Debates of June 9th, 1998

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have quorum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Liberals to stick around and listen. What I have to say is extremely interesting. I extend that invitation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in particular. It would be worth her while.

To get back to what I was saying before I was interrupted by the quorum call, which incidentally the government, and not the opposition, is responsible for maintaining—if a quorum is called for, it is because there are not enough government MPs in the House, and this needs to be explained because people are not aware of it—

What the government MPs fail to understand is that it is up to them to maintain a presence in this House. They are the ones who have to maintain a quorum, not the Bloc Quebecois, not the Conservatives, not the NDP. They are the ones in power, and they are the ones who have to be here if the House is to keep operating.

That said—they cut me off in the best part and they are annoying me—the Minister of Justice's strategy for juvenile crime may be summarized as follows.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should not leave but listen. She sets up an expensive and unsatisfactory new plan; she turns a deaf ear to remarks by Quebec, which properly applies the law; she refuses to reimburse Quebec for applying the law and, in the end, she is making political points in the West. Once again, the Liberal government should be ashamed of the way it manages its priorities.

Instead of spending most of this money on unlawful political forays such as the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and unsuitable programs such as the reform of the Young Offenders Act and all the programs involving young offenders, the federal government should respond to the desperate needs of the people and to the legitimate expectations of Quebeckers.

For example, when will the government agree to make the necessary changes to the Freedom of Information Act, among others? How many reports by the commissioner of information have to be tabled in this House before the Minister of Justice agrees to reform a law which lacks the teeth to ensure access to information in Canada?

I will quote the information commissioner, who says “After 15 years, the Freedom of Information Act must be consolidated and modernized”.

He went on to say “The blame lies neither with fate nor with the law, it lies with the government and officials who prefer to complain of the demands of access to information rather than espouse its noble objectives, who prefer to deny the public the information it paid for with its taxes”.

If the government spent carefully, perhaps we might see an access to information act that would give Canadians and Quebeckers the transparency democracy requires.

What is strange, when one looks at past Debates , is that when the Liberals were the opposition, they made comments, for instance about the Access to Information Act, to the effect that it did not meet their needs, that it did not give access to all documents, that things were being concealed. They said that it was not strict enough, or this or that.

Now they are on the other side. They could amend the Access to Information Act, to reflect their criticisms while in opposition. But when one is on the gravy train, when one is busy concealing all manner of things from the public, and when one is in government, there is no desire to change things. That is where the Liberals are at now. They are hiding behind a law that needs changing, even the access to information commissioner says so.

I could also say a great deal about all the unnecessary expenditures, or more particularly what the department is not doing and ought to be doing, with the $193 million or so that will be voted to it this evening.

Among other things, it could introduce a money laundering bill. Why does the federal government not spend some money on looking at the possibility of legislation to tighten things up so that Canada is no longer the hub of money laundering? Billions pass through Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces for that very purpose, and the federal government sits there with its arms folded.

It says “Isn't it terrible about all that money laundering” but does nothing. The opposition has often asked questions on this and the members of the government do nothing about it.

The Bloc Quebecois did manage, through its efforts, to push the government across the way into introducing anti-gang legislation. I see the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who worked hard with me on this issue in the Standing Committee on Justice, when we were the official opposition. We managed to get the Liberal government to make concessions, although not as many as we would have liked.

If we are going to give a little over $193 million to the Department of Justice, why not add certain provisions to the anti-gang legislation, so we can go after gang leaders? As we know, all those who implement this legislation say that it does not allow them to go after the leaders.

It is time the government used its money for legitimate purposes. It is time it admitted to making some bad choices. It is time it recognized that things are done differently in Quebec and listened to Quebeckers' concerns about, among other things, the Young Offenders Act, which is a very simple piece of legislation.

[An hon. member]

It costs a lot more in Quebec.

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

One can see the ignorance of members opposite. One can see the ignorance of government members who say that it costs more in Quebec to implement the Young Offenders Act. This is not true. Look at the figures.

Even if you take into account the outstanding claim that the federal government is refusing to pay, Quebec gets less money per young offender than any other Canadian province. For a total of 10,000 young offenders, Quebec is getting eight times less than western provinces.

