House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was banks.

Topics

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will only speak for about five minutes in order to allow my colleague from the Bloc to speak on this issue as well.

I just want to say to the hon. member that it is quite ironic that those members wish to have this bill passed, and fairly quickly I would assume. It is no coincidence that RBC Dominion Securities—and correct me if I am wrong but they are the same ones who had trouble with some sort of fraud situation that happened a while ago—will be one of the customers buying a $25,000 table at the Alliance dinner to meet with Mr. Day.

I find it quite ironic that the CBA, the Canadian Bankers Association, on which the Royal Bank is a member, wants very quick passage of this bill. One just has to tie the links together; $25,000 for a table indicates quick passage of a bill. It is quite obvious from where the Alliance is speaking, and it is not in terms of the grassroots community.

I have two letters in front of me. One letter is from a person in Fredericton, New Brunswick and the other is from a person in River John, Nova Scotia. Both of these individuals are small business people who are very concerned about the closure of their banks in their communities. This is what happens when one has a central based government that thinks from Windsor to Quebec City and ignores the rural parts of the country.

Throughout, people have been very concerned and very passionate about their banks and, in most cases, myself included, have been very proud of our banking history, but lately the banks have forgotten what their purpose is in terms of service to the community and service to rural parts of Canada.

No one will ever deny that banks are very generous when it comes to donations to various arts, sports and culture, and they should be congratulated for that, but what small communities require is a banking presence in their communities.

Many seniors and people with disabilities are finding it very difficult to access banking services. Some people do not have the technology or the finances to afford computer services in their homes. The majority of Canadians still do not have computers in their homes. Many people are very distrustful of the ATM services. In some cases the ATM services are restricted in their ability to provide services to the majority of people.

As a party we are also very concerned about the powers this bill would give one individual in parliament or, as in this particular case, in cabinet. As I mentioned before in questions and comments, what happens is that the DFO minister, who I call the fishing czar, has incredible powers throughout his ministry to make changes. A recent example of that is the arbitrary decision to move 1,500 metric tonnes of northern shrimp away from the Newfoundland and Labrador people and into the hands of the people of Prince Edward Island, completely forgetting the adjacency principle of that.

However, the finance minister can now make similar decisions, overriding the will of parliament or, for that matter, even overriding the will of the people of Canada through their elected officials by doing basically whatever he would like to do. He would have the power to do that through the bill. I find that very disturbing.

It is amazing that a document, which is 900 pages long, has to be rushed through the House so quickly. If anything, a bill that has 900 pages should be extremely and carefully scrutinized. There should be no time limit on that. It should be available so that every Canadian understands thoroughly, in very simple and plain language, exactly what this means in their daily lives.

My hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle has gone through the bill very carefully and has mentioned some very serious concerns. He has mentioned the lack of community investment and the fact that a particular bank, like the Banque Nationale, could actually be absorbed and moved to the United States. Those are very deep concerns not only for the province of Quebec but I am sure for other areas as well.

What the bill will eventually do is lead to the slippery slope of American or foreign control of our financial institutions. I believe most Canadians would fear that indeed.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, one of my real concerns about the bill before the House today is the change in the wide ownership rule. The government is now proposing we go from 10% of the shares being held by any one individual to 20% for voting shares and 30% for non-voting shares.

We have already sold out or given up so much of our country, it seems to me that if we change the wide ownership rule we will be inviting more concentration on the banking industry and more foreign ownership of the banking industry. In essence, a couple of billionaires could control a big national bank.

I talked to some people in my home city of Regina over the last couple of days who were also concerned about losing one of these last industries that really control the country.

So much has changed with the free trade agreement. This is one of the few that is still left. The other concern I have is that the government is now proposing to treat medium sized banks and large banks differently. For large banks a foreigner, a wealthy individual or an institution could buy up to 20% of the shares. For a medium sized bank, a bank with between $1 billion and $5 billion in equity, a single person could purchase 65% of the shares. In other words, the Banque Nationale in Quebec could be purchased by the Chase Manhattan or by anybody else and suddenly that bank would be out of the province of Quebec and out of the country. With its headquarters gone jobs would be gone. We would lose a very important part of our country.

I want to ask my friend from Nova Scotia whether he shares these points of view. They are really two different questions in terms of the threshold rising and in terms of treating the three medium sized banks differently. It is not just the Banque Nationale, it is also the Laurentian Bank and the Bank of Western Canada.

For smaller banks, banks with an equity of less than $1 billion, there are no rules or restrictions at all. They can be owned by anyone, a foreigner or a Canadian. There is a difference there as well.

Those are the concerns I have in terms of the wide ownership rule and losing something that we have as Canadians, something that we have regulated and made work to a pretty decent degree over the years. I am concerned that with the lack of debate going on in the House it will be be hard to mobilize public opinion to put pressure on the government.

Liberal members are not even participating in this debate. The minister spoke for about 12 minutes and that was it. The official opposition spoke for a few minutes by putting up one speaker and that was it. They are not even rising on questions and comments when we are debating a very important issue.

This is a bill that is over 900 pages in length, a bill that affects many other pieces of legislation. This is not just 900 pages, but the consequential changes in other legislation amounts to another 4,000 pages of legislation as well. Much of this will be done by order in council, by memorandums of understanding and by guidelines. The minister will have tremendous power in terms of being a banking czar.

