Debates of Nov. 30th, 1999

Airline Industry

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the financial problems of InterCanadian were well known long before we started the restructuring in August of this year, but it was in response to the airline industry, in particular Canadian Airlines, that we started the restructuring process. It is now working its way through the system. There are discussions among various parties and companies and I hope there will be a resolution to it.

In the meantime, I am very sorry for those people who have lost their jobs at InterCanadian, but there is more than enough capacity in the province of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to take care of all of the passengers and to make sure disruptions are kept to a minimum.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I mentioned the contribution made by a number of Bloc Quebecois colleagues during this debate. I mentioned the initiative by the member for Berthier—Montcalm and by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who took part in presenting the motion.

A number of Bloc members contributed to the process related to consideration of what has to be done about organized crime. There is my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who was directly affected in his riding by the death of a young person, young Daniel Desrochers, who died as the result of a bomb explosion.

I also mentioned my colleague from Charlesbourg, who introduced a private member's bill on the withdrawal from circulation of $1,000 bills to thwart money laundering.

A number of Bloc Quebecois members really contributed so that real thought is going into the eradication of organized crime. We know that there have been a number of turf wars over control of the market, including the drug market. We read in our newspapers of fires, bombings and murders. We must look after people's security.

We have some idea of the scope of drug trafficking. Judging by seizures, the extrapolation can be made that there may be profits in the order of $500 billion. That is a huge amount of money in the hands of the various organized crime gangs. It is easy to imagine how they can control, and buy the silence of, many people.

We know how hard it is to get through the wall of silence that surrounds them. Numerous people have received death threats, even organized crime gang insiders. It is hard to get any testimony out of them that might help with a conviction.

A number of colleagues from all parties in this House are going to support the motion. We are asking that a study committee be struck to address the problem of organized crime. This would make it possible to look at the various pieces of legislation, the various tools, and the funding of law enforcement agencies. We are thinking of the RCMP and of the police forces in the various communities.

We know that it is very hard, for instance, to infiltrate these groups. Is the legislation adequate? Could all legislation not be reviewed in order to make it less unwieldy?

We know very well that there are victims of organized crime in our society, and those victims include not always gang members, but ordinary citizens as well. Someone in my riding was hit by a bullet during a turf war.

I feel that I must get involved, in large part because I am aware of the various gangs involved in turf wars in the riding of Québec, and in the Quebec City area.

If I can do anything to contribute to the committee study, I will be very pleased to do so, particularly since safety is involved, the public's safety and the very lives of our children, and since drug trafficking wreaks such a terrible toll on the health of our young people.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Québec. I believe she has a very good grasp of the whole issue of organized crime in Quebec.

The member for Québec has often condemned this situation in caucus and, more importantly, asked that something be done in the House to fight organized crime. I understand full well her concern and the approach she advocated in her speech. She made an excellent speech, by the way, and I believe she has a very good grasp of the whole issue.

My question for the member is rather simple. As we know, she is very much involved in the issue of poverty and she fights for people living in poverty. Here is the question I would like to ask her: Does organized crime not take advantage of poor people or does it not exploit people in need, for instance with its loan sharks or any other example the member is aware of? I would like to hear her thoughts on the issue of poverty as opposed to crime.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, we all know that there are a good number of loan shark networks in poor communities and we also know that interest on such loans can go as high as 250%.

I also deplore the illicit drug trade. We are well aware that often, in poor neighbourhoods where there is high unemployment, this trade is very much oriented toward a clientele for whom this can be an escape from the problems of daily life.

We also know that the organized crime cannot function without drugs pushers. People become pushers because it is an easy to make money. But we also know that the social impact is enormous. I feel particularly concerned because, I know that this is a scourge that has major consequences on people's lives, on their quality of life and on their health, as well as on the living conditions of families and children who make a living dealing in drugs and those who are led to use drugs.

It seems to me that society has better things to do and to say that to deal with drug trafficking.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I want to begin by offering congratulations to the Bloc and to the member for Berthier—Montcalm for putting forward a motion which finally, on an opposition day, the government can support. What a treat. This has been done in a responsible way, which uses the parliamentary system to its best effect.

The motion asks that the House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct an investigation. There might be some concern about committee members being instructed, but I am quite sure they will look at this as the will of parliament to conduct a study and report by the end of October 2000. That is a reasonable timeframe, which will give the better part of a year to hear witnesses, to perhaps travel on the issue, to conduct the investigation and to report.

I wonder what this motion would look like if it was put by the Reform Party. I strongly suspect it would be framed in such a way that it would make it impossible for any of us to support it. They would use terms like the government has abdicated its responsibility and so on and, therefore, we should do this study.

I want to give credit where credit is due because I have stood in the House and been somewhat critical of members of the Bloc in the past. I think what they are putting forward is a responsible position. I know that they come to this issue with some serious deep seated concern in the province of Quebec.

We have all heard stories of the biker gang wars in Quebec. There have been murders. There is drug trafficking. They take over homes and destroy neighbourhoods. They threaten people going to the corner store, for goodness sake, to get a jug of milk. Women and children do not feel safe in communities when that type of local terrorism, which is really what that amounts to, is allowed.

I think the Bloc comes to this issue with a point of view of perhaps some negative experience in this area and the problems around organized crime.

I want to come at this a little differently, though. I believe that the long term, big picture way for us to attack organized crime, frankly, is to deal with our kids, our education system and our families. We have to work harder at eradicating poverty. I know there will be some who will say that we have not done enough. However, as we on this side of the House know, the government is committed to coming in with some programs that will deal with child poverty in the upcoming February budget. I am confident that there will be programs.

The reason I think one fights something as insidious as organized crime by dealing with our young people is because the very nature of an organized criminal group is they look for people who are vulnerable. They look for people who are impressionable. They look for people, whether it is in illegal gambling, whether it is in drugs, whether they get young girls who are impressionable and lead them astray and get them involved in prostitution with promises of great money and beautiful clothes and things of that nature, or they get young people out of schools involved in selling drugs in the community, they encourage them through establishing a mindset that says it is cool to be part of an organized group.

One thinks about the gangs and the problems that we see. We had a terrible tragedy in the greater Toronto area a couple of weeks ago when a young boy was kicked to death by a gang of young people. It is incomprehensible. What could possibly make these young people react like that? Tragically, we have seen it in the past. A young girl was kicked, bludgeoned and beaten to death by other young girls. Violence in the female education system for young girls, in my opinion, is becoming a crisis.

We can put in place all the RCMP and all the police assistance that we want in communities, but we must address the basic fundamental attitudes of young people and tell them that they have to respect one another.

Yesterday, I was at Ploughman's school in Mississauga speaking to four grade five classrooms. They got together in the library. I was amazed to hear the questions coming from these young kids in grades 4 and 5, asking me about the problems of violence in the schools and what the government can do to combat it. They do not feel safe in their own community; a community full of families, young people raising their families. Kids at that tender age worry about this. I am sure they hear their moms and dads talking about it around the kitchen table. They do not understand how somebody who is perhaps 10 years older than them can actually go to the extreme of kicking someone to death.

