Debates of May 6th, 1996

Criminal Code

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

moved that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organization), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will say for starters that this bill goes beyond amending the Criminal Code, as you mentioned, since it is aimed essentially at including in the Criminal Code provisions that would make it possible for Canada to have the tool necessary to fight organized crime, namely antigang legislation.

Allow me to explain why I am tabling such a bill. You will recall that last year, in early August, a car bomb went off in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, which I represent here in the House of Commons, killing Daniel Desrochers, an 11 year old boy who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This incident was the most eloquent, the most perverse, the most revolting example of what can happen when society does not have the necessary tools to fight organized crime. As you know, this car bombing was part of a fratricide struggle between the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine.

Let us start at the beginning-I hope the pages are going to bring me some water, otherwise I will not last for 20 minutes, I can tell you that. Today we are talking about organized crime. Organized crime is a concern in all major cities in Canada. I gave you an example which occurred in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but the threat from organised crime, the underworld and the mafia is as real in Toronto, York, Vancouver, Halifax as in any other city in Canada.

Organized crime is ubiquitous. Let us see how organized crime works. Not every society is plagued with organized crime. Certain conditions are needed for organized crime to thrive. The first of those conditions is a wealthy environment, one where criminal organizations can make some profits. There must be an open society, one where axes of communication allow these organizations to communicate easily with all continents. I repeat, there is a good reason why organised crime is found mainly in large cities.

When I think about Montreal for example, there is the port, there are the roads, the highways and the airports, so it is simple to understand why it is unusually easy for the underworld to communicate with other continents and to create readily accessible networks. Another condition is a society free from any dictatorship, where there are legal rights and therefore, where human rights are respected, where there are charters and where all individuals have equal rights. Generally it is easier for the underworld to establish itself in a highly bureaucratic society.

That being said, we all remember the car bomb attack which killed the young Daniel Desrochers. Because of my contacts with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I can easily see that there are other trouble spots, other cities in Canada touched by organized crime, particularly in Ontario. I hope the Ontario members will vote for this bill, because later on I will ask for the House's consent to make it a votable item. Let us be clear, if we do not act right now in order to fight organised crime, we are in for some very troubled times.

How does it happen? Organised crime works in phases. First, they gain control of the territory. When that is done, through fear and intimidation, they go on to the second phase, money laundering. It is estimated that, last year in Canada, a total of $20 billion were laundered. Such an amount means there is an underground economy being set up; that gives us an idea of the magnitude of organized crime.

So organized crime grows by phases. It settles in cities or regions where communications are easy. It takes over control of a territory and starts taking part in money laundering activities. In a third phase, it invests in legal and illegal activities. As I said money laundering activities in Canada have been estimated by police forces at $20 billion.

Organized crime not only deals in money laundering activities it invests in specific ventures. People familiar with the issue, who have studied the underworld and know what it is about, have told

me that at present in Montreal organized crime is investing mostly in two sectors, restaurants and construction.

What is going on? What is the situation? Here are few figures which were given to me by the person probably best informed on organized crime, Mr. Sangollo who works for the Montreal urban community police department where he is responsible for organized crime investigations.

According to Mr. Sangollo, in Canada, drug seizures represent some $1.5 to 4 billion. Keep im mind that the police seizes about 10 per cent of the volume coming into Canada. This gives you an idea of the size of the problem.

I mentioned earlier that each year, in Canada alone, the underworld invests $20 billion in legal and illegal activities. Investments mean there is a connection, an interface if you like, between the underworld and the legal world. If $20 billion are invested in illegal and legal businesses, that means accountants, lawyers and people in high places allow these activities to proceed. Some even believe politicians help smooth the way for such activities, but as you can understand I am not here to name names. I will let those in a position of authority do that.

The underworld is associated with territory control, money laundering and investments in legal and illegal activities. Members understand that we are talking about the reality of drug trafficking, which is the easiest way for the underworld to get rich.

Perhaps I can give some other examples. It is said that 75 to 80 per cent of drug trafficking in bars in Quebec is controlled by organized crime; 75 to 80 per cent, that is something. Since 1988, 90 per cent of the cocaine and hashish that have been seized in Canada were originally intended for Quebec's criminal network. Montreal, where, as I pointed out, there are airports, transcontinental highways and an efficient railway system, has mafia bosses on its territory.

