Réal Ménard

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as some people spoke to me very highly of this new member, I cannot resist the temptation and ask him two short questions.

The notion that a referendum might be held cannot apply here for the two following reasons: first, as the hon. member will understand, what this is all about, from A to Z , on the X as well as on the Y axis, in any way one tries to look at it, involves only the education sector. We are not dealing with an amendment that is going to change the balance between communities, between francophones and anglophones.

We are dealing with an amendment that will enable the province of Quebec, the country of Quebec—I should never use the words “Quebec” and “province” in the same sentence—to modernize its school system. That is the basic and sole purpose of this amendment.

The member says there has to be equality among the provinces. I should probably take on the challenge of convincing him of the contrary before the end of the year.

If the member thinks that all the provinces are equal, therefore that Quebec is equal to Prince Edward Island, in spite of all the beauty that Prince Edward Island has to offer with its beaches and the ingenuity of its people, it essentially means that the member thinks that we are not a nation, that there is only one nation, the Canadian nation, and that he does not want things to change to recognize the fact that we speak French, that our political system is different, that our justice system is different, that we have a vernacular language, that we have a collective desire to survive and, most of all, that Quebec is the only state in the world that is controlled by 82 per cent of the population. That is what the specificity of Quebec is all about.

So, I hope that, by dint of rubbing shoulders with him in very parliamentary settings, I will convince the hon. member that we cannot in all honesty say that all provinces must be equal, for that would be denying the fact that Quebec is a nation.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your new responsibilities. I had absolutely no intention of participating in this debate but I think that I must set the record straight, with the benevolent and informed support of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.

You know that, according to the amending formula of the Constitution Act, 1982, there are five ways to amend the Constitution. In some instances, the federal government may act alone. There is the well known 7-50 formula, that is to say that an amendment needs the support of seven provinces representing at least 50 percent of the population. Furthermore, provinces can act alone in their own areas of jurisdiction. There is also the bilateral formula and the unanimity rule, which applies to the position of lieutenant governor, the Queen's representative, and to the redrawing of some boundaries, among other things.

I think that the hon. member, who is well versed in and loves constitutional issues, cannot make a parallel and argue that a bilateral approach would create a dangerous precedent by supporting the legitimate sovereigntist option to act unilaterally.

Let us be clear: there is absolutely no doubt that, in this case, the bilateral formula applies. When Quebec decides in a democratic way to declare its independence, it will be on the basis not of Canada's legislation but of international law as the Constitution makes no provision for such a scenario.

So I would ask the hon. member to make the necessary distinctions, for these are two distinct debates with nothing in common at this time and I wish the hon. member did not really want the committee to proceed as she is suggesting.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is true that we must distinguish the two. I agree with the minister. However, the minister will realize that I was responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition. He knows full well that, as a man of principle, I simply must reply to the opposition leader.

In short, the debate must be conducted in a dispassionate manner. I thank the government for its intention to act diligently regarding linguistic school boards, because such is the wish of the National Assembly.

I hope we make the necessary distinctions between denominational and linguistic rights. I want to reiterate, on behalf of all Bloc members, our attachment to that founding minority, the English community, whose rights will be maintained in the future. I am confident that, in the future, the dialogue will always be conducted in a spirit of generosity, as it has been in the past.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Mamdam Speaker, if I pleased the minister with my speech at least, that makes me happy. He must realize however that my reply was directed to the Leader of the Opposition.

Incidentally, I would like the Université de Montréal to organize a debate opposing the minister and myself. I was a student of his. I hope he has a fond memory of those days.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs agree with me that legislation was properly and duly passed in the Quebec National Assembly, which is said to be the only national redress act ever to have been passed in Quebec, and I am referring to Bill 101?

Does the minister recognize that there are those who claim that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could potentially weaken the authority of the National Assembly, by invalidating entire chunks of the act; does he agree that I am right when I rise in my place to make that argument, and does he agree that it is not desirable that francophones who have a unique responsibility on this continent could see their language rights weakened by a Constitution that was never recognized by the National Assembly?

That is what I am saying and I am prepared to argue my position in any forum and debate it with the minister in the forum of his choice.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, may I say to the leader of the official opposition that calm is to my party what openmindedness is to his. This is what leads me to think that the debate will be calm.

