Yvan Loubier

[Budget Surpluses, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the situation is cause for concern, but there is no need to make matters worse. That is what the Minister of Finance did yesterday.

There can have been only two reasons why he said what he did: either he is telling us whatever comes into his head about the surpluses as he has done for the past five years, or the minister of defence has asked him for billions of dollars to take part in the war effort and to finance his scenarios.

Will the minister of defence inform the House about the nature of these extraordinary demands for billions of dollars?

[Budget Surpluses, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for the first four months of this year the federal government has accumulated surpluses in excess of $10 billion. Yesterday the Minister of Finance told us that because of the anti-terrorism effort and security measures, these surpluses could disappear and our way of life could change.

Does the government agree with the disturbing comments of the Minister of Finance, which, to make matters worse, contradict those of the Prime Minister who said this week that there was no question of the terrorists dictating how we lived our lives?

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill which is of critical importance to the future of international trade.

The bill provides for:

—the expedited movement of persons and goods into Canada;

(b) streamlined clearance procedures for low risk passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger information;

(c) new requirements in respect of the provision of information obtained under that Act;

(d) monetary penalties in respect of designated contraventions;

We can only support any government initiative designed to facilitate trade and speed up customs procedures. We can only support a bill that can improve these aspects and thus ensure that our country can export its goods and services more easily to the United States and even elsewhere in the world while promoting cordial relations with our trading partners.

This is why we support in principle Bill S-23 introduced by our learned colleague the hon. member for Outremont.

However we must be extremely careful because the government has the unfortunate tendency to introduce bills that refer to all sorts of provisions and regulations that have yet to be drafted. When regulations can be twice as long as the bill itself, it is cause for concern because we are not getting the full picture.

Several of the bills introduced by the government in recent years had this unfortunate feature. For example, the Bank Act provides that regulations will come later. In the case of certain provisions, we are still waiting for these regulations.

Another problem with Bill S-23 that also existed with the Bank Act is the very broad discretionary powers given to the minister responsible, in this case the Minister of National Revenue, who is in charge of customs.

We must avoid this kind of situation since we can only evaluate a bill on its merits if it includes specific provisions. In the bill before us, there are at least three issues that deserve a much more indepth review than is now possible without the regulations.

First, when the government talks about expanding the CANPASS program so that more exporters and importers can move their goods more rapidly through customs simply by showing their CANPASS membership card, we may well wonder how we can evaluate the fairness and impact of this measure if we do not know what criteria is used when deciding whether certain exporters or importers should be allowed to qualify for the CANPASS program. They will be able to pass through Canadian and U.S. customs more quickly. Another category will be refused CANPASS accreditation after their cases are considered.

How are we to evaluate the fairness of this decision? What avenues of appeal are open to exporters and importers? It is important that the criteria for accreditation be clearly known.

Why? Because those who qualify under the CANPASS program will have a competitive advantage over their competitors. Why? Because they will be able to point to their CANPASS accreditation as a business advantage and tell their clients “I guarantee you that there will be no wait at Canadian customs. I will be able to clear the goods, and you will receive them faster than if you use my competitor who does not have a CANPASS”.

It becomes a bit like the ISO standard in industry. It becomes a symbol of recognition of the performance of these exporters or importers. If a company obtains CANPASS accreditation and another company in the same sector or in another Canadian province does not, we need to know why. Because the former has an advantage over the latter, as it would in the case of ISO standards, because it can show that it is able to expedite its shipping contracts for its clients.

The second example concerns the system for expediting passenger movement. We have no indication of the criteria which will be used. It is a bit disturbing when the minister is being given discretionary power, or we are waiting for regulations yet to come, but we do not know the criteria that will be used in awarding these accreditations.

This would also allow—and the privacy commissioner highlighted this problem with Bill S-23—Canada Customs agents to open packages weighing over 30 grams. Once again this raises some issues. Surely there is some way to limit this power to open mail without a warrant and without any legal reason. Surely there is some way to better define this aspect of the bill. This is what we will work on in the coming weeks.

While we support this bill in theory since it will help simplify trade, we have some serious concerns with regard to provisions contained within the bill. To this end, we are asking—and I am sure that we will have the co-operation of the minister responsible—that the minister provide us with the bulk of the regulations at the same time as we are studying the bill in committee specifically, so that we can get the whole picture of the situation.

Incidentally, I would invite the minister responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to come up with a work plan to review new provisions regarding international trade, as well as the existing ones, in light of the new circumstances, that is, the tragedy that took place some ten days ago in the United States.