In this context, it is very important that we, as parliamentarians, take our responsibilities. I do not even dare to think that this government will not give me its support to state that this bill may be votable, not only to state that it may be votable, but also to ensure there is a real debate here in Parliament. Do we not have the responsibility to make sure that Daniel Desrochers, who died last August as a result of a car bombing in my neighbourhood, did not die in vain? We have the responsibility to take action to make sure he did not die in vain.

The first thing to do is to take our responsibilities as parliamentarians, by proposing an amendment to the Criminal Code so that it contains the main provisions for an anti-gang legislation.

What am I proposing? I am not saying this is perfect, this is the bottom line. If there is a parliamentarian in this House, whether a government member or an opposition member, who decides one way or the other to improve the bill, any intelligent suggestion, wherever it comes from, will be welcomed.

But we tried, I tried, to make a contribution to the development of an anti-gang law.

I have four proposals. I spent a great deal of time consulting with lawyers, criminologists and other people who are familiar with criminal law. My first proposal is to define "criminal organization" as follows: "a group of individuals-who habitually engage in activities that bring them into serious conflict with society or with the police". I stress the words "that bring them into serious conflict". If at least five members of this group have in the past committed enterprise crime offences, the courts will have the authority to regard it as a criminal organization.

Enterprise crime offences have been in the Criminal Code since 1987. These offences are theft, possession of stolen goods, forgery and breach of trust. There are some 30 offences already on the books.

What is missing is a definition of "criminal organization". The advantage of this bill is that it introduces three presumptions allowing public prosecutors to bring crime bosses before the courts. The great paradox we face is that these crime bosses in Montreal and elsewhere are known to the police but cannot be prosecuted because, under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, they must be caught red-handed. We know full well that those who planted the bomb that killed little Daniel Desrochers are obviously not the same people who planned the killing.

In the fight against organized crime, we are trying to give ourselves the means to bring crime bosses before the courts. To that end, my bill not only gives a legal definition of "criminal organization" but also introduces three presumptions. First, that an individual who keeps company with a criminal organization is presumed to be living off it. This, I think, is very clear. A link could be made with prostitution.

Under existing provisions in the Criminal Code, an individual who is habitually in the company of prostitutes is presumed to be living off the avails of prostitution. So the first presumption making it possible to prosecute crime bosses would be that an individual who keeps company with a criminal organization is presumed to be living off its proceeds.

The second, but just as important, presumption is that an individual who frequents places linked to organized crime is presumed to be living off the proceeds of a criminal organization.

The third presumption allowing public prosecutors to bring crime bosses before the courts is that an individual whose worth increases disproportionately between the time of the offence and the beginning of the trial is presumed to be living off the proceeds of a criminal organization. It is not normal for an individual whose

net worth was estimated at $10,000 for income security purposes, who was known as a welfare recipient by the police, to have a personal fortune estimated at $3 million three weeks, three months or one year later. You will not convince me that this individual was a three time winner of the Quebec lottery; that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the illicit way these individuals are getting rich.

That is why we need a legal definition of "criminal organization". We will create a new criminal offence-living off the proceeds of a criminal organization-and give public prosecutors three presumptions allowing them to bring crime bosses before the courts.

The existence of these presumptions does not mean that defence lawyers cannot refute them or that the principles of natural justice do not apply, but that it is up to the individual to demonstrate, for example, how he got richer.

Another provision of this bill that police forces had been requesting for many years to fight organized crime is the one addressing the need for those sentenced to imprisonment to serve three-fourths of their sentence. If this bill is passed, there will be no remission of sentence and, after sentencing, access to parole will become possible only when three-fourths of the sentence has been served. Why is it necessary to hold firm on having people serve three-fourths of their sentence? Because that is how networks are dismantled, how the chain of command is broken in the underworld and organized crime.

I would like to conclude by saying something important about my bill. Of course, in preparing this bill, I had to consult extensively and I had mixed feelings about going through with it. I concluded that it is important for any bill that comes before us to make sense and be valid, legally speaking. That is why I provided for the use of the notwithstanding clause: section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Why did I chose to do so? Because I realize that, if this bill is passed and then challenged in any ordinary court of law in this country, it could be argued that it interferes with freedom of speech, freedom of association and the legal rights set out in section 7 of the charter, namely the presumption of innocence.

