Debates of April 23rd, 2001

Criminal Code

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech and comments.

I also want to point out that, at last, this anti-gang bill, for which the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for a long time, will give more teeth to what is already in place. It is much more specific, but it could have been even more specific.

In a society such as ours, besides police officers, there are several members of parliament here in the House who were threatened because they tried to give more teeth to the legislation. But how can legislation become effective? It is, of course, when we have the necessary funding to implement it.

All legislation involves funding. But this one will involve major funding. It will not just be a facade where the government will say “We have said yes to the government. We have heard the requests and today we are introducing legislation”. The bill has teeth, but not enough. It is not specific enough to protect people such as members of parliament, public figures and even city councillors. This goes beyond the people mentioned in the bill.

I ask the member of the Alliance to indicate who, apart from members of parliament, these people might be, so that this can be clarified during the committee hearings and the bill can be amended accordingly, besides, of course, providing the necessary funding. I would like him to comment further on this issue.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Provencher, the chief critic for justice for the Official Opposition of Canada, mentioned in his speech there was a private member's bill in the last parliament. The bill was moved by the Bloc member. It was a very good bill and would make it a crime to belong to a criminal organization

I believe the government should look into that. It is a very serious and effective preventive type of bill that would help to effectively control crime.

The other part of the hon. member's question was about the resources. The $200 million spread over five years is a drop in the bucket. Imagine the money the organized criminals make. They use that money to buy sophisticated technology. They have the art of technology which they use to evade the law enforcement agencies. Our law enforcement agencies should have better technology than those people. Only then could they catch them. The $200 million is a very minimal resource.

He also mentioned threats probably to the frontline police officers who were dealing with the organized criminals and to the MPs, senators, judges, prosecutors, the media and all those people who could be involved along with their families. That would be important.

The resources and the tools are really important elements of the bill.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, on a most important issue: Bill C-24 on organized crime.

Before I start, I also wish to recognize the work done by my colleague, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, to inform and educate the caucus about the whole situation concerning this bill and the application of various pieces of legislation on organized crime.

I also wish to recognize the work of the member for Berthier—Montcalm who, for several years, has urged the House, effectively I must say, to raise awareness among elected representatives of the whole issue of organized crime, which, admittedly, has been highly and overly publicized in Quebec. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois has done an excellent job on this issue. During the election, it was the highlight of its platform. This did not translate into more seats, fortunately. But the issue is still important.

I am not a lawyer. Some will say this is good. However, when it comes to organized crime, not being a lawyer, I do not fully understand all the intricacies of this bill. Let us look at the issue in its broader context.

The first time I ever heard the term organized crime—and you will also remember this, Mr. Speaker, since we are about the same age—was during the hearings of the CIOC, the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime. It was in the early 1970s and, for one of the first times, the television stations were on the air for long periods of time broadcasting not the full hearings, but enough so that we could follow what was happening on a daily basis.

On this commission, which generated a lot of changes, sat eminent lawyers, including two who later had political careers at the federal level and another one who left the provincial political arena not too long ago. That just goes to show that it was an important commission that raised awareness about what was called at the time the “mafia” or the “mob”. What we learned from these hearings was absolutely incredible and the governments reacted. The legislation was overhauled.

At the time, we were not necessarily talking about the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machines. We were talking about the Italian mafia, street gangs and American mobsters. The Russian and the Chinese mafia were more or less active, but still an important issue was addressed. A lot of people ended up in jail. Public awareness was raised and both the police and the government acted. A few more mafia figures and mobsters were thrown in jail. That created a vacuum, which was quickly filled.

What we have to realize is that legislation like Bill C-24 will not, by and of itself, solve the whole problem of organized crime. A mere $200 million over five years will not solve the issue. Organized crime is changing.

What happened at the time is that small biker gangs in Quebec began to get together and fill the vacuum. There was a biker gang in just about every town that had a population of a few thousand people. But these gangs moved on to bigger things. They learned the ropes and they got organized, to fill the vacuum and work with the various figures in the mafia and the mobs.