Obviously, increasing security means tightening certain customs regulations and increasing the resources allocated to border surveillance. I hope the minister already has a work plan to review how Canada protects its borders and to ensure that this is improved in view of the new and terrifying events that took place in the United States the week before last.

Finally, I would ask the minister responsible, because this is part of his mandate, to try to see how we could neutralize, in the near future, the work of money laundering organizations that conduct their activities all over the world and often have a base of operations in Canada. I would ask the minister—because it is ultimately his responsibility—to review, in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, even though it is the Minister of National Revenue who is responsible for their implementation, the tax treaties signed with some countries that are deemed to be tax havens.

Since 1993 we have been asking the government to review these tax treaties, to provide more resources so as to put pressure on these tax havens to stop their unfair way of processing tax resources and particularly money laundering activities, given what happened in the United States and given the statements made by the western world regarding the fight against tax havens and money laundering, which are the source of wealth of terrorist groups. The government should take a serious look at this issue. I will complete my speech after oral question period.

[The Economy, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, several billion dollars worth of goods in transit are blocked at our borders; hundreds of conventions are cancelled, in Montreal in particular; carriers are in trouble; and there will be an inevitable increase in the costs of security.

Does the Minister of Finance not admit that the only way he can provide any serious responses to these very real problems is to promptly bring down a budget in the House?

[The Economy, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is concealing his budget surplus and his entire financial margin of manoeuvrability is going to paying down the debt.

For the last budget year, the minister also allocated $17 billion to pay down the debt, with no debate whatsoever.

Since the events of September 11, the economic situation has changed radically. Will the Minister of Finance at last announce some credible budget forecasts with sufficient margin of manoeuvrability to respond to the present situation?

[The Economy, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, paying back part of the debt is all very well, but there are special measures to stimulate the economy. We are in an economic slowdown. All the analysts are tending to agree.

Could the Minister of Finance not be a little more original and have measures passed that would directly stimulate the economy, revive consumer confidence and provide a little boost under the circumstances to Canada's economy?

[The Economy, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance intimated that he might or might not pass certain measures to counter the economic slowdown that is unfortunately at Canada's door. I would ask him to be a little more specific.

Will the Minister of Finance include special budget measures with his next economic statement to stimulate the economy, measures that have become more pressing and necessary than ever with the tragic events of last Tuesday in the United States?

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Progressive Conservative member for his kind words with respect to the Bloc Quebecois members, particularly the member for Berthier—Montcalm, who led the battle for this amendment to the criminal code.

We are going to vote in favour of this amendment: first, because we feel it is very fair and, second, because it was our colleague, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, who suggested it to the Standing Committee on Justice.

As I mentioned earlier, it is a bit much that the Liberal members must always be practically intimidated before they will come around to a point of view or an analysis which has always been right. The Bloc Quebecois has always put its finger on the problems and the shortcomings of the criminal code, and the tools the police are given to conduct their investigations.

During the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice, the Liberal members were completely opposed to journalists being protected. Even in the case of Mr. Auger, it was something they would not do. It took the Bloc Quebecois moving a motion calling for a recorded division and threatening to release the names of those Liberal members present to convince them.

It is a bit much to have to operate in this way to bring about improvements. This government does not readily understand the importance of what it includes in a bill, in terms of actions and wording.

This amendment deals with intimidation. This is a very important issue; with money, it is the key element in the war being wagered by all criminal groups. If, with the wealth derived from drugs, car thefts and prostitution, one is unable to buy another person, he will use intimidation. It is the one or the other.

We welcome this amendment. For about three months, I lived through this hell. It was as if I had been in some kind of jail 24 hours a day, seven days a week, while I could see on television criminals clowning around, smiling and acting like movie stars; they are incredibly arrogant when they become powerful.

Their arrogance is directly proportional to their power. For an honest citizens, particularly a three year old girl, to be deprived of their freedom even for an hour, is the most horrible experience they can go through. Freedom is important, particularly when one has nothing to reproach oneself with.

Why should we be shy when comes the time to fight organized crime, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, supposedly to respect the rights of these people who have absolutely no respect for others? They destroy families, they kill, even 11 year old children.

Why should we not include clauses such as the one proposed by my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm to protect journalists? In a democracy, these people have an incredible job to do, that is, to dig up the truth and denounce criminals. In this democracy, they often complement our work. Without them, democracy would be incredibly flawed. So it was quite normal that we should include journalists in this new clause on intimidation.

