Debates of March 10th, 2005

Supply

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hochelaga.

I want to thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for this motion, which raises awareness of the extreme importance of the issue we are debating today. This issue deals with reversing the burden of proof for criminals who have been found guilty.

I must say at the outset that I am a lawyer and that I practised criminal law as defence counsel. Therefore, I have a very good understanding of this issue, which has been a sensitive issue in the organized crime community for a very long time.

The Bloc Québécois has put a lot of pressure and made numerous requests to bring the federal government to pass legislation to fight organized crime, which has been present in our country for way too long. In Quebec, in particular, we saw unfortunate events, horrible events, that made the public realize that enough was enough and we had to put a stop to that. That is why Bill C-24, amending the Criminal Code, was brought forward and passed. Then there was section 426.3 of the Criminal Code. I will not go into any details, but many of my colleagues and myself have made arguments under this section on several occasions, saying that it was incumbent upon the Crown to demonstrate that the offence was linked to organized crime. It was indeed quite a burden.

Not only was it necessary to demonstrate the individual's guilt with regard to the evidence against him and the crimes of which he or she was accused, but the Crown also had to prove that the assets obtained were linked to organized crime, which meant that there was a direct connection between these assets and the offence for which a guilty verdict was rendered. The burden of proof was very difficult for the Crown in those cases.

We believe that this is a very good bill, which should be brought before Parliament, and that this motion should be expedited so as to put an end to the Crown's obligation to assume a burden which, quite often, is very heavy. Especially since the motion tabled by my colleague, which I invite the House to adopt unanimously, is recommended by all the attorneys general of Canada and the justice ministers of all the provinces, including Quebec. We believe that the Minister of Justice of Canada would be well advised to table a bill on this subject promptly. That is why we are proposing this motion today.

I want to stress that the motion and the bill that might result from it are closely related to the offences of organized crime. Obviously we could not ask to have it apply to all crimes. It has to be related to organized crime.

I would draw attention to the fact that organized crime does not simply mean crimes committed by motorcycle gangs or groups of that ilk. Very often a criminal organization is very very difficult to dismantle.

A criminal organization, within the meaning of the Criminal Code, is three persons who together facilitate or commit criminal offences. So this must be demonstrated before one can say that a person is charged with organized crime. Quite often, alas, the Crown withdraws that charge because it had or will have difficulties proving the link between the three individuals, the link they would have had to commit the crimes.

Now, quite often, when the Crown manages to prove that these persons have committed crimes and so form a criminal group within the meaning of the Criminal Code, the assets seized—since very often a huge amount will be seized—must on a balance of probabilities constitute proceeds of crime obtained in connection with that designated offence. Hence this is a burden of proof that is extremely difficult, if not almost impossible very often, for the Crown to demonstrate.

The objective of this motion is to force the government to table a bill to stamp out organized crime and in particular money laundering. I emphasize that an individual who is found guilty and convicted will not be at the end of his pains, for he will have to demonstrate to the court that these assets were acquired legitimately.

Allow me to emphasize this. It is not the purpose of this motion and this bill to limit the presumption of innocence, which is extremely important. In our criminal law in Canada and Quebec, anyone appearing before the court is presumed innocent until the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime with which he is charged.

So this motion, which I hope will lead to a bill, would have the proposed reversal of the burden of proof apply only once the accused has been found guilty of a criminal offence. It is very important that this take place only at the sentencing stage, so that it does not violate the principle of presumption of innocence. Of course, I am offering you the example of a case that occurred recently right here in the Outaouais region, in spring 2001. Individuals were arrested all across Quebec, who were suspected of being members of an organized gang—what we call it is not important—whose seized assets were valued in the tens of millions of dollars.

The bill we want to see introduced in Parliament by our Minister of Justice would ensure that, once found guilty, the accused could no longer benefit from being presumed innocent because they have been found guilty. The burden of proof will be reversed and they will have to demonstrate that their assets that have been seized were not obtained with drug money, for instance.

