understood and would be appropriately implemented. Other changes would help to provide additional oversight and control of certain of the provisions of the bill.

In addition to these amendments a number of technical corrections and refinements were made to Bill C-36. I do not intend to review these in detail.

In making these major and minor changes the standing committee listened to the concerns of parliamentarians as reflected in the report of the special Senate committee on Bill C-36, as reflected by comments made by members of the standing committee and as reflected by the debates in the House. The changes would also take into account comments made by numerous other Canadians whether in submissions before the parliamentary committees or elsewhere.

Of course not all the suggestions that were received were accepted by the standing committee. We are grateful nevertheless for the close attention that has been paid to the bill and the thought provoking and useful ideas that have been provided.

Let me begin with the definition of terrorist activity, which has received considerable attention during the examination of the bill. One of the provisions of the definition as originally put before the House excluded “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work” from the scope of the definition. Some have questioned whether because of the use of the word lawful activities of this type which include unlawful conduct such as assault, trespass and minor property damage might be interpreted as being terrorism.

This was never the government's intent. The fact that an activity is otherwise unlawful does not by itself mean that it amounts to terrorism. Quite the contrary. Therefore the committee has accepted an amendment removing the word lawful.

This would not have the effect of making protests lawful that are otherwise unlawful due to violations of other criminal laws. It would, however, clarify that this specific exclusion from the scope of the definition of terrorist activity applies whether or not the advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work is lawful.

While discussing the definition of terrorist activity I also wish to observe that certain words in the definition that have provoked some discussion were not amended by the committee. These are the words “political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause” that refer to the motivations for terrorist activity under the definition.

These words have been retained in the definition as they are absolutely necessary to appropriately define and limit the scope of Bill C-36. It is important to emphasize that nothing in these words would target any particular cultural, religious or ethnic group or political or ideological cause. Rather, the words would help to distinguish terrorist activity from other forms of criminality that are intended to intimidate or compel people by the use of serious violence.

The committee nevertheless recognized that it was advisable to clarify the definition to provide with further certainty that the enforcement provisions in the bill are not to be interpreted or applied in a discriminatory manner or in a manner that could suppress democratic rights.

The committee considered and accepted an amendment that stipulates in this regard that the definition of terrorist activity would not apply to the expression of political, religious or ideological ideas that are not intended to cause the various forms of perverse and extreme harm set out in the definition.

Proper review and oversight of the powers provided under Bill C-36 would also help ensure that the powers are applied appropriately. Many such review and oversight mechanisms were already part of the bill when introduced. The government is committed to ensuring that the enhanced enforcement powers under the bill contribute to the safety and security of Canadians but do not undermine fundamental rights.

The standing committee listened to submissions that additional monitoring was necessary. However, further to these submissions, it accepted an amendment requiring an annual public report by the Attorney General of Canada, the Solicitor General of Canada and their counterparts in the provinces and territories.

This report would concern the powers of investigative hearings and of preventive arrest under Bill C-36. This information would provide an annual check on the use of these provisions and inform the parliamentary review which is to occur within three years.

Let me assure the House that a substantial amount of information is required to be reported. This information is analogous to information required to be reported on the interception of communications under the requirements currently established under the criminal code and analogous to information required to be reported with respect to the law enforcement justification under requirements that would be established by Bill C-24 regarding organized crime which the House approved.

I emphasize with respect to the investigative hearings and the preventive arrest that the provisions for an annual report are supplementary to the considerable checks and balances already provided with respect to each power. We have all seen reports and commentary to the effect that these provisions would allow uncontrolled and unprecedented powers that jeopardize the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

In response to these suggestions it is important to emphasize that both the investigative hearing and the preventive arrest in fact build upon powers already found in Canadian law. Both build upon these powers only for the special purpose of helping preserve Canada's safety and security against terrorist activity. Both are subject to very significant limits and controls and both are subject to direct judicial supervision. Further, both powers have been extensively reviewed to provide confidence that they comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Additional review and monitoring of the powers of investigative hearing and preventive arrest would be provided by making these provisions subject to a sunset clause. The standing committee has accepted an amendment under which each of these measures would be subject to the expiry provided for after five years. Parliament would be authorized to extend this expiry period on resolutions adopted by a majority of each chamber but no extension may exceed five years.

The best sunset clause would be the circumstances that occur where it is never necessary to use these provisions. It is important to note the committee did not accept a sunset clause for the whole of the bill. Such a clause would negate our ability to fulfill international obligations to address terrorism. Further, it would fail to recognize that the need to maintain vigilance against terrorism is a continuous one and that the measures in the bill are balanced, reasonable and subject to significant safeguards.

The power to issue certificates by the attorney general under the Canada Evidence Act, the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and other acts prohibit disclosure of sensitive information relating to national defence or security or received in confidence from a foreign entity.

The power to issue such certificates would be a vital addition to our ability to prevent the disclosure of information injurious to international relations, national defence or national security.

At the same time the standing committee agreed that the provisions could be better circumscribed and should be subject to review. For these reasons it accepted amendments under which the certificates would have a maximum lifespan of 15 years unless reissued. The certificates would be reviewable by a judge of the federal court. The certificates may only be issued after an order or decision for disclosure in a proceeding. The certificates would be published in The Canada Gazette .

These changes would substantially enhance the controls on certificates. I observe that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Mr. George Radwanski, sent a letter to the Minister of Justice stating that these amendments fully and effectively address the concerns he previously raised about this aspect of Bill C-36.

I want to speak briefly to a matter which was raised at committee hearings and which, it has been said, might relate to the privilege of the House and the Senate to send for persons, papers and records. As the House knows, the subpoena power of parliamentary houses has existed for over 300 years and is essential to their functions.

There are provisions in Bill C-36 which refer to “a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information” and related procedures in clauses 43 and 70 which would protect sensitive security information from public disclosure. It would not be the intention of the bill to alter the current status of parliament's subpoena powers and privileges. In fact similar provisions already exist in sections 37 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Having stated this for our parliamentary record so that the intention of the House is clear, an amendment was made to the bill under Motion No. 7 yesterday for the same purpose of clarifying our intention that parliament's privilege to send persons, papers and records not be affected by this legislation.

Canadians can be assured that the government is taking timely action against the threat of terrorism while at the same time ensuring that rights and freedoms are preserved.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing part here is that almost all the witnesses who appeared before the justice committee did so for absolutely nothing, because our justice minister, stubborn as usual, totally ignored the concerns of all these witnesses as well as their valuable and legitimate recommendations to improve the bill.

The minister has not only ignored their representations before the standing committee on justice, but she has also rejected out of hand the recommendations brought forward by the special Senate committee on Bill C-36.

For the information of our listeners, so that they can really understand how little the minister cared about the House and Senate committees and all Canadians, she stated this on October 18, in her introductory speech, at the first sitting of the standing committee on justice. I quote:

I also welcome consideration of possible refinements to the provisions you find in this bill. We must ensure that the bill is the most balanced and effective response possible.

And just before leaving the committee, at the end of the session, she added to this by stating:

On behalf of the solicitor general and myself, I also want to underscore how important it is for you to provide us with your best advice in some of these areas.

Therefore, it's going to be very important for you, in terms of the work you do, to help us make sure that we do have the most effective and fairest law. I know you will take up this challenge expeditiously and seriously

As for taking that challenge seriously, we have. Can the same be said of the minister? I am not so sure.

All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois were based on the recommendations made by the large majority of the witnesses who came before the standing committee on justice, as well as those contained in the Senate report, of course.

Of all our amendments, just one was retained, but not in its original form. As for the other three opposition parties, their proposals suffered the same fate as ours. Considering that, the minister must take MPs for fools, when she makes a statement about being prepared to listen to us and benefit from the witnesses' expertise in order to improve her bill.

Besides, as regards promptness, again we can say mission accomplished. The bill we are debating is the most important one, in terms of curtailing rights and liberties, on the legislative agenda since the sad and famous War Measures Act of 1970.

According to projections, the legislative process should be completed before the Christmas recess. This shows how effective the government's steamroller is.

However, innocent people have become the victims of the biker war and, more generally, of organized crime in Quebec. Yet, Bill C-24, which deals with organized crime, is still waiting in the other place.

The situation is obviously urgent, but considering the impact of the measures considered, we had the right to expect something other than a slapdash legislative process.

Mark Fisher, a member of the Labour Party in the British parliament, said the following about the English anti-terrorist act, during the second reading stage last Monday. I quote:

When the House does something precipitous, it rarely acts wisely.

Referring to increased powers that the justice minister is giving to the officers of CSIS and to himself, the solicitor general simply said:

Canadians demand those measures.

We can question his sources of information, and I hope that it does not come from CSIS, because the facts are quite different.

I do not know if the solicitor general reads the electronic mail he receives, but if he is on the same mailing list as we are and nevertheless says a thing like that, there certainly must be someone in his office who is hiding information from him, because almost every message we have received expressed vigorous opposition to the provisions of Bill C-36.

Moreover, when a bill like this is called nonsense and act of treason, to quote only those two examples, there can be no doubt about the opposition of Canadian citizens to the state's interference with individual liberties.

I would now like to talk about the motions we have before us at report stage.

First, Motion No. 1 by the member for Lanark—Carleton proposes that the definition of terrorist activity be amended by eliminating any reference to political, religious or idealogical purposes. Members of the Bloc considered those references inappropriate and we certainly are ready to support Motion No. 1.

Motion No. 2 by the member for Calgary Centre would set out the criteria to be used by the solicitor general in recommending that an entity be placed on the list of terrorists. I think this is appropriate.

In the second paragraph of this motion, the member for Calgary Centre suggests that these criteria should be debated in the House before being adopted. We agree with that. However, I think that a vote should be held following this debate. I imagine that this is what the member for Calgary Centre wished, but I did not see it in the text of the motion.

As for Motion No. 3 by the same member, it would compel the solicitor general to give answers to the organizations listed. If he does not do so, with the present amendment, the organization will not have to pay to go before a federal court. There again, we consider that this motion is appropriate and that we will be in a position to support it.

As for Motion No. 4, I consider it superfluous since the right to a lawyer is already recognized. There is a paragraph added that reads as follows:

In any proceeding under this section, the presiding judge may appoint counsel to represent any person subject to the investigative hearing.

Notaries have a saying that if it is too strong, it won't break”. As far as I am concerned, this is the case here. We can obviously support it because it is already recognized.

These were my comments on the amendments before us.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, I do take issue with the suggestion that section one of the charter of rights and freedoms is relevant in any way in this discussion. There simply is no infringement of other charter rights and freedoms that would invoke a consideration under section one.

These words regarding religious, political or ideological purposes are words of limitation. They are not designed to criminalize or single out people on the basis of their religion, political beliefs or ideologies. Rather, they must be read against the rest of the clause which speaks in terms of an intention to intimidate the public or a segment of the public.

My hon. colleague mentioned that these words do not seem to appear elsewhere. In fact they appear in the anti-terrorist legislation of the United Kingdom. These words must be read in conjunction with the intended consequences that must be present before exposure to criminal liability can exist, for example, causing death or serious bodily injury, endangering life, causing serious risk to the health or safety of the public, causing serious interference or disruption of an essential service, facility or system.

These words therefore should not be viewed as singling out any group on the basis of its beliefs. It is in fact this motivation by a system of thought, whether it is religious, ideological or political, that is perverted when combined with the elements of the offence that are described and provide a dangerous and extra potency beyond the normal range of crimes which the hon. member has mentioned.

For instance the hon. member mentioned biker gangs. He will recall that Bill C-24 which is now before the other place for consideration has similar provisions for facilitating, participating in or financing criminal organizations. This goes beyond that, beyond the venal or ordinary criminal behaviour, even if done in an organized fashion.

Subsection 1.1 was added to section 83.01 for greater certainty. This was done by government amendment at committee stage to make it clear that an expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not constitute a terrorist activity unless the other portions of the definition are satisfied. The effect of removing the words “political, religious or ideological purpose” is to transform a position that is designed to counter terrorism into one that is nearly indistinguishable from a general law enforcement provision. This sends the wrong message.

It is terrorists and not ordinary criminals, however venal, that we are targeting here. It weakens the constitutional justification for a measure that we regard as necessary to respond to an extraordinary threat.

Marc Alexandre Chartrand

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at this moment, a funeral is taking place in a church in my riding of Laval East for a 17 year old adolescent, another victim of Quebec's biker gangs.

In fact, Marc Alexandre was killed in cold blood on Friday night at the entrance to a downtown Montreal bar. Bikers affiliated with the Rock Machine wanted to enter the bar before everyone else and were refused entry by the doormen. One of the bikers, in a fit of rage, drew his gun and fired. Marc Alexandre was mortally wounded.

There are no words to describe the pain felt by his family as they come to grips with the loss of their loved one. He is another victim of the criminal bikers.

Bill C-24 passed third reading in parliament on June 13. The measures contained in this bill would help eliminate or reduce the number of gratuitous crimes committed by these undesirables in our society. It still requires the approval of the other place.

In closing, on behalf of all my colleagues, I offer my sincere condolences to the Chartrand family.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-36 this evening. I add my voice to the many voices from all sides and corners of the House that have spoken of the importance of the bill which is meant to address incredibly foundational issues touching our democracy at this time.

I will talk a bit about the Canadian response, the challenge of facing terror in a democracy, the measured response the bill presents and the areas of review we will be entering into in the House and in committee.

The Canadian response to the evil of September 11 has been widespread and has unified us as a country although we have heard different expressions of how we should respond. I and my constituents in Vancouver Quadra join all Canadians in expressing our horror and deep felt sympathy for the families of the victims.

Our response, starting with the some 30,000 passengers diverted from American flights to Canada on September 11, has been extraordinary. That has been recognized across the United States and around the world. Canadians did not know at the time whether the planes harboured terrorists, had bombs on board or were a threat to Canada but we willingly opened our skies and airports to take those people in.

On September 14, 100,000 Canadians met on Parliament Hill to express their deep concern and sadness over the evil event. Within a day of the horror of September 11, ministers across a whole range of departments were working to add new resources and expedite and tighten up security measures to deal with the new reality.

In the House we have had more than 60 hours of debate on various aspects of the terror and our response to it. In all the debate there has been a common cause: to ensure we reach a proper balance in our democracy between security and freedom in the face of this type of terror. That is the challenge in front of us. It is a challenge Bill C-36 tries to address.

The balance is a delicate one. There can be no democracy without security. There can be no freedom without security. If we have only security we are imprisoned. There can be no security unless we have freedom, otherwise we have anarchy. This delicate balance must respect the reality of the times, and the times have changed for us all as the reality of September 11 has struck home.

It is the section 1 limits of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we must turn our attention to in Bill C-36. Our rights and freedoms are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. We must always keep that limitation in mind as we measure our response.

Bill C-36 is complementary to a whole range of other initiatives and pieces of legislation. It would complement and add to the criminal code which covers the whole range of offences a terrorist might commit. However it specifically focuses on terrorism. It would supplement and build on the initiatives set out in Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation passed by the House in the spring.

Bill C-36 would add breadth, strength and definition to the provisions of the United Nations Act which allows us by regulation to implement United Nations security council resolutions. It would also build on the Immigration Act and give more definition to the provisions of Bill C-11 on immigration.

In terms of our international responsibilities and our responsibilities to our neighbours in the United States, Bill C-36 would allow us to ratify and implement the last two international conventions on terrorism: the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing. This would bring us into the position of having ratified and implemented all 12 UN conventions on terrorism. That is immensely important.

It is also important that Bill C-36 would build on the hate propaganda provisions of the criminal code. It would make hate propaganda a crime and allow it to be deleted from public Internet sites.

Bill C-36 would build on the money laundering and proceeds of crime legislation we have in place to deal with criminal organizations. This legislation deals mainly with enterprise crime but could clearly be focused on terrorist organizations.

Bill C-36 is a measured response and an immensely important part of the democratic exercise we are involved in. Its balance is shown by a whole range of ministerial responsibilities. We would need the permission of the attorney general before initiating the investigative hearings, the preventive arrest provisions or the Canada Evidence Act certification which would allow the CSE to intercept communications which are targeted at foreign sources but enter Canadian airwaves.

The listing provision would need the recommendation of the solicitor general and the approval of cabinet. It would need to be reviewed every two years and could be challenged by the courts in judicial review.

As well, judicial oversight is woven into the whole bill. Investigative hearings reviewing the listing and preventive arrest provisions within 24 hours of being brought before a judge would provide effective judicial oversight.

Most important, the legislation comes out of the collective wisdom of the House as expressed over the last 30 days. There are issues that are still open for serious debate, and the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have indicated their intention and desire that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review these concerns in detail and provide further advice.

These will touch in particular on the important new provisions regarding preventive arrest, investigative hearings, the whole process of listing and delisting, parliamentary review, and the definition of terror. This is the first time terror has been defined and it is an immensely important centerpiece of the legislation.

It has been suggested in the House that some of the provisions, particularly the new ones, be made sunset clauses. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be considering ways in which the legislation can be properly tracked over the next short period of time to consider whether it is achieving its objective, whether there are unintended consequences or whether there should be amendments.

I am confident in supporting Bill C-36 that it responds to the common objective and common cause of every member of the House: to deal with the horror and evil of terrorism in our democracy in a way that finds the proper balance between security and freedom.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that, as the member for Berthier--Montcalm, I would support any act that seeks to improve national security, public security.