The expression organized crime implies that criminals know how to get organized. This means that we must be smarter—when I say we, I am thinking of the legislators, but also of the law enforcement bodies, of the people involved in the enforcement of these laws and of the members of our justice system, including lawyers, attorneys and judges—and get organized.

An act was passed in 1997, but we quickly found out that it was flawed. During these months and years, organized crime got organized. But the federal government kept waiting, even though it knew there were problems with the 1997 act, which is the most recent one. Now, Bill C-24 will correct some of these flaws.

We on this side of the House realized one thing: the government does not have any vision when it comes to fighting organized crime. The Prime Minister once said “Personally, I do not care about vision and programs. Bring me a problem and I will solve it”. He was recognizing the fact that he lacked vision.

In the case of the Minister of Justice, the problem is glaring. People are shooting and killing each other, innocent victims are getting hurt, but she will not move. There is a consensus in the legal community and among police forces that the minister is not taking action. We had an election campaign but she still was not moving.

Finally, the minister woke up and, at last, she came up with a bill. Thank goodness.

But again, let us not fool ourselves. This is not a perfect piece of legislation. We will give it our support because it is truly a step in the right direction to correct deficiencies. However, because crime gets organised, parliament must also get organized in the next five years to monitor decisions, the jurisprudence, and listen to those in charge of implementing the legislation, the difficulty of the proof, while complying with our Charter.

We opposed the use the notwithstanding clause, as requested by Quebec. We thought it would be excessive, given the judicial and legislative process that the House could use. But we must get organized, and we are able to do so.

The great thing about this legislation is that it will simplify things. We will have to see what happens. Since a judge convicted a number of people under the 1997 legislation—there was a big gang of people indicted under that legislation awaiting trial—many have admitted their guilt. Why? Because they will get sentences which, without being reduced, will be in keeping with the spirit of the act.

So, since the judgement convicting people under the 1997 legislation, dozens and dozens of accused people awaiting trial have recognized their guilt. We are happy with that, because this will save months in detention and loads of money. These people might get away with lighter sentences. Not making out a case restricts the amount of information made available, and there are fewer informers.

This is why it is extremely important that Bill C-24 be passed properly and quickly. Hopefully, the government will listen to what opposition members—whether the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the member for Berthier—Montcalm or some other members of the NDP or the Alliance—have to say. Anything that comes from the opposition is not necessarily bad but, between you and me, things that come from the government are not necessarily good either. There is a middle ground, however.

I hope that the good work of members in support of the government—because members are legislators; we are not here to complain for the sake of complaining, but to legislate—will be taken into consideration and that the minister will listen.

We wish that this bill will be effective. I am not sure that $200 million over five years will be enough. Where does this figure come from? How did the minister come up with $200 million? Was it just because it sounded nice?

I will, if I may, look at the costs before, during, and after the Quebec summit. How much is $200 million? The security costs for two Quebec summits and perhaps one APEC meeting add up to about $200 million. Where did the minister pull out that figure? This budget should be revised annually. We cannot say “Here is $200 million. That is it; now forget about us”. The minister thinks that with $200 million over five years everything will be fine. Is that it?

I want to thank the House for its attention and reiterate the basic principle: if criminals get organized, we must keep one step ahead of them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member. I think he has a very good understanding of the whole issue of organized crime.

I have a comment as well as a question. My comment refers to the comment made by the member regarding the $200 million the minister plans to spend on implementing this legislation. We know how good the Liberal government is at estimating costs. Members will certainly remember that the government had estimated that firearms registration would cost some $125 million or $135 million, and perhaps up to $150 million. These costs have now reached nearly $800 million, which is a conservative estimate, and only 75% of firearms have been registered in Quebec.

The government said that the system would be self-funding after initial registration. Now we are talking about recurring annual costs of $150 to $200 million. So we have every reason to question the figures mentioned.

I think the minister threw this $200 million figure at us to try to impress us. However, the opposition, which does its homework, can very well see that $200 million to implement this type of legislation—when we know that each investigation may cost $5 million, $6 million or $10 million if it is complicated—is clearly not enough.