We can put something in place. In fact this government has done a number of things which I would share with the House from a crime fighting standpoint.

I want to stress that I do not think that this debate is about the government standing up and strutting its stuff, saying “We're really tough on this issue”. Nor is it about the opposition standing up and saying “You're not tough enough”. What this debate should be about, in my respectful submission, is how we build and create a safer community. How do we get the drug lords? How do we get the smugglers, whether they are smuggling cigarettes or guns? I know it is a controversial issue with some members on the other side, but it is about issues such as gun control.

What is the basic, fundamental principle in the values of Canada and Canadians? Do we simply want to be like the Americans? Do we simply want to pander to the gun lobby group, or do we want to put in place laws? Yes, they will be difficult to enforce. Do we want to put in place a registry? Yes, and it will be difficult. The criminals obviously are not going to register their guns. We understand that, but we have seen so many tragedies in this country.

I believe that the insidiousness of organized crime just sits there and stirs the pot. The way for us to combat that, in addition to the many programs that have already been announced, is to get to the hearts of our young people. I hope that members opposite will see this as I do, and as many Canadians do, as an issue that we all need to work on together.

This is not just about giving the Mounties more money. In fact, in my own community at Pearson International Airport the GTAA has entered into an agreement with Peel Regional Police to provide policing services to Pearson airport so that the RCMP can free up more of its contingent to deal with the serious problems that occur at such a major international entry point to this country. That is a good, responsible, community partnership. That makes a lot of sense.

Peel Region is where the airport is located. The Peel Regional Police wind up with many of the problems once they leave the airport grounds. They wind up with the problems. Whether it is organized crime or crime of any kind, Peel Regional Police will have to deal with it. Why not have them at the point of entry dealing with it immediately and put in place the systems and understanding of the flow that occurs when criminals come in?

On the other side of that coin, at a time when all governments are facing great financial pressures, it frees up an opportunity for the RCMP to concentrate on crimes that are perhaps more of an international nature, such as smuggling.

Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have one minute remaining. I wanted to talk about the people smuggling that we have seen recently, but I am not going to have time to do that.

Let me just say that it is important that we focus our energies in the area where in a long term, big picture way we can actually eradicate organized crime. We can convince our young people in our schools and communities that it is not an acceptable way and that they must respect their colleagues, their friends and their schoolmates. They must not turn to violence as a way of solving a problem. It is easy to say those things, but it is places like this, with responsible motions such as this one being put forward by the opposition with an opportunity to debate it, where this kind of issue can begin to be solved.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forward this motion on organized crime.

As is the case for many of my colleagues, organized crime directly affects the riding of Shefford I represent. And like my colleagues from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Drummond, Shefford is part of the triangle of fertile agricultural land ideally suited for growing marijuana.

I have listened very carefully to today's speeches, especially those on the rumours regarding the closure of the RCMP detachments, because the one in Granby is included in the detachments that are to be closed, according to these rumours.

Since February 1999 we have been stepping up our efforts, our requests to the solicitor general. Also, in May, people in my riding sent a petition to parliament.

Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada said in answer to a question by a Bloc Quebecois member that he did not comment on rumours. I would like to point out that these are no longer rumours, as I saw the report on the proposed organizational restructuring of division C, which is dated August 16.

It recommends the closure of seven RCMP detachments in Quebec including Granby, St-Hyacinthe, Valleyfield, the Magdalen Islands, Roberval, Baie-Comeau and Joliette. I also happen to know that the rapport was favourably received by the solicitor general.

My question is for my colleague from the Liberal Party. Is he aware of this report and, if so, does he support these recommendations?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was not sure if the member was going into a speech or was asking a question. I will try to answer if I can. I would have to look at those recommendations in some detail and would be pleased to do so.

She talked about the closing of police stations in her community and the impact that that can have. I understand that because we have gone through it as well. What our police force has done is gone to a more community based policing. We are trying to get officers into the communities, the malls, the plazas and the schools, which fits right in with the comments that I made.

Not having seen the report she is referring to, I may not have answered the member's question. I do think that policing is about the entire community working together and understanding the dynamics and the problems that occur when young people do not have an opportunity to interact properly with the police force and the community.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of the motion to ask the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the issue of organized crime and analyze the legislative avenues open to parliament to fight against activities of criminal organizations.

I have 10 years experience in police service. As the former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I find this of particular interest. It is certainly one where all Canadians look for leadership from their federal government to ensure our communities, wherever they are in this great country, are safe and secure for themselves and their children.

Public concern over organized crime is not limited to any one part of Canada. The RCMP reports that there are biker gang activities and criminal enterprises in several parts of this country. Indeed, the gang problem goes far beyond outlaw biker groups. In addition to biker gangs, there is a host of organized crime groups that operate and prey upon the weak in their own communities and on Canadian society. That is unacceptable.

It is commonly known that organized crime is actively involved in trafficking in illegal drugs. Last summer all of Canada saw firsthand how organized criminal snakeheads were callously smuggling Chinese people on rusty old ships to our shores. This is unacceptable as well. It is perhaps less well known that they are also involved in environmental crime, like illicit waste treatment and disposal, trade in endangered species and ozone depleting substances. They are involved in economic crime like white collar crime, for example, such as security fraud and telemarketing fraud. We also know that they are involved in the sale of counterfeit products, in violation of intellectual property rights and software piracy, money laundering and motor vehicle theft for export or for parts.

There are those who claim that the police are powerless to fight organized crime. Some argue that the police need more money. Others argue that they need less. I think we should find out what the facts are in this case.

It has been two years since parliament considered and enacted any gang legislation. The provisions contained in Bill C-95 originated in discussions with the police community and other members of the justice system in September 1996 when the then minister of justice and the solicitor general held a national forum on organized crime. This event brought together representatives from the police community, the federal and a number of provincial governments, the legal community, private industry and academics to examine the increasingly complex problem of organized crime in Canada and to recommend integrated and effective measures to address it. Participants examined the feasibility of legislation that would provide new tools to the police, prosecutors and courts to combat organized crime.

We must recall another factor that led to the enactment of Bill C-95, and that is the public's revulsion at the violent events associated with a turf war between two rival biker gangs, the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine in Quebec, in which not only members of the gang but also innocent bystanders were tragically affected.

The legislation that followed Bill C-95 enacted new powers in relation to the interception of private communication, proceeds of crime and property used to commit offences and other things. It also outlined for the first time in Canadian criminal law a definition of a criminal organization and created a new offence of participation in a criminal organization offence. This legislation has been in force now for two years.

This may seem like a long period of time to some, but I understand that a typically complex organized crime investigation takes several years to progress to the point where charges are laid. In fact, I know that to be the case.

Nevertheless, some of these investigations directed at criminal organizations using the tools provided in Bill C-95 have now been completed. Charges have been laid and prosecutions are proceeding. Indeed, there have been convictions. Reports have appeared in the media in recent weeks regarding some of these prosecutions, notably in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta.

It is important, however, to ensure that the provisions of Bill C-95 are well understood. Not every case is appropriately pursued as a criminal organization investigation or a prosecution. It is not intended to be the only tool used to combat organized crime. It is built on the tools already available in the criminal code and responded in particular to investigative and prosecutorial challenges posed by criminal organizations. These are specialized tools in that sense.