But we must not go overboard and let people use this bill, whose goals are good and laudable under the circumstances, distort its application and engage in abuse.

As I said this morning, we must not only look at Bill C-36. We must examine it, but with the existing criminal code, with the existing federal legislation. We must also look at it while keeping in mind the eventual implementation of Bill C-24, which is in the Senate and which is waiting for royal assent.

Let us not forget that Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, allows police officers to commit acts that would be considered illegal under any act passed by parliament.

When Bill C-24 was passed in the House, there was no anti-terrorism bill on the horizon. Now we have one. We must look at the bill in its entirety and understand that police officers have increased powers under the organized crime legislation and the anti-terrorism act. All this put together could lead to abuse.

This legislation should be reviewed every year and a three year cut-off date should be set. After three years, this act would become obsolete. It would no longer be in effect, unless parliament brought it back, debated it and passed it again.

Anti-terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that parliament has before it, as we often say, an exceedingly important bill. I really think it is the most important bill the House of Commons will pass. This bill responds to an event that occurred on September 11 and to much more than that as well. The bill, the way it is drafted at the moment, goes perhaps a bit too far.

Let me explain. If there is one thing we must make sure of it is that the House does not improvise in passing the bill, not with a bill like this one. We must take time to examine every angle of the bill. As many people as possible and the experts must be consulted in order to produce a law that meets our objective of fighting terrorism effectively.

The attacks on New York and Washington must certainly not change anything in the way we live and do things in Canada, but neither, given that the laws are passed here, must anything be changed in Quebec's approach either. To succeed in getting us to change and alter our practices would be the supreme victory for the terrorists. They would know we are afraid and would change the way we live and deprive our fellow citizens of their freedoms in exchange for security on paper.

In our reactions and attitudes we must look primarily for balance between heightened security measures and the need to keep freedom in the central and vital space it occupies in our society. We must protect ourselves, but we must also be aware of the fact that liberty will always be fragile whatever we do and whatever legislation we may pass in this House so long as there are men and women prepared to die for a cause and through hatred. No legislation will be able to stop them.

We can, however, have legislation that will enable us to prevent attacks such as the those that have recently taken place. We can have a bill that will help us gather information on terrorists, on the people we really want to target with such a piece of legislation, but caution is required.

We must not have just any old law to stop such people. Legislation is needed, but not at the expense of our collective and individual rights and freedoms. Sacrificing our freedom would in fact be capitulation, because freedom is, more than anything else, what defines life in a democracy. The choices we will be making are not, therefore, only choices for security, they are choices for society. Such choices, informed choices, cannot be made overnight. A sense of balance must inform our analysis of Bill C-36.

At the present time, looked at as a whole I believe the bill's purpose is laudable. The bill as a whole will be applied in conjunction with other existing Canadian statutes. The criminal code will continue to apply, as will the anti-gang legislation. Hon. members will recall that Bill C-24, now in the other place awaiting royal assent, enables police officers to commit illegal acts.

With the anti-gang legislation and this bill, Bill C-36, which amends over 20 Canadian statutes and a series of regulations, the powers of the police force appear out of balance with the liberties we enjoy.

I know it is not mentioned in the bill, but at some point the police, thanks to the anti-gang legislation, will be able to commit illegal acts under the law and perhaps break it. This was certainly not the government's aim, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these two laws apply concurrently. Neither blocks the other.

By allowing a police officer to act illegally under Bill C-24, we cannot be sure he will not use this part of the act to do things that are illegal under Bill C-36. Yet he would be justified in doing so for purposes of national security. Is this just rhetoric on my part? I hope so.

I do not think it is rhetoric to say that because it is important to watch what is going on and to try to produce the best legislation. I think this is what the people of Canada and Quebec expect of us.

A look at the federal government's anti-terrorism plan and its objectives reveals four major objectives. There is no reason to oppose them. Perhaps the way it goes about achieving them in the legislation gives us the right, in a country like ours, to question them.

The first objective is to prevent terrorists from entering Canada and to protect Canadians against acts of terrorism. I have no problem with this objective. I would certainly not defend the terrorists or say that their rights were protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was saying on the subject of gangsterism and organized crime, that it is not true the charter exists to protect them. I say the same thing about terrorists. However, the rights and freedoms honest people enjoy at the moment must not be denied them.

The second objective involves providing the tools to identify terrorists, bring them to justice, sentence them and punish them. This needs no explanation and there is no doubt that we support this objective.

The third objective is to prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being taken hostage by terrorists, which would have repercussions on the Canadian economy. That is obvious. Moreover, this is not the first time the Bloc Quebecois has questioned the work being done by customs officials on the borders of Canada and Quebec.

As far as money laundering is concerned, for at least five or six years now the Bloc Quebecois has been saying over and over that the borders between Canada and the United States are as full of holes as a sieve and that Canada enjoys the wonderful international reputation of being a country where money laundering is easy and where there may be the least monitoring of this.

I know that this is being corrected. I know that we have not been a voice crying out unheard in the wilderness for those five or six years. I know that the government has amended some laws in response to overtures by the Bloc Quebecois. I know that as far as Bill C-36 is concerned the criminal code is also being amended, with a far more specific objective: terrorist groups. This is a good thing.

I do not, however, think that the wake up call of the events of September 11 was necessary for this to happen. Actions could have been taken back when we started talking about the situation, back when we began to address the problem represented by Canadian customs and the Canada-U.S. border.

The final objective is to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of their hatred.

We can see that these are four praiseworthy objectives. On that basis one could not be opposed to a bill to implement provisions to attain those objectives.

However, the questions that arise have to do with the text we have before us. The bill is more than 170 pages in length and contains dozens, even hundreds, of amended sections and expanded definitions regarding the threat to national security among other things. There are increased powers conferred to some members of the cabinet. The Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of National Defence would all have increased powers when it comes to electronic surveillance, for example. They would be able to decide if an individual will be monitored. It is the minister who would be responsible for the final decision. Have they gone too far? That is a tough question.

Are we asking enough tough questions? I hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I emphasize the words human rights, will do just that in a calm manner with all the time it needs and that this bill will be carefully examined.

If Canada had pursued these four objectives by ratifying international treaties that it has already signed, by making them law, then in all probability I would not be standing here right now giving a 20 minute speech on this subject. In order to attain its four objectives, the government included two conventions in this bill.

The first one is the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. It freezes terrorists' assets by preventing the use of assets belonging to a person who is involved in terrorist activities and in preventing the provision of property and financial or other related services to terrorists. These measures enable a Federal Court judge to order the freezing or seizure of property used to support terrorist activities.

This is the convention that had been signed but never had force of law in Canada. This convention is included in Bill C-36.

In order to achieve the objectives I outlined earlier, there is no problem with this approach and I applaud the government on this. Indeed, the government should have done this before September 11. This was its responsibility. It failed when it came to implementing the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism.

Frankly, I imagine that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service knew before September 11 that there were people raising funds for terrorism in Canada. I certainly hope it knew. If it did not, I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. If it did, why was it waiting to tell somebody? If it did pass the information along, why did the solicitor general or the Minister of Justice do nothing when a convention had been signed to that effect? There is a problem somewhere.

The other convention is the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. This convention contains provisions on the targeting of places of public use, government facilities, infrastructure and transportation systems for attacks using explosives or other lethal devices, including chemical or biological agents.

Here again, I hope that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was on some sort of trail in Canada while groups were on Canadian soil and had certain similar objectives. It is perhaps not as clear as in the first convention, but I hope that CSIS, with the millions of dollars, close to a billion, which it regularly receives to manage its affairs, had a good idea of what was going on.

These two conventions are therefore implemented by Bill C-36. Once again we have no problem with this.

There is one point about which we have some legitimate concerns and I think that anyone interested in individual and collective rights and freedoms must share those concerns.

A large number of sections in the criminal code are amended and many new ones are added to deal with terrorism.

I invite hon. members to read the definition of terrorist activity; it is not a simple definition. It refers to ten conventions that Canada signed and implemented over the years. It is a definition that makes reference to other sections, to international conventions, to a large number of possibilities.

Terrorism as such is not defined, just like the federal government refused to define the notion of criminal activity--

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we all know we have been asking the minister to introduce legislation that will allow Canada to fulfill its international commitments in the fight against terrorism for some time now.

It is therefore understandable that since the events of September 11 we have been looking forward to this bill on terrorism. Now that we have it, the question is whether or not it lives up to our expectations.

First, we can only applaud the fact that the minister has finally introduced legislation that truly outlaws activities that finance terrorism. Whether it be for organized crime or terrorists, money is the lifeblood of war.

By starving an organization of its sources of financing, we greatly reduce its striking power. Furthermore, by adding seizure and freezing of assets, we can begin to take seriously the government's claim that it wants to wage war against terrorists.

Unfortunately, from part 6 on, the bill contains, word for word, Bill C-16, the bill on funding charitable organizations. What we thought we could call the late lamented Bill C-16, has risen from the tomb. Apart from a few cosmetic changes, it is to be found in Bill C-36 almost in its entirety.

On April 30 I summarized Bill C-16 in the following terms: suspicion, discretionary power, enigmatic proof, and lack of control. Six months later, I have no choice but to reiterate these same comments about part 6 of this bill on terrorism.

We do not deny that it is appropriate to protect the integrity of the charities registration system by preventing their use as a cover for terrorist organizations. What we dispute is the way the government wants to go about achieving its ends.

This spring we criticized the fact that it went against too many principles of justice for it to pass royal assent. To let this happen would constitute a dangerous precedent in terms of the violation of procedural guarantees. However, yesterday the minister slipped the same bill, give or take a comma, under our nose. Worse yet, the inquisitional procedure established by Bill C-16 now applies to a body that wants its name removed from the list of organizations involved in terrorist activities.

Now under the bill before us the governor in council will be able to establish by regulation a list containing the name of any entity that might be associated with terrorist activities.

What does that mean, exactly? In both cases, the entity and the charity appear before a judge who can reach a decision from evidence submitted in camera and without the party or parties being present.

In even clearer terms, let us suppose that a charity loses its charitable status following the signing of a certificate by the solicitor general or the Minister of National Revenue. The organization will be allowed to ask the judge to quash the certificate. However, it is possible that the judge will base his decision on information that the organization will never have access to.

The same goes for a group that wants to see its name struck from the list of organizations associated with terrorist activities. That group will have to go before a judge, who will determine whether or not to remove the group's name from the list. However, this could take place without the applicant ever knowing why his name first appeared on such a list.

By violating such fundamental and elementary rules of evidence as the disclosure of evidence, the government is ignoring the contradictory nature of our judicial system. All the more worrisome is the fact that the evidence adduced will be based on information provided primarily by CSIS. Knowing the practices used by CSIS and its difficulties in striking a fair balance between national security and rights and freedoms, this might be cause for concern.

With such provisions, we can legitimately ask two questions. Either the information is not circulating between ministers or else the government has simply decided to turn a deaf ear to the representations made by countless witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance when it reviewed Bill C-16, which at the time was sponsored by the solicitor general.

Since it is hard to imagine that the Minister of Justice was not informed of what went on during the proceedings of that committee, the only plausible assumption is the second one. Considering all that went on with the young offenders bill, could this be a habit with the minister?

In the same vein, during the first sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance, which took place on May 16, the solicitor general and the Minister of National Revenue tried to explain to us why Bill C-16 did not include the definition of the term terrorist. The solicitor general said, and I quote:

If you are aware, the courts have indicated that it is not necessary to define terrorism.

He went on to say:

When you evaluate around the world to find an exact definition for terrorism, it is about impossible.

As for the Minister of National Revenue, he specified the following:

Merely coming up with a definition or defining parameters would basically, at the end of the line, end up taking away tools or options that we would like to have in this bill.

Yet, to cite just two examples, the U.K. terrorism act and the French penal code have successfully done what these two ministers felt was impossible at the time they were defending Bill C-16 before the committee. The British legislation reads as follows:

In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where:

The use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and,

The use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

As for the French penal code, terrorism is defined as follows:

Certain criminal offences are considered terrorism when the acts are intentionally linked to an individual or group whose purpose is to cause a serious disruption of public order through intimidation or terror.

This is followed by a list of the criminal offences considered acts of terrorism. I will spare members that, however. We can see that there has been a sort of attempt in Bill C-36 to define the terms terrorist activity, terrorist group and terrorism offence.

Considering that the term was virtually undefinable, according to the two ministers, one might well think that the Minister of Justice has done nothing to simplify things. Bill C-36, instead of providing a definition along the French or British lines that states right off what is involved forces us to constantly jump from one reference to another, and we have almost forgotten what we were looking for by the time we get to the end of the chain of searches. Fortunately the basic content is there, but the form needs more work. In actual fact, there is no definition of terrorism, just definitions for act, action or omission.

In addition, as we have been seeing for some time now, law enforcement officials are demanding a considerable increase in their powers, but must the powers of the various government bodies responsible for security be increased in order to mount an effective campaign against terrorism? Well might one wonder. In the October 6 issue of La Presse , journalist Yves Boisvert wrote:

Nothing useful will be accomplished without effective information services and an intelligent police community.

What constitutes an effective information service? One thing is certain, that is, it is certainly not by keeping tabs on groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Anglican Church, the United Church and the Raging Grannies that we are going to dismantle a major terrorist network. Yet considering that some fifty or so organizations and approximately 350 individuals are already being watched closely by CSIS as part of its anti-terrorist program, there is no lack of genuine terrorist threats. We may therefore conclude that if the resources and energies were concentrated in the right place, part of the problem would resolve itself.

Furthermore, in order to be intelligent, must the police be authorized to commit criminal offences as provided for in the organized crime legislation? By placing above the law those who are supposed to enforce it, such measures can only succeed in institutionalizing crime within law enforcement agencies.

Must we also bend the rules of evidence in order to compensate for deficiencies or errors in a case before the courts? Since a police investigation can have a tremendous impact on an accused, the work of law enforcement officers must be guided by rules imposing maximum rigour.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the primary mission of police officials is to protect public safety. This is not some contest to make a maximum number of arrests leading to charges, particularly if these charges are the result of bungled investigations. Not only will the public not be better protected, but in fact it will be even more vulnerable to possible abuses of authority. This would be to replace one threat with another. If such guiding rules are limited, there is a good chance that corners will be cut.

Bill C-24 opened a door that will be very difficult to close and its long term impact could be catastrophic. By allowing a peace officer to detain a person following an arrest without a warrant, Bill C-36 just opens another door. If there are sceptics, just think of what happened during the October crisis with the War Measures Act: there were hundreds of arbitrary arrests and heavy handed searches without warrants, undoubtedly the worst case of abuse of power ever known in Quebec.

It is fine to introduce anti-terrorism legislation, but let us not forget that this is merely a legislative tool that cannot be effective in and of itself. The best legislation in the world is useless if there are not competent people with a good head to implement it and ensure compliance with it. This includes police authorities, intelligence services and customs officers.

In the case of customs officers, there is still a lot of work to do to change their approach, which remains much more focused on alcohol and cigarette purchases. I made a quick trip to the United States after the September 11 events and when I came back to the Canadian border, the only reflex of the customs officer was to ask me what I had bought that day.

This speaks volumes about the concerns of those who normally should be the first line of defence of our national security.

On the issue of possible abuse, the minister is also grabbing relatively extraordinary powers, since her bill gives the attorney general the authority to unilaterally suspend in a totally arbitrary fashion the application of the Access to Information Act, through powers usually reserved for the commissioner.

Once again, this type of political interference is a cause for concern, particularly since the government has been severely criticized recently, both here and elsewhere, for its policy of silence.

If we look at the amendments to the Firearms Act, we see that the governor in council can exempt any category of non-residents from the provisions of this bill.

According to information received yesterday morning from departmental staff, the amendments to the Firearms Act would apply solely to air marshals responsible for ensuring on board security on international flights.

If this is the objective the minister had in mind, it would be worth her while to say so clearly in her bill. Given the circumstances behind the creation of Bill C-36 and the government's policy of being reactive rather than proactive, we understand that this bill was drafted hastily. We hope, therefore, that we can count on the minister's co-operation when the time comes to propose the necessary amendments to fill in the gaps.

Given the urgency of the situation, the government must not be allowed to use the crisis situation as a pretext for sneaking its bill through. At any rate, the damage is already done, and the situation could hardly be worse, considering the state of psychosis that reigns just about everywhere

If we are to equip ourselves with such a significant tool, such a restrictive and invasive one as an anti-terrorist bill, then we might as well take the time required to make sure we have the best legislative framework possible. The committee stage must not be glossed over. We are certain that many people will want to be heard and we cannot afford to not take advantage of the valuable contribution of their expertise.

There is one more point we feel it is important to raise. At present, the bill specifies that a thorough examination of its provisions and application must be carried out within three years of its enactment. At this point, we feel it would be wise to reduce that three year deadline to one year.

Considering the fact that these are exceptional circumstances and that we are presently debating measures that are equally exceptional, we cannot afford to wait three years before reassessing this legislative framework that is taking us into uncharted territory. We must prevent any opportunities for mistakes and a shorter review period is the best way to make adjustments if the circumstances so require.

To close, as the Prime Minister so wisely stated, we must be vigilant and prudent in order to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

When it comes to mistakes of the past, we have no doubt that the Prime Minister knows what he is talking about, since he was a minister in the Trudeau cabinet during the October crisis of 1970.

