Debates of April 23rd, 2001

Petitions

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is a very thick one and it is from people across Saskatchewan concerning employment insurance.

The petitioners ask that we take action and re-establish employment insurance as an earnings replacement program that once again supports unemployed workers, their families and their communities.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all political parties in the House and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, when proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 are completed on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, the motion to adjourn shall be deemed to have been withdrawn and the House shall resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider a motion “That the committee take note of the state of Canada's resource industries”, provided that, during consideration thereof, (1) the Chair of the committee shall not receive any quorum call or any motion except a motion “That the committee do now rise”, (2) when no Member rises to speak, or at midnight, whichever is earlier, the committee shall rise and (3) when the committee rises the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Request For Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

I have received notice of an emergency debate from the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, you will have received a letter from me earlier in the day in which I request an emergency debate on the subject of the summit of the Americas meeting that concluded yesterday in Quebec City.

I would like the debate to be about that summit and the events surrounding it, in particular the security measures employed over the course of the three days of the summit, including the unprovoked use of measures of force such as water cannon, tear gas and rubber bullets by security personnel on peaceful protesters. I want to emphasize peaceful because it is the use of these kinds of measures on peaceful protesters that is of such great concern and should be of great concern to all members of parliament.

The sons and daughters of many of our constituents were out there peacefully expressing their concern. For the House or at least the government to hold them in contempt as they did during question period and call them hooligans and whatnot is very misplaced. It made me glad that it was the police in charge of Quebec City and not the Liberal caucus because not even the police acted with such rhetorical contempt for the young people who faced them outside the wall.

I think it would be an appropriate matter for parliament to debate and I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to agree to such a debate.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has had the opportunity to read the letter forwarded by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona this morning.

I have reviewed the provisions of Standing Order 52 and have heard his arguments presented at this time. In the view of the Chair this application does not meet the requirements of the standing order at this time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in reviewing my notes during the course of question period, when I had an opportunity to break from the very interesting exchanges, I realized that I had come to the end of my speech.

I have spoken to my colleague, the member for Surrey Central, and he has some issues to raise. I will defer to his comments when he has the opportunity to address the House. It will not serve the House by repeating my comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-24, since the Bloc Quebecois has argued for such a bill.

It was one of the Bloc Quebecois' issues throughout the election campaign. In truth, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for years for a law with teeth to effectively fight organized crime.

Before speaking about the bill specifically, I have an aside to make. I listened attentively to the speech by the Minister of Justice, and I must say I was rather disappointed by it, not because I was expecting congratulations from the minister for myself or the Bloc Quebecois on our tenacity in this matter, quite honestly I was not expecting that, but I think she left out big chunks of this story. Today, she is gloating, she is proud of tabling a bill like this, but we have to look at what led the minister to table this bill. I think it worthwhile to point out a few things.

Among other things, she spoke of a certain justice committee that studied the question. Indeed, the standing committee on justice did examine the whole question of organized crime. Why did the committee deliberate on this issue? Simply because we took one of the Bloc Quebecois' opposition days to introduce a motion to convince the Liberal government opposite, the government the minister represents as the Minister of Justice, to convince this government it was time and important for the House to consider the problem of organized crime and to try to come up with solutions.

It took a day of debate, a number of oral question periods and, following a unanimous vote by the House of Commons, the matter of organized crime was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so proposals could be made to the government. The minister seems to have forgotten that part.

I also mentioned having questioned the minister on a number of occasions, which I did again during this session. Barely three weeks before the minister decided to introduce antigang legislation, the bill before us today, she answered one of my questions here in this House to the effect that the criminal code contained all that was needed to fight organized crime. Three weeks before introduction of the bill, the minister was telling us that the criminal code and related legislation did not require amending in any way for there to be an effective campaign against organized crime.

Hon. members will understand that I am delighted to have convinced the minister to introduce such a bill, but they will agree with me that its maternity, or perhaps paternity, is open to question. I have often said that the minister did not understand the matter in the least. She has demonstrated not only her total lack of understanding but also her lack of monitoring of the matter, by stating a scant three weeks before this bill was introduced that it was not necessary to change the rules relating to organized crime.

We have before us a highly complex bill. I imagine the minister herself has not worked very hard on this bill, not to know of its existence three weeks ago. A bill like this cannot be drafted overnight. However, since we in the Bloc Quebecois are good sports, I congratulate the minister on having finally got the message.

On this particular issue, the Bloc Quebecois has more than once extended a hand to the minister in the hope that she would decide to amend the rules having to do with the whole issue of organized crime in order to give the police and the justice system the tools they are demanding.

The House is aware that the Bloc Quebecois was pushing for changes. People in the community, in the Quebec nation, in the rest of Canada as well, were also calling on the minister to make such changes.

I would have liked to see the minister showing some thought for these people in her speech at second reading of Bill C-24 to amend the criminal code.

I would have liked the minister to recognize that there were people, some of them in Quebec, who fought to have the law amended. Some people in Quebec even lost their lives in this fight.

This is a part of the whole issue that the minister seems to have forgotten, because she did not thank or even congratulate or pay tribute to these people. I will do so; it will be brief. However, I would like to say something about all the work and energy that people put into fighting, often quite resolutely, to convince the minister to make these changes.

As we know, in the 1990s, 1997 I think, in Montreal, an 11-year old called Daniel Desrochers lost his life in a bomb explosion connected to the biker gang wars that were going on at the time in Quebec.

The torch was picked up by family and friends and by the Bloc Quebecois member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who worked to convince the Government of Canada to change the criminal code. I must pay tribute to their efforts and tell them that they have contributed to the changes we have here today.

I would also like to salute and to thank Michel Auger, the reporter on a Quebec daily newspaper who used his pen to awaken the people of Quebec, the Quebec nation, and the people across the way here as well, to this scourge. He did not back down, and this needs to be recognized. Mr. Auger refused to back down and continued to say no to violence.

Then there was a young man in the riding of Terrebonne. The late Francis Laforêt stood up to organized crime and said “No”. He was a bar owner. A gang wanted to take over control of his bar. He said “No crooked dealings in my bar, there will be no drug dealing under my roof. You are not gaining control here. No way”.

Hon. members know the rest. He was beaten to death with baseball bats and goodness knows what else. The young Francis Laforêt lost his life. I have spoken with his family and friends and they too said no to violence, “No way are we going to let ourselves be pushed around by organized crime”. All these people, including Mr. Laforêt's parents, friends and brother, took action, prepared petitions, kept track of the issue and pressured municipal and federal governments and also members of parliament to get zoning regulations.

In the end, these people too made a contribution by saying “no” to violence and intimidation and “yes” to democracy. They helped convince the Minister of Justice or rather her department and those who drafted this bill. The determination shown by these people was such that officials decided to continue to work on this issue.

This is part of history, part of that period. This is why Bloc Quebecois members have shown such an interest in this issue. One must realize the importance of this issue.

Looking at the government's own documents, we can see that organized crime is not a new phenomenon. It is not something that caught the government off guard because it was not aware of it. The government is well aware of what is going on.

In fact, the RCMP did a study on organized crime and on the ins and outs of the war that has developed in Quebec in recent years. According to the documents I had this morning, the RCMP figured that, for the 1994-98 period alone, 79 murders were related to the bikers' war. This number does not apply to the whole of organized crime.

During that period, 79 murders and 89 attempted murders were related to the drug trade and to the wars between Quebec biker gangs, in addition to 129 instances of arson and over 80 bombings. These are figures that the minister knew or should have known. Both the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice must have known about the situation, just as they must know that the drug trade is exceedingly lucrative for those who are involved in it.

The Quebec provincial police estimates that the Hell's Angels alone made profits of $100 million last year. The drug trade, from coast to coast in Canada, represents some $5 billion. The government opposite has known or should have known this for a very long time. I was elected in October 1993 and have known about this since 1994.