That is what we could have used in the cases or events that have come up since 2001. However, the Crown has used plea bargaining to make sure individuals plead guilty, saying, “If you plead guilty to this offence, we will drop the gangsterism charge and allow you to recover some of your property”. Under the current motion and the resulting bill, this would be impossible. The onus will rest entirely on the individual.

I will conclude by saying that when the bill is passed—which I hope will happen as soon as possible—I call on Parliament and Canada, through its Minister of Justice and international relations, to tell the world that we have joined Australia, Austria, France, New Zealand, Germany and the United Kingdom in sending a message to criminals, “Be careful, if you want to do business in Canada, you will pay a high price”.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great challenges we face, as an extension of this argument, is what to do with the movement of moneys across borders. The movement of moneys that are garnered from illegal means through drugs and other illegal activities, especially by organized crime, is an incredible destabilizing element in our world and in our country. It goes to the heart of a number of problems, everything from terrorism to small time criminal activity.

It is one of the greatest challenges with which we have to grapple. I know the international community is working on this right now, but I would appreciate the hon. member's solutions as an extension of the supply day motion from the Bloc.

Where do we go? What solutions does he have to offer on how we can put more transparency into the movement of moneys across boundaries and borders? How do we manage to give the police the tools? What tools would he recommend, which would enable police and international law enforcement officers to track illegal moneys that move around the world, which are an incredible destabilizing factor in our world today?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Two things. First, if the money is here in Canada and there is evidence it was earned—if I may use the expression earned—through crime, I personally believe this money should come under the framework of the bill and be seized. Second, those who have this money, in bank accounts or elsewhere, should be asked to demonstrate to the court that it was not used in or come from organized crime or criminal activities.

Internationally speaking, with Interpol throughout the world and with today's telecommunications and communication, we think there are ways of tracking money transfers. Canada will have to exert pressure to have this money seized, no matter where it is found, by virtue of it coming from an offence committed in Canada. However, I invite you and Parliament to take the first step by introducing this bill so that we can pass it. We will reverse the burden of proof and then we will go to the next step.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to hear my colleague, who is very able and experienced in these matters, explain all this to us. However, we must keep in mind that not everybody has studied law. Everybody is not a lawyer. In this respect, I want to make sure that I have fully understood my colleague.

When he talks about reversing the burden of proof, this is well after conviction. That means that the criminal has been found guilty and convicted. It is then that he has to prove that the assets he has in his possession have not been acquired with the proceeds of the crime.

The general public always find it scandalous that notorious criminals spend a few months in jail, and then recover the proceeds of their crimes and lead the good life. Those are questions raised in the general public.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my honourable colleague for Champlain, and the answer is unambiguous. Indeed, in Canada, a sacrosanct principle obtains: nobody can be found guilty of a crime unless he has had a fair trial, and his guilt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. In the case of interest to us, the accused must have been found guilty.

Here is an example I have been personally involved in; it happened in spring 2001. Houses, snowmobiles, planes, off-road recreational vehicles were seized. According to the bill that will be introduced, when the accused has been found guilty, at sentencing, he has to prove that the seized assets have not been acquired by criminal means. That is the answer. It comes after conviction.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the Bloc's justice critic for introducing this motion and working so diligently to ensure that it reflects the wishes of all the parties in the House.

I must say that, in the history of the Bloc Québécois, the effective and intelligent struggle is constitutional, as our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue has demonstrated. It must be said right away—and I will return to this as well—that it is a matter not just of an effective and intelligent fight against organized crime but of a fight that should be consistent with the constitutional guarantees, of which, at the top of the list, may be found the right to be presumed innocent, with all that implies in procedural terms, as the Supreme Court did.