There is no magic bullet when it comes to terrorism, as I have already said. At first glance Bill C-36 appears harsh and invasive. However, it would be inappropriate to remain passive in circumstances such as these.

Basically we will have to take the necessary time to ensure that this bill will allow us to fight terrorism effectively while minimizing the inconveniences to citizens.

In short, we must be sure that Bill C-36 will do more good than harm.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, this is a debate we had in the context of Bill C-24 on organized crime. I believe that the approach in the anti-terrorism legislation is much more effective. Membership is sometimes hard to prove, but what we have done in this legislation is criminalize a range of actions, including participation, contribution, facilitation, harbouring and concealing. We believe this legislation will be more expansive and more effective.

Terrorism

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we are going to propose amendments in order to attain the goal the hon. member has referred to.

I must also state, however, that with Bill C-24, which is before the Senate at this time, the possibility exists to do exactly the same thing with the proceeds of crime and also to promulgate and implement in Canada declarations from other countries in the world without the process taking place here in Canada.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

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

Madam Speaker, before getting to the main thrust of my speech, I would like to take a mere 30 seconds to extend my best wishes to our new whip here in the House, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, and his great team.

We all know about his promotion, and I am sure my enthusiasm is shared by others, knowing that he will acquit himself of his duties with a combination of two facets of his personality, good old-fashioned authoritarianism and unceasing generosity.

It is, however, somewhat incredible that we are faced here with a bill that is so unpalatable, so inconsistent, so unacceptably flawed as far as its definitions go, such an incoherent mishmash.

Madam Speaker, I was elected when you were, in 1993, although I am your junior by a few years, and I would never have believed at that time that I would one day end up in this House being forced to speak to a bill as inconsistent as this one.

How can people claim to be part of a properly functioning system if they are in government and expect legislators to properly acquit themselves, with due care and professional conscience, of their task of examining legislation, and yet come up with a bill that is totally impossible to grasp?

We would have understood had the government chosen to deal with such an important issue as animal cruelty. Of course, there is a new school of thought, of which we are aware because people make representations to us as their elected representatives. We know that the issue of animal cruelty requires a tightening of existing legislative provisions, including those contained in the criminal code.

We would have understood had the government chosen to validate its bill. Contrary to my colleagues, I am not one of those who will not get to the bottom of the issue. I would have been extremely happy to do my job as a parliamentarian, to listen to what people in our communities had to say on this issue of animal cruelty and to do whatever I could to ensure we have the best legislation possible.

But it is not what this is about. The same bill deals with the offence of disarming a police officer, the Firearms Registration Act, and the process for reviewing allegations of miscarriage of justice.

Could anyone give me an explanation? I would ask my colleagues in the government majority, who have become cruelly silent in this debate, to tell me how all this was presented to them in caucus. Can anybody on the government side tell us what the connection is between the process for reviewing allegations of miscarriage of justice, gun control--members will notice that my colleagues are constantly urging me on, which gives me the impression that I am really giving my best--animal cruelty, imposing harsher penalties, disarming a police officer, and the Firearms Act?

Nobody can. I hope that during the period of questions and comments, someone on the government side will rise, and on the pretext of asking me a question, answer this one.

Let us make no mistake, the member for Berthier--Montcalm, whom you hold in high esteem, as do I, rose in this House and made it clear that we support certain provisions without reservation.

For example, there is the whole matter--an important one--of the sexual exploitation of children in a way that did not exist when we were children, but that has taken on massive importance in the past ten years, and more specifically in the past five. I refer to the Internet.

These are important provisions, which must be included in the criminal code and require us, as parliamentarians, to hold a proper debate. But, for heaven's sake, how can they ask us to vote on this sort of indigestible mishmash of a bill?

I cannot imagine that. There are responsible drafters at the Department of Justice. There are people who no doubt said to the government “It is really not very reasonable to combine a variety of problems that have nothing to do with one another in a single bill”.

If, for those who have just joined us, we had to summarize the bill, I would say there are eight major focuses.

As I have just mentioned, there are references to the establishment of new offences in order to protect children from sexual exploitation, including that which involves the Internet.

The member for Berthier--Montcalm will shake his head to correct me if I am wrong, since his legal knowledge is well known, but I think this arises from a court decision. Does it not arise from a decision by the BC supreme court? The member is nodding, so I guess I am not mistaken.

The second focus of the bill consists of increasing the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. This is an important provision.

With the third point, things start to drift a bit. In fact, if the philosopher Pascal were here, he would say of this bill that the centre is everywhere and the periphery nowhere to be seen. The third focus of this bill makes home invasions an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.

So, we have gone from cruelty to animals, to child pornography, to sexual harassment, to home invasions. It is hard to find a common thread in such a hodgepodge.

Fourth, the bill proposes a new offence, that of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. This is an important provision. Every year, law enforcement officers attend an awareness day on Parliament Hill. For several years now, I have been meeting with them, as have a number of my colleagues, and I therefore know that this was one of the things they were asking for. Should this be included in a bill like the one before us? I have my doubts.

The fifth focus of the bill is to increase the penalties for cruelty to animals. Say again—just when you think you've heard everything—I must point out how vague this bill is and how open to criticism the definitions are.

The proposed definition for “animal”—obviously the question arises and we must be clear—is as follows:

“animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

The question that arises is whether a farmer who deliberately poisons a rat will be charged under clause 15 of the bill. There is no immediate answer to this question on the strength of the proposed definitions.

Let me be clear. There are several important provisions in the bill which we support, but the debate we have been invited to take part in today has to do with the amendment moved by the Canadian Alliance members regarding the need to divide the bill.

The hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm told me earlier, and he knows these issues well, that this bill could easily be split into three different bills. Based on the various provisions, there could have been three bills that could have followed the course of parliamentary process that we are all familiar with: tabling of the bill, second reading, referral to a committee, third reading, debate and referral to the other place.

Again, I hope that someone from the government side will stand up and explain to us what the rush is to pass such a patchwork of measures in this omnibus bill. We need to give the government a serious warning. We have had it with this idea of tabling omnibus legislation which leads to a certain amount of confusion. We rush them through and, in the end, this creates, again, inconsistency.

We were not elected to the House to be confused. I think we need to recall what the philosopher Boileau said “What is conceived well is expressed clearly, and the words to say it arrive with ease”.

But that is not how it starts, it starts as follows:

Clarity of thought for some Remains a goal not often won As through a cloud there comes no sun

I must say in all friendship to the Minister of Justice this day has definitely not come in her case, because her mind is fogged by thick clouds. Indeed, it takes some nerve to dare introduce Bill C-15, an omnibus bill governed by eight different principles dealing with eight different issues that have nothing to do with one another, except for the fact, of course, that they are all included in the criminal code.

The best thing that could happen would be to see the pages go around the House and pick up the copies of this bill, and the Minister of Justice go back to the drawing board and table, as the hon. member for Berthier--Montcalm rightly pointed out, two or three bills. Then I can assure hon. members that we would make a contribution to the review of this bill, in a serious and reasonable fashion and with the good faith that has always characterized the Bloc Quebecois.

Far from me the idea of downplaying the issues of animal cruelty, sexual harassment or child pornography on the Internet which, as we know, was ruled on by the court.

We should not be proud of what is going on today. Not only is there no reason to be proud, but it is an ugly thing to want to use one's majority to confound the opposition. I should point out that this is our third mandate here and we have seen quite a few of these malicious attempts.

If I could make a wish it would be that both sides, the government and the opposition, would put an end to this practice of introducing omnibus bills and instead take the time required to table bills dealing with very definite issues.

When the issues are very specific, it is easy for us legislators to understand the government's objectives. Let us do our work properly in the House, in committee and at third reading. Is this not what the voters who mandated us here expect? Is this not a legitimate expectation on the part of our fellow citizens? Unfortunately, as I said, this is not what is going on today.

We must ask our fellow citizens what attitude they wish us to adopt. The terrible thing about the situation we are in today—the member for Berthier--Montcalm admitted this just now—is that we lose either way. For instance, we want very clear restrictions on child pornography on the Internet; we hope that the legislation will included tougher provisions in the criminal code.

We can go along with one very particular dimension of Bill C-15. But how can we ignore our desire to hold a real debate on the issue of child pornography when at the same time there are provisions regarding the mechanisms for review of judicial errors? The issue of judicial errors is not an insignificant one. The member for Repentigny himself introduced a private member's bill on this issue.

Let us remember that there have been a number of judicial errors. People have been locked away for 15, 20, 25 years in jail on the strength of facts that turned out not to be accurate. We have some only too concrete examples of people whose lives were ruined because justice made a mistake.

Furthermore, if I may approach this with my customary frankness, the Marshall Commission was created to look into this problem.

The Marshall Commission recommended that when it was a question of reviewing judicial errors and deciding on corrective action, it should be possible to operate with complete freedom from any sort of political interference and that there should be an independent body which would ensure a fair and equitable review, guided by the principles of basic justice and of natural justice.

My understanding of the bill before us is that this is not the direction in which the government is urging us to go, because this decision will lie with the Minister of Justice. Once again, this is not personal. We are not saying that the Minister of Justice is incapable of making good decisions. We are saying “Why not go along with a trend we are seeing in public administration, which is to separate the legislative arm from the executive arm so that the people making the decisions are independent, free from any political interference?”

As we can well realize, we have before us someone who is sad. Unfortunately, I believe we will be extremely aggressive in this instance, as a group of parliamentarians, and will do our best in order to gain an end: the breaking up of this bill. I do not think that is anything unreasonable.

I can see my colleagues in the government majority, and they will agree with me that everyone stands to gain from having clear ideas when involved in politics, that everyone gains if we all understand what we are voting on.

There is one important point to be raised. Does Bill C-15 have to be the government's priority? In my riding, four bars have been blown up, so far. The biker gang wars are on again in Montreal, although some people may be under the illusion that things had calmed down. That is not so. Bars are being blown up. It started in Saint-Henri, and now it has spread to Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. The member for Berthier—Montcalm and myself, along with our colleague, the critic for the solicitor general, have worked very, very hard in parliamentary committee to improve Bill C-95, which has now become Bill C-24.

The bill is not perfect, as we know. At least the offences have been described better. Aggravating circumstances have been added. The definitions are better, so that some people who were not covered in the past now are. With Bill C-24, people at any place in the legal system will be better protected.

We would have liked to have seen the process take a better course than this. There were many other priorities for the government than to bring Bill C-15 before us.

I will make a short digression into the area of health, which is my primary area of responsibility after all. The hon. member for Drummond, who is no hothead, not one to get carried out or to lack judgment—in fact her judgment is very sound when she addressed these issues—made a comment in connection with the bill proposed by the government on the new technologies of assisted reproduction that it has a constant tendency to resort to omnibus bills. It was were not able to immediately propose to us a bill that would have banned cloning for reproductive purposes, as well as for therapeutic purposes.

The opposition has worked hard to help with a problem and a bill like this one. I repeat, why do we have such an ill-conceived bill, one that is likely to implode because of all the contradictions it contains? We could have had a debate on reproductive technologies, because—let us not forget—there is a legal void at the moment.

It is not unthinkable that a researcher in Italy, Germany, France or anywhere else in the world could arrive in Canada and start playing around with human embryos and end up in a situation where genetic engineering could lead to cloning. Our hands would be totally tied.

As we saw this summer, there is a legal void, because there is nothing in the criminal code to allow the crown to take action on this basis. This is something we could have done.

In closing, I would say the best thing we could do would be to decide to split the bill. The government should act on this request. Once the bill is split, the government could count on the opposition to do its usual responsible and thorough work.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of the previous speaker. Indeed, the first part of it concerned the conduct of the Liberal government. We have to acknowledge that the Canadian Alliance member was right.

We do have a strange government. It says one thing and does another. It tells the people one thing but, in practice, does something else. We could give many examples of this.

I will give an example similar to the one the member gave, and it concerns organized crime. This is a very important matter. Everyone has debated it here in the House. We quickly passed the bill in June in order to implement it as quickly as possible. Bill C-24 is before the other House as is another very important bill, Bill C-7, the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Liberal government says that public safety is important and that it wants to do its utmost to, in addition to having anti-gang legislation, amend the anti-gang legislation, which has not yet been passed in the Senate, and add amendments in order to fight terrorism. Well, we might have thought the government would instruct the other House to have Bill C-24 examined as quickly as possible in order to be put into effect. Well no, it did not.

The Liberal government instructed the Senate not to pass as quickly as possible the anti-gang legislation, the legislation to fight organized crime, not to make amendments to cover terrorism, as the Prime Minister has been saying since the start of the conflict; no, the government instructed the other House to pass Bill C-7. Declaring war against young offenders will certainly settle the affairs of the world. This is an example of the sort of speech the government makes here for public ears. But, the reality of the matter is something else again.

The Canadian Alliance member is right: we should be discussing something other than a bill as complicated and controversial as Bill C-15. If hon. members took a good look at this legislation, they would agree that it is inconsistent. We cannot deal with and put on the same footing—after all, we are amending the criminal code—the protection of children, the vulnerability of childhood, and the protection of animals. This does not make any sense.

We could pass very quickly all the provisions that have to do with the protection of children, such as Internet games and issues. We could also adopt very quickly provisions dealing with penalties as they relate to harassment. We could adopt them today if the government was willing to co-operate by simply splitting the bill.

There are controversial clauses, such as those on animal cruelty. I can understand the hon. member from western Canada whose constituents are very concerned with this bill, because back home in Quebec, we also have farmers, people who work with animals, hunters, fishers, research laboratories and universities that are concerned. Instead of discussing a bill that no one wants or that is largely controversial, we could have talked about the preparation of the strikes that the United States are about to make. We could have talked about how to help small and medium size businesses, companies, and how to improve our border services. We could have talked about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, about public safety. But no, we are not talking about these issues.

Could the Canadian Alliance member tell us which parts of the bill we could quickly adopt because they are not being challenged by his party, and could he point out those that are more controversial and require a more indepth review? Could we split this bill in two?

We could adopt one part quickly and take more time to properly review the other part.

Terrorism

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that the government not only will take steps but has taken steps.

My colleague, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, has already ensured that regulations are in place to seize and restrain any assets that are directly or indirectly involved with bin Laden and any of his associates.

We have criminal code provisions expanded by Bill C-24 that deal with seizure and forfeiture of assets in certain circumstances. We will be working with our allies to ensure that we have all the laws in place necessary to strip terrorist organizations of their lifeblood, which is their money.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would now like to deal with the point of order raised on June 12, 2001, by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough relating to the use of the provisions of Standing Order 56.1. The hon. member stated in his argument that an abuse of process had occurred which was “tantamount to a breach of the rules and the intention and interpretation thereof” when, earlier that day, the government used Standing Order 56.1 to move a motion to which unanimous consent had been previously denied. The motion in question concerned the disposition of business for the final two sitting days prior to the summer adjournment, including the voting method to be followed on the last supply day of the period ending June 23, 2001.

I would like to thank the hon. the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their contributions on this matter.

At that time I ruled that the terms of the motion would stand, having been adopted by the House some eight hours before the hon. member raised his point of order. However, I also indicated my intention to return to the House in the fall with a statement on the use of Standing Order 56.1 and I am now ready to address the House on this matter. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at page 571, describes Standing Order 56. 1 as follows:

If, at any time during a sitting of the House, unanimous consent is denied for the presentation of a “routine motion”, a minister may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker put the motion. For that purpose, a “routine motion” refers to motions which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishment of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. The motion, which is neither debatable nor amendable, is immediately put to the House by the Speaker. If 25 Members or more oppose the motion, it is deemed withdrawn; otherwise, it is adopted.

Standing Order 56.1 was adopted by the House in April 1991. At the time of its adoption concerns were raised about the implications of a rule that provides a mechanism for overriding the very unanimity of the unanimous consent mechanism that the House often uses to expedite its business. Speaker Fraser ruled on April 9, 1991, at page 19236 of the Debates :

However, this “over-ride” provision can operate, as the Chair understands it, only with respect to a certain very limited range of motions offered at a specific time in our daily agenda by a minister of the Crown...Based on the fact that we have similar procedures existing with respect to other types of motions and given the very limited application of the new proposal, the Chair cannot accede to the request...that paragraph 20 of the motion respecting the Standing Order amendments be ruled out of order.

It should be emphasized that at the time of its adoption it was envisioned that the standing order would be used for only so-called routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1(1)( b ).

Now let us examine how the rule has been used since its adoption 10 years ago. The government sought to use Standing Order 56.1 in 17 cases and failed in two instances.

Between 1991 and 1995 it was used six times to authorize committee travel. This falls squarely within the terms of the standing order. From 1995 to 1997 it was used on the following four occasions to arrange the sittings of the House: in March 1995 and April 1997, to suspend the sitting of the House for the sole purpose of a royal assent ceremony; in March 1995, to enable the House to sit over the weekend to consider government orders Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, a bill already under time allocation; and in June 1995, to extend the sitting to consider government business beyond the extension already provided for under Standing Order 27(1).

Here again, these four examples illustrate the intended use of Standing Order 56.1 for routine purposes, that is, to enable the House to fix the times of its meetings or adjournments and to arrange its proceedings.

From 1997 there are signs of a disturbing trend in which Standing Order 56.1 was used, or attempted to be used, for the adoption of motions less readily identified or defined as routine. Let us review specific examples of this trend.