That having been said, the Leader of the Opposition knows very well that the motion tabled in the National Assembly states very clearly that we do not recognize the Constitution Act, 1982, for a number of reasons, and with the support of a number of analysts in English Canada, who studied its impact. What did it mean to Quebeckers to have a charter of rights and freedoms? It meant that whole chunks of the only law of national redress ever to be passed by the National Assembly, Bill 101, were invalidated, as concerns display in administrative terms, and of course the Canada clause versus the Quebec clause.

That having been said, we are governed by a constitutional order and contrary to our will we must, in order to modernize our school system in Quebec, face this obligation before us to use the amending formula.

I think the Leader of the Opposition is above making simplistic links. We are democrats and here we are in a national parliament where each member was elected by the people in his or her riding.

There is a constitution, which we did not sign for all sorts of reason, but the first—and I would propose to the Leader of the Opposition that I give him for Christmas a book written by an intellectual by the name of Mandel of the University of Toronto, who proves the point clearly. He is an anglophone who is not a sovereignist. I am sure this book is in the Privy Council library. The author demonstrates in his book that the basic reason why in 1982 we adopted a charter with language rights incompatible with those of the National Assembly was to invalidate Bill 101. And he made no mistake, because, as you know, entire chunks of Bill 101 were invalidated.

That having been said, the Leader of the Opposition should never forget that we are democratic. There is a Canadian constitutional order that will apply until international law takes over. As part of the process, we are obliged to use the amending formula, a bilateral formula. To achieve our goal, we must respect this state of affairs.

[Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee, October 1st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, allow me to congratulate you on your new duties.

We are on the verge of a truly historic experience. I want to thank all the parties in this House that will join with the Quebec National Assembly to permit, and this is the core of the issue, the implementation of a resolution passed by the only francophone parliament, the only one controlled by a majority of Quebeckers, the National Assembly, of course.

I would first like to give three warnings. The resolution that will create the joint committee does not concern Quebec's language rights. The debate concerns obviously Quebec's ability to withdraw from the effect of section 93, especially subsections 1 to 4.

We would be hard pressed to find reference to Quebec's language rights. If we want to consider language rights, we would have to consult section 173 of the Charte de la langue française and of course the Charte québécoise des droits de la personne.

In our minds the matter involves—and I see that the Privy Council agreed—a bilateral amendment. I hope the Reform Party will understand that the five options offered by the Constitution Act, 1982 are clearly worded so that we can make no mistake as parliamentarians that we are right to put Quebec's resolution into effect according to the bilateral amending formula.

Perhaps the leader of the Reform Party does not fully grasp what one may call the consensus in Quebec. As for linguistic school boards, because that is what this is all about, the resolution says that religious beliefs have no bearing on the way Quebec will be organized or the selection of an administrative or management method. There is therefore no connection between people's religious beliefs and the method of management we will adopt for school boards. This is what dividing school boards by language is all about.

Why has a referendum on this issue not been held in Quebec in the past 15 years? Because of a lack of democracy? Of course not. The reason we have not had a referendum is, first, that the main stakeholders in education, regardless of their sympathies, have expressed exceptionally clear support for dividing school boards by language.

Let me remind the hon. members—as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicated, I think—that, in Quebec, we have had a consensus on this issue since 1982: the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation and the Assemblée des évêques are in favour of the proposed change. When the Assemblée des évêques makes a pronouncement on an issue, it usually does so solemnly. Bishops being at the service of the Lord, they generally give a great deal of thought to any decision they make. They take every necessary precaution.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition—and I am prepared to table a list of organizations, if he wishes, to help him better understand the reality in Quebec—that every player in the area of education, organizations such as the Alliance des professeurs, the Fédération des cégeps and the Council of Universities, were in favour and still are in favour of dividing school boards by language.

The leader of the official opposition should also know that, since the Parent report was tabled, both sovereignist and federalist governments have attempted on six separate occasions—yes, six occasions—to reform the education system in Quebec. Each of these attempts was blocked by the requirements, the obligations under section 93.

