Debates of Sept. 18th, 2000

Organized Crime

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Hogwash.

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

Listen to the member of the Alliance saying “Hogwash”. Imagine. He does not understand the charter. He would not know diddly-squat about the charter and the rights and freedoms of individuals if he fell over them. He does not understand any of that. The Alliance people have no regard for the individual rights and freedoms of people. They would have us all become monoliths just like they are. We will have no part of that.

For the Bloc leader to go on at length and talk about destroying the rights of individuals was astounding to hear. One would have thought that party would have had a better position when it comes to something as fundamental as our great charter of rights and freedoms, something that is envied around the world, something of which we should be proud, something we should stand up for and defend at every opportunity, and something we all can hold near and dear to our hearts.

We heard the justice minister today and repeat again tonight that she will do everything that is required to ensure that we do not succumb to the scourge of criminal activity and organized crime. She said categorically that we on the government side will ensure that the kinds of measures will be in place that are required in this all important area. The reason she did that is because that is what Canadians want. They want a government to act when required. They want rights protected. They want criminals brought to justice and victims in that sense helped and assisted.

We on the government side are prepared to do that unlike members opposite. If we listen very carefully to their speeches they offered not one solution. All they did was go on about problems, circumstances and situations. They offered not one solution, unlike those of us on the government side.

We have added money to CPIC. We have beefed up the airports in terms of security. We have added a great deal of resources to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have continued on our immigration track in terms of making sure that we have the money in place and the resources necessary to ensure that we keep criminals out of this great country of ours as best we can in a fashion that is in keeping with what the Canadian people want. We have produced the tangible evidence required by the government to ensure that safety and security are in place.

Is this perfect? Absolutely not. Is it all we can do? Absolutely not. Is there more to do? Absolutely yes. We need to carry on doing the kinds of things required to ensure that organized crime as we know it is eradicated as best we can, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves. That we will continue to do.

We heard the Minister of Justice along with the Solicitor General of Canada say that those efforts will be taken in a meaningful and consistent way in recognition of the charter and the fundamental rights and freedoms all Canadians enjoy. That seems to escape some members opposite. It seems to escape them that it is not always a world of black and white as they would like to portray. Rather, there are nuances and things that have to be considered and weighed. As a government that is precisely and exactly what we are doing. I would argue, given my experience, my background and my knowledge in this area, that is the appropriate way to proceed. I commend the government. I am proud to be part of a government that does so in that kind of concerted and proper way.

If through legislation we require additional tools to assist our police to stop money laundering or to bring into place agreements to pool enforcement agencies between local, regional, provincial and federal—in this case the Royal Canadian Mounted Police—then we should get on with it. We know those are the kinds of things that may need to be done and we are prepared to do them.

We know that there needs to be an effective sharing of information and intelligence among all levels of police across Canada. We need to provide it in a seamless way where instead of jurisdictional tugs and pulls there would be a concerted effort to make sure that knowledge is shared and people act as one when it comes to this all important area.

I will take a little time to briefly outline some of the arrangements that are in place right as we speak to ensure that there is enforcement, co-ordination and intelligence sharing and to make sure that takes place among all partners in the fight against organized crime.

Intelligence and information on crime groups and their activities are the foundation of effective enforcement. We know that and we know that exists. We need that kind of intelligence and information sharing. That is what is used by police to determine what groups or activities impose threats to Canadians and to the Canadian system, the Canadian economic way of life, and indeed the morality of the country for that matter.

Police use this information to set priorities and target their resources so that they have the greatest impact given the resources at hand. Intelligence and this information are together the primary building block in anti-organized crime enforcement.

The Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada was formed in 1966. It is a national organization that links the criminal intelligence units and the Canadian law enforcement agencies in fighting the spread of organized crime. CISC is comprised of a central bureau located in Ottawa in the RCMP and a network of nine counterpart bureaux in the provinces, again in keeping with that kind of co-ordination fanning out into various regions and provinces across this great country.

Currently more than 120 police forces contribute intelligence information to the CISC network. The structure and the computer network help police and other enforcement agencies to share information and co-ordinate action on organized crime across the country. This is important because it ensures that we work together and we work co-operatively.

There is another point I want to make and that is co-ordinated enforcement. Individual agencies cannot expect to tackle organized groups by themselves. That is impossible. It is much better to bring in a number of jurisdictions at any point in time. By bringing together agencies from a number of jurisdictions, police widen and strengthen the enforcement net. It also allows diverse skills, talents, expertise and knowledge to be brought to bear at once to mutual benefit for all.

A good example of co-ordinated enforcement can be found in the 13 integrated proceeds of crime units established in the RCMP in 1997 as a result of legislation, I might point out, and the good judgment of this government. These units combine the resources and expertise of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; local, regional and provincial police officers; Canada Customs and Revenue officers; crown counsel; and forensic accountants to target and seize the proceeds of crime of organized criminal groups.