I was saying that, in the history of the Bloc Québécois, we were able—whether it was my old colleague, Michel Bellehumeur, or other colleagues, such as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—to take an interest very early in the history of our party in the struggle against organized crime. We will all recall that very publicly. Of course, people a little older than I will no doubt remember the CIOC. There was a bit of a lull in public opinion. However, what catalyzed a heightened awareness of the extent to which organized crime was threatening our communities was certainly the car bomb attack on August 9, 1995, ten years ago already, in Adam St. in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, killing young Daniel Desrochers. We know that this meaningless attack was related to a motorcycle gang war, in which there had been 147 deaths and 150 attempted murders.

These were important issues in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and even 2000. They were so important, in fact, that the Bloc Québécois devoted one of its opposition days in 2000 to the formation of a special committee of the Standing Committee on Justice, on which I sat along with Mr. Michel Bellehumeur, who has been elevated to the bench. We are all familiar with his talent and persistence. At the time, 13 recommendations were made, all related to the issue of gangs.

My colleague just recalled Bill C-24, but we must first remember that it took three years before we got an anti-gang law. I must say that the Bloc Québécois played an extremely important part in this. The first anti-gang act, which had been Bill C-95, did not work. Why not? Because five people who had committed five crimes punishable by five years in prison, in other words serious crimes, were needed.

Law enforcement agencies were telling us that in the branches in 1995, 1996, 1997, there were, for the Hell's Angels for example, 38 chapters in Canada. Young people with no criminal record were being recruited. It was clear that the organized crime offence in the Criminal Code could not be used.

There were all kinds of provisions. In fact, about a dozen laws had been passed to fight organized crime. Among others, there was a witness protection program. In addition, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—he will correct me if I am wrong—had sent a message to the Association of Chiefs of Police. He had introduced a bill to withdraw the $1,000 bill. If I recall correctly, it was in early 2000, 2001, 2002.

[An hon. member]

It was in the late 1990s.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It was in the late 1990s. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles does not age, so this is why my dates are a little off.

All this to say that the witness protection program was improved and the $1,000 bill was eliminated. Also—and this is very important—warrants for electronic surveillance, which used to be valid for 30 days, and then 90 days, may now be valid for up to a year. However, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was well advised, because there is a tool missing in the criminal process, the trials and the fight against organized crime, and not just biker gangs. That tool is the reversal of the burden of proof.

We want to add the reversal of the burden of proof, once an accused has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as provided by the law.

The hon. member who spoke before me could certainly have referred to the Collins case. A number of rulings were made on what jeopardizes the fairness of a trial. It is clear that the presumption of innocence must be protected, otherwise the administration of justice could be flawed and even lead to the rejection of the evidence gathered by police forces, under subsection 24(2).

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles does not want that. He wants the conviction to be solidly established. What he is proposing is that once the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Crown would make the necessary demonstration regarding offence-related assets.

Let us take the example of an individual accused of second degree murder. A trial is held, all the rules guaranteeing a fair trial are respected and a guilty verdict is rendered once both sides have made their case. At that point, how the assets were obtained must be established. It is only then that the reversal of the burden of proof will occur.

This will be an extremely useful tool. Law enforcement organizations should be very pleased with today's debate.

I will not hesitate to admit that I had two mentors in my process of learning about organized crime. In 1995 I was a thirty-something rookie with two years in the House. I had never had any interest in organized crime. Obviously, I had never followed the issues addressed by the inquiry into organized crime, CECO, and all that.

When I did need to know about such matters, I had two mentors. The first was Mr. Ouellette of the SQ, who is a leading expert and now trains others. He told me what a ridiculous situation ensued when people were seen to be involved in transnational drug trafficking, and were multimillionaires with mansions, yachts and goodness knows what else, in short living the good life yet claiming incomes of $8,00, $9,000 or $10,000.

Hon. members will understand the importance of allowing the accused to prove how the crime-related assets have been acquired, once an offence has been proven. This will, understandably, be of great use for investigations, court proceedings and even determining the main offence.

