Debates of Nov. 30th, 1999

Supply

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think they are a matter of public record. The member from Kamloops stood up and made not only statements on that issue but questioned the government on that issue. He quoted chapter and verse, and the name of a senior RCMP officer from British Columbia who wrote letters to us in response to a white collar scam that was going on in the riding of Kamloops.

Seniors were being cheated out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by some kind of a scam. The RCMP knew it was going on, knew the details, the amount and the people involved, but they wrote back saying, “We're sorry, but at this time we can't possibly investigate this. We don't have the resources, the staff or the manpower to investigate”. In other words, they said that there was no money to protect the interests of the victims.

We would be happy to give those letters to the member because we want this publicized as much as the member obviously does.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member, who was just asking the question, points out the problem we have between east and west where these stories are quite well known.

I have written the solicitor general and the head of the RCMP about the shortage of officers on the Sunshine Coast where they are supposed to have 52 officers for a population of 46,000. We are about 10 short, which is well above the 10% the commissioner sometimes talks about. Because of that, RCMP officers are sometimes quoted as saying that they cannot cover certain crimes overnight, like break-ins, because they do not have the staff. One officer was quoted as saying that they have been told by Ottawa not to go up to Pender Harbour from Sechelt to cover things at night, and yet there are a few thousand people who live there. We know it is a serious problem.

A comparison with that is West Vancouver which has 40,000 people, its own police force and 77 policemen on staff. It is an area bordered by water on two sides and a very compact area compared with the Sunshine Coast. We have a real shortage.

The member made a comment about the Fujian province. I agree with a lot of the things he said about that, but he also said that we only have one office in Beijing and at 18 cents an hour how can they afford to get there. That may or may not be true, but how can they afford to pay the $40,000 to the guys to get on the boat? It leads to the fact that organized crime is behind it.

I have been told by an overwhelming number people in the Chinese community in Vancouver that if we do not turn the boats around, or at least send the people back by airplane immediately, the people in that province will not get the message that human smuggling is not the way we do immigration in Canada.

There is a difference here to start with. Yes, they cannot afford it, but they can afford to raise $30,000 or $40,000 and/or pay it off in ware when they get here. How does the member rationalize that statement?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member answered his own question. No one pays it up front. No one from that area has that kind of money. They sign a chit or whatever that they owe that money when they get here.

My brother is a lawyer in Toronto and has one of these people as a client. This person was chained to a bed in the basement of a home and forced to work 16 to 18 hour days in servitude, in bondage. This is bonded labour. This is a return to the bad old days of slavery. People are desperate enough to undertake the obligation of owing $40,000. If they do not pay it back, they are under great threat of coercion or of having damage done to their families back home. Many of them probably still have loved ones back in the Fujian province.

This is the kind of coercion and manipulation that goes on in the minds of desperate people. Can anyone imagine how desperate people would have to be? The 18 cents an hour is not my figure. It was the International Labour Organization that just recently did the study of the free economic trade zones in the Fujian province where a lot of our products are made, such as children's toys, furniture and electronics. Maybe the clothes that I am wearing right now were stitched together in that particular area of China. There are 200 free economic trade zones in China now, many of them in the Fujian province, where western goods are made. I did not invent that figure. The International Labour Organization's estimate was that 85 cents an hour would be a reasonable living wage for a person in that area of China. They make 18 cents an hour. Beijing is a heck of a long way from the Fujian province. I do not know how they would even get there to file an application for a visa. I do not think it can be done. Legally, they cannot get here from there.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and take part in this debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I will begin by commending the Bloc for the impetus to bring this debate before the House. It is certainly very useful and instructional in terms of the commentary that we will be hearing throughout the day. I commend the Bloc's foresight on the use of this opposition day.

With the issues of options and priorities that we have when it comes to the decision that an opposition party must make with respect to the debate that will take place, I find it very interesting that the Bloc decided to choose this matter. It shows that it obviously recognizes the importance and the priority this issue has in Canada.

Yet, at the same time, the Prime Minister has chosen to provoke the Bloc and prefers a self-edifying folly into the minefield of separation. Canadians are very fatigued with the neverending debate. Obviously he is looking for a pedestal or a way to rehabilitate his abysmal performance in 1995 when he disappeared from the debate and left it to the then leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to try and carry his baggage.

We all recognize that organized crime is a threat to all that we hold dear: peace, order and good government. The Bloc Quebecois has chosen to make this a priority and it deserves praise for that. It is something that is very close to home within the province of Quebec because of the competing biker gangs that are playing out their dangerous warfare on the streets of Montreal. We also know that Lennoxville is home to the largest organized crime unit in the country. There is a chapter of the Hell's Angels that operates from Lennoxville. It is very timely that this motion comes before the House.

Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I also want to remind the House about the supply day motion itself and the process that brings us here today, which will culminate next week when the government will be asked for the authority to spend over $4 billion belonging to the people of Canada.

Supplementary estimates are referred to various committees for examination. To date, the government has not produced a single minister at committee to answer questions or offer attempts to speak to the reasoning for this request for supply. It is truly an offence to democracy. It offends people's sensibilities. I suggest that the smallest municipality in the country would not treat its taxpayers and citizens in such a cavalier fashion. This is $4 billion without a single word of explanation.

