Debates of March 10th, 2005

Supply

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for his efforts to speak French. It is not always easy, but the fact that he is doing quite well should be noted.

I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary and, through him, the justice minister for supporting this motion today, which calls on the government to introduce a bill by May 31, 2005. This is the commitment which the government is making by supporting the motion brought forward today by the Bloc Québécois.

My question is the following. Once the bill has been introduced, on May 31, 2005 at the latest, will the parliamentary secretary be willing, if he gets the approval of all parties, to speed up the process in committee so that, of course, all legal implications, including those flowing from the Charter, be carefully considered and scrutinized? As members know, I am an avid supporter of human rights and freedoms. Would he be willing to ensure that the process relating to this bill be expedited and sped up so that, before year's end, a bill providing for a reversal of the burden of proof comes into law in Canada?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his support.

Speaking French is always a challenge for those of us who are learning it later in life. I thank the member for his support.

In terms of the concept of where we are going to be able to go with this, I think each and every one of us is concerned that there are areas where this law is going to have to be examined with great care, and this has already been raised in debate in the House today. That would have to go into the drafting of the bill and would also have to go into the process as we go forward in terms of bringing the bill before the House and then ultimately dealing with it and hopefully turning it into law.

The precision that we would have to deal with certainly would take time. In fairness, as we look at the legislative calendar and see the items that we must deal with in that period of time, I hope that we would set aside enough time to do this in a proper and effective way.

Although we would like to cooperate fully and move legislation forward with speed, part of our duty is to make sure that we have examined it fully and looked at all of the implications, in particular the law of unforeseen consequences, to see if we can deal with those issues. That would take time. From the perspective of the Minister of Justice, he wants to make certain that we bring forth a law that would be effective and yet not overstep its reach.

Let me say to the hon. member that we will do everything within our power to speedily bring the bill through the parliamentary process, but we will do so only when all of us are sure we have done it in an appropriate and effective manner so that we will not have too many unforeseen consequences to affect us later.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his fine discourse on the subject. I would like to broaden it a little on the relationship between organized crime and terrorism.

We know that in our hemisphere Colombia is the major producer of cocaine. We know that organized crime gangs are working with guerilla groups such as FARC and ELN in Colombia. Through these groups working together, the proceeds from the trafficking of cocaine are actually being used to fuel terrorist activities.

West Africa is another example. The trade in blood diamonds is also used to fuel terrorist organizations.

Terrorist organizations are actually intimately involved in failed and failing states and they derive moneys from the trafficking of contraband. As this relates to marijuana, as an example, we have a situation in our country in which organized crime gangs derive an extraordinary amount of money from marijuana.

I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to talk about the bill the government has put forth, which has engaged in a few amendments that I think are quite clever, and actually would decriminalize the simple possession of small amounts of marijuana. It would allow people to possess up to three marijuana plants. First, possession would still be illegal. Second, the bill would take this out of the courts. Third, a fine would be attached to it. Most important, for the casual user it would disconnect that individual from the large grow operations in the process from which the marijuana is ultimately purchased.

By doing this, the bill is very clever. It disarticulates the small time 18 year old or 19 year old users who might have a couple of joints on them from going to the structure that produces pot and derives the profits connected to organized crime.

Does the member think this is a very good step in the right direction to try to address organized crime and cut the financial underpinnings out from under these parasitic organizations in Canada?

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe the parliamentary secretary's question is very relevant today. I think he characterizes the way in which one is dealing in a very positive way with simple possession and the possession of up to three plants.

I would like to concentrate a little more on the other side. Today we are dealing with organized crime. We are dealing with ways to combat it. In particular, when we say within our justice system that we have to deter crime, what does it take to deter this sort of activity, particularly grow ops?

Clearly, as everyone has said, the application of sentences to date does not seem to deter the type of activity that we have seen in the past. This is becoming a great problem for all of us. These “grow ops” are found throughout our country. Even in my small community in southern Ontario we also have this problem. It is not unique to big city areas or only Quebec or British Columbia.

From our perspective, what we find helpful is the fact that in this revised law being brought forward we are going to, first of all, double the penalties that will be applicable to most grow ops. As a matter of fact, most grow ops would fall into the category of more than 50 plants. Under the current legislation the penalty is seven years in that case. It is going to be doubled to 14 years.

Second, we have changed the perspective as to how judges are going to have to look at many of these operations, especially when they are in residential areas, where there are aggravating circumstances. These aggravating circumstances have been enumerated. This now would put the judge in a position where if there is not a period of incarceration the judge is going to have to justify why there is not.

I think that this once again is going to bring to the attention of the judiciary how seriously we see this grow op situation within our country and how important it is that all factors be seriously taken into consideration and appropriate and proportional sentences be given to this type of activity, not only to punish the offender but in fact to deter others from considering entering into this area of organized crime.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Langley.

I am pleased to be speaking to this motion today. I congratulate my Bloc colleague for bringing it forth. It is an important motion, probably well beyond what most people recognize. It is an important part of trying to deal with this serious and growing problem of organized crime.

The motion today is about the government putting forth a bill by May 31, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof with regard to the proceeds of crime, which is important. This change would require that the accused, once found guilty, not someone who has been charged with being involved in organized crime, would need to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the his assets were not obtained through involvement in organized crime. I think this is a very reasonable approach to take in this circumstance. It is also an extremely important part of the puzzle to deal with the growing problem of organized crime.

Another important tool that is absolutely needed is much stronger money laundering legislation. Most countries around the world have dealt with this issue much more effectively than we have in this country. The government passed some legislation back in about 2000 but it was a very small first step. It promised to revisit the issue and come up with much stronger legislation on money laundering but it has not done that. Until that is done there is no way to effectively deal with organized crime, although removing the proceeds of crime certainly would help.

The third thing we need to do is to put in place more serious penalties for those who are found guilty of involvement in organized crime. Unfortunately, because of the way the courts interpret our law, which is presented in such a weak fashion, they do not provide the appropriate punishment.

Those are the three main areas that have to be dealt with before we can ever seriously hope to deal with organized crime.

If anyone thinks that organized crime is not a serious and growing problem they are not looking at this in an honest way. I am a member of the NATO parliamentarians. I meet with colleagues from other NATO countries, from Europe and the United States, about three times a year, as well as with about 30 to 40 observer countries, some of which wish to become members of NATO, which is probably the strongest security organization in the history of mankind.

I am on the economic committee with parliamentarians from other NATO countries and one of the topics we often discuss in-depth is the problem of organized crime. We discuss it by looking at the two main problems that organized crime causes. The first is that organized crime is the primary funding source for terrorism in the world today. Until we can deal with organized crime we simply cannot deal with terrorism.

The second problem is that organized crime destabilizes societies more than anything else. When we look at former Soviet bloc countries, many people wonder why they have been so slow to develop a market economy, a democracy and a stable society. The answer is that organized crime controls those countries. Until we can effectively deal with organized crime we will have destabilized countries, such as Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and the list goes on.