My question deals with the idea that the mere fact of belonging to a criminal organization should be a criminal offence. Does the member believe, as does the Bloc Quebecois, that the bill should be amended in that regard?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Montcalm who, as has again been demonstrated, is very knowledgeable on this issue, much more so than I am.

The provisions regarding mere memberships in a criminal organization raise the whole issue of proof. They raise the whole issue of the charter. A balance must be struck. Unfortunately, I will be unable to answer the member's question as clearly as he would like, as I am not really knowledgeable about the whole issue and the workings of the bill.

Once again, mere membership only shows an intention and I would like to raise a few questions: proof, the charter, the presumption of innocence. It is a right. People are considered innocent until found guilty, with the exception of income tax and employment insurance. In the justice system, one is innocent until found guilty. In the case of income tax and employment insurance, people are first considered guilty and it is up to them to prove that they are innocent.

However, as far as the provisions regarding mere membership are concerned, I would say that it is one where the whole case law would have to be considered, and the member for Berthier-Montcalm knows much better than I do the difficulty in proving and maybe the possibility to make mistakes.

Then again, Bill C-24 solves many problems concerning definitions and numbers. But will maintaining provisions on the simple fact of being a member not bring back the whole problem of a clear and easily applicable definition? It is something we must keep working on and I certainly hope that all members, including my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, will keep on doing so in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question to ask. What is new in this bill is the whole issue of immunity granted to police officers in the course of very specific investigations and the power of the Solicitor General of Canada to break the law, to a certain extent.

My question is very simple. Does the member think it is dangerous to have politicians interfere in legal matters like this? Would it not be better to let a court, like the superior court, or a judge authorize police officers, in specific cases, to take some steps stipulated in the legislation, if they have enough evidence?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the solicitor general is asked to take action in some matters, he answers “I cannot interfere with the work carried out by police officers. I cannot interfere like that. It is only normal and fair that I respect this line between my role as a legislator and the work done by the police”.

We are told there is a process to follow, that the minister is not involved, that he does not really know what is happening and that he cannot interfere. But now, he wants to stick his nose in, with this bill, one of our toughest pieces of legislation, which goes after organized crime. With all due respect, I am not sure he has the capacity to do so and, furthermore, generally speaking, politicians have no business getting involved in this.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, for the record our party generally supports Bill C-24. Our justice critic will put forth amendments as we go through the debate, but generally we support it.

It is important for the listening public to understand where we are in this debate and what prompted it. The truth is Bill C-24 would fight organized crime.

One thing that prompted the government to take action on this was when RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli stated that organized crime had drafted plans to use bribes to destabilize the country's parliamentary system. This is pretty scary stuff when we think that the members of this House or any other provincial legislation, who draft the bills and the laws, could be subjected to a plan by organized crime to sabotage our democratic process. That would scare anyone. That raised eyebrows across the country and gave a pretty clear indication of how much of an epidemic we were really facing.

Then we can go back to last September when the Quebec public security minister, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause to outlaw gang memberships, which provoked a controversy in Quebec and across the country. One of the victims of that, within just a day or so, was the Journal de Montréal reporter Michel Auger. He was gunned down and shot five times by organized crime, sending out a message that the criminals were not going to stand for this. He stood fast, as did many in that province, in an attempt to fight organized crime. They are still working to do something about it.

Hopefully this bill will do something because it is an epidemic not only in the urban areas but also the rural areas.

Let us focus on some of the things that the bill might do, should do and obviously would do if implemented properly with some attention given to the amendments which I am sure will come forward from the House.

Bill C-24 would simplify the definition and composition of the criminal organization. This is very important. It would target various degrees of involvement with these organizations. It would make it easier for police and prosecutors to arrest and jail gangsters and keep them in prison for longer periods of time. It would allow law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of crime from these criminal organizations and to seize property that was used in a crime. In other words, it would send out a message that crime did not pay. It would strengthen rules protecting against the intimidation of witnesses, juries and their families in an organized crime trial.