Justice officials have been working in co-operation with the solicitor general's department to provide training to police and prosecutors regarding the contents of the criminal organization legislation. Justice officials have provided full day and half day training sessions across the country to over 500 members of the provincial and federal police and prosecution services.

Law enforcement must be careful to ensure that powerful but integrate powers provided for in legislation are not used inappropriately or unnecessarily.

The committee may want to assess the extent to which the provisions are being used and their effectiveness. If there are ways to improve upon the manner in which the legislation is used, we should facilitate the sharing of these best practices. If there are improvements in the legislation that could be considered, we should assess them collectively.

In another area of organized crime, combating telemarketing fraud remains a priority for the Government of Canada, in particular within the context of its organized crime agenda.

Since the 1997 binational report, Canada in partnership with the United States has made significant strides in combating cross-border telemarketing fraud. The major legislative developments include Bill C-20, which recently added the new offence of deceptive telemarketing to the Competition Act.

It also includes Bill C-51, which amended the criminal code to link the new deceptive telemarketing offences in the Competition Act to the criminal code scheme authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of crime for enterprise crime offences. This amendment now allows the significant proceeds generated by many telemarketing schemes to be captured.

Finally, Bill C-40, which amended the Canada Evidence Act and the Extradition Act to provide for the use of video linked testimony to be given at criminal trials and at extradition hearings.

We are building on our successes and will continue to combat telemarketing fraud through public education, information sharing and co-operative law enforcement using the new legislative tools that we have developed over the past year.

Before concluding, I would also like to address the issue of acts of intimidation directed against key players in the criminal justice system. My colleagues in the House will know that the concerns have been voiced with regard to this issue of intimidation directed against officials responsible for the investigation and prosecution of crimes: judges and persons responsible for the administration of sentences of convicted offenders, as well as members of the public who become involved in the criminal justice system as informants, witnesses or members of juries.

The intimidation of justice participants is purpose-driven. The purpose is either to interfere with the ability to secure a conviction against the accused or, in the case of an organization, against other members of the organization in the future, or to exact revenge. It is intended to destabilize the criminal justice system, particularly where the prosecution of organized crime is concerned.

The government is acting in this area and the Department of Justice is currently examining this issue. It is consulting with representatives of federal, provincial and municipal police agencies, federal and provincial prosecutors, federal and provincial correctional officers and officials and judges in all parts of Canada. The object of this exercise is to determine the scope and severity of the problem of intimidation and to develop an appropriate legislative response. I applaud this initiative. It is important for all our communities in terms of making them safer and more secure.

I will conclude by observing that organized crime is a pressing problem which takes various and many forms. The international community has identified the fight against organized crime as a priority issue. The Canadian government has taken a similar position, and rightfully so. It is important for all Canadians to have us move in this very important area.

Let us see if the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights can identify legislative avenues that can be effectively pursued by parliament to win the fight against the activities of criminal organizations.

I think this motion is most in order. It is useful and we should get on with passing it to make sure it goes to the committee where we can examine these and all important issues relating to organized crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question because he is the chair of the Standing Committee on Health, of which I am a member. I know that he has shown a wonderful sense of fair play, and it is a great pleasure to work with him.

The last report of the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada described organized crime as making $10 billion annually from drug trafficking, and an estimated $400 million from the sale of jewellery on the black market. Every year, fraudulent credit card purchases total close to $80 million.

As for economic crimes—the hon. member referred to telemarketing—losses are in the neighbourhood of $4 billion. Fraudulent use of credit cards accounts for something like $127 million. Between 8,000 and 16,000 people are smuggled into Canada illegally every year.

Car theft is still on the rise. And between $5 billion and $17 billion in illicit funds are laundered annually.

Would the hon. member agree with me that all options must be considered in our efforts to more effectively combat organized crime? It is not just a question of additional resources for the police, but all options must be considered, including—and this is something I think the committee will have to look at—the Japanese model, which prohibits the public display of crests and badges belonging to biker gangs, up to and including possible use of the notwithstanding clause.

Would the hon. member agree that all options must be considered and that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must not exclude any of them?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman opposite for his question. It seems to me that what the motion today is saying is that by referring the motion to the justice and human rights committee we should analyze the legislative avenues open to parliament to fight against the activities of criminal organizations and then report back to the House.

If the question is, should we take a look at the variety of options available to the committee and ultimately to parliament and all parliamentarians, it seems to me that we should. We should take a look at the kinds of things that we as a society and we as parliamentarians should do in order to curtail criminal activity wherever it may be in this great land of ours.

As a former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I can tell the House first hand that police services across our great country need parliament's assistance in this very important area. The government has done many things over the last number of years to enact the kinds of legislation that are necessary to give the police the kinds of measures they need in order to carry out their function in society, all of which enables us to live in more safe and secure communities wherever they may be in Canada.

I look forward to the report of the standing committee in this very important area. I know that under the leadership of the chairperson, who is a very capable individual, that is precisely what will be done. The committee will report back to the House in a very meaningful way and give parliament and, by extension, all Canadians the kinds of necessary analysis and tools that will help us to ensure that criminal activity is curtailed in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise on debate in the House. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to tell the people of Canada about the strength of the opposition in the House, because if it were not for the Bloc Quebecois—and I give them full marks—if it were not for the pressure of the Conservatives and also of the Reform Party, this kind of motion would never have come to the House. This kind of action would never take place under the Liberal government.

It absolutely astounds me, with the encroachment of organized crime into every part of Canadian life, that the government just basically sits on its hands.

I look at the fact that the speaker just immediately prior to me, in answer to a question from a Bloc member, said that under the auspices of the chair of the committee on justice that everything will go well. I remind the House that the chair who is presently in that seat is the former solicitor general. It was under that solicitor general that many of these pieces of inaction in fact continued to fester.

I draw the attention of the House to a specific case. Let us take a look at some specifics. As a result of coverage in the news media, I and members of the House have learned that in 1997 RCMP Corporal Robert Read reported a cover-up of incompetence, negligence and corruption within DFAIT and immigration and complained of criminal misconduct by his superiors. This related to activities that had happened in the very late eighties and early nineties in Canada's office in Hong Kong.

The RCMP did not acknowledge that complaint much less investigate it. In January 1998, Corporal Read took his documented complaint to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. He was told it was the wrong venue, and indeed it was the wrong venue. The reality is that within the purview of the government, within the bureaucracy of the RCMP, there is no correct place for that complaint if the RCMP hierarchy will not act on allegations of this nature.

In January 1999, he took the same complaint and documentation to the auditor general. None of these investigative bodies are investigating this complaint, and Corporal Read is a veteran insider. None of them are investigating the complaint that a major cover-up is continuing today within the government's bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I have to parenthesize. I failed to mention that I am sharing my time with the member for Surrey Central.

I have personally questioned Corporal Read. He has confirmed and detailed his allegations to me. As a matter of fact, I have seen pages and pages and pages of documented evidence that clearly substantiates that there must be an investigation into his allegations of cover-up on the part of the RCMP.