So, what will we do as parliamentarians when, before the holiday season—indeed Christmas is coming, but I am confident and also grateful to the government for its diligence—we pass a motion allowing the National Assembly, therefore the people of Quebec, to modernize, thanks to the existing consensus, its school system, so as to have linguistic school boards? This is the fundamental issue that must be understood.

Does this mean, assuming we proceed, that religious or pastoral teaching will no longer have its place in schools? Of course not, because the Education Act requires us to provide such teaching, and because section 41 of the Quebec charter of rights expressly recognizes such rights.

Therefore, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to make a careful reading of Quebec's reality. For goodness sake, there is no betrayal of democratic principles here. The Leader of the Opposition rose to say that education is sacred. We Quebecers have known that since the Tremblay report. Every Quebec premier has always said that education is sacred, primarily because it has to do with one's identity, culture and training.

The Quebec National Assembly adopted the resollution unanimously. As parliamentarians, we all know how difficult this is to achieve, that unanimity in Parliament seldom occurs. So, let us rejoice at the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous stance on the establishment of linguistic school boards.

The Leader of the Opposition should never forget that six attempts were made to reform Quebec's school system. Again, who, in this House, can claim that, in Quebec or elsewhere—but we speak for Quebec—there is a link between the religious convictions of individuals—which we respect, given their noble character—and school boards? There can be no links between the religious beliefs and convictions of individuals and the way we will, or want to, set up school boards.

We all know that the worst thing that could happen to this Parliament would be for there to be a slippage, a sideways skid, and for there to be an attempt to link this constitutional amendment with the language rights of anglophone minorities, something which, as you know, all hon. members hold dear.

Why this attachment to the anglophone minority? First of all, because the anglophone minority is part of our history. There were Thompsons, there were Jeffersons, in our history, and we know very well they had a hand in building the province of Quebec, the country of Quebec, and we acknowledge their special role. None among us can claim—I see that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is nodding her agreement—that the English Quebec community, the anglophone community, and the 90 some-odd other groups co-existing in Quebec, can be put on the same footing.

We therefore recognize—and I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has read the National Assembly motion—that the anglophone community, or the English speaking community as they chose to put it, is entitled to its educational structures, to schooling from kindergarten to the university level, according to a criterion found in article 73 of the Charter of the French Language. No one is challenging this. Moreover, generally speaking, I do not believe I am mistaken in thinking that the anglophone community, via a number of spokespersons, has been rather favourable to the point that, when it comes down to it, what it will get from the linguistic school boards is an enhanced control over its institutions. That is what it will mean to the anglophone community.

There are some, of course, who link this amendment with section 23(1)(a). Let us be accurate about it. To repeat, what we are dealing with today is an amendment which invites us to follow up on a unanimous resolution by the National Assembly concerning denominational schools and not—and I repeat—a debate addressing language rights.

We are not creating a precedent here, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition is going to share our enthusiasm and agree that we are doing the right thing, as parliamentarians, in relying on section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982. We know full well that in the recent history of the Constitution, no precedent has been created.

The Parliament was asked on four occasions to use this amending formula, and you will recall that two of these cases concerned Newfoundland. In the first instance, it was to grant the Pentecostal Church the same rights the five other churches had in Newfoundland, and to that end section 42 was used. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at length about the most recent case involving Newfoundland.

The same section was applied to New Brunswick to enshrine the equality between the francophone community and the anglophone community. Closer to us—and at the time I was a member of this House—we used section 42 with regard to the construction of the bridge linking Prince Edward Island to the mainland.

Members should know that, as we speak, there is a bill before the national assembly, Bill 109. It is the result of the consensus I have been talking about for the past several minutes. I say to all my colleagues from every party that should we not be able to pass and proclaim this motion and the resulting bill due to a twist of fate—passing them is not enough, they have to be proclaimed—the national assembly would have a major problem. Bill 109 will create linguistic school boards across Quebec, thus bringing the number of school boards from 158 to 70, and making the Quebec education system more coherent.