Organized crime is a very serious and growing problem in the world today. If anyone thinks that Canada has been spared from organized crime, they too are kidding themselves.

When I was the immigration critic for our party between 1997 and 1999, I had a private meeting with an individual who was very high up in an organization trying to deal with the problem of organized crime in Canada. He told me something that shocked me at that time and still shocks me today. He told me that organized crime was so well-entrenched in our country and growing at a such a remarkable rate, with all the major banks, key positions in the civil service and major police forces having been infiltrated by members of organized crime, that it was extremely difficult to deal with the problem.

The problem we are talking about today and the approach we are taking today is an important step but we also have to deal with this infiltration of our major institutions by members of organized crime.

This person went beyond that statement and made other statements confidentially, which I do not really want to repeat here. However Canadians should be very concerned about the growing problem of organized crime in this country and we must deal with it.

I truly commend the Bloc Québécois for bringing forth this important motion. I am also happy that there seems to be support from all parties in the House.

However I was somewhat concerned by at least two things presented by the parliamentary secretary, the first one being his weak commitment to this and the excuses for why it will not happen very fast.

My second concern is that the agenda on important issues like this has been driven more often by the opposition than by government, which is not the way things are supposed to work, but this government is so weak on these things. For some reason it seems to oppose and resist dealing with these tough and important issues. I cannot impugn motives in the House because that would not be proper, but one has to wonder why the Liberals are so resistant to dealing with the whole issue of organized crime. Their attitude concerns me. The final excuse they use is that the charter prevents it, which I do not believe for a minute.

I think everyone understands that we have to respect the Constitution of this country but I think the charter is used as an excuse all too often. It has nothing to do with respecting the charter when it comes to dealing with an issue like this. I understand we have to draft legislation that respects the charter and our Constitution but that can be done.

It would be an important move forward if we were to actually pass something on this. This may sound a little cynical and little negative, but what I believe will happen, unfortunately, is that the government will balk on this, it will miss the May 31 deadline, an election will be called sometime within the next year and this will never pass through the House of Commons. In reality, that is probably what will happen with this.

I encourage all Canadians who are paying attention to this issue to put a lot of pressure on the Liberal government to actually do something about this.

I look forward to the rest of the debate in the House today. I again commend the member and his party for this important motion, the importance of which is not to be understated. Let us move forward to deal with the other important issues, including the infiltration of organized crime into those institutions that are so critical to providing a stable society in Canada today.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House this morning. I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright for the excellent points he made and the Bloc for bringing the motion to us today. It is particularly exciting because, as was pointed out by my colleague, this is a joint effort by the opposition to bring justice and protection to Canadians.

We are all concerned about this issue. A vast majority of Canadians are law-abiding, hardworking, generous, loving people but in any society there is an element that can cause a severe problem and we have that here in Canada right now. When there is a severe problem, there has to be a severe solution. When there is severe crime, there needs to be a severe consequence to that crime. What is happening right now, as was mentioned by a number of members, we have a reputation of being soft on crime. Canada has this growing problem because this is the reputation we have.

I want to share some of the examples of the problems we have. We have marijuana grow ops; identity theft; illegal drugs, such as cocaine; and scams galore. We have these problems because when people are caught, the consequences are very minor and they serve only one-thirds of their sentence. The reputation we have is that if someone wants to do crime, Canada is a great place to do it because the consequences are almost nothing.

In my riding of Langley, marijuana grow ops are a problem. B.C. bud is famous worldwide. We have approximately 15,000 grow ops in British Columbia. Canada has about 50,000 grow ops but a large percentage of them are in British Columbia. A typical grow op has 300 marijuana plants and the value of a mature plant is $1,000. Therefore the average grow op has $300,000 worth of plants and four crops can be produced a year. If we do the math, every grow op will be netting approximately $1.2 million with an initial cash outlay of about $30,000.

Some of these mom and pop operations that do not have the money are funded by organized crime. Most of the grow ops in Canada are run and funded by organized crime. Why are they doing it? It is because the chances of them being caught are low and if they do get caught, the average fine is $1,500, which is ridiculous. We have heard that the government plans to increase the penalties. However, in looking through the records, I did not find anyone who had received a maximum sentence, so increasing the penalties is not the solution.

Having people convicted of organized crime show how they acquired their assets, such as the house or houses or the fancy new cars, and having them prove these assets were not acquired by illegal gains or they would be forfeited, is an excellent plan. I would like to share a story to give an example.

Phu Son, a resident of Langley, came to Canada in 1994 at the age of 38. Mr. Son, his wife and family immediately claimed social assistance and stayed on social assistance for the next 10 years. In that period of time, while his only source of income was social assistance, Mr. Son came to acquire three homes, two of them in Langley and one in our neighbouring community of Abbotsford.

On March 22 Phu Son was convicted of producing a controlled substance, a marijuana grow op, in one of his Langley homes. He was given a nine month conditional sentence and, as we all know, a conditional sentence is served at home. Why would he serve it at home? I am not sure; maybe to take care of the marijuana plants. He was given 25 hours of community service, a $100 find and a curfew of 8 p.m. That is coming down hard on organized crime.

A person on social assistance should not have the financial resources to own three houses. It appears obvious that those houses were purchased with drug money. This gentleman should have to show how he got those houses.

All of us are hardworking, honest Canadians. My father raised me to work hard and be honest. I have T4 slips for everything I make and I pay taxes on everything I make. Does Mr. Son have T4 slips? I think that needs to come to light.

It is time for our government to get tough on crime. We have seen many cases like the one I have just shared and they are all treated the same way, with a soft response from the courts and the government. The government has the responsibility to give direction to the courts. What are the consequences? I believe we need to take a very serious look at minimum sentencing. When we get multiple sentencing, we need to give progressively stiffer sentences so there is a deterrent. We do not have deterrents in Canada right now. We are soft on crime.

It is unfortunate how routine a case, like the one I have just shared of Mr. Son, has become. His case is epidemic in the drug trade on the lower mainland and Canada. Until the government and the courts get tough and put some teeth into fighting drug crime, there will be more of this continuing.

Our communities are at risk. Grow ops are ripping off one another. Now booby traps are being put in these homes and they are using 40 times the normal power. We heard of a townhouse complex of 28 units in Coquitlam which had electricity bills of $12,000 a month when a typical bill would be $120. That is 100 times the norm. These homes have booby traps, which pose a high risk of fire. If fire department personnel entered these homes to fight a fire, there is a risk they could be electrocuted or shot by these booby traps.

