Mr. Speaker, the attack on reporter Michel Auger a few days ago was the straw that broke the camel's back.
There are many reasons why Quebecers have had enough of the rule of terror that criminal organizations, biker gangs and other groups impose upon our society, in Quebec as well as in Canada. I am talking more specifically about the situation in Quebec since it affects us directly.
I was reading a report that was released yesterday by the federal Department of Justice. I assume our colleagues opposite would be interested in such a report. The report tells us that witnesses, jurors and lawyers have been threatened by these groups. I will add that parliamentarians have also been threatened by these groups.
There have been 150 victims in Quebec over the last five years, 30 of whom were innocent victims, men, women and children who had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, who just happened to be nearby when a bomb went off. Thirty innocent victims.
The recently appointed RCMP commissioner, Mr. Zaccardelli, expressed some fears with regard to the corruption of politicians. This is not coming from me, but from the head of the RCMP.
The number of such organizations has increased since 1995. Even after passage of Bill C-95 in 1997, we saw the number of biker gangs in Canada increase from 28 to 35. Is this not evidence that we do not have the necessary tools to address the problem? What should we do to deal with this situation? Remain passive? Talk?
I think our duty as parliamentarians—because we do have duties to fulfill—is to stand up and respond to the call of the public.
Some have said we are doing this to score political points. This is certainly not true in the case of the Bloc Quebecois. We have been raising this issue in the House for years, since 1993. Obviously we have made some gains: it is thanks to the Bloc Quebecois that $1,000 bills have been taken out of circulation.
Mr. Speaker, you and I have never had pockets full of $1,000 bills, but those people count their money by weighing hockey bags on a scale. Thousand dollar bills take up less room. That is exactly what has happened, and the hon. member across the way ought to realize that there is nothing funny about it. He may think it funny, but the victims did not.
No, we do not have any vote-seeking motives. We are, moreover, not the only ones calling for this; the Bloc Quebecois motion is supported by the government of Quebec, Quebec Liberal Party leader Jean Charest, as well as the government of Ontario, the Sûreté du Québec, the Canadian Police Association, the Quebec Press Council—not a repressive body—the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec, the Montreal Urban Community Police Department, and the NDP governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These are not all nasty sovereignists who are seeking to take advantage of a situation in order to gain votes.
This is a serious problem, and perhaps it is high time there was some realization of this over on the other side of the House.
What does our motion say? We will be coming back to it. Today will not see an end to it. This late night debate is not going to do away with it when there is no provision for a vote. We are not afraid to vote, we are not afraid to stand up, we are not afraid to say what we think. We will never be afraid, and we will be back with it. There will be other opportunities, and it will be moved again here, in the House.
With the support of all of the opposition parties, I would remind hon. members, the motion refers to “making it a crime to belong to a criminal organization, if necessary—I emphasize that it is “if necessary”—invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
That created quite a stir among the Liberals. This reminds me of a headline that I recently saw in an Ontario newspaper. I could not believe it. The constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels were violated by the Ontario police because these people have rights.
I can just imagine the Prime Minister delivering a speech at the UN to tell them about the best country in the world and saying “In our country our democracy is so developed that even the Hell's Angels have constitutional rights, and so do the Rock Machines and the Outlaws”.
Is it not nice that, in Canada, these groups have constitutional rights? Our democracy is so advanced that these people have constitutional rights. But the government does not even want to think about using something legal. The notwithstanding clause is in the charter, but the government will not use it against criminal groups. That would lower the level of democracy in Canada, since the Hell's Angels are entitled to their constitutional rights, just like the Rock Machines.
Go tell the mother of young Daniel Desrochers that you are not even considering using that clause because of the constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels. This is unbelievable. It is ridiculous, but the result is also dreadful.
The Liberals' attitude is deplorable. First of all, the Prime Minister, worse than ever—and this is saying something—says “They want me to meddle in provincial jurisdictions by intervening on the criminal code”. But, good God, for someone who was the Minister of Justice and has been here for over 35 years and is the Prime Minister, not to know that the criminal code is under federal jurisdiction—I will believe anything, but not that. Unless he does not know this. It is true he did not know that he does not pay employment insurance. But he knows about the criminal code. Meddling in the affairs of the provinces is his greatest joy. For once this is his jurisdiction and he does not intervene.
Subsequently, the Liberals refused to debate the motion now before us because it was a votable item. In other words, it is fine to talk, debate, discourse but certainly not to take a stand, because the constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels are too important.
However, these people solidly support the young offenders. When it comes to imprisoning children of 10 or 12 years of age, they are brave. Come on kids, we are going to put you in the corner. Instead of a spanking, it is off to prison you go. However, on the subject of the Hell's Angels, the Rock Machine and so on, they are fearful, silent, they hide, they say “We must not touch the constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine. Never mind what they do, they have rights. That would be lowering the level of democracy”.
Is that a responsible attitude? Is that the way a responsible parliamentarian should behave? In the case of young offenders, Quebec asked that the legislation be left as it was because it was working. The results prove it. The government is doing the opposite. Our request this time is based on our expertise. If there is more pressure in Quebec—and the federal report says there is—it is because the police are taking tougher action against these groups. It is not just a coincidence. The Liberals are reacting because they know that we do not have all the resources we need, while they are sitting pretty. In this case, they are imposing it on Quebec.