I will cite only one example of what is at stake when it comes to these types of estimates. The National Capital Commission is asking for $40 million for projects on Sparks Street, only one block away from the Chamber. The National Capital Commission meets in secret. The only public scrutiny of this agency would take place at a committee and it probably will not happen.

Another request is for $35 million for the firearms control program that is presently in chaos and making a black hole out of public money. The minister and officials have been unable to defend in any way their stewardship of this program.

The government has shut down the scrutiny process when it comes to estimates. The Liberals take the position that it is inconvenient for ministers to attend before committees. The ministers have a duty, I suggest, to attend and to give the public and members of the House an accounting.

It is not for the ministers to tell the committees of the House when they can appear. It is a duty they have to parliament to be here and answer questions about supply. Too many people in Canada, and in fact too many people in the House, have forgotten that cabinet ministers in particular are servants of the Canadian people.

I raise this point in the proceedings to give the government fair warning that it is completely dissatisfying the people of the country and the members of the House with its arrogant treatment of committees. To ask the House to approve public spending without an opportunity to question the government is highly unacceptable and inappropriate to everyone in this place. It is time for the committees to do their work. It is time for us as opposition members to hold the government to a greater level of account.

I want to turn now specifically to the motion before the House. It is appropriate to begin my remarks by congratulating the men and women who work on the frontlines of law enforcement. Whether it be police officers, peace officers, customs agents or crown prosecutors, those working at all levels of law enforcement need our support. They need our increased attention and they need resources very quickly. Increasing the law enforcement budget is the only true way to address the problems pointed out very clearly in the Bloc motion.

In essence, what is occurring at this time in this area is that law enforcement agents are simply being asked to do more with less. They have been ravished by government cutbacks and like a tired animal they are asking for assistance instead of having more heaped on to their backs. Unfortunately government cutbacks and slashes over the years have led Canadians to question the commitment and the priority level the government places on this sector of our country.

This ultimately leads to vulnerability to organized crime and increased levels of organized criminal activity. I am talking of Mafia type associations, criminal gangs and street gangs. Whether they be of any origin or national descent they are popping up at a shocking rate in communities around the country.

They are having a field day in the area of white collar high tech crime such as fraud, telemarketing scams, money laundering, drug importation and exportation, particularly on the west coast. They are dealing in pornography and contraband materials such as firearms, trafficking, loan sharking, and influence peddling, another area where organized crime is very active.

It is coming from international and multicultural groups within the country in the form of eastern European gangs specializing in counterfeiting, biker gangs that are mainly Caucasian, guns and explosives being smuggled in, Russian, Italian and Asian gangs, extortion, aboriginal gangs, pornography and firearms trafficking. All these groups are actively involved in criminal activity. However, the highest threat is drug importation and drug trafficking, the most lucrative area of organized criminal activity.

Intimidation of witnesses has been touched upon by a number of previous speakers. Intimidation of juries, officials and law enforcement agents very much undercuts and undermines the pinnings and the very cornerstones of our criminal justice system. If those working within the system are feeling hard done by and put upon by members of the organized community, they will not be able to do their jobs effectively. Insidious efforts to permeate and pervert our justice system are happening as we speak. Many of these threats to the justice system have come as a direct result of negligent underfunding on the part of the current government.

We know that many coming from outside the country are from very tumultuous and sometimes wartorn backgrounds. When they come to Canada they are overjoyed, if they are involved in criminal activity, at the lax approach that is sometimes taken and the blind eye that is sometimes turned to organized crime.

These criminals are professionals. They come to Canada oftentimes with quite a knowledgeable background of how to circumvent the law. There is no code of conduct or unwritten rules of conduct among the criminal element in this country. It is not like the old Hollywood movies and the gangsters who sometimes had a code of thieves. That does not happen.

Gangs are growing at an astonishing rate. I spoke recently with an undercover officer from the city of Montreal. He gave me some statistics and spoke of personal accounts of how gangs were cropping up in different parts of the city of Montreal and around the country at an astonishing rate.

In 1999 a CSIS annual report stated that Asian based criminal organizations would continue to pose challenges for police and agencies across the country because of their abilities to function as tightly knit units. The agencies we have in place to fight organized crime are aware of the syndicates that are cropping up. Yet they are increasingly frustrated because they do not have the resources to react.

The same report stated that the Hell's Angels had almost doubled in size in the province of Alberta in the last two years since coming to that province. In 1997 there were 26 members. In 1999 there are 46 members. As I have said, we have seen the numbers of chapters in and around the city of Montreal double in the last number of years.

To combat this new form of organized crime, police officers and CSIS agents need to be high tech. They need to be on at least a level playing field and working together with a common goal to try to stop the expansion of organized crime. In order to protect the public they need at least the equivalent tools and at least the equivalent resources.