We need to get tough on crime. What is being proposed today, I believe, will do that. The onus will be on individuals to show how they acquired their assets, as any one of us would have to do if we were audited by Revenue Canada. It would ask us how we got these assets. It is a democratic thing to do. As I said at the beginning, if we have a serious problem, we need to have a serious solution. In Canada right now, we do not.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to have this opportunity to speak to this motion that has been presented to the House by the member for Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles. I would like to thank the member for bringing forward this motion. It is a very good motion. There was some discussion about the motion and the amendment that was put forward this morning that was agreed to by all parties in the House. It actually improves the motion. The NDP is pleased to be supporting this motion today.

I have been sitting in the House this morning listening to the debate. I know that one of the Conservative members who spoke a little earlier professed some skepticism as to whether or not this motion would ever go anywhere. I wanted to actually be a bit optimistic and say that this motion and the work that has been done in regard to it is as a result of the good work that can happen when people work together in a constructive way in a minority Parliament.

It appears that this motion will be passed by Parliament a week or so from now, and that will be good, but certainly, it will then be the responsibility of all of us, and I am sure the Bloc Québécois will take the lead in ensuring that the government is then held responsible, to ensure that the motion is not lost and that indeed the legislation that is contemplated in the motion before us today does in fact come back to the House.

I understand the skepticism that is there, but we have to do our job and ensure that we do not let the government off the hook. There has been a willingness and a positiveness expressed today by the government that this legislation will indeed come back. We will certainly follow that up. We will do our bit and I am sure every other party, including the member who brought forward the motion, will be working very hard to ensure that this happens.

In fact, as has been pointed out, this motion partly results from work that has been done by attorneys general across the country in provinces and territories. It is partly their work, but it is also the work of the member for Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles working with other justice critics from other opposition parties that has brought us to this point.

I want to recognize the earlier work that was done in developing Bill C-242 by the member from the Bloc. In October of last year, three members, the justice critics from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, actually held a press conference and together supported this bill and this initiative coming forward. I want to recognize the work that our justice critic, the member for Windsor--Tecumseh, has also done. He has worked on the justice committee and with other members of the House to bring forward this idea. Clearly, it is a good indication of people working together. It gives me a sense of hope of what can be done when people work together constructively.

The motion before us today is actually very intriguing. The essence of the motion is to reverse the burden of proof by seeking an amendment to the Criminal Code so that a prosecutor and the court system can put the onus of the burden of proof on individuals who have been convicted of a serious offence to demonstrate that their assets were not obtained using the proceeds of their criminal activities.

This is a very important principle and, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice pointed out, it may be a complex issue to develop and bring forward. I believe that in doing so, it must be done in the context and with respect to the charter. I would certainly agree with the government on that point. In fact, another Conservative member said earlier in the debate today that this has nothing to do with the charter or respecting the charter. I would disagree with that point.

Any legislation that comes forward, particularly this legislation that is contemplated in the motion, must be done through the lens of the charter. We must ensure that we also respect people's individual rights and liberties.

The principle that is contained in the motion is actually an important one. It reminded me of a similar process that exists at the municipal level. I am a former member of Vancouver City Council and within the city of Vancouver charter, there is a provision that allows the city of Vancouver to do what is called a show-cause hearing. It is exactly the same principle that is put forward in this motion. It reverses the burden of proof. In a show-cause hearing the city of Vancouver has a very significant power to require business operators or people who hold business licences to show-cause as to why their licences should not be removed.

In fact, this provision has been used on a number of occasions against businesses and stores in the downtown east side that, for example, were selling substances to alcoholics and making huge profits, things like rubbing alcohol or glue for the purpose of sniffing, and was being done deliberately.

It was also being used against businesses that were believed to be over-serving people and operating beer parlours in a manner that was completely contrary to any basic practices of good management. This power the city of Vancouver had to demand a show-cause hearing on those operators was, in effect, the same principle that we are debating today, of reversing the burden of proof. It was a fair process.

There may be concerns expressed about what we would be engaging in, but I know from the work we did at city hall, these show-cause hearings still go on today from time to time. It is a very fair, democratic and open process, and has been a very effective tool for the city of Vancouver. Maybe it is used by other municipalities, I do not know, as a way of ensuring there are good practices and management.

In doing some research on this motion before us today, in actual fact, the province of Manitoba, in 2003, introduced legislation called the criminal property forfeiture act. It would allow police to apply to the court for orders to seize property either bought with profits from unlawful acts or used to commit crimes. Clearly, the provincial government in Manitoba has already gone to some lengths to establish the same kind of procedure.

I know the member for Winnipeg Centre, who will be speaking for the NDP later today, will give further details as evidence that this kind of proposal can actually work and is indeed in operation in other jurisdictions. We want to recognize the work that is being done in the province of Manitoba by the NDP government in bringing forward a very similar initiative because of the concerns it had about the proceeds from crime and how organized crime was vastly profiting from illegal activities.

I want to speak about some related matters that have come up in the debate today. The motion before us today is very important. Hopefully, when the legislation comes back, it will provide an additional tool for law enforcement agencies and the courts to deal with organized crime, and the proceeds and profits that are gained unlawfully.

It is very important that we not only look at the consequences of those illegal efforts but also at the causes. A number of members who have spoken today have used as examples issues around organized crime and grow ops, particularly in British Columbia but not exclusively.

The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, stated earlier that 85% of grow ops in B.C. are related in some way to organized crime. I do not know whether he is right but that was the figure he used. Whether or not 85% is absolutely correct, certainly the numbers are very high. There is obviously a correlation between this motion and what takes place in organized crime.

It behooves us to examine some of the causes and the problems we are facing. The Bloc member and I were part of the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs which was reconvened to deal with the drug bill which is now back before the justice committee. Testimony in the earlier version of the decriminalization of marijuana bill clearly showed us the very strong links between our drug laws and prohibition and organized crime.

Mr. Eugene Oscapella, who is from the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy and teaches at the University of Ottawa, provided some fascinating insight into the real world of the illicit drug trade. He produced information for the committee. For example, to buy a kilo of heroin at a farm in Afghanistan would cost about $90 U.S. After that same product goes through its circuitous route through organized crime and finally hits the street, its value has increased by 32,000%. That same kilo would sell for possibly $290,000.

We need to recognize and come to terms with the reality that our laws are actually fuelling organized crime in terms of prohibitionist policies. This is an incredibly lucrative business. Whether it is grow ops, trafficking on an international scale, or financing terrorist organizations, there is absolutely no question that the illicit drug trade is a huge market and a lucrative proposition for organized crime. It is the primary source of its vast amount of profits, its influence and its power. We have to recognize that fact.

We can look at the law as it is and ask ourselves what kind of changes we need to bring in. A motion such as the one before us today resulting at some point in legislation would be an important tool in looking at the proceeds of criminal activity and organized crime. It is also important that we examine the impact of the law itself and how it fuels organized crime.

I often think of the whole regime of prohibition as being akin to a regime that equals a chaotic situation. It is an environment with no rules. It is an environment where violence is the method by which disputes are resolved. The member from the Bloc spoke earlier this morning about the deaths that have been caused by organized crime; I think he mentioned 160 deaths in Quebec alone. On TV we have seen those horrendous situations and the communities that have been impacted and the innocent people who have been killed as a result of the activities of organized crime.