On December 1, 1997 the standing order was used for the first time to dispose of back to work legislation at all stages, Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. In March 1999 the government attempted to use Standing Order 56.1 for back to work legislation on Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services. This attempt failed, as did a second attempt three days later. Eventually the legislation was dealt with under a special order after the government moved the same motion which it had placed on the order paper under government orders.

In June 1998, the government attempted to use Standing Order 56.1 to rescind a decision previously taken by the House concerning Standing Orders 57 and 78(3). The undertaking failed and members raised objections to this attempted use of the standing order. They argued that rescinding a unanimous decision of the House was not a routine motion and, as such, should not be permitted under this standing order. The Speaker allowed it, although he expressed misgivings, and he urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of Standing Order 56.1.

Far less problematic are the two occasions where Standing Order 56.1 was used to enable the House to schedule take note debates, in both cases providing for the House to sit beyond its normal hours: in February 1998 to debate Canada's participation in a possible military action in the Middle East, the gulf war; and in April 1999 to consider the situation in Kosovo. So long as we continue to respect the distinction between emergency debates under Standing Order 52 and take note debates, using Standing Order 56.1 for scheduling purposes does not appear to violate the spirit of the standing orders.

The government again used Standing Order 56.1 in June 2001 to dispose of all stages of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act.

Finally, on June 12, 2001, the government, under Standing Order 56.1, moved a motion to dispose of business over the following two sitting days. In this instance the motion provided for the disposition of third reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, and Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and to dispose of Government Business No. 7, the summer adjournment motion.

In addition the motion provided that once a recorded division had been taken on the main estimates, all subsequent motions to concur in any vote or votes on the main estimates shall be deemed moved and seconded and the question deemed put and agreed to on division. The effect of this was that there was a single recorded division on the first of 190 opposed items standing on the order paper and the remainder were deemed agreed to on division.

At this point I would like to draw to members' attention the following reference at pages 571-2 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

On April 9, 1991, Speaker Fraser, while pointing out that the range of motions to which the proposed procedure would apply was very limited, also suggested that the new Standing Order was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate: "There are certain similarities also between the proposal and existing Standing Order 78 respecting time allocation in that both use a ladder-like type of approach depending upon the extent of agreement forthcoming to securing the right to propose the motion".

I would advise hon. members to be very cautious in their reading of this passage. In his ruling, Speaker Fraser drew a parallel between Standing Order 56.1, which requires a prior attempt to gain unanimous consent, and Standing Order 78, the time allocation rule, which requires notice or prior consultation. It seems doubtful to me, having read the ruling in its entirety, that Speaker Fraser really meant to suggest that Standing Order 56.1 was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate.

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the standing order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise. Standing Order 71 provides in such cases that a bill may be dealt with at more than one stage in a single day.

Likewise, a motion seeking to reverse a unanimous decision of the House is a serious undertaking and should in no way be viewed as a routine motion. It was never envisaged that Standing Order 56.1 would be used to override decisions that the House had taken by unanimous consent.

In the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1, a motion was adopted which provided for a recorded division on the first opposed item in the main estimates. However, all subsequent opposed items were then deemed moved and carried. The effect of the motion adopted pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 was to predetermine the results of all the votes following the first recorded division. It is clear to the Chair that this application of the standing order goes well beyond the original intent, that is, for the presentation of routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1.(1)( b ).

The standing order has never been used as a substitute for decisions which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters. In addition, if the House from time to time should agree by way of proceeding by unanimous consent as, for example, on the application of votes, one cannot assume that such agreements would automatically fall into the category of routine matters as defined in Standing Order 56.1.

As I previously indicated, I allowed the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, to go ahead because there were no objections raised at the time it was moved. By the time hon. members expressed concern to the Chair some eight hours later, the Chair saw no alternative but to proceed with the terms of the motion. However, to speak frankly, had the objection been raised in good time, I would have been inclined to rule the motion out of order. This situation serves again to remind members of the importance of raising matters of a procedural nature in a timely fashion.

In the three years since my predecessor urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of Standing Order 56.1, we have seen further evidence of a trend away from the original intent of this rule. This would seem all the more reason for the committee to consider the standing order at the earliest opportunity.

In the meantime, based on close examination of past precedents and the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1 as a tool to bypass the decision making functions of the House, I must advise the House that the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, will not be regarded as a precedent. I would urge all hon. members to be vigilant about the use of this mechanism for the Chair certainly intends to be watchful.

I want to thank all hon. members who intervened to raise this point before the House at this time.

Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, one week ago today individuals gathered around television sets across the country and around the world to watch the unfolding of unspeakable horror. We drew a collective breath knowing that the world was an altered place. I share with all Canadians sorrow for the families directly touched by the attacks.

My compassion and my prayers go first of all to those who have been directly affected by these acts of terrorism.

As well, I share with many a sense of loss for the world we took for granted before last Tuesday. Concern for national security, for freedom and for peace are now foremost in our minds.

In the days since and the days to come our thoughts will move between sorrow, despair, anger and worry. I sincerely hope that from all this we will be able to build, in partnership with other nations, a stronger world community. We must take further steps to fight terrorism so that those who commit these crimes understand that we will not be paralyzed by their acts of aggression.

Responding to this tragedy is a worldwide challenge and the government is prepared to do its part in meeting it. The safety and protection of all people is of the highest priority to the government.

As Canada's Attorney General and Minister of Justice, I pledge to lend my full co-operation to the attorney general of the United States, my colleague John Ashcroft, and to provide the support necessary to further the efforts of the world community to confront terrorism.

Like the United States, we too share a commitment to freedom and the rule of law and are committed to overcome the efforts of terrorists to weaken these pillars of democracy.

To date Canada has been reasonably secure from terrorist incidents within its borders, but we have not been immune. It is important that we have effective tools in place to keep Canada free of terrorists and that we have mechanisms for co-operating with our closest neighbour, the United States, and the larger international community.

Accordingly, Canada has always worked with the United States and the international community to develop international agreements and conventions, as well as developing its own domestic anti-terrorist legislation.

At the international level Canada has a long history of working in concert with the international community to pursue initiatives that reduce the threat posed by international terrorists. Canada has signed all 12 UN counterterrorist agreements. Ten of these have already been ratified, including those that target unlawful acts committed on aircraft, unlawful acts of violence at airports serving civil aviation, actions threatening civil aviation and the unlawful seizure of aircraft.

We are currently completing the ratification process of the remaining two agreements, the convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the international convention for the suppression of financing of terrorism.

The convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings covers new offences relating to the targeting of public places, transportation systems, government or infrastructure facilities with explosives or other lethal devices. It will require states that have ratified the convention to criminalize these offences when committed outside their borders and prosecute or extradite offenders found within their borders.

The international convention for the suppression of financing of terrorism is intended to cut terrorists off from the financial support that permits them to continue to operate. The convention requires state parties to make it a crime for a person to provide or collect funds with the knowledge that they might be used in terrorist activity.

Our signature on these conventions is a commitment by Canada to move forward to their ratification. I anticipate bringing implementing legislation before parliament that will allow us to prosecute these offences in Canada.

In addition to participating in the development of international protections against terrorism Canada has undertaken several bilateral commitments with the United States.

These include the Canada-U.S. cross-border crime forum which furthers co-operation and information sharing between Canada and the United States in the fight against transnational crime; the U.S.-Canadian Consultative Group on Counterterrorism which furthers collaboration between agencies and departments of both governments that are involved in the fight against terrorism; and the Canada-U.S. mutual legal assistance treaty and the Canada-U.S.A. extradition treaty which facilitate our ability to work together to fight terrorism.

There are also several domestic laws under my jurisdiction that are relevant to our counterterrorist policies. Hijacking, murder and other acts of violence can be prosecuted under the criminal code. As well, the criminal code has been amended to give Canadian courts the jurisdiction to try terrorist crimes committed abroad to ensure that terrorists are denied sanctuary and brought to justice after the commission of a terrorist crime.

The criminal code already provides powers to law enforcement officers to assist them in protecting and keeping the peace. I have also introduced organized crime legislation, Bill C-24, which is now in the Senate. Provisions in the bill would allow designated law enforcement officers investigating terrorist activity to undertake certain activities that would otherwise be illegal. The measures have been carefully crafted to protect us against and prevent organized crime while at the same time maintaining law enforcement accountability.

Rapidly evolving technologies are being used to shield unlawful activities including terrorism. Although current provisions of the criminal code provide grounds to lawfully intercept communications and to search and seize information in computer systems, new and constantly changing technologies challenge our capacity to do so. We are working to develop better methods to counter the use of information technologies that facilitate and assist terrorist activity.

In addition to these criminal code protections it is my intention to propose amendments to the Official Secrets Act. These will address intelligence gathering activities by foreign states and terrorist groups that could threaten Canada's essential infrastructures.

As well, I am planning to propose amendments to the Canada Evidence Act to better govern the use and protection of information that would be injurious to national security were it disclosed. These amendments would also protect information given to us in confidence by our allies.

As we search for effective means of security, privacy issues will be important. My department has been reviewing the privacy regime in Canada and in the course of this work the balance between the privacy and safety of Canadians will be a key consideration.

The enormity of last Tuesday's tragedy provokes extreme emotions in all of us. We cannot let terrorism and the fear of future terrorist acts justify casting aside the values upon which our great country has been built and from which it derives so much of its strength and richness, democracy, freedom of belief, freedom of political opinion, justice and equality.

As we respond to last Tuesday's attack and as we take measures to ensure our safety and keep Canada free from terrorists we must remember not to blame. As the Prime Minister said, we must remember that we are in a struggle against terrorism, not against any one community or faith. We must reaffirm Canada's fundamental values, the equality of every race, every colour, every religion and every ethnic origin.

Canada's strength lies in its ability to accept difference and to recognize our common humanity. Let us continue to nurture our respect for justice and respect for diversity. We have always governed ourselves by the rule of law, abiding by its even-handed guidance even in the face of brutal actions that belie all that civil society stands for. We must continue to do so.

The rule of law reflected in the laws and conventions I have referred to today is a fundamental part of the framework that will bring the perpetrators of terrorism to justice and preserve the values for which we all stand.

I should have mentioned at the beginning that I am splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Points Of Order

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

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

`justice system participant or journalist),”

Motion No. 4

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

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

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

Motion No. 6

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

“justice system participant or journalist),”

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will briefly discuss the principal amendments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to the debate at third reading.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

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

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

Motion No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

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

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

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

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

Business Of The House

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

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

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

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

[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.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Montcalm who, as has again been demonstrated, is very knowledgeable on this issue, much more so than I am.

The provisions regarding mere memberships in a criminal organization raise the whole issue of proof. They raise the whole issue of the charter. A balance must be struck. Unfortunately, I will be unable to answer the member's question as clearly as he would like, as I am not really knowledgeable about the whole issue and the workings of the bill.

Once again, mere membership only shows an intention and I would like to raise a few questions: proof, the charter, the presumption of innocence. It is a right. People are considered innocent until found guilty, with the exception of income tax and employment insurance. In the justice system, one is innocent until found guilty. In the case of income tax and employment insurance, people are first considered guilty and it is up to them to prove that they are innocent.

However, as far as the provisions regarding mere membership are concerned, I would say that it is one where the whole case law would have to be considered, and the member for Berthier-Montcalm knows much better than I do the difficulty in proving and maybe the possibility to make mistakes.

Then again, Bill C-24 solves many problems concerning definitions and numbers. But will maintaining provisions on the simple fact of being a member not bring back the whole problem of a clear and easily applicable definition? It is something we must keep working on and I certainly hope that all members, including my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, will keep on doing so in committee.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, on a most important issue: Bill C-24 on organized crime.

Before I start, I also wish to recognize the work done by my colleague, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, to inform and educate the caucus about the whole situation concerning this bill and the application of various pieces of legislation on organized crime.

I also wish to recognize the work of the member for Berthier—Montcalm who, for several years, has urged the House, effectively I must say, to raise awareness among elected representatives of the whole issue of organized crime, which, admittedly, has been highly and overly publicized in Quebec. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois has done an excellent job on this issue. During the election, it was the highlight of its platform. This did not translate into more seats, fortunately. But the issue is still important.

I am not a lawyer. Some will say this is good. However, when it comes to organized crime, not being a lawyer, I do not fully understand all the intricacies of this bill. Let us look at the issue in its broader context.

The first time I ever heard the term organized crime—and you will also remember this, Mr. Speaker, since we are about the same age—was during the hearings of the CIOC, the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime. It was in the early 1970s and, for one of the first times, the television stations were on the air for long periods of time broadcasting not the full hearings, but enough so that we could follow what was happening on a daily basis.

On this commission, which generated a lot of changes, sat eminent lawyers, including two who later had political careers at the federal level and another one who left the provincial political arena not too long ago. That just goes to show that it was an important commission that raised awareness about what was called at the time the “mafia” or the “mob”. What we learned from these hearings was absolutely incredible and the governments reacted. The legislation was overhauled.

At the time, we were not necessarily talking about the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machines. We were talking about the Italian mafia, street gangs and American mobsters. The Russian and the Chinese mafia were more or less active, but still an important issue was addressed. A lot of people ended up in jail. Public awareness was raised and both the police and the government acted. A few more mafia figures and mobsters were thrown in jail. That created a vacuum, which was quickly filled.

What we have to realize is that legislation like Bill C-24 will not, by and of itself, solve the whole problem of organized crime. A mere $200 million over five years will not solve the issue. Organized crime is changing.

What happened at the time is that small biker gangs in Quebec began to get together and fill the vacuum. There was a biker gang in just about every town that had a population of a few thousand people. But these gangs moved on to bigger things. They learned the ropes and they got organized, to fill the vacuum and work with the various figures in the mafia and the mobs.

The expression organized crime implies that criminals know how to get organized. This means that we must be smarter—when I say we, I am thinking of the legislators, but also of the law enforcement bodies, of the people involved in the enforcement of these laws and of the members of our justice system, including lawyers, attorneys and judges—and get organized.

An act was passed in 1997, but we quickly found out that it was flawed. During these months and years, organized crime got organized. But the federal government kept waiting, even though it knew there were problems with the 1997 act, which is the most recent one. Now, Bill C-24 will correct some of these flaws.

We on this side of the House realized one thing: the government does not have any vision when it comes to fighting organized crime. The Prime Minister once said “Personally, I do not care about vision and programs. Bring me a problem and I will solve it”. He was recognizing the fact that he lacked vision.

In the case of the Minister of Justice, the problem is glaring. People are shooting and killing each other, innocent victims are getting hurt, but she will not move. There is a consensus in the legal community and among police forces that the minister is not taking action. We had an election campaign but she still was not moving.

Finally, the minister woke up and, at last, she came up with a bill. Thank goodness.

But again, let us not fool ourselves. This is not a perfect piece of legislation. We will give it our support because it is truly a step in the right direction to correct deficiencies. However, because crime gets organised, parliament must also get organized in the next five years to monitor decisions, the jurisprudence, and listen to those in charge of implementing the legislation, the difficulty of the proof, while complying with our Charter.

We opposed the use the notwithstanding clause, as requested by Quebec. We thought it would be excessive, given the judicial and legislative process that the House could use. But we must get organized, and we are able to do so.

The great thing about this legislation is that it will simplify things. We will have to see what happens. Since a judge convicted a number of people under the 1997 legislation—there was a big gang of people indicted under that legislation awaiting trial—many have admitted their guilt. Why? Because they will get sentences which, without being reduced, will be in keeping with the spirit of the act.

So, since the judgement convicting people under the 1997 legislation, dozens and dozens of accused people awaiting trial have recognized their guilt. We are happy with that, because this will save months in detention and loads of money. These people might get away with lighter sentences. Not making out a case restricts the amount of information made available, and there are fewer informers.

This is why it is extremely important that Bill C-24 be passed properly and quickly. Hopefully, the government will listen to what opposition members—whether the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the member for Berthier—Montcalm or some other members of the NDP or the Alliance—have to say. Anything that comes from the opposition is not necessarily bad but, between you and me, things that come from the government are not necessarily good either. There is a middle ground, however.

I hope that the good work of members in support of the government—because members are legislators; we are not here to complain for the sake of complaining, but to legislate—will be taken into consideration and that the minister will listen.

We wish that this bill will be effective. I am not sure that $200 million over five years will be enough. Where does this figure come from? How did the minister come up with $200 million? Was it just because it sounded nice?

I will, if I may, look at the costs before, during, and after the Quebec summit. How much is $200 million? The security costs for two Quebec summits and perhaps one APEC meeting add up to about $200 million. Where did the minister pull out that figure? This budget should be revised annually. We cannot say “Here is $200 million. That is it; now forget about us”. The minister thinks that with $200 million over five years everything will be fine. Is that it?

I want to thank the House for its attention and reiterate the basic principle: if criminals get organized, we must keep one step ahead of them.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code respecting organized crime and law enforcement and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill has two main purposes: first, to provide new tools in the fight against organized crime; and, second, to respond to the 1999 supreme court decision in R. v Campbell and Shirose, which put in doubt the ability of police and police informants to break the law as part of undercover operations aimed at penetrating criminal organizations.

After years of the Reform Party of Canada, now the Canadian Alliance, fighting for tougher laws to help combat gangs and other criminal organizations, the federal Liberals have finally introduced some of the legislation we have been calling for. The fact is that the weak Liberal government lacks the political will to get tough on crime, particularly on organized crime.