I am convinced that each of us in our various ridings represent people who would be very pleased to see this Parliament take its responsibilities, even if we determine that, in order to fight effectively against organized crime, we may have to restrict certain rights by limiting the scope of the charter.

As you know, in February, I tabled a petition signed by 65,000 people from all over Quebec, calling for the adoption of antigang legislation. I have yet to meet one person saying: "But it is important not to restrict in any way the movement of the most

criminalized segment of our society because we have this charter, you see". That is not what the charter is about. I am sure my fellow citizens of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, like all Canadians and Quebecers, would have no objection to sacrificing some degree of freedom to the higher interest, which is fighting organized crime.

That is why my bill provides for the possibility of resorting to the notwithstanding clause, which, indeed, has been used very seldom. The truth is, as one government member or another will no doubt mention, the notwithstanding clause has never been used by the Canadian Parliament. Two provinces did: Quebec, between 1982 and 1985 and again in 1989, after the Brown decision was handed down, and Saskatchewan, in a labour dispute. If the legislator included a notwithstanding clause, it is because it needs to be used in some cases, and the threat posed by organized crime across the countries of Quebec and Canada is so serious that we have a duty, as parliamentarians, to point out that, without a notwithstanding clause, no antigang legislation can be brought forward.

We cannot allow what happened in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Montreal to happen elsewhere. I ask for consent to see if it would be possible to have this bill declared a votable item and not only voted on but also debated for two extra hours, because the situation is so serious that parliamentarians will agree with my diagnostic.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Excuse me, but I did not quite understand what the hon. member just said. My colleagues, does the House give unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As I heard some nays were heard, and as the hon. member knows, the request is rejected.

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the yeas were louder than the nays.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is perfectly right, but unfortunately, if the Chair hears but one nay, the motion is rejected. It has nothing to do with volume or quantity.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, we note the government members' cowardice toward any remotely sensitive issue. Canadians will judge their government accordingly. But could we just check if there is

unanimous consent to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as a non votable measure?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since the hon. member can do as he pleases if he gets unanimous consent in the House, do the hon. members give unanimous consent to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as proposed by the hon. member?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I did not hear any nays. Does anyone say nay?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There we have it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has the floor.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I did indicate no on the motion put forward by the House where you indicated you did not hear a negative response.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The no is noted. Now the hon. parliamentary secretary has identified himself as the source of it. If he wishes to do so, that is his privilege. He now has the floor on debate.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate today on Bill C-203, introduced by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code in an effort to deal with criminal organizations. More specifically, the bill would create a new part in the code. A new offence of living in whole or in part off the proceeds of crime from a criminal organization would be established. This offence would be punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. The bill would also establish two presumptions in respect of persons who could be members of a criminal organization.

The bill borrows extensively from the provisions of part XXII.2 the Criminal Code which deals with the proceeds of crime and modifies them for application to property from criminal organizations.

The bill would also impose on the courts an obligation to order that a person convicted of an offence serve three quarters of any term of imprisonment handed down in respect of this conviction.

The bill recognizes there may be significant charter problems with some of its provisions, specifically subsection 33(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and states the provisions of the bill operate notwithstanding certain rights and freedoms guaranteed under the charter.

The problems of organized crime are difficult and complex. It has been suggested by some that our Criminal Code does not provide law enforcement agencies the tools needed to fight organized crime. According to some, our relative lack of successful investigations and prosecutions of organized crime figures is considered to be evidence that our laws are insufficient. It follows according to that logic that our laws must be changed. Given the breadth of some of the proposed solutions, it is incumbent on those who advance these proposals to satisfy a number of concerns.

I will take the next few minutes to review and comment on the manner in which this question was approached in the United States and more specifically deal with an American statute which is frequently mentioned as a possible model for Canada. I refer of course to the racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations law, or the RICO law as it is called.

The racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations provisions of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 represent the attempt of the United States Congress to control the growth of organized crime in America.

In response to the report of the President's commission on law enforcement and the administration of justice, the Katzenbach commission, Congress adopted what became title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. In passing the RICO statute Congress put in place the statutory machinery it hoped would expel the cancer of organized crime from American society. In doing so, Congress focused on the criminal infiltration of legitimate enterprises relying on the existing legal apparati to respond to other criminal issues such as gambling and prostitution. To excise the cancer of enterprise infiltration Congress proposed to confront organized crime by direct attack, by forcible removal and by prevention of return.