Last on my list is to strengthen protection for federal members of parliament and to improve protection for law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit certain illegal acts while engaged in undercover operations to infiltrate criminal organizations.

That sounds good. We are hoping the government does eventually come up with a bill, obviously with the help of the opposition and some of the fine amendments which I am sure will be coming from all of the parties on this side of the House because, Mr. Speaker, as you will remember, last September it was the opposition, particularly the Bloc Quebecois, that brought forward this emergency debate on organized crime in the House.

If the history of the government is any evidence of what it might do or what it should do, not much is going to happen. The minister in her press release brags about the many bills that she brought into the House to fight crime. She mentioned seven in particular. That goes back to 1993 in the life of the government.

I want to remind the House and the Canadian people of an example. The youth justice bill has been introduced in the House three times and has never passed. Obviously that in itself is not going to fight organized crime, but it is an example of the absurdity of the government's position on fighting crime. We do not expect anything to happen in a hurry or at all if the government has its way.

In terms of the money the government is putting into this, again it brags about the $200 million in addition to the $584 million that is being provided to the RCMP every year by the Government of Canada, or in other words, the taxpayers of Canada. At first glance the $200 million looks mighty good, but it is like the funding for health care. It is spread over five years.

Instead of the government being honest with the Canadian public and telling us there will be another $40 million this year and again next year to fight crime, it comes up with the $200 million because it looks better on paper. How this money starts to flow or will flow, nobody knows. If the recent health accord is any example, I will not be holding my breath because not much is going to happen.

Of that $200 million, the government mentions $50 million that is going into fighting smuggling, which I assume is smuggling of products and people. As we well know, that is an epidemic in the country as well. Another $150 million is going to the RCMP for hiring new officers and training and so on and so forth.

An example of inconsistency of the government is that in 1994 there was the biggest capitulation in the history of Canada when it came to fighting organized crime. Do hon. members remember when the government caved in to the cigarette smugglers? That was a double-edged sword. Not only did the government capitulate to the smugglers and turn a blind eye to smuggling, there was a reduction on the excise tax on cigarettes. Instead of enforcing our laws and cracking down on smuggling, the government capitulated and reduced the tax.

The result of this obviously was not good. It was not good simply because every year 45,000 Canadians—I am getting off topic a little bit—die from smoking cigarettes. Instead of the government attacking smuggling in 1994 and putting the resources back in when it could have made a difference, it chose not to do it.

It has only taken seven years for the government to get the message on both of these areas, smuggling and health care. There is a connection between the two of them. If past history is any example of what the government can do, let us not hold our breath. We will not expect much. Of course the government always falls back on whether or not it will be charter proof. Basically the government makes it up as it goes along and hopes that it will work, but it does not do the research and the fundamentals before bringing in the legislation. This issue is important to all Canadians, both rural and urban.

Another point I want to make is in reference to the port police. If you remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, in the House the member for Saint John, the former mayor of that New Brunswick city, suggested that when the government did away with the port police it was a huge mistake. Obviously ships come in from all parts of the world and there are no police to enforce Canadian law at the ports. The government has recognized that it also made a mistake there, so it is going to put more money into this. The government is going to put more money into securing our borders. Maybe it is time we take the examples of other jurisdictions, possibly the U.S. The U.S. has a border patrol to protect the sanctity of its borders.

We do support the bill. We will bring in amendments. However, as is the case with much of the legislation the government brings in, it is just a first start. We are prepared to support that first start.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the minister this morning contains almost 80% of what the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for over the last five or so years.

One point, however, is missing from the bill on organized crime now before us and that is the whole issue of reversing the burden of proof and the proceeds of crime.

My question for the member is a very simple one. Everyone knows that money is the sinews of war, whether politics or organized crime are involved. The comparison may be slightly imperfect, but it boils down to the same thing; there is organized crime because there is money to be made. The more money they make, the stronger and more organized they will be.

There is really nothing in the bill to facilitate the work of the police and crown prosecutors, to reverse even somewhat the burden of proof, so that it is not up to the crown to prove the illegality of an acquired asset, but rather up to organized crime to prove the legality of its origin.