Despite the questions, motions, opposition interventions and all that has gone on, the government did not budge. Finally the pressure reached such a pitch that the department decided to go ahead.

Had the minister or the ministers who followed one another,— because since 1993-94 there has been more than one federal Minister of Justice—had the ministers acted more quickly, lives could certainly have been saved. Fewer bombs would have exploded and fewer fires would have been lit. But no, it took until 2001 for such a bill.

Organized crime can be found everywhere. Naturally, it is to be found in the bars and in the world of prostitution. On the fringes, organized crime can be found in the scourge of the illegal sale of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages and in illegal casinos, because there is a market for it. There are similar places. There are also high interest loans too. There is the whole question of drugs. I hope the minister knows as well that they are not just found in the street now, but in almost all the schools. Young people are regularly offered these drugs. As well, there is the whole question of cornfields and farmers.

It does not take boy scouts to be able to plant entire fields of marijuana and to intimidate farmers. Organized crime is behind that. A look at the map of Quebec makes it very clear—and this is what all Bloc Quebecois MPs from this region are also saying—that there are many such crops. Many farmers are complaining about this situation. Once again, I repeat, this is not a recent development. The Minister of Justice has never seen fit to act. Fortunately, the opposition and the people of Quebec have stood firm and argued their case and today, finally, we have a bill.

Is it a real anti-gang bill? Is it what the Bloc Quebecois members would have liked to see? After looking it over, I would say that approximately 80% of the bill reflects the comments and answers given to questions put by Bloc Quebecois members to the minister in recent years. This means that 80% of this bill is a victory for the Bloc Quebecois, and we are most pleased.

This does not mean, however, that we are going to sit on our laurels and that we will not try to amend the bill further. We are going to try to convince the minister on certain points, as the House will see a little later.

As for whether or not this is really an anti-gang law, that will depend on how it is enforced. However, I think we are actually starting to have something more closely resembling such a law. With such legislation, we are starting to have tools which will make it possible to mount an effective campaign against organized crime.

People probably remember all the seizures made in Quebec under the existing provincial legislation, not the bill being debated today, but the existing Quebec legislation behind Opération Printemps 2001, which resulted in more than 160 arrests in 74 municipalities in Quebec. Millions of dollars were seized in the form of luxury vehicles, drugs and cash. It was a very successful operation.

With respect to the operation per se, we can congratulate the police on a job well done. I would like to take this opportunity to commend them for their professionalism. However, we have to wait and see how many of the some 160 people arrested and charged with murder, attempted murder, corruption and other offences under the Food and Drugs Act will be found guilty.

This is why I think that, if the minister had acted sooner, Opération Printemps 2001 would have been conducted under new and much clearer and stricter provisions providing for harsher sentences, something we in the Bloc, as well as the police and the public have been asking for for some time now. Once again, the minister turned a deaf ear.

What provisions of this bill should we be thankful for? In 1997, when the then justice minister amended the criminal code to show that the government was doing something to fight organized crime, a definition of a criminal organization was provided and a criminal organization offence was created.

I remember very well that we had some concerns about those provisions, as we maintained that they would be hard to enforce because the onus was put first on the police, to carry out their investigations, and then on the crown prosecutors to convince the judge beyond any reasonable doubt that the people charged were guilty of being part of a criminal organization.

We used to talk about the three fives rule. In other words, to be able to indict somebody for an organized crime offence, we had to prove and still have to prove, because this is still in effect, that a group of five people had committed an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for five years and that these five people had acted this way for five years. Of course, it had to be proven too that these five people knew that they were breaking the law.

That was a very heavy burden. The Bloc Quebecois asked the minister, among other things, whether she would change these rules. I remember distinctly that she stated in the House that it was not necessary, because it was easy to prove all of that, that crown prosecutors could prove it. At one point, she even asked us to present our suggestions to her if we had something in mind.

On June 1, 1999 after several attempts to negotiate with her, I made up my mind that I had to put this on paper and send it to her.

Strangely enough, the definition on my document of June 1, 1999 is almost identical to the one in Bill C-24. The minister finally understood that the three fives rule was difficult to enforce. Only three people, and not five, are now needed in order to have a criminal organization, just as I suggested on June 1, 1999.

Ideally, we could have dropped it to two people, as we did for conspiracy. But I compromised on June 1, 1999 in order to try to speed things up. I imagine that things were going along, but the minister was not necessarily working at the same speed, because that was not when we got the bill.

In Bill C-24, the whole matter of membership in a criminal organization and the definitions relating to that part of the bill have therefore been modified, simplified for the better in order to be in a position to make a case.

Under the bill, gang membership has been reduced to three people from five. We now have the whole business of contribution to activities that assist a criminal organization to attain its criminal objectives.

I am pleased with this definition, which is far more complex in the bill than the way I am stating it, and hon. members will agree with me. I am just giving the main thrust for purposes of understanding. It will be easier for us to be able to collar various people whom we are not able to touch at the present time.

I am thinking for instance of all the people involved in recruiting new members to be taken into “gang school”. Before, there was nothing we could do. That was one of the things we pointed out. Now with the new definitions and the way the bill is worded, we will be able to collar someone based merely on the fact that he is participating in a criminal organization or contributing to the advancement of a criminal organization, able to establish evidence of this and to see him do time for it. We are going to be able to put him away where he can do no more harm to the public.

Then there is the whole matter of participating in the perpetration of acts of gangsterism. This is very important and merits particular attention, because this is now an offence with a 14-year prison sentence attached.

Furthermore, when the department changed section 477 of the criminal code, one of our concerns was that such a definition would prevent us from ever arresting the leaders. These leaders do not commit the thefts, they do not kill, they do not sell drugs. So, we had no means to put them behind bars.

The question was “Will the minister change the criminal code to be able to arrest gang leaders?” At that time, she answered “We have all the necessary provisions in the criminal code to arrest gang leaders and to prosecute them”.

She will not admit it today, but she probably knew then that I was right and that there was still something missing in the criminal code, since Bill C-24 now defines clearly what a gang leader is. She even added a definition of criminal organization leader. That is to be able to arrest those leaders. To show the importance of these provisions, there is a life sentence attached to them.

Again, I congratulate the minister for the change, since it is clearly something we requested and about which I asked questions in the House. I congratulate the minister, but we are in 2001 and she should have done it in 1999, when I gave her written documents. When questioned, the minister should have given us a positive answer. It is not because something comes from the opposition that it is necessarily bad.

Some members on the other side were very surprised by my reaction to Bill C-24. They were quite surprised to hear me say that this was a good bill. Actually, 80% of its content corresponds to what we asked for. This is what we wanted. It is a good bill, but we will nevertheless try to improve it. However, when a good bill is introduced, I have always taken the time to say so in the House and to congratulate those who deserve it. But when a bill is not good, I have never refrained from saying so.

I would like to say as an aside that the Young Offenders Act, for instance, is a bad bill for Quebec. I go right ahead and say so. However, this does not stop me from acknowledging good bills, like the one we have before us.

We definitely support the provisions on participation in a criminal organization and the definitions of a gang because the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for those provisions for a long time.

We have also been asking for measures to protect people in the justice system against intimidation, which criminal groups have frequently used against them. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have personally been the targets of intimidation when they were working on this issue and pushing it. Members of juries in some proceedings were also victims of intimidation.

We have also witnessed intimidation of people who were interfering with the business dealings, like drug dealings and other similar activities, of criminal groups. We definitely support protection against intimidation for people connected with the justice system.

However, I think the department has forgotten certain things. As the justice critic for the Canadian Alliance pointed out, and as I said in press conferences, I fail to understand why the Quebec minister of justice or the Quebec minister of public security would not be granted the same protection against intimidation by these groups when senators do have this legal protection. Intimidating a senator or a member of the House of Commons is an offence, but the same does not apply to MLAs. This is certainly an oversight on the part of the department, which we will try to correct in committee.