Those are the concerns that a lot of us have. I hope we can engage some of the members across the way in this debate. It is a very important issue. They talked a lot during the bank merger campaign in 1998-99 about changing the rules and putting more power back into parliament and giving less power to the bureaucrats and the minister and here is their chance to do that. Let us have some real engagement in this debate.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I believe this is the very quick, slippery slope to foreign control of our banking institutions as well as the re-engineered talks of the bank mergers themselves. Even the banks have said that if they were allowed to merge thousands upon thousands of Canadians would lose their jobs and thousands of branches would be closed throughout Canada. I believe, as is the case with most other institutions in this country, that we will eventually lose control of these institutions and they will be moved over to American or foreign control.

I find it astonishing that the Canadian Alliance and the Liberal Party have refused to debate this issue. Usually when they refuse to debate that means they are trying to hide something or trying to slip something through on the Canadian people. I find it disgusting that they will not even engage Canadians on this very important topic.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how the hon. member feels about deep tax cuts, the type of tax cuts that would mean that every single family across the country would pay less tax?

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. I am sure that he is talking about tax cuts under Bill C-38.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I know we are switching the topic here but I do not think there is one Canadian who does not think that he or she is paying too much taxes. However, what they also want is accountability for the public dollars that they send to Ottawa, and that, unfortunately, is not helping right now.

It is okay to think about tax cuts but if they turn into user fees we have a bigger problem. As I have said many times in the House, we need a full and open debate on taxation from the municipal, provincial, territorial and federal levels. We also need a full debate on what programs Canadians want, how much they are willing to spend and on the accountability of parliamentarians in order to spend their hard earned tax dollars.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is rather puzzling to see no one from the official opposition getting involved in this debate except for that last very short question, which was really a question on a different topic. I wonder if this has something to do with the big dinner coming up in Toronto where the Canadian Alliance is selling tables for $25,000 to very wealthy people. This shows that it is a party that has moved a long way from ordinary citizens and a long way from the grassroots. I wonder if this has had some impact on members of parliament as to whether or not they were willing to get up and debate the issues respecting banks because some of the people buying these tables will surely be bankers. They will not be ordinary people living on the east side of Calgary or at the north end of Regina. It will be wealthy people on Bay Street and a lot of banking people.

I also noticed that the profits of some of our big banks have been escalating in the last few years. If we go back to 1992, for example, the profit of the big six banks was $1.8 billion, in 1994 it was $4.3 billion, in 1997 it was $7.6 billion and in 1999 it was $9.2 billion. With that kind of money I am sure some of these people will be buying tables at $25,000 a pop.

Then we have questions about big tax cuts for wealthy people and millionaires. Today somebody in the House said that the 17% flat tax promised by the Alliance Party would give someone making a million dollars a year a tax cut of $130,000 a year.

This is quite a metamorphosis for a party that started off as a grassroots party. It is now a party of Bay Street, a party of big business and a party of the wealthy and the privileged. I wonder if that is why its members are not participating in this debate.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly answer that question with another question. How many individual members of the Alliance Party will actually be able to afford the dinner? I doubt that very many of them will be there.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I sat today listening to the various speeches on Bill C-38. I would like to throw out some questions as this hour concludes.

Canada has the healthiest banking system. No, I do not own any shares in a bank, but Canada does have a banking system that is the envy of the world. I wonder what Canadians would think today looking in on this debate.

I heard members say that banks should be required to stay in business. Would the government require Dairy Queen to stay in business if a town was folding up? I heard people say that the banking industry is an evil institution because it charges for its services. I heard people say in the House that there is no competition. There is more competition in the banking industry today than ever in the history of Canada. Everywhere we go there is more competition.

What we should be doing, instead of trying to drivel out some 1955 or earlier speeches about how to nationalize the banking industry in Canada, is talking about the fact that the institutions that are providing competition to the banks are valuable institutions.

Why would members want to paint a picture, not only for the investment community but for all Canadians, that our banking institution is something of a very evil nature? That is the message they are putting out. I am ashamed as a Canadian to have to listen to this drivel about the banking institution, which is world famous, being an evil institution.

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone on this side of the House said we should nationalize banks. I also do not think anybody on this side of the House said that they were evil.

The member is right, our banking institutions are the envy of the world. They are extremely profitable and communities in River John, Nova Scotia and Fredericton, New Brunswick are very concerned about the closure of their banks.

We do not demand that they provide this service. They are making billions and billions of dollars. One would think that they would have some community spirit left in their banking souls in order to provide service to Canadians.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

6:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 52 and to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the consideration of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely organized crime.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

6:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

—Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a very important issue.

As you have outlined, Mr. Speaker, this emergency debate is as a result of a situation that has evolved in recent months and years but which is escalating. It is a situation that has become very critical in the country. Organized crime is becoming more rooted daily in various communities across the country.

It is certainly something that is not limited to any province. It may be argued that in the province of Quebec there is an acute presence of organized crime activity and established gangs which could be due in part to the headquarters located there and the length of time they have been involved in their various heinous activities in that province. However, they are branching out. They are spreading out like a plague across the country.

Organized crime is something that is not new to Canada, but it is becoming increasingly sophisticated in its nature. It is becoming increasingly diverse, like an industry that has diversified. Organized crime is a problem in rural Canada as much as it is in the cities.

I begin my remarks by indicating that this is truly a non-partisan issue. This is not an issue with which anyone wants to play politics. This is an issue on which we should be united. Of all things in this place, it is an issue on which we should be working together to try to eradicate and address and at least discuss matters in which we can do so in a civil fashion.

Like the old Neil Young song Rust Never Sleeps , crime never sleeps. This is something which is taking place day and night across the country. It is happening at all times. It is not prejudicial. It takes place in communities where there is perhaps less money and wealth. It preys on the weak. It uses intimidation. It is insidious in its approach.