The essential drafting difficulty was finding a constitutional method of defining organized crime. A deliberate choice was made not to explicitly outlaw membership in organized criminal groups such as the Mafia because of the recognized constitutional concerns of making status, that is, membership in an organization, a crime, and of defining what constituted an organized criminal syndicate. Rather, in an attempt to ensure the constitutionality of the statute, Congress made its central proscription the use of a pattern of racketeering activities in connection with an enterprise.

Unable to define what were organized criminal syndicates and then outlaw membership in them, Congress turned to an operational definition of organized crime and tried to get at the criminal organization through its activity. Thus RICO pursues a broadly

defined category of criminal activity, not the mere membership in an organization that can only be broadly defined if the definition is to be in any way helpful. RICO prohibits activities not membership.

Early versions of the statute applied to anyone who invested deliberately unreported income, regardless of the source of the income or the criminal status of the investor. As finally enacted however RICO is not limited to any statutorily defined member of the Mafia. At that time the novelty of RICO was not the criminal fine or the imprisonment provision but the section providing for criminal forfeiture to the United States government any illicit interest in or profit gained from a criminally infiltrated enterprise.

The stated purpose of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 under which RICO is subsumed is to seek the eradication of organized crime by establishing new penal prohibitions and by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies. To implement this general purpose, Congress fashioned an elaborate statutory scheme proscribing a variety of racketeering activities.

The first section of the RICO provisions provides a definition of terms. In particular, the definition of racketeering activity marks a significant departure from typical criminal statutes because it includes activities traditionally considered criminal, such as murder, narcotics dealing and gambling, as well as acts such as extortion, mail and wire fraud and securities fraud. Any of the offences listed in this definition may serve as predicate acts to a criminal RICO charge.

In a similarly broad manner, a pattern of racketeering activity is defined as at least two acts of racketeering activity, the last of which occurred within 10 years, excluding any period of imprisonment after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.

The second section of RICO lists the crimes which result from engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity. Section 1962(a) outlaws the acquisition of an interest in a legitimate business through the investment of money obtained from racketeering activity. Section 1962(b) prohibits the acquisition of a legitimate business through racketeering acts. Section 1962(c), the most widely used provision, outlaws the operation of an enterprise through the use of racketeering activity. Section 1962(d) prohibits the conspiracy to commit any act in the first three parts of section 1962.

Rico prohibits among other things the installation of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. These words have made Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court state in a 1989 decision:

That the highest court in the land has been unable to derive from this statute anything more than today's meagre guidance bodes ill for the day when a constitutional challenge is presented.

Those familiar with the history of Rico will know that it is aimed at stopping the infiltration of racketeers into legitimate organizations. Canada chose to pass its proceeds of crime legislation to effect the same result, that is, taking the profit out of crime.

Those familiar with its operation will know that the state must prove at least two predicate acts that constitute a pattern of racketeering activity, those predicate acts being for all intents and purposes other codified offences before the remedies provided by Rico can kick in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill, which was introduced by my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, attempts to deal with a very serious problem. I would like to say at the outset that we support what the member is doing and we support his bill.

As the member opposite has just said, there are some very serious issues at stake here. The member who introduced the bill has been very candid about the fact that there are some very serious competing interests which need to be weighed in taking the action he has proposed. He has not hidden the fact that this is not an action he undertakes lightly nor that Canadians should accept lightly. What he is arguing and the argument that I at least accept is that this is a serious enough situation so that serious measures are warranted and should be supported by our legislators.

Organized crime is a very serious problem in our country, a problem which unfortunately is growing. Many people do not have a very clear idea of just how large a problem it is.

I was speaking last weekend with a gentleman who works for the intelligence arm of a police service in our country. Some of the things he told me were shocking, disturbing and even frightening. I asked him why nobody knew what he had told me. I did not know. Why do Canadians not know? It is their country, it is their safety, it is their future at stake. Why do we not have a better idea of some of these difficulties? In his opinion, and it is only one man's opinion, he said there was a feeling that nobody knows what to do with the problem. Therefore it is better that we do not try to face it and make it explicit because then we would actually have to do something about it.

It is very important that members of Parliament not alarm the public unnecessarily. It is important that members of Parliament use discretion and deal with serious national concerns in a very moderate and balanced manner.