What I do not understand is that the person who made these comments is a member from Quebec. I think he should work harder at protecting the interests of his constituents. The member for Beauce should be ashamed of distorting the facts, as he is now doing, and not adequately protecting his constituents.

He should rise and tell the Liberals that it does not make sense to use public money the way they do, including the $193 million allocated to the Department of Justice.

In conclusion, I wish the Liberals who are listening would be more perceptive. They look concerned. I get the impression that I taught them a few things today. They should take a closer look at the budget before voting on the business of supply tonight. I do hope they will at least check on what the Minister of Justice will do with this $193 million.

I do hope that Quebec members—and many of them are listening—will also keep an eye on the Minister of Justice to stop her from spending Quebeckers' money on things such as references to the Supreme Court of Canada, because Quebeckers have had enough of this.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with interest.

The removal of $193,805,000 would completely remove the client services and the law and policy administration. I recall earlier this year that the Bloc Quebecois pleaded with the government for help with motorcycle gangs like the Posse, the Rock Machine and Hell's Angels. Will my hon. colleague still be asking for that kind of help? Where would the money come from to fund that resource?

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

Mr. Speaker, in a sense, I answered that question when I commented on the amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

If the member has been following the Bloc Quebecois' arguments since 1993 regarding the criminal justice system, I will not be telling him anything he does not already know when I say that, when it comes to justice and the application of the Criminal Code, the federal government should simply withdraw. It should negotiate with the provinces so that they can recover full jurisdiction over the criminal justice system and all criminal courts. This should come entirely under provincial jurisdiction.

The present situation makes no sense. The federal government passes laws, but does not apply them. That is left to the provinces, because the administration of justice is a provincial matter. Perhaps back in 1867 the Fathers of Confederation—or is it federation, because the federalists opposite use a different jargon and cannot agree on whether it is a federation or a confederation, but that is not my problem, given the Bloc Quebecois' objective—thought it would work well. But, as it happens, it does not.

As it happens, there is extremely expensive overlap and duplication. The federal government should withdraw and return full jurisdiction to the National Assembly and the other provinces so that they can have full control over the criminal justice system and all related matters. The $193 million not spent by the federal government could thus be transferred to the provinces so that they can have jurisdiction and administer the criminal justice system properly.

I can give another very recent example. In committee, we are studying provisions that would create a kind of victims' assistance bureau, or something of the sort. A number of provinces, including Quebec, already have a law known as the victims of crime act. We have an office to help victims of crime, and compensation is given to these victims.

The federal government wants to legislate in this area and to parallel Quebec, because we already have this. I have heard from representatives of British Columbia the same thing I have heard in Quebec. They do not want the federal government intervening in an area of provincial jurisdiction and investing money in programs paralleling those already existing in the provinces. They want it to give the money to the provinces so they can spend it where it would do the most good.

So what I mean when I say I oppose the appropriations worth $193 million we will be voting on is that the money is badly used and badly spent. If there is one area where the provinces are more competent and closer to the people in order to better respond to their expectations, it is the area of the Criminal Code and related legislation, and the provinces should have full jurisdiction there.

The other question the hon. member raised is that if $193 million is cut, there will be no more money to go after the motorcycle gangs. In this regard, I will speak to you of Quebec. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois government—first under Mr. Parizeau, then under Mr. Bouchard, assumed its full responsibilities.

They created some highly competent squads with excellent results. The people across the floor may well laugh. The hon. member for Beauce may well not know his history, or what is going on in the National Assembly, but I think that where the anti-gang legislation is concerned, if the Government of Quebec had not acted on it, if the Government of Quebec had not helped the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. members over there would never have had the political courage to listen to what many Quebeckers were calling for in connection with legislation against motorcycle gangs. The Minister of Justice decided to act because of the Bloc Quebecois and the Government of Quebec.

Once again, I understand that the Liberal MPs from Quebec do not want to hear that. They are ignorant of their history, as we have often said, but today we have one more proof of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will join with me in commenting on the eloquence of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, as he spoke with a depth one very rarely gets from that side of the House.