My question for the member is as follows. Will he be able to support this, when he talks of amending the bill? Is it in this sense of giving additional tools to the police and crown prosecutors to facilitate proof with respect to such things as money which is, as we know, the sinews of war?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to previous comments and to questions answered by my colleagues in the House. There is always that balance between charter rights and the willingness or the desire to crack down on criminals. There is a balance to be struck. Certainly that reverse onus is something worth looking at.

However, the truth is that organized crime has the resources. The government brags about the money it is putting in, but there are some prosecutions that have been going on in the country against organized crime by the Government of Canada where the cost is in excess of $10 million. The money being put in is a drop in the bucket. Not to discount the fact that $200 million over five years is a lot of money, but in comparison to the proceeds of crime, which are reaching into the billions, the point has to be made that we have to fight back with the resources we have and often that means money to fight crime. Bringing in legislation that is tough yet honours the charter is the challenge for the government. We are hoping the bill will do that given some of the amendments we will put forward from this side of the House.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code. It deals more specifically with organized crime and law enforcement. As usual, when such a bill is presented, it also makes consequential amendments to other acts.

I would first like to say that the Bloc Quebecois will also support this bill. We feel somewhat involved in this bill, since the minister has included in it approximately 80% of what our party has repeatedly asked for since our arrival in the House. There is a small portion, about 20%, left that we would have liked to see included also. But we can talk about this later, when the bill is considered in committee and when the time comes for amendments.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm will certainly be happy to remind the minister that we would like to bring forward some amendments. We will also have our say at the third reading stage, but we hope that the minister will keep on thinking about it until the end of the third reading stage, so that she really can try to put it on the agenda for 2001.

For the benefit of the people who are watching and who may read the proceedings, I would like to give a brief historical background. You surely remember, Mr. Speaker, when you were with us in the House at the time, that, in 1997, in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, a boy of only eleven, who was playing quietly on the sidewalk, became the unfortunate victim of organized crime because some gangs were fighting each other. Poor Daniel Desrochers was killed, a totally innocent victim of organized crime.

For us, it was quite a shock. We felt as though everyone knew this dear Daniel. We thought that something had to be done to try to make the government react.

Then, as my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party was reminding us, there was the unfortunate event where reporter Michel Auger was shot. However, he was luckier and received medical attention. He recovered and went back to work.

Another person who had no luck was Francis Laforêt, a young man from Terrebonne who was a bar owner and who thought he was able to live in our society. Unfortunately, organized crime also got him.

These three cases are very fresh in our memories and are painful. There was also, a little later, an event related to the bikers' war that traumatized the village of Saint-Nicholas, on the south shore, just outside Quebec City. There was a bunker, a hideout for criminals. When some bombs exploded, they damaged a youngster's room.

We are very glad to see that the minister has taken the issue of organized crime seriously. In Canada, it has become an industry. We are told that drug sales alone reached $5 billion. During the weekend, at the Summit of the Americas, it was the president of Columbia, I think, who expressed the hope that we could help him deal with the drug problem in his country.

In February 1999, during a Commonwealth mission to Barbados, the justice minister told us that one of the biggest problems in his country was drug trafficking.

With $5 billion in sales only in Canada, it has become a thriving business that causes a lot of problems. If we consider only the Hells Angels who were arrested recently, their drug sales generated $100 million in profits. That is quite an amount of money, enough to realize that we need to deal with this problem.

The 1998 data released by the RCMP are troubling: 79 murders, 89 attempted murders, 129 cases of arson and 92 bombings, and that only includes offences committed during gang wars where bikers fight against each other. It does not include the people who were killed or forced to commit suicide, as is often now the case, because they could not pay back the money they owed. The RCMP's numbers for 1998 only cover the gang wars.

In 2001, “Printemps 2001”—spring is the time of year where everyone gets into a cleaning mode—allowed police forces to do some spring cleaning of their own: they arrested 160 criminals in 74 municipalities in Quebec.