The units have seized more than $140 million in criminal assets so far. That is important because it underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada in this all important area.

In the greater Toronto area the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto, Peel and York regional services work together in a number of joint force initiatives aimed at combating national and international organized crime groups. These include a combined forces Asian investigative unit, a combined forces special enforcement unit and a combined forces Toronto integrated intelligence unit.

The units are co-ordinated by the RCMP and have had some very major successes against national and international crime groups. The bust of a multimillion dollar international debit and credit card fraud ring in Toronto last year is one example.

A number of other important joint force initiatives have been developed and led by provincial governments and police as well. The Quebec government has created an anti-biker gang squad based in major cities throughout the province. These squads are currently operating in Montreal, Quebec City and the Outaouais region. They are comprised of provincial and municipal officers and the RCMP.

In Ontario there is a special squad of the Ontario Provincial Police that cracks down on biker gangs. This OPP squad works with the RCMP, the criminal intelligence service in Ontario and 16 local police services. It gathers intelligence and executes enforcement actions aimed at larger and growing outlaw biker gangs.

I could go on in this area in terms of what the government is doing and what our police services across this great country are doing. Do we need to do more? Absolutely. Must we do more? We absolutely must and we will.

At the end of the day we will work co-operatively together. We will ensure that we work in partnership in a seamless way to ensure the safety and security which Canadians repeatedly over the history of this great country have taken for granted. We will do so in an effective way that underscores the commitment not only of the justice minister and the solicitor general but of all members of the government who ensure and want to ensure that Canadians feel safe and secure in their homes. We will ensure that we do not take for granted the kind of law and order system that we have, but rather that we work concertively along with everyone in the House to ensure that Canadians have the best enforcement system possible, given the resources at hand and the priorities underlined, to ensure that we do the right thing and to ensure that we have safety and security not only for individual Canadians but for their families and for the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member opposite on his remarks. He outlined very clearly, in my estimation, that he has a grasp of the scope of the problem, as I think have most members who have risen in the House and participated in the debate. What is prevalent throughout his remarks unfortunately when he talks of co-operative approach is a very partisan approach. He never hesitates to point the finger and to point the blame elsewhere.

The evidence is clearly before us. Although there have been initiatives taken by this government and previous governments to attack this problem, the problem persists. The problem expands. It is a testament to the scope and the magnitude of the problem that we are here. In spite of all of these initiatives and in light of scarce resources the problem is getting worse.

Dialling up the rhetoric, pointing the finger or engaging in polluting the air during this debate with this poisoned partisan attitude does not further the debate at all. In fact it exaggerates the problem. If the hon. member is sincere about this co-operative approach perhaps he could address his remarks in a less partisan way.

I must admit it was very refreshing to hear the Minister of Justice acknowledge that there are times, certainly pivotal points in the country's history, when the legislative branch has to exercise its superiority with respect to its obligation to the citizenry in using the notwithstanding clause. The one that immediately springs to mind would be an issue pertaining to child pornography. That certainly would be something that would warrant that type of legislative response and the invoking of the notwithstanding clause.

Organized crime, I would suggest, is certainly in the same category of seriousness and of a problem that has such magnitude. Does the hon. member attach himself to the remarks of the Minister of Justice in saying that there are occasions when perhaps they will find the inner fortitude and the strength of conviction to actually use the notwithstanding clause in light of the situation before us? Does the hon. member agree that there are such occasions? I know as a former police officer that he sincerely believes in the rule of law and the need for a strong justice system, but does he believe that there are occasions when the notwithstanding clause is the last possible option? I am not suggesting that it ever be used lightly or with unfettered and unchecked regard, but are there times when his government would be justified in using the notwithstanding clause in our constitution?

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

Mr. Speaker, I take the justice system of the country very seriously. I know that around the world it is regarded as second to none in terms of what it represents not only for jurisprudence in this country but on international levels as well.

I also take the charter of rights and freedoms, what was signed into law in April 1982, very seriously. I know that all Canadians do as well because it is a defining value which underscores the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian.

I also know that due process of law is fundamental. For Canadians it is something that they not only want but something that Canadians from coast to coast to coast expect us as a parliament and as a government to ensure is in place in a manner consistent with the values and the foundations of the country.

What I do know is that last week the justice minister and the solicitor general were in Iqaluit. They have met with provincial and territorial partners to ensure that we look at this very important program and this very important situation vis-à-vis organized crime. They will be meeting in the next little while in Quebec to ensure that there are ongoing discussions because unlike the Bloc leader who tried to paint it simply as a federal jurisdiction, that is the criminal code, it really is a shared responsibility between the jurisdictions. I was quite astounded frankly at his naivety.