I would like to ask one question of my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm. Can he tell us why it is important at this point in history and in the present situation with organized crime, to have MPs like those in the Bloc Quebecois able to stand up and propose concrete measures?

My colleague referred to money laundering. This is cause for great concern. I would like my colleague, with his knowledge in this area, to raise the awareness of others, the government members in particular, who are a bit slow to assimilate anything new.

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

Mr. Speaker, money laundering is indeed a major industry in Canada. According to police officers and experts in the field—and the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve can correct me if I am wrong—between $225 and $250 billion are laundered in Canada every year. It should come as no surprise that Canada is known internationally as a haven for money laundering.

As a Quebecker, this does not make me proud. We are working hard to achieve our goal but, for the time being, Quebec is still part of Canada. Every year, between $225 and $250 billion are laundered in our country. This bothers me a bit. We repeatedly asked this government to introduce legislation to make it harder to launder money in Canada, since it is done all too easily right now.

In its electoral platform, the Bloc Quebecois suggested a very simple idea which the government could implement immediately. It could even be implemented before we adjourn for the summer. Canada is about the only country in the world with bank notes of $1,000. No other country has $1,000 bills. Why not stop producing these $1,000 bank notes? Who in this House walks around with ten bills of $1,000 in his pockets?

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

Raise your hand.

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

Come on, raise your hand. There are not many Liberals and there is no one on our side.

Mr. Speaker, do you have ten bills of $1,000 in your pockets? No?

In Canada, $1,000 bank notes are used almost exclusively for transfers, for buying land, or by organized crime members. Not many people walk around with $1,000 bank notes in their pockets. I think that bills of $100, $50 and $20 adequately meet the needs of Canadians, particularly since we make extensive use of credit cards. There is no need to carry large amounts of money in our pockets.

Why not, then, go along with what the Bloc Quebecois requested during the election campaign and on a few occasions since 1997 and take one thousand dollar bills out of circulation? It is very simple.

I have a friend who is a lawyer, a judge now, whom I will not name for fear of making his life difficult—

[An hon. member]

Appointed by the federal government.

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

Yes, appointed by the federal government. Admittedly, I was once a Liberal, but he is still one.

The judge said that there was a case of a man appearing in a financial institution with a hockey bag stuffed with $20, $50 and $100 dollar bills. He had the tidy little sum of about $270,000 in there. As things now stand, the institution is not required to refuse this, to say the least, odd deposit.

This would be one place where the lawmakers could amend the law to reinforce this and not allow such strange deposits. An individual should be required to report the source of bills being deposited.

Message From The Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed a bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

The House resumed consideration of the business of supply.

Supply

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the subject of the Department of Canadian Heritage estimates. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Palliser.

Canadian heritage may seem like a vague term to most Canadians. However, when they begin to understand the areas which heritage covers it has tremendous importance to each and every one of us. When we talk about the heritage department we are talking about the Canada Council, the CBC, the Canadian Film Development Corporation, all of our libraries and museums, the art gallery, the CRTC, the NFB and all of the community grants and supports to individual artists.

I remember back in September of last year at one of the first meetings of the heritage committee we had a visit from the minister.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If the hon. member for Dartmouth would excuse me for a moment, I just want to be assured that the hon. member for Dartmouth is speaking to Motion No. 1 which has to do with the Department of Justice. If the hon. member could work the Department of Justice into her intervention, it would make it much more relevant to the debate at hand.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the Department of Canadian Heritage estimates.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The floor must then go to a member to speak to the motion that is being debated at hand. The hon. member for Dartmouth was splitting her time. If the hon. member for Palliser does not wish to continue debate at this time, I will then recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and also the member for Berthier—Montcalm propose to vote down the operating expenditures of the Department of Justice.

If the House approves this motion, it would prevent the Department of Justice from conducting its statutory responsibilities. The $193.8 million in operating expenditures required in 1998-99 will allow the department to carry out its responsibilities for the legal affairs of the government as a whole and to provide legal services to individual departments and agencies.

More specifically, these funds will enable the department to continue to meet its responsibilities under three lines: one, the provision of services to the government; two, policy development and administration of the law; and three, the administration itself. I intend to elaborate on each line or point today.