Had the minister heeded what we have been telling her since we have been here, we would have had Bill C-24 long before 2001. Today, we would be reassured if the 160 people who were arrested could be judged under Bill C-24. We would be reassured about the end result of this spring cleaning exercise.

With the current act as it is—those who were arrested will have to be judged under the current act, not under the new one that is coming—how many of these 160 people will remain incarcerated? Out of 160, how many will be prosecuted with all the evidence and convicted? Two, three? Maybe ten if we are lucky.

However, if these people were to be judged under this bill, about 120 or 130 out of the 160 could be proven to be criminals and remain incarcerated.

As I was saying at the beginning of my speech, this bill responds to about 80% of the Bloc's wishes.

One thing is extremely interesting, and I refer to clause 5 of the bill, which amends section 2 of the act. It says that anyone who directs threats against a member of the Senate or the House of Commons is guilty of a serious offence. It then goes on to list other persons, including: b ) a person who plays a role in the administration of criminal justice, including

(i) a prosecutor, a lawyer—

When we look at the list of persons mentioned here, we cannot help thinking that it would have been nice to include our colleagues from the provincial legislatures and the Quebec National Assembly. It would have been interesting to see paragraph (a) read as follows: “a Member of the Senate, a Member of the House of Commons, a Member of a provincial legislature or a Member of the Quebec National Assembly”. We must think about our colleagues who occupy the same position as we do, but at other levels of government.

It would also have been a good thing if that list had mentioned the members of municipal councils, individuals who occupy elective positions, who represent the people, who serve the public in their community, their county or their riding. These persons give their time for the collective good and are, all of them from the first to the last, worthy of being protected by the law.

I hope the necessary amendments will be implemented. I hope the minister will be sensitive to those comments and that she will also add a category which seems extremely important to me, that of journalists. We know that Mr. Auger was the first victim and I hope he will be the last. It might be appropriate to add a dissuasive measure specifically for journalists so that they are included in the category of threatened persons. If they were in that category, then the criminals attacking them would receive appropriate sentences and those persons could continue to work in peace.

One significant plus of this bill is that the minister has finally accepted to define gangsterism. In the bill she had passed in 1999, which initially amended the Criminal Code and provided a few more teeth to deal with organized crime groups, there was what is known as the rule of three fives, which provided that conviction required a group of five persons. That was the first five.

For the second five, the five individuals had to have had a police record during the last five years. They were to be arrested, and these five people with a police record in the previous five years had to have committed a crime serious enough for them to be charged under the Criminal Code and liable to five years or more of imprisonment, hence the rule of the three fives.

This time, the minister is going further. For the benefit of all of us, I think it is extremely important to refer exactly to the text to see what clause 27, which amends section 467.1 of the Criminal Code provides.

It provides, and I quote:

“criminal organization” means a group, however organized, that is composed of three or more persons—

This is progress. From five to three. I continue:

—and that has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission—

There is one or other of the alternatives.

—of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the group. It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.

So here they distinguish between the two. It does not mean three people, for example, who decide that to pay for their drugs, they will hold up the Caisse populaire at the corner. They have never seen one another or met, but the three of them know that, by chance, they all owe money to the same gang. They say “Tonight we will do a hold up”. That is not it. They have to be an organized gang.

So, if we continue reading this magnificent bill, we will see interesting things on prosecution. I quote:

467.11(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1)—

It is the offence I have just read. I will read it slowly enough so you will remember it:

—it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that—

This is interesting because, from the outset, it excludes certain things which do not have to be proved beyond a doubt. a ) the criminal organization actually facilitated or committed an indictable offence; b ) the participation or contribution of the accused actually enhanced the ability of the criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence; c ) the accused knew the specific nature of any indictable offence that may have been facilitated or committed by the criminal organization;

Here we have some extremely interesting elements that were introduced into the bill to facilitate the job of those who have to do so.

Now there is an interesting element. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we were 80% satisfied with this bill and 20% dissatisfied. Those might be considered good stats but there is still room for improvement.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm has asked a question of the hon. member who spoke just before I did, in connection with merely be a member of a criminal organization. Might steps not be taken to ensure that mere membership in a criminal organization is an offence in itself?

