Justice Committee on April 22nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I believe we're now going to deal with some committee business.

Thank you, all three of you, for coming.

We'll suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll reconvene the meeting.

You have before you the motion dated April 20, from Monsieur Ménard, relating to the Hells Angels and other criminal organizations. You can read the motion yourselves.

I'm assuming you want to bring this forward, Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that we are studying organized crime and that there are already several bills dealing with the issue. However, I think the time is right for us, as legislators, to concentrate on a very specific objective, that is of determining how we can have a certain number of criminal organizations declared illegal, particularly the Hells Angels.

I believe that we cannot wait until we have wound up our general study on organized crime. There are expectations that we could do a very specific study, and I think it could be done in two or three meetings. I propose that the committee devote two meetings to hearing from witnesses and one meeting to draft a report.

Many editorials in Quebec have invited parliamentarians to do this. I have some ideas as to how to achieve it. We heard from Mr. Randall Richmond, from the Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau as well as from Mr. Latulippe. Other people could testify. I have been given to understand that the government will not support my motion, because this supposedly fits in with other bills. That disappoints me somewhat.

In my opinion, it would be a mistake to not specifically grapple with this issue. I am open to amendments. I suggested that we meet on Tuesday because I do not want to slow down the progress of the current bills. I know that we have all committed to studying Bill C-15 and that we will be studying identity theft, auto theft, social condition, etc. I do not want to bog down our work, but I believe that we must act. We cannot wait to have completed our study on organized crime, which will deal with many other considerations. I believe that this motion must be passed, and that is why I have tabled it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

As a reminder to all members about any testimony we receive in camera or in private meetings, we want to make sure we don't disclose that, including the identity of those who give testimony. I wanted to make sure we kept that in mind.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We're not in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I understand we're not in camera. I only want to make sure we don't take information that we received in camera at a previous meeting and disclose it here. It's a gentle reminder.

Is there anyone else on this motion?

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I don't want to belabour this or have a big debate on it. I do want to make the point, though, that we have a very significant number of bills we're either dealing with or are coming down the pipe. We have passed through the committee the bill dealing with gang activity. We have the one that was introduced here today on drug crime. We have one on auto theft, and there are others, credit for time served, for example.

We're all busy. I assume we're all busy. I know most of us around this table are. To take three days to have hearings on this very specific issue, we could do that.... I think it sets a precedent that anytime someone thinks we want to study some narrow issue, we should take additional days. And there are days that I don't, frankly, think most of us have the time to do. These types of questions can be put to experts who appear when we have committee meetings. We have regular committee meetings on all of these bills. Many of these bills touch on aspects of organized crime, including the one that we just passed through committee. So I think it's appropriate to put these types of questions to experts who appear on our bills every week. But to take three days to study this, I don't support that. We have a lot of bills we're dealing with and we only have so much time to do it in.

That's why I'm not supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

What I don't hear from Mr. Moore is that he's opposed to the motion in principle, so I guess what we're caught with is a scheduling issue or a priority issue. I wonder if Mr. Ménard would consider amending his motion with respect to that second line, which really talks about the “when”, because what I hear from Mr. Moore is that there are priorities, legislation, that some of the parties are agreeing to have expedited. I'm only suggesting that perhaps we could do this over a series of weeks rather than doing it in one full week, to avoid the undoubtable blame that will come that we're somehow delaying or frustrating the government's program, which is not the intention. It's a motion. The member has a good motion, but there ought to be a way to accommodate it without slowing the business of government legislation.

But the ball is in Mr. Ménard's court because it's his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

This motion will not result in any delay of the government's agenda, because if it is passed, we will sit on Tuesdays whereas the committee does not normally meet on Tuesday.

Furthermore, it is not true that we can freely question all witnesses. We should draft a report. Perhaps we could do it in two meetings, if the government wishes to amend my motion. There is no greater threat, as we speak, than the Hells Angels and other similar groups. I could not comprehend the government saying that they are committed to fighting organized crime without wanting to think specifically of the ways of making these groups illegal.

You heard the same testimony as I heard, Mr. Chairman, and I do not believe we were meeting in camera when we were discussing Bill C-14. People told us that the biggest favour we could do them would be to work on having the Hells Angels declared illegal because currently, they have to start at square one with every trial. I must say I do not understand the parliamentary secretary's logic. We have been asked in many editorials to proceed in this fashion.

If Mr. Murphy wishes to move an amendment, I think it would be best to decide on specific dates because that would oblige us to work concretely. Perhaps we could hear from witnesses in a single meeting and draft the report over two meetings. I would be more comfortable if we had dates.

The parliamentary secretary will understand that the committee's agenda cannot be solely dictated by government bills. The committee may have other concerns, but in order not to slow down the study of bills, we are prepared to do this in two meetings. It would be on Tuesdays, so I do not understand.

If Mr. Murphy wishes to pass the amendment, it is possible to do it in only two meetings. We could withdraw the date of May 26 and keep the 5^th and 12^th of May. We could have that sort of amendment, but we cannot say that we will not study this issue or that we would include it in the general study on organized crime. This is urgent. As you know, there were 156 arrests in Quebec, including 111 Hells Angels. Many people have taken the position of inviting us to take the means to have them declared illegal, and that is the intention of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I know we have been doing a study on organized crime, of which the Hells Angels are a major part. I don't think there's any doubt there, and I was concerned about some of the things we heard.