The purpose of this cover-up is to protect the government from the public humiliation of being systematically deceived by its own employees. The effect has been damage to Canada's national security.

It is all very well and good for the government to say that a wonderful measure has been put forward by the opposition. It thinks the Bloc motion is a good one and that it should be proceeding with it. I want to know from the government in this debate today why the allegations about which I have just informed the House have not been acted on by the government. Why has the government been sitting on its hands in the face of this stonewalling?

It started in 1997. After two years of bureaucratic stonewalling Corporal Read made his complaint public. What happened? He was suspended. Rather than the RCMP actually doing anything he was suspended. To the best of my knowledge there has never been any further action taken to investigate the allegations about Corporal Read to this date. Corporal Read's findings of negligence, incompetence and corruption have not been challenged. It appears no one will investigate even though the complaint is substantial and has been documented.

This is a first step. Thanks to the opposition, issues of this type will come before the standing committee. I can tell the House what I fully anticipate in committee. There will be further stonewalling by the majority representing the government in that committee. Furthermore, as I pointed out, the chair of the committee is a former solicitor general who in 1997, when these events were taking place, was the solicitor general.

Will the current solicitor general appoint an independent prosecutor to examine the evidence of Corporal Read? Not only the evidence of Corporal Read. A lot of the evidence is substantiated by pages and binders full of information, graphs and flowcharts on information compiled by Brian McAdam, a former immigration official in the Hong Kong office at the time of the alleged incidents.

I do not understand how we can end up in Canada with a professional bureaucracy that would allow this kind of situation to continue to fester. Why has this never been properly investigated? If the solicitor general will not act, will the Speaker of the House order the auditor general to report directly to the House?

These are serious allegations. I am fully aware of the seriousness of the allegations I am relating to the House. I am taking responsibility for that as a member of parliament. I will repeat. These allegations have been brought to the RCMP. These allegations are part of what led to the start-up of the investigation called sidewinder. We all know what happened with sidewinder.

Sidewinder was a two year investigation by a combined force of CSIS and the RCMP. They compiled information for a full two year period. They look into the kind of allegations that Brian McAdam brought forward. What did they do? At the end of two years someone at CSIS decided to terminate the sidewinder investigation.

That was not good enough. Instead of just terminating the investigation they terminated all the e-mails and all the written documentation. They made sure to the best of their ability that all information on electronic files was also terminated.

This was absolutely scandalous because it was going on at exactly the same time as the government was not appointing people to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. SIRC was set up under the legislation which established CSIS in the first place. Its purpose was to have civilian oversight of a top secret organization.

The government neglected, and I use that word in its strongest, most pejorative sense, to put people into positions of trust and responsibility in SIRC so that SIRC could continue to oversee CSIS.

As a result of the government leaving the SIRC position open, CSIS basically ran rampant. When it came upon some results, which it presumably did not like, it decided not only to terminate it but to destroy the whole thing. Guess what? SIRC found out about the destruction of sidewinder as a result of reading about it in the newspaper.

The government is completely out of control. It has no idea what we are looking at in the area of organized crime. The very least I can say is that I am thankful the government will support the motion put forward today by Canada's opposition which has embarrassed it into action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite impressed. My colleague across the floor recognizes the merit of the Bloc Quebecois initiative to bring the issue before us today. He claims that it is because of the opposition that the motion is on the floor.

I would agree with him if he were to be excluded from the definition of opposition. Many days have been devoted to issues put forth by the opposition, and the Reform Party never saw fit to put the issue before the House. How dare he say that the Reform is responsible for this issue?

Second, I heard my colleague speak about democracy and in the same sentence say that the government should interfere either with the launching of an investigation or with the suspension of an investigation. He is asking us to have the government interfere with the operation of a police body. I am saying there is a great danger to democracy if we do that. Apparently he does not understand this concept.

Third, I should remind him that Mrs. Paule Gauthier, the head of SIRC, has declared that she is fully satisfied with the co-operation she has with CSIS. Again we are reaching a point where in the Reform Party fearmongering, insinuation and innuendo have become a way of life. Is it surprising that it is losing so much popularity?

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

Mr. Speaker, if Madam Gauthier was aware of the theft of the briefcase after the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey game, how did she become aware of it? The solicitor general was informed by the director of CSIS that the briefcase had gone missing. The solicitor general did not inform SIRC. SIRC is the body. They are the people who are responsible to us as Canadians.

These are people of name who we can trust. We can trust Ray Speaker. We can trust Bob Rae. We can trust Frank McKenna. We can trust people who have a long history of public service. These are people who are put into the trusted position of overseeing CSIS because of the kind of inept things that have been going on over there.

The solicitor general sat on that information. It took a report in the Globe and Mail to make the chair of SIRC aware that the briefcase had been stolen in the first place.

The piety that has been coming forward from the solicitor general's parliamentary secretary is a bit misplaced. If the Reform Party were the Government of Canada, we would take responsibility for the fact that we have not taken any action on organized crime. The Liberals are the Government of Canada and it is the Liberals that have not taken any action on organized crime. It is the Liberals who are deficient in protecting Canadians.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible when we are talking about something as important to Canadians as their own safety and security that the parliamentary secretary would dare to rise and say that even speaking about this issue is just fearmongering. Shame on him. Shame on him that we had to have this debate. The government should have been on top of things so that this problem would not be a matter of debate in the House of Commons. There should have been procedures in place where we would be safe, but instead the government is asleep at the switch.

I find so dismaying that the government is prepared to ignore this issue and call people names who are trying to get it dealt with. It actually punished those who tried to bring forward the matter. The employee with the courage to raise the matter is now toast. What kind of a signal does this send to people who want to make sure that gross injustice and corruption in the country are dealt with properly?

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

Mr. Speaker, it sends a very bad signal because in the case of the particular corporal, if we can believe it, he has been restricted to staying within 100 kilometres of the city of Ottawa. There is no future idea of when that restriction will be lifted.

He is being punished for coming forward and being straight and trying to bring these allegations to the attention of his superiors. The only way he has been able to do that is to go public. More is the shame on the government.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to the Bloc supply day motion that calls on the House to order the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the issue of organized crime, to analyse avenues available to parliament to combat these criminals, and to report back to the House by October 31, 2000.

Today the government side of the House is being forced by the opposition to discuss organized crime. We will see how little it will do, if anything. The people of Surrey Central are anxious to do something about organized crime and its effect on our country, our cities, our region, our children, and many other aspects of our lives.

The weak Liberal government that has no vision and no political will keeps our criminal justice system weak. There are less and less resources, money and effort going to our law enforcement community. We can clearly see this in Surrey. We feel the effects of the scarce resources of the RCMP which is trying to preserve and protect our communities.

The immigration minister tells the Prime Minister to adopt a new slogan. The motto is that Canada is the place to be. The Prime Minister brags about that. There is no political will on Liberal benches to give B.C. and the rest of Canada the RCMP services that are needed. Because of this, international criminals know that Canada is the number one country and the place to be.

The Liberals already know that organized crime has a great effect on our country. There is no need to study it. Illegal migrants arrive at our airports and on our coasts. They are brought here by organized criminals, and the Liberals do nothing about it.