The reason we stressed the need for this so heavily was that we wanted to be able to get the gang leaders. They are the masterminds. They are the ones pulling the strings. They send out the new recruits to earn their colours by doing the dirty work for them.

I see the clock is moving on and there are still a lot of things I could say. This is an amendment we find extremely interesting. There is also the matter of reversal of the burden of proof in connection with the proceeds of crime, to which we shall return in committee and in subsequent debates.

In the short time I have left, I would like to say how important it is for the minister to proceed with this bill, to get it in force promptly, for the House not to be recessed before it is passed, and for her to ensure the funding is made available, the cash required to make it enforceable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis. She understands very well the problem with this bill.

She ended her remarks talking about “cash”—

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

L'argent comptant.

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

If I were the minister, I would mind my own business—free trade—instead of correcting me. I believe he has his hands full.

Moreover, since he is a Quebec minister, I would like him to speak up for Quebec once in a while instead of coming to the rescue of his prime minister.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

I do day in and day out.

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

As I was saying, it is all very nice to introduce a bill, but we need cash to implement it. We need to put money on the table so that enforcement officers will have what it takes to do the job.

The minister is forecasting $200 million over five years. In my mind, it means $40 million a year. This is not enough to put in place such an act, when we know that one investigation alone, such as Opération Printemps 2001, the big cleanup operation my colleague referred to, will cost close to that in Quebec alone, that is to say around $20 million. If we add the cost of building a prison, a court and all the other measures, we will need $40 million for this much needed operation.

Does the member agree with me that the minister should invest at least five times this amount over five years, at least $200 million a year, to successfully fight organized crime?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an very interesting and important issue. I thought I would have time to discuss it during my speech, but I am glad to be asked about it.

It must be realized that it takes money to conduct investigations and to be fully prepared to make arrests. This implies, among other things, electronic surveillance. We may also have to pay informants, something which is costly. The police may have to conduct investigations and shadow people. All sorts of very important things are necessary to conduct investigations effectively and the costs are in the millions of dollars.

Sometimes, as will be the case in Montreal with the trial, a special courthouse must be built.

There are also attorneys who are not very pleased. They feel that they are underpaid and if we want them to continue to do a good job, we will have to put more money into this.

The police is no longer present in Canada's ports and harbours, but containers full of goods keep entering the ports of Montreal and Quebec City. It seems that all sorts of things can be found in these containers. The same goes for Vancouver.

It is very important to realize that the government must be logical and consistent. Canada is a very large country and we have the longest boundary. The St. Lawrence River, the gulf and the estuary are used to smuggle all sorts of things. The government talks about investing $200 million in this, but it also wants to eliminate jobs in the RCMP and so on. The government will have to sit down, be reasonable and consistent and allocate the necessary budgets. The amount of $200 million per year seems a minimum.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for her speech in this debate.

A very important issue has been raised. The hon. member is saying that we must act quickly with this bill, so that it will be passed and become law. I agree with my colleague.

It is said that 80% of the bill is the result of previous discussions or proposals generated by the Bloc Quebecois. There is 20% missing. Could that 20% be dealt with quickly, through amendments in committee? What would be a reasonable timeframe for this bill becoming law?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Bloc Quebecois is willing to do everything it can so this bill can be read the third time and passed in June. We are willing to put in the necessary time and effort. We have a few amendments to propose to the committee. We think it is extremely important.

The minister will have to be reasonable and to take into account the fact that the rules for proposing amendments have been considerably changed. That means that the work of the committee will have to be taken seriously, that the amendments proposed there will have to be looked at closely. It may not be possible. My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska raised the charter issue. If there is a problem in that regard, we should take the time to examine it and to ensure that it can be overcome.

But I am certainly not forgetting, for example, that the government did not hesitate, during consideration of the bill on employment insurance—it is the current Minister for International Trade who was at human resources development when these amendments were passed—to impose special EI eligibility requirements for young people and for pregnant women, who have to work respectively 910 and 700 hours. It is now down to 600 to qualify, compared to 420 hours for a regular worker who is not young or pregnant. Therefore, if the government can discriminate against women and young people, maybe it can forget about the charter and discriminate a little less.