That is what we are dealing with today. I would not like people to think at the end of the day that there is any threat to constitutional guarantees. No one in this House, least of all the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who is a lawyer, wants to do anything to challenge principles as solidly entrenched as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This will be a balance added to what was concluded by the Supreme Court in 1991 with its judgment in Stinchcombe. This has resulted in imbalances. There were no rules prior to Stinchcombe, and after Stinchcombe, all evidence had to be revealed. This means that a police officer had to produce during the trial the notes he had written on a notepad. The department had to disclose the entire body of evidence, whether it tended to accuse or exonerate, and whether it was closely or very tenuously linked to the offence and the charge.

Hon. members will understand how hard it was for public defenders to comply with Stinchcombe, particularly in cases involving shadowing or informants, or in lengthy investigations lasting three, four or five years.

I hope that all the members in this House will adopt this measure, which is constitutional, balanced, effective and intelligent.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to expand on the comments that were made earlier and also on the comments made by the hon. member for the Bloc Québécois who has done a lot of work on the issue of substance abuse. The Conservative member from Port Moody has also done a lot of work on this as well.

I want to expand this debate to two issues that are important to Canadians. They involve the drugs ecstasy and crystal meth. In my province of British Columbia and some other provinces as well, pot is tied intimately to the drug trade along with cocaine and heroin. There are two other substances that are being produced with quite dramatic effects and they are ecstasy, and the much more potent and dangerous substance crystal methamphetamine which is also extremely addictive. Young people are being drawn into the sex trade in part because they want to trade sex for crystal meth.

How do we deal with this? All of this is intimately entwined with organized crime, which as I mentioned before, acquires some 85% of its profits from drug trafficking and, in particular, pot. The groups mostly involved in this are organized crime gangs, particularly biker gangs, and in the province of British Columbia, Vietnamese crime gangs.

What does the hon. member suggest we could do to give our police the tools they need to deal with the crisis that is taking place right now with respect to crystal meth and MDMA, or ecstasy?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have before me an article I wrote in 2001—not that I want to quote myself, but these are the figures I have before me—demonstrating that at that time illegal drug sales in Canada had a value of $10 billion. Thus, the hon. member is correct in pointing out that the cornerstone of organized crime in modern countries, including Canada, is, of course, narcotics.

Obviously, the question the comes to mind is the following is the prohibitionist system in place since 1909 in Canada the best way to effectively fight drug abuse? In the case of marijuana, there is a special committee looking at these issues. In the case of ecstasy, it is less well known. Nevertheless, I share the hon. member's concerns. I know that ecstasy is especially popular at raves. In addition, it is known that ecstasy can cause very serious breakdowns in its users.

Therefore, with respect to the motion by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who asked what we can do to help the police be more effective in their investigations, I am of the opinion that reversal of the burden of proof is necessary in the case of serious crimes, once the accused is found guilty. That is certainly one tool that all law enforcement agencies should support. Therefore, it should be appreciated greatly by law enforcement agencies in Canada. I am hopeful that the vote on this motion will be unanimous.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech by my colleague who, in fact, in the course of his duties as an MP, experienced some very tragic consequences of organized criminal activities, as we heard when he recounted the totally unjustified death of a young boy in his riding. However, to his credit, the fact that this event raised his awareness is also due to his legal training.

Could he tell me if, in fact, a motion such as the one before us today would not constitute a concrete example of the Bloc Québécois' contribution to today's debate in the House? Often we are told, especially by the opposing parties, “The Bloc is useless”. So, now, would this not be concrete proof, in the form of a motion by the Bloc and a resulting commitment by the government to introduce legislation within two months' time, that such action produces concrete results just like many other initiatives against organized crime?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very relevant question, as are all the questions my colleague is raising.

It is true that there are some advantages to the British parliamentary system. Naturally, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois—and I say this with a total lack of partisanship—is the primary political force in Quebec. However, in our parliamentary system, the role of the opposition is to improve the government. As we can all imagine, this is a full-time job. We are exhausted when we leave here.

I must say that the government appreciates the Bloc's vigilance. Organized crime has never been a partisan issue in the House, but it should be said that the Bloc has been extremely vigilant in this regard.