Representing the district of Kingston, I know this will be of interest to you, Mr. Speaker. Being an area where there have been reports of increasing biker turf wars taking place and where there is a concentration of Canada's federal penal institutions, it is a prime area for organized crime. Individuals are often released from prisons right into the waiting arms of organized crime.

Last Saturday more than 70 motorcycle gangs, including dozens from the Rock Machine, were in the city of London, Ontario for an annual social event with outlaw biker gangs. They were trying to forge relationships. Just like corporations, they are forming mergers and working together to gain allies in their continuing war with the Hell's Angels in this instance, for strength and a lion's share of the organized crime activity which is going on. As part of that continuing war, the Hell's Angels, in this escalating war between them and the Rock Machine, are talking about control of the illegal drug trade, adult entertainment, extortion and racketeering.

The problem is apparent. People no longer feel safe in their communities. They feel that much of what the police do now is simply monitoring instead of having the ability to intervene and strike at the heart of the issue. Much of that I suggest is due to the lack of resources. Where the police fall down in this regard is that they do not have the ability, the financial resources, to compete with organized crime in the fashion in which they should. Nor do they have the legislative teeth, which is what they have been calling for. They want the ability to gain access to warrants so they can move quickly. In most instances, the police are facing a critical situation where they have to quickly act with great force in a very prudent fashion. They are dealing with limited resources.

Similarly, organized crime does not have to stay within the bounds of the law. Those people do not have to follow certain established procedures. They do not have to wait for a warrant to arrive or ensure that certain legal remedies are adhered to. That is fine. We all accept the fact that the police have to adhere to the rule of law but they are being curtailed. They have one hand behind their backs when compared with the organized crime they are seeking to eradicate.

In the province of Quebec there have been a number of instances in recent days and months. Journalists who have exposed and written about this problem have become the direct targets and have been attacked. There have been attempted assassinations. This is escalating and reaching new and dangerous levels. We in this place certainly should be discussing ways to address and remedy the situation, if at all possible.

Two weeks ago the minister from the province of Quebec, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government to consider the use of the notwithstanding clause when dealing with membership in gangs like the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine. During the same period when the issue was being discussed, Michel Auger was shot five times in the back for writing about this exact scenario. We do not know the perpetrators of that offence but the timing certainly leads one to believe that it was related to those articles and that subject matter which he had chosen to write about in the public forum.

Criminal gangs are present in virtually every province. Organized crime has infiltrated almost every element of society. Most recently, smuggling rings have been appearing with alarming frequency on the west coast. The Chinese snake head gangs or triads are becoming increasingly present. They are becoming most blatant and almost unrepentant in trying to bring people into this country illegally, the human trade, as it has been called.

It is dehumanizing and a threat to the very underpinnings of democracy that this is taking place. Yet the police, our internal security service, feel curtailed in their efforts to deal with this threat. Obviously it is not limited to any one element of organized crime. There are the traditional mafia type syndicates in place. There are increasing reports that eastern bloc countries, in particular the Soviet Union, have staked out a market here in North America. They are perceived by the police as being a real threat because of their ruthless nature. There are the Chinese triads which I have referred to. Right across the board in every corner of the country we are seeing elements of organized crime.

In my own constituency, in Antigonish, we have seen a biker gang crop up. They are becoming blatantly apparent to all in the community of Antigonish. In Saskatchewan there have been new openings of chapters of the Hell's Angels. It is right across the board. We are seeing it in Manitoba and Ontario.

The drug war often plays itself out on the streets and roads of every community. Innocent bystanders are very often caught in the crossfire of these exchanges. The bombs that are planted by criminals are intended to intimidate, shut down or infiltrate one another but very often innocent people become the victims.

Even when organized criminals and those who engage in this activity are caught and arrested and due process takes place, they wind up in jail but they continue to recruit. They continue to actively organize and to communicate with one another. As an example, last Wednesday, September 13, a Millhaven penitentiary inmate serving a 17 year sentence was charged again with drug related and weapons offences and conspiracy to commit escape after using a cellphone to import Colombian drugs into Canada.

It is appalling to think of the blatant and outright flaunting of the law that takes place when criminal gangs are involved. The recruiting that is going on has to be addressed as well. There is a great deal of outsourcing of criminal activity. Want to be criminals are brought into the fold and told they will be rewarded if they will do this bidding, if they will involve themselves in drug trafficking, prostitution and violence, to ingratiate themselves to their organized crime masters. This is happening with increasing frequency.

Criminals are recruiting young people to do their crimes. This is happening. It is something we cannot ignore and is something the government itself has to address in a more active way.

I know we will hear from both the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice about this issue. The Minister of Justice will rightly point out that the government has brought forward legislative initiatives. That is welcome. It is welcome in the community. However in most cases the government refers repeatedly to the money that has been put into the CPIC system and the recent cheques that have been sent to the RCMP, but they are postdated. The money will not be there for years to come.

The money has to come now. The legislative initiatives have to occur immediately because it is creeping into society at every element. Making announcements, either in the House or in the press gallery, as the government is prone to do, does not do anything but encourage organized crime when they find out that the money is not actually there. The resources are shadow resources.

We hear time and time again about the priorities of the government. Its number one priority was health care. Then the defence minister said the number one priority was dealing with the lack of helicopters. We heard today the number one priority is organized crime. These priorities are shifting like the sands of the Sahara. They are shifting perhaps like the sands in the sand traps where the Prime Minister plays golf.

This is not going to help the problem. It is not going to address the lack of resources the police have and the lack of legislative initiatives that are needed to allow the police to attack the problem, to engage in the warfare against criminal activity and gangs in Canada.