Instead we hear that the RCMP is unable to investigate fraud cases in the province of British Columbia because of lack of resources. We know that in British Columbia close to 400 RCMP officers are needed to fill vacancies as we speak. The closing of government RCMP training academies in the last year even temporarily was a severe blow to the police. The elimination of ports police increased drug and human smuggling in our coastal communities. The Quebec Mounties have been ordered to stop recruiting. There are paid informants to help investigations. Real problems are happening out there.

In particular, organized crime involving drug importation is on the rise because the force is simply running out of money. It is not able to get people involved because it cannot pay them. Sadly one of the most effective tools the police have to infiltrate organized crime is to pay informants or the informants are not willing to inform. Similarly they are not getting the same level of protection under the Canadian witness protection program because of a lack of funding. Many investigators are unable to use wiretaps because the force cannot afford the computer time and the cost of transcribing tapes.

The solicitor general refuses to take responsibility for his department's actions when it falls down and documents go missing, but we know from the same internal reports put out by CSIS and the RCMP that it is not co-operating. It is not exercising the discretion to share information for a common goal because it is competing for resources. This should be very alarming. This rivalry is actually costing investigators and potentially putting lives at risk.

Groups like the Asian triads involved in the smuggling of individuals, of human bodies into the country, is on the rise due to the poor situation at our borders. There is a suggestion that many criminal gangs in Canada have links to the Chinese military. I was about to say Canadian military, and there is some suggestion of that too.

We know of the sidewinder investigation that took place and exposed a far-reaching, insidious plot to set up more organized crime in the country. Yet, because of a lack of resources among other problems, the sidewinder investigation was put aside. We will be hearing more about this issue. I suggest there will be shockwaves throughout our entire political and justice systems when it comes to the sidewinder investigation being brought to the forefront.

Gangs in Quebec have been growing marijuana in farmers' fields, intimidating farmers to remain silent, intimidating families and intimidating members of parliament. I congratulate the member who was threatened for his courage in continuing to fight for activity that will lead to the breaking of these types of crime syndicates.

It is not the fault of our law enforcement agents. The hardworking men and women involved in this battle continue to put their lives on the line. They continue to risk their own safety even in the face of this lack of government support. They need greater funding. They need greater support. They need greater surveillance. They need equipment, helicopters, patrol boats to monitor and actively take part in the effort to stem the tide of criminal activity.

Some may argue that it is too costly. The Liberals and the solicitor general himself can say that it is too costly. However, we know that they do not have enough money on occasion to fix patrol cars. They do not have enough money in some instances to provide adequate firearms for our officers. A shocking situation is developing.

Internationally we are increasingly vulnerable because of the erosion of policing agencies. Other countries have recognized this point. CIA and FBI reports have said that the United States of America is increasingly vulnerable because of the breakdown of law enforcement agencies in Canada. This is something that we should all be ashamed of, quite frankly.

I need not go into detail about the morale that exists within law enforcement agencies. That is at the point where it is bottoming out as well to match the funding. In April 1999 the chairman of the U.S. judicial subcommittee, Republican Lamar Smith, said that Canada was being used as a launch pad for middle eastern terrorists, biker gangs and crime families that use Canada's borders to sneak persons into that country.

Earlier this year the government put a little money back into fighting organized crime. In government terms it was $15 million per year for the RCMP to target organized crime at three international airports: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. As was previously mentioned Halifax was left out of the equation. It also put $19.5 million per year into Canada's anti-smuggling initiative.

I commend the government for recognizing the need to put in the money, but oftentimes we see that it puts in money over a long period of time. It makes a great deal out of the announcement, just like we saw in the throne speech and the red book before it. There were all kinds of promises about commitment but in the short term we need to stop the bleeding. We need to put in the money now.

This recognition by government is only the first step. We know that law enforcement officers need that money now. The DNA databank and the reopening of the RCMP training facility are great moves. We commend the government for them.

The solicitor general spoke in his remarks about changes in legislation to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and changes to the court system which would enable police officers to get witnesses before the court and provide them with greater protection to encourage them to testify.

There is one glaring omission. I can sum it up in a very simple phrase. We cannot keep people in prison longer and we cannot get them to court with greater ability unless police officers are able to catch them in the crime, bring them forward and get them into the system. That simply is not happening.

The Canadian police information system was recently upgraded by the solicitor general. With great pomp and ceremony he said that $150 million were being put into the upgrade. We know, and RCMP officers themselves have stated it, that $280 million were needed for the upgrade to be effective. Less than half the money required was put in by the solicitor general.

In the face of making these announcements about government spending, it is very apparent it has been spread far too thin over far too long a period. The solicitor general always says that fighting crimes is their number one priority. We on this side of the House are questioning that statement because it appears a lot of number one priorities are fighting for attention.

We hear a plethora of platitudes from the solicitor general denouncing criminal activity and talking about changes in organized crime strategy, but all we are seeing are increased levels of bureaucracy and ossification from the solicitor general. I truly question his grasp of his own department.

We see that there is not a co-ordinated effort. Our agencies are not working together at the level that they should be because they are not getting leadership from the top. They are not receiving leadership from this department. They are not receiving leadership from various agents at the top like the director of CSIS who completely abdicated his responsibility with respect to lost documents. Recently a CSIS agent was actually brought to task, but the CSIS director was completely untouched and, it appears, was complicit in the act itself and in the cover-up.