My own community of east Vancouver has seen many deaths, whether they are from overdoses or whether they are from the whole regime of prohibition. It has had an incredible impact on individual lives as well as on the health and well-being of the community as a whole.

I have done a lot of work on this in my local community. There is a strong sense that we need to have a realistic examination of our laws and the impact of drug enforcement. We have to question whether or not at the end of the day it can be realistic.

It is such a lucrative business. We could put more cops on the street. We could do a lot of things, but the fact is, as many members have spoken about this today, this business is still growing.

As the member for Langley mentioned earlier, I do not think it is a matter that somehow we have all gone soft on crime. That is too easy an analysis. It is too simple a solution to say that. It may respond to the fears that people have about what is happening in their local community, but it is a very simplistic analysis to say that somehow all of us, except presumably the Conservative Party members, have gone soft on crime.

These are very complex issues. There is a growing recognition that law enforcement alone cannot deal with this problem. If we truly want to deal with organized crime, if we want to deal with the violence that flows from organized crime, if we want to deal with the drug trade, then we have to look at the illicit nature of that trade and recognize why organized crime is involved in that business.

The NDP is very pleased to support this motion. We did have some concerns originally that the motion was a little too broad. The way it was written it was like a blanket. With the amendment that has been put forward it is much more satisfactory.

It is very important when the bill comes back that it has a close examination. I heard the member from the Bloc question the government as to whether or not there might be some speedy process. It is something that all parties will have to discuss, but it does require an examination obviously. I would certainly encourage the Liberal government, in the spirit of this minority Parliament and the work that has been undertaken by individual members of this House who have put in a lot of effort to bring this motion to the House today, particularly the member from the Bloc, to ensure that this does not slip off the political agenda.

There is an expectation, assuming that this motion is approved, that it will come back, that there will be legislation and we will examine it. Hopefully, we will be able to pass something. It is a rare day that all sides of the House agree on something. We may have some slightly different perspectives on how we approach this, but I think there is a sense of unity here.

There is a deep concern about the impact of some of these incredibly violent crimes on people and communities. There is obviously a demonstrated willingness to take up this motion and to translate it into some workable legislation. Certainly within the NDP we will wholeheartedly support that effort and work both in the House and at committee to ensure that happens.

I hope also that we recognize some of the broader aspects of the issue that we are dealing with here in terms of organized crime. We need to have other debates, not on this day but on other days.

I would like to thank the member for bringing this motion forward. I congratulate him on his work. It is a good motion and we are pleased to support it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question regarding her comments on our charter but before I do, I want to thank the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I serve with him on the justice committee and he has been leading the charge on this matter and is doing a great job. I want to personally give him the kudos that he deserves.

Regarding the comments that we have just heard on our charter and that the issues are not simplistic, I acknowledge that there are a number of issues that we need to consider when we deal with organized crime, marijuana grow ops, and so on. When we do the simple math and realize that about $1.2 million per year is what an average grow op produces, that is a lot of money. It is not 85% but the vast majority of grow ops are run by organized crime. Marijuana is still an illegal substance in Canada, so it is being distributed through organized crime.

It is estimated there are 50,000 grow ops in Canada, and when we do the math it means that $60 billion annually is produced by illegal marijuana grow ops. What is that being used for? Some 80% of it is going across the border to be traded for illegal dangerous weapons, cash and cocaine which come back into our country. We all recognize it is a huge problem.

We all honour the charter as a wonderful and valuable part of Canada to guarantee that our rights are protected. We are dealing with a very dangerous element that has come into our country and is taking away our rights. It is sucking $60 billion out of Canada every year. It funds organized crime and it is causing huge impacts on our health care. We need more police resources. We need an educational program, a national drug strategy to fight this.

Is the member suggesting that the charter be used to protect this very dangerous element in our society? Is she suggesting that the charter be used to protect criminal activity?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, no I am not suggesting that at all. I was actually responding to an earlier comment by one of the member's colleagues who said that the bill when we see it would have nothing to do in relation to respecting the charter.

Clearly, there is an issue when the bill comes back. We have to be very careful that it is not formulated in a way that, while it is intended to deal with criminal activities and criminals who have been convicted and are responsible for those activities, it is not used for example in terms of assets that may be owned by a spouse or another family member.

There may also be situations where the bill is intended to be targeted to a serious crime. So far the example that has been used has been organized crime. I think there would be general agreement on that from all sides of the House. Depending on what we see coming back, we would need to examine the bill very carefully to ensure that it is not infringing on other people's rights. That is simply the point that was being made and it is a legitimate one.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion introduced by my learned colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, whom I congratulate on his good work.

Since becoming the Bloc Québécois critic for justice, he has worked unstintingly on other matters as well, of course, but this one is particularly close to his heart. In fact, the document being debated during our opposition day was suggested by my colleague. It is important therefore today for the Bloc Québécois to pay tribute to him by agreeing to dedicate this opposition day to him.

In addition, Madam Speaker, before starting I would like to tell you that I am going to share my time with the member for Repentigny.

Why am I pleased to speak? Because too often in our society, despite the charges that are laid, men and women say that crime pays because they see criminals being charged and sentenced but continuing to traffic and live the high life. That annoys people. People work hard to earn their living but see freeloaders using the legal system by spending a lot of money on legal representation. They always succeed in getting away with it, and in the end, keeping the wealth they have accumulated through their illicit activities.

For example, we all have incredible situations in our parts of the country, some more than others. Among other places, a crime was committed yesterday in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac. People said, “Look, these people were living the high life with a fine house on the edge of Lake of Two Mountains, and so forth”. There will surely be an investigation, and people did not dare say too much. Journalists interviewed some people, who said, “You know, when you see those people, they are young and you don't know what they do for a living. They don't work and they drive around in their vehicle. At times like that, all you do is avoid bothering them because they have cameras all over near the properties”. Finally, yesterday, there was a tragedy. It is sad for the family, and I hope that there were not any children who witnessed this outrage. Rumour has it, though, that these people are connected to the world of drugs and trafficking.

Marijuana has become a plague. Revenues are more than $60 billion. It is obvious with what happened in western Canada this week that it is very profitable and many people are taking advantage of it. That has to stop. If we can clamp down on the money that these people make, we will be able to clamp down on the whole thing and all the trafficking.

Here is another example. There is a nice lake called lac Simon in my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. It is beautiful, thirteen kilometres long, with a gorgeous beach located in Duhamel. This property of the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec, has been, for many years, rated as being one of Quebec's most beautiful beaches. It has a four kilometre pebble beach. It is therefore a huge investment.