They do nothing about corruption in our embassies. When it comes to filtering out criminals our embassies are just like sieves. In Hong Kong 2,000 visas were stolen. Are gentle people stealing them and using them? No, it is organized crime. It is criminals who stole the visas and used them to bring over 2,000 criminals into Canada, and the Liberals do nothing about it.

I did something about it when my constituents told me about corruption at the embassies at New Delhi and Islamabad. Legitimate immigrants were harassed while criminals were buying their way into Canada.

I got results. Was I lucky? No. I did the work. I had the political will to get to the bottom of these allegations of crime and corruption on behalf of the people I was elected to represent.

I took action on their behalf. I went to the RCMP. They were glad to work with me and they did a good job. People were fired as a result of my efforts and the corruption was cleaned up, for a while at least.

The Liberals keep the RCMP starved of resources: money, equipment and personnel. The Liberals do it with our military as well. They starve our emergency preparedness, too. The Liberals leave only four officers patrolling the B.C.-Washington border near my constituency. Our ports and docks are understaffed.

Perhaps only 5% of containers are inspected at the Vancouver port, but many of them contain drugs and other things being smuggled for organized crime. The Liberals are not serious about fighting organized crime. If they were they would dispatch the military on a special two-day mission to open the 95% of containers that have not been inspected. Let us get to work.

We know that there are refugee claimants on our streets selling drugs. We know they have been arrested, but the police tell us they are back on the street within hours, or at least the next day, after being slightly slapped on the wrist. Why does the government not do something about it? It is a shame.

Third world people are being enslaved into a life of crime. They are being sent to the U.S. via Canada. What do the Liberals do about it? Nothing. The CIA and the FBI in the U.S. are furious about what is happening in Canada. They are furious about our Prime Minister because he is cutting budgets, dragging his feet and not upholding Canada's part in fighting crime in North America.

The government knows about money laundering operations in our country. Organized crime has built a very large, multibillion dollar underground economy. The weak Liberal government has done nothing about it.

Last week the newspapers published 10 ways to launder money and those are the 10 ways the Liberals have refused to prevent money laundering.

As a former credit union director, I know that our federal government is not doing enough to help prevent fraud through our financial institutions. There are many areas where the government has dropped the ball on combating organized crime, including industrial espionage, white collar crime, national security risks and others.

The Liberal government should have introduced legislation to protect the rights of civil servants who come forward to expose corruption in government. It should have done this long ago. In other countries the legal rights of public servants who blow the whistle are protected. They are rewarded. In Canada we need at least to protect the public servants who report, in good faith, evidence of wrongdoing. They should not be subject to disciplinary action, as the government has shown in the last few years.

Canada needs a mechanism for our public servants to follow when they detect wrongdoing, including mismanagement, misleading information, cover-ups and other things like the issue we are debating today.

I will soon be putting forward a bill for the government to support that will protect and reward whistleblowers. The purpose of the act will be to establish a procedure and provide appropriate rewards and incentives for whistleblowing. Everyone knows about the work of Brian McAdam, who exposed corruption in our Hong Kong embassy.

The sidewinder investigation should certainly be of value and in the best interests of Canadians. My hon. colleague has already spoken about it. For three months Fabian Dawson, a Canadian journalist working out of B.C., has been publishing articles chronicling corruption in our federal government's overseas missions.

We commend these Canadians for their work, but where is the government? Where are the Liberals? Why do the Liberals not investigate what Fabian is writing about? Why do they not help him? Why will they not take action when our media uncovers things through good journalistic investigation?

Today we are looking for answers to the problem of organized crime. What can parliament do? It is easy. The people of Surrey and all Canadians know how easy it is. Contrary to the motion we are debating, there is no need to study this problem. We already know the answers. Parliament can legislate tougher penalties. Parliament can provide whistleblowers with protection and rewards so that they can come forward with the evidence of corruption, exposing the techniques and modus operandi of organized criminals and gangs like the triads.

Rather than this weak Liberal government listening to them and taking appropriate action, rewarding whistleblowers like Brian McAdam and Corporal Read, it tries to shut them up and muzzle them while intimidating and threatening them. This weak government should see to it that the laws which are already in our statute books are enforced. The government can do that by providing our law enforcement community with what it needs to get the job done.

In Surrey the RCMP is always short of staff, equipment, time and resources. There is no reason for that except that the Liberals are starving the force of what it needs. We are the fastest growing community in Canada and this government is starving our city of police protection from organized crime. It is a shame.

I ask this weak Liberal government to wake up. Rather than sitting on its hands, looking like an empty bag, it should get tough on organized crime and send a strong message to criminals around the world on behalf of the people of Surrey, B.C. and all Canadians. It should tell those criminals that Canada is not the place to be.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak to this matter. Certainly the debate in itself will send a message to organized criminal elements that their behaviour and activities will not be tolerated for the reasons which have been elaborated and which I will continue to elaborate.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough East.

I would like to take a bit of a different tack in my address. I would like to address some of the key international activities of the federal government in addressing organized crime.

As members on both sides of the House will appreciate, international co-operation in combating organized crime is very vital. Canada, like other countries, is faced with responding to an increased movement of goods and people as our economy globalizes. At the same time, increased use of telecommunications and finance in everyday affairs shrinks our world.

To be sure, criminals are quick to try to capitalize on the opportunity that globalization and technological change present. Canadian ministers and officials are required regularly to attend meetings or conferences where key discussions and negotiations occur and where decisions are taken as to how to combat organized crime. It is a very complex issue. The objective is always to support a co-ordinated international approach to deal with this problem while recognizing that the sovereign interest of states must be respected.

An important recent meeting was the 1994 UN ministerial conference on organized transnational crime held in Naples. At that session a political declaration and global plan of action on organized crime was produced. This document has served as a framework for future multilateral activity in this area, some of which I will now describe.

At the Halifax summit of 1995, on the initiative of the Canadian government, the G-8 heads of state created an experts group on transnational organized crime, now called the Lyon Group. The Lyon Group has produced 40 recommendations on fostering closer co-operative legal assistance, law enforcement and other efforts to address the problem. This was followed by a meeting of G-8 justice and interior ministers on high tech crime in December 1997, a video conference of the G-8 ministers of justice and interior in December 1998, and most recently a meeting of G-8 ministers in Moscow on October 19 and 20 of this year where discussions focused on financial crime, high tech crime and illegal immigration.

The relationship between the Canadian and the United States governments and their agencies in combating organized crime is very important given the economic and cultural ties that we and our neighbours share. We share the same North American space and many of the same interests in combating transborder and transnational crime.

In February 1997, on the initiative of the Solicitor General of Canada and the Attorney General of the United States, it was agreed that Canada and the United States would form the Canada-United States cross-border crime forum. This agreement was reinforced by the commitment of the Prime Minister and President Clinton in April 1997 to form a bi-national body on criminal justice issues.

The Canadian group is comprised of officials from the Department of the Solicitor General, which co-chairs the forum with the U.S. Justice Department, the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Correctional Service Canada, Revenue Canada, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, Foreign Affairs, the Department of Finance, as well as representatives from provincial governments, including Quebec, and our police forces.