That aside, it is important that we work together with our provincial and territorial counterparts and that we do so in a manner consistent with what Canadians expect from their government, in a manner consistent with the underlying values of freedom, the charter, due process of law and justice for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member who will be sitting on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I know he was a member of the Standing Committee on Health. Perhaps he was used to hearing some things about health, but I would invite him to be more realistic, to wake up and to see that the problem is extremely serious.

In particular, I would invite him to read the Canadian Constitution. The hon. member will realize that the criminal code is not a matter of shared jurisdiction. All the sections that are found in the criminal code were passed by the federal legislator, here in this House. This is not a matter of shared jurisdiction. However, the administration of justice is the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures.

We are asking the government to wake up, to look properly at the issue of organized crime and to amend the criminal code to provide real tools to the judiciary, the police and the prosecutors.

This is not an issue of shared jurisdiction. There is only one entity that can amend the criminal code, and it is the federal parliament, all of us here.

I would invite the hon. member to wake up and to take an upgrading course in constitution 101 to learn the difference between a matter of federal jurisdiction and a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Only then will we be able to talk and listen to the member. Right now, all he can do is smile and strut about the House, but his understanding of the issue of organized crime is nil. It is rather scary and frightening to see what kind of parliamentary secretary the solicitor general has.

Nothing much will happen at the justice committee if the member opposite keeps on talking through his hat, if he knows nothing about the foundation of the Canadian Constitution.

When the constitution was signed—he might even have forgotten his history—who was the Minister of Justice? It was the current Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Justice.

The then Minister of Justice included section 33 in the Canadian charter, which allows us as legislators in Ottawa to use the notwithstanding clause if we want to deprive a group or an individual of certain rights under the charter. If the legislator included this section in the charter, it was to use it at some point.

That is all we want, and only if necessary. There might be other things to do before using it, but we should not be shutting our eyes and covering our ears like the member opposite is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, the Bloc members are touchy tonight. They are very sensitive. They can dish it out but they cannot seem to take it. I do not need to be lectured on constitutional law. I know exactly what constitutional law is in Canada.

I do know that if the Canadian government and the justice minister and the solicitor general proceeded without meeting in Quebec in the next couple of days, those people opposite would be screaming to high heaven. They would be saying that once again they are victims, that once again they have been left out, that once again they have been cut off from the Canadian mainstream. They would be up on their high horse going into all kinds of pretzel-like gyrations.

The point is that in the next couple of days we are proceeding to go with the Quebec counterparts, ensuring that we work in a co-operative fashion. The hon. member cannot seem to get that through his head. He should rethink his position, tone it down and think through what he is saying, instead of getting all emotional and proceeding in a ludicrous way. But that is fine. Perhaps it is part and parcel of who he is.

All I am saying is that the government, the justice minister and the solicitor general have made it very clear. We will be dealing with this issue with our provincial and territorial partners in an effective way. We will make sure that we continue to work in a way which is consistent with Canadian values which are fundamental to the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

The debate has had some low points but it has had some high points tonight. As far as I am concerned, we are talking about putting personal freedoms up against our personal safety as it were. The issue of the freedoms we have in Canada is sacrosanct. Those freedoms have been fought for in two wars and other skirmishes. People have fought and died for the freedoms we have here. Before we talk about using the notwithstanding clause to do away with our own personal freedoms, we have to take a very long, hard, analytical look at the issue. We need to look at what has precipitated this focus.

First, we are talking about an allegation that a biker gang shot a reporter. That is what we are dealing with. We have to understand that there are totally different actions taken by different types of gangs. The bikers are noted for taking a very blunt instrument approach to problems as they come across them. There are aboriginal gangs, the mafia, other ethnic organizations. There are gangs of common interest, for example, the Colombian gangs around the importation and distribution of heroin.

To say that bikers represent organized crime is both unfortunate and inaccurate. It has been helpful in this terrible situation. As has already been stated, our hearts go out to Mr. Auger and the people around him. It is difficult to realize that that shooting, if indeed it is proven to be an action of a biker gang, is just one of probably thousands of potential manifestations of organized crime.

We have to realize that trying to cure the plague of organized crime with a broad action such as using the notwithstanding clause would be like using a malaria treatment for a typhoid infection. When we break our leg, we do not put our arm in a cast. We need to define the problem. We have to understand that in the House we must always stand for personal freedom of association because it equates to the issue of our personal safety in a very real way.

My final analogy would be that we could cure the common cold or a more serious flu by taking a lethal dose of arsenic. We would not have the cold or the flu anymore. We would not have to worry about having the cold or the flu. The cure may be successful, but the patient could die.

How does organized crime affect us and what do we have to do to get organized crime under control? We are aware of different situations in our society. For example, there are environmental dumps and organized crime involved in intentionally and aggressively polluting our society and our environment. We are aware of the situation with the snake heads. We are also aware of the situation of the weakening and compromising of our police forces, not through anything that our police forces are doing, but by the actions of organized crime toward them.