Although the solicitor general has made promises to modernize the department and do everything he can to increase the funding, it is not happening quickly enough.

The member spoke of the anti-gang bill and the CCRA review. Again these are pale in comparison to the priority when it comes to the need to inject real resources, real quick. Opposition parties, and I would suggest, provincial governments recognize this, and it is high time the government recognized it.

I want to commend the Bloc Quebecois as well. I want to commend the member for Charlesbourg who sponsored a private member's bill to get rid of thousand dollar bills, which are very popular among the drug trade. As well, I again reference the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who stood up to real threats from drug producers in his part of the country. I commend the member for his courage.

There are various elements of the criminal justice system that have to continue to work together, such as information sharing. Earlier in questions and comments I spoke about the privatization scheme which may be coming forward. I hope that is not the case. The Liberals continue to pat themselves on the back for creating initiatives, but this self-aggrandizing and plagiarising of policy is the trademark of the Liberal government. We have witnessed the GST, free trade and others. It was the Conservative Party which actually kick-started many of the initiatives dealing with organized crime.

In 1989 and again in 1993 a former Progressive Conservative government passed four major pieces of legislation to assist our law enforcement community. In 1989 the Conservatives passed proceeds of crime legislation, which was a first in Canadian criminal law history. They passed legislation to help officers trace the flow of money diverted from criminal activities. The former government passed the Proceeds of Crime Act in 1991.

The Progressive Conservative Party also brought in legislation which dealt with the seizing of property. A final initiative that I would reference is that of the organized crime bill, which had far-reaching implications and modified our Customs Act.

There is no doubt that this government has a high standard to live up to. The solicitor general needs to recognize that more can be done by his department. I hope he will do so.

I again cry out for the solicitor general to bring more tools, better and adequate legislation to address many of the problems. I thank the Bloc Quebecois and commend it for recognizing the need to discuss this matter now, ahead of an onerous, divisive debate which the Prime Minister would have had had he been able to provoke the Bloc in the way he tried.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the people reading Hansard or viewing this debate will note the collegiality which exists. From time to time in the House we come up with a common objective, a common agenda, and clearly the issue of organized crime in Canada is one that every member of the House should be very serious about.

The member touched on the issue of the lost CSIS briefcase. I think he may agree with me that the problem with respect to the action or inaction on the part of the government is probably best shown by what is or is not going on at CSIS.

In the period of time the government has been in power, in addition to the lost briefcase, there was also the loss of a computer disk which was left in a telephone booth. The solicitor general told us there was a review going on at CSIS by SIRC. We then found out from the same paper that the chair of the SIRC committee, the overseeing committee, was informed of the loss of the briefcase through the newspaper, not by the solicitor general, not by anything kicking in, which should be kicking in, at the department. But then we are told that the computer disk, in the so-called review—

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the questioner opposite going to get to organized crime?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would think the question is relevant.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it just shows that the Liberal member does not understand the connection, CSIS being able to uncover organized crime.

The point I am driving at is that the person who discovered the disk in the telephone booth said that SIRC had not even inquired of them as to the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Would the hon. member agree with me that the government did not even have people at SIRC who were in the position of overseeing CSIS? It was not until September 1999 that it finally appointed Bob Rae, Ray Speaker and Frank McKenna to three of the five positions. It was not until November 15 that it finally got around to appointing, after years of the position being vacant, the inspector general of SIRC.

Would the hon. member agree that it really belies this kind of inaction and the importance of CSIS relative to combating organized crime and getting intelligence?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question and I certainly agree that it is completely symptomatic of the breakdown in communication and the breakdown in terms of government recognition of the need for resource allocation in this area. CSIS is very much involved in the front line battle against organized crime.

The examples that the hon. member has referred to were bad enough. The bumbling type of activity that led to this lost information, which increased the vulnerability of some of the operations that CSIS was pursuing, was bad enough, but then to have that error exaggerated further by the CSIS watchdog, SIRC, not receiving the information, to use the phraseology of the Minister of Justice, “in a timely fashion”, but to read about it in the Globe and Mail , was absolutely abysmal. Then the government does nothing about it or it waits weeks and weeks to do anything about it.

This watchdog, SIRC, which was unmanned in many ways, or unpersoned in many ways—

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Unstaffed?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Unstaffed. Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her politically correct question. No substance, but political correctness has become the order of the day.

The point is, that watchdog cannot bite or bark unless somebody warns it that there is a problem, and that was not happening here. In fact I would suggest there is ample evidence that there was a wilful effort to not let SIRC know that this blunder had occurred. That is extremely problematic and the government is not reacting to this issue in a very responsible fashion.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some emotion to address the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois concerning organized crime.

A few weeks ago, I hired a helicopter and was flown over my riding. This proved to be a strange but enlightening adventure, as I now realize the scope of the phenomenon, just how much the gangs have taken over in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

In viewing my riding from the air, and in talking with colleagues afterward, I became aware that some 25% to 50% of fields in Quebec, and the same percentage in Ontario, have been commandeered by organized crime for the production of one of the best grades of cannabis in the world. It has nothing in common with the pot of the 1970s, as it contains 7 to 30 times more hallucinogens.