If it were not passed by December—and this is why it is important that all political parties, the government, the Reform Party, the Conservatives and the NDP co-operate—it would create a problem for the National Assembly, because its legislation provides that everything should be in effect at the start of the next school year, including the administrative provisions dealing with the boundaries of the school boards' territory, student registration, and the sharing of existing facilities between the new school boards that will be created. In any case, the act still provides that school boards will be created.

However, if it were not passed, it would complicate things and the provincial government would have to reopen collective agreements with the unions. Such a situation would not benefit anyone, and certainly not Quebec students.

I want to make it very clear—and I am grateful to the minister for pointing it out—that in no way will the right to religious teaching be marginalized or diminished when linguistic school boards are created. As I said earlier, that right is clearly stated in the Education Act and in section 41 of the Quebec charter of rights, which is a quasi-constitutional provision.

Again, it is the National Assembly's prerogative to act upon this consensus. There is a consensus among all those who have expressed their views on the issue. We are talking about a large coalition.

If I took the time to mention all those who have been interested in this issue since the early eighties and who hope we can modernize Quebec's school system, you would see that everyone in our province supports this change.

The National Assembly approved the resolution unanimously, which means that all parties agree. This is no mean feat, considering it is the parliamentarians' role to debate, to challenge ideas, sometimes to reach a consensus. We are talking about a group which includes some very knowledgeable people, such as the MNA for Marquette who was at one time, albeit for a very brief period, chairman of the Montreal Catholic School Commission. Again, there is a consensus in Quebec's National Assembly, in fact, there is unanimity.

I would be lying if I said we are happy with the fact that seven senators will sit on this committee. The Government of Quebec believes, and we agree, that a strong enough consensus has developed and that the amendment only concerns Quebec and the federal government. Therefore, we would rather have done without the joint committee.

However, we respect the government's prerogative to conduct such consultations. We hope they will be carried out with all due diligence, but we will take the process seriously. We will listen to those who wish to make presentations but, again, we must bear in mind that we are dealing with education and what this amendment is about is enabling the National Assembly to rearrange the way school boards are managed. We think there is a strong enough consensus to allow this to proceed.

Similarities with the situation in Newfoundland make it necessary to exercise some caution. First, when we read about what happened in Newfoundland, we see that a referendum was held, the results of which were unequivocal—let us hope this will happen again—but still, the case of Newfoundland is somewhat unique, as I am told that it is the only Canadian province where the six religious denominations each controlled their own institutions and that the amendment passed by referendum in Newfoundland is designed to establish a public education system across the board so to speak, which is obviously not what Quebec is asking for. The amendment it is seeking is more administrative in nature.

We should therefore be careful not to make hasty comparisons with Newfoundland. I think it is important to reiterate our deep attachment to the anglophone community. We believe it has historically played a role in Quebec and we look to a future that includes the anglophone community. We are strongly committed, and I want to make it very clear, to rights. I find this a good test of democracy. I think it was the philosopher Valéry who said a civilization must be judged on the way it treats its minorities. Minority rights are, of course, an important element in the balance of a community.

Madam Speaker, you would not find the same thing anywhere else, if you and I were to agree, in a burst of generosity, to take a trip across Canada in order to try to find somewhat comparable examples elsewhere of how francophone minorities outside Quebec are treated. I think no Quebecker need feel ashamed of how the anglophone community is being treated, and we must continue along that path, as we have in the health system. An anglophone living in Quebec has access to institutions, to a public education system from kindergarten to university. That is something.

Contrary to section 223 of the 1982 legislation, there is not even a numerical criterion. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs knows very well that we have never subjected anglophone rights to a clause such as “where numbers justify”.

I think that these are the facts the Reform Party ought to read, and I hope that our debates will run smoothly. I greatly fear we will get sidetracked and I am calling upon the maturity of all parties, of course. As you know, I shall keep my distance from any such sidetracking because what the debate must be about is denominational schools. The debate must be about the right of the province of Quebec, and the country of Quebec, to organize its own school boards, as the National Assembly wishes, and must not be about language rights. I think a great effort must be made to keep that in mind.

In closing, I would like to state that what strikes us as very important for the future is that the National Assembly must be respected and that we must be able to modernize the Quebec school system.

There is, moreover, certainly a connection to be made with all of the work currently being done in Quebec to ensure that programs to be implemented in the schools are such that they will prepare Quebecers for the society of the year 2000.