It has introduced this legislation because of intense pressure from the official opposition and other opposition parties and because of the pressure from police and the public in general. Combating organized crime was part of the detailed justice platform released during the election campaign by the Canadian Alliance.

The penetration of organized crime into Canadian society is a very serious matter. Criminals move from jurisdictions with strong controls to jurisdictions with weak or no controls. This criminal activity undermines Canada's financial and social systems and increases the power and influence of illegal businesses.

A staggering variety of activities such as extortion, home invasion, murder, theft, drugs and arms trafficking, counterfeit currency and passports, migrant smuggling, prostitution, Mafia, casino and lottery frauds are additional costs to society at the expense of the taxpayer and at the expense of our future. These activities make our streets unsafe.

We in Canada are also concerned that the privacy of Canadian citizens could be unreasonably invaded. There should be sufficient protection and the freedom of law-abiding citizens should be preserved. The loopholes in the system and the law are not plugged in Canada. That is the main problem. Canada is a candy store for these criminals. Unfortunately criminals have the motivation to come to Canada and commit crimes because they consider Canada to be a crime haven.

The blurred vision of the Liberals has caused the dismantling of Vancouver port police. Everyone knows that. This makes the port a gateway for the importation of drugs and narcotics. It opens up the way for criminals and makes their jobs easier rather than tougher. It is a shame that the Liberal government gives international organized criminals VIP treatment while those same criminals, according to the Immigration Act, are supposed to be inadmissible to Canada.

I remember when I was on the immigration and citizenship committee that we introduced a motion to study fraud and criminal activities under the Immigration Act not for general immigrants but for illegitimate and criminal elements coming to the country. Liberal members refused that motion.

Previous legislative attempts to deal with the problem have been ineffective. Bill C-95 did not go far enough in providing the tools needed for the law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime.

Years ago, perhaps in the early 1980s, the government of the day not only ignored the recommendations of the law enforcement agencies but it even refused to acknowledge the existence of organized criminal activities in Canada. Since that time organized crime has significantly increased. Canada has now become a global centre and a haven for organized crime because of its laws.

Whatever the government does now it is too late and too little. The criminals are lightyears ahead of the law enforcement agencies. They have more resources, more money and better state of the art technology while the agencies on the other side even lack the law with tooth and are struggling to maintain yesterday's technology.

A Liberal dominated subcommittee of the justice standing committee on organized crime held in camera hearings on the problem and issued its report just prior to the dissolution of the House. I will talk about that report in a short while.

I also want to mention that I represented the official opposition as a member of the subcommittee on organized crime. Since the hearings were in camera I will not go into detail but will talk about some of the issues that are in the public domain.

It is sad that the recommendations of the subcommittee were not fully implemented through this bill. Even though the committee was a Liberal dominated committee, the bill of course would enhance the fight against organized crime, though not enough, and should not be delayed unduly.

I will now talk about the main features of the bill. There will be longer consecutive sentences for gang activity: up to five years for participating in a criminal organization; 14 years for carrying out indictable offences for the benefit of a criminal organization; and life for being the leader of a criminal organization.

A new definition of a criminal organization would be: only three members required instead of the current five; there is no need to prove that members participated in indictable offences in the five years preceding prosecution and providing that, in addition to indictable offences punishable by five years or more, offences can be prescribed as serious offences.

It is stated that the intention is to cover offences, such as prostitution and gambling, that are controlled by organized crime.

Another point is the protection of justice system participants. Threatening a judge, prosecutor, juror, et cetera, or a member of their family would be punishable by up to 14 years and murdering a justice system participant would be first degree murder.

The next point concerns police immunity. The solicitor general responsible for the RCMP or provincial ministers responsible for the police will be able to designate officers who may, in the course of an investigation, commit offences other than offences causing bodily harm, obstructing justice or sexual offences.

Forfeiture of property would apply to all property used in committing a crime rather than just property especially built to carry out the crime. Judges will have to determine whether the forfeiture is appropriate given the nature of the crime. Presumably a house may not be forfeited if five marijuana plants are found in it but it could be if 500 or 5,000 plants are found in it.

There are still many significant deficiencies in the bill that require further address or amendments. Even many recommendations of the subcommittee have not been addressed in the legislation. I was a member of that committee and it was a Liberal dominated committee.

There are maybe 10 points I want to mention. The relevant elements of existing legislation, resources, investigative and prosecutorial practices, should be deployed to their fullest potential and effective strategy to fill any gaps should have been developed and addressed in the legislation. The committee was concerned about it and it made very clear recommendations about it.

The criminal code should have been amended so that all its provisions related to organized crime activities could have been brought together in a specific part to be entitled enterprise crime, designated drug offences, criminal organizations and money laundering. This recommendation was not followed.

The criminal code should have been amended to allow for the designation of criminal organization offenders in a manner similar to that applicable of dangerous offenders and long term offenders provided for at section 752. This would allow, at the sentencing stage, after a conviction has been obtained, for the imposition of imprisonment for an intermediate period or for long term supervision in the community after a sentence of up to 10 years. The recommendation was not followed.

Section 184 and following the criminal code dealing with judicially authorized audio and video surveillance should have been amended to increase in non-criminal organization offences from 60 days to at least a 120 day period for which such activities could be authorized and renewed. This particular recommendation is very important if the Liberals were to listen to Canadians, to the Canadian Police Association and to front line police officers who are dealing with organized criminals. When police officers need to obtain a particular warrant they have to write about a thousand pages. A lot of work has to be done to obtain a warrant.

Once a warrant has been obtained it is valid for only 60 days, whereas the criminal activity continues for months and years probably. They then have to go back and do all the paper work again in order to obtain a warrant for wiretapping or other things. The recommendation is very important and I hope the justice minister will follow through with it. Since we are debating the bill for the first time, the government has lots of opportunity if it is sincerely listening to this.

The provisions of part VI of the criminal code should have been reviewed and amended so as to streamline and simplify the requirements and practices involved in the judicial approval and renewal of audio and video surveillance as a law enforcement investigative strategy. This recommendation was not followed.

Section 743.6(1.1) of the criminal code should have been amended to allow sentencing judges to order that offenders serve full sentences instead of half the sentences currently served, of incarceration without any form of conditional release in cases where there is evidence that a convicted person committed an offence to the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization.

The criminal code should have been amended so that there was a reverse onus placed on a person convicted of an enterprise crime, a designated substance offence, a criminal organization offence or money laundering whose assets have been seized, to prove that these assets have not been acquired or increased in value as the result of criminal activity. There should be a reverse onus on the criminal rather than on law enforcement agencies to prove that. This is a very important recommendation.

If the convicted person were unable to discharge the burden of proof, as I mentioned, to the satisfaction of the court, these assets should be declared to be forfeited. This recommendation was not followed through.

The Canada Evidence Act should have been amended to codify and simplify the rules related to disclosure. The disclosure rules are so vague that jurisdictions in foreign countries refuse to co-operate with Canadian law enforcement agencies because of our stupid and ineffective disclosure laws.

The human resources expertise and technology levels should be sufficient to effectively combat organized crime. Unfortunately the funding announced by the justice minister today providing only $200 million over five years does not appear adequate and does not come close to the amount needed for frontline law enforcement officials to do their job effectively.

The funds allocated on a yearly basis would not significantly enhance police or prosecution resources when we consider that a relatively simple prosecution could cost as much as $10 million. Those resources are inadequate.

A national tactical co-ordinating committee should have been established to promote the exchange of information and sharing of experiences among field operators in order to fight organized crime. This recommendation made by the subcommittee on organized crime was not followed through again.

Because of lenient disclosure laws in Canada, as I mentioned earlier, law enforcement agencies from other countries refuse to share sensitive information with their Canadian counterparts on organized criminals operating in their country. This jeopardizes our efforts to combat crime and demoralizes our frontline officers.

One of the most disturbing features of the legislation is its failure to make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group already proven to be a criminal organization in Canada. Contrary to the justice minister's suggestions, this provision does not make participation or membership in a criminal organization illegal unless it can be proven that the person had the intention to facilitate illegal transactions for that organization.

The fact that an organization is a criminal organization would have to be proven in each particular case that goes before the court resulting in needless duplication of resources, expertise and prolonged criminal trials.

The bill fails to adequately protect other key players in the fight against crime. In particular, provincial justice ministers, MLAs, MNAs, MPPs are not granted the same level of protection as federal parliamentarians, despite the fact that they are directly responsible for the enforcement of these provisions. They need to implement the law.

We all know the case of Michel Auger who had the courage to stand up against crime and other journalists who were not given protection.

In conclusion, I urge the government to make the legislation tougher, to provide more resources to police and to encourage the aggressive use of the new tools.

In particular, the recommendations of the subcommittee, regarding forfeitures, wire tapping and serving full sentences, have not been addressed or have only been partially met. Therefore, I hope the justice minister will be open to considering amendments that would further streamline the Canadian justice system and would offer Canadians a greater measure of security through the legislation.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak in favour of Bill C-24. I was pleased to listen to the Minister of Justice and I heard the comments made by members of the opposition who seem to have a full understanding of the issue.

If it is not understood in the Canadian public at large, it is well understood in the House by all parties and all speakers that the scale of organized crime in the country and internationally, the magnitude of the threat that it poses to our society, is something of real urgency. The bill addresses it and needs to be passed quickly and put into force.

I would like to speak about the variety and complexity of the problem internationally as well as to individuals, communities, government and private enterprises in Canada.

Internationally there is more than a trillion dollars a year in earned profits from criminal activity worldwide. The figure is growing every year. It has not been hampered and restricted by deficit cutting that governments around the world have had to undergo through the 1990s. These profits have been soaring. In terms of the critical nature of this threat, former President Clinton identified organized crime as the number one threat to national security in the post cold war world.

The citizens of my constituency, Vancouver Quadra, understand the chilling nature of the threat. It is much broader than just gang wars. It involves the supply of drugs to our schools and children. It involves property crime that is attendant on drug addiction which is fed by organized crime. It involves home invasions and the security of our homes. Ten years ago who in our society had heard the chilling terms of terror such as home invasion, carjacking or drive-by shooting? These are new terms of terror which are directly connected to the scourge of organized crime in society.

In terms of our economy, billions of dollars of laundered money are put into our society which is based on a market economy. It is corrupted by them. They debase the vigour of competition in our market economy and threaten our economic viability.

They also threaten our economic institutions. Corruption and organized criminal activity in scams with respect to banks, credit card fraud, telemarketing fraud, insurance fraud and stock market fraud are all part of the growing expanding scourge of organized criminal activity which is sapping the economic strength of the country as well as the safety of our citizens.

In terms of government agencies themselves, we have had troubling information about the infiltration and corruption of people working in government agencies at all levels in Canada and internationally.

These are major challenges for our society. They require new tools, many of which the bill provides. If we think about how we will apply those tools we have to think carefully about the new nature of criminal organizations.

Criminal organizations working in Canada and around the world are no longer monolithic crime families that are suspicious of each other or competitive with each other against criminal projects for turf. Today criminal activity is conducted in a highly networked, complex, flexible and international fashion. Criminal gangs are no longer fighting for turf with each other although that happens, and we know too sadly of the horrors in Quebec of criminal gang wars. However that is not the typical character of organized criminal activity today.

Organized criminal activity works in networks, works in cells across criminal organizations and across borders to uniquely compose a criminal operation across boundaries, gangs and criminal products. It requires a very special approach from law enforcement agencies which is not our traditional approach. It requires those agencies to be more flexible and more resourced in their response. I will be splitting my time.

I would like to comment on the new tools that are necessary and that are being applied by the bill. Monetary resources are needed for police agencies. Those have been provided for over the last two years with increased budgets and there are projected further injections of financial resources for the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies. That is critical.

The bill presents other tools. There will be stiffer penalties for participation in criminal gang activity and broader definitions of what constitutes criminal gangs and criminal activity. There are very important provisions to create the offence of intimidation of officials in the criminal justice system. It is a critical point of protection that is necessary and overdue.

The expanded definitions and increased ability to seize the proceeds of crime are important in the bill. There must be an ability to seize and forfeit property in a fashion that is efficient, quick and hits at the heart of the enterprise nature of organized crime.

The mandatory reporting provisions for suspicious financial transactions are important. Fifteen billion dollars was estimated as the amount of laundered funds from illegal activities in Canada last year.

I will conclude by addressing specifically the unique and changed nature of organized crime in society. It is flexible and networked. It crosses boundaries and is cross organizational. It is necessary to have an integrated and co-ordinated approach across the collection of criminal intelligence, police operations and prosecution of crime. These have to be working as a seamless whole.

The information and intelligence gathering must not be in a secretive closed chest fashion among competing law enforcement agencies. It must be shared in a mandatory fashion, but it must be secure and centrally analyzed. It must be disseminated on a need to know basis and the success and experience of operations have to be fed back into that intelligence system.

The operations themselves must be joint force operations, drawing across law enforcement agencies for the best and the most appropriate resources that can be uniquely composed and targeted on any particular criminal activity. It should then be shut down, redistributed and refocused on other criminal activity if it is to mimic the flexibility and the networks of criminal organizations themselves.

There must be an effective link to intensive prosecution which the bill and the organized criminal justice policy address. Dedicated legal advice must be present at the very earliest stages of an investigation to deal with the incredible complexity of criminal investigations and prosecutions, laws of disclosure, laws of search and seizure, laws of wiretapping, and laws of proceeds of crime. The best legal advice must be used at the beginning of an investigation right through to an intensive prosecution to make sure those prosecutions are successful.

I repeat that organized crime is an immense threat to society. Its magnitude is overwhelming. The bill needs to be passed as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, a new member of our justice committee who brings a great deal of credibility to the debate and great oratorical skill to the House of Commons.

Our party, as are I think all parties without exception, will be supporting Bill C-24. It is somewhat of a reincarnation of legislation we saw in the last parliament. It is very important and timely to the process of dealing with the ongoing plague of organized crime in Canada. It will allow police officers and prosecutors, both through legislation and in some instances through increased resources, to combat and turn their undivided attention in some instances to the growing problem of organized crime.

Neil Young sings of rust never sleeping. Well, crime never sleeps. Crime is unfortunately becoming more and more active in many communities and I am not talking only of the big cities. Crime is becoming prevalent in small towns and rural parts of the country.

We are particularly vulnerable in coastal communities, I hasten to add. Sadly, since the disbandment of the ports police in the country that is even more the case. We are seeing an obvious attempt by organized crime to profit from illicit acts of importation, in many instances of contraband materials. I am talking about drugs, which are the chief trade, as well as guns, pornographic and contraband materials brought into the country under the radar of our current law enforcement capacity. One would hope with the greatest optimism that this legislation will help address, at least in part, this very complex problem.

There is a great need for this legislation. The RCMP, who arguably is the most affected by the issue, is I think cautiously optimistic. The new RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli alluded to the fact that organized crime has plans to use bribes to destabilize the country's parliamentary system. That came as a shocking revelation to many when they read it in the newspapers. It raised eyebrows across the country. It demonstrated the profound epidemic of organized crime and the lengths that organized crime will go to on occasion to exert influence, and I am obviously not talking about a positive influence.

That epidemic has for many years been virtually ignored by the current government. It is therefore very encouraging to see it finally recognize the issue and give it a priority after seven years.

On Tuesday, September 12, 2000, the Quebec public security minister, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause to outlaw membership in gangs such as the Hells Angels and the Rock Machine. Because such a move might be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, he was urging the government to give at least an indication that it would not hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause.

When it comes to organized crime, one thing everyone understands is that it does not play by the rules. It does not abide by the laws, whereas of course law enforcement, prosecutorial services and the government not only have to put laws in place but stay within the boundaries and confines of those laws, and rightly so. Therefore we are sometimes talking about a distinct disadvantage on the part of our system of enforcement vis-à-vis outlaw gangs. Extraordinary times sometimes call for extraordinary action. That is why, I am sure, the suggestion was made that the notwithstanding clause might be invoked in those circumstances.

The Department of Justice clearly suffers from constitutional constipation at times, I think, from this fear that somehow if a law is made that might be deemed unconstitutional we should refrain from enacting it.

This law will be challenged in our courts, as many laws before it have been challenged. That is part and parcel of the process. In particular, I can guarantee that the legislation that expands police powers will be the subject of numerous court challenges. We can bank on it.

We simply cannot hesitate in or refrain from introducing legislation in the fear that somewhere in the land, whether it be in the Supreme Court of Canada or in some other court, a judge may decide that this is not within the bounds of the constitution. That is part of our judiciary. That is part of the process. I guarantee that this legislation will be challenged, like other legislation has been.

However, when dealing with organized crime and the repercussions of having organized crime go unchecked we sometimes have to make laws that expand the current envelope and go beyond the realm of what has been the normal practice.

While the Quebec minister was expressing these concerns, on the very next day, September 13, the day after the call from the security minister of Quebec, Mr. Michel Auger, a journalist in Montreal with the Journal de Montréal , was shot five times in the back. This was most likely the action of and has been attributed widely to outlaw motorcycle gangs. I am informed that it was likely the act of someone who wanted to join one of the gangs and was part of the movement to get in, to show somehow that this person had what it takes to be involved in this type of activity. They are sometimes the most dangerous, these puppet groups, these individuals who are trying to ingratiate themselves, to earn their patch so to speak. Mr. Auger's fate and the fate of many others who have expressed opposition to organized crime and have raised the spectacle of somehow trying to get this issue under control has been that they have sometimes faced the wrath of the gangs themselves.