I am also pleased with the new provision that will protect the general public from certain acts of intimidation. Other provisions provide for the prosecution of those who help out organized criminals or have close ties with them. I am also very happy that, under this bill, the thugs who take over farmland in my riding and elsewhere in Quebec will be prosecuted.

By linking those two provisions to the crimes they commit, we will be able to put them behind bars. First, they use intimidation. For about four years now, they have been intimidating farm families. That is unacceptable. They terrorize them for six months every year, from the moment they sow and transplant to the moment they harvest. They intimidate farmers, their families and their children.

We now have the extra tools we need to prosecute them. After catching these criminals right there in the fields, and I am talking directly to them now, we will have the tools to prosecute them for contributing to organized crime, the operations of biker gangs in particular, and to ensure they get real tough sentences. We will put an end to institutionalized terrorism in the rural areas of Quebec and particular in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We will let those farming families alone, undisturbed, to enjoy the use of their land and make the economy roll.

I am particularly proud of the new provisions. However, we would have liked the minister to show even more openness. We will have to wait another two, three or maybe four years to find out that there are still flaws.

I do not know what is happening, but on our side, we work, we analyse and we plan. We have a problem with a number of things in this bill, irrespective of the good in it, and the bill satisfies about 80% of our expectations, for example, the whole issue of the solicitor general approving of the commission of crimes by policemen.

Why is a judge not involved as is the case for search warrants, so that the political power does not interfere with the judiciary, with all the abuses that this may entail? There will be abuses. It is easy to foresee that. Why not also limit police immunity with respect to the organized crime?

We have asked the Minister of Justice why she was not referring to criminal organizations, to organized crime. It is becoming disturbing to see that we can extend immunity to the police for any reason, basically for any group. It is just like an open bar. Once again, we want to give the police all the tools they need to fight organized crime and to help them do their work. That is obvious. However, we have to put restrictions and we need to be very careful.

We also asked the minister to reverse the burden of proof for the proceeds of crime. Let the criminals explain how, when they do not have a regular job and do not file income tax returns with Revenue Canada or Revenu Québec, they can afford a Mercedes, a boat and a mansion.

It would have been nice if the government had avoided a situation where it will have to spend thousands and millions of dollars investigating the assets of criminals to prove that they are the proceeds of crime. We will have to wait once more, maybe for three, four or five years.

It would have been so easy to pass this bill before operation Spring 2001. It was possible. These problems have been pointed out since 1997. I would have liked to see the 160 criminals who were arrested in Quebec charged under the principles of the new bill. It was possible. We knew what was missing in the criminal code. We knew how difficult it was to prove gangsterism with the so-called rule of the three fives: a group of five people having committed in the last five years a crime punishable by imprisonment for five years.

We will have to continue our education efforts, and the next time around the bill will be better and will give us 100% of what we need to fight organized crime effectively.

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to pay tribute to my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, not only for his work in committee, as the Canadian Alliance member pointed out, but also for his continuous work, since 1994, in the fight against organized crime.

Since 1994, the Bloc Quebecois has always put forward initiatives to improve the criminal code, so that criminals, particularly those who belong to biker gangs and to organized crime in general, will be given meaningful sentences that reflect their crimes and the terrorism they institutionalized in today's society.

Back in 1997, when it decided to amend the criminal code, the government used several of the Bloc Quebecois' ideas. We were very pleased with that but, at the time, we were also aware that the criminal code had to be strengthened even further. At the time, we had pointed to certain flaws, about 80% of which are being corrected in the new bill.

We still wonder, and the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, often about this: since we were able to identify the problems with the criminal code, the flaws relating to the tools available to police officers to combat organized crime, why did the government take so long to recognize the need to strengthen the criminal code and to have specific provisions to lead a continuous, constant and determined fight against organized crime?

I am not saying that we would have avoided all that has happened, but some of the 151 murders committed between 1994 and now in the biker gang war, particularly to control the drug market, might have been avoided.

Some of the 170 attempted murders, including the recent one against reporter Michel Auger, might also have been avoided.

With a tightened criminal code, as we have before us today, we might have avoided some of these attempted murders, 13 disappearances, 334 violent crimes, 129 cases of arson, 82 bombings and the murder of one young boy in 1995. Young Daniel Desrochers lost his life as a result of a bombing in the Hochelaga—Maisonneuve area. The bomb was placed by the Hell's Angels, who were involved with the Rock Machine, now known as the Bandidos, in a war to control the drug traffic.

Let us not forget that, if we open the door to these criminal gangs, if we provide them with some kind of haven where they can grow and prosper, they can only become more arrogant and more powerful. With power comes their willingness to commit more crime to show their supremacy.

