Peter Mancini

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do see the need for more prosecutors. I also see the need for more resources to legal aid, as the Canadian Bar Association has called for. I know my hon. friend agrees with me on that.

To go directly to his question, I do think that we need to look at expanding police powers. I do not often agree with the attorney general of Ontario but on some of these comments—

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it was indicated in an earlier question that this section of the criminal code has not met its objectives. I do not think there is any debate about that. The police are not happy with it and the courts and parliamentarians have concerns about it. The answer is, no, this section of the code is not working. As I reiterated earlier, the answer is to bring in a clear, sound piece of legislation that has real teeth.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are mixing apples and oranges here and I say that in the most sincere way. I appreciate what the member is saying, that we should examine our laws to see if they are cost effective.

The platform of the New Democratic Party in 1997 was to do exactly that with Bill C-68, to have a federal audit done of the bill. That of course becomes even more important as we see how much money is being dished out in this regard.

To me that is a separate issue. We do not have to choose between gun control or the fight against organized crime. I do point out, as has been pointed out, neither the chiefs of police nor the Canadian Police Association have asked that we do that. They have asked for both.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond.

I think the hon. member is correct in some respects when he says that section 467.1 was passed in haste. It is not the first piece of legislation in the House and in the criminal code that we have seen passed in haste for which we repent at leisure.

The child pornography section of the code falls in the same category. It was rushed through the House of Commons and today stands before the Supreme Court of Canada subject to all kinds of acrimonious debate. Had the job been done properly the first time, we might not be going through this agonizing debate. He may well be right when he says that section 467.1 falls into the same category.

The answer to that is not necessarily to invoke the notwithstanding clause. It is to replace the section. If the section has been poorly drafted and passed in haste, the worst thing we could do is respond in haste again and make another mistake. The answer is to properly draft the section. That is the best reason that we should not make the same mistake again. Let us craft the law so that the police can work with it, give it the kind of teeth it needs, and make sure that it is workable.

Let us not panic and do it within two weeks and be back here, some us and some of us maybe not, in three years saying we have another bad piece of legislation and in the meantime organized crime in the country has increased.

I think I have answered both of the questions in terms of what we should do with that section and should we bring it back by October 6. Not necessarily unless we can put together a proper bill. That is where I think the subcommittee on organized crime can play a legitimate role in reviewing the legislation and making sure that it is adequate.

[Organized Crime, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be using the entire time. I will pick up this debate where it began with the comments of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He said in his opening remarks that this was a most serious issue. It is. We are here in an emergency debate. It does not happen often in the House of Commons that the Speaker rules that there is sufficient gravity to a motion to warrant an emergency debate. We are here on a matter of sufficient gravity.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough began by saying we should have a non-partisan debate because it is too important to deteriorate into the usual kind of blaming that sometimes goes on. I hope we can revive that spirit because this debate is not about gun control. The debate is not necessarily about the notwithstanding clause. The debate is about organized crime and how as a parliament we are to respond to it.

The Speaker has ruled that there is an emergency. Is there a crisis in the country? I do not know if crisis is perhaps too strong a word but there is an emergency. That emergency was brought to a head, galvanized by the recent shooting on September 3 of Quebec journalist Michel Auger. On behalf of my party and all parliamentarians I want to extend our sympathies and our concern to both him and his family. He gives real truth to the words spoken by Robert Kennedy that moral courage is a far rarer commodity in this society than strength in battle or great intelligence. The moral courage demonstrated by this journalist ought to be commended and respected.

The shooting has galvanized the debate around organized crime. I suppose it has also galvanized the debate around freedom of the press. I say in passing that it is of great importance that freedom of the press is a cornerstone to democracy. No journalist should have to fear for his or her safety if they want to delve into a story.

I remember when I was questioning the Minister of Transport three years ago about the ports police, that a young journalist who was covering that story for CBC Radio, whom I came to know, was under police protection because she was exposing at that time in 1997 some of the serious effects of gangs in the Halifax area. No journalist should have to fear that. No member of parliament should have to fear addressing those issues. No judge or no jurist should have to fear any kind of organized crime.

That brings me to the question of how we came to this point today. How is it that we are having an emergency debate in the House of Commons on the issue of organized crime? It is no mystery. As I said, in 1997 I urged the Minister of Transport at that time to reinstate the ports police. That has already been brought up time after time.

I am not happy to say that my party or I was right at that point in time because of the effects that have developed from the dismantling of the ports police. I met with the police on the docks in Halifax, people in the ports police who showed me clearly what the effects would be as a result of the dismantling of that police force.