A couple of years ago, a young man settled by lac Simon and decided to build himself a very fancy house, in complete contempt of environmental standards. The town took him to court, but, at considerable legal cost, he managed to win his case. In the end, he did make some changes. But the point is, without the required authorizations, he built a multi-million dollar house.

Everybody wondered what he did for a living. Rumours flew, each grander than the next: he had won the lottery, he was the heir of a rich family, he owned a number of car dealerships. However, last summer, what should have happened happened. He was arrested and people discovered he was the head of a major marijuana trafficking ring. Charges were brought against him, and, ultimately, his assets were seized. By assets, we mean the house, the plane, the helicopter, the boats, the motorcycles, and all the rest.

I would say that they spent as much as they could. On the beautiful beach I mentioned earlier, there is a small bamboo bar. I had the opportunity to go there this summer. I asked who owned this nice place, who rented it and then I was shown what was behind it. We are talking about a beach with 10,000 to 15,000 visitors. Behind it was a Corvette and the latest all-terrain vehicle. I was told the name of the person who managed it. I know this individual; he has never worked a day in his life.

Surprised, I wondered what this individual had done to obtain such nice things. I asked a few questions, but everyone said the answers were not forthcoming. Those who knew said that it was too serious, that he was working with the man who owned the plane, the man who owned the helicopter and the famous Peter Cash. This name has been in the news. He was living the high life. Finally, in September, it became clear that all this was tied to organized crime.

In light of these events and the investigation, the RCMP obviously seized all these vehicles and all those assets. However, to everyone's surprise, a few months later, all these items and assets were returned, and this individual got his house back, which had been put up for sale.

In fact, when this house went up for sale, everyone wondered who would buy it. The media reported the wildest rumours: artists, talent agents, television network owners. I can say that it is a stupendous house. Finally, one fine day, the sign was gone. There were renewed rumours about the buyer's identity. Finally, the media reported that the seller had decided to take the house off the market. The seller was the famous Peter Cash, who had faced charges and who still owned his assets and was doing as he wished. He had decided that it was not the right time to sell it.

Everyone wondered why the RCMP had not seized his assets. It was ultimately because the current legislation prevents this from happening. In other words, the RCMP was not able to prove that those assets had been purchased with the proceeds of crime. As a result, his lawyers succeeded in having all his assets returned. There will probably be a follow-up.

What this motion today is proposing is that all the Peter Cashes of this world will no longer be able to act this way. Once they have been convicted—and this man was indeed convicted for trafficking—their assets will be seized and it will be up to them to prove that those assets were not acquired through the proceeds of crime.

This is not easy. Those who are listening to us do not have to be worried; these criminals know very well that they can be charged with all sorts of things and that people are watching them. So they create companies for themselves and engage in various fiscal practices. That way it becomes quite difficult for the average citizen to know whether other entities, facilities or amounts of money were not in fact moving through non-criminal circuits. It is difficult. Given that the accusers—whether the RCMP, investigators of the Sûreté du Québec or others—must prove their case beyond all doubt, should even the slightest of a reasonable doubt subsist, it is over.

What our colleague is proposing in tabling the Bloc Québécois motion today, a motion which seems to have the support of all the hon. members of the House of Commons, is precisely that this burden of proof be reversed, that it be no longer for the authorities to prove that these people have acquired assets through the proceeds of crime, but just the opposite. It should be for the person charged to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that those assets were not acquired through the proceeds of crime. So that person would have to prove where his money came from.

In the case of the famous Peter Cash, he would have to prove where he got the money to buy his house, his helicopter, his plane, his two boats, his motorcycle and all the other vehicles that passed through that handsome property over the last five years. It would be for him to prove this, otherwise all the assets would be seized and held.

When the Bloc Québécois has succeeded in getting the anti-gang bill passed here in the House, to charge these people and inevitably prove them guilty of gangsterism, the public will stop saying that crime pays and will finally be able to say that crime will not pay, ever again.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak during the time allotted for questions and comments. We must congratulate the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on today's proposal. I also congratulate all parties and all members in this House on their attention. When the motion will be put to a vote, they will probably vote in favour of it.

I also believe that, in his arguments, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has explained the objective of the motion very well. The example he gave, the situation he described clearly show the benefits the bill will have when it is adopted. Needless to say,we will have to ensure that it contains the necessary checks and balances, so that it will not go too far. That said, insofar as the objective and the substance of the legislation are concerned, we will pass a law that will lead to greater security and justice for Quebec and for Canada.

I think that the reaction of the government is a good one. I would like to ask my colleague a question. Is it not amazing that, despite this attitude, which will lead to an improvement of the situation, with the tools we have at our disposal to fight crime, organized crime, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has decided to shut down nine detachments in Quebec, so that large areas will no longer be covered?

As to drug trafficking at the borders by organized crime, the measure will indeed be interesting and improve conditions. However, are we not taking away some of our means? Should the government not make sure that its left hand knows what its right hand is doing?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Obviously, the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing is typical of the Liberal Party. The problem is between the ears.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Except when the hand is in someone else's pocket.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Yes, except when the hand is in someone else's pocket. They seem to know how to do that. I can understand my colleague from Repentigny.

Let us talk about police intervention, particularly with respect to marijuana growers and the huge fortunes that they accumulate. That is what the public must understand. These people make tons of money. We are talking about amounts exceeding $60 billion. Obviously, we can tighten up all the laws we want in Parliament, if we do not have the required resources for police intervention in the field, we will not be able to enforce these laws.

My colleague is absolutely right. When the federal government decides to close nine RCMP detachments in Quebec, it is not insignificant. These detachments are often located in regions where marijuana production and trafficking are a problem. The decision was made to close detachments in regions that are often adjacent to vast green spaces, whether it be forest or agricultural land. That is where marijuana is grown. It is just as if we were telling producers that we will tighten up our laws, but we will let them do what they want because we are withdrawing the police officers who watch them.

That is the message sent out by the Liberal Party, and that is what it has always done. They are totally unable to make rational decisions and to invest where it counts. We must pass the necessary laws to fight organized crime and to prevent people from amassing fortunes from the production of marijuana. We must also have the necessary resources in the field to be able to apprehend and prosecute these criminals in order to enforce the laws that we will pass.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, today it is my great pleasure to speak to the motion put forward by my friend, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. Before I begin, however, I too would like to pay tribute—unusual in this House, but hon. members from all parties have done so—to the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

This motion appears to have the approval of all parties. That too is unusual in the House of Commons, although not a first, since it happened earlier when there was a motion on the Holocaust. We should also remember that the hon. member who is proposing this bill is the same one who proposed a bill to eliminate $1,000 bills, also intended to thwart the activities of organized crime and prevent money laundering. Moreover, this is the same hon. member who proposed a bill or a motion concerning the appointment of judges. That issue was studied in committee. We can also point out that it was the Bloc Québécois that introduced the forerunner to today's topic, which was Bill C-24, to specifically recognize organized crime in the Criminal Code, through the work of my former colleague, the former member for Berthier, Michel Bellehumeur. Today we have this motion before us.