We presently have a committee in place of which I am proud to say I am a member. The justice committee has been tasked, at the initiative of the Bloc and with the endorsement of the entire House, to look at this issue in detail, and we will. There is a great deal to examine. This is a very complex and involved matter. There is no way to dumb down this issue as some in this place would like to do.

We have to attack organized crime at its root. We have to cut off the flow of resources that they are using. That may involve bringing in tougher legislation with respect to the proceeds of crime. I know there are initiatives currently in place. We can do more. We can always do more when the problem is as acute and apparent as it is today. Part of that certainly involves discussion here, but hopefully we will see concrete examples of the government reacting and acting in a responsible way, bringing forward concrete legislation, not talking about it here and in the press.

Let us actually do something. Let us show Canadians that this place can work forcefully and in a timely fashion. Let us bring it about for all Canadians to see that the government is behind our policing agents and is behind the courts in their efforts to address and eradicate organized crime.

The commissioner of the RCMP is an individual with a long history of dealing with organized crime in a very practical way, on the front lines. Perhaps the commissioner will, more than anyone else in the organization, have firsthand knowledge and an understanding of just how bad it is. To demonstrate that, we heard a warning from the commissioner in his very first week in office. He addressed this issue and specifically pointed out how bad it had become. He talked about this in a serious fashion. A warning was issued that should give us pause for reflection. He is telling us that organized crime is ready to purchase parliamentarians.

I was listening with interest to the discussion about fundraising and how political parties are often trying to raise money. That is accepted; that practice has always been there. But when parties put themselves on the auction block and they have high priced fundraising efforts, dinners set up for $25,000 a table, they are naively putting themselves forward and are vulnerable to exactly the type of purchase that Commissioner Zaccardelli has referred to and which he has warned us about.

A lot of potential influence can be bought with $25,000. Why would the players in organized crime not want to get in line? They certainly have the money. They certainly have the resources and they are prepared to do it. They have tried to do it in other fashions.

Organized crime is out there. It is actively undermining the moral fabric of communities. It is out there every day working to do so. It is coming out of the shadows. It is not in the alleys. It is not in the old flophouses the way it used to be. It is out there. It is on the Internet. It is in the homes of people we may know.

Heaven forbid that it ever makes it into the very home of democracy, but this is what the commissioner is talking about. He is indicating that parliamentarians, like other Canadians, are just as vulnerable. It is sometimes that intangible element of intimidation that the organized crime players like to trade in. This is very much on their agenda.

We have to act swiftly. Most important, we cannot back away from this issue, try to bury it, try to ignore it or to pretend that it is not as acute as it is. Organized crime is beginning to run rampant.

I have indicated that all sorts of different elements are competing for their market share. We do not need to torque up the rhetoric. We have to torque up solutions. We have to torque up tangible and very real ways to address what is going on. Jumped up promises or post-dated cheques for any element of this just will not do it. We do not need to talk about the priorities. We have to realize that it is a priority.

I do not mean to diminish or make this a joking matter, but the time is certainly here. I hope this debate will be the beginning of a real focus, not only by members of the opposition but more important by the government. The RCMP recognizes it. Municipal police forces, which are certainly doing the lion's share of policing in rural Canada, realize it. They continually make this an issue.

The minister herself will know, having attended a recent conference, that provincial ministers are looking to the government for co-operative efforts. They are looking to the government for leadership and initiatives that would help them.

The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal code, and that is part of the solution. That is part of where the change has to begin, whether it is through changes to organized crime elements of proceeds of crime or whether it involves giving the police greater latitude to seek warrants, to enter premises and to work in some effective way that they can move toward attacking crime where it begins.

Recruiting is becoming a bigger problem. We may have to draft entirely new legislation that will deal specifically with the element of recruitment. The suggestion that has been put forward and discussed already to some degree is the element of outlawing membership in these criminal organizations. I know that those with tendencies toward protection of civil liberties are correct to have legitimate trepidation about how we do this in an effective way. Part of it comes from a very specific definition of what encompasses organized crime. What will that definition be?

The wearing of colours that signify membership in a criminal organization is simply wrong. It is flaunting it in the faces of the authorities to go around flying the colours of an organized crime band. We have to take decisive action here that demonstrates we are not only not intimidated but will push back and act in a more proactive rather than reactive way.

We have seen it in the United States. I do not always want to hold up the United States as a shining example, but it has given sufficient resources to help deal with the problem at its root. The disbanding of the coast guard and the ports police by the government has opened the ports for business. It has signalled to organized crime that we can no longer control entry into the country of contraband materials. That has led to all sorts of problems for local police and RCMP because they simply do not have the capacity to police those ports.

There are other glaring examples where the resources have been cut and the police have been left feeling like they are spinning their wheels.

The government has an opportunity to step forward, to step up and show some leadership, to show some initiative and to give the police the help and the support through resources and legislative initiatives for which they are crying out.

Today can be evidence of that. I am hoping that we will hear from the minister more than just the usual rhetoric and more than just the talk about what has been done already. Let us talk about it in a proactive way in terms of what we can do to help our law enforcement community and what we can do to help shore up the doubt out there that we are losing ground, that we are falling behind and that organized crime is becoming an increasing threat.

We need to do that in a non-partisan way. I think we will find that all members of the Chamber are looking to the government to agree to making that a commitment, to making that a priority. If the Liberals are headed for an election, perhaps this will be an election issue. Let us do something now while we have an opportunity.