Initially, the government believed it could fight organized crime with just the Criminal Code provisions on criminal conspiracy. It needed a little push to take further action. The Bloc was there. I am pleased to note that this is not a partisan issue, but that the Bloc Québécois has shown historic leadership in this area.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary East.

I am pleased to rise today in support of the motion brought forward by my colleague, the hon. justice critic for the Bloc. I have had an opportunity to work with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents. He also has a keen interest in this topic.

The motion, which calls on the government to take some action to help combat organized crime, I think is an excellent one. It is one which makes a lot of sense. It will have a real impact on criminal organizations' ability to conduct and to continue to sustain themselves after one of their members has been convicted of a serious criminal offence.

All too often we have seen with the theft of automobiles, with large grow operations, and with other illicit criminal activities that individuals are arrested for their offences, are tried and are convicted in a court of law, but our Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the persons are guilty of their offences. We have a system that I feel is too lax. We do not have truth in sentencing. Our statutory release system allows people back on to the streets far too easily. Oftentimes criminals, even those convicted of serious offences, do not serve their time in prison but receive conditional sentences where they serve their time in the community. They are back on the street and back in action quite quickly.

The only way to really impact on people's livelihood and to curb their activities is to hit them in the wallet. This is what the motion would do if the government acts. Our party has consistently called for measures to crack down on organized crime. This motion will go a long way toward doing that.

It is important to note the extent of collaboration now within and among criminal groups. It has broadened greatly in recent years. We hear about the networking that takes place in prison for example between members of the traditional Mafia and the Hell's Angels. Organized crime is a serious problem in Canada. Oftentimes Canadians going about their everyday lives do not realize the extent of the problem.

The main motivator for organized criminals is to raise money to fund their lifestyle. They take money from Canadian citizens illicitly to fund their own criminal activities and their illegal lifestyle. Organized crime has expanded so broadly and has enabled criminal organizations to fund themselves. Our police cannot keep up with the situation.

Antonio Nicaso, a well-known organized crime specialist and author, has said that Canada has become one of the world's most important centres for global crime syndicates in part because our federal regulations and laws do not give the police the tools they need to fight them. This is an all too often recurring theme. Our frontline police officers struggle to maintain existing technology and are unable to adapt to new and emerging technologies because of insufficient funding and weak laws.

It is funding and weak laws that enable organized crime to flourish and to have the very best of technology, state of the art technology and access to millions of dollars derived from illegal activities. I might add that people involved in organized crime are able to bankroll the very best legal defence to keep themselves out of jail and put themselves back on the street as soon as possible.

Canadians are justifiably upset to see criminals treated with kid gloves and to see convicted criminals avoiding real consequences for their illicit activities.

As I mentioned before, when it comes to organized crime, the only way to really make an impact and to curb this activity is to hit individuals in their wallets.

My colleague from the Bloc is proposing a motion that would require the government to introduce a bill by May 3, 2005 to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof as regards proceeds of crime. This change would require the accused, once found guilty, and we are talking about a convicted individual, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that his or her assets were not obtained using the proceeds of his or her criminal activities.

This motion, someone said to me, would break the kneecaps, so to speak, on the legs of organized crime. That is what we want to do. We want to prevent organized crime from flourishing and from continuing to carry on even after some of its members are convicted. There are numerous legal precedents for such a provision in other jurisdictions, for example, Australia, Austria, France, Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland and Great Britain.

In 2003 the OECD's financial action task force on money laundering made 40 recommendations to fight money laundering and organized crime. I will quote one suggestion:

Countries may consider adopting measures that allow such proceeds or instrumentalities to be confiscated without requiring a criminal conviction, or which require an offender to demonstrate the lawful origin of the property alleged to be liable to confiscation, to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of their domestic law.

On the issue of these provisions being consistent with Canadian domestic law, that is, their constitutionality, I believe there are no significant concerns that cannot be addressed by this Parliament.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms outlines the right to a presumption of innocence. This has been interpreted by the courts as requiring the burden of proof in a criminal case to rest with the crown.