When the country has serious problems it is no longer acceptable to simply ignore them or hide them by sweeping them under the carpet. I applaud the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve who has recognized not just in his area but in other areas of the country that this is a crime, a serious situation which we have to squarely face. We need to put our heads together to come up with some

solutions and strategies to contain the problem and if possible to diminish it.

As the hon. member very sensibly and very appropriately points out, this may not be the best or the only solution to the problem, but at least it is a solution. Goodness knows the justice department and the justice minister have put forward nothing better to date.

I found it very disturbing that the government representative who just spoke, having no other solution and having put forward nothing at all to deal with this very serious problem, would refuse to even allow the bill to be examined by the justice committee of the House. The government is just killing it without any alternative and without facing up to a very serious problem. We have not properly examined and heard witnesses and had expert opinion on the proposals in this private member's bill to the extent we would like to.

The member was very sensible to put forward an opportunity for the House to examine his proposals. Out of that examination very likely would have come, as the member candidly admits, even better or stronger proposals and at least the issue would be on the table.

The Liberal government has swept the issue right back under the carpet, not wanting to even talk about what we might do to contain a very serious problem. I find that completely unacceptable as a member of this House who is charged with acting in the best interests of Canadians and with dealing with the country's major concerns.

The member is seeking in the bill to add a new charge to the Criminal Code making it an offence to live off the avails of criminal proceeds. This would particularly affect members of criminal organizations. There are a number of criminal organizations in Canada: biker gangs, the Mafia, the Russian Mafia, Asian gangs. Because of this country's weak and toothless administration of justice, unfortunately the evidence is that these organizations are not being contained. In fact, as the hon. member stated in his presentation, his concern and the concern of other people is that the impact of these organizations on our country is growing.

This bill would also affect individuals who associate with these criminal organizations and would make them guilty by association. That is the bone of contention in this legislation. As the House knows, our charter of rights and freedoms protects Canadians' right of association. That is a very important democratic right and one which should not be trifled with without very serious advantage to our society. It must clearly and unquestionably be in the public interest to do so.

One of the hon. member's colleagues introduced a bill last week that would change some of the procedures in our courts to protect witnesses in cases of sexual assault and violent assault. I objected to that last week. I felt that principles of jurisprudence which were in the public good were going to be eroded which made that action unjustified.

When we weigh these matters we have to be very careful. There are differences of opinion about how the rights and needs of society should be balanced. In my view, because I am convinced of the seriousness of this situation, we could and should be responsible for looking very closely at endorsing the proposals put forward by the hon. member who introduced this bill.

It is clear the present Criminal Code procedures are not doing the job needed. For example, money laundering techniques are becoming increasingly more sophisticated. It is very difficult for law enforcement officers to do the job that needs to be done and to keep on top of criminal activity and the results of it.

In terms of human misery, the activities of these criminal organizations simply cannot be allowed. It has to be vigorously combated by individuals in our country.

As the hon. member stated, the activities of these criminal organizations and the impact on other individuals in society, on our young people, on families, on our communities and on public safety in general is absolutely enormous and simply must be addressed. It must be faced squarely.

I believe in containing problems when they are small rather than waiting until we have a full blown crisis on our hands. It is my view that we should look seriously at the problem. Perhaps these proposals are not the whole answer but we should certainly be discussing and looking at them.

On August 18, 1995 the Minister of Justice in an article published in the Toronto Sun said: ``We should not assume another federal law will solve the problem''. Then on March 29, 1995 in statements which were printed in the Montreal Gazette , he talked about the federal government considering amending the Criminal Code with anti-biker legislation but he has done nothing about it.

Therefore, which is it? The justice minister needs to take some leadership on this issue. Certainly when other members try to take leadership, the last thing we need is to refuse to hear or even discuss their proposals. I am upset about this. I disagree strongly with the Liberal members who refused the unanimous consent necessary to allow this bill to even be discussed in the justice committee.

I believe this is something we should-

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec City, which I have the honour of representing in this House, is known throughout the world as the centre of French culture in North America. It is also famous for its magnificent location, its

old city, its cultural life, its tourist attractions and its warm hospitality. In other words, a quiet capital.

As for Montreal, it is one of North America's major centres. Unfortunately, a certain level of crime prevails in these large cities. A person living outside Montreal is aware of this fact and knows that it is somewhat unavoidable.