My flight, coupled with the discussions afterward, also opened my eyes to a very serious situation: the thousands of farm families terrorized year after year by organized crime, families prevented from enjoying their property in peace, from even going into their fields on pain of death. Their lives and their children's lives are threatened, and they do not dare set foot in their fields because they have been booby-trapped and there could be an explosion. These people have had enough, and they are appealing to us.

I have also seen that the problem in our cities is becoming more and more serious. My colleagues referred this morning to the situation in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. We are all aware that criminals are growing cannabis by hydroponics in a greenhouse or basement, or right out in the open in the middle of a city, and that there are shooting galleries all over the place. This is becoming more prevalent in the city as well as in the country.

I also realized something even more serious. The cannabis produced here is of such a high quality that it is often—and in fact increasingly so—traded for the same quantity of cocaine or heroin, for example on American markets. This means that the fields in Quebec, like those in Ontario and in other regions across Canada, are being used to smuggle huge shipments of cocaine and heroin on the Quebec and Canadian markets.

Since these drugs are smuggled in huge quantities, prices are low, which allows organized crime to sell it to children in the polyvalentes or high schools. Not only cannabis, but also cocaine and heroin, are found in the polyvalentes.

It is no surprise that, every year, there is an increase in the numbers of 12 and 13-year olds who use these hard drugs, and the children of anyone here could be among them. We should be very aware of this issue and its long term impact on our society.

We have to realize that organized crime makes money primarily from drug trafficking and production. The Canadian market alone generates $10 billion U.S. annually. The international market, which is controlled in part by some biker gangs in Canada, could reach $500 billion U.S. annually.

Moreover, drugs and organized crime are also the cause of several acts of violence in our society. For example, biker gangs are engaged in wars to control the drug market.

In Montreal, in 1995, an 11-year old child died because of these biker gangs and their turf war for a share of the drug market. It is not surprising, because it is worth $10 billion for Canada and $500 billion U.S. for the world.

Our inaction also involves social costs. For Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia alone, the costs related to the consumption of drugs are estimated at some $4 billion. Our children, at the age of 12 or 13, are hooked on cocaine or heroin. We have a big responsibility.

Since 1994, no fewer than 79 murders have been committed in Quebec alone for the purpose of gaining control of the drug markets. There have been 89 attempted murders, 129 cases of arson and 82 bombings. In 1998, there were 450 acts of violence related to control of the drug market.

Each time such things occur, innocent people can die, just like the Desrocher child in 1995. We cannot let it go on.

I have started this fight and will continue it to the end first and foremost for my little Rosalie, but I do it as well for all children in Quebec and Canada. I do not want them to be the next victims of these criminals whom we welcome here with our permissive laws and whose trade flourishes year after year because of our inaction.

I have got to know the RCMP a bit better recently, everyone will understand why, but all police forces are doing an admirable job. They are competent and determined people. Very few people would go to work with a smile if they faced the same environment as the police forces in Quebec and Canada.

This is their environment. They do not have the resources they need to go up against organized crime and the billions of dollars it can call up year after year to expand its operations. The RCMP budget shows $77 million under the heading of anti-drug activities, and $40 million under the heading of money laundering. This is ridiculous, particularly since the budget has shrunk by 12% since 1994, while organized crime is increasing exponentially. However great a job they do, their budget is in no way adequate.

It is the same with respect to the agreement between the RCMP and the armed forces for the loan of equipment, including helicopters. In the fight against drug traffickers, it is vital that there be hours of helicopter time available year after year. For all of Quebec, there are 150 available hours. Ten or twenty times that is needed.

Furthermore, the Canadian judicial system is not helping. Once again, these are competent, experienced people I have had occasion to deal with recently. They have pointed out certain weaknesses in the judicial system. By the way, I thank them for this information, for this wonderful contribution.

I have identified five weaknesses in the legislation, but it will be up to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to identify many more and to find solutions.

First, the sentences handed down are ridiculous. Sometimes, they are shorter than the time it took to find people guilty and conduct an investigation. This is becoming ridiculous, and the ringleaders are never charged, because it is not possible to make the charges stick.

Sentences in Canada are so lenient, compared to sentences elsewhere in the world, that the country attracts criminals. Drug traffickers like to operate in Canada; I can see why, with sentences like that, which are much lighter than in the United States. They have a market in which their activities can flourish, unimpeded.

Gang membership is not a crime under the Criminal Code, as it is almost anywhere else in the world. It should be. Belonging to a crime gang, or a gang recognized as such, is a crime and we ought to identify all 38 gangs operating in Canada, whether they are involved in drugs or something else, as such.

My response to the rights activists is this: the charter of rights and freedoms contains a notwithstanding clause, and I trust that the charter was put in place not to help criminals, but to help honest folk.