The U.S. group is comprised of U.S. attorneys, officials from the FBI, the DEA, the U.S. Marshalls Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service and regional and state officials.

The first full meeting of the cross-border crime forum took place in Ottawa in October 1997. The forum met again in Washington on May 21, 1998. The most recent meeting of the forum was in June of this year in Prince Edward Island.

The forum provides a regular opportunity for officials from Canada and the United States to discuss transnational crime problems and strategies to improve operational and policy co-operation and co-ordination. The work of officials through the forum's subgroups on intelligence, enforcement, prosecutions and telemarketing fraud is ongoing.

Bi-national strategies and threat assessments have been developed and continue to be refined. Officials are also evaluating current priorities and examining practices and legislation on both sides of the border to support co-operation at the national level, as well as regionally and locally in communities where border crime is a serious public safety concern.

The next meeting of the forum is to take place in May or June 2000 in the United States.

Still looking at the Americas, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions participated on behalf of the solicitor general at a ministerial level conference on money laundering held in Buenos Aires in December 1995. The conference produced an action plan on how to deal with money laundering in the Americas in terms of strengthening law enforcement, regulatory and legal measures. The action plan is an important marker for efforts in this hemisphere to combat organized crime.

I would also note Canada's activities in the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission, or CICAD as it is known by its Spanish acronym, of the Organization of American States. The focus of the commission is to address drug abuse and trafficking within the Americas, as well as related activities such as money laundering.

The Deputy Solicitor General of Canada was elected chair of CICAD's multilateral evaluation and monitoring working group at the May 1998 meeting of CICAD in Washington, D.C. This working group has developed a framework to evaluate member states' anti-drug efforts, which was completed at a meeting held August 31 to September 2 of this year.

Canada, as a member of the G-7 countries, was a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, the FATF. This task force was created at the G-7 summit held in Paris in 1989 to consider whatever measures were deemed necessary to eliminate money laundering and to develop international standards in this area.

The FATF released a report including 40 recommendations to fight money laundering, which are now considered model measures to be taken at the national and the international levels to put a stop to money laundering.

These recommendations were reviewed in 1996 to reflect the new patterns and the countermeasures taken in this area, like money laundering on the Internet.

The FATF now brings together 28 member states representing the main financial centres of the world.

Canada is also a collaborative and supportive member of the CFATF, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, a sister organization of the FATF.

The group members are committed to promoting and implementing the 40 FATF recommendations.

I mentioned the United Nations in my earlier comments. Canada is an active participant on crime issues in the United Nations and its specialized commissions, in particular the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

A convention on transnational organized crime is being negotiated now in the UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission. The work on this convention will have an impact on Canada's domestic policies and programs. Canada must be ready to meet its obligations and governments must take account of this.

At the same time, the convention will provide general tools for law enforcement and legal assistance among countries at the international level. It is expected that the convention will be adopted by the Millennium United Nations General Assembly in the year 2000.

A comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to combating organized crime nationally is essential to make Canada an effective international partner.

The main objectives of Canada's international activities are to promote Canadian values and policies while building a strong network for practical co-operation.

In this exercise, it is important that the federal government works in partnership with the provinces and territories, and with the communities across the country. We must ensure that our domestic arrangements and our international arrangements are compatible and support each other.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion reads:

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

I say at the outset that I support the motion and look forward to the reference to the committee on which I sit and which I consider to be a very important committee to the House.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm for his initiative in this area. It is always appropriate that parliament oversees government initiatives and, in this particular instance, this is a valuable and worthwhile initiative.

I will speak to the irony underlying this discussion. This irony revolves around the rule of law. Canada prides itself as a nation subject to the rule of law, much to the chagrin sometimes of many of the members of the House, particularly when the rule of law comes in conflict with, for instance, the supremacy of parliament or when we have interpretations from the Supreme Court of Canada which conflict with the will of parliament. Fortunately, we all respect the rule of law and therefore are able to work out those conflicting points.

Governments are circumscribed by the rule of law. Institutions are circumscribed by the rule of law. Individuals are circumscribed by the rule of law. People in institutions cannot simply do what seems most advantageous to their self-interest, regardless of whether it be in the field of criminality or in the field of civil law.

Canadians live under the rule of law and see it as their most valuable tool to protect themselves, their families and their assets against arbitrary actions by governments, institutions, police and other individuals.

Organized crime on the other hand has no such limitations. Whether it is trafficking in people, drugs, liquor or stolen cars, organized crime challenges the very basis of our Canadian society as we know it and, therefore, it is a threat like no other threat to our civilization.

The irony is that while organized crime seeks to destroy the rule of law in order to gain its revenues, it simultaneously wishes to invest its revenues and its proceeds from its activities in the societies which have the highest standards of the rule of law, because there they provide safe and secure banking systems, safe and secure property registration systems and safe and secure judicial remedies.

The irony is resplendent that ill-gotten gains, regardless of where they come from, whether they be from North America or from other places, frequently end up here because of the rule of the law and because of the security of our various institutions.

I hope I am not naive, and there are some who might say otherwise, but I believe that organized crime will be with us forever, much like original sin, of which many of our members know a great deal. It has been around since the dawn of time and is not likely to go away soon.

Given that it is not likely to go away soon, we have to be realistic about what can or cannot be done in the area of organized crime. I believe we should support the efforts of the RCMP in their interdictions in Sri Lanka for people smuggling, or in Akwesasne for other kinds of smuggling. The question really is whether the government is approaching this in the best possible fashion. What are the initiatives that make the most sense?

To me, hitting at profitability is what makes a great deal of sense. What hits most at profitability? I think that will be the question that determines the direction of the committee. For instance, the principles enunciated by the ministers collective of justice for the country states that taking a profit out of organized is an effective way of putting these criminals out of business and efforts to seize their illegal proceeds should be vigorously pursued. I support that view.

Let us take a look at some of the initiatives that this government has taken on in the last few years. The first initiative is the $115 million given to the RCMP to upgrade its CPIC facility. I had the good fortune of touring that facility in the last term and found it to be a useful tour. I encourage the other members to do so as well because the information held in those files is quite useful in fighting crime.

The next one was $18 million to the data bank initiative. Many of these people have no compunction about any method in order to secure their profits.

An additional $78 million to the national anti-smuggling initiative will fund 100 additional RCMP officers in major airports to help target organized criminals who use these airports as points of entry into Canada.

An additional $15 million paid annually will put more RCMP officers in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, and $13.8 million to the RCMP to use for workload increases. Thirteen proceeds of crime units have been created within the RCMP across Canada.

While all of these are laudable initiatives, I do not want to be circumscribing the work of the committee, assuming the motion goes forward, by simply listening to what the government says. To my mind, if those initiatives do not meet the profitability test as to cutting out the profitability of the activities of organized crime, then we probably have to ask ourselves whether that is well spent money. If the foregoing interrupts the profitability anywhere along a spectrum then, in my view, the initiative is doing a good job.