What about journalists? We have the best example in Quebec with Michel Auger. I think he has done more on this issue than anyone else, with his writing. He tried to convince people that we needed anti-gang legislation. He reported the facts. This is very democratic. We saw the intimidation directed against Mr. Auger. But there is nothing with regard to that in this bill.

A person accused and convicted of intimidating someone associated with the justice system is liable to 14 years imprisonment. I am sure there are members opposite who will say “Yes, but there is section 423, which provides that any attempt to intimidate an individual in the justice system, in a general way—”. Indeed, journalists could perhaps be covered by this section, like MNAs or the members of another provincial legislature. But it is a maximum of five years. So it is clearly less serious when it involves these people. I sincerely believe this too must be changed.

I believe there is another group the department has forgotten, our elected municipal officials. During the House of Commons' two week break, I worked on site, as they say. I did not just meet the mayors in my riding but, on a related matter, I had discussions with mayors across Quebec. To name but one, since he was a pioneer in the whole issue of zoning bunkers in his own municipality, the mayor of Blainville. He said that there had been intimidation as well as threats and all sorts of things, and he has no protection.

I think another segment of the population has been forgotten in this definition, the members of municipal councils. There is surely a way to draft this article to include more people and for those trying to intimidate them to be liable to imprisonment for 15 years.

There is protection as well for the members of a jury. This is very important and something we in the Bloc Quebecois have long been asking for.

The whole definition of criminal organization has been simplified. In addition, there will be a special way to calculate sentences for persons found guilty of gangsterism. This is a step forward. It is no longer a requirement to prove that the individuals knew they had been committing indictable offences over the previous five years. This whole notion of the number of years has been completely eliminated, and so has the number of years in prison. This applies not only to crimes punishable by five years in prison but to all other crimes.

We only have to think about prostitution or drug trafficking in bars, for which there was no maximum punishment of five years or more and therefore were not covered by the current definition of criminal organization under the criminal code. Today with these amendments they will be covered.

Here again the Bloc Quebecois had been asking for a broadening of the definition in order to better target those who carry out a reign of terror against those individuals within the organizations.

Then there is the whole issue of the seizure and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. However, in this respect we believe the department could have introduced much more relevant and daring amendments. We believe the department did not go far enough in terms of the legislative tools it is giving the courts, the police and the penal system as a whole. There is still work to be done in this respect even though progress has been made.

We are so far behind and we have so few tools to successfully fight organized crime that any change, no matter how small, must be welcomed and applauded. But while we are at it with the help of experts to draft something that is defendable and enforceable and is what the people want, we might as well do it right. We really have to look at the whole issue.

There is one matter that scares several people, namely the amendments aimed at protecting the officers in charge of enforcing the anti-gang law. Now, a police officer investigating very specific crimes such as the trafficking of human beings, alcohol, tobacco or firearms smuggling, heinous crimes, international terrorism, crimes against the environment and everything related to drug offences, will at last be able to commit acts otherwise illegal were it not for that protection.

So that members can really understand what I am talking about, I will give an example. Criminal groups, be it biker gangs, the Italian network, Chinese triads or the Russian mafia, which is also present in Canada, are well organized. They have made it very difficult for the police to infiltrate them. Very often, in those biker gangs whose methods we are more familiar with, to determine if a new member going up every step in the organization is trustworthy and is one of them, the leader will ask him to commit certain illegal acts.

The bill says that an investigating officer could commit certain acts without fear of prosecution. This is not protection at large; murder, rape, acts of violence and so on are excluded. This is for very specific offences. For example, in a biker gang operating a large drug market, an undercover officer could be asked to sell drugs. That is an illegal act. Without protection, the police officer could be liable to prosecution for that. Yet he must do so to be accepted as a member of the biker gang, get to know more and possibly gather enough information to prosecute the guilty parties.

This is very much a societal issue. It is a complex matter and it could lead to abuse. We must be very careful in implementing the law. However, if we want to fight organized crime effectively, we must have such tools.

Some countries go much further than that, but we should begin by looking at their experience and see how this is done, see how things work and what the results will be over time. This is a step in the right direction, albeit a very small one in terms of both the offences and the people.

If memory serves, the Minister of Justice once tabled a white paper on the issue of granting immunity to any public official during the course of any investigation which is even more encompassing. At the time, my initial reaction was “They want a police state. This makes no sense. We must restrict that, we must establish a framework, we must set limits”.

Again, the minister seems to have listened. This is not a common occurrence, but we should mention it when she does so. Or else it is the department that listened to what I said, so that today such immunity is only granted to peace officers conducting investigations in very specific areas. It is very limited in scope. It is something.

Where I have questions and am anxious to hear what the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice, who will certainly be appearing before the committee, have to say about this issue—I say this up front so they can be ready—is when it comes to giving the political arm authority to make such actions legal. Under the proposed legislation, the solicitor general would authorize such actions. Truly, if there is one thing that must not be mixed with politics, it is the law.

It would be a kindness to the minister to tell her that she is on the wrong track, that this should be left up to the courts, as is now the case for wiretapping, for certain very specific seizures outside normal court hours. It could be a judge who, as part of an investigation and upon presentation of evidence, gives authorization. It could be ex parte. It could be various ways of speeding up authorization. But it must be someone who is independent of the political arm. It must be a judge who gives authorization and who oversees the result.

This is one amendment we are going to try to make when this bill comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Generally speaking, it is not what is in the bill that is causing a problem but much more what is not. With this in mind, I think that it will be easier to work with officials of the Department of Justice and try to convince them to make certain additions to the bill.

I will conclude by saying that one thing is certain and that is that those enforcing the legislation must also be given the necessary money. It is all very fine and well to have a well-drafted bill, but the necessary money must be there for them to enforce it.

In Quebec, we have shown that when the police were given adequate financial support, they were able to do an effective job of combating organized crime, as they did in the Opération Printemps 2001, a major cleanup operation. We should continue in this vein by passing this bill.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and say a few words on behalf of the NDP on this particular debate.

I agree with my hon. colleague from the Bloc when he says that a great deal of credit should be given to the Bloc Quebecois for pressing the matter in the House over the previous years. I understand the satisfaction it must be experiencing in seeing the government respond. By the Bloc's own analysis, some 80% of the bill includes measures that it has requested.

Quebecers have experienced, to a completely excessive and unsatisfactory degree, the somewhat dubious benefits of the activities of gangs, as have other Canadians in other provinces.

We have the bill before us and we are anxious that it not be debated at great length here in the House. We would like to see it go to committee. If we are serious about wanting the legislation implemented and used to curtail the activities of criminal gangs, we must get it through the House and into committee and look at some of its provisions.

If there are things that can be improved and clarified, and I certainly think there are, then let us go about doing that and getting the legislation into force so that we can determine through experience whether the bill will actually work. That is the only way we can find out what will work, both in terms of the ability of police to investigate and lay charges and the ability of the courts to obtain and uphold convictions.

It is certainly not the intention of the NDP to delay passage of the bill. I simply say to my colleagues in the Bloc who have, shall we say, a somewhat robust history of making the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights somewhat difficult because of their objections to Bill C-7, the bill on the youth criminal justice act, that I imagine they will face a bit of a dilemma if that is the case.

I am not saying that is the case now, but if it turns out to be then we cannot get to this legislation until we have dealt with the youth criminal justice act. That is another piece of legislation about which, despite its inadequacies, we will not be able to learn more until we have had an opportunity to see it in practice.

This bill introduces three new offences and tough sentences that target various degrees of involvement with criminal organizations. That is all well and good. It is appropriate that these new offences be introduced. I look forward to hearing expert testimony on that in committee. Certainly in principle it is a good idea and one that we support.

Protecting people who work in the justice system from intimidation, either against them or their families, is certainly something we would support. However we would go even further, as have other members who have spoken today. We would like to see, or at least have it made clear and explicit in the legislation, that it is not just members of parliament who are protected by the legislation. Provincial ministers of justice, provincial politicians and, as the member from the Bloc said only moments ago, simple politicians, because of various zoning or other questions, may also find themselves in conflict with the interests of criminal gangs.