In the case of criminals, we certainly have to be careful, but I think we must not allow people to invoke the charter too easily either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one final question for the member for Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis.

As I said this morning, the minister did not have a lot to say in that because, barely three weeks before she introduced the bill at first reading, I asked her questions in the House and she said that the criminal code contained all the provisions necessary to wage an effective battle against organized crime, when we knew that the department was in the process of drafting a bill. What departmental officials included in the bill concerns immunity for certain actions by the police.

This is somewhat the same question I asked my colleague earlier. Under this bill, the police will be able to commit offences such as selling and buying drugs in order to win the acceptance of a criminalized group. This is dangerous, and I think that everyone would agree. There is some protection, but it takes the form of an agreement, of authorization from the Solicitor General of Canada.

My question to the minister—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

—to the member. She could very well be a minister, and she would probably be much more competent than those opposite.

Does my colleague agree with me that it is dangerous to leave this up to the solicitor general? Should this not be the responsibility of an appointed judge, who enforces the law on a daily basis, who knows how things work in these cases, just as he has responsibility for authorizing wiretaps or certain seizures? Would she not agree that it would be preferable for a judge to authorize such actions, which would otherwise be illegal?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important that this decision be left to a judge only because, to become a minister, whether it is the solicitor general or another minister of the crown, one does not need to produce a resume and to have studied in the area one will have to manage.

We could end up with someone who is not quite familiar with the law. I believe it is extremely important that the solicitor general not be caught in such a situation. As the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska so rightly pointed out, every time we put questions to the solicitor general in this House, he was unable to provide us with answers. The same can be said of the revenue minister.

In fact, I wonder why these two people are ministers. They can never answer our questions because everything must be kept secret, everything is confidential, and they have nothing to say. They can never tell us anything.

I think it would be better for the decision to grant immunity to be handed down by a judge.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate, an important debate.

Why is it important? Bill C-24 amends the Criminal Code and related laws, specifically to clarify a major social problem.

The Bloc Quebecois, long before this bill, wanted to do battle. My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm naturally headed this battle. He spearheaded this important bill, which he could have tabled, but which the government tabled.

This bill could very easily have been tabled by a member of this party, the Bloc Quebecois, because for many years the Bloc Quebecois has called for a vigorous law, tighter legislation, to limit and reduce crime, and criminal gangs in Canada.

My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm was not the only one. I recall very clearly from an event in the Montreal riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that my colleague who represents that riding introduced a motion under private members' business and initiated this debate in this House to ensure that the government was taking the necessary steps to establish legislation to fight organized crime.

What is being tabled today concerns basically six elements, six legislative means to fight organized crime. One concerns the question of participation in a criminal organization, which becomes an offence under the bill.

Another is the whole issue of protection given to persons participating in the legal system against certain acts of intimidation.

The third aspect is the simplified definition of criminal organizations. This is essential, essential because we wanted to see a clear definition of what a criminal organization, what a gang, is. Right at the start of the bill, in clause 1, in the explanatory notes, the definition is clear:

—“gang”. Group or association or other body consisting of five or more persons, whether formally or informally organized,

(a) having as one of its primary activities the commission of an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more;

(b) any or all of the members of which engage in or have, within the preceding five years, engaged in the commission of a series of such offences;

This bill provides clarification of what a criminal organization is, because we feel that the current legislation—not the bill we are looking at today but the present legislation—is in my opinion complex and to some extent provides organized groups with loopholes about which we as parliamentarians have a duty to do something.

The other aspect addressed by this bill is the whole matter of seizure and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime.

There is also the matter of protection for those mandated to monitor application of the legislation, what is termed immunity.

Lastly, there is the matter of non legislative measures, the budget in particular.

I will close on this point. It is not merely a matter of equipping ourselves with legislation. We also need the financial means to be able to enforce it. We are waiting for a budget that will allow us to meet the challenge.

The House resumed from April 5 consideration of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.