The courts have established a test to determine the constitutionality of any given reverse onus provision that states that where an impugned reversed onus provision makes it possible to convict, despite the existence of a reasonable doubt, the courts will find a violation of the charter. However, there are often other factors that balance that violation, such as the overriding importance of curbing the crime at stake.

For example, in the Downey case, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a provision that automatically assumes that a person living with a prostitute is guilty of living on the avails of prostitution unless he or she can prove otherwise. The objective of ending the problem of pimping was of sufficient importance to override the violation.

Similarly in the Peck case, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that a provision which automatically deems it to be an offence to refuse to provide a breath sample without reasonable excuse was acceptable because of the overriding importance of maintaining highway safety and eliminating impaired driving.

Clearly the importance of combating organized crime would be a significant factor in upholding the law that this motion proposes.

Most important, the fact is the reverse onus clause suggested here does not touch on an essential element of the offence, but rather is part of the sentencing. Therefore, the reverse onus provision does not impinge on the individual's liberty rights, but rather his or her property rights once the individual has already been convicted of a serious criminal offence.

The constitutionality of these provisions should be upheld by the courts. We have every reason to move forward with the legislation that this motion calls for. Certainly opposition parties agree that this should happen. Indeed, this issue has been a fine example of cross-party cooperation in order to further the interest of justice.

It is interesting to note the timing of this debate today with an announcement by the Minister of Justice. In typical Liberal fashion, the minister has just announced that he will be introducing a bill similar to what is called for in today's motion. It is an all too familiar theme, I feel, of poaching good ideas and the Liberals selling them perhaps as their own. Nonetheless, my colleague in the Bloc is to be commended. There is no doubt in my mind that it is only due to Canadians' overwhelming support for this tougher and more comprehensive approach to organized crime that the party across the way will be following suit.

I am thankful for the time to address this important issue. I encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House to help do what we can to combat organized crime and to make Canada a safer place for all Canadians.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from the Conservative party for his speech and the support he demonstrated for the motion that our party introduced yesterday. I know as well that he is a very distinguished member of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I know that he works very meticulously on issues related to public security, public protection, and more generally, all justice issues.

My question is as follows. Since it is very rare to have unanimity in this House—especially when the proposal comes from a member of the opposition and not a member of the governing party—does he think that it is necessary to speed up the process? Once this motion is passed, once the government brings in its bill by next May 31, would he agree to speed up the process, while still studying the bill in depth of course?

The result would be that, by the end of the year, the bill to reverse the burden of proof would be enshrined in Canada's statutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen strong opposition support for this motion. We know that Canadians are supportive of us, as federal government, as the legislature at the level that controls criminal law in the country. There is support for rooting out organized crime.

Although I have not seen the bill yet, and I do not know if anyone has, the justice minister assures us that legislation will be forthcoming. If that legislation is in keeping with the nature for which the motion calls, then it should have speedy passage through the House. I certainly would work for that because it is necessary. All too often we have seen important bills delayed. I am thinking of the efforts we are trying to make to protect children. We have seen bills come forward, which may be faulty, that end up being delayed.

I am hopeful the bill the justice minister puts in place will have the very effect that the hon. member intends with his motion.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his support of the motion introduced by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The parliamentary secretary of the Liberal party intrigued us with a question. I would like to put it to my colleague. I would like him to tell us about a possibility.

This motion will result in a bill which, we hope, will be passed unanimously by the House. With this bill, how can we trace money that is laundered here in Canada but comes from crimes that might have been committed outside of Canada, or money transferred for example to tax havens from crimes committed in Canada?

Does the hon. member have an answer to that question?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen efforts in the past to assist the police. The police have been calling for the tools necessary to track the proceeds of crime. Money laundering is a terrific problem. With technology being what it is today and the international markets as they are, it is becoming increasingly difficult to oftentimes track laundered money.