This is a life and death scenario. I know we hear that all the time, whether it is health, whether it is environment or whether it is justice. This is something that is affecting lives in this country as we speak. We not only have a responsibility and a mandate to do something about it. We have an absolutely undeniable obligation to Canadians to do something about it now, quickly, in a timely fashion to use the minister's words, and to do so in a clear and decisive way.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for his excellent remarks. I would like, though, to observe that he concentrated mostly on trying to bring improvements to policing and he directed his remarks fairly to the justice minister and the solicitor general.

I would like to observe that the problem with organized crime and the way to really get at it I would have thought, and he only alluded to it, would be to attack the profits of organized crime. I would like to draw to the attention of the member that for years now in the House I have been campaigning to get the government to write legislation that would make non-profit organizations and charities publicly accountable for the way they raise money and spend money.

The solicitor general has had representations from international police organizations complaining that Canada has become the centre in the world for laundering money, for laundering the profits of organized crime, not to mention the money that is raised on behalf of ethnic conflicts and terrorists abroad. I would suggest to the hon. member: Would he not support pressuring the government to take positive steps toward making charities and non-profit organizations financially accountable, transparent? Does the member realize, for example, that non-profit organizations do not have to disclose anything? Even their financial information returns to the government are not available to the public, much less to journalists and MPs.

Second, I would also like to draw to the attention of the member opposite—and I take advantage of the fact that the justice minister and the solicitor general are in the House and of course are very interested in this debate—that just a few days ago I had a person in my constituency office who was engaged in import-export. He told me he is aware that 16 shipping containers left Canada for Jamaica without inspection.

The member opposite alluded to the difficulty the police authorities have to inspect shipments coming into Canada for contraband, but does he realize that there is almost no inspection of shipments going out of the country and that in fact Canada has become one of the grand opportunities for shipping anything one wants to anywhere in the world?

If we go to Nigeria today we will see stolen vehicles still with the auto dealership on the their licence plates. They do not even change the licence plates in Nigeria after a car is stolen in Canada and is shipped over to African countries.

I wonder if the member opposite would comment. Are we not really in a situation where it is not a matter of limiting the right of association and it is not just a matter of increasing the police, which is of course the favourite answer for the Canadian Alliance? Increasing the police is always the answer to everything. Is it not really something we as parliamentarians should insist upon, that all organizations out there that are engaged in moving money around should be transparent and accountable to the public at large?

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

6:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his question and his commentary. I know that this is an issue very near and dear to his heart. I do agree that this is certainly not a simple issue. There are many facets and many levels to it.

The hon. member is correct to point out in the latter part of his discourse that there is a lot of export from this country. I was very aware as a crown prosecutor of a number of auto thefts where great numbers of vehicles were being stolen and sent abroad, sent to Europe, very expensive vehicles that were getting on to the ports, getting on to ships and away they went.

This again highlights the need for international co-operation of which I know the hon. member is very aware. The element of transparency and the element of cutting off the flow of money and the flow of resources to those who engage in this activity are what is needed.

I take very much to heart and am very encouraged by his own critique of the failings of his own government members in this regard. They have every opportunity to do that. This is the government's sole responsibility. They have to be the legislative initiators in this instances.

For example there is legislation in the United States, the RICO act which talks about racketeering, influence and corrupt organizations. This type of legislation is exactly what is needed in this country. I know this is something of which the minister is aware, has heard much and probably read much about. I am encouraged to see that both the solicitor general and the Minister of Justice are here ready to take part in this debate. We look forward to hearing from them about what initiatives we are going to hear.

With respect to this international co-operation that we must have, surely we will not hear that it involves having a computer system that can be accessed the way the situation arose over the summer where there was a trap door left open and even our allies could get in to see the way that we were approaching organized crime. I hope we will not hear that as the answer.

Information sharing is one thing but leaving the door open so that everyone knows what we are doing, including organized crime, including those who engage in that type of activity, is another. Because it is very sophisticated and very high tech they have the ability to find out what the government may be planning to do before it does it.

I hope there will be safeguards in place to deal with the computer system that was extremely vulnerable and left us, I would suggest, with our pants down looking very embarrassed before our allies in this regard.

We look forward to hearing further from members opposite, from the government and from all other members of the House about this very serious and very compelling issue.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

6:55 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member can comment on this statement if he cares to. While the Liberals point out that the Alliance is looking for more policing, the Liberals are looking at spending millions and millions and perhaps even billions of dollars going after duck hunters, deer hunters and gopher shooters. They are spending money like crazy. That is what they have been spending. That is their answer to fighting crime.

Having travelled around with the police and seeing the difficulties they face throughout many of our cities, I agree with the hon. member when I saw so many young people wearing identifiable jackets indicating that they belonged to an organization. I see this as being a problem that is affecting the most vulnerable of our society, and that is the children of this nation.

I see legislation coming out of some provinces that want to do something about it. For example, in Alberta the police were authorized by legislation to take young teenage prostitutes off the streets, not arrest them, not charge them, but detain them to try to help them. I am talking about taking 12 and 13 year olds off the street. Some judge has declared that to be unconstitutional. Along comes other legislation that allowed the police to stop identifiable gangs at roadside checks and along comes a judge who rules it unconstitutional.

I am wondering if the member sees the picture of what is going on. What is wrong with giving our officers the authority to put a stop to a lot of the actions that are happening? Their hands are tied constantly by silly legislation and the spending of money in areas that is not addressing the problem.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, while I take the comments of the hon. member for Wild Rose very much to heart and I know he has a great interest in this subject matter, I do not think we can simplify this issue by saying it is only the courts that are causing or exaggerating the problems.