It meant that in effect the ports in Canada, whether in Montreal, Halifax or Vancouver, became open territory for organized crime. Repeatedly I pushed the Minister of Transport on that issue. Repeatedly he came back to me and said he had every confidence that the provincial police forces and the RCMP would be able to deal with the issue of organized crime in the ports. Today, three years later, we are having an emergency debate in the House of Commons on the issue of organized crime.

We got here because of cost cutting measures put in place by a government that was adamant. It was not alone. It was prodded in many ways by others. There was a debt and deficit hysteria and come hell or high water it was here to eliminate the debt. Today we have a $30 billion surplus and unfortunately hell and high water are here.

There have been cuts to the provinces over the last six or seven years. The moneys in equalization payments have been cut to the provinces and the provinces are charged with the administration of justice, as we have learned in this debate. When a province does not have the money to pay its prosecutors, to hire prosecutors and to provide the resources to its provincial police force, we find ourselves in an emergency debate.

The provinces went on to cut municipal budgets and so police forces at the municipal level felt those cuts. It is no mystery and no surprise that we find ourselves after all the slash, burn and cut in a situation where we do not have the resources to do the job. The coast guard, the ports police, and the educational and training facilities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been cut. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

It does not mean that we cannot do something about it. I do not want to dwell on the past because I said this should be a non-partisan debate. My objective here is not to cast blame as much as it is to try to work with all members of the House to find a solution to what is a serious situation in the country today.

The situation is serious. I commend the members of the Bloc Quebecois and others who have been pushing for some time to address the issue of organized crime. It is a serious matter. There are many types of organized crime. When many people think of organized crime they tend to think of the old Mafia movies. We have gone far beyond Godfather type movies. There are Asian based organized crime rings in the country that specialize in trafficking in human beings. They specialize in heroin and cocaine importation. There are east European gangs that are involved in extortion, murder, prostitution, and in drug, tobacco and weapon smuggling. They are involved in immigration fraud and counterfeiting.

There are the traditional historical types of organized crimes, the mob that we know of. There are the outlaw motorcycle gangs which have brought this debate to a head. They are the Hell's Angels. They are the Rock Machine. We read about them in Quebec but we know that they are not exclusive to Quebec, that they exist across the country.

In my province in Halifax a couple of years ago I remember when the Hell's Angels were present and the Rock Machine, their rival group, was trying to buy property in Dartmouth across the harbour. We could see what was coming. We could see where this would lead.

There are serious issues of organized crime in the country today. There are serious issues in Manitoba. I have heard from my colleagues who represent the city of Winnipeg their concerns for safety in their communities. We know that they had to build a special courthouse in that province to deal with the trial of members involved in organized crime who ultimately pleaded guilty.

There is a real problem. There is a real emergency. When journalists are shot, when people are concerned, when members of parliament are threatened, we have an emergency.

There is no benefit to fearmongering. There is no benefit in trying to play politics with that kind of an issue. In the same way as we have a real problem, we have dedicated, determined police forces in the country who despite the lack of resources have worked very hard to do their jobs. We see the results of that. Too often those results do not get the kind of press they deserve, but this summer we saw drug busts that appeared to break all records. We know that on both coasts the police did their jobs. We know that the new commissioner of the RCMP is committed and is determined to take on organized crime.

The citizens of the country who listen to this debate and who read Hansard should know that while we have a serious situation with organized crime we have a dedicated and determined police force to take on the issue.

However those police forces require resources. In the same way I have indicated that resources have been cut over the years, it is time to reinvest in those police resources. The Minister of Justice has commented that in 1997 provisions in the criminal code were brought in. She is correct. As has been said by the member of the Canadian Alliance, those sections are well worded. They should result in the criminal prosecution of members of gangs and organized crime.

Rightly some members asked the Minister of Justice why there have not been any convictions. There was some discussion about plea bargaining, judicial intervention and whatnot, which I think are side issues. The reality is that all the laws in the world will do no good if the police do not have the resources with which to bring the case to court. To do that properly without infringing upon the rights of the rest of us, which ought not to be sacrificed on the altar of hysteria, and to work within the charter of rights the police need to have the resources. The police make mistakes and perhaps infringe on the charter when they do not have the adequate resources to do the job they need to do.

The solicitor general has indicated there has been some additional funding for the RCMP but I think there needs to be more.

We can take a page from the Canadian Police Association who met in Halifax this summer and discussed this issue. I had the honour to speak to that organization. My parting remarks to the people of that organization, and this was before we had an emergency debate and before the unfortunate incidents in Quebec, was to pledge to work with them in the fight against organized crime in Canada. I asked them to work with the subcommittee on organized crime of which I am proud to be a member.