There is money and there are other assets that are proceeds of crime. I feel that the bill, which hopefully the justice minister will come forward with, if it is in keeping with the motion that my colleague has put forward, would go a long way toward achieving that. It would enable police and our justice system to better track and be aware of the assets. It would give them more of a reason to keep track of the assets, whether money or physical assets, that are purchased through criminal activities. In doing so and in having this reverse onus, we would be able to put in the Crown's hands these proceeds of crime, take the wind out of the sails and take away the motivating factor for organized crime. In doing so, we will cut the support planks out of organized crime.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am joining my colleague from Fundy Royal in extending my congratulations and appreciation to my colleague from the Bloc and to the justice critic from my party and from the NDP for bringing this issue to the forefront.

Before I start, I would like to pay tribute to the four RCMP officers who lost their lives fighting crime in our country and whose memorial service is being held today. Our sympathies go to the families of the officers.

The motion is before us in Parliament today because there is a strong concern among Canadians that criminal elements feel that crime pays. They feel they can get away with crime because of the lenient sentences and existing laws. Because they feel crime pays, we have seen an escalation of gang wars and drug related incidents, especially among young Canadians.

Only 10 days ago in the city of Calgary a young individual was gunned down in a bar, and the incident was drug and gang related. Prior to that, a young gentleman lost his life as he walked out of a gym. He was shot dead because he was involved in gang related crime.

It became so bad that the chief of police in Calgary said last week that it was time to fight. During the incident with the young fellow who lost his life 10 days ago, it was miraculous that innocent bystanders were not killed. Bullets were fired on the streets and cars were hit. It has become so bad now that the lives of innocent Canadians, who are walking on the streets of Calgary, are at risk. The city council and everyone are now saying it is time to fight. However, police officers need the tools to fight this growing crime.

Gang wars in Vancouver are reaching high proportions. Young Canadians are dying from gang related vengeance. In Edmonton the same thing is happening.

About two months ago a young fellow lost his life in a gang related incident. What happened? The young fellow was shot dead when he walked out of the gym. He was a known drug dealer. Everybody new he lived a high life. He had a penthouse, flashy cars, et cetera, and he is only a young kid. The message gets out that crime pays. There is an attitude that if they get caught, so what. They will go to jail, be back out on the street soon and their proceeds from crime and drugs will still be there. It is a small price for them to pay.

We have a problem with pot growing in my riding of Calgary East. In residential areas, marijuana is being grown and it is becoming a major concern for the community. Residents have approached us and have asked what we can do to help them. They has asked us about what kinds of laws we can put in place to fight this.

Drug crimes and other crimes are moving into communities, threatening law-abiding Canadians across the country. These incidents are coming forward, and they are causing concerns.

That is why I am happy to see that the three opposition parties are asking the government to bring forward something. This motion talks about taking away the illegitimate gains. It is a good motion. This will send a strong message to the people involved that crime does not pay. Canada will not tolerate crime being a profitable business.

I must say in passing that I have a private member's bill to fight break and enter in home invasions. Criminals feel that crime pays for them. Will they or will they not go to jail? If they get a suspended sentence, then they are out and they just made an easy buck. This is the essence of this whole motion here.

I am happy to hear that the Minister of Justice has just indicated that he will bring a bill forward. However, there is always the issue of charter rights. Yes, there are charter rights. I am a visible minority myself and I look at the charter as one of those strong pillars of protection in society. We must maintain charter rights. At the same time, however, we need to have a balance to ensure that the rights of Canadians are not threatened. This is fundamentally important.

We see time after time when we open the newspapers anywhere in the country, that it is becoming evident that Canadians generally are now not safe on the streets and are becoming concerned. This is a very timely motion.

Let me go back for one minute to these four RCMP officers who lost their lives a few days ago fighting crime. Yesterday, on a CBC documentary on the RCMP, which was very sad to see, we learned that many RCMP officers have lost their lives fighting crime. It is only then that we put in procedures and laws to ensure that it does not happen again.