That is exactly what happened when two prison guards were killed in 1997, if I am not mistaken. We might have avoided these tragedies.

Members might remember that four years ago I talked about institutionalized terrorism in Quebec and southeastern Ontario, in the countryside. Members of criminal gangs grow marijuana in those fields every year. To ensure the growth of their business operations, they terrorize farm families. Maybe this is something else we could have avoided.

I am pleased with what I see in this bill. I even support the amendment put forward by my Conservative colleague allowing a judge to designate a member of a police force who can be protected from criminal liability for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an investigation.

It is also a way to protect the solicitor general. We should not forget that, when politics interfere with the judiciary, it always turns into a disaster, as we have seen in the past. It has always put us, willy-nilly, in terrible situations.

It is especially true since the practice of having illegal acts committed by police officers applies not only to investigations into organized crime. We often asked this question to the solicitor general and the justice minister. They have said that this practice is not restricted to organized crime.

This thing could go quite far. The solicitor general could have to make a political decision when what we need is a judicial decision. This could lead to abuse.

We have seen a lot of abuse in the past. We all know what happened in the 1970s. We would not like to see this happen again. Two royal commissions investigated police actions during the October 1970 events. The powers of were have been restricted, and at the same time, the roles of the RCMP and of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service were divided so that these roles would be clearly defined.

Did we forget about all these discussions? Did we forget what happened a few decades ago, so that we are now about to make the same mistakes again today?

We support the introduction of the judicial order, therefore of a judge, in the fact that the police are given authority or tools to work with, including the ability to commit offences not murder or rape, as part of their undercover operations.

I met a lot of policemen during the three months my family had 24 hour a day protection seven days a week because of death threats. I had reported gangsters who had taken over farmland in my riding, elsewhere in Quebec and in southeastern Ontario.

I therefore had a taste of that sort of terrorism. I also learned a lot by talking to the police who often came from drug raids and who had had to go undercover. They are often required to commit offences, because, if they do not, they risk their skins. They risk being killed on the spot. So, they need these tools in order to become more effective and to protect themselves as well.

They have to be careful. The job of policemen is not a cushy one. They need these tools. We support the fact that the government is giving them the tools to enable them to effectively combat organized crime and do not get discouraged. I also met police from the RCMP and the Sûreté du Québec, who, in the absence of legal instruments, were back at square one after months and months of investigations costing hundreds of millions of dollars and unable to lay charges.

I am very anxious to see, following the recent operation springtime 2001, with its 160 arrests, including the heads of biker gangs, how far we will be able to proceed with charges under the provisions of the Criminal Code as it now stands, and this will need to be discussed with the minister at some point.

The weaknesses that have been pointed out since 1997 are still there, until the new legislation is enacted. If they remain, this means that charges are not being laid and evidence is not being gathered against these 160 bandits who have committed criminal offences ranging from drug trafficking to corruption, intimidation of judges, politicians, journalists, and even murder or attempted murder.

If the tools available to us at the present time, which have been criticized since 1997 by the Bloc Quebecois and by my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm, stand in the way of laying any meaningful charges against this band of criminals, that will be the fault of the Minister of Justice, no more and no less.

She had no justification for waiting this long before introducing her bill. She had all the tools, all the analyses, at her disposal. We had provided them. She had everything she needed to make a decision to strengthen the criminal code well before today.

During the committee hearings, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm told me that, as regards the amendment to include journalists in the clause about people to be protected against intimidation through sentences of up to 14 years, we had to intimidate the Liberals to have them agree to include journalists in the list of people to be protected against intimidation. This is incredible.

We all know about Mr. Auger's experience. We know that, like politicians, as I learned from personal experience, journalists do a risky and dangerous job. They examine issues. They target criminals. They report on their activities. It is quite normal to include them.

However we had to threaten the Liberals with releasing the names of those who were opposed to including journalists in the list of the people to be protected from intimidation, before they would finally agree to this amendment. They got scared that their names would be released and that journalists would say “Listen, this does not make sense”.

For all these reasons, we will support the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative member. We will also support the other group of amendments, which consists in including journalists in the new clause on intimidation.

[Council For Canadian Unity, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should take a look at the Internet site, he should read the study that we exposed last week. The separatist enemies, this is the tone used by federalists, not by us.

I am asking the minister how many such anonymous propaganda initiatives are being taken by the Council for Canadian Unity against Quebec, with the sponsor remaining anonymous?

Is this not a good illustration of what the secret communication strategy identified as the marketing war against Quebec?