There are certainly occasions where we need a more streamlined system. We need the ability to sometimes cut to the chase and get to the very heart of what is taking place when organized crime is active in a community and manipulating the system. There will always have to be checks and balances. That is why I would be very reticent to jump quickly to the use of the legislative atomic bomb, the use of the notwithstanding clause. However, it is there and it is written into our law for a purpose. It is there like the sword of Damocles. It should be hanging over the courts, and sometimes lawyers and judges, to be used to remind Canadians that parliament is the supreme creator and supreme enactor of legislative initiatives. This is where the House of Commons comes into play, as well as the Senate, in proving that we are the ones who make the laws.

I agree about the use of scarce resources at a time when officers are crying out for more overtime, more technical advances in terms of the use of computers and sharing of information. We are continually pouring money into this cumbersome bureaucratic nightmare that we call the gun registry, knowing it will not impact on organized crime, knowing first and foremost that criminals will not participate and knowing that the police will not be able to rely on it as accurate. Not only is it being set up and the infrastructure being put in place at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, it has now undertaken an aggressive advertising scheme to sell it to people who do not want it. All this is a big ruse and sale of misinformation, pretending that this will make our streets more safe. It simply will not work and will not change of course until the government changes.

Just as in health care, throwing money at the problem is not the only answer. It is part of the answer to get the scarce resources into the hands that need them. Legislative initiatives and co-operative efforts will help to turn the corner at least in addressing organized crime head-on in a forceful and effective way.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Minister of Justice.

First, I would like to join with others who have in the past days expressed deep concern with respect to the shooting in Montreal. The case is under investigation by local police in Montreal and will follow due course. I know that is what parliamentarians want to take place.

We know that the use of violence and intimidation by criminals has the potential to undermine the criminal justice system and other democratic institutions. It is an issue that many countries around the world are wrestling with and is something that Canada will not tolerate.

At a recent meeting in Iqaluit, the Minister of Justice and I and our provincial and territorial colleagues confirmed that combatting organized crime is a national priority. Ministers recognize that the use of intimidation by organized crime is a serious and pressing concern for Canadians.

As the new commissioner of the RCMP indicated, nobody is immune to organized crime. What he wanted to indicate quite clearly is that it is everybody's concern and we all must be cautious.

Organized crime is the number one law enforcement priority of my ministry. It is a national and international problem and it is growing in complexity. More important, it is a social problem and a community issue in Canada and for Canadians.

Its effects are broad and serious across the country. It affects our youth, our families, the economy and our quality of life in general. This government has a solid record in dealing with organized crime from coast to coast.

We know there is no single easy answer to the problem. It is not only a question of legislation or resources or co-ordination. In fact, it is all three.

The federal government has made investments in law enforcement. In 1997 we established 13 integrated proceeds of crime units in the RCMP. These units include provincial and local police. This adds up to more than $180 million in new investments in proceeds of crime enforcement over the past number of years. The IPOC has seized more than $140 million in criminal assets to date, taking the proceeds out of crime. Of these seizures $70 million in forfeitures have been ordered by the courts.

In April 1999 we provided $115 million to modernize the Canadian Police Information Centre which supports police in all areas including the fight against organized crime. In June 1999 we announced new funding of $15 million for the RCMP to provide for its presence in the three largest airports in the country; Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That way we can prevent organized criminals from seeking to enter Canada to do business.

Also, in June 1999 we injected an additional $78 million over the next four years to the anti-smuggling initiative launched in 1994 with resources for the RCMP, Justice Canada and Customs Canada to target cross-border crime.

Last but not least, in this year's budget the RCMP received a substantial funding increase totalling $584 million over the next three years. A portion of that of course will be used to fight organized crime.

This government has worked to give the police the tools they need to do the job of fighting organized crime. New anti-gang legislation was put in place in 1997 and is being used now by police and prosecutors across the country to target gangs. We know that many of the provisions that were introduced are being used widely and effectively. We also know that some see certain elements as complex and we are consulting with police and prosecutors to monitor how the legislation is being used and whether and how it can be improved.

We put new anti-money laundering legislation in place this past June when Bill C-22 was passed. It helped police target the profits of crime. We have also worked with the public to develop community based strategies and responses to criminal gangs.

Is there more to do to fight organized crime? Yes, there is more to do. Organized crime is a complex problem with many manifestations. Violence and intimidation are two aspects. They are two of the most troubling aspects, to be sure. There are the effects of the illegal drug trade on our youth. There is the fear and anxiety among the public and in our communities that can be created because of gang violence. There are the effects on our economy and our environment.

Migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings are also a growing international concern and certainly have an effect on our country. Telemarketing fraud artists victimize elderly persons. Credit card frauds are increasing dramatically according to the industry and police. Organized crime is involved in interprovincial and international auto theft and our insurance premiums reflect this. It is honest citizens who pay for the lifestyle of organized crime in this country.

The diverse nature of the problem requires that we deal with this on a number of fronts. We have done so. This has been our strategy. We will continue to do so by investing in legislation, in enforcement resources and by working with communities across the country.

We are continuing to develop new initiatives now by collaborating with provincial governments, the police and communities across the country. We are also working closely with the United States and our other international partners to co-ordinate law enforcement and to set shared standards in a global effort to combat organized crime.

I want to emphasize the need for governments in Canada to work together. We are faced with a national problem and we need to deal with it in a co-ordinated way. This is my top priority as solicitor general and I am personally committed to ensuring that what needs to be done will be done.

The Canadian public is the biggest factor in the fight against organized crime. The public knows that biker gangs and other organized criminals are not romantic figures or rebels. Those who think otherwise are quite simply sadly mistaken. Outlaw gangs and other organized criminals are a cancer to our society. They exploit the freedoms that we cherish so much in this great country. They exploit our honest young people and the quality of life that honest hard-working Canadians work to achieve and maintain. The public must recognize that gangs and organized criminals victimize us all.