It must also be proven that the property of criminals has been obtained through criminal activity. Why do we not follow the example of the United States, where the onus is on the criminal to prove that his possessions, the fancy house, the boats and so on, that he owns although having no visible source of income, are not the proceeds of crime.

I could have spoken of electronic surveillance, of the weakness of the clauses relating to money laundering. I call upon my colleagues to support our motion. The same thing could happen to them as happened to me and to the thousands of terrorized people living in fear of organized crime throughout Quebec and Canada.

I call upon them to support the Bloc Quebecois motion and to set themselves promptly to the task of fighting organized crime to ensure that families in Quebec and Canada can live in peace and quiet and in safety, and that they can enjoy their lives without having to deal with criminals who are out to get them or who are commandeering their property to produce the drugs that will eventually kill our children.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief so that my colleagues can also get in a question.

I commend this member. He has faced just a horrific situation personally and at his family level. I wish him and his family all of the best.

In light of the difficulties that he and his family have come up against because of the actions and the aggressiveness of organized crime against him, I wonder if he would agree with me that the government also has to take a look at the whole issue of protecting citizens who are going to come forward and be part of solving the problem with respect to organized crime and that in fact we should really be looking at beefing up the whole issue of our witness protection legislation and witness protection activities.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I mentioned a number of problems with Canada's laws and the Criminal Code, but there are many others.

This is why our motion calls on the House to instruct the justice committee to seriously consider the situation and the state and strengthening of these laws to make them really effective.

I said earlier that Canadian laws do not consider membership in a crime gang a criminal act, yet everyone knows how the organizations run and who is at the head of them. However, because we are sticklers for rules, because we have a charter of rights and freedoms—which I respect—and because there are do-gooders in our society who say that we must be careful and apply the charter, we do nothing. The charter is not meant for criminals.

The same applies to warrants for wiretapping. At one point, we have to stop being so soft. Some wiretapping warrants, which are for six months or a year, require extraordinary action, even action that discourages all police forces.

It is extraordinary, because I have seen determined, experienced and highly competent police dealing with equipment that is of no help to them. Most of all, there is the legal system, which allows criminals to laugh in everyone's face, because it is very permissive and full of loopholes. It even attracts criminals from other countries to come here to carry on their activities, because Canada is more permissive and Canada is a better place to do business, at least their kind of business.

We as parliamentarians have got to put a stop to this. We have a huge responsibility, and we must take this responsibility seriously.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted an opportunity, like my colleague, to congratulate the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for what he is doing. I think we could just about call him a Canadian hero. The member may jump at that and think it is an exaggeration, but I do not because when we take on organized crime, we have a serious problem, as the member is finding out.

I see the hon. member up in the gym and he is tailed by the RCMP. I would not want that in my life and I do not think any Canadian believes that should be happening in Canada. This should be too free a country for that.

I hope the government, in accepting this motion, will also accept witnesses recommended by the opposition parties and be prepared to go to cities like Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Vancouver for committee hearings so we can get to the root of the problem in each of those cities and solve these problems.

I could not let the chance go by to say that it is astounding in a country like this that organized crime is so deep it can get right up to the level of the House of Commons where it can make threats against a person and his or her family. We should all take that seriously and make sure that does not happen again. Organized crime has to know the government and the people in this building are serious about ending organized crime in Canada.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we should stop making this debate personal. I am no Canadian hero, but I would like us to think of the thousands of people who, because they are not parliamentarians, do not benefit from the protection of the RCMP or other police forces. We have to think of these people first.

That is what I found out. There are people who have been living in terror for years. A few weeks of terror is already difficult to bear, but nobody should have to live in terror for years.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is time for a very short question from the hon. member for Quebec.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I want to know, because it is often suggested, is this: regarding the control of marijuana fields by criminal gangs, if marijuana were made legal, would this not put criminals out of business? Could that be a solution?

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am far from convinced that legalizing so-called soft drugs is the solution, and I will explain why.

Legalizing them would probably get organized crime out of the fields of Quebec and the rest of Canada. There are, however, products that are substituted for this very high quality cannabis, and I am talking about cocaine and heroin. Lowering the price of top quality Canadian cannabis would bring down the price of substitute drugs as well, possibly resulting in a situation where organized crime would go after a greater share of the market, because the price of hard drugs had dropped.

What is lost in terms of profits, because some drugs have been legalized, could be made up for in increased numbers of hard drug users.

So I think this bears looking at. But I am personally coming around to the idea that it would not be the solution, far from it, and it might make matters worse. I think it is too easy to say that we are unable to do anything, because we are not putting in the necessary financial and legal resources, and to say that we will legalize what we cannot control

It is the thin edge of the wedge to take everything we are unable to control and, when we are unable to find a solution, legalize it.

I think this is something we should avoid doing.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to participate in this debate, as it deals with what will certainly be one of the most important issues in the next millennium. The Bloc Quebecois motion reads as follows:

That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October 31, 2000.

This debate is all the more important that it affects me as an elected member of parliament representing a riding located in central Quebec, where drug dealers have used agricultural land to grow the illicit substance.