What does the motion say? Does it say that the notwithstanding clause must be used? Absolutely not. We are asking the government to consider acting on our proposal to make membership in such groups a criminal offence and, if legislation is not a possibility, to consider the notwithstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause is part of the charter. It was not Quebec that imposed the notwithstanding clause. We signed nothing. It was the provinces of English Canada which would not have agreed to the charter without the notwithstanding clause. Now that it is available, they do not want to use it. The constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels are more important.
We cannot accept this state of affairs. What am I going to tell the young men and women in my riding who are prostituting themselves because they are drug addicts, the victims of these groups? I am going to tell them that the Minister of Justice loves and understands them, but that she does not wish to use the notwithstanding clause.
According to the members opposite, the constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels are more important than the fate of these young people.
What am I going to tell restaurant owners in my riding who are paying protection money? What am I going to tell all the innocent victims? The Hell's Angels have constitutional rights.
The minister is shaking her head. Well, for God's sake, if what I just said is not right, can you tell me what is? I am right. Because they refuse to consider the notwithstanding clause, they oppose our motion. It is sheer hypocrisy and nothing else.
What should we say to the families of the victims? “Our prayers are with you, Mrs. Desrochers. We may go sing a song for you, free of charge”. But there is no way we can infringe upon the constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels. They are too important. This is the standard by which our democracy will be judged.
Democracy is such a beautiful thing when the constitutional rights of these gangs supersede the fate of our young people who represent our future. The constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels, what more can we say.
There is much more to be done, of course. We now have a subcommittee. After two years of hard work by the Bloc a subcommittee on organized crime was set up. Yet there are many other aspects to consider. I can think of international ramifications, money laundering, and interference in legal businesses, because these criminals create legal businesses with their dirty money. It is hard to believe what they have achieved, on which boards of directors they sit, which business circles and which political circles they have penetrated. That takes time.
But, in the meantime, what are we telling future victims? Some future victims are listening to us tonight. Some young people will use drugs tonight. Not a word. We do not think about that. Because, you see, the constitutional rights of Hell's Angels are at stake.
We do not want to use a tool that we have at our disposal. We are refusing to use it. Is Canadian democracy not wonderful? We are going to deprive ourselves of this tool.
The objective is not to use this clause. We are not saying that this clause will necessarily be used. We are saying that it will be used if necessary. If there is no other way, what should we do? Should we just give in or should we tell people that there is no other way? Should we tell them that we have thought about it long and hard, but that we would have had to use the notwithstanding clause and that is against our principles?
Some countries have done it. I am thinking of France in particular. France is not a dictatorship. It has a law against criminal gangs with penalties of up to ten years imprisonment, if I am not mistaken. Have any of the labour unions disappeared since then? Are there not protest groups on every issue in France? Were those who blocked the roads arrested because it could be criminal? Come on, it is ridiculous. We know full well who this law is for. Because such groups have rights, is their existence a measure of our democracy?
These are the questions we must ask because our democracy is being attacked on all fronts, including on the political front. Threats have been made to some members of parliament. The RCMP commissioner tells us that attempts have been made to corrupt some people and perhaps there is some corruption.
The power of the judiciary is being attacked through threats made against witnesses, lawyers and jurors. Threatened is the word the report uses. The attack on Michel Auger was an attack on the freedom of the press. There has also been an attack on Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, now the speaker of the Quebec National Assembly. Our economic institutions are also in danger because the clean money that is created by money laundering becomes dirty money as well. That is a self-evident truth.
But these people have been creeping slowly ahead. They have front men. The small fry are arrested while others are strutting around openly in society. Some of them have what they call “filthy few” tattoos on their shoulder. If the minister is not aware of this, let her come to my riding. To earn that tattoo a person has to have killed someone. These killers are grouped together as the “filthy few”. If a Liberal over there wants to play at being one, let him just get such a tattoo and spend ten minutes on Sainte-Catherine in the east end. Those would be his last ten minutes on earth.
We know these people and we know what they do. If anyone does not know what the Rock Machines, the Outlaws, the Devil's Disciples, the Hell's Angels are, they must be from another planet. These are not clubs where people get together to play cards or go bowling. We know what they are involved in.
Of course, the former minister—I do not believe the present one would serve up this pontification totally devoid of logic—said that people are not being attacked for who they are, but what they do. I am telling you that these people act the way they do because of who they are. That is as simple as that, and those who do not understand this are off track.
Who is the charter made for? For those groups or for law-abiding citizens? Can we not take the United Nations charter as an example? Section 20 refers to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Someone would have to prove to me that these are peaceful groups. The burden of proof is on you to show us that these are pacific groups.
People are not arrested because of who they are, but because of what they do. I am telling you that this government will be judged on its actions. Which side will it take? That of the constitutional rights of the Hell's Angels or the Rock Machine or that of young people, the future and democracy?
People demand that we take a firm stand. They cannot accept those meaningless, sophisticated and pontificating speeches which are perfectly useless. We do not accept that. This fight will continue; those people will soon be made accountable.