I look forward to the reference to the committee. I reflect on the last time that parliament referred an initiative to the justice committee which was in the area of drunk driving. We on the justice committee spent a great deal of time reviewing the evidence. As the evidence came before us, we started to see the patterns that were there and the gaps in the legislation. We were fortunate enough to not only be able to produce a unanimous report, but the justice committee also produced a bill which was referred back to the House and in turn proclaimed on July 1.

In my constituency, the work of the justice committee and the support that we received from the justice minister and the government in that area, and from all parties, was well received by my constituents. I look forward to this initiative also being dutifully undertaken by the committee and that it will produce a report that will not only be of use to the government but of use to the House.

Frankly, I will be interested at looking at anything that is effective. I will also be interested in looking at initiatives which are not effective. We live in a world of limited resources. We continue to live and will always live in a world of limited resources. We as a government will always be criticized that we never apply enough resources. If the resources that are being applied are not useful and are misdirected then that should also be part of the review of the committee.

While I appreciate that there is an irony going on here, that the rule of law is being abrogated by a certain subset of criminals, ironically, the work of the committee will, I hope, return us to the rule of law. I hope that ultimately, as we examine this issue, we will continue to move ourselves back to a rule of law and a society where all people can have security of person and property.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, gasoline pricing; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Trade.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion. It 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.

I applaud my colleagues who have worked on these important issues, sometimes at their own personal risk, particularly the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who, with my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is leading this debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who, in a way, raised the red flag after the tragic death of the young Daniel Desrochers in his riding. This young boy died in a car bombing incident involving feuding criminal gangs.

I am very proud of the work my colleagues have done. We cannot tolerate in the Quebec society, or the Canadian society for that matter, any kind of ingrained violence as a way of determining markets. This is how it works in the underworld. Neither can we allow crime to become a way of becoming rich without being punished, because all our values could be compromised in the long run.

On a number of occasions, it was pointed out that, in Quebec, which we do not like to think of as a violent society, between 1994 and 1998, criminal organizations were responsible for 79 murders and 89 attempted murders, 129 cases of arson and 82 bombings.

This is a serious situation. We know that it is not all that serious in Quebec, but we are still concerned. However, this scourge also ties in very closely with what is happening internationally. Today we are looking at the globalization of organized crime. Global crime involves more than connections between Canada, Quebec and the United States, for example, with some ramifications in Mexico. It is much larger than that.

As I said before, we know that places that lend themselves to criminal activity become markets that are fought over internationally. We only have to look at the various gangs competing with one another with the means and the level of violence we know.

I just want to take a moment to mention that, in other countries, in Europeans countries for example—and I have been made aware of that—one type of crime that is being dealt with is the exploitation of half a million women from developing countries who are brought to western Europe each year for profitable sex crimes.

We know that young women and women are kidnapped and disappear and that they end up being exploited somewhere. When you add up all these numbers, it looks like a modern-day white slave traffic.

Then there is the whole issue of the displacement of persons. According to the International Organization for Migration, those who are involved in the organized trafficking of human beings are responsible for the displacement of one million individuals at any given time, generating $7 billion worth of business every year.

Putting an end to the trafficking of human beings was the primary goal of the European Union summit held in Finland. The aim was not to simply prevent the displacement of people. Displaced people who are charged $20,000—in the case of those from China for example—are subject to a kind of slavery and control including threats against their person.

Several migrants from Europe landed illegally in western Canada. Recently, some of them were brought here by boat in the same unacceptable fashion.

Drugs are an international scourge. Numbers vary but, according to a document we produced, there is between $100 and $500 billion in trade every year. By comparison, drugs account for 8% of international trade, or approximately $400 billion, roughly the same as oil and gas. This is a lot. Oil and gas represent an extremely important part of international trade. The drug trade is said to be of an equal value.

The stakes are enormous and profits from organized crime could be as high as one trillion dollars. I am not mistaken. I do not mean one thousand million in French, or one billion in English, I mean one trillion, which as far as I know is “un billion” in French.

This goes to show how extremely important these illicit, violent activities are with all their showy wealth. In Moscow I have seen the most sumptuous boutiques. There are 20 BMW dealerships in Moscow, and it would seem that very few are authorized dealers. There is world-wide trafficking in the resale of stolen automobiles.

Why mention this in connection with the death of the Desrochers boy? In order to indicate the extreme importance of the work my colleagues on both sides of the House will have to do. They will certainly need to know exactly what is going on, as far as international agreements are concerned, because the globalization of crime is such that it cannot be considered localized and therefore solvable locally. This is particularly the case now that there are new approaches, such as high tech crimes, cyber attacks and crimes committed by hackers.

Now there are brilliant hackers who are able to commit financial crimes by infiltrating computer systems and then, with a few keystrokes, hiding all evidence of their crime, or transferring the proceeds from it to another country.

This field is one of extraordinarily rapid change, and it is at the service of biker gangs as much as it is for any other group. Under these circumstances, the authorities face a major challenge, because the crime must first be located and then the data has to be obtained to prove it. There is considerable urgency here.

Some countries, we have heard, want to make encryption keys mandatory. Encryption uses extremely lengthy formulas that supposedly make it impossible to get into messages and therefore protect honest people from those who want to invade their privacy. They may, however, also afford protection to dishonest people by preventing the justice system from being able to find out what they have been doing. This is what happened in Japan, when a sect carried out its plans to poison subway travellers and Japan found itself with evidence that had to be decrypted. This was a very long and difficult task and it had to be done before the criminals could be tried, and they were not able to decipher it completely.

In closing, I wish to say that, as a society, we cannot allow these crimes to go unpunished, because the entire social balance is jeopardized. What is more, young people who are struggling to make it in the world may be attracted by this way to get rich quick.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague and I can see once again that the hon. member for Mercier has a very good grasp of the issue of organized crime and of its scope, in Quebec and in Canada.

Her calm and rational tone was a reflection of today's debate. Indeed, all the parties said they would support the Bloc Quebecois' motion. We feel this is a very important issue which deserves to receive all our attention, and the other parties obviously think so too.

I have a question for the my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier. I know she is very interested in what goes on at the international level. I am sure she said something about this, but I missed the beginning of her speech. I would appreciate it if she could comment about what is being done at the international level, if she had not already done so in her speech.

I realize that we must first have good national legislation. Obviously, we must first clean up our own backyard, but my question to the hon. member is about what goes on at the international level. Does the hon. member think that, once we will have cleaned up our act, there are things that must be done at the international level? Is some form of co-operation desirable? Are there useful lessons that could be learned from European countries, as the hon. member has frequent contacts with them and comes back with good ideas? I know that she recently travelled with the Minister of Justice precisely to talk about organized crime at the international level.

I would like to hear the hon. member, because she has a unique experience. The Bloc Quebecois is lucky to have her, because she increasingly brings her great expertise to us and to all Quebecers. I would like to hear her comments on this issue.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is making me blush.

Indeed, I have had the opportunity to join the justice minister at the G8 Summit. Having a government with a small majority can sometimes be useful to the opposition. I know about the collaborative work being done, and the secretary of state has mentioned the Lyon Group.