I have also had an opportunity to look at some of the suggestions they offered in the fight against organized crime. Some of them make sense and I offer them to the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general for consideration.

The association has asked for the development and implementation of a strategic national response to organized crime providing greater priority, funding, support and co-ordination for local, provincial and federal policing jurisdictions in the battle against organized crime. I have said that we have to begin to reinvest in the police. I also asked that we work in a co-ordinated effort with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, customs and excise, national police services, the criminal intelligence service of Canada in partnership with the federal and provincial police forces.

I am glad and I commend the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general for going to Quebec tomorrow to meet with their provincial and territorial partners. I think we can listen to the Canadian Police Association and involve the other ministers, including the Minister of Transport, because the reinstatement of the ports police would go a long way.

The police association also asked for a national border protection service. Call it what you will, Mr. Speaker. Call it the ports police or a national border protection service, but the association has asked that it be established and that is something that we as a parliament should push for.

It has also asked for an examination of election financing and candidate financing criteria to provide elected representatives with clear guidelines to prevent infiltration from organized crime.

There are solutions to this problem. They need to be implemented right away. We cannot afford to spend a whole lot of time studying the issues. We know the issues and we know some of the answers. That should not prohibit further investigation. The subcommittee on organized crime can play a vital role here.

The original motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois asked for a law to be introduced in the House of Commons by October 6. There is no reason that any law could not be vetted through the subcommittee on organized crime that already exists. I would pledge my time and I know the other members of the committee would to try to ensure that the law as crafted would be charter proof, would be efficient and would be effective.

There are ample suggestions from the Canadian Police Association and ample suggestions from members of parliament on how to deal with this situation. We need to do that.

As I have said, the minister has pledged, and I think her words were, to re-examine the code to find if there are ways that she can with our help fight organized crime. She certainly has my pledge and the pledge of my party to work with her in that regard. I take her at her word on that.

There has been discussion of the notwithstanding clause and whether or not it ought to be invoked. The original motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois read “That this House request that the government prepare and bring in by October 6 a bill making it a crime to belong to a criminal organization”.

As I have indicated, people should know there is such a law already on the books which makes it a crime to belong to a criminal organization. In response to a question from the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois clarified that and said they wanted to go further and make it a crime to wear the colours to be identified with a gang.

The resolution goes on to say “if necessary, invoking the notwithstanding clause of the charter of rights and freedoms”. The leader of the Bloc went on to say that they were not necessarily calling for its invocation but only if necessary.

One of the reasons we fear and fight organized crime is to protect the liberties we have as citizens. Surely within this House, surely within the resources that the Department of Justice has, surely within the resources that the solicitor general has, surely working with the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police across the country, surely working with the commissioner of the RCMP we can as a democratic institution draft the necessary laws to protect our citizens without taking away the guaranteed rights of those citizens.

I feel compelled to say there are no rights for criminals in the charter of rights. There is no section in the charter of rights that says “These are the rights of men. These are the rights of women. These are the rights of victims. These are the rights of criminals”. There are guaranteed rights to all citizens. When we suspend those rights to tackle one group, we have to bear in mind that we suspend the rights to all of our citizens. That does not happen often.

It happened with the War Measures Act before we had the charter of rights and freedoms. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act suspending what were then the civil liberties of Canadians which were defined not just through the bill of rights, but through precedent and through a long constitutional history. We look back on that today and wonder if it was the right thing to do.

I urge us to act swiftly and decisively to find a way to protect this country from organized crime without doing it at the expense of the freedom we all enjoy.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Canadian Alliance purports to be a grassroots party, but I can tell you they are pretty rich roots. I cannot think of anyone in my own community who would buy tickets to a $25,000 a table dinner. It is a Bay Street dinner. It tells us something about who is controlling the priorities of that party. It tells us something about who is setting those priorities and who is in control of this new supposedly grassroots party.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

I am being corrected on that. It is $25,000 a table.

For those Canadians who think there are vested interests who would like to have control of the banks, we understand that there are and they can afford to pay to influence government direction. Therefore I would urge people to contact their members of parliament.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, because I get correspondence from people who watch CPAC and people who read Hansard , I know there will be people who will hear some of those suggestions. There are a number of things.

I would ask those watching the debate or reading Hansard to recognize some of the comments and other objections we made, such as the wide ownership rule. I did not get an opportunity to address it in my speech, but perhaps the single most important thing that this bill will allow is a concentration of ownership in the banks.