Criminal gangs are far-reaching now. They are branching out. As I said in my opening remarks, they are found in communities across the country, whether they be rural or urban. Many Canadians are starting to feel particularly unsafe because of this audacious presence. In the city of Halifax, there are many people who are very concerned. Individuals such as Matt Jardine and others who live in Halifax are concerned about what is happening in their city.

An outlaw motorcycle gang, the Hells Angels, now has its colours flying in radiant lights in front of its clubhouse in the city of Halifax. This is the affront to democracy. It is an affront to policing and the safe, secure feeling that people should have in their communities.

There is a real need for this legislation. Again, it is encouraging that it is being brought forward now. The minister often uses the phrase in a timely fashion, and this has been timely for many years. The time is here and we are encouraged by that.

Organized crime also is becoming very prevalent in many circles where it was traditionally unseen, such as the Internet. The Hells Angels, I am told, have one of the largest Internet sites available. It is information that is now transmitted through cyberspace, not only across this country but across the United States, North America and the world. That is very disturbing. Obviously the ability to transport information can be an extremely positive thing, but organized crime can use it for a very nefarious purpose, so there is certainly a need for legislation in that area at some future time. It is not addressed by this legislation.

The bill has taken on a very broad background, if we will, in terms of what types of organized crime we are dealing with. Eastern bloc European gangs have emerged, such as the traditional Mafiosa-Italian connections, and there are the snakehead organizations, Chinese triads, Oriental groups that are forming gangs and the traditional so-called motorcycle gangs, which are, as I have said, becoming more prevalent.

The Minister of Justice gave repeated assurances to study options for strengthening our current legislation to break the back of organized crime. Although some of those details were not discussed publicly, we do know that attempts were made to introduce legislation in 1997. We see it coming back now in this form. The minister reiterated this in her comments.

I do applaud her. I applaud the minister's initiative in bringing forward this legislation now. It has finally received priority and would allow those administering it, mainly the provinces and the law enforcement community, to attack the issue and to attack the underbelly of these gangs. In particular, this legislation allows for greater use of attacking the proceeds of crime, that is, going after the actual resources of organized crime and taking away the flow of money and the benefits received from illegal acts.

It also very clearly and specifically simplifies the definition and the composition of criminal organizations for purposes in a court. The bill targets various degrees of involvement within organizations, that is, it attaches the type of activity that is deemed to be participation in a criminal organization. Sometimes that is just watching. Sometimes it could be the person working on a dock in Halifax who turns a blind eye to an importation or to a boxcar coming in with illicit contraband material.

The legislation also would make it easier for police and prosecutors to arrest and jail those involved in organized crime and keep them in prison for longer periods of time. There is a greater element of deterrence, both specific and general, at work in the bill for those who choose this path.

The bill would allow law enforcement officials to declare forfeit the proceeds of crime from organizations, to seize the property and to perhaps put that resource back into the community that has been harmed. It allows law enforcement officers to seize things like houses, boats, cars and money and to allow the resource that has been pillaged and raped from a community to go back into it and perhaps benefit it and try to rehabilitate some of the harm that has been done.

The legislation would also strengthen rules protecting against intimidation of witnesses, jurors and their families at organized crime trials. It would strengthen the protection for federal ministers and members of parliament. It would improve protection for law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit certain illicit acts while engaging in undercover operations.

One thing missing from the legislation and which has been pointed out by several members today is that it does not include provincial ministers. I believe that was perhaps a legislative oversight. I am certain it is something that can be corrected at committee.

In particular, the provisions in this bill send a very important signal that the Parliament of Canada is not going to sit back and rest on the laurels of the fine men and women who are currently working in our justice system, but that it is actually going to bolster support for them and enhance their ability to do their job and their ability to protect us, because it is that thin blue line, as it is sometimes called, that the police provide to the citizens of Canada.

We are supportive of the amendments that deal with taking away the proceeds of the crime, taking away the lifeblood. There are very positive amendments to this bill that could be tightened up. Again, hopefully we will have an opportunity to do that in the process.

Of course I mentioned the absence of protection for provincial ministers. There is also perhaps some need to protect journalists in some instances, as we saw with Mr. Auger.

There is a problem with respect to the funding for the legislation. That in and of itself is perhaps its greatest weakness. The legislation has come about, typically, with great fanfare and with announcements made in the press gallery. I think the minister has had her knuckles rapped a little in that regard. The legislation announces $200 million to address this specific problem. That comes as great news to those in law enforcement and was met with great enthusiasm by the commissioner of the RCMP and others.

However, the question, the next natural progression of that, is this: when will the money come? There were references in that very press conference to the earlier announcement of $584 million to the RCMP to upgrade CPIC, to allow for greater resources, to allow for more overtime, to allow for resources and for perhaps greater access to justices of the peace or greater access to informants. They are all important elements of the police task in protecting Canadians.

When will the money arrive? It would be very interesting to hear from the minister or members of the government how much of that $580 million, the earlier announcement, has actually been put into the coffers of the police. I suspect that the same question will be asked of this $200 million in very short order, because they are crying out for those resources. The police are desperately in need of the financial support. It is fine to make the announcement, to give the moral support here, but they need the actual resources and they need them immediately. That is a question that has yet to be answered.

There is a positive starting point here. There is certainly a determined commitment on the part of the government and on the part of all members of parliament. This has affected individual members of parliament. A member of the Bloc found himself in a very unsettling position, I am sure, when he was the subject of threatening actions on the part of an outlaw motorcycle gang.

The limitless resources of the organized criminal element highlight the fact that the police are often left feeling that they are not on a level playing field legislatively because of their limitations within the law. However, they are also under the increased pressure because organized crime has unlimited resources and is essentially using more and better technology than is available to the police. Members of organized crime are watching the watchers. They are using videotape to tape the police to find out who is watching them. They are transmitting information about judges, about prosecutors and about police. They are sharing information about undercover officers. They are using the Internet to its maximum benefit.

This is the brave new era. This is an age wherein we should be giving the police the tools and the technology to fight organized crime on the same level that organized crime is using. Typically we have seen the government try to fix a problem that in some instances it created. I refer to the ports police. There have also been severe cuts to the RCMP in the past number of years. Clearly the RCMP was suffering budgetary restraints when it had to close its training facility in Saskatoon. Clearly when the Canadian Police Information Centre computer system was almost on the verge of collapse without an immediate influx of money, it was symptomatic of underfunding on the part of our national police force. Bill C-24 would not provide this immediate injection of funding.

There are, as I indicated, elements and commitments that we are very supportive of. What we want to see and what we want to diligently pursue is that the funding is actually going to be there. There are clauses in the bill like, for example, clause 27 at page 29, which talks about the definition of criminal organization. It now needs to be composed of three or more persons and the crown now does not need to show that the offences were committed in the previous five years.

Some of the legislation may seem technical and inconsequential to the untrained ear, but this is very important for the crown and for the police working in cohort to secure convictions. We saw a very recent sting operation in the province of Quebec and parts of Ontario that resulted in individuals being rounded up and charged. There are potentially charges there that will not be affected by the introduction of this legislation, but in the future certainly it will help in the successful prosecution of these types of offences.

One problem that I have picked up on is that Bill C-24 fails to make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group already proven to be a criminal organization. Whether or not an organization is criminal would have to be proven in each particular case, that is, it would create needless expense in some instances and a duplication of resources that would prolong many criminal trials.

There is a general consensus that the legislation is positive. Much of the technical examination of the issue came about as a result of the Shirose and Campbell case that dealt with immunity. It dealt with police officers having the ability to infiltrate crime through in some instances buying illicit substances like drugs and participating in questionable conduct themselves to prove allegiance and to prove that they were working with the gang to gain its trust so that they could break it up.

This is something that raises concern among lawyers and privacy protectors. There will be an examination by a court of law to see that it is in proportion, that it is reasonable in the circumstances. These are the types of matters that we could try to fine tune.

It will no doubt result in court challenges and that should be welcomed. Members should embrace that reality. It is our responsibility to make laws and it is the responsibility of the courts to examine and interpret those laws in some cases.

With regard to the intimidation factor, it is very important that there be as broad a definition as possible for who should be protected from intimidation. Trials cannot function if jurists, lawyers, witnesses, and in some instances police, are feeling intimidated. Intimidation and extortion are things that gangs deal in very much. They put fear into the minds of people if they come forward to testify against gang members.

I am hopeful the minister and the government will be open to certain amendments, further examination and strengthening of the legislation. I trust all members would be supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-24, since the Bloc Quebecois has argued for such a bill.

It was one of the Bloc Quebecois' issues throughout the election campaign. In truth, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for years for a law with teeth to effectively fight organized crime.

Before speaking about the bill specifically, I have an aside to make. I listened attentively to the speech by the Minister of Justice, and I must say I was rather disappointed by it, not because I was expecting congratulations from the minister for myself or the Bloc Quebecois on our tenacity in this matter, quite honestly I was not expecting that, but I think she left out big chunks of this story. Today, she is gloating, she is proud of tabling a bill like this, but we have to look at what led the minister to table this bill. I think it worthwhile to point out a few things.

Among other things, she spoke of a certain justice committee that studied the question. Indeed, the standing committee on justice did examine the whole question of organized crime. Why did the committee deliberate on this issue? Simply because we took one of the Bloc Quebecois' opposition days to introduce a motion to convince the Liberal government opposite, the government the minister represents as the Minister of Justice, to convince this government it was time and important for the House to consider the problem of organized crime and to try to come up with solutions.

It took a day of debate, a number of oral question periods and, following a unanimous vote by the House of Commons, the matter of organized crime was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so proposals could be made to the government. The minister seems to have forgotten that part.

I also mentioned having questioned the minister on a number of occasions, which I did again during this session. Barely three weeks before the minister decided to introduce antigang legislation, the bill before us today, she answered one of my questions here in this House to the effect that the criminal code contained all that was needed to fight organized crime. Three weeks before introduction of the bill, the minister was telling us that the criminal code and related legislation did not require amending in any way for there to be an effective campaign against organized crime.

Hon. members will understand that I am delighted to have convinced the minister to introduce such a bill, but they will agree with me that its maternity, or perhaps paternity, is open to question. I have often said that the minister did not understand the matter in the least. She has demonstrated not only her total lack of understanding but also her lack of monitoring of the matter, by stating a scant three weeks before this bill was introduced that it was not necessary to change the rules relating to organized crime.

We have before us a highly complex bill. I imagine the minister herself has not worked very hard on this bill, not to know of its existence three weeks ago. A bill like this cannot be drafted overnight. However, since we in the Bloc Quebecois are good sports, I congratulate the minister on having finally got the message.

On this particular issue, the Bloc Quebecois has more than once extended a hand to the minister in the hope that she would decide to amend the rules having to do with the whole issue of organized crime in order to give the police and the justice system the tools they are demanding.

The House is aware that the Bloc Quebecois was pushing for changes. People in the community, in the Quebec nation, in the rest of Canada as well, were also calling on the minister to make such changes.

I would have liked to see the minister showing some thought for these people in her speech at second reading of Bill C-24 to amend the criminal code.

I would have liked the minister to recognize that there were people, some of them in Quebec, who fought to have the law amended. Some people in Quebec even lost their lives in this fight.

This is a part of the whole issue that the minister seems to have forgotten, because she did not thank or even congratulate or pay tribute to these people. I will do so; it will be brief. However, I would like to say something about all the work and energy that people put into fighting, often quite resolutely, to convince the minister to make these changes.

As we know, in the 1990s, 1997 I think, in Montreal, an 11-year old called Daniel Desrochers lost his life in a bomb explosion connected to the biker gang wars that were going on at the time in Quebec.

The torch was picked up by family and friends and by the Bloc Quebecois member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who worked to convince the Government of Canada to change the criminal code. I must pay tribute to their efforts and tell them that they have contributed to the changes we have here today.

I would also like to salute and to thank Michel Auger, the reporter on a Quebec daily newspaper who used his pen to awaken the people of Quebec, the Quebec nation, and the people across the way here as well, to this scourge. He did not back down, and this needs to be recognized. Mr. Auger refused to back down and continued to say no to violence.

Then there was a young man in the riding of Terrebonne. The late Francis Laforêt stood up to organized crime and said “No”. He was a bar owner. A gang wanted to take over control of his bar. He said “No crooked dealings in my bar, there will be no drug dealing under my roof. You are not gaining control here. No way”.

Hon. members know the rest. He was beaten to death with baseball bats and goodness knows what else. The young Francis Laforêt lost his life. I have spoken with his family and friends and they too said no to violence, “No way are we going to let ourselves be pushed around by organized crime”. All these people, including Mr. Laforêt's parents, friends and brother, took action, prepared petitions, kept track of the issue and pressured municipal and federal governments and also members of parliament to get zoning regulations.

In the end, these people too made a contribution by saying “no” to violence and intimidation and “yes” to democracy. They helped convince the Minister of Justice or rather her department and those who drafted this bill. The determination shown by these people was such that officials decided to continue to work on this issue.

This is part of history, part of that period. This is why Bloc Quebecois members have shown such an interest in this issue. One must realize the importance of this issue.

Looking at the government's own documents, we can see that organized crime is not a new phenomenon. It is not something that caught the government off guard because it was not aware of it. The government is well aware of what is going on.

In fact, the RCMP did a study on organized crime and on the ins and outs of the war that has developed in Quebec in recent years. According to the documents I had this morning, the RCMP figured that, for the 1994-98 period alone, 79 murders were related to the bikers' war. This number does not apply to the whole of organized crime.

During that period, 79 murders and 89 attempted murders were related to the drug trade and to the wars between Quebec biker gangs, in addition to 129 instances of arson and over 80 bombings. These are figures that the minister knew or should have known. Both the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice must have known about the situation, just as they must know that the drug trade is exceedingly lucrative for those who are involved in it.

The Quebec provincial police estimates that the Hell's Angels alone made profits of $100 million last year. The drug trade, from coast to coast in Canada, represents some $5 billion. The government opposite has known or should have known this for a very long time. I was elected in October 1993 and have known about this since 1994.

Despite the questions, motions, opposition interventions and all that has gone on, the government did not budge. Finally the pressure reached such a pitch that the department decided to go ahead.

Had the minister or the ministers who followed one another,— because since 1993-94 there has been more than one federal Minister of Justice—had the ministers acted more quickly, lives could certainly have been saved. Fewer bombs would have exploded and fewer fires would have been lit. But no, it took until 2001 for such a bill.

Organized crime can be found everywhere. Naturally, it is to be found in the bars and in the world of prostitution. On the fringes, organized crime can be found in the scourge of the illegal sale of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages and in illegal casinos, because there is a market for it. There are similar places. There are also high interest loans too. There is the whole question of drugs. I hope the minister knows as well that they are not just found in the street now, but in almost all the schools. Young people are regularly offered these drugs. As well, there is the whole question of cornfields and farmers.

It does not take boy scouts to be able to plant entire fields of marijuana and to intimidate farmers. Organized crime is behind that. A look at the map of Quebec makes it very clear—and this is what all Bloc Quebecois MPs from this region are also saying—that there are many such crops. Many farmers are complaining about this situation. Once again, I repeat, this is not a recent development. The Minister of Justice has never seen fit to act. Fortunately, the opposition and the people of Quebec have stood firm and argued their case and today, finally, we have a bill.

Is it a real anti-gang bill? Is it what the Bloc Quebecois members would have liked to see? After looking it over, I would say that approximately 80% of the bill reflects the comments and answers given to questions put by Bloc Quebecois members to the minister in recent years. This means that 80% of this bill is a victory for the Bloc Quebecois, and we are most pleased.

This does not mean, however, that we are going to sit on our laurels and that we will not try to amend the bill further. We are going to try to convince the minister on certain points, as the House will see a little later.

As for whether or not this is really an anti-gang law, that will depend on how it is enforced. However, I think we are actually starting to have something more closely resembling such a law. With such legislation, we are starting to have tools which will make it possible to mount an effective campaign against organized crime.

People probably remember all the seizures made in Quebec under the existing provincial legislation, not the bill being debated today, but the existing Quebec legislation behind Opération Printemps 2001, which resulted in more than 160 arrests in 74 municipalities in Quebec. Millions of dollars were seized in the form of luxury vehicles, drugs and cash. It was a very successful operation.

With respect to the operation per se, we can congratulate the police on a job well done. I would like to take this opportunity to commend them for their professionalism. However, we have to wait and see how many of the some 160 people arrested and charged with murder, attempted murder, corruption and other offences under the Food and Drugs Act will be found guilty.

This is why I think that, if the minister had acted sooner, Opération Printemps 2001 would have been conducted under new and much clearer and stricter provisions providing for harsher sentences, something we in the Bloc, as well as the police and the public have been asking for for some time now. Once again, the minister turned a deaf ear.

What provisions of this bill should we be thankful for? In 1997, when the then justice minister amended the criminal code to show that the government was doing something to fight organized crime, a definition of a criminal organization was provided and a criminal organization offence was created.

I remember very well that we had some concerns about those provisions, as we maintained that they would be hard to enforce because the onus was put first on the police, to carry out their investigations, and then on the crown prosecutors to convince the judge beyond any reasonable doubt that the people charged were guilty of being part of a criminal organization.

We used to talk about the three fives rule. In other words, to be able to indict somebody for an organized crime offence, we had to prove and still have to prove, because this is still in effect, that a group of five people had committed an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for five years and that these five people had acted this way for five years. Of course, it had to be proven too that these five people knew that they were breaking the law.