We may therefore want to look in committee at ways to either broaden the list of those explicitly included or to clarify the definition so it does not just apply to members of parliament.

Simplifying the current definition of criminal organization in the criminal code is another aspect of the bill which seems to be merited. We look forward to hearing more about it in committee.

Broadening the powers of law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of crime, and in particular the profits of criminal organizations, and to seize property used in a crime are things we may well need to put into legislation so that governments have the tools at their disposal to deal more forcefully with organized crime.

An accountable process must be established to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit what would otherwise be considered illegal actions while investigating and infiltrating criminal organizations. That is something I understand from my meetings with the Canadian Police Association earlier this year. I certainly understand the concern of police officers who work undercover in difficult situations and need more freedom to act without worrying about criminal liability. We cannot grant them absolute freedom, of course, so it is a fine line. The minister has attempted in the legislation to define what that line is.

This is something I look forward to discussing in committee because people have expressed concern about where the line is drawn. I understand and appreciate those concerns and yet I am sympathetic to what police officers have requested. We certainly accept the principle of protecting, to some degree, police officers who are engaged in this kind of activity and we look forward to hearing from people on both sides of the issue as to where the line should be drawn.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation has come forward because I myself, some time ago in a previous parliament, brought forward a private member's bill regarding anti-gang measures. It is no secret to people who know something about Winnipeg that it has gang problems in its inner city, not just biker gangs but criminal gangs of various descriptions.

There is a great deal of interest on the part of many citizens of Winnipeg in giving the police and government the appropriate tools with which to deal with these gangs. The Manitoba NDP government is also interested in seeing much tougher measures to deal with gangs.

I will leave it at that. However I cannot resist saying that the government, when it announced in a press release that it was stepping up its fight against organized crime, stated:

The Government will also inject an additional $200 million over the next five years to implement legislation and related prosecution and law enforcement strategies to fight organized crime. This funding will build on the $584 million that the RCMP received in the 2000 budget—

Having had the weekend I have just had, I cannot help but reflect on the kinds of resources used this past weekend in Quebec City to deal with, by and large, peaceful protesters.

I am not talking about the anarchists and the Black Bloc, the people who tried to take down the fence. I am talking about what I was going to call policing but which was, in many respects, gassing, rubber bulleting and water cannoning of people who were not trying to take down the fence or hurl stuff at the police on the other side. Most of those people were simply acting on what they thought were the rules of the game at the summit; that is, as long as they were not trying to break the perimeter and were acting outside the perimeter in a peaceful way, they would be immune from police action.

When I consider the resources that went into the summit, I sometimes wonder, as must many ordinary Canadians, why it is that when one wants a police officer in a hurry one cannot be found but when there is a summit meeting there are 6,000 of them. Where did they all come from?

How many communities were left without police protection over the last several days so that students could have their first experience of tear gas while sitting around singing or standing innocently, or perhaps curiously, looking at the wall?

I apologize for those remarks but I think some people, even some police, must feel that on occasion. I have a great deal of sympathy for police officers in the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec and others who must sometimes wonder why the government is willing to pay so much in overtime and put so many resources into something like that. When police want resources to deal with criminal gangs or people who make life miserable for Canadians in various communities and contexts they cannot get an extra dime out of the government, but by God, just announce there is a protest coming and they get all the equipment and resources they ever wanted.

There is something not quite right here, as far as I am concerned. This legislation is a step in the right direction. We want to see certain things clarified in committee and we look forward to that process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to follow the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, a new member of our justice committee who brings a great deal of credibility to the debate and great oratorical skill to the House of Commons.

Our party, as are I think all parties without exception, will be supporting Bill C-24. It is somewhat of a reincarnation of legislation we saw in the last parliament. It is very important and timely to the process of dealing with the ongoing plague of organized crime in Canada. It will allow police officers and prosecutors, both through legislation and in some instances through increased resources, to combat and turn their undivided attention in some instances to the growing problem of organized crime.

Neil Young sings of rust never sleeping. Well, crime never sleeps. Crime is unfortunately becoming more and more active in many communities and I am not talking only of the big cities. Crime is becoming prevalent in small towns and rural parts of the country.

We are particularly vulnerable in coastal communities, I hasten to add. Sadly, since the disbandment of the ports police in the country that is even more the case. We are seeing an obvious attempt by organized crime to profit from illicit acts of importation, in many instances of contraband materials. I am talking about drugs, which are the chief trade, as well as guns, pornographic and contraband materials brought into the country under the radar of our current law enforcement capacity. One would hope with the greatest optimism that this legislation will help address, at least in part, this very complex problem.

There is a great need for this legislation. The RCMP, who arguably is the most affected by the issue, is I think cautiously optimistic. The new RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli alluded to the fact that organized crime has plans to use bribes to destabilize the country's parliamentary system. That came as a shocking revelation to many when they read it in the newspapers. It raised eyebrows across the country. It demonstrated the profound epidemic of organized crime and the lengths that organized crime will go to on occasion to exert influence, and I am obviously not talking about a positive influence.

That epidemic has for many years been virtually ignored by the current government. It is therefore very encouraging to see it finally recognize the issue and give it a priority after seven years.

On Tuesday, September 12, 2000, the Quebec public security minister, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government to use the notwithstanding clause to outlaw membership in gangs such as the Hells Angels and the Rock Machine. Because such a move might be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, he was urging the government to give at least an indication that it would not hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause.

When it comes to organized crime, one thing everyone understands is that it does not play by the rules. It does not abide by the laws, whereas of course law enforcement, prosecutorial services and the government not only have to put laws in place but stay within the boundaries and confines of those laws, and rightly so. Therefore we are sometimes talking about a distinct disadvantage on the part of our system of enforcement vis-à-vis outlaw gangs. Extraordinary times sometimes call for extraordinary action. That is why, I am sure, the suggestion was made that the notwithstanding clause might be invoked in those circumstances.

The Department of Justice clearly suffers from constitutional constipation at times, I think, from this fear that somehow if a law is made that might be deemed unconstitutional we should refrain from enacting it.

This law will be challenged in our courts, as many laws before it have been challenged. That is part and parcel of the process. In particular, I can guarantee that the legislation that expands police powers will be the subject of numerous court challenges. We can bank on it.

We simply cannot hesitate in or refrain from introducing legislation in the fear that somewhere in the land, whether it be in the Supreme Court of Canada or in some other court, a judge may decide that this is not within the bounds of the constitution. That is part of our judiciary. That is part of the process. I guarantee that this legislation will be challenged, like other legislation has been.

However, when dealing with organized crime and the repercussions of having organized crime go unchecked we sometimes have to make laws that expand the current envelope and go beyond the realm of what has been the normal practice.

While the Quebec minister was expressing these concerns, on the very next day, September 13, the day after the call from the security minister of Quebec, Mr. Michel Auger, a journalist in Montreal with the Journal de Montréal , was shot five times in the back. This was most likely the action of and has been attributed widely to outlaw motorcycle gangs. I am informed that it was likely the act of someone who wanted to join one of the gangs and was part of the movement to get in, to show somehow that this person had what it takes to be involved in this type of activity. They are sometimes the most dangerous, these puppet groups, these individuals who are trying to ingratiate themselves, to earn their patch so to speak. Mr. Auger's fate and the fate of many others who have expressed opposition to organized crime and have raised the spectacle of somehow trying to get this issue under control has been that they have sometimes faced the wrath of the gangs themselves.

Criminal gangs are far-reaching now. They are branching out. As I said in my opening remarks, they are found in communities across the country, whether they be rural or urban. Many Canadians are starting to feel particularly unsafe because of this audacious presence. In the city of Halifax, there are many people who are very concerned. Individuals such as Matt Jardine and others who live in Halifax are concerned about what is happening in their city.