I will not be intimidated by the member for Waterloo—Wellington when he uses the club of political correctness so that supposedly we cannot talk about the fact that there are ethnic gangs. There are. The people most disadvantaged by those ethnic gangs are of the same ethnic group. They came to Canada to get away from that.

The best example I can think of off the top of my head is the Tamil tigers. In Canada we have an excellent outstanding community of Tamil people who came to Canada to get away from the suppression, murder and mayhem, to build a better life for themselves and their families. Unfortunately they were followed by people of the Tamil tigers who represent a national security threat to Canada, an international security threat to people around the world and who also represent organized crime in its very worst form.

Also, in terms of ethnicity or being able to identify people on the basis of a particular group, I think of the Russian gangs. We know, and this has been in the public domain, that there was an attempt to compromise politicians in this Chamber. Political contributions were made to high ranking politicians in this Chamber. To the honour and credit of those politicians, the second they found out that political contributions had been made to them, they immediately transferred the funds out of their accounts and into trust accounts. The only way this became public knowledge was that the wife of the Russian mobster tried to get the money and so it became a story.

Would other people in public life, if not in this Chamber, have fallen to the threat? Would they have fallen to the threat of compromise or embarrassment? What about financial coercion that can happen to people like ourselves in this Chamber who are charged with the responsibility of making laws to protect all Canadians? What about the threat of death to the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and to his family, and the fact that within this parliament he has had to have a bodyguard for himself and his family? This is a very serious threat.

Canadians have to realize that although the debate we are having tonight unfortunately has had some low points, it is nonetheless absolutely vital. All Canadians, and not just this Chamber, must collectively work to protect the liberties that we have as citizens.

Do the law enforcers have sufficient resources to get the job done? Our answer is an unequivocal no. As a result of dollar cuts we have seen the disbanding of the ports police. A critical example in the issue of the ports police occurred at the time they were being wound down. The ports police were asking the Vancouver port authority about an individual it had hired who was a Chinese national based in Beijing. They wanted to know whether a security check had been done on the individual. It had not.

At about that time the Vancouver ports police were disbanded. That individual within the next couple of months brought three so-called students from the port of Dalian into the port of Vancouver. Those three so-called students had access to the port of Vancouver, to all the security, all the intelligence within the Vancouver port. And we wonder why the Vancouver port is a leaky sieve for every drug we could possibly imagine.

At exactly the same time this was going on an agreement was made with an international shipping company that Vancouver would be the first port of call. Containers would go from the port of Vancouver directly to Chicago. Do not stop, do not collect $200, do not pass go. The drugs all of a sudden went from the golden triangle to Chicago just like that as a result of the shutdown of the Vancouver ports police.

In CSIS and the RCMP, not only at the personnel level, there is a real competition as a result of the legislation that covers the evidence gathering of the police and the way in which CSIS ends up getting its information.

I suggest there are two things we need to look at long before we would ever look at the potential of shutting down our own personal rights and freedoms.

First, legislatively, we must examine and rationalize existing laws and change those laws where those laws conflict. Second, under resources, we must co-ordinate law enforcement agencies and other enforcement agencies. We must end the competition between the agencies. We must expand training and sharing of information. We must be in a position to be able to purchase contemporary equipment.

We must recognize that our response must be one of dealing with the larger issue, the broad picture. We can craft a response to enhance our personal safety and national security, but we must craft that response in a way that will stand for individual personal freedoms. We must not kill the patient with the cure.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate the member opposite.

It is rare in the Chamber that I rise and say that I agree with everything that was said by a member in the opposition party. The member is absolutely right. We must not be stampeded into compromising our fundamental rights because of the activities of organized crime. When we do that organized crime wins. We must never do that.

I agree with him, as I mentioned earlier and I will be mentioning when I speak myself, that the way to get at organized crime is to get at the way they make their money. The member opposite pointed out very correctly that our ports are leaky sieves in which all kinds of contraband is going out of the country. I have had many reports and have made many representations to my ministers saying that we must do something to stop it. It is not checking the contraband that is coming in, it is the contraband going out that is the problem.

What happens is that the Americans send their contraband across the border because it is an open border. It is then shipped out of Canada to Africa, to Jamaica and to countries that want the illegal goods. We have a real problem there.

I would like to ask the member if he agrees that if we were to compromise freedom of association as a response to the motorcycle gangs in Quebec, would we not be jeopardizing the very freedoms that the Bloc Quebecois itself enjoys? I recall a time when the RCMP attempted to read the mail of the Parti Quebecois because it was a separatist organization. There was outrage in the entire country. Everyone was angry.

I would like the member's comment on this. Surely the Bloc Quebecois, of all the parties in the House, should be saying that we should not use the notwithstanding clause, that we should protect freedom of association and find other means to combat the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a scary night because I agree with the member opposite. This really is a very scary night.