That was a very heavy burden. The Bloc Quebecois asked the minister, among other things, whether she would change these rules. I remember distinctly that she stated in the House that it was not necessary, because it was easy to prove all of that, that crown prosecutors could prove it. At one point, she even asked us to present our suggestions to her if we had something in mind.

On June 1, 1999 after several attempts to negotiate with her, I made up my mind that I had to put this on paper and send it to her.

Strangely enough, the definition on my document of June 1, 1999 is almost identical to the one in Bill C-24. The minister finally understood that the three fives rule was difficult to enforce. Only three people, and not five, are now needed in order to have a criminal organization, just as I suggested on June 1, 1999.

Ideally, we could have dropped it to two people, as we did for conspiracy. But I compromised on June 1, 1999 in order to try to speed things up. I imagine that things were going along, but the minister was not necessarily working at the same speed, because that was not when we got the bill.

In Bill C-24, the whole matter of membership in a criminal organization and the definitions relating to that part of the bill have therefore been modified, simplified for the better in order to be in a position to make a case.

Under the bill, gang membership has been reduced to three people from five. We now have the whole business of contribution to activities that assist a criminal organization to attain its criminal objectives.

I am pleased with this definition, which is far more complex in the bill than the way I am stating it, and hon. members will agree with me. I am just giving the main thrust for purposes of understanding. It will be easier for us to be able to collar various people whom we are not able to touch at the present time.

I am thinking for instance of all the people involved in recruiting new members to be taken into “gang school”. Before, there was nothing we could do. That was one of the things we pointed out. Now with the new definitions and the way the bill is worded, we will be able to collar someone based merely on the fact that he is participating in a criminal organization or contributing to the advancement of a criminal organization, able to establish evidence of this and to see him do time for it. We are going to be able to put him away where he can do no more harm to the public.

Then there is the whole matter of participating in the perpetration of acts of gangsterism. This is very important and merits particular attention, because this is now an offence with a 14-year prison sentence attached.

Furthermore, when the department changed section 477 of the criminal code, one of our concerns was that such a definition would prevent us from ever arresting the leaders. These leaders do not commit the thefts, they do not kill, they do not sell drugs. So, we had no means to put them behind bars.

The question was “Will the minister change the criminal code to be able to arrest gang leaders?” At that time, she answered “We have all the necessary provisions in the criminal code to arrest gang leaders and to prosecute them”.

She will not admit it today, but she probably knew then that I was right and that there was still something missing in the criminal code, since Bill C-24 now defines clearly what a gang leader is. She even added a definition of criminal organization leader. That is to be able to arrest those leaders. To show the importance of these provisions, there is a life sentence attached to them.

Again, I congratulate the minister for the change, since it is clearly something we requested and about which I asked questions in the House. I congratulate the minister, but we are in 2001 and she should have done it in 1999, when I gave her written documents. When questioned, the minister should have given us a positive answer. It is not because something comes from the opposition that it is necessarily bad.

Some members on the other side were very surprised by my reaction to Bill C-24. They were quite surprised to hear me say that this was a good bill. Actually, 80% of its content corresponds to what we asked for. This is what we wanted. It is a good bill, but we will nevertheless try to improve it. However, when a good bill is introduced, I have always taken the time to say so in the House and to congratulate those who deserve it. But when a bill is not good, I have never refrained from saying so.

I would like to say as an aside that the Young Offenders Act, for instance, is a bad bill for Quebec. I go right ahead and say so. However, this does not stop me from acknowledging good bills, like the one we have before us.

We definitely support the provisions on participation in a criminal organization and the definitions of a gang because the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for those provisions for a long time.

We have also been asking for measures to protect people in the justice system against intimidation, which criminal groups have frequently used against them. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have personally been the targets of intimidation when they were working on this issue and pushing it. Members of juries in some proceedings were also victims of intimidation.

We have also witnessed intimidation of people who were interfering with the business dealings, like drug dealings and other similar activities, of criminal groups. We definitely support protection against intimidation for people connected with the justice system.

However, I think the department has forgotten certain things. As the justice critic for the Canadian Alliance pointed out, and as I said in press conferences, I fail to understand why the Quebec minister of justice or the Quebec minister of public security would not be granted the same protection against intimidation by these groups when senators do have this legal protection. Intimidating a senator or a member of the House of Commons is an offence, but the same does not apply to MLAs. This is certainly an oversight on the part of the department, which we will try to correct in committee.

What about journalists? We have the best example in Quebec with Michel Auger. I think he has done more on this issue than anyone else, with his writing. He tried to convince people that we needed anti-gang legislation. He reported the facts. This is very democratic. We saw the intimidation directed against Mr. Auger. But there is nothing with regard to that in this bill.

A person accused and convicted of intimidating someone associated with the justice system is liable to 14 years imprisonment. I am sure there are members opposite who will say “Yes, but there is section 423, which provides that any attempt to intimidate an individual in the justice system, in a general way—”. Indeed, journalists could perhaps be covered by this section, like MNAs or the members of another provincial legislature. But it is a maximum of five years. So it is clearly less serious when it involves these people. I sincerely believe this too must be changed.

I believe there is another group the department has forgotten, our elected municipal officials. During the House of Commons' two week break, I worked on site, as they say. I did not just meet the mayors in my riding but, on a related matter, I had discussions with mayors across Quebec. To name but one, since he was a pioneer in the whole issue of zoning bunkers in his own municipality, the mayor of Blainville. He said that there had been intimidation as well as threats and all sorts of things, and he has no protection.

I think another segment of the population has been forgotten in this definition, the members of municipal councils. There is surely a way to draft this article to include more people and for those trying to intimidate them to be liable to imprisonment for 15 years.

There is protection as well for the members of a jury. This is very important and something we in the Bloc Quebecois have long been asking for.

The whole definition of criminal organization has been simplified. In addition, there will be a special way to calculate sentences for persons found guilty of gangsterism. This is a step forward. It is no longer a requirement to prove that the individuals knew they had been committing indictable offences over the previous five years. This whole notion of the number of years has been completely eliminated, and so has the number of years in prison. This applies not only to crimes punishable by five years in prison but to all other crimes.

We only have to think about prostitution or drug trafficking in bars, for which there was no maximum punishment of five years or more and therefore were not covered by the current definition of criminal organization under the criminal code. Today with these amendments they will be covered.

Here again the Bloc Quebecois had been asking for a broadening of the definition in order to better target those who carry out a reign of terror against those individuals within the organizations.

Then there is the whole issue of the seizure and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. However, in this respect we believe the department could have introduced much more relevant and daring amendments. We believe the department did not go far enough in terms of the legislative tools it is giving the courts, the police and the penal system as a whole. There is still work to be done in this respect even though progress has been made.

We are so far behind and we have so few tools to successfully fight organized crime that any change, no matter how small, must be welcomed and applauded. But while we are at it with the help of experts to draft something that is defendable and enforceable and is what the people want, we might as well do it right. We really have to look at the whole issue.

There is one matter that scares several people, namely the amendments aimed at protecting the officers in charge of enforcing the anti-gang law. Now, a police officer investigating very specific crimes such as the trafficking of human beings, alcohol, tobacco or firearms smuggling, heinous crimes, international terrorism, crimes against the environment and everything related to drug offences, will at last be able to commit acts otherwise illegal were it not for that protection.

So that members can really understand what I am talking about, I will give an example. Criminal groups, be it biker gangs, the Italian network, Chinese triads or the Russian mafia, which is also present in Canada, are well organized. They have made it very difficult for the police to infiltrate them. Very often, in those biker gangs whose methods we are more familiar with, to determine if a new member going up every step in the organization is trustworthy and is one of them, the leader will ask him to commit certain illegal acts.

The bill says that an investigating officer could commit certain acts without fear of prosecution. This is not protection at large; murder, rape, acts of violence and so on are excluded. This is for very specific offences. For example, in a biker gang operating a large drug market, an undercover officer could be asked to sell drugs. That is an illegal act. Without protection, the police officer could be liable to prosecution for that. Yet he must do so to be accepted as a member of the biker gang, get to know more and possibly gather enough information to prosecute the guilty parties.

This is very much a societal issue. It is a complex matter and it could lead to abuse. We must be very careful in implementing the law. However, if we want to fight organized crime effectively, we must have such tools.

Some countries go much further than that, but we should begin by looking at their experience and see how this is done, see how things work and what the results will be over time. This is a step in the right direction, albeit a very small one in terms of both the offences and the people.

If memory serves, the Minister of Justice once tabled a white paper on the issue of granting immunity to any public official during the course of any investigation which is even more encompassing. At the time, my initial reaction was “They want a police state. This makes no sense. We must restrict that, we must establish a framework, we must set limits”.

Again, the minister seems to have listened. This is not a common occurrence, but we should mention it when she does so. Or else it is the department that listened to what I said, so that today such immunity is only granted to peace officers conducting investigations in very specific areas. It is very limited in scope. It is something.

Where I have questions and am anxious to hear what the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice, who will certainly be appearing before the committee, have to say about this issue—I say this up front so they can be ready—is when it comes to giving the political arm authority to make such actions legal. Under the proposed legislation, the solicitor general would authorize such actions. Truly, if there is one thing that must not be mixed with politics, it is the law.

It would be a kindness to the minister to tell her that she is on the wrong track, that this should be left up to the courts, as is now the case for wiretapping, for certain very specific seizures outside normal court hours. It could be a judge who, as part of an investigation and upon presentation of evidence, gives authorization. It could be ex parte. It could be various ways of speeding up authorization. But it must be someone who is independent of the political arm. It must be a judge who gives authorization and who oversees the result.

This is one amendment we are going to try to make when this bill comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Generally speaking, it is not what is in the bill that is causing a problem but much more what is not. With this in mind, I think that it will be easier to work with officials of the Department of Justice and try to convince them to make certain additions to the bill.

I will conclude by saying that one thing is certain and that is that those enforcing the legislation must also be given the necessary money. It is all very fine and well to have a well-drafted bill, but the necessary money must be there for them to enforce it.

In Quebec, we have shown that when the police were given adequate financial support, they were able to do an effective job of combating organized crime, as they did in the Opération Printemps 2001, a major cleanup operation. We should continue in this vein by passing this bill.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the new organized crime legislation, Bill C-24.

I was struck by the almost desperate plea that the Minister of Justice made to the House to pass the legislation. The matters I heard her raise, discuss and urge upon the House are things my party and its predecessor the Reform Party have been saying for years. They have been desperately asking the House to bring forward legislation to address organized crime. Over and over again Liberal members have simply stonewalled or refused to bring forward legislation.

I must say that I am relieved to see after years of the opposition fighting for more effective laws to help combat gangs and other criminal organizations that the federal Liberals have finally woke up.

During the election they realized that organized crime was an issue. Suddenly the government said that it better do something because there was a danger to our country and to our institutions. It said that police officers were having a difficult time coping and the courts were overwhelmed by the issue of organized crime. I therefore note, with a bit of bewilderment, that the Liberals finally woke up.

I thank the minister for bringing the bill forward because there are some very good things in it. I know the minister is also very open to ideas and prides herself in listening, discussing and accepting recommendations from time to time.

I am relieved that the government is finally acknowledging that organized crime is a serious problem. The rest of the country has been saying this for many years. It is no secret, although to the Liberal caucus it was a bit of a secret, that the level of activity of criminal organizations has increased substantially in recent years, posing a severe risk to public safety and security. Not only has there been an increase in the level of activity. There has also been an increase in the intensity of violence including bombing, threats and intimidation.

The extent of collaboration within and among criminal groups has broadened greatly. The available technology has improved their ability to conduct organized crime by leaps and bounds. Over the years Canada has become a very attractive place for these types of criminals. According to the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, CISC, “virtually every major criminal group in the world is active in Canada”.

Antonio Nicaso, a well known organized crime specialist and author, has said that Canada has become one of the world's most important centres for global crime syndicates in part because of federal regulations and laws. He has stated that prior to Bill C-22 it was harder to import cheese into Canada due to the restriction of the minister of agriculture than it was to import a suitcase full of money.

The RCMP commissioner has said recently that for the first time there are signs of criminal organizations which are so sophisticated they are actually focusing on destabilizing certain aspects of our society.

Our party has long recognized these frightening indications and for years as the Reform Party and now the Alliance we have been calling for changes in the way the government should approach organized crime.

Over the past few years there have been a few halfhearted attempts by the government to adapt our laws to help fight these criminals. Just before the 1997 election the Liberal government pushed through parliament amendments to the criminal code that were intended to fight organized crime. However, because it was so last minute the opposition was not able to hear from witnesses to determine whether the proposed legislation would be effective.

The Canadian Police Association stated that Bill C-95 did not go far enough to provide police and prosecutors with the tools to fight organized crime. There were a few, some estimate perhaps under five, ineffective prosecutions under the bill.

Even the justice minister at the time said during the debate that he did not claim the bill represented everything needed to fight organized crime but that it was just the first step. Under intense pressure from not only opposition politicians but also from police and other concerned members in the community, the government has finally introduced some of the long needed legislation for which we have been calling.

Our party welcomes many of the proposals in the new bill, but a number of significant deficiencies in the legislation still require further amendment to adequately address the problem of gang participation and violence.

The most disturbing feature of the legislation is its failure to make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group already proven to be a criminal organization. Contrary to the suggestions of the Minister of Justice, this provision does not make participation or membership in a criminal organization illegal unless it can be proven that the person had the intention to facilitate illegal transactions for that organization.

The fact that an organization is criminal would have to be proven in each particular case over and over again. It would result in needless duplication of resources, expenses and the prolongation of criminal trials, which would again have an impact upon the court system and its resources.

Members often think that all we have to do is pass a law in the House and things will change. In the real world things are not that simple. As a minister of justice of a provincial government I actually had to carry out the laws that parliamentarians passed. The reality is not simply the law. The reality is the resources that must be provided to make even the best legislation effective.

Last fall my colleagues in the Bloc put forward a supply motion that called for parliament to make it a crime to belong to a criminal organization. The Liberal government argued that such a provision might be considered unconstitutional. However, making illegal participation in a group that has been proven to be a criminal organization is a reasonable limit on freedom of association and other freedoms in the charter.

When the primary if not the sole purpose of such an association is to commit illegal acts, the safety and security of private citizens may reasonably supersede the individual rights of the persons conspiring to commit these acts or participating in these organizations.

I ask the House to bring the Bloc proposal forward as was suggested earlier. What is the fear of bringing the proposal forward? Is it that it might be unconstitutional? If the courts do not believe that our citizens are deserving of this protection, let them tell us so.

We should not settle for second best because the Liberal government is frightened to pass the legislation that it needs to pass. The courts should tell us and we will respect the courts. If the courts believe citizens are not entitled to that protection then parliament must listen to what the courts say.

Certain members think what I am saying is funny. It is not funny. A member across the way laughs about what I am doing. I take the seriousness of the situation to heart and members have a responsibility for the safety and security of our citizens. If members opposite want to joke about that, let them joke. I can take that.

Another equally disturbing fact about the bill is the serious lack of funding and resources that has plagued and continues to plague the administrators of our justice system. Frontline officers fighting to get these criminals prosecuted have been effectively handcuffed with a serious lack of resources.

Criminal organizations have the best possible tools. They have state of the art technology. They have access to millions of dollars derived from illegal activities to fund their activities. Meanwhile our frontline police officers struggle to maintain existing technology. They are unable to adapt to new and emerging technologies because of insufficient funding.

Funding has become a vital issue in our continuing fight against the sophisticated and wealthy organized crime syndicates. Organized crime investigations are themselves resource intensive, costly, highly technical, lengthy and complex.

When the bill was first introduced over two weeks ago the justice minister announced a mere $200 million of funding. To me and the average citizen $200 million is a lot of money. The government continually includes an amount of money in a package announcement as though the money is immediately available. That is not correct.

The amount is spread over five years. It does not come close to the amount that is needed for frontline law enforcement officials to do their jobs effectively. When one looks at the $200 million over five years and where the money will go, it will not be to local police forces in Winnipeg, Calgary or Vancouver that actually do the investigations. Some of it will go to the RCMP, and we applaud that. What concerns me about the $200 million is that it will not go to the places it needs to go in terms of frontline investigation and help for the police.

I speak from experience and knowledge having dealt with that matter when I was minister of justice for a provincial government. The need to fight organized crime in whatever form we find it is a constant concern. Another concern is the lack of resources available at the provincial level and the reluctance of the federal government to put its money where its mouth is. From time to time the government comes up with bills and makes impassioned speeches to the House to pass the legislation. We agree that the legislation should be passed but we need to make it effective legislation. How do we actually carry it out? We cannot simply stand here in Ottawa and say that we have now given the tools when we pass the legislation.

We need to financially support our front line police officers. If we are not prepared to do that then all our speeches, our legislation and the studies and the years that have gone into the legislation were all for naught.

When one considers the annual RCMP expenditures alone in one year, the $200 million extra to fight organized crime is a drop in the bucket. If this was all going to front line RCMP officers it would be a good start, but everyone here in the House realizes that is not where it is going.

We are not even talking about the municipal police forces that carry out the mandate of parliament when we pass legislation. Who will help the Toronto police force or the maritime municipal police forces that have a very real interest in protecting their citizens against this pernicious criminal activity?