We must collectively and individually refuse to provide any support to criminal gangs. Zero tolerance must be our policy. This means refusing to buy contraband goods. It means working with local police when problems arise in our communities. It means not allowing gangs a place in our communities.

The Minister of Justice and I met with our provincial and territorial counterparts in Iqaluit. They believe as we do that it has to be a co-ordinated effort on all fronts, with the RCMP, provincial police departments and municipal police departments. They certainly appreciate some of the moves that we have made such as the DNA databank which is so important in helping to put criminals where they should be, and that is behind bars.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has issued a white paper on the judgment of the supreme court in Campbell and Shirose. We are waiting for submissions from our colleagues from across the way and across the country to make sure that we give the RCMP and other police forces across the country the tools to do the job.

I remain firmly committed to doing all I can, working with provincial governments and Canadians to deal with the serious organized crime problem we face in Quebec and across the country.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7:10 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will make this very quick and very short. I have two questions. They are not difficult to answer and I am going to listen carefully to the answers.

The solicitor general stated a solid record in dealing with organized crime. Regarding the anti-gang legislation enacted in 1997, over three years ago, I ask the solicitor general how many convictions have taken place under that legislation? If the answer is more than zero, I want to have the information regarding those convictions.

Second, could he explain to me the heading in the press release from the police which states “Police Plead for Tougher Measures to Fight Organized Crime: Less Talk, More Action, Says Canadian Police Association”. We have not had any at this time.

Could he explain his comments at his press conference and tell me how many convictions have there been?

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the number of convictions, but the law in place is certainly a detriment to the organized criminal and to people who belong to gangs. They are well aware that if they break the law and they are associated with a gang they can receive consecutive sentences. They do not even have to be associated with a crime that takes place down the road. That is important as a deterrent to gangs.

The second question my hon. colleague asked concerned what tools we have given the police. There is something very important taking place right now and that is the white paper my hon. colleague has put out. I wonder if my hon. colleague for Wild Rose, who seems to be very concerned, has made any submissions or any suggestions as to how things should be done on a very public front.

The Minister of Justice and I and our counterparts across the country want to take action. We want a co-ordinated approach. Grandstanding in the House of Commons does not help anybody who is suffering from the effects of organized crime. We need to make sure that we do not just put on a big show. We must put the laws in place that are needed to fight organized crime, and that is what we will do.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, that was a wonderful response from the solicitor general, but I cannot reconcile from those remarks and from his previous remarks that if the government has done so much and brought in so much legislation and given the police so much by assisting them why organized crime is still escalating. Why is it still getting worse, which he has acknowledged in his own remarks? That does not jibe.

I want to focus my question on a very specific aspect of his responsibilities as solicitor general. We know that there have been a number of serious instances within the present confines. In 1997 prison guards Diane Lavigne and Pierre Rondeau were gunned down in separate attacks and ambushes attributed to the Hell's Angels. Last week, after the August shooting, a Quebec prison guard was shot while driving to work.

I would like to hear from the solicitor general. What is he doing specifically to protect his guards? I hearken back to the issue of the 50:50 release program. What is he doing to help his own prison guards?

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The government is not taking $83 million away from the RCMP as was proposed by the hon. member's party.

In fact the government had to adjust the financial mess that was left by the Conservative government. There were no resources for anybody. That is why, after very careful progress by the government, we are now able to supply the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to do their job.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7:15 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members share a concern about the serious problem of organized crime. It is a problem that affects all provinces and communities in Canada, be they urban or rural.

Events in Quebec and in other provinces in recent years have shown us that organized crime has many faces. It involves drug trafficking, prostitution, gun running, money laundering and migrant smuggling.

High profile crimes, trials and investigations in Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and other provinces have engaged the attention and concern of all Canadians. The recent events in Quebec, in particular those involving the murder attempt on a respected and courageous Montreal journalist, have brought the problem of organized crime front and centre in the national consciousness.

In the wake of these disturbing events my colleague, the solicitor general, and I have affirmed that the criminal legislation of Canada will be re-examined to see if the tools available to police and to prosecutors are being used to their fullest effect and whether they can be improved.

We and our officials at all levels will be working with the authorities at the provincial and local levels, especially the police who are in the frontlines of this battle, to ensure that adequate and focused resources are available and are applied in a co-ordinated way.

Let us be clear. As I mentioned earlier today, we will be working with our provincial and territorial counterparts to make sure that, if we need new laws, we will get them.

Before we talk about new tools or resources I would like to focus on some of the actions that have been taken in the last few years to address the challenges of organized crime. For example, the anti-smuggling initiative targeting in particular the smuggling of drugs, guns and other contraband by organized crime gangs was introduced in 1994 and I am pleased to say was most recently refunded in June 1999.

The Witness Protection Program Act came into force in 1996. We should ensure and we must ensure that this program is being applied effectively and is adequately resourced.

The Controlled Drug and Substances Act was enacted in 1997. Together with the police enforcement regulations adopted under the act it provides for exemptions for police officers involved in important undercover work in drug cases and for the ability to seize property that is used to commit those crimes.

Bill C-22 was enacted earlier this year and introduced new tools to improve the detection, prevention and deterrence of money laundering in Canada, which is key to attacking the complex web of organized crime. As we all know money is the lifeblood of organized crime.

Most important, in regard to the threat posed by biker gangs and other criminal organizations we put in place measures in Bill C-95. The cornerstone of Bill C-95 was a new offence that made participation in the illegal activities of a criminal organization an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison to be served consecutively. This provision establishes an offence covering anyone who participates in or substantially contributes to the activities of a criminal organization and who is a party to the commission of an indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with that criminal organization.