I would like to digress for a moment to go over the three or four points I have just mentioned. People listening to us, and our colleagues here in the House, if they have a somewhat open mind, can see that even if an idea comes from the Bloc Québécois, it may be quite sensible. Too often, the Canadian public and our Liberal and Conservative colleagues cover their ears and say that if it comes from the Bloc it is no good.

Today, happily, there is none of that attitude. And so I hope that this will get our colleagues thinking about other topics we might bring forward, and how even if the sovereignists introduce these topics and they are not related to sovereignty, but to society, they may be of interest to the entire community. That is another reason I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The motion he proposed to the House this morning reads as follows, since I believe it is important to refer to the wording of the motion before debating and discussing it:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to betterfight crime, the government should introduce a bill by May 31, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden ofproof as regards the proceeds of crime, requiring the accused,once found guilty of a serious offence, to demonstrate on the balance ofprobabilities that their assets were not obtained using theproceeds of their criminal activities.

The Bloc Québécois has been pressuring the federal government for a number of years to bring in effective legislative measures against organized crime. As I have already said, Bill C-24, which was passed in 2001 with the support of the Bloc, and came into force in February 2002, is one of the bills we supported in the battle against organized crime. Thanks to Bill C-24, the provisions relating to the proceeds of crime set out in part XII.2 of the Criminal Code are applicable to virtually all criminal acts.

That was one step in the right direction in the battle against organized crime. But during the election campaign the Bloc Québécois continued to reflect on ways to move further in the battle against organized crime and on behalf of safer communities. It therefore felt that another amendment was required to specifically target organized crime in Quebec and Canada. As a result, on October 28, 2004 our colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced Bill C-242, to reverse the burden of proof, requiring a person found guilty of an offence related to organized crime—and that point is important—to prove on the balance of probabilities that his assets were lawfully and legitimately acquired.

Following this reflection process and the introduction of this private members' bill, Le Devoir wrote the following about the Bloc Québécois and its position:

—the Bloc Québécois, the first political party to propose reversing the burden of proof, with its Bill C-242 introduced in the Commons last fall, has adopted the idea.

At the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting, other stakeholders got behind the idea. The other parties eventually came around.

“This is a proposal that the Bloc likes,” confirmed the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The Bloc was recognized as the first political party to have put this idea forward in the House of Commons. The idea was discussed at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting at which the justice ministers agreed in principle with the idea presented to them.

When we take a closer look at the motion from the point of view of organization and procedures—the idea has been put out there—we can see that it is relatively detailed. Nevertheless, it will be refined in committee to eliminate any concerns or irritants with respect to protecting the presumption of innocence as well as the safety of the accused. The idea is definitely not to have everybody go before a court and tell the judges and defence lawyers how their assets were acquired. So, in committee, we will refine the proposal and make sure that it will be respectful of the rights and freedoms of the individuals to whom this bill does not apply.

Let us get into a little more detail. Since it is important to respect the presumption of innocence of the accused under the Charter, it is essential that, before any reversal of onus take place, the Crown first prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. This means that the accused has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Here are the main points that the Bloc Québécois would like to see in a future government bill on the reversal of the burden of proof. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, first, the accused is guilty of an indictable offence and, second, that he benefited directly or indirectly from an asset, benefit or advantage because he committed the offence for which he is found guilty. We could add that, with a few exceptions, the accused must belong to a criminal organization. Once these three conditions have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused would have to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the assets which the Crown wants to forfeit were obtained in a legitimate fashion.

Currently, here is how things work: an accused—as the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel so aptly showed—can file a tax return which indicates that his annual income is around $19,000, but he can still own a lavish property along a lake, a condominium in Florida and another one in the West Indies, a Corvette and a boat, and everything is just fine.

If the accused is found guilty, the courts must prove that he got his assets illegally. Under the motion now before us, which reverses the burden of proof, the contrary would happen, in that once the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing a crime and, with a few exceptions, of being a member of a criminal organization, he will be the one who has to prove that his assets were obtained legally and legitimately.

This suggestion by the Bloc Québécois which, as I said, seems to enjoy the support of the House, is a precedent in Canada, but not in the world. A number of countries, including Australia, Austria, France, New Zealand, Germany and the United Kingdom have already legislated in that sense, to various degrees, and included in their legislation the reversal of the burden of proof as regards the proceeds of crime. The financial action task force on money laundering, which is an international organization, proposed a similar measure in 2003.

In conclusion, this is a motion on which there is a consensus and one which would benefit Canadian society by making our communities safer and by impeding even more the activities of criminal organizations.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles deserves to be praised for his motion and so does the House which, I hope, will support this initiative and act quickly, so that it can be implemented without delay.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you know that sitting in this House can sometimes make us cynical, unfortunately. Indeed, it takes time before we can change things. It is difficult: we have to push, to persevere, to convince, to convince further people in our political party, but also, of course, members of other political parties, of the merits of a case that we argue.

My colleague has succeeded many times to change things. Shortly before his speech, we talked about a great success that he achieved recently regarding official languages and Air Canada. Indeed, he is a great supporter of the respect of francophones' rights across Canada.

I thank him for his speech and for the support given to the motion introduced today by the Bloc Québécois through me. I would like to ask him a question. Since it is quite rare—unfortunately too rare in our system—that a private member's initiative is followed through, does he not think that the government, as well as all the other parties, should agree to ensure that, once the bill is introduced before May 31, 2005, the process is expedited, while respecting, of course, our duty to examine very carefully a bill that may have major consequences on the lives of citizens, including their rights and freedoms? Does he not think that we should expedite the process to ensure that the bill to reverse the burden of proof, once the accused has been found guilty, is passed as quickly as possible?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we should act quickly. I would quote the Prime Minister, who said that we had to eliminate the democratic deficit or, at the very least, reduce it, to make sure we expand the role of the members of Parliament in the House of Commons. This could be a very clear example of talk becoming reality. Thus, when this House votes in favour of a motion or a bill, the government should act quickly to adopt it.

I will return my colleague's serve and say that private members' bills very often impact our communities and Canadians directly. In the current parliamentary process, each member can introduce, for all intents and purposes, only one bill during a given parliament. I know that there is currently a lobby to allow members to introduce two bills, which would effectively double their chance of being adopted.

To address the democratic deficit, I also believe that the government should consider this suggestion, made by several members, very carefully. Private members' bills often get things moving immediately and directly for the respective communities. With all due respect for the departments, when ministers introduce a bill for the government, our concerns are often on a different level.

In conclusion, I believe that, in order to reduce the democratic deficit, we should increase the number of private members' bills. This would give the members a greater role in this House and our communities a greater level of representation.

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

Mr. Speaker, briefly, I would like my colleague from Repentigny to tell me if there could not be a logical progression in the positions adopted by the Bloc in recent years.