I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for his courage. In spite of death threats on him and his family, he chose to continue his crusade against what he calls a real scourge. It does take courage, but it was also his duty as member of parliament to protect the interests of his fellow citizens.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is the one who received death threats in this case, but other members of this House may also have received threats relating to their work, because they took their responsibilities and did their job as parliamentarians, as elected representatives of their fellow citizens. Now, they have become victims of violence. This is unacceptable.

As I mentioned earlier, in Quebec's central region and in the Montérégie, more than 50% of farmland is contaminated by the presence of cannabis producers who take advantage of corn crops to grow a very high quality product, which ranks among the best in the world. My colleague explained why it is important to act and to provide the necessary tools to police forces, in addition to strengthening our legislation.

I want to take a brief moment to urge the solicitor general, who is responsible for the RCMP, to keep regional RCMP offices open. There is a threat hovering over our regions. A study was conducted and a report was produced, which indicates that regional RCMP offices, whose staff has great expertise in dealing with organized crime locally, might be slated for closure and their staff relocated.

At present, everyone in the community, including municipal councils and chambers of commerce, is opposed to such a change. It just does not make sense. At a time when there is already a shortage of tools and resources to fight this scourge in our regions, the government lowers the boom by saying “We are closing your RCMP offices”.

Moreover, these officers are working in close co-operation with other police forces, such as the Sûreté du Québec or the municipal police forces. Municipal police officers insist that the RCMP officers, who have expertise in this area, have to be kept in our regions.

Parliament has to deal seriously with this issue and realize that organized crime is rampant in Canada and around the world. We have to ask ourselves whether enforcement of current measures is enough. In the light of everything we heard this morning, I think not. Current measures are not enough.

The Bloc Quebecois did an extensive study and sounded out several stakeholders, people responsible for enforcing current legislation. They are unanimous in saying that it is not enough.

The Canadian Police Association, in a release dated October 8, stated that “The dreadful reality is that organized crime has reached epidemic proportions and police forces feel frustrated because they lack the tools and resources to fight against it”.

I would like to recall here what the Parliament of Canada has done in terms of legislation. I feel it is important to mention it.

The Witness Protection Act now makes it possible for police to better protect people who co-operate to obtain evidence against criminal organizations.

As a result of the Criminal Law Improvement Act, police can more easily be involved in activities used as a front.

The anti-gang legislation, Bill C-95, which was enacted in April 1997, includes the definition of gang in the Criminal Code.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gives police the power to conduct controlled drug sale and delivery operations through undercover agents.

Despite all these legislative provisions, enforcement authorities seem to be unable to put a stop to criminal gang activities.

Drug trafficking is still the main source of revenue for most organized crime groups. Of all the activities related to organized crime, it is the illegal drug trade that has the worst consequences for Canada, given its social and economic effects and the violence that stems from it.

In studies that try to give a dollar figure for the cost of the illegal drug trade in Canada, this cost ranges from a conservative estimate of $1.4 billion a year to almost $4 billion a year for Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.

I would also like to mention the main difficulties encountered by enforcement authorities and crown prosecutors.

On top of limited budgets, police organizations complain about the inability of the justice system to support their efforts: sentences are often shorter than the length of the investigation; the infiltration of criminal organizations by enforcement officers, which is very difficult because belonging to such organizations entails having committed criminal acts; the difficulty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused became rich by committing a series of specific and identifiable criminal acts, a difficulty that could be eliminated by a reversal of the onus of proof; in some cases, the difficulty in exchanges of information between police forces and various departments, such as Immigration Canada and Revenue Canada; the inadequacy of provisions for the protection of witnesses and jurors.

Finally, in light of this brief overview of organized crime in Canada, it is important to take stock of these instruments to see which could be improved or complemented by new legislative, administrative, or financial measures.

I conclude by appealing to all members of parliament to vote in favour of this motion by the Bloc Quebecois, so that we can finally put a stop to this scourge.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned earlier that some RCMP detachments could be dismantled in her riding of Drummond. We have heard the same thing about the RCMP detachment in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe for the last year and a half. The government keeps saying that these are only rumours. Maybe, but these rumours are getting persistent.

Does my hon. colleague have any additional information about the dismantling of RCMP detachments? I just want to say, by the way, that this would be a major mistake, because we need these RCMP detachments to fight against organized crime for three main reasons.

First, the RCMP officers working at these detachments are highly skilled. They have developed a bond with the residents and forged links of trust that are very important to the continuing fight against organized crime.

Second, their mere presence is a deterrent.

Third, this is like a game of chess. If a bikers gang builds a bunker somewhere, we need to have a police station nearby as a deterrent.

So, I want to know if the hon. member has heard any additional persistent rumours about the dismantling of RCMP detachments.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, rumours are based on a report that is hard to get, and which may have been handed out to just a few people who have told us about its recommendations.

The report did recommend that RCMP detachments be closed in the areas of Drummond and Saint-Hyacinthe and in part of the Eastern Townships, near the border.

The RCMP detachment in my area was set up about 15 years ago, and officers are posted for good reason. They do an excellent job. Everybody, the chamber of commerce and the municipalities included, has passed a resolution asking the federal government to maintain this detachment, because the officers there have a close working relationship with the other police forces.