In all seriousness, I agree with him totally. The notwithstanding clause was put into the constitution for a specific purpose which was to cover an eventuality that could not be foreseen at the time. If we are ever going to use it, it must be used as an absolute last resort. I believe at some point it may be appropriate to use it.

In examining the entire issue of organized crime, it forms part of a whole national security issue. It is not just crime. It is a whole national security issue as well as a personal security issue. We must examine this in its totality to see what other solutions there are. Indeed there are many solutions totally apart from anything legislatively. I agree with the member completely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree entirely with either member but I certainly take delight in much of what they have said in their remarks, particularly my hon. friend from the Alliance Party who I believe has a real grasp of this problem. Coming from the part of the world that he does, I would like to draw him into the debate a little further on the issue of ports police. Although we are certainly a massive country, we have two large virtually undefended coastlines where we are most vulnerable to organized crime and contraband materials that seem to slip in under the radar on both coasts. Even in the Arctic we have a great number of coastlines that leave us vulnerable. That is one area that has to be addressed in a comprehensive way through legislation, through resources and through a co-ordinated effort.

Similarly, I would elicit some response with respect to the problem within our prisons where all members know and anyone familiar with the situation realizes that the officials within the penal institutions are particularly vulnerable as well to intimidation and to forms of blackmail and bribery. Again, I think this is something that has to be addressed, not necessarily just through the resource and legislative branch, but through internal changes that can be made to assess and buttress their efforts to deal with those in the organized crime community that they now have within their mix and who continue to operate from the inside of prisons across the country.

There is more that can be done. It is certainly discouraging to those members of the penal community who see individuals being ushered out the door after a very short period of time in custody by virtue of for example our statutory release in this country.

I would like to get the hon. member's comments in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, for sake of time I would like to deal with just one aspect of my colleague's comments and that is to do with the ports police.

The shutting down of the ports police was against every possible piece of advice that the government received. Absolutely everything went against it because we had a gathering of information and a gathering of intelligence. In particular, we had a gathering of experienced officers. There was a wealth of information. On the day the ports police were disbanded around Canada was the day that information fundamentally evaporated. Many of the files physically evaporated when that took place.

This is part of the co-ordination that we have been talking about. My colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, myself and others have been talking about having a co-ordinated effort. This information must go into a pool. We must develop a way to enhance the pool of intelligence and the pool of experience of our police and enforcement forces. In that regard I absolutely agree with my colleague from Pictou as well.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for sharing his time on this very important matter.

I am not going to stand here and presume that Canadians who are listening and that members in the House do not know there is organized crime in this country, not like some government members who seem to think that this is just not the case and that this does not happen in Canada. We know full well that it happens.

When the government says that it transbounds borders and boundaries with regard to provincial jurisdiction, in some cases it does and in some cases it does not. We know for a fact that we have organized criminals who have been linked to criminal organizations that have been charged. They are not Canadian citizens.

What do we do? We do not deport them. No, they go up before different boards. They have different appeal systems which cost the Canadian taxpayer bundles of money. That is federal. They know that. Yet we keep on doing it.

We know it in our federal penitentiaries. If we want to talk about gangs and gang affiliations, our prisons are loaded with them. We have prison gangs in just about every prison. They bring drugs into the prisons. The government knows that and the members on the other side know that. Yet they say it is not really a big problem.

It is a major problem particularly in the prisons. It creates threats to prison guards, police officers and parole officers. To give an example, let us take a look at the National Parole Board which has been threatened. This candid memo by recently retired chairman, Willie Gibbs, represents the latest evidence of attempts by criminals to intimidate players in the justice system.

The retired chairman of the parole board stated this. He also went on to state that it appeared to be most common in Quebec, a pattern that may have something to do with inmate population in Quebec, including the larger number of inmates with organized crime connections. Gibbs stepped down as board chairman in July and his replacement is yet to be named.

Let us look at what else was said. This was recently obtained under the Access to Information Act and submitted to the federal justice department last January in response to a consultation paper. It said “Fear affects the decisions you make. The process could lead to new laws or procedures to protect parole officials, lawyers, jurors, witnesses, police and prison guards”. We are talking about a number of people who put their lives on the line to protect us so that we feel safe. They have stated this in report after report and the federal government does absolutely nothing in this regard. We have to wonder.

Correct me if I am wrong, as I know the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington surely will, but as I grew up I was always led to believe, as I think most people in Canada were, that a government's first and foremost priority was for the safety and well-being of its law-abiding citizens. I heard this as I grew up and I was led to believe that. Yet since I have come to the House and before that time, I have done nothing but read papers and listened to victims' groups. They all say the same thing. They cannot seem to get protection from the Government of Canada. The sentencing is not there. The criminal justice system likes to talk a good fight yet it absolutely does nothing. It supplies money to the lawyers. It keeps the appeal systems ongoing. It has a turnstile system that allows criminals back out on the streets just as fast as they can be charged and in many cases before the paperwork is done. This is Canadian justice.