The Department of Justice serves the government in various ways. It drafts all government legislation. It provides legal advice to all departments and represents the government in court.

To ensure the timely provision of the services they need, most department incorporate legal services in their departmental headquarters. These are the legal services falling under the justice department, in charge of providing legal advice, court representation and legal assistance on all legal matters that concern the various departments.

A network of regional offices provides most court representation services. These offices also provide legal advice to meet the needs of the government and its agencies in terms of regional operations.

There are three main areas where the Department of Justice has lead responsibility: criminal justice policy, family and youth law policy arising out of marriage and divorce; and human rights policy. The department also has the lead role in constitutional law, administrative law, aboriginal justice, access to information and privacy law, official languages law and the government's mandate for courts and judges.

The Minister of Justice and her department are responsible for over 40 statutes, many with major policy ramifications. The department must anticipate future legal and societal trends in order to provide timely, strategic and effective responses; to provide leadership both to the government and the public in understanding the changing legal world; and to provide guidance in achieving governmental objectives in a manner consistent with fundamental rights and freedoms, fairness, equality, accessibility, and effective and efficient legal policy.

To meet this challenge and to ensure Canadians have a fair, efficient, accessible and inclusive national system of justice, the department provides a range of services relating to the planning, co-ordination, development, promotion and implementation of justice related policies.

The Department of Justice 1998-99 report on plans and priorities shows that the department is moving forward with a balanced and focused policy agenda which responds to the issues Canadians have identified as important to them.

Let us examine some of the areas the department is currently working on. One is the crime prevention strategy.

Last week, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General announced a new phase in the national community safety and crime prevention strategy, whose budget has increased from $3 million to $32 million a year. This strategy is designed to help communities address the root causes of crime.

The role of the justice department in this new phase of the program will be to promote the exchange of information between communities on effective crime prevention measures, help federal departments co-ordinate their efforts and establish relationships based on partnership between the governments, NGOs and the private sector. To this end, the justice department will have to call upon the interest, expertise, ideas and contribution of all Canadians.

Let me now turn to youth justice, on which the members of the opposition had much to say today. The Minister of Justice recognizes that Canadians' confidence in the youth justice system has been shaken in recent years. She announced a few weeks ago a youth justice strategy that would lead to the replacement of the Young Offenders Act. The reform would ensure that violent young offenders would face meaningful consequences for their crimes. It would also provide new ways of approaching youth justice that give young people the opportunity to turn their lives around.

The Minister of Justice does not believe, as the Reform Party does, that putting more kids in jail for longer periods is the solution. This is too simplistic an approach, as are most of the Reform Party's approaches on justice.

Violent youth will face custody but jail terms are often counterproductive for the vast majority of youth who are non-violent. The strategy involves looking at alternative approaches, approaches that specifically aim to instil the values of responsibility and accountability in youth.

The treatment accorded victims of crime is another of the Minister of Justice's priorities. The work done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should provide the Department of Justice with useful information to find ways to guarantee victims at least two things: access to information and protection under the law.

Last night the Minister of Justice visited a town hall meeting that I held in my riding with the assistance of the hon. member for Mount Royal and other members of the Quebec caucus on the government side. Despite what the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm said, most people who were present at this meeting, although the Quebec system is a good one, still found a lack of funding for a lot of the resources that victims need.

One thing we are attempting to do through this type of consultation with Quebeckers and all other Canadians across the country is to ensure that there is collaboration between federal and provincial governments and to ensure there are services available for victims. Certainly last night that was not the portrait presented in Quebec in terms of the system in place in Quebec which lacks funding. We encourage all members of the House of Commons to told town hall meetings.

The department is looking to resolve victims' frustration by trying to improve access to appropriate information, especially as concerns the co-ordination and sharing of information on victims' rights and services.

The Minister of Justice has asked the department to examine the possibility—and, I repeat, possibility, one of the ones on the table, nothing is written yet—of creating a central office to assist victims. However, she never said, and reference was made yesterday at my town hall meeting, that this would duplicate something that already exists in the provinces. There is no question of that. It is only one of the things raised by the agencies working with victims. We are looking at all the options. Everything is on the table.