Madam Speaker, since you are indicating that my time is up, let me conclude by hoping that the debates will be calm ones and that the wishes of the National Assembly will be respected.

I would also like to remind the leader of the Reform Party that he need not look for a flawed democracy where it does not exist. If ever he would like to improve his French by coming with me to meet those who are actively involved in the Quebec educational system, I would be only too pleased to do so.

[Algeria, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Given the recent massacres of innocent civilians in Algeria, the international community must take concerted action to help the Algerian population, which is the target of these barbaric acts.

Can the minister tell us if she has taken appropriate action to speed up the family reunification process for Algerian nationals living in Canada?

[Speech From The Throne, September 26th, 1997]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and congratulate you on your appointment. I want to assure you of my full co-operation.

I cannot resist the temptation to put, through you, a question to our colleague, who is from Montreal and represents a constituency similar to mine in that there are very specific concerns about Montreal.

My question to the hon. member, which I hope she will answer, is this: Does she recognize that 20 years ago we were in a situation where the three leading federal parties—we tend to forget this, but a little over 20 years ago the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Liberal Party did recognize the existence of two nations or peoples in Canada. Why is it then that, for one reason or another, today, only lip service is paid to Quebec as a people or a nation, particularly on that side of the House? Is there cause for concern?

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, through you, if she recognizes Quebec as a people. This is something that can be defined objectively. Each people has its own vernacular. In this case, it happens to be French. We also have control over a territory.

There are few examples of federations in the world—and the hon. member sitting next to me is an expert on these issues—where one nation clearly has control over a territory, as is the case in Quebec. When we talk about peoples and nations, it always involves a clearly defined judicial system, as is the case in Quebec. These terms imply a will to live together, and the hon. member for Bourassa is aware of these issues.

All the objective elements are present so that the word “nations” can be used in the plural. Yet, some newspapers and political parties persist in their use of the singular form.

Will the hon. member recognize, here in this House, that Quebecers are a people, that they have a right to self-determination, and that we can count on her, should tempers flare in the coming weeks, particularly in Montreal, to discuss the issue of partition? I know the hon. member will be by my side and will say that Quebecers are a people, that they form a nation, that Quebec has a right to self-determination, and that its territory must remain intact.

Am I to understand that we will fight together for the same cause?

[Committee Of The House, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to pay a glowing tribute to my colleague because he worked so very hard. He is the fiscal conscience of this party. Unlike the hon. member for Vaudreuil, he will be able to rest easy tonight because he did his job.

The question I wish to put to my colleague is this: Could he explain, with his usual clarity and expertise, why the Liberals refused to shed more light on an appalling situation? Everyone in this House knows we are talking about the flight of capital, tax evasion and protection. Do members of parliamentary committees not have an obligation to report on these matters?

I want to ask the hon. member how our Liberal colleagues could be so lacking in integrity, transparency and a sense of values?

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I really feel that today we are experiencing the British parliamentary system at its best, with the opposition co-operating and the government taking action.

You will recall that, in August 1995, a tragic and totally unexpected event-there had been no warning sign-happened in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve when an 11-year-old boy walking back from the toy library, a very popular place in my community, was killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I must say that since that event, people have been mobilizing, first in my community, and then throughout Quebec and Canada. I am very grateful to the minister; I recognize that when dealing with an issue such as this one, there is no room for partisanship among MPs.

I thank the justice minister and his assistant, David Rodier, as well as Yvan Roy, who bent over backwards to keep the dialogue going on a number of legislative measures we thought had to be looked at in order to come up with concrete solutions to fight organized crime.

Before going any further, I would also like to thank my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, our justice critic, who has been very active and perceptive in supporting the need for an antigang law.

We must be very clear with our fellow citizens. Nobody in this House claims that Bill C-95 will solve all the problems. None of us believes that passing this piece of legislation will eradicate organized crime. But what we are saying is that today we are sending a very strong message to the community as a whole to the effect that neither the official opposition nor the government will give up on this scourge.