They think I am fearmongering. Let us look at this report that said that police were also targets of intimidation ranging from simple warnings to open threats. David Griffin, the executive officer of the Canadian Police Association said “that is a concern for police officers”. He said “Organized crime will not hesitate to resort to bullying, threats and violence”. We are talking about a breed of people that has chosen to live outside the law. Let us say that David Griffin is fearmongering. He is only the executive officer of the police association. This association represents 30,000 officers. It expressed frustration yesterday that organized criminals operate with virtual immunity in this country while police are hampered by weak laws, a lack of tools and inadequate resources.

These are our people who are trained to fight crime. They warned the government and the government still has done nothing. We have members on the other side saying there is no such thing as organized crime in this country. When we mention the Asian gangs, the Indian gangs and the white gangs we are fearmongering. That is all the members can say. Yet ask the victims and talk to the their families. Talk to the guards in the federal penitentiary who are too afraid sometimes to go to work. Talk to them and not this bunch. They would rather sit here where it is nice and safe and have a cup of coffee. Talk to the guards and talk to their families.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

They have never been there.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

No, they have never been there nor will they go there. They might have to do something for a change. They would finally find out what it is really like to do something for a change, instead of just saying we are fearmongering. It seems strange.

Before I ran for nomination in 1993, I remember this was the big issue. This has been a big issue for a long time yet all of a sudden the minister says it is now a priority. The government is going to study a white paper. It will study it and study it and then it will hire some more people to study it again and it will do nothing. The government will do absolutely nothing in regard to that outside of doing the study on it. We know that and everybody else knows that.

This has gone on for years. I have to wonder exactly what all is involved here. As a matter of fact I cannot wait for the questions and comments because I have a few answers to a few of the questions that I am sure will come from one side or the other in regard to what is taking place here in organized crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap I know he comes to this debate with a tremendous amount of passion.

Perhaps he could help us understand his understanding of the issue of this being all part of a larger picture. We are talking about organized crime. We are talking about some terrible event that happened to the reporter Mr. Auger. The allegations that it had something to do with bikers seem to be well founded.

However, that kind of violent activity, that kind of manifestation of organized crime, is just one of the very tiny manifestations of organized crime. It is part of an overall picture that has the power to immobilize us to neutralize our police forces. Also many of these gangs end up funding national and international terrorist activities. There is no line now between security issues and criminal issues, between organized crime and national terrorism.

I wonder if my colleague would like to expand on that.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. It has gone through everything. People are desperately looking for answers particularly from a government such that we have now.

An article in the Vancouver Province confirms that the RCMP have listed Stanley Ho as the leader of the Kung Lok triad, an organized crime group since 1991. But despite this, Ho has received multiple visitors visas, has extensive holdings in Canada, is a donor personally and co-operatively to the Liberal Party and actually hosted a cocktail reception for the PM during the Vancouver APEC conference. This certainly has to raise lots of concerns for the people of Canada. The list goes on.

RCMP Corporal Reid revealed a massive penetration of the immigration computer system in Hong Kong by triads which resulted in the loss of thousands of visas as well as widespread improper issuance of visas to triad linked individuals.

There has to be lots of questions and fear about how far this really goes. Even the members over there all of a sudden have stopped. What is going on is well known. It is not a small little group. This has been reported in the papers. Do we not think this brings fear into the hearts of average Canadians when they hear things like this, that this is where some of these party funds are coming from? You bet it does.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite with some but not a great deal of interest.

What really has me on my feet is the allegation that he is trying to make with respect to party funds. If he has any allegations to make, he should make them to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If you have any, you make them directly and you then take it outside and make them outside. Because if you do not, you do not have the fortitude to repeat what you just said in this Chamber out there.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

May I respectfully suggest that members refer to other members through the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite really should get his facts straight. Less histrionics and more facts.

The facts are quite simple. We as a government have repeatedly injected resources and money not only into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but into CPIC which is something I am familiar with given my police background. We have injected funds into immigration, into revenue, into the ports of entry and others. We have done all kinds of things with respect to assisting in this very important area.

Have we done enough? No, we have not. There are additional things that we need to do in terms of co-operation, for example, with our provincial and territorial partners. Have we done enough with respect to making it seamless with respect to the police services across Canada, at the local, regional, provincial or federal levels? No, we have not and we need to do more. Will we do more? Yes, we will.

The member opposite should listen instead of fearmongering and trying to upset Canadians, as those people opposite are always so prone to do. It is their forte to always try to pit region against region, people against people and province against province. Instead of the politics of negativity, they should talk about what is positive and what we in the Government of Canada are doing that is positive. They should listen. They should get their facts straight and they should proceed accordingly.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

My, my, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member ever an upset little Liberal.