As for legal protection, counsel with the Department of Justice recently defended the constitutional validity of the new provisions of the Criminal Code aimed at limiting public access to the medical records of plaintiffs in proceedings involving sexual offences.

The department is also looking into the possibility of amending the Criminal Code to respond to their concerns by, among other things, permitting greater use of victims' statements.

Conditional sentencing is another favourite topic of the opposition. The Department of Justice is examining on an ongoing basis areas which are controversial. One of those areas is conditional sentencing. Since September 1996 when judges have been able to grant conditional sentences over 18,000 such sentences have been imposed. The vast majority of these orders were considered appropriate dispositions. However some decisions have caused concern and controversy.

One of the reasons they have caused concern and controversy is that they are constantly being exploited by members of the Reform Party. Sensationalizing the most violent criminals in our society seems to be the game of the day. Fearmongering is also part of Reform's strategy.

The Department of Justice is working closely with the provinces and territories to monitor conditional sentences at the request of the attorneys general of all provinces. This monitoring work is important to ensure that any reform to the law is based on real facts, not on perceptions based on media reporting or fearmongering on the part of the opposition.

Very recently the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in five cases involving persons who received conditional sentences of imprisonment. The appeals are expected to provide clarification and guidance in the use of conditional sentences in cases involving violence resulting in death or injury or other such cases. The department has also been asked by the Minister of Justice to consider the development of common guidelines that would assist prosecutors in deciding when to seek conditional sentences. We have acted despite the opposition saying that we do not act.

There has been a constant debate in the House on firearms control. We must never forget that opposition members oppose any type of gun control system in Canada, even though 80% of Canadians support a universal registration system for shotguns and rifles. The opposition is out of touch with Canadians.

Effective implementation of a firearms control program is among the highest priorities of the Department of Justice. The regulations required to implement the system have been made following the scrutiny of both houses of parliament. The system will be functional by October 1, 1998.

Registration together with licensing and the other aspects of the Firearms Act are aimed at facilitating the continued enjoyment of their sport by responsible owners using safe practices. This will decrease the risk of gratuitous violence and will promote a culture that recognizes safety and responsibility. We do not want children killing children in Canada.

The new firearms legislation is a positive effective contributor to the range of criminal and social measures put in place by the government to further a safe and secure society. The gun control legislation has the support of a large majority, as high as 80% and as high as 72% in some rural areas, and is a reflection of a country of peaceful communities, safe streets and fairness.

Concerning administration it is a third business line of the Department of Justice. It encompasses the range of corporate management and administrative services required to support the department's program delivery and internal administration.

To conclude, I believe the department is managing its resources responsibly. The department's policy work will have an impact on the confidence of Canadians in their justice system. In addition the role of the Department of Justice in advising the government on legal issues—and let us not forget it is the legal department for all government departments—and in conducting litigation on behalf of the crown is vital to the proper functioning of the Canadian government and Canadian society as a whole. The department should be given the means to conduct its responsibilities.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice speaks in the House.

She is given the opportunity to bring forward the programs of government and the benefits that it believes will flow from those programs. She either seems to be uncomfortable or lacking confidence in her own position or in her government's programs and legislation because she always has to take up much of the time simply attacking the opposition.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the gun control program and said that 80% of the people supported the hideous, ill conceived Bill C-68. If that were the case we would not have four provincial governments having to answer to their electorate just as the federal government will have to do. If 80% of voters were telling their provincial governments to support the bill, we would not have four provinces and two territories supporting the constitutional challenge that is occurring now before the appeal court of Alberta. I will get back to this point when I speak in the House on the estimates.

The member talked about spending more money. The minister announced the expenditure of $32 million in the area of crime prevention and so on. However, when the justice minister and her officials appeared before the standing committee on the estimates I asked this question of the minister: “Why is it that the province of Manitoba is considering litigation to get out from under the administration of the Young Offenders Act? Why is that happening based upon the fact that the federal government is reneging on its cost sharing program?” I also asked the minister where that stood and if there was more money on the table to bring Manitoba back onside. At that time the answer was no.