One could ask what is organized crime and how come that phenomenon has grown so much over the past few years. I would like to propose a definition that is commonly used by police forces and to remind viewers that whenever we speak about organized crime, we are referring mainly to four elements.

First, there are the proceeds of crime. Naturally, the purpose of organized crime is to make money. The second element is power, control over a specific territory. Then come fear and intimidation. The fourth and final element is corruption.

You could say that organized crime does not exist in every society and you would be right. Some specific, precise conditions are required for organized crime to thrive in a society. There are at least four conditions which make cities like Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Winnipeg, and the maritimes, good locations for organized crime.

For organized crime to thrive, it needs a wealthy community where it can make money. That is why we talk about corruption in the third world, but in those countries, organized crime is quite different from its usual manifestations in urban environments.

In order for organized crime to take root somewhere, it needs convenient access to major routes. Since it is an import-export trade, organized crime in Canada is concentrated in major centres

across the country. For organized crime to prosper, it needs a free society, a society without dictatorial powers and oppression.

Fourth, and probably the most important, is that, to prosper, organized crime needs a society where there are rights, charters and bureaucracy. We know full well-that is what police officers told me, and probably told the Minister of Justice also-that the greatest ally of organized crime is the charter of rights and freedoms, which has given it some immunity. It has been a powerful tool for organized crime.

Once these conditions are met, organized crime proceeds in phases. Operations of organized crime and its representatives have three different phases. The first one is control of a territory. Control of a territory is gained by intimidation, by generating fear. Such a territory becomes the exclusive turf of a particular group.

After you control a territory, you get into money laundering. I will come back to the importance of money laundering for organized crime. I should mention that money laundering in Canada accounts for about $20 billion, invested in legal or illegal activities.

Once money has been laundered, it can be invested in legal enterprises. In Montreal, to give you an example that I know very well, organized crime has invested mostly in restaurants, bars and the like, although I do not think this is unique to Montreal. I know it is the same in other communities.

So, we welcome the minister's bill. We agree that, as hon. members and as legislators, we cannot give up, that, we must assume our responsibilities and take action on such an important issue.

Of course, we would have preferred to have this debate much earlier, because, as Bloc members, we have been pleading with the Minister of Justice for two years to look into what is going on in Canada's big cities.

Today, we have a bill and we will co-operate. I say to the Minister of Justice that, if I can be of any help, wherever he wants me to speak or whatever he wants me to do, he can count on my full co-operation, because, once again, partisanship has no place in such an issue.

I would like to mention an extremely troubling fact. We have known for three months now that organized crime has changed the way it operates. Criminal organizations must not be underestimated, they are intelligent, well organized, and they have many means at their disposal to carry out their activities.

In the past, these organizations used to limit their operations to 60 days. They were active in counterfeiting and they could detect wire tapping devices, and they were aware that, when their lines were being tapped, the warrant could not go beyond 60 days.

In that sense, I find the measure the minister is providing in the legislation most appropriate, making it not only easier to get warrants to authorize wire tapping, but also not necessary to prove that it is used as a last resort and the only investigative tool available to the police. It will be a lot simpler and easier to get such a warrant.

However, I must say that the way bombs are made now, the way explosives are handled by both major gangs, and I am referring of course to the Rock Machine or the Hell's Angels, is that these people now put in devices to make sure that the bombs will explode. The police had come to be able to identify which gang the bomb came from by the way it was made, and the way the explosive device was put together, the way the bomb was assembled often gave an indication of which group was responsible for it.

To counter that, criminal organizations began to equip explosive devices with a timer so that no bomb ever misfire.

The reason I am telling you this is obviously not to scare people but to make them understand that organized crime and its various manifestations are not something transitory that will go away and that we will not have to worry about a few weeks down the road. The justice minister is right to put forward such a bill because organized crime is a permanent fixture.

Even though we passed Bill C-61 on the laundering of the proceeds of crime, organized crime has prospered.

I think the measures being proposed here will be relevant and effective in helping police forces conduct investigations more quickly and produce much stronger evidence. Ultimately, attorney generals will be able to dig up evidence and initiate legal proceedings. Criminals will stand trial and we will be able to dismantle or at least shake up the higher echelons of organized crime.