Let us look at what he said. The Liberals expanded upon the ports authority? They disbanded it. What are you talking about?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sure everyone in the House understands the importance of my intervention in suggesting that these two members in particular speak to each other through the Chair. I am insisting upon it.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say you are far more knowledgeable and far better looking than the member on the other side, so I will keep that in mind.

The ports authority has been disbanded. The Liberals know that full well, but they will go on and on and on about it.

As for my making allegations, I think it is the Vancouver Province newspaper and the RCMP that the hon. member had better take this up with. It was the RCMP that made these allegations, not me. I am just reading about it. I could read some more if the hon. member would like.

I thought I would be nice and gentle on him today because it was the first day of parliament. I know how upset the member gets when his shoes are too tight or his shirts do not fit, but that is just the way he is, and I accept that as one of his downfalls or one of his pitfalls. I do not mind that he has that type of temperament. I understand that. I do not think the people in the rest of Canada understand where he is coming from, but I am sure that his family and his one friend do, so I will just say goodnight on that one.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, public safety and protection are fundamental objectives of Canada's criminal justice system.

Last week's deplorable shooting of Journal de Montréal reporter Michel Auger once again brings home the need for effective action against such criminal acts. Combating organized crime is a key part of maintaining public safety.

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members a recent report by the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, CISC. CISC is the organization responsible for assembling the information and intelligence needed by law enforcement to carry on the fight against organized crime.

One of the keys to success in the fight against organized crime is partnerships between governments, between enforcement agencies and between the police and individual members of the public. CISC operates entirely on the basis of co-operation made available by such partnerships. It provides a network by which police across Canada come together for the common purpose of fighting the spread of organized crime.

What does CISC have to say about organized crime groups in Canada? The CISC annual report for 2000 reviews organized crime groups and their activities in Canada. I should note, as the report itself does, that none of the references to criminal activity associated with ethnic or other groups is to be taken to suggest that all members of that group are involved in organized crime. The report does make it clear from the police perspective that organized crime extends its influence into many parts of our society.

For example, CISC reports that the Hell's Angels remain one of the most powerful and well structured criminal organizations in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I should mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough East.

CISC notes that the armed conflict which started in 1994 between the Hell's Angels and the Quebec based Rock Machine is likely to escalate, with expansion of the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine's recent move into Ontario.

Members of the Hell's Angels continue to be involved in the importation and distribution of cocaine, the production and the distribution of methamphetamine, as well as the cultivation and exportation of high grade marijuana. Members use a vast network of associates to assist in growth and harvesting of the drugs and with its illegal trafficking.

CISC also reports that the outlaw motorcycle gangs are involved in the illegal trafficking of firearms, explosives, the collection of protection money for both legitimate and illegitimate businesses, fraud, money laundering, prostitution and the use of intimidation and threats.

The CISC annual report goes on to describe the activities of organized criminal groups. According to the CISC annual report, Asian based organized crime groups are involved in the importation and trafficking of narcotics, counterfeit currency, software, credit and debit cards, prostitution, illegal gambling, extortion and a variety of violent crimes, particularly in western Canada, but I might say also in my own region of York.

During 1999 the Asian based organized crime gangs continued to exploit Canada's ports of entry, attempting to import illegal contraband and illegal immigrants. As members well know, Canada's public safety agencies thwarted several such attempts over the last year.

CISC expects Asian based criminal groups to increase such activities in the future. That is why we are exercising increased vigilance and increased intelligence sharing to counter these efforts.

These groups are expected to build greater alliances with other organized criminal elements. They rely increasingly on new technologies to facilitate their illegal activities.

CISC notes that in the past, eastern European based organized crime groups have been involved primarily in extortion, prostitution and other street crimes. It is reported that these groups are becoming involved in a variety of white collar crimes, including counterfeiting of credit cards and debit cards, as well as immigration fraud, organized theft and automobile smuggling.

The police have also taken note of the increased involvement of eastern European based groups in drug smuggling and money laundering. The CISC report also states that traditional organized crime groups remain a threat to Canada, despite the success of law enforcement efforts against the Sicilian Mafia.

In western Canada illegal gaming continues to be the primary activity of such groups. Elsewhere these groups are reported to be involved in drug trafficking, extortion, loan sharking and money laundering. CISC notes that increased criminal activity is being reported in tobacco, alcohol and diamond smuggling. It also reports increased criminal activity in the illegal import of firearms primarily from the United States.

Similarly, illegal gaming is reportedly being used to finance many organized crimes and other criminal activities such as drug trafficking.

Lastly, CISC reports an increased likelihood of organized criminals to use computer hackers and individuals with technological skills to forge credit and debit cards, all of which gives a sophisticated edge to criminals and makes detection and enforcement that much more difficult.