There was an initiative from Lester Pearson's government to prohibit any one particular group from owning, operating and directing banks because, as has been said by a Liberal leader, once we lose control of our economic house, we lose control of our sovereignty. It speaks to how far that party has moved to the right, away from what were once core Liberal values, that the initiatives of Lester Pearson ensuring that only 10% of a bank could be owned by any one individual are being expanded. It talks about how far to the right the Liberal Party has moved in its efforts, I suppose, to compete with the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party.

For people who are concerned about rural banking in their communities, who are concerned about foreign ownership of Canadian banks, I would urge that they write to their members of parliament. That is a legitimate course. Every so often I send out correspondence with cards that people can check and send back to me. People should organize petitions. They should telephone the office of their local member of parliament. That is the way direct democracy can happen.

Once people understand that we are moving in a direction where the wide ownership rule is being narrowed, for example, as has been said by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, one, two or three wealthy individuals or organizations might be able to take control of what are now Canadian institutions and control the banking, I think people will respond by writing to and phoning their members of parliament.

It is interesting that the member for Vancouver East identified the dinner that the Canadian Alliance leader is hosting where people are paying $25,000 a plate.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise. Like others who have risen in the House today I want to say how good it is to be back. It is almost like we never left.

We are debating today the government's Bill C-38, the financial sector reform bill. One would think there is probably no greater institutions in need of reform than those in the financial sector. This is in some part a response to the great outcry of the Canadian people a couple of years ago when there was some discussion of bank mergers. We know where the Canadian people stood on that.

I want to make a few points. Many of the points with regard to my party's position on this issue have been made by our excellent finance critic, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. We bring a balanced review to this piece of legislation. He indicated, and we support him in that, that we will be opposing it at this point because while there are some good things in the legislation, there are many other areas that need reform and changes.

I think it is appropriate and I am glad to rise to speak to this piece of legislation. This summer, when I was home meeting with constituents and dealing with matters in the constituency, I received a phone call late one night from a local manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, calling to give me a heads up to advise me that the next day they would be announcing closure of one of the small local branches that services a number of people. Luckily, he indicated to me, there would be no job losses. Some of those jobs would be moved to another branch.

It goes to the heart of some of the things we are talking about and some of our concerns. We have a huge monopoly in the banking sector of this country. Many of the rural and smaller communities are suffering when banks withdraw. I will touch on that briefly in a few minutes.

It is interesting that we have some differences of opinion. Clearly the spokesman for the Conservative Party could not understand why the NDP might oppose some aspects of the legislation. It says something that both the spokesperson for the Conservative Party and I think the Canadian Alliance were in tandem on a couple of aspects of the bill.

Let me start by saying we will bring a balanced approach to this piece of legislation. I do not think it behoves anybody to simply be critical of the government for the sake of being critical. We in this party like to give constructive criticism and bring the concerns of the Canadian people to the fore. There are some good things in this piece of legislation.

First, as has been mentioned, there is some help for credit unions. That help will come by allowing the creation of the single national service entity to support credit union membership. We of course would agree with this and I personally would agree with it.

The credit union movement in the country has always been strong. It is one that I would argue found its birth in Cape Breton. Reverend Moses Coady and Father Jimmy Tompkins began working with local fishermen in my part of the country a long time ago, helping farmers and fishermen organize so that they would have control of their own assets. They began building the local credit union and co-op movement out of Cape Breton. Out of that and out of the province of Quebec came the two strong legs of the credit union movement. We would support that.

The increase in power and organizational flexibility of credit unions in the long run will help them be more significant players in the banking industry. That is vitally important. For a long time credit unions have not been on equal footing with the banks nor have the same ability to compete with them.

When I was a young lawyer and first engaging in the practice of law, I wanted to set up my trust account at the credit union and found out that under provincial legislation in Nova Scotia it could not be done. I had to go to one of the chartered banks. That is being rectified. This bill goes some way toward recognizing the importance of credit unions.

Likewise, one of the positive aspects of the bill is the creation of the financial services ombudsman. This is not a new idea. As has been pointed out by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, this was an NDP initiative 10 years ago. A private member's bill introduced by a member of this party sought to establish that very thing only with real teeth so that consumers who felt that they were in some way being disenfranchised or unfairly treated by the banks had somewhere to go. We would support that. It is something that this party proposed more than 10 years ago. I am glad to see the government is finally catching up with some of the innovative ideas from this party.

The Conservatives wonder why we do not support the bill. There are some areas that require closer scrutiny. One of those, and it was mentioned by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, has to do with bank taxation.

The member from the Canadian Alliance was sympathetic to the banks. He said that they do not get the same breaks that many of the other corporations get. I think he mentioned Shell Canada and some other great big oil companies.