Let us remember the organized crime crisis and the need for anti-gang legislation. Our then colleague, Mr. Michel Bellehumeur, fought an important battle in that regard and he is now a judge.

Since then, there have been other initiatives. Was there not an important contribution from the Bloc Québécois that is particularly significant for the well-being of Quebec society and of the rest of Canada?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right and that is what I was saying at the beginning of my statement. This is why I called for open-mindedness on the part of those watching at home and of our colleagues in this House. Let us put aside the sovereignty issue that divides us and look at what the Bloc Québécois is suggesting. Very seldom do we see a proposal aimed at improving the living conditions of communities in Quebec that would not improve the conditions of communities outside Quebec.

My colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie was saying that when we protect the environment or the unemployed in Quebec, particularly when there are these kinds of proposals to improve the conditions in our communities, there are benefits for all Canadians. This is why I am asking for more open-mindedness. These bills, motions and proposals introduced by the Bloc Québécois often benefit all our communities.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I also rise today to speak to the Bloc motion encouraging the government to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof in proceeds of crime cases. This would require accused, once found guilty, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained from proceeds of crime.

The underlying message behind this motion is that criminals, especially those motivated by profit, should not financially benefit from their criminal activity. We agree.

This motion, and the message underlying it, are consistent with the government's recent legislative, operational and international initiatives aimed at disrupting and deterring criminal organizations in Canada.

We took a significant step in the fight against organized crime in 1997, with amendments to the Criminal Code through Bill C-95—which created the indictable offence of participation in a criminal organization and provided law enforcement with additional significant investigative powers.

Two years later, in 1999, amendments to the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act barred those convicted of offences related to organized crime from access to accelerated parole review. While, that same year, amendments to the Competition Act and other acts created new offences for deceptive telemarketing and defined these crimes as enterprise crimes subject to the proceeds of crime regime.

Further, in 2000 the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act was enacted and provided for mandatory reporting of suspicious financial transactions and created the Financial Transactions Report Analysis Centre of Canada to receive and manage this reported financial information.

Most significantly in the fight against organized crime, the government brought forward amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts through Bill C-24, which came into force in 2002.

Bill C-24 provided substantial new measures directly targeting criminal organizations, including a simplified definition of “criminal organization”, three new criminal organization offences separately targeting those participating in or contributing to the activities of a criminal organization, those who commit indictable offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, and an offence directed at all of the leadership levels in criminal organizations. Under these provisions, penalties range from a maximum of five years imprisonment for participation, to life imprisonment for leaders. It is important to also note that consecutive sentencing applies to all three of these offences.

Bill C-24 also improved the protection from intimidation for people who play a role in the justice system, and broadened law enforcement powers to forfeit the proceeds of crime and seize property that was used in a crime.

Finally, amendments were made to the Criminal Code in 2004 through Bill C-13 in order to enable investigators to better obtain documents or data from third parties through judicial production orders. This investigative tool is now available in respect of all criminal offences and is expected to be of particular assistance in the investigation of criminal organization offences.

In addition to the legislative measures that were passed and previously mentioned, the Government of Canada has taken major operational steps to fight organized crime.

Of particular relevance is the creation of Integrated Proceeds of Crime Units in Canada, first launched in 1996. These units are found across Canada and are staffed with federal, provincial and municipal police officers, Justice Canada Crown counsel, customs officers, federal tax investigators, and forensic accountants. They support other law enforcement units by undertaking the investigation and prosecution of the proceeds of crime aspects of organized crime.

They also support other anti-organized crime initiatives, and help to fulfill Canada's international commitments, particularly those set by the multilateral Financial Action Task Force in which Canada plays a leading role.

Canada is also working internationally to combat organized crime. In this regard, in 1997 Canada and the United States established a Cross-Border Crime Forum to strengthen cooperation and to focus law enforcement efforts on such issues as cross-border crimes, telemarketing fraud, money laundering, and high-tech crime.

In addition, Canada played a key role within the United Nations in the development of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, signed in December 2000, providing countries with a shared framework to enhance international cooperation.

It is clear that the Government of Canada has taken many deliberate and effective legislative, operational and international steps in the fight against organized crime. It is this proven commitment, giving the tools to our dedicated law enforcement and Crown prosecutors, which seeks to ensure that criminal organizations in Canada are disrupted, deterred, and dismantled.

Organized criminals commit crime predominantly for monetary benefit. These financial gains sustain these criminal groups and facilitate their growth, both in numbers and influence.

It is for this reason that I support the development of a charter compliant reverse onus in proceeds of crime cases.

With this enhancement of the law, coupled with the other existing tools outlined previously, we would be in a better position to thwart the plans of criminals motivated by material gain or profit in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the deputy leader of the government. Indeed, I feel that there is a community of thoughts on this issue, on the relevancy of continuing to build a structure that would enable us to hold organized crime in check. Actions have been taken in the past and, without false modesty, the Bloc Québécois has made an interesting contribution.

I take this opportunity to convey my condolences to the families of the RCMP officers who, unfortunately, lost their lives while on duty. As funeral services are held today, we should have a thought for them.

In the bill which the government will introduce, I think that the objective is sound and clear, and the bill will have to achieve the expected result. My colleague has already touched on it, but I would like him to strengthen my perception of things.

We will also have to guard against jumping to the opposite extreme. He has talked about respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does he believe that the bill will contain, on the one hand, provisions that will help us to fight organized crime by preventing proceeds of crime to benefit a person who has been convicted, but also, on the other hand, measures to guarantee that people who ought not to be targeted by this measure will not be affected?

Beyond the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which we must abide by, should other measures be included in this bill in order for today's motion by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-St-Charles, which will be followed by the government's bill, to actually achieve the desired result, while not affecting other people who ought not to be targeted by such a bill.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment in view of the not very nice remarks made by members opposite. It would be wrong to accuse the Bloc Québécois of false modesty. They have never been guilty of that.

As to the subject matter before us today, we will be listening to this debate and to the suggestions that will be made. We will certainly have discussions about this with provincial and territorial governments, as we should. After that, we will introduce a bill in the House, just like the motion provides. The government agrees with the motion, and it is totally appropriate that, in doing so, we should abide by the charter. We should always keep a fair balance between fighting organized crime and standing for the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We certainly intend to maintain the balance the government and Parliament has managed to achieve over the years.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide you with an overview of the government's response, working in close collaboration with its provincial, territorial and law enforcement partners, to the problem of organized crime in Canada.

I support the motion before us because we need more tools against organized crime. Organized crime is a diverse and persistent problem. It extends into every community in Canada, whether it is violent turf wars among rival gangs on our streets, marijuana grow operations in our residential neighbourhoods, or telemarketing schemes that prey upon our senior citizens.