Now, the so-called quiet city of Quebec is starting to experience some of the problems of a large urban centre. The most striking one is certainly that of organized crime, which still manifests itself sporadically, but in an obvious way. Once we recover from the shock, we start to get a better understanding of the problems experienced by our fellow citizens from Montreal.

The motorcycle gang war has started up again and is even worse than before in the Quebec City region, particularly last week in the neighbourhood Saint-Roch. People are scared. They wonder how bad the confrontation will be. This is why I find it important today to take part in the debate on the bill tabled by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve on criminal organizations.

I must admit that reading the related file turned out to be very instructive. I learned that Quebec had the dubious honour of being the centre of organized crime in Canada. This is particularly true in the case of drug trafficking. Indeed, almost all the cocaine and haschisch seized in Canada is confiscated in Quebec. This is not to say that Montrealers consume all of these drugs. It simply means that Montreal is the port of entry, the hub of drug trafficking. This indicates criminal networks are established there and very well organized.

I learned also that some conditions are needed for such criminal networks to operate. To become prosperous, they need a rich environment allowing criminals to rake in profits. Also needed is an open environment, linked to other regions, countries and continents. As we know, Montreal is linked to other regions through a well developed road, rail, air and marine transport system. Moreover, because of our vast territory, authorities have a hard time maintaining strict control. Also needed is a free environment, devoid of oppression or dictatorship, which is of course the case in our society, in Quebec.

Finally, according to experts in the field, in order to develop, organized crime needs a bureaucratized environment where justice and security services are governed by strict and complex rules. We only have to think of all the constitutional protection enjoyed by defendants in our criminal justice system to see that this condition is easily satisfied in Quebec.

Therefore, all the conditions are met for Quebec, through its metropolis, Montreal, to hold the dubious title of headquarters for organized crime. What can we do about this? Year after year, police authorities sadly acknowledge that organized crime is on the increase and doing fine thank you, and steadily expanding. Faced with this situation, police authorities, with their meagre resources already stretched very thin, have been calling out for help for a long time now.

This bill my colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has introduced is an attempt at solving this problem. It would make it possible for the courts to condemn any person living on proceeds of organized crime. What is the rationale behind this bill? Why is it needed, when there are already so many sections and offenses in the Criminal Code?

The answer is quite simple. It is because, sadly, it is always those at the lowest level of organized crime who get caught, and not the bosses, who are protected by an aura of respectability and legality because they are never caught in the act.

With the new provisions in my colleague's bill, the police could have the crime bosses condemned by demonstrating that they are living on the proceeds of organized crime.

The proof would me made in two stages. First of all, if a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a member of a criminal organization or regularly frequents a habitual meeting place of a criminal organization or if the value of all the property possessed by that person has increased in a way that cannot be justified, that person would be deemed to be a member of the criminal organization.

Once that presumption has been established, that person could be accused of living on the proceeds of organized crime. Conviction would carry a maximum penalty of ten years in prison, and the property acquired with the proceeds of organized crime would be forfeited to Her Majesty. Thus, law enforcement authorities would have the means to fight criminal organizations and to deal with the real cause of the problem.

I think all of us should try to get better acquainted with the sad reality of the proliferation of criminal organizations. Nobody is protected against that problem, whether we live in Montreal or Quebec City.

Our vulnerability lies in the very nature of organized crime. Experts agree that it should be defined as a constant conspiracy to make profits and get more power through the use of fear and corruption.

That is why everyone is vulnerable. When an organization uses fear and corruption, it can get almost unlimited in scope. Each and everyone of us is afraid at the mere thought of being pressured or threatened by criminals.

Right now, the Montreal area is prey to these types of criminals. Everything seems to indicate though that other regions, like mine, could very soon be controlled by criminals, if it is not already the case. Therefore, we have to give our police and legal authorities the power they need to fight this social evil, while, of course, upholding the basic human rights of all individuals. This is exactly what

the bill introduced by my colleague is trying to do and I urge all members of this House to support this initiative.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since no more members wish to speak, shall we call it 12 o'clock at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Employment Insurance Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, not more than eight further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and second reading of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the the third reading stage of the bill and, at the expiry of the time provided for in this order for the report stage, and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Some hon. members]

It is a disgrace.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Another gag order. This is outrageous. This legislation is too important for that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?