The situation is similar in the Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot area and in other communities near the American border, in the ridings of our PC colleagues.

There had been rumours that there would be closures, but we have now learned that these rumours were based on an actual report. We are now being told that the Saint-Hyacinthe and Drummond detachments could be maintained, but, for the time being, there is no guarantee to that effect.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you right away that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ahuntsic.

I will begin my speech with something that is rather unusual in the House, but I will do it anyway. I want to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for putting forward this motion today.

The motion reads as follows:

That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October 31, 2000.

In the French version, I would have preferred the word “choix” instead of “avenues” and the word “criminels” instead of “criminalisés”, but this is just a minor detail of a linguistic nature.

I could talk about all the initiatives our government has taken. I could also talk, for example, about the proceeds of crime control units, 13 of which were established across the country, one in each large urban centre. I visited the one in Montreal. A multidisciplinary team made up of lawyers, accountants and police officers works in that unit. It is an example of co-operation to fight organized crime.

I could talk about the bill we have introduced to fight money laundering. We are the only G-7 country not to have done so, so far. I am glad we finally did it.

I could talk about Canada's leadership role in a pan-American group called MEM, chaired by the deputy minister of the solicitor general, Jean Fournier. This group's mission is to fight organized crime, particularly drug trafficking.

I could talk about Canada's participation in NORAD, the North American Air Defence, and the support of this organization for drug enforcement.

Members are no doubt aware that I am the chair of the Canada—United States Standing Committee on Defence and that NORAD issues are of great concern to that committee. In this capacity, I had the opportunity to visit the NORAD facilities at Mount Cheyenne, in Colorado Springs. This is a technological marvel, especially the drug enforcement service.

I might mention Operation Cisaille, which is so important in my region. Other members already mentioned it. In the Montérégie, this operation is highly important. The UPA, the stakeholders, the Quebec government, the Canadian government, members of this House, everybody agrees that this operation is a marvel of co-operation and efficiency.

Another example is the drug strategy developed by the Canadian government to combat drug supply, in other words the people who produce and sell drugs, and to limit the access to drugs. I am thus talking of prevention and of protection against supply.

The reason I support this motion is that I do not accept that my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot be threatened for doing his job. What threatens my colleague also threatens the 301 members of this House and the 104 senators in this parliament. This threat affects all of parliament. The life of the hon. member is torn apart. Such actions concern us all, and I reject them.

The reason I support this motion is that I do not accept that senior citizens have their savings stolen as a part of a fraudulent telemarketing operation.

I support this motion because I cannot accept that children be robbed of their future by pushers who often are themselves the victims of organized crime.

We deplore child poverty and we know that, all too often, children go to school on an empty stomach, which is not the best way to start the school day. It is not conducive to learning either. The same can be said of drugs. A child who is under the influence cannot learn.

This is why, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said just a moment ago, I believe we cannot skirt our responsibilities. Legalizing marijuana is out of the question; instead we should go after those who are responsible for that scourge that affects us all as a society.

I support this motion because I sincerely believe that we, as a government, while we are doing great things—and I do know we are doing a lot—must do even better. We must do more to fight organized crime, to deal with the globalization of organized crime.

We have heard a lot about the Canadian initiative on human security. Canada is truly a leader in this respect. These are no idle words, it is true, Canada has taken the lead internationally in terms of promoting a new concept called human security. It is in that context that we are intervening abroad, that we are changing the definition of what a border is, and that we are questioning the very principle of non interference in the affairs of a foreign state. If human security is threatened, we avail ourselves of the right to interfere.

It is in the name of this same humanism that we must intensify our fight against organized crime. It is in the name of this same humanism that every effort must be made to fight organized crime.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, I consider this a very important issue and have worked a lot on it. I am delighted at the prospect of this motion, if it is adopted, giving me the opportunity to take even greater part as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice in formulating suggestions that, in my opinion, are fundamental at the dawn of the new millennium.

I invite all my colleagues on this side of the House and the House as a whole to support this motion.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

In my province of Newfoundland, and in Atlantic Canada in general, we have hundreds of miles of coastline that is essentially unprotected and unpatrolled. That coastline is very vulnerable to the importation of drugs, guns and all kinds of illegal activity. Because of government cutbacks ports police have been eliminated. It is a wide open invitation to the drug trade.

What is government going to do to protect that kind of coastline when it has cut out the ports police and reduced the ability of the RCMP to do its job?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that protecting our coasts also means protecting air approaches to them. In this regard, I referred in my presentation to the work we are doing, within NORAD in particular, to have support to block flights that could arrive here with drug shipments.

I would remind my colleague that we did indeed announce in the throne speech our intention to strengthen and support the public security initiative and, of course, the fight against organized crime is an integral part of this fight for public security.

Third, I think that if my colleague has specific recommendations to make, he will understand that I am not in a position to give an answer now, when in fact I look forward to the working committee coming up with appropriate answers, but at the same time I would really like, once this motion has been adopted and the committee has begun its work, for him to take that opportunity to make them.