We know that organized crime is increasingly profitable and increasingly costly for hard-working Canadians who face higher taxes and insurance premiums as a result of these activities. As someone who has been a registered insurance broker for the past 25 years, I know well the impact of claims on Canadians, on individuals, business people, and indeed, even on not for profit community organizations.

In response to this diverse and pervasive problem, Canada has established a strong record of concerted and vigorous action. In the year 2000, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice endorsed the national agenda to combat organized crime. The national agenda recognizes that the fight against organized crime is a national priority that requires governments and the law enforcement community to work together.

The national agenda sets out a blueprint for action to combat organized crime in four key areas: through improved national and regional coordination; through stronger legislative and regulatory tools; through additional research and analysis; and through more effective communications and public education efforts.

I would like to take the time today to highlight just a few of the many steps federal, provincial and territorial governments have taken under the national agenda to combat organized crime.

Efforts under the national agenda are coordinated through a national coordinating committee on organized crime, a group composed of federal, provincial and territorial officials, prosecutors and law enforcement representatives, which is supported by five regional coordinating committees.

When ministers endorsed the national agenda in 2000, they also endorsed a list of shared priority issues that need to be addressed by governments and enforcement partners alike: illicit drugs, outlaw motorcycle gangs, economic crime, high tech crime, money laundering, trafficking in human beings and migrant smuggling, corruption, and street gangs.

Today I would like to highlight some of our collective efforts to address these priority issues.

Illicit drug trade tops the list. The government has made substantial investments to reduce the supply of and demand for drugs. In 2003, when the Canada strategy was renewed, an additional $245 million over five years was committed to bolster our efforts in the areas of prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. As well, under the renewed strategy, the RCMP is receiving new resources to combat the production and trafficking of marijuana and synthetic drugs in Canada.

Efforts to combat outlaw motorcycle gangs, another top priority, were bolstered by Criminal Code amendments that came into force in 2002. These included new offences and tough sentences targeting involvement with criminal organizations. Strong partnerships among law enforcement agencies are vital to dismantling these organized crime groups and the RCMP plays a very active and necessary role in mitigating this criminal threat. In the last two years, collaborative police efforts have led to the arrest of hundreds of outlaw motorcycle gang members and associates.

Efforts to combat economic crime, whether it is identity theft, credit card fraud, telemarketing fraud, fraudulent solicitations, security and stock market fraud or counterfeiting, represent another top priority in the fight against organized crime. Economic crime victimizes Canadians of all ages and occupations. It also has a negative impact on the strength and competitiveness of our economy.

National efforts to combat economic crime were strengthened in 2003 when the RCMP launched RECOL, reporting economic crime online, an Internet based fraud reporting system. RECOL provides Canadians with a single port of entry for complaints regarding suspected fraudulent activity.

RECOL also allows for improved communications among law enforcement jurisdictions across Canada and internationally.

This is a dynamic area. The federal government is open to considering both potential reforms and new innovations to strengthen the tools available to fight organized crime, for instance, in the areas of proceeds of crime megatrials and disclosure.

Research and analysis is another key component under the national agenda. When ministers endorsed the national agenda to combat organized crime, they identified the need for sound data to measure more effectively the scope of organized crime in Canada. Government officials, working in close conjunction with police, are implementing a multi-year work plan under which meaningful national data collection will begin this calendar year.

Strengthening our communications and public education efforts on organized crime is the last of the four components of the national agenda. It is also of vital importance. We need to tell Canadians that organized crime activity, from identity theft to illicit drugs to street gangs, affects all communities. It is not someone else's problem. We have been working with the provinces and territories and the law enforcement community to get this message out.

To this end, fact sheets on several of our national organized crime priorities, such as outlaw motorcycle gangs, illegal drugs, money laundering, fraud, trafficking in human beings, and economic crime, have been posted to the website of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada.

Fulfilling the mandate made in the fall 2003 meeting of the FPT ministers responsible for justice, the first FPT public report on organized crime, entitled “Working Together to Combat Organized Crime”, was released to the public in May 2004. The report details how governments and the law enforcement community have come together in partnership in recent years to find solutions to the pervasive problem of organized crime.

I have highlighted today a number of aggressive steps the government has taken, along with its partners, to combat organized crime. I can assure the House and all Canadians that we remain committed to working with our provincial, territorial and law enforcement partners to address this problem. Strengthening our ability to follow the proceeds of crime, to ensure that crime does not pay, will be a key element of our work.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member kept referring to the “dynamic” and “aggressive” program this government has in enforcing laws to deal with organized crime. I have a lot of difficulty with those comments.

One of the biggest stock frauds that ever happened in the history of stock markets was not in the United States. It happened in this country with Bre-X, when there was “gold in them thar hills” in Indonesia. That was back in 1996. Billions of dollars were lost by legitimate investors throughout the world and in this country. From what I can gather, to date nobody has been charged.

The U.S. is in the business of dealing with Bernie Evers. The Enron people are going to jail. Martha Stewart just got out of jail. But Bre-X happened in 1996 and nothing has happened, from what I can see, so when the government talks about its “aggressive” program in dealing with organized crime, quite seriously I am scratching my head.

I do have a question for the member. There is a major investigation being conducted on the oil for food program, which involved the United Nations and Iraq. It looks as if billions and billions of dollars were illegally diverted from that program and into the pockets of UN officials and Saddam Hussein.

It looks as though powerful people in Canada may have been involved in this program. The crimes were committed outside Canada, but some of the chief benefactors could be inside Canada. It is fraud and corruption to the highest level to subvert a program like the oil for food program.

I would ask the member of the government to enlighten us on what aggressive policies and laws the government has in place to make sure that the people in this country who would have benefited from this illegal billion dollar kickback scheme would pay a very heavy price in this country. I would like him to enlighten us.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, enlightening members of the opposition is always a delightful experience. I hope to be able to do that.

When we talk about Bre-X in 1996 and the debate today is dealing with organized crime, are we assuming that Bre-X was an organized crime organization? I am not sure that it was. In fact, the tragedy of the senior geologist jumping out of the helicopter probably addresses some of those issues.

When we talk about a dynamic response, the fact is that criminals are always on the creative edge of things. There is no doubt that those of us who obey and respect the law always seem to be catching up and trying to respond. It is very much reactive in a way that is going to try to pre-empt those. For us, the long list of government responses I believe is a very credible record over the past number of years.

The member makes reference to Saddam Hussein. I would think that much of the proposed legislation indeed would encompass organized crime for terrorist crimes.

I have been actively involved in the police services board. Indeed, my record includes establishing community groups such as 911 groups, block parents, crime stoppers and those types of things. I am very keenly aware of what it is that communities must do.

The fact that those messages have been translated, sent and received by the other orders of government, provincial, territorial and of course federal, means that when we talk about the dynamic there is always something that needs to be done. This legislation is a very solid case of something that all members of all parties can support. I very much appreciate the member's question. I hope I have enlightened him.