An outlaw motorcycle gang, the Hells Angels, now has its colours flying in radiant lights in front of its clubhouse in the city of Halifax. This is the affront to democracy. It is an affront to policing and the safe, secure feeling that people should have in their communities.

There is a real need for this legislation. Again, it is encouraging that it is being brought forward now. The minister often uses the phrase in a timely fashion, and this has been timely for many years. The time is here and we are encouraged by that.

Organized crime also is becoming very prevalent in many circles where it was traditionally unseen, such as the Internet. The Hells Angels, I am told, have one of the largest Internet sites available. It is information that is now transmitted through cyberspace, not only across this country but across the United States, North America and the world. That is very disturbing. Obviously the ability to transport information can be an extremely positive thing, but organized crime can use it for a very nefarious purpose, so there is certainly a need for legislation in that area at some future time. It is not addressed by this legislation.

The bill has taken on a very broad background, if we will, in terms of what types of organized crime we are dealing with. Eastern bloc European gangs have emerged, such as the traditional Mafiosa-Italian connections, and there are the snakehead organizations, Chinese triads, Oriental groups that are forming gangs and the traditional so-called motorcycle gangs, which are, as I have said, becoming more prevalent.

The Minister of Justice gave repeated assurances to study options for strengthening our current legislation to break the back of organized crime. Although some of those details were not discussed publicly, we do know that attempts were made to introduce legislation in 1997. We see it coming back now in this form. The minister reiterated this in her comments.

I do applaud her. I applaud the minister's initiative in bringing forward this legislation now. It has finally received priority and would allow those administering it, mainly the provinces and the law enforcement community, to attack the issue and to attack the underbelly of these gangs. In particular, this legislation allows for greater use of attacking the proceeds of crime, that is, going after the actual resources of organized crime and taking away the flow of money and the benefits received from illegal acts.

It also very clearly and specifically simplifies the definition and the composition of criminal organizations for purposes in a court. The bill targets various degrees of involvement within organizations, that is, it attaches the type of activity that is deemed to be participation in a criminal organization. Sometimes that is just watching. Sometimes it could be the person working on a dock in Halifax who turns a blind eye to an importation or to a boxcar coming in with illicit contraband material.

The legislation also would make it easier for police and prosecutors to arrest and jail those involved in organized crime and keep them in prison for longer periods of time. There is a greater element of deterrence, both specific and general, at work in the bill for those who choose this path.

The bill would allow law enforcement officials to declare forfeit the proceeds of crime from organizations, to seize the property and to perhaps put that resource back into the community that has been harmed. It allows law enforcement officers to seize things like houses, boats, cars and money and to allow the resource that has been pillaged and raped from a community to go back into it and perhaps benefit it and try to rehabilitate some of the harm that has been done.

The legislation would also strengthen rules protecting against intimidation of witnesses, jurors and their families at organized crime trials. It would strengthen the protection for federal ministers and members of parliament. It would improve protection for law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit certain illicit acts while engaging in undercover operations.

One thing missing from the legislation and which has been pointed out by several members today is that it does not include provincial ministers. I believe that was perhaps a legislative oversight. I am certain it is something that can be corrected at committee.

In particular, the provisions in this bill send a very important signal that the Parliament of Canada is not going to sit back and rest on the laurels of the fine men and women who are currently working in our justice system, but that it is actually going to bolster support for them and enhance their ability to do their job and their ability to protect us, because it is that thin blue line, as it is sometimes called, that the police provide to the citizens of Canada.

We are supportive of the amendments that deal with taking away the proceeds of the crime, taking away the lifeblood. There are very positive amendments to this bill that could be tightened up. Again, hopefully we will have an opportunity to do that in the process.

Of course I mentioned the absence of protection for provincial ministers. There is also perhaps some need to protect journalists in some instances, as we saw with Mr. Auger.

There is a problem with respect to the funding for the legislation. That in and of itself is perhaps its greatest weakness. The legislation has come about, typically, with great fanfare and with announcements made in the press gallery. I think the minister has had her knuckles rapped a little in that regard. The legislation announces $200 million to address this specific problem. That comes as great news to those in law enforcement and was met with great enthusiasm by the commissioner of the RCMP and others.

However, the question, the next natural progression of that, is this: when will the money come? There were references in that very press conference to the earlier announcement of $584 million to the RCMP to upgrade CPIC, to allow for greater resources, to allow for more overtime, to allow for resources and for perhaps greater access to justices of the peace or greater access to informants. They are all important elements of the police task in protecting Canadians.

When will the money arrive? It would be very interesting to hear from the minister or members of the government how much of that $580 million, the earlier announcement, has actually been put into the coffers of the police. I suspect that the same question will be asked of this $200 million in very short order, because they are crying out for those resources. The police are desperately in need of the financial support. It is fine to make the announcement, to give the moral support here, but they need the actual resources and they need them immediately. That is a question that has yet to be answered.

There is a positive starting point here. There is certainly a determined commitment on the part of the government and on the part of all members of parliament. This has affected individual members of parliament. A member of the Bloc found himself in a very unsettling position, I am sure, when he was the subject of threatening actions on the part of an outlaw motorcycle gang.

The limitless resources of the organized criminal element highlight the fact that the police are often left feeling that they are not on a level playing field legislatively because of their limitations within the law. However, they are also under the increased pressure because organized crime has unlimited resources and is essentially using more and better technology than is available to the police. Members of organized crime are watching the watchers. They are using videotape to tape the police to find out who is watching them. They are transmitting information about judges, about prosecutors and about police. They are sharing information about undercover officers. They are using the Internet to its maximum benefit.

This is the brave new era. This is an age wherein we should be giving the police the tools and the technology to fight organized crime on the same level that organized crime is using. Typically we have seen the government try to fix a problem that in some instances it created. I refer to the ports police. There have also been severe cuts to the RCMP in the past number of years. Clearly the RCMP was suffering budgetary restraints when it had to close its training facility in Saskatoon. Clearly when the Canadian Police Information Centre computer system was almost on the verge of collapse without an immediate influx of money, it was symptomatic of underfunding on the part of our national police force. Bill C-24 would not provide this immediate injection of funding.

There are, as I indicated, elements and commitments that we are very supportive of. What we want to see and what we want to diligently pursue is that the funding is actually going to be there. There are clauses in the bill like, for example, clause 27 at page 29, which talks about the definition of criminal organization. It now needs to be composed of three or more persons and the crown now does not need to show that the offences were committed in the previous five years.

Some of the legislation may seem technical and inconsequential to the untrained ear, but this is very important for the crown and for the police working in cohort to secure convictions. We saw a very recent sting operation in the province of Quebec and parts of Ontario that resulted in individuals being rounded up and charged. There are potentially charges there that will not be affected by the introduction of this legislation, but in the future certainly it will help in the successful prosecution of these types of offences.

One problem that I have picked up on is that Bill C-24 fails to make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group already proven to be a criminal organization. Whether or not an organization is criminal would have to be proven in each particular case, that is, it would create needless expense in some instances and a duplication of resources that would prolong many criminal trials.

There is a general consensus that the legislation is positive. Much of the technical examination of the issue came about as a result of the Shirose and Campbell case that dealt with immunity. It dealt with police officers having the ability to infiltrate crime through in some instances buying illicit substances like drugs and participating in questionable conduct themselves to prove allegiance and to prove that they were working with the gang to gain its trust so that they could break it up.

This is something that raises concern among lawyers and privacy protectors. There will be an examination by a court of law to see that it is in proportion, that it is reasonable in the circumstances. These are the types of matters that we could try to fine tune.

It will no doubt result in court challenges and that should be welcomed. Members should embrace that reality. It is our responsibility to make laws and it is the responsibility of the courts to examine and interpret those laws in some cases.

With regard to the intimidation factor, it is very important that there be as broad a definition as possible for who should be protected from intimidation. Trials cannot function if jurists, lawyers, witnesses, and in some instances police, are feeling intimidated. Intimidation and extortion are things that gangs deal in very much. They put fear into the minds of people if they come forward to testify against gang members.