These facts compiled from Canada's most knowledgeable law enforcement officials by CISC underline the seriousness of organized crime activity in Canada.

In response to these threats, governments at all levels in Canada are working together in the fight against organized crime. First, we must know the problem and that is why the efforts of the CISC and law enforcement across Canada in intelligence gathering and sharing are so important.

Armed with this information the government and its provincial and territorial partners have come up with new strategies to fight organized crime.

The government's record of achievement is clear. We brought in Bill C-95, the anti-gang bill that introduced the concepts of criminal organization, criminal organization offence and participation in a criminal organization offence. This was a tool the police asked for to investigate outlaw gangs, and the government acted.

The CISC report talks about money laundering. We now have Bill C-22 in place which has one of the most comprehensive anti-money laundering regimes in the world. With this legislation authorities can target cross-border currency movement and other superficial financial transactions.

We have a very vigorous proceeds of crime law in effect. There are now 13 dedicated units in major centres across the country investigating and seizing the assets of criminals. Some $70 million in fines and forfeitures have been levelled against crime figures since 1997, a big blow to organized crime.

We have bolstered our anti-smuggling initiative, increased RCMP presence at airports to fight organized crime and dedicated $30 million this year to develop ways to help police deal with the use of new technologies by criminals.

The CISC report contains some troubling information and so it should. Governments and Canadians need to know the extent of the problem we are dealing with and how organized crime targets us. Such reports have been of great use to us in developing appropriate strategies, developing the right enforcement tools and identifying areas for further research.

The fight against organized crime has been and will continue to be a key part of the government's longstanding commitment to safer communities. The same commitment was again demonstrated by federal, provincial and territorial ministers in the outcome of their meetings in Iqaluit last week.

The federal government will not relent in its efforts to provide national leadership in the fight against organized crime, building on the advice of the police community across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to what the member is saying, everything is fine and dandy in the fight against organized crime in Canada and the government seems to have been doing its job.

He mentioned the solicitor general's report on organized crime. If he read it, he would see that things are not as rosy as he seems to think they are.

He bragged about the government seizing some $37 or $57 million in proceeds of crime—I do not remember the exact amount—when money laundering and hard drug transactions in Canada total some $15 billion a year. What our police forces can do in the fight against organized crime is just a grain of sand in the desert, and maybe this is due to the fact that we do not have the right tools.

In 1995 we passed a few amendments to the criminal code which took effect in 1997. These amendments were made under the name of anti-gang legislation so it would be easier to gain public support in that regard. But this name does not ring true because all those responsible for enforcing this legislation come to the conclusion that it is not anti-gang legislation since the desired results cannot be achieved. It is too difficult to enforce.

I hope the member read section 477 of the criminal code. One has to prove that an individual was party to the activities of a criminal organization, that this individual knew that the gang members had engaged, within the preceding five years, in the commission of indictable offences under the criminal code, for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years.

All this being cumulative it is very cumbersome and complex to enforce and it is not needed to fight organized crime.

The member heard the speeches, he heard the comments made by members of the Bloc Quebecois. We have been studying the issue since 1995: We are not talking through our hat, and neither are we reacting to what happened to one journalist. The situation is serious. Quebec and Canadian society is facing a complex problem, namely organized crime.

Does the member opposite agree with the Bloc Quebecois that we need further tools? We need legislation with teeth. If we have to use the notwithstanding clause, if we cannot do otherwise to eradicate organized crime, is the member willing to go along with it?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I do not think that talking about trafficking of narcotics, illegal gambling, extortion or prostitution is making light of the fact that this is a very serious issue.

I pointed out those issues very clearly in the CISC report. The government has information and has acted. The hon. member said that Bill C-95 was not much legislation at all. It was passed in two days with the consent of all parties including his own. I would suggest on reflection that maybe if it was not what the member wanted in 1997, his party should not have given it the support that it did.

Very clearly we have said that we are prepared to deal with this issue. We have brought in legislation and we will continue to fight organized crime wherever it exists.

In my region of York we have a problem with Asian and eastern European gangs. There was an excellent report done by our police force on this issue. It is very disturbing to see the influence and the depth at which organized crime operates both in my own region and elsewhere in the country.

The Minister of Justice clearly indicated today that in consultation with her provincial and territorial counterparts she is prepared to look at whatever additional tools are needed, but I do not think an artificial date of October 6 will necessarily be the answer. We need to make sure that the proper tools are in place, that those tools will meet the test of law, and that at the end of the day they can be used for the very purpose which we all in the House want to see, that is an end to the role of organized crime wherever it exists in the country so that people are not in fear.

The CISC 2000 annual report is very important reading for all members. That is the base on which the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada have indicated that they are prepared to work with their counterparts and policing agencies across the country to provide additional tools for enforcement.