The banks, because of the historical position they hold, have a privileged position in this society. They have been protected. They have been nurtured and supported for over 130 years as major institutions. To suggest that when they report such record profits we should be sympathetic and they should not pay more taxes is not on the radar screen with most Canadians.

Indeed, I think the banks provide the bulk of credit to Canadians. They manufacture the money in our economy and they reap huge profits. It only seems sensible to me that when we assess how we tax those profits, the taxes should be levied on their profits before dividend distribution because those are huge profits made by the banks.

That is one area where we have concerns and we do not think the legislation goes far enough.

Another area that causes me some concern is in terms of bank closures. I will refer to the local bank in my community.

At the current time for the rural banks where there are no other deposit taking institutions within a 10 kilometre radius of the bank being closed, six months notice will be required. The legislation sets down requirements for when the banks have to give notice that they are closing their local branch.

I represent an area where there is a large component of senior citizens. I represent an area that has a large rural community where there may be one bank in the entire area. Again we are talking about monopolies.

I had an interesting experience this summer when I went to get gas. This is a bit of a side note. I went to the local corner store that for 80 years has provided petrol to the residents of Margaree Harbour. When I went to get gas I was told that the big companies would not sell gas to the corner store any more because it did not have enough volume. This is happening in rural communities all across the country. Now people have to drive five, six or ten miles to the nearest large conglomerate because those companies have a monopoly.

The same thing is happening with banks in many of the rural communities. I am thinking of Ingonish in my riding. I am thinking of the town of Baddeck. I am thinking of other smaller communities with one branch where people do their banking face to face. There ought to be some requirement that the banks maintain those outlets unless they can show for some reason that it is not profitable, that they are losing business.

Sometimes this works to the advantage of the local credit union. What has happened in some of the communities in my riding is that when the bank withdraws, the credit union goes in and sets up and people then have access to community capital.

There are many other aspects I would like to talk about. My colleague from Vancouver East talked a little bit about the community investment and reinvestment fund. That is the kind of direction in which we should be going.

I hope we can bring a balanced discussion to this legislation. I hope that some of the important recommendations the NDP has brought forward will be considered in committee and we can improve the bill. There are some aspects that are good, and I commend the government for that, but as is our job in the opposition, we like to provide what I think are important, critical, constructive suggestions on how to make the bill better.

[National Defence Act, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments of my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I too know Butch Fiske. He gave me the same advice just before an appeal. He was brief and concise; I was longer and I won. I think it is good advice.

The New Democratic Party will be supporting this legislation. It is good legislation and we welcome it. As has been said, it mirrors the legislation that was introduced in the House dealing with the DNA identification data bank in the civil courts.

It is important to note that many witnesses came before the justice committee and gave of their time and their ideas to help us craft the right legislation. When that is done properly we see what happens, a government bill that is supported by the Canadian Alliance, the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc.

My colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough spoke about how he and certain police associations hoped that the legislation would go further in terms of allowing the taking of DNA at the time of arrest. I appreciate that. When we craft laws, and this law is important for public safety, we always have to balance what we know to be fundamental rights. The difference between taking DNA samples and taking a fingerprint is the difference between taking bodily fluids and taking a photograph. That is the way the courts have viewed it and I think that is the way ethicists have looked at it.

I was one of the individuals who raised these issues at the justice committee. We sought opinions from some retired supreme court justices. They concurred that it would be detrimental to the legislation to allow the taking of DNA samples at the time of arrest. Nobody in the House wanted to craft a bill that would not withstand a legal challenge. From my way of thinking it was better to get a piece of sound legislation passed as quickly as possible that would provide for public safety and give the police the tools they need.

A great deal has been said in the House about this legislation. It provides the military with the same tools that the civilian police force have. Because the RCMP would not have jurisdiction in the taking of the samples, it extends powers to the military courts and it extends the power to issue the warrants to the military justices.

There is consensus on the bill. The NDP will be supporting this important piece of legislation. It uses today's technology in a way to prevent crime and also to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual. It is interesting that the bill comes on the day when the Minister of Justice talked about enhancing support mechanisms for investigation of wrongfully convicted individuals. DNA will form an important part of that in the same way that it provides a useful tool for those who have committed a crime in determining their guilt.

We always have to bear in mind the presumption of innocence. DNA is but a tool in the same way that fingerprints are and other evidence is in determining the construction of a case against an accused. We always have to bear in mind at the beginning that the accused is presumed innocent and this is but one investigative tool, albeit an important one.

I get a little nervous when people start to think that science is foolproof, that technology has all the answers, but this is an important piece of legislation for evidence gathering and we will support the legislation.