I am hopeful the minister and the government will be open to certain amendments, further examination and strengthening of the legislation. I trust all members would be supporting the bill.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few remarks in support of the legislation. I would like to touch on an issue that my colleague from the Conservative Party raised during his remarks. It has to do with that part of his speech that dealt with the exposure of journalists when they are involved in doing research and writing about biker gangs.

It has a very special chord of relevance for me. During the last election campaign I met a constituent, Yves Lavigne, who wrote the book Hell's Angels at War , the biker gang book. He has written three books actually. Hell's Angels: Taking Care of Business is another one. People like Yves Lavigne have tremendous experience and insight. They think outside the box of normal police forces.

Would it be a good idea for the RCMP or other police forces to use people like Yves Lavigne, who have spent 15 or 20 years of their lives focused on a specific area of organized crime, as consultants to make sure that the police think outside the traditional box and bring these gangs to justice in a more expeditious manner?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very important element which is missing from the legislation itself. I agree that the police should be outsourcing to individuals who have expertise in this area. It is an incredibly overwhelming issue in terms of its complexity and the lengths that organized crime will go to infiltrate legitimate businesses.

Organized crime will seek to undermine the credible people working in the system, whether working directly in justice or as legislators, and to undermine the media who have a role in reporting and making public the activities of organized crime.

I agree that police officers should have within their mandate the ability to engage these individuals for information purposes and for their expertise. The legislation does not provide for the protection of specifically journalists, authors and those who write and have obtained special information that is helpful and relevant to the police.

I am encouraged that the issue is being fleshed out and that we will have an opportunity to correct it to make that additional protection available. Hopefully the spirit of productive debate and study at the committee level will improve this important legislation which he and other members support.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak in favour of Bill C-24. I was pleased to listen to the Minister of Justice and I heard the comments made by members of the opposition who seem to have a full understanding of the issue.

If it is not understood in the Canadian public at large, it is well understood in the House by all parties and all speakers that the scale of organized crime in the country and internationally, the magnitude of the threat that it poses to our society, is something of real urgency. The bill addresses it and needs to be passed quickly and put into force.

I would like to speak about the variety and complexity of the problem internationally as well as to individuals, communities, government and private enterprises in Canada.

Internationally there is more than a trillion dollars a year in earned profits from criminal activity worldwide. The figure is growing every year. It has not been hampered and restricted by deficit cutting that governments around the world have had to undergo through the 1990s. These profits have been soaring. In terms of the critical nature of this threat, former President Clinton identified organized crime as the number one threat to national security in the post cold war world.

The citizens of my constituency, Vancouver Quadra, understand the chilling nature of the threat. It is much broader than just gang wars. It involves the supply of drugs to our schools and children. It involves property crime that is attendant on drug addiction which is fed by organized crime. It involves home invasions and the security of our homes. Ten years ago who in our society had heard the chilling terms of terror such as home invasion, carjacking or drive-by shooting? These are new terms of terror which are directly connected to the scourge of organized crime in society.

In terms of our economy, billions of dollars of laundered money are put into our society which is based on a market economy. It is corrupted by them. They debase the vigour of competition in our market economy and threaten our economic viability.

They also threaten our economic institutions. Corruption and organized criminal activity in scams with respect to banks, credit card fraud, telemarketing fraud, insurance fraud and stock market fraud are all part of the growing expanding scourge of organized criminal activity which is sapping the economic strength of the country as well as the safety of our citizens.

In terms of government agencies themselves, we have had troubling information about the infiltration and corruption of people working in government agencies at all levels in Canada and internationally.

These are major challenges for our society. They require new tools, many of which the bill provides. If we think about how we will apply those tools we have to think carefully about the new nature of criminal organizations.

Criminal organizations working in Canada and around the world are no longer monolithic crime families that are suspicious of each other or competitive with each other against criminal projects for turf. Today criminal activity is conducted in a highly networked, complex, flexible and international fashion. Criminal gangs are no longer fighting for turf with each other although that happens, and we know too sadly of the horrors in Quebec of criminal gang wars. However that is not the typical character of organized criminal activity today.

Organized criminal activity works in networks, works in cells across criminal organizations and across borders to uniquely compose a criminal operation across boundaries, gangs and criminal products. It requires a very special approach from law enforcement agencies which is not our traditional approach. It requires those agencies to be more flexible and more resourced in their response. I will be splitting my time.

I would like to comment on the new tools that are necessary and that are being applied by the bill. Monetary resources are needed for police agencies. Those have been provided for over the last two years with increased budgets and there are projected further injections of financial resources for the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies. That is critical.

The bill presents other tools. There will be stiffer penalties for participation in criminal gang activity and broader definitions of what constitutes criminal gangs and criminal activity. There are very important provisions to create the offence of intimidation of officials in the criminal justice system. It is a critical point of protection that is necessary and overdue.

The expanded definitions and increased ability to seize the proceeds of crime are important in the bill. There must be an ability to seize and forfeit property in a fashion that is efficient, quick and hits at the heart of the enterprise nature of organized crime.

The mandatory reporting provisions for suspicious financial transactions are important. Fifteen billion dollars was estimated as the amount of laundered funds from illegal activities in Canada last year.

I will conclude by addressing specifically the unique and changed nature of organized crime in society. It is flexible and networked. It crosses boundaries and is cross organizational. It is necessary to have an integrated and co-ordinated approach across the collection of criminal intelligence, police operations and prosecution of crime. These have to be working as a seamless whole.

The information and intelligence gathering must not be in a secretive closed chest fashion among competing law enforcement agencies. It must be shared in a mandatory fashion, but it must be secure and centrally analyzed. It must be disseminated on a need to know basis and the success and experience of operations have to be fed back into that intelligence system.

The operations themselves must be joint force operations, drawing across law enforcement agencies for the best and the most appropriate resources that can be uniquely composed and targeted on any particular criminal activity. It should then be shut down, redistributed and refocused on other criminal activity if it is to mimic the flexibility and the networks of criminal organizations themselves.

There must be an effective link to intensive prosecution which the bill and the organized criminal justice policy address. Dedicated legal advice must be present at the very earliest stages of an investigation to deal with the incredible complexity of criminal investigations and prosecutions, laws of disclosure, laws of search and seizure, laws of wiretapping, and laws of proceeds of crime. The best legal advice must be used at the beginning of an investigation right through to an intensive prosecution to make sure those prosecutions are successful.

I repeat that organized crime is an immense threat to society. Its magnitude is overwhelming. The bill needs to be passed as soon as possible.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words with respect to the bill at second reading.

The first thing I want to say is that I applaud the government for its initiative in bringing forward the bill. I believe it is very much needed and, as many of the other speakers have said, it is critical that we bring it forward as soon as possible.

In my brief remarks I cannot possibly deal with all aspects of the bill which has 73 pages and many clauses, but I will say for those who are watching or listening that a piece of legislation like this one contains amendments to an already complex act, the Criminal Code of Canada. It is very difficult when reading a bill like this for one to understand it without proper study because we have to flip from one section to another. We have to read a section as it currently exists to understand why the amendments are being made and how they will benefit society.

I want to focus on two or three particular issues and offer some advice to the justice committee that will be studying the bill. I know the members of the justice committee and that members on all sides of the justice committee are interested and careful members who will give the legislation, as they do other legislation, the consideration it requires.

The legislation requires consideration because, as some other speakers have said, there are a few fine lines here that we have to decide on which side of the line we will come down. From my perspective we should come down on the side of the line that deals with the safety of society as a whole.

With that opening, allow me to remind everyone that the criminal code was developed many years ago, long before there were telephones, never mind cellphones; long before there were international drug cartels; long before there were automobiles; long before there were airplanes; and certainly long before there were motorcycles.

