Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-51 today. This is a bill that makes at least 12 amendments to the Criminal Code
I will give you examples of some of the amendments, in order to demonstrate what a catchall it is. One could call it a tutti-frutti bill. It tries to cover all the bases. I would like to list some of the amendments.
The purpose of the bill is to widen the scope of the offence of obtaining the services of a prostitute under eighteen years old; to modernize the provisions concerning the offence of making likenesses of bank notes; and to bring deceptive telemarketing offences against the Competition Act under the forfeiture provisions for the proceeds of crime.
These are but a few of the amendments, and I have listed them to demonstrate how impossible it is to seriously address all of these aspects—scattered as they are—in the time allotted me.
I would, however, like to point out that this bill marks a great victory for the Bloc Quebecois. The section in question is the one on cruise ship casinos. This will have a definite economic impact on the Quebec City region, my riding in particular. I will come back to this later.
I would also like to mention the Bloc Quebecois' partial victory concerning amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that exclude those convicted of organized-crime offences from eligibility for accelerated parole review.
These amendments to the Criminal Code are a result of the pressure brought to bear by the Bloc Quebecois, which introduced private members' bills in the House. They are certainly the result of the many questions put by the members with responsibility for these files.
Today, as I have already mentioned, I will be focusing on the Criminal Code amendment that permits the operation of casinos on international cruise ships that are Canadian or in Canadian waters. If time permits, I would also like to speak to the amendment having to do with eligibility for accelerated parole review.
The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice yesterday, which we are discussing today, all the more so as it is the response to a request that goes back more than 10 years. Ten years ago, Port of Quebec authorities made a request, which has had the strong support of the Bloc Quebecois since we arrived on the federal political scene in 1993.
For 10 years, these harbour authorities have been asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code. It is a small amendment, but one which has deprived the entire Quebec City area of important economic benefits in various sectors of the tourism industry.
I would therefore like to take a few moments to look at the existing legislation, so as to shed some light on the proposed legislation.
Games of chance, including casinos, come under federal jurisdiction, and are prohibited under the Criminal Code except where authorized by a competent provincial authority under section 207 of the Code.
Because casinos on board ship fall under the Criminal Code definition of gaming houses, enforcement of the federal legislation falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces as soon as a ship arrives in one of the ports on their territory, if the ship has committed an offence at any point since it entered Canadian territorial waters 12 miles off the coast line.
This is not much of a disadvantage for international cruise ships headed for ports in British Columbia or the maritimes. Why? Because those ports are just 12 miles away from international waters, all gambling activities are shut down just before docking, which is not the case for the St. Lawrence ports. When ships enter the St. Lawrence, they come under the Criminal Code as soon as they are 12 miles off the eastern tip of Anticosti Island. This means that gaming tables have to be shut down as soon as they pass that strategic point and remain shut down until they sail out of Canadian territorial waters, which takes two to three days.
When tourists pay for cruises that have casinos, it is because they want to be able to gamble. The Quebec City region was penalized because all casino activity had to be shut down as soon as they were off Anticosti Island. This meant that, for two or three days before arrival at the Quebec City and other St. Lawrence ports, passengers could not use the casino. It is therefore quite clear how much Quebec City was at a disadvantage.
As well, under section 207 of the Criminal Code, casino activities in Canada were legal only if directly operated by a provincial government, or under provincial licence by a religious or charitable organization or the board of a fair or exhibition.
Only an amendment to the Criminal Code could settle the question of casinos aboard cruise ships, and today I can state that, as the MP for the riding of Québec, I am pleased the government has finally been able to make this amendment to the legislation.
Let us now look at how the proposed legislative amendment will remedy the situation. Clause 7 of Bill C-51 proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code which will make it possible for casinos to operate on board ship provided they are not within five nautical miles of a Canadian port at which the ship calls or is scheduled to call. Unless I am mistaken, a distance of five nautical miles means about 12 kilometres before arriving to the port. So, we are very pleased with that provision.
Interestingly, one of the positive aspects of these amendments is that they only change in a minor way the legislation prohibiting the operation of casinos in Canada, except for section 207 of the Criminal Code. In spite of its minor importance, this legislative amendment will have a major impact for the province of Quebec. Because of Bill C-51, the St. Lawrence River will finally be on the same footing as the other Canadian maritime regions, such as Vancouver and Halifax, to name but two.
And this fair balance will be restored without having to change the spirit of the law, and without affecting in any way the plans that some provincial governments may have about operating casinos. Indeed, this legislation does not seek to compete with casinos operated by the Government of Quebec or by other provinces. The gambling rooms will be closed when the ship is in a port.
While we stress the fairness that the new legislation will bring about, we should not forget the major economic spinoffs that it will provide for the Quebec City area. The cruise industry has an economic impact of several millions of dollars for the Quebec City region.