My question is, why do we have to wait until someone loses their life before we put in something that everyone knows is required and is a common sense law? This motion that has been brought forward by the Bloc is asking the government to look at it. It is our duty. Our constituents are telling us to take this issue in hand and fight.

When the bill comes forward, the motion says it should be without delay. We need it. The issue of gang warfare in Quebec has prompted the Bloc to bring forward this motion. It is because of the huge concern of Quebeckers concerning the Hell's Angels and other groups. The profits are so huge that criminal groups ignore the safety of other Canadians.

I say to my colleagues in the House that we should put pressure on the government to bring forward a bill, so that we can support it and ensure that we send a strong message from this Parliament that crime does not pay in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There will be five minutes for question and comments following question period.

Government of Canada

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we really have to wonder how the Liberals decide what issues to focus on and why they refuse to deal with truly important issues like the serious problems facing farmers today. I just cannot figure it out.

What is their agenda? First they want to spend $5 billion on a national day care system because apparently they believe that government can look after kids better than parents. Second, they want to legalize marijuana. They want to legalize prostitution. They want to bring in same sex marriage. That is their agenda. Who asked for any of these things? Where does this agenda come from? Their priorities are all screwed up.

The government just cannot seem to wrap its mind around the fact that it should be dealing with the extremely important issues facing this country like lowering taxes, making Canada more secure, and dealing with serious agricultural problems that are literally forcing farmers to lose their farms day after day, week after week in this country.

Where are their heads? They simply have to get on the people's agenda.

Dalai Lama

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Dalai Lama has just issued a statement concerning the situation in his native Tibet.

The Tibetan spiritual leader deplores the fact that human rights are not being respected, that, in the supposedly autonomous region, the authority has been solely held by Chineseleaders and that, despite Peking's contention, the Tibetans are not enjoying autonomy.

The Dalai Lama states that China deserves the position it has achieved as a major player in the world, but condemns what he calls its undemocratic actions, unequalimplementation of autonomy rights regarding minorities, and lack of human rights.

The Dalai Lama is convinced that China can do better and ought to give back to the Tibetan people the freedom they deserve to enjoy.

The Bloc Québécois is calling on the Canadian government to redouble efforts to promote dialogue between Chinese and Tibetan authorities.

Veterans Affairs

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 2005 is the Year of the Veteran and I want to stand at this point in time and recognize the tremendous outpouring of support that has been felt across this country. When the Minister of Veterans Affairs stood and stated that they are asking all Canadians to surrender their time to volunteer their hearts, and to take 12 months to fully remember a century of sacrifice, I think Canadians are rising to that occasion and that challenge.

With the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war, it is a pivotal year for the Government of Canada and Canadians to demonstrate their commitment to veterans, both to the veterans of the last century and the Canadian Forces veterans of this century.

There will be countless activities taking place across this country in cities large and small and overseas to help Canadians celebrate the contribution of veterans, honour their sacrifices, remember their legacy, and teach youth our history. We will ensure that young Canadians take full advantage of the living history that our veterans carry with--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

Guyana

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the world's attention was focused on Southeast Asia, Guyana was suffering through the worst floods in over 100 years. Approximately one-third of the population was affected by the flooding.

Working with the Guyanese Canadian community leaders and my good friend Eden Gajraj, at the invitation of the government of Guyana through the High Commissioner of Canada, I was able to visit Guyana and witness firsthand the extent of the flood damage. I want to thank all stakeholders, especially our High Commissioner, Mr. Bruno Picard, for their help and assistance in this visit.

The situation in Guyana is one of great concern. The recent severe flooding has left the walls of the East Demerara conservancy dam in a weakened state and vulnerable to the ravages of the upcoming rainy season in May-June. I was advised that should the conservancy dam break, most of the populated coastal area of Guyana would be flooded and the seawall could collapse. This would cause the coastline of Guyana to be pushed, up to 20 miles inland, causing the need for the immediate evacuation of up to 40% of the population.

The people of Guyana are looking for our help--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.