It is a problem with law that it is often difficult for the law to catch up with the criminal. The criminal mind is able to come up with solutions on how to beat the law faster than we can come up with how to avoid crossing the constitution but at the same time making sure we protect society.

The bill is a valiant attempt to do that, but we must remember that the criminal element is always moving, is always working to try to beat us at our own game. We cannot allow legislation like this to be stalled year after year in debate or stalled for other purposes because we need to combat this type of crime as quickly as we can.

When I heard that the government had announced the legislation I was having coffee and watching a morning news program. Immediately there was a person on the screen, a lawyer, who criticized some portion of the legislation. In particular, she criticized the fact that it could be that three people would be deemed to be a criminal organization. I said to myself yes, so what. I could not understand the criticism. If three people decide to conspire to commit a series of offences, that is a criminal organization. What is the problem? Why would the lawyer be upset about that?

I went specifically to the legislation and on page 29 is the clause that deals with the definition of a criminal organization. As we must all remember in this place, we must never rely on the television. We must never rely on newspaper reports. We must rely on our own eyes examining what the legislation says. This is what it says:

“criminal organization” means a group, however organized, that is composed of three or more persons and that has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences—

By the way, serious offence is deemed to be an offence for which a person can receive a punishment of five years in prison or more. It is a fairly serious offence. It continues:

—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 stop there. It goes on to say:

It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.

It is not a criminal organization if three or four young people get together, decide they want some chocolate bars, knock over a local convenience store and grab a few boxes of chocolate bars. It is specifically exempted in fact from the section.

A criminal organization is three or more people getting together and conspiring to commit serious offences for their own personal gain. I cannot understand why anyone would criticize that section, and I want to put that on record.

I also commend the government on consecutive sentencing, which in some circumstances is a touchy issue. Private members' bills have dealt with consecutive sentencing, which has caused some problems on the floor of the House among the parties and individual members.

The government has specifically provided that the sentences received for certain offences committed by people who conspire in these organizations will be served consecutively to any other sentence they may receive for the particular offence.

I will give an example. Five people decide to become bank robbers and commit a series of bank robberies. Each of those bank robberies is an individual offence. It is also a criminal organization because there are five of them. They got together and decided to commit serious criminal offences.

When they are caught and convicted they may very well be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the bank robbery or bank robberies. In addition, if they are convicted under the criminal conspiracy provisions in the bill of being an organized gang, they will receive the term in addition to and on top of the bank robbery convictions. They would not be served at the same time but consecutively. I think this is the correct approach. It is the right approach and I commend the government for bringing it in.

As well, there are certain provisions of the criminal code which provide that for certain heinous offences prisoners must serve a minimum of one-half of their sentences before they become eligible for parole. There is a list of those offences in the criminal code.

I commend the government for ensuring that the commission of an offence under this act is one of those. If people are convicted of certain offences, either helping to commit the offence or being part of the offence itself while it takes place, then a conviction and a sentence will require offenders to serve at least one-half the time they have been sentenced to before they become eligible for consideration for parole.

I think this is a good thing. It is important. It sends a message that society views these crimes as serious. We intend to make sure that the time is served to the extent that at least half the sentence will be served before the prisoner becomes eligible for parole.

The final point I want to talk about in the brief time I have is forfeiture of property. We already have forfeiture of property. I draw to the attention of the justice committee subsection 462.37(2) in which the judge is allowed to seize property which is not necessarily directly from the crime but can be inferred as being from the crime or crimes.

The problem is the judge must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that is entirely too high a burden to put on the crown and on the people of Canada. I would ask that the justice committee consider amending it so that if the judge is satisfied on a balance of probabilities the property can be forfeited.

I appreciate the opportunity to give my two cents worth prior to consideration of the bill by the justice committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code respecting organized crime and law enforcement and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill has two main purposes: first, to provide new tools in the fight against organized crime; and, second, to respond to the 1999 supreme court decision in R. v Campbell and Shirose, which put in doubt the ability of police and police informants to break the law as part of undercover operations aimed at penetrating criminal organizations.

After years of the Reform Party of Canada, now the Canadian Alliance, fighting for tougher laws to help combat gangs and other criminal organizations, the federal Liberals have finally introduced some of the legislation we have been calling for. The fact is that the weak Liberal government lacks the political will to get tough on crime, particularly on organized crime.

It has introduced this legislation because of intense pressure from the official opposition and other opposition parties and because of the pressure from police and the public in general. Combating organized crime was part of the detailed justice platform released during the election campaign by the Canadian Alliance.

The penetration of organized crime into Canadian society is a very serious matter. Criminals move from jurisdictions with strong controls to jurisdictions with weak or no controls. This criminal activity undermines Canada's financial and social systems and increases the power and influence of illegal businesses.

A staggering variety of activities such as extortion, home invasion, murder, theft, drugs and arms trafficking, counterfeit currency and passports, migrant smuggling, prostitution, Mafia, casino and lottery frauds are additional costs to society at the expense of the taxpayer and at the expense of our future. These activities make our streets unsafe.

We in Canada are also concerned that the privacy of Canadian citizens could be unreasonably invaded. There should be sufficient protection and the freedom of law-abiding citizens should be preserved. The loopholes in the system and the law are not plugged in Canada. That is the main problem. Canada is a candy store for these criminals. Unfortunately criminals have the motivation to come to Canada and commit crimes because they consider Canada to be a crime haven.

The blurred vision of the Liberals has caused the dismantling of Vancouver port police. Everyone knows that. This makes the port a gateway for the importation of drugs and narcotics. It opens up the way for criminals and makes their jobs easier rather than tougher. It is a shame that the Liberal government gives international organized criminals VIP treatment while those same criminals, according to the Immigration Act, are supposed to be inadmissible to Canada.

I remember when I was on the immigration and citizenship committee that we introduced a motion to study fraud and criminal activities under the Immigration Act not for general immigrants but for illegitimate and criminal elements coming to the country. Liberal members refused that motion.

Previous legislative attempts to deal with the problem have been ineffective. Bill C-95 did not go far enough in providing the tools needed for the law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime.

Years ago, perhaps in the early 1980s, the government of the day not only ignored the recommendations of the law enforcement agencies but it even refused to acknowledge the existence of organized criminal activities in Canada. Since that time organized crime has significantly increased. Canada has now become a global centre and a haven for organized crime because of its laws.

Whatever the government does now it is too late and too little. The criminals are lightyears ahead of the law enforcement agencies. They have more resources, more money and better state of the art technology while the agencies on the other side even lack the law with tooth and are struggling to maintain yesterday's technology.

A Liberal dominated subcommittee of the justice standing committee on organized crime held in camera hearings on the problem and issued its report just prior to the dissolution of the House. I will talk about that report in a short while.

I also want to mention that I represented the official opposition as a member of the subcommittee on organized crime. Since the hearings were in camera I will not go into detail but will talk about some of the issues that are in the public domain.

It is sad that the recommendations of the subcommittee were not fully implemented through this bill. Even though the committee was a Liberal dominated committee, the bill of course would enhance the fight against organized crime, though not enough, and should not be delayed unduly.

I will now talk about the main features of the bill. There will be longer consecutive sentences for gang activity: up to five years for participating in a criminal organization; 14 years for carrying out indictable offences for the benefit of a criminal organization; and life for being the leader of a criminal organization.

A new definition of a criminal organization would be: only three members required instead of the current five; there is no need to prove that members participated in indictable offences in the five years preceding prosecution and providing that, in addition to indictable offences punishable by five years or more, offences can be prescribed as serious offences.

It is stated that the intention is to cover offences, such as prostitution and gambling, that are controlled by organized crime.

Another point is the protection of justice system participants. Threatening a judge, prosecutor, juror, et cetera, or a member of their family would be punishable by up to 14 years and murdering a justice system participant would be first degree murder.