It has been proposed, however, that it should be enough to prove that someone is a member of an identified criminal organization without being able to or being required to prove that he or she has been guilty of any criminal activity. If necessary, it has been suggested that we invoke the notwithstanding clause to support such a proposal.

Such an approach has the advantage of simplicity, but while I am prepared to entertain all proposals to strengthen our existing laws and while I do not outright reject any suggestions, a simple membership offence will have to be carefully and rigorously scrutinized from all perspectives.

It is clear that action against organized crime continues to be a top national priority and that progress has been made on the agenda established in 1999 for this effort. This national effort will employ existing legislative, regulatory and administrative tools as well as new and innovative approaches to do the following: first, to target criminal assets and proceeds; second, to enhance the investigation of organized crime by such means as a better sharing of information; third, to enhance the prosecution of organized crime; and fourth, to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system from threats by organized crime in particular by preventing the intimidation of police, prosecutors, judges, jurors, witnesses and other persons who play a critical role in our justice system.

One example of a new and innovative approach is the concept of civil forfeiture. This technique attacks the assets and proceeds of organized crime in a way that is different from traditional criminal law.

This approach is being considered at the provincial level and by officials within the Department of Justice. The constitutional division of powers in Canada poses challenges to this particular approach, but there is a strong will among all governments in Canada to work together to find new ways of dealing with organized crime.

Senior officials from my department and of my colleague, the solicitor general, will be meeting tomorrow morning with their counterparts in Quebec. They are examining together the investigative, evidentiary and other problems being experienced in that province with regard to using the existing legislative provisions that target organized crime. No doubt there will be meetings at all levels with other provincial officials. Organized crime is a pervasive problem that exists throughout Canada, and so we need to work in concert with all our provincial and territorial colleagues to find the solutions.

I believe that improved legislative tools are possible and that their use must be made as effective as possible. Co-ordinated, effective and adequately resourced enforcement efforts by police and prosecutorial authorities at all levels in Canada will be the key to the effective use of new legislative tools.

The justice committee is already examining the problem of organized crime through a subcommittee that began its work recently. The issue of intimidation in the criminal justice system is one issue that I know the committee will no doubt be examining closely along with the many other facets of the problem of organized crime. I encourage the committee to move forward with its work quickly. It is important work.

The problem posed by organized crime is serious. We must be willing to review our laws to see if we can improve them to make them more effective. We need also to look at the efforts we must make to aggressively investigate and prosecute those involved in criminal activity of this kind, but we must also think very carefully before we concede that we cannot in a free and democratic society fight organized crime with effective tools that also respect civil liberties and fundamental justice.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7:25 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the government talk about the legislation it has brought in. I have the same concern as my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that while legislation has been brought in to fix the system, we still have a system that is worse than it was before.

I refer to the section of the criminal code which was brought in in 1997. It is the aspect about participation in criminal organization, which I believe is actually reasonably well written. I studied whether or not people have been convicted under this aspect of the criminal code. I understand one person has been since 1997. I also understand that a number of cases have been plea bargained. The plea bargaining that took place eliminated that aspect of the law which in effect gives consecutive or additional sentencing to anything that happens. I agree with that.

Therefore the problem in my mind is not just necessarily that there is no law. The problem is the legal industry and the courtroom. Many a victim in the country will say that therein lies the difficulties they have.

Is it possible to have a comment from the justice minister on whether or not she thinks it would be possible to get around the plea bargaining aspect and where an individual is proven to be a member of organized crime a penalty between two and fourteen years exists and is not plea bargainable within the court?

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Anne McLellan Liberal Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is an important one.

The hon. member has stated that if one looks at the existing organized crime provisions in fact in 1997 amendments to the provisions introduced much tougher sentences. In fact we have the prospect of imposing up to 14 years in the form of consecutive sentencing.

I cannot comment upon provincial prosecutorial decisions in relation to plea bargaining. There is a former prosecutor here this evening in the form of the justice critic for the Progressive Conservative Party. He probably would be much better placed to talk about what goes into a decision being made by a provincial prosecutor and the provincial attorney general in terms of pleading out or agreeing to a plea bargain in a given situation.

What I want to do is acknowledge the fact, as the hon. member has, that the sections are there. We need to think about why plea bargaining takes place in the justice system. We all know why, but it is frustrating for all of us on occasion to see that these sections are not tested, that the consecutive sentencing provisions are not used or the courts are not given the opportunity to use them because a plea bargain arrangement has been entered into.

The hon. member has raised a serious matter. It is one which I think I should take up with my provincial and territorial colleagues because they are responsible for the prosecution of these sections. We are not. Provincial attorneys general guard that jurisdiction jealously, as the hon. member knows. Therefore I will take the hon. member's legitimate and sincere concern and find out from some of my provincial colleagues why they made the decisions they did in the given cases to agree to plea bargains.

Organized CrimeEmergency Debate

7:30 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, although this is very important.

I missed the beginning of the minister's speech because I was doing telephone interviews on the radio on this very issue.

People are very concerned. They do not understand why we will not be voting this evening on something to give some teeth to effective legislation on crime and criminal groups.

Since 1995, we have tried to amend all sorts of laws to provide the police with tools, including the criminal code, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act and the Parole Act. The minister can make a fine speech, but it does not work. Something else is needed. We have to try other things to put a stop to a very complex situation.

My question is quite simple: Is the minister prepared to seriously consider the use, if necessary, of the notwithstanding clause to really give teeth to anti-gang legislation?