In view of additional expenditure in the area of justice, has new money been offered to the province of Manitoba to get it onside and to get it to continue to administer the Young Offenders Act, or is it still heading for court to get out from under the administration of the Young Offenders Act?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take offence at the suggestion that we are trying to dodge our responsibilities in the House, be it the minister or be it myself as parliamentary secretary.

As far as the question the member asked, the $32 million put forward by the government was the crime prevention initiative to ensure community involvement in terms of crime prevention.

We as a government, unlike the Reform Party, believe that we have to start early in order to prevent crime. Jail is not the answer for children. Nor is whipping, as one member would like us to believe. Nor is caning, as another members would like us to believe. We should take the $32 million and sit down with the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector to come up with effective crime prevention initiatives across the country.

There will be ongoing negotiations with the municipal governments, the provincial governments and all other players, be they private or community based organizations, to ensure that we prevent crime and do not continue to spend as much money as we spend right now in terms of incarcerating people. That is totally different from what the Reform Party would like us to believe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take a few moments to exchange views with my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, who I hear is very involved in the school elections, but we will have another chance to talk about that. I nonetheless wish her good luck on Sunday, because she could find it rough going.

Can the minister tell us a little about what her government plans to do with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act? I have its latest report here. I have always been extremely interested in the whole human rights issue, and we are urgently calling for an overhaul of the legislation.

This is a piece of legislation that has not been amended, except obviously for the addition of an 11th prohibited ground of discrimination last year. It cries out for an overhaul. Does the minister agree with those who think that poverty is a growing reality in Canada? Did members know that there have never been so many poor people in Canada? I can see, of course, that you are thinking that there is a direct link with the terrible cuts to transfers made by this government and you are not mistaken. The fact is that the income of approximately 40% of Canadians and Quebeckers is below the poverty line.

What connection does this have with the Canadian Human Rights Act? The connection is that we should give economic rights and that we should never allow discrimination based on social status. May I remind you that in France, the mother country of us all and the elder daughter of the Church, there is an obligation for the human rights commission to review all acts, and to advise on the impact legislation passed by the French government will have on poverty. Might I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary, whose sensitivity to this issue I am well aware of, whether she subscribes to such measures?

Second, does she acknowledge that her government is particularly clam-like, if not jellyfish-like, lacking in scope or ambition, when it comes to fighting organized crime? The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, a rising star in the Quebec firmament, has clearly pointed out to us that a meaningful policy against crime requires a number of significant measures that are lacking at present. Of course, there is all the business of money laundering.

I have no great expectations of the parliamentary secretary's answers to the questions, but if she would agree to cast a little light on this question, I would be grateful to her.

In closing, can she tell us who she plans to support in the school board elections coming up this Sunday, June 14, in Montreal?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, we are not discussing school elections here. When a member abuses his privileges here in this House, it is my duty, as a member of this House, to point it out, even when he has repaid the money, because he still committed the act. Political parties do not enter into it.

I have never been involved in school elections. The Bloc gets involved in every one. Every time one is held, there they are. The former member for Rosemont would get involved, the leader of the Bloc has been involved and now the new member for Rosemont. Three times they have got involved. They are involved in school elections. I was not involved, I simply pointed out to all Canadians, including the people of Rosemont who complained to me, that the member for Rosemont sent a letter in support of MEMO, the gang of separatists in Quebec, to everyone.

That said, I will answer the question.

First, in terms of the fight against crime, I think the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is aware that the former Minister of Justice introduced the first bill against biker gangs in the House. I think we are in favour and that we can consider the suggestion by the Bloc justice critic on money laundering.

The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice are aware of the need. We were the ones to first introduce anti-gang legislation here. We are therefore well aware of the problem to be resolved.

Second, on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I want to mention to the hon. member that the Quebec charter contains no provision on economic rights. I may be mistaken—

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

On social conditions.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Right, on social conditions. I do approve of his suggestion, though, and I think we should examine the possibility of adding another condition to the Canadian charter.

We recognize as a government that poverty is an important aspect of crime in this country. If people live in poverty, aspects of their lives may lead them into crime. This is why we invested $32 million in crime prevention—in order to help people and prevent crime.