Even though the introduction of additional funding by the government gives the appearance of a substantive and immediate injection of funds, the funds allocated on a yearly basis will not significantly enhance police or prosecution resources when we consider that a relatively simply prosecution under this legislation can cost $10 million.

I understand from newspaper reports that a special courthouse is being built in Quebec for these types of crimes. The courthouse alone is estimated to cost $10 million.

When I was a justice minister in Manitoba we had to build a special courthouse at a cost of $3.5 million. The money was well spent. It was essential to not only have legislation in place but to put the resources in place to actually get the job done.

When we consider the ramifications to legal aid, to prosecutors, to police overtime and to clerks, $10 million for one trial is not an uncommon amount. We see the courthouse being built for $10 million in Quebec and then we think of what it will cost to conduct a trial. We cannot allow organized criminals to have even an inkling of an understanding that we are not prepared to support our police officers.

If we have actually convinced the Liberals that this is the right direction to move in, I am glad. At least they have taken the first step, the legislative step, but now they have to take the second step. The earlier legislation was only part of the first step. This is getting close to completing the first step. The huge step, the financial issue, has to be addressed but, unfortunately, it is not being addressed.

I am encouraged that the Minister of Justice might find it in her heart to convince some of her colleagues over there who might be mean-spirited enough to deny our police officers these resources. I recognize that she has a very difficult job trying to convince some of these people on the other side; not all of them, some of them are very good people. She needs to convince some of the Liberals who do not believe that this is really a problem. If that is the basis of her leadership speech, as was just mentioned, let it be her leadership speech. I do not think it is a bad thing to do. I would encourage the Minister of Justice to move in that direction, if not in the leadership, at least in terms of finding that money for our police officers.

I am making those comments to her through you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted that clear on the record.

It is somewhat heartening to see that the legislation proposes added protection from intimidation for people who work in the justice system, such as witnesses, jurors, police, prosecutors, prison guards, judges, members of parliament and senators. This is absolutely crucial. It is one of the practical steps that needed to be taken and is being taken.

There are some shortcomings in that list. I am not sure whether it adequately protects other key players in the fight against crime, especially when we look at the listing of federal MPs. Does it protect provincial MLAs or members of the national assembly in Quebec, in particular, provincial justice ministers?

I do not say that because I was a provincial justice minister but I do think they are on the front line with the police and they deserve protection as well. We do not want them, the deputy ministers nor anyone involved in provincial justice departments who are front line workers in the fight against crime to be intimidated. They need the same level of protection as federal parliamentarians.

It would seem mean-spirited of us if we granted the protection to ourselves when we do not even carry out the day to day activities and refuse to grant it to those who carry it out on a day to day basis.

In addition, as recent cases demonstrate, journalists who demonstrate their service of the public interest by reporting on organized crime also need and deserve the enhanced protection under our criminal law. It is absolutely essential.

The media is a very important tool in the fight against organized crime. One need only point out the well known case of Michel Auger, a Montreal crime reporter. That case demonstrates the need for extra protection for journalists. Last September he was shot five times as he arrived at the offices of his newspapers.

That was not the only incident in Canada where journalists had been the subject of attack, where they have had the courage to stand up and say the right things and write the right things. Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, who is now speaker of the Quebec legislature, was shot three times in the chest and the arm in the newsroom in 1973 while he was a reporter covering an inquiry into organized crime.

In 1995 a freelance reporter was shot after answering a knock on his front door. He was shot in both legs and survived what police called a warning by bikers.

We all know of the case of the editor of North America's largest Punjabi paper. He was shot and killed in his suburban Vancouver garage in 1998 by an unidentified killer.

Members of the press who research and report on all items of interest to Canadians, in particular, matters pertaining to their safety, must be protected from these types of attacks on democracy and freedom of the press.

It is not enough to say that we have a general provision that covers attempted murder or murder. As a democracy and as passionate believers in free speech, we need to send out a specific, clear, legislated message that those journalists are entitled to that protection.

The House of Commons should never allow attempts by criminal groups to intimidate any person or any democratic institution, and I include the press in those democratic institutions.

The bill also addresses the issue of police immunity. I think all right thinking people understand the need for police to have these powers. We also understand the need for clear criteria governing those activities. It was always the case that police had those clear criteria in place as policies that governed their activities. The Supreme Court of Canada has come along and said that we need to put that in legislation. I agree because I do not think it is necessary to fight on that issue. Let us put clear criteria in place but let us not hamstring and handcuff our police officers at an undue cost to our security and the security of our citizens to enjoy democracy and their democratic rights.

The minister needs to bear in mind that when we create immunity for police, we also have to address the possible adverse impacts on law-abiding citizens and the damage that might be done to their property by a police officer carrying out his or her duties under this protection.

If a police officer has to steal and destroy a car, which would be permitted under the criteria, damage other property or commit some other crime that causes damage to a citizen's property, I do not believe the citizen should have to bear that responsibility personally. This is a societal cost. This is a cost that we as a society must bear because we have given this power to the police.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to lead off the debate on an issue of major concern to all Canadians: the problem of organized crime and the legislative tools available to our police, prosecutors and courts to address that problem.

In the Speech from the Throne, our government promised to take aggressive steps to combat organized crime, including the creation of stronger anti-gang laws.

Building upon the foundation that the government put in place over the past several years, including the 1997 anti-gang amendments to the criminal code, the proposed legislation would enable law enforcement to respond to the threat of organized crime in the country.

Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code regarding organized crime and law enforcement, responds to our commitment to law enforcement officials and to my provincial counterparts to provide additional legislative tools to assist them in the fight against the many manifestations of organized crime. The legislative measures set out in Bill C-24 seek to assist Canadian law enforcement officials in the fight against organized crime.

These proposals fall into four categories: first, measures to improve the protection of people who play a role in the justice system from intimidation; second, the creation of an accountable process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an investigation; third, legislation to broaden the powers of law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of crime, and in particular the profits of criminal organizations, and to seize property that was used in a crime; and, fourth, the creation of a number of new offences targeting involvement with criminal organizations.

I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the valuable contributions made to its development by my provincial colleagues and their officials. It has been a truly collaborative effort characterized by mutual respect, patience and a commitment to the development of a broad based response to the threats of organized crime.

These efforts resulted in the adoption last September of the national agenda to combat organized crime. In Iqaluit, the solicitor general and I agreed with our provincial and territorial colleagues on an action plan. That plan has several key elements, but expanded and strengthened legislative tools were at the forefront of this national response.

We recognize that tougher and more effective laws are not the full answer to the problem of organized crime. The enforcement program that we announced when the bill was introduced demonstrates our commitment to attacking the problem on all fronts.

The first aspect of Bill C-24 involves a range of steps to deal with the intimidation of persons involved in the criminal justice system. There are those who ask why is it necessary to amend the law to deal with the intimidation of persons involved in the criminal justice system. They point to a number of provisions in the criminal code that might be employed to address this issue. The simple answer is that the existing law needs to be strengthened.

The criminal justice system depends for its proper functioning upon the participation of various members of our community. There are the professionals responsible for the investigation and prosecution of crime, the judges and those who deal with convicted offenders, and members of the public who participate as witnesses and jurors.

For all stakeholders to be able to participate effectively, they and those with whom they are associated must be free to act without being subjected to threats, prejudice, intimidation or physical injury.

In recent times prosecutors, judges, witnesses, police and prison guards, as well as their families, have been subjected to intimidation intended to destabilize the criminal justice system. The purpose of intimidation is to interfere with the ability to hold trials in an environment conducive to proper deliberations where participants in the system feel free to play the role expected of them.

Whether acts of intimidation are subtle or explicit they are of particular concern with regard to the prosecution of organized crime. Concern about organized crime was shared by members of parliament. Last year the subcommittee on organized crime was struck to examine a myriad of issues related to organized crime. It brought forward recommendations which included two specific criminal code amendments intended to address concerns over intimidation.

I am pleased to note that Bill C-24 implements both those recommendations. One of those recommendations called for the enactment of measures beyond those now in place to more fully protect jurors serving in trials related to organized crime.

Accordingly the government proposes changes to the jury selection process set out in the criminal code to allow a judge to order that the names and addresses of prospective jurors not be read out in open court. A judge would be empowered in appropriate cases to ban the publication of any information that could disclose the identity of a juror.

Additionally Bill C-24 not only increases the penalty associated with the existing offence of intimidation to five years imprisonment. It introduces a new offence punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment to deal with acts of intimidation that target justice system participants intended to impede the administration of criminal justice.

A new section of the criminal code would make it an offence to engage in acts of violence against a justice system participant or a family member of that participant. It would be an offence to harass, stalk or threaten these people with the intention of either provoking a state of fear in a group of persons or the general public in order to impede the administration of justice or a justice system participant in the performance of his or her duties.

I turn my attention now to the aspect of Bill C-24 that seeks to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability when for legitimate law enforcement purposes they commit acts that would otherwise be illegal.

The Supreme Court of Canada in its unanimous 1999 judgment in Regina v Campbell and Shirose stated that the police was not immune from criminal liability for criminal activities committed in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. However, while observing that “everybody is subject to the ordinary law of the land”, the supreme court explicitly recognized that “if some form of public interest immunity is to be extended to the police..., it should be left to parliament to delineate the nature and scope of the immunity and the circumstances in which it is available”. Through Bill C-24 the government takes up the challenge offered to it by the Supreme Court of Canada and properly assumes its responsibility to provide guidance.

After issuing a consultation paper last year and engaging in much consultation the government has put the proposals before the House. The proposed scheme contemplates several means of ensuring accountability. These involve a combination of new legislative measures contained in Bill C-24, police training, as well as reliance on existing judicial and disciplinary means to ensure compliance with rules governing their use of powers given under the law.

The legislation does not propose the granting of blanket immunity to all law enforcement officers for unlawful acts committed in the course of carrying out lawful law enforcement responsibilities. However, the legislation does provide a form of very limited immunity. Colleagues need to understand that for many years law enforcement authorities were working on the basis that they had common law immunity. All the supreme court did was make it plain that there was not common law immunity but called upon parliament to put in place a legislative scheme if it saw fit.

Here is how the scheme would work. When a public officer is engaged in the enforcement of any act of the Parliament of Canada, doing that which would otherwise constitute an offence may be permissible if the following elements exist.

First, before the person can act he or she must be designated a competent authority. The individual must also believe on reasonable grounds that committing the act or failing to act is the reasonable course of action and proportional in the circumstances and including whether there is any other available means of carrying out their duty.

Nothing in the proposed scheme would provide immunity for the intentional or criminally negligent causing of death or bodily harm; the wilful attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice; or conduct that would violate the sexual integrity of an individual.

Another feature of the legislative package before us today is a new approach to addressing participation in the activities of criminal organizations. The bill contains a new definition of criminal organization and three new offences that effectively criminalize the full range of involvement with organized crime.

At its core, the danger of organized crime flows from the enhanced threat posed to society when people combine for the commission of serious crimes. Historically criminal law has responded to this elevated harm by punishing individuals for engaging in conspiracy and for aiding or abetting the commission of specific offences.

In 1997 in Bill C-95 parliament went further and directly targeted organizations of such individuals for the very first time by providing a definition of criminal organization, increased investigative powers and increased penalties for those committing crimes in conjunction with criminal organizations.

Law enforcement officials and provincial attorneys general have called for a simplified definition of criminal organization and for offences that respond to all harmful forms of involvement in criminal organizations. That is precisely what we have done in the legislation before the House today.

The current definition only covers criminal organizations that have at least five members, at least two of whom have committed serious offences within the preceding five years. As well, the organizations themselves must be shown to have been committing crimes punishable by a maximum sentence of five years or more in prison.

Canada is a signatory to the United Nations convention against organized crime which affirms that a group of three persons having the aim of committing serious crimes constitutes a sufficient threat to society to warrant special scrutiny from the criminal justice system.

I believe that Canadians want our law enforcement officials to be able to target criminal groups of three or more individuals, one of whose main purposes or activities is either committing serious crimes or making it easier for others to commit serious crimes.

In conjunction with a more streamlined definition, the full range of involvement with criminal organizations is targeted in Bill C-24 by three new offences.

The first offence targets participation in or contribution to the activities of criminal organizations. Taking part in the activities of a criminal organization, even if such participation does not itself constitute an offence, will now be a crime where such actions are done for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences.

The bill also addresses the concern expressed by law enforcement officials and provincial attorneys general that the current requirement of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was a party to a specific crime shields from prosecution those in the upper echelons of criminal organizations who isolate themselves from its day to day activities.

We know that successful recruitment enhances the threat posed to society by criminal organizations. It allows them to grow and to more effectively achieve their harmful criminal objectives. Those who act as recruiters for criminal organizations contribute to these ends both when they recruit for specific crimes and when they recruit simply to expand the organization's human capital.

Thus the expressed provisions of the proposed participation offence make it clear that the crown does not in making its case need to link the impugned participation, in this case recruitment, to any particular offence.

Some have called for mere membership in a criminal organization to be an offence. In my view such a proposal would be extremely difficult to apply and would be vulnerable to charter challenges.

The second new offence retains the core of section 467.1 of the criminal code which is the criminal organization offence introduced in Bill C-95. The new offence targets those who aid, abet, counsel or commit any indictable offence in conjunction with a criminal organization.

Unlike the existing provision, it would not require the crown to prove both that the accused has participated in or substantially contributed to the activities of a criminal organization and that he or she has been a party to the commission of an indictable offence punishable by five or more years of imprisonment. The participation-contribution requirement has been removed entirely and the range of offences targeted has been broadened to include all indictable offences.

The third new offence deals specifically with leaders in criminal organizations. Like the participation offence, it does so not by criminalizing status but by proscribing the harmful behaviour itself.

Leaders of criminal organizations pose a unique threat to society. Operationally they threaten us through their enhanced experience and skills. Motivationally they threaten us through their constant encouragement of potential and existing criminal organization members. Accordingly in the bill we have moved aggressively to identify, target and punish those within criminal organizations, whether or not formally designated as leaders, who knowingly instruct others to commit any offence, indictable or otherwise, under any act of parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization.

The penalty provisions for the three offences I have outlined confirm the government's resolve to provide a proportionate and graduated means of addressing all forms of involvement with criminal organizations and to ultimately break the back of organized crime in Canada. The participation offence I previously described is punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment, the party liability offence by a maximum of 14 years of imprisonment, and the leadership related offence is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment.

Furthermore each of these punishments has been fortified by an appropriately aggressive sentencing regime. Its two critical components are mandatory imposition of consecutive sentences for the offences and a presumptive parole ineligibility period of one-half the imposed sentence. When these measures are combined with our newly expanded and improved criminal forfeiture scheme our message to organized crime is clear: crime does not, will not and must not pay in Canada, and we will take all necessary measures to ensure the continued safety of our homes, streets and communities.

Not all provisions of the bill specifically target organized crime groups. Several elements in the proposed legislation are meant to improve criminal law generally. These improvements to the law will nonetheless be extremely useful in combating organized crime.

The offences initially listed as enterprise crimes were those considered most likely to be committed by organized crime groups. Over the years, as organized crime evolved and moved into new areas of criminal activity, new offences were added to the list of enterprise crimes. Today the list of such crimes stands at over 40 with no indication that we will stop adding new offences to the list.

At the same time, by limiting the proceeds of crime provisions to certain listed offences, we have created two types of criminal: the criminal whose proceeds are subject to the proceeds of crime provisions of the code and whose illicit profits can be ordered forfeited by the courts, and the criminal whose profits fall outside the reach of the proceeds provisions of the code.

Furthermore, there is a proposal to eliminate the enterprise crime list approach and expand the application of the proceeds of crime provisions to designated offences, that is, to most indictable federal offences. In this manner the profits from the commission of most serious crimes would be subject to forfeiture. All existing protections, such as notice provisions, applications to revoke or vary orders, appeals and remedies, will of course continue to be available to the accused and to third parties.

Canada must be in a position to offer the necessary assistance to foreign countries that have successfully investigated and prosecuted members of organized crime groups and whose courts have ordered the confiscation of tainted property located in Canada. I would like to ensure that Canada is not singled out for its inability to provide the necessary assistance to help such jurisdictions obtain the confiscated property.

Accordingly, the bill proposes a number of amendments to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that would allow Canada to enforce foreign confiscation orders. That is important. The provisions contained in the proposed legislation would allow Canada to respond on the basis of a treaty to requests from a foreign jurisdiction for assistance in enforcing a confiscation order issued by a court in that jurisdiction in relation to proceeds of crime derived from the commission of a criminal offence for which the accused was convicted. In anticipation of a confiscation request, Canada would also be able to provide assistance in respect of a request to seize or restrain the targeted proceeds located in Canada.

The proposed amendments would also facilitate requests from Canada regarding the enforcement of restraint or forfeiture orders for proceeds of crime located in foreign jurisdictions.

The last element that I want to stress deals with offence related property. The bill contains amendments to make the offence related property forfeiture regime in the code apply to all indictable offences. As well, the present exemption from forfeiture for most real property would be eliminated.

I believe the measures I have outlined today would ensure that we have the tools necessary to combat the increased threat of organized crime. Let there be no mistake that the proposals before us would provide more effective laws and aggressive prosecution strategies to target organized crime at all levels.

I thank colleagues for their support of this initiative. I look forward to their support because the initiative would ensure that our streets and communities are safe from a most pernicious element within our society, organized crime.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)