Studies indicate that each tourist spends $110 when a ship calls at a port. Since the provision of the Criminal Code currently in effect prevents about 25 ships with an average of 1,000 to 1,500 passengers from coming to Quebec City, the resulting shortfall is huge. It totals $2.5 million per year, and we have been asking for that change for 10 years. It is pretty easy to figure out that an annual shortfall of $2.5 million over a 10 year period represents a considerable amount of money for the Quebec City region.
Supposing that more cruise ships—and everyone knows that the industry is growing—stayed longer, what economic impact would this have on the tourism industry in the greater Quebec City region?
Clearly put, the new legislation will have a major economic impact on our region, lengthening the tourism season and increasing activity.
The decision will have an effect on the life of Quebec City and bring in even more tourists. It could even cause tourists caught in the charm of Quebec City during a stop there to return to visit our region and to promote it within their own communities. We are delighted.
We must remind those watching us and our colleagues in this House that the Quebec National Assembly passed a bill quite similar to Bill C-51, and that was in 1995. The Bloc Quebecois has been very active since its arrival in Ottawa in an attempt to correct this inequity.
My colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans introduced a bill in the House in February 1997 with the full support of the members in the caucus from the Quebec City region. Because of the election in 1997, he had to start all over, as he did in June. A number of press conferences followed the tabling of these two bills. The Bloc Quebecois was persistent in this matter, because of the economic benefits for the region.
So, I remind you that the request from the Quebec City port authorities is 10 years old and that many stakeholders were steadfast in their support of our action to have the Criminal Code amended. They include the Quebec City Urban Community, the Quebec City Region Tourist and Convention Bureau, the Secrétariat à la mise en valeur du St. Lawrence, the Corporation of the Lower St. Lawrence Pilots, the Société de développement économique du Saint-Laurent, the Quebec department of tourism, and representatives of the business community. They were all behind us to have the legislation changed.
We are delighted Bill C-51 has been changed to permit the operation of casinos on cruise ships, but we regret the slowness of the federal government and its lack of flexibility. Bloc members had to press hard for this bill before our efforts finally paid off.
If we relate this issue to other issues, it seems paradoxical that a controversial bill like Bill C-36 establishing the millennium scholarships, for example, would be adopted as quickly as it was. I sat on the committee. A few weeks is all it took to change the legislation and establish the scholarships. The consensus in Quebec was against this legislation, unlike the one concerning cruise ships. We were against the establishment of a millennium scholarship foundation and we find the federal government's logic lacking when it comes to legislation that could favour Quebec.
For Bill C-36 establishing the millennium scholarships that no one in Quebec supported, the Liberal government managed to find $2.5 billion in two weeks.
But a minor change to the Criminal Code, with a major economic impact, took 10 years. The logic of this government still eludes us, when it is quick to act on issues that serve its interests and drags its feet on those serving Quebec's economic interests.
If I have a few minutes left, I would like to address the part of Bill C-51 dealing with eligibility for accelerated parole review. Here again, we feel the government is not going far enough. Granted, this would be a major change. It would give teeth to our legislation dealing with certain drug traffickers.
I will use the few minutes I have left to try to explain how this amendment could prove worthwhile and be improved upon by the government.
In August 1997, we learned of the Lagana affair from newspaper reports. A lawyer had been sentenced in 1995 to 13 years in prison for importing cocaine and laundering $47.4 million. As we know, Mr. Lagana was released after serving only 26 months, or one-sixth of his sentence, because he had become eligible for accelerated parole review. After serving just one-sixth of his or her sentence, any non-violent criminal who has never done time before may apply for parole.
In response, the Bloc Quebecois, through the member for Charlesbourg, introduced a private member's bill to eliminate this accelerated procedure for those found guilty of money laundering.
In Bill C-51, the government wants to correct this situation. It is proposing to exclude those convicted of organized crime offences from eligibility for accelerated parole review. This amendment is a step in the right direction, but it is limited to the provision of the Criminal Code dealing with organized crime. It does not affect bankers, individuals or lawyers convicted of money laundering who are not part of organized crime. Such individuals may therefore continue to launder millions of dollars and serve only one sixth of their sentence in jail.
We would have liked to see this amendment extended to include lawyers and bankers who launder money. This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. We in the Bloc Quebecois will not stand for another case like that of Lagana. We will introduce amendments to make up for the Liberal government's lack of courage.
We would also have liked to see $1,000 bank notes taken out of circulation, because we know that it is easier to launder that denomination. We are one of the only countries in the world with this denomination in circulation.
We would also like financial institutions to be permitted to alert the police about suspicious transactions of $10,000 and over.
I will not be able to address all the other items. Since there are a good dozen amendments in Bill C-51, it is difficult to give them the attention they deserve in a mere fifteen or twenty minutes.
In conclusion, as I mentioned, we are very happy with the Criminal Code amendment having to do with cruise ships.