I think it's public knowledge that in every single case, in order to prove an organization is involved in organized crime, the prosecution has to prove that part of the case. One would think we would be able to come up with a reasonable way of just saying that if you belong to this organization, or the other thing.... And perhaps we need to look at that from a strictly legal point of view and whether it will pass a challenge under the charter—which makes everything better in this country. So I'm disposed to want to do this.

But every time these things come up and somebody says, we'll just sit a few extra days and put it on a day this committee doesn't sit.... I don't know about you guys, but I sit on the public safety committee, and it does meet on Tuesdays and it does deal with issues that are similar to this committee's. So if somebody says it won't overburden us because we'll put it on a day this committee doesn't sit, my response is that some of us sit on multiple committees.

And before anybody says, oh, well, we'll just get a replacement, I think the reason we're on particular committees is that we can follow through. The value of committee work is greater than if it's always a matter of one committee being replaced by another.

I think Mr. Murphy brings up an important issue, so I think we have to get around this. I am really reticent to sit extra days because a person on the committee thinks this is the most important thing that ever happened.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to offer the following clarification concerning this motion. Mr. Réal Ménard's colleague, Mr. Serge Ménard, who was the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec during the biker wars, himself says that the motion is not an appropriate means. He says that even if we ban the Hells Angels name, they need only change their name and start their activities up again. We would therefore always be chasing after them while they continue to change their name.

Mr. Serge Ménard suggested that, rather than using methods that we know in the context of terrorism, we should find a solution that is much more in line with the Criminal Code. I think we should follow Mr. Serge Ménard's opinion on this and vote against the motion.

A young person was killed by an explosion in Mr. Réal Ménard's riding, and I believe that the substance of the issue raised by him is valid, but we should perhaps follow the advice of Mr. Ménard's colleague, Mr. Serge Ménard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, thank you.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

If it's the will of the committee, then, obviously, it's an interesting topic. One premise I kind of reject is that we're never interested in studying. We are in the midst of a study on organized crime. It was put forward by Mr. Ménard that we study organized crime. We're going to be travelling. My understanding, unless I missed something, is we're going to Vancouver next week to study organized crime. So let's not say that we're not interested in studies. But we can't have a flavour of the week, where we take time out of....

I'm sure we all have something scheduled for those days. I'd be very surprised if everyone around here didn't have something scheduled at the time you're talking about. So, number one, we're busy with our regular, scheduled committees. We have other responsibilities. We're conducting a study right now on organized crime, of which the Hells Angels are a member. Now we want to have another study on some specific....

I think it's going to be the same types of witnesses, witnesses you could put the question to in our study on organized crime. But I do want to say that it's certainly not correct to suggest that we haven't conducted studies that have come from members of the committee, particularly Mr. Ménard.

We've had several studies that you've initiated.

If it's the will of the committee to study this on Tuesdays, then I guess we have to make room for it, but I don't support it. I think we're dealing with government legislation in the same....

The witnesses who are going to be here are going to be here for those other sessions and we can put those questions to them. I've never seen opposition or government members limited in our questioning by the topic at hand. We usually have pretty free range in discussion with witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I repeat: the issue of organized crime is much broader than my motion. This is a perfect time to declare the Hells Angels to be illegal. That is what we must think about. We're not obliged to take three months to do so. We could create a subcommittee.

My colleague Mr. Petit pointed out the opinion of Serge Ménard earlier on. I have a great deal of respect for him, but he was against the application of an anti-gang law. The motion I have moved reflects the position of the Bloc Québécois. My colleague Serge Ménard is entitled to his opinion, but it is not that of the Bloc Québécois. Furthermore, it is not Serge Ménard who has tabled the motion. There is something that Mr. Petit has not understood, because Mr. Ménard indeed specifically did not want to take the anti-terrorist legislation as a model.

However, I am certain that Mr. Petit will have the opportunity to make the necessary distinctions over the next few days.

I cannot understand why anyone would vote against the motion. It seems incredible to me that the government states that they it is fighting against organized crime, but does not want to study the main threat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, we have three more speakers. We have Monsieur Lemay, Mr. Rathgeber, and Mr. Murphy.

We'll go to Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No? Thank you.

I'll move on to Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly agree with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.

With all due respect, Mr. Ménard, I think you encapsulated it yourself in your previous comment that organized crime is much broader than the motion you are moving. So by definition, the motion you're moving is within the parameters of the organized crime study. I fail to see how they're different.

It may very well be that after we are finished our trip to Vancouver and the rest of our organized crime study we make specific recommendations to the government with respect to dealing with Hells Angels and other criminal organizations, and perhaps we'll develop a mechanism that the government may or may not accept in terms of making them illegal and making fewer barriers for crown prosecutors to have such organizations so deemed.

But that fits perfectly within the mandate of our organized crime study, and I will be voting against your motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Just briefly, this is so different from our organized crime study on the one point. The motion asks us to examine the legal avenues for declaring groups illegal, and that really has nothing to do with our crime study.

What I'm saying is the witnesses for these—and I'm going to propose two days of hearings—are going to be constitutional people, people learned in associations law, people who are going to be cognizant of bad faith under Roncarelli and all this stuff. It's going to be quite different from hearing from people involved in the pursuit of organized crime gangs. For that reason, I think it's a reasonable study to undertake on Tuesdays, which won't mar the government agenda and legislation.

But I do think we have a lot of things to do, and our whip is telling us, too, that we have other people involved in other committees. But two days is not overly strenuous to all that.

I propose that the motion be amended by striking out the words “and 26”, and putting “and” in between “5” and “12”, Madam Clerk.