The next point concerns police immunity. The solicitor general responsible for the RCMP or provincial ministers responsible for the police will be able to designate officers who may, in the course of an investigation, commit offences other than offences causing bodily harm, obstructing justice or sexual offences.

Forfeiture of property would apply to all property used in committing a crime rather than just property especially built to carry out the crime. Judges will have to determine whether the forfeiture is appropriate given the nature of the crime. Presumably a house may not be forfeited if five marijuana plants are found in it but it could be if 500 or 5,000 plants are found in it.

There are still many significant deficiencies in the bill that require further address or amendments. Even many recommendations of the subcommittee have not been addressed in the legislation. I was a member of that committee and it was a Liberal dominated committee.

There are maybe 10 points I want to mention. The relevant elements of existing legislation, resources, investigative and prosecutorial practices, should be deployed to their fullest potential and effective strategy to fill any gaps should have been developed and addressed in the legislation. The committee was concerned about it and it made very clear recommendations about it.

The criminal code should have been amended so that all its provisions related to organized crime activities could have been brought together in a specific part to be entitled enterprise crime, designated drug offences, criminal organizations and money laundering. This recommendation was not followed.

The criminal code should have been amended to allow for the designation of criminal organization offenders in a manner similar to that applicable of dangerous offenders and long term offenders provided for at section 752. This would allow, at the sentencing stage, after a conviction has been obtained, for the imposition of imprisonment for an intermediate period or for long term supervision in the community after a sentence of up to 10 years. The recommendation was not followed.

Section 184 and following the criminal code dealing with judicially authorized audio and video surveillance should have been amended to increase in non-criminal organization offences from 60 days to at least a 120 day period for which such activities could be authorized and renewed. This particular recommendation is very important if the Liberals were to listen to Canadians, to the Canadian Police Association and to front line police officers who are dealing with organized criminals. When police officers need to obtain a particular warrant they have to write about a thousand pages. A lot of work has to be done to obtain a warrant.

Once a warrant has been obtained it is valid for only 60 days, whereas the criminal activity continues for months and years probably. They then have to go back and do all the paper work again in order to obtain a warrant for wiretapping or other things. The recommendation is very important and I hope the justice minister will follow through with it. Since we are debating the bill for the first time, the government has lots of opportunity if it is sincerely listening to this.

The provisions of part VI of the criminal code should have been reviewed and amended so as to streamline and simplify the requirements and practices involved in the judicial approval and renewal of audio and video surveillance as a law enforcement investigative strategy. This recommendation was not followed.

Section 743.6(1.1) of the criminal code should have been amended to allow sentencing judges to order that offenders serve full sentences instead of half the sentences currently served, of incarceration without any form of conditional release in cases where there is evidence that a convicted person committed an offence to the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization.

The criminal code should have been amended so that there was a reverse onus placed on a person convicted of an enterprise crime, a designated substance offence, a criminal organization offence or money laundering whose assets have been seized, to prove that these assets have not been acquired or increased in value as the result of criminal activity. There should be a reverse onus on the criminal rather than on law enforcement agencies to prove that. This is a very important recommendation.

If the convicted person were unable to discharge the burden of proof, as I mentioned, to the satisfaction of the court, these assets should be declared to be forfeited. This recommendation was not followed through.

The Canada Evidence Act should have been amended to codify and simplify the rules related to disclosure. The disclosure rules are so vague that jurisdictions in foreign countries refuse to co-operate with Canadian law enforcement agencies because of our stupid and ineffective disclosure laws.

The human resources expertise and technology levels should be sufficient to effectively combat organized crime. Unfortunately the funding announced by the justice minister today providing only $200 million over five years does not appear adequate and does not come close to the amount needed for frontline law enforcement officials to do their job effectively.

The funds allocated on a yearly basis would not significantly enhance police or prosecution resources when we consider that a relatively simple prosecution could cost as much as $10 million. Those resources are inadequate.

A national tactical co-ordinating committee should have been established to promote the exchange of information and sharing of experiences among field operators in order to fight organized crime. This recommendation made by the subcommittee on organized crime was not followed through again.

Because of lenient disclosure laws in Canada, as I mentioned earlier, law enforcement agencies from other countries refuse to share sensitive information with their Canadian counterparts on organized criminals operating in their country. This jeopardizes our efforts to combat crime and demoralizes our frontline officers.

One of the most disturbing features of the legislation is its failure to make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group already proven to be a criminal organization in Canada. Contrary to the justice minister's suggestions, this provision does not make participation or membership in a criminal organization illegal unless it can be proven that the person had the intention to facilitate illegal transactions for that organization.

The fact that an organization is a criminal organization would have to be proven in each particular case that goes before the court resulting in needless duplication of resources, expertise and prolonged criminal trials.

The bill fails to adequately protect other key players in the fight against crime. In particular, provincial justice ministers, MLAs, MNAs, MPPs are not granted the same level of protection as federal parliamentarians, despite the fact that they are directly responsible for the enforcement of these provisions. They need to implement the law.

We all know the case of Michel Auger who had the courage to stand up against crime and other journalists who were not given protection.

In conclusion, I urge the government to make the legislation tougher, to provide more resources to police and to encourage the aggressive use of the new tools.

In particular, the recommendations of the subcommittee, regarding forfeitures, wire tapping and serving full sentences, have not been addressed or have only been partially met. Therefore, I hope the justice minister will be open to considering amendments that would further streamline the Canadian justice system and would offer Canadians a greater measure of security through the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take the floor for the first time since we got back from parliamentary recess and to congratulate my colleague from the Canadian Alliance for his speech which may have contained more nuances and perhaps more rigour, more severity than the Bloc Quebecois.

Like the Bloc, which has been fighting for this for a long time, the Canadian Alliance has long been calling for the federal government to develop some backbone in this matter and to turn out a bill that would, once and for all, make association with a biker gang or other organized criminal group an illegal act. This we have been calling for on a number of occasions.

There are two points I picked up on in my colleague's speech. First of all, he stated clearly that the bill we are examining today does not go far enough, particularly on the legislative level. My colleague clearly stated that this bill, which will inevitably become law, did not provide the legislative means to really fight organized crime in Quebec and in Canada.

So, we have lack of legislative tools, and then my colleague went on to speak of an obvious lack of financial resources. He would like to see this co-operation between the provinces and the federal government made possible and would like to see the police forces with sufficient financial resources to achieve the objectives set out in the bill, not only in principle but with the bottom line of really battling organized crime in Quebec and in Canada.

To a certain extent, what my colleague says is that the principles, the provisions of the law and the financial resources do not allow it to achieve these objectives.

Another aspect is the right of association and the right to belong to a criminal organization, which would not be an offence, according to him.

Could my colleague clarify these two aspects of his speech?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members in the House and the people who are watching this debate are concerned about organized crime in Canada. Organized crime is a hidden crime. Many times people do not know what is happening behind the scenes because organized crime is low profile. Illegal and criminal activities happen yet the public does not know about them because there are no means for the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies to follow them and they go unnoticed.

When I was talking to a frontline police officer, I was surprised when she said that even if there were 10 clear leads on organized crime, they did not have enough resources to follow one of the leads. It is very disturbing when law enforcement agencies say that.

I do not think the hon. members of the House are proud about this issue. The progress we have made on organized crime is very little. The reason is the lack of political will by our federal government and the lack of co-operation with the provincial governments. The government believes in a confrontational approach with the provinces rather than a co-operational approach. We should probably do everything we can within our limits to be effective in controlling organized crime.

In a nutshell, the recommendations which I put forward earlier are very serious recommendations. This is not a partisan issue. We are not talking politics here. We are not looking through the lens of politics. We are looking through the lens of issues. It is very important for the future of Canadians. Our national security rests with the legislation we are passing to effectively control organized criminal activities.

We do not want Canada to be a haven for organized criminals to conduct their criminal activities. Therefore, as legislators we have to form the legislation with those tools which are effective and which give the law enforcement agencies all the facilities, tools and resources they need to effectively control organized crime.