To be able to work together, countries have to agree on some rules. They have to know that if an offender is sent to another country, he will be treated the same way as he would be in his own country. Therefore, it is extremely important for countries to come to an agreement, and it is not always easy, because each and every state wants to run things.

I am glad to see that the committee is considering this issue as well as parliaments around the world, so that they can exchange information. Of course, in order to be able to exchange information and make a decision when the proceeds of some crime are located, we have to decide in advance how the proceeds of crime will be divided and who will try the alleged offender.

Will foreign countries agree with the way the trial will be run? We also have to think about the severity of the penalties provided. This has become crucial because it is so very easy for criminals to go from one country to another.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question. I think that, from now on, parliamentarians from countries around the world will have to talk about these things. I hope the committee will be the one to initiate these discussions. I also hope that the committee of a sovereign Quebec will be able to carry on and to discuss this issue with the committee of a sovereign Canada and the committees of other jurisdictions. It will be crucial to agree on some basic rules to ensure a minimum of justice.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion, which may be made votable, introduced by the Bloc Quebecois on one of the opposition days provided for in the agreement between the parliamentary leaders of the various parties represented in the House.

The full 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 effectively combat the activities of criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October 31, 2000.

In March 1998, Angus Reid conducted an omnibus survey containing questions about organized crime. The results of the survey said it all: 91% of the population described organized crime as a problem, and one Canadian out of two thought that it was a serious problem; 21% of the population thought that existing efforts to combat organized crime were adequate, and 77% wanted to see such efforts increased. Finally, the same survey showed that residents of Quebec and British Columbia were more anxious about organized crime than other Canadians.

For the Bloc Quebecois to have set aside as a possible theme for this day a subject as important for our collective future as sovereignty and anti-democratic measures to control that process being dreamt up by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister is a sign that the situation is critical with respect to organized crime.

Since our arrival in the House in 1993, a number of incidents have had a sobering impact on our existence as ordinary citizens wishing to live in peace and harmony. Let us recall briefly some of the more tragic among them.

In 1995, during a war between biker gangs for the control of a territory, Daniel Desrochers, an 11-year old boy, was killed by the explosion of a bomb in the Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in the east end of Montreal.

A few months later, a bomb went off in Saint-Nicolas, just south of Quebec City, and windows were shattered, including those in a baby's bedroom.

In 1997, Diane Lavigne and Pierre Rondeau, two prison guards, were killed in cold blood, presumably by bikers.

In a report by the Canadian Press published in Le Soleil of March 20, 1998, the then Quebec minister of public security, Pierre Bélanger, declared that the security and custody measures taken for the suspect had cost $1 million. Moreover, the chief crown prosecutor in Montreal, André Vincent, said Hell's Angels hitmen killed the two prison guards at random, just to destabilize the justice system. He added that these criminals intended to attack crown prosecutors and judges too.

I will add that André Tousignant, one of the Hell's Angels hitmen, was murdered and his body found on February 27, 1998, in the woods near Bromont.

These terrible incidents add to the problems faced by, among others, the Sûreté du Quebec in the fight against the so-called forced plantings of marijuana in farmlands across Quebec. In this regard, the Canadian Police Association stated in a press release on October 8 that the awful reality was that organized crime had reached epidemic proportions and that the police were frustrated by the lack of tools and resources to fight it.

The statistics are very revealing in measuring the scope of the problem of organized crime, regardless of its source. For example, the RCMP advises that, between 1994 and 1998, in general terms, there were 79 murders and 89 attempted murders in connection with biker gang wars in Quebec. These wars are also behind 129 cases of arson and 82 bombings.

If we look at an impact study on organized crime commissioned by the Office of the Solicitor General and released in 1998, we learn that the illicit sale of drugs in Canada provides revenues of $10 billion annually to those involved. Evaluations of the scope of the world market of illicit drugs vary between $100 billion U.S. and $500 billion U.S. Le Devoir of January 8, 1999 reported that, in Canada, in 1998, smuggling, which concerns all criminal organizations, involved primarily tobacco, alcohol and jewellery. It even reported that, in jewellery alone, the Canadian black market was estimated to be worth $400 million. All smuggling activities together are estimated to have cost the federal and provincial governments some $1.4 billion.

Crimes of an economic nature are on the same scale. To list them quickly, these include fraudulent telemarketing, aimed particularly at the elderly, stock market fraud and the fraudulent use of credit cards. According to the same source, it would appear that economic crimes cost the people of Quebec and of Canada a minimum of $5 billion annually.

This being the case, what has the Parliament of Canada done on the legislative, financial and international levels?

Let us look at the legislative aspect first of all. The government has passed four bills we feel it would be worthwhile to review briefly.

First there is the Witness Protection Act. Police forces are now in a position to provide better protection to those co-operating with them in obtaining evidence against criminal organizations.

Second, the Criminal Law Improvement Actenables the police to carry out storefront operations more easily. This enabled the RCMP to successfully carry out Operation Compote, resulting in charges against 50 people, one of them a Montreal lawyer.

The third is the anti-gang legislation passed in April 1997, the main thrust of which is inclusion in criminal law of the definition of gang.

This bill makes it a crime to take part in the activities of a gang and provides heavier penalties for those who commit crimes for a gang. It also authorizes the seizure of goods used for gangs' criminal activities.

It should noted that this legislation does not target the leaders of criminal gangs, since it is assumed that the individuals targeted are the ones who commit the crime. However, it is a well-known fact that in this type of criminal organization, the dirty jobs are often done by subordinates and that the leaders must be caught for these organizations to be broken up.

The fourth legislative measure is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which gives police the power to conduct reverse sting operations with undercover officers.

In spite of all these legislative provisions, police forces seem unable to put an end to the activities of criminal gangs. As for the financial resources earmarked by the governments of Canada and Quebec to fight organized crime, they seem clearly inadequate. However, it must be realized that it is difficult to get a precise breakdown of all the moneys spent on the issue that we are discussing today.

Finally, at the international level, during a conference held in Montreal in 1998, the deputy commissioner of the RCMP for investigations, René Charbonneau, proposed the establishment of an international criminal tribunal to deal with drug dealers.

In light of this brief overview of organized crime in Canada, we can see that the measures and the legislation in place and the amount of money spent at this time cannot eradicate this problem. That is why the Bloc Quebecois believes it is important to examine the tools available to us to determine if they could be improved or if they could be complemented by new legislative, administrative and financial measures.

There seems to be a consensus on the urgency of passing new tougher and more explicit legislation to counter activities by criminal organizations.

Organized crime is certainly a national problem that threatens public safety. It is important that the efforts made by parliament to pass legislation that is suited to the reality faced by police match the efforts made by police in the field to uncover criminal organizations.

The federal government must show the political will to take action and must find ways to improve intelligence gathering by the police, to impose harsher sentences on members of criminal organizations and to give more teeth to its money laundering legislation.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis for such an interesting speech, and on her knowledge of the international scene.

It is very often easier to obtain international consensus on a criminal reform project than to obtain federal and provincial consensus.

I recall that we managed to get three international treaties on the control of international terrorism passed in a matter of mere months, going beyond the ideological and conventional borders of the day.

Has the hon. member considered making suggestions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the drafting of more detailed international conventions on this?