This bill contains 10 specific provisions I would like to explain to the people listening to us.

First of all, the essence of this bill is that it creates the new offence of participation in a criminal organization. The bill provides that any offence for which the punishment is five years in prison or more will be deemed a criminal organization offence. Indeed the minister has cast a wide net. The bill covers drug offences, possession of stolen goods, influence peddling, and all other criminal organization offences.

This is a judicious bill that defines criminal organizations as any group consisting of five or more persons. I tend to agree with this number. I know that Reform members have suggested that this number be reduced to three. But I think that, given the way organized crime works, we will be able to meet the objectives of this bill while maintaining this number at five.

So a new offence has been created. The minister did not agree to the request made by the Quebec government to add a provision on crime by association. Since the beginning of this debate, the minister has been extremely reluctant to create a crime by association. I do respect the legal arguments behind his position.

I think we could have created a crime by association, which would have been in compliance with both section 1 of the Charter and the legal guarantees in sections 7 to 14 of same. What is important however is not to determine if I was right, if the minister was right, or if the Quebec government was right, but to dismantle any known criminal gangs.

So, a new offence is created. New provisions concerning explosives have also been added. That was also something the Government of Quebec had requested. The bill says that any person who possesses, uses, or handles an explosive substance for the benefit, in total or in part, of a criminal organization is guilty of an offence, under aggravating circumstance, and liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

I think it is very important to understand how crucial this provision is, because as we know, explosives are very often used to commit crime, especially by biker gangs.

This will now constitute an aggravating circumstance. This notion of aggravating circumstance is already included in the Criminal Code, since, a few years back, we had section 718.9 modified to add a number of factors that, taken into consideration by the judges, lead to tougher sentencing.

If a criminal offence is committed by an organized gang, this will be considered an aggravating circumstance, especially when explosives are used. I think this is an extremely positive measure.

Judges will also be given the possibility of deferring or postponing parole, or restricting eligibility to parole. It will be possible for them-and this is quite clear in the bill-when an individual is sentenced for gangsterism, to order that 50 per cent of the sentence must be served before the individual can be eligible to parole.

I think this measure is extremely important because it encourages informers. One of the extremely modern ways to fight organized crime is to encourage informers to come forward. Nobody in organized crime will ever confess, agree to testify or co-operate if he or she knows that three, four or five months down the road, the person he or she informed against will be free to make trouble for them.

Measures like postponing parole or aggravating circumstances are very important measures because they favour informers, which is a key weapon, often used, to track down organized crime.

Another extremely important measure I talked about a little earlier is that it will be easier to obtain a warrant for electronic surveillance. Nowadays, electronic surveillance is a last resort measure. One has to demonstrate to the satisfaction of a judge that this is the ultimate way to conduct investigations.

Thanks to the provisions of this bill, it will be easier to not only get authorization to proceed with electronic surveillance but also to extend the warrant as much as up to one year. This is extremely important.

Another clause will make it easier and faster to obtain search warrants, for which one needs evidence, of course. The judge will always have to be satisfied. The bill contains an extremely interesting and original provision which provides for the forfeiture not only of the proceeds of crime, but also of vehicles used to commit offences. For example, if a truck is used to commit a crime, it could be confiscated. If a building is used-because the bill also applies to buildings-it could be confiscated.

At present, there are provisions in a number of laws which allow for the forfeiture of property, but it is always done by a court order and it always pertains to property deemed to have been used in laundering of proceeds of crime. We will now be able to confiscate not only property used for the laundering of the proceeds of crime, but also property, such as a vehicle, used to commit a crime.

Another extremely interesting provision is that the judge will be able to issue an order to keep the peace, to refrain from seeing certain persons, from leaving the country, a judicial order against a person if there is sufficient evidence that that person will take part in the commission of a crime by a criminal organization. In other words, it is a preventive measure. The price of not keeping the peace could be an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment.

The final measure the minister referred to concerns information and provides that the solicitor general will table an annual report on organized crime, on what progress has been made, where organized crime is active and, obviously I hope, on suggestions for fighting it.

It is overall an interesting bill. It combines a number of measures called for by police and the Government of Quebec, particularly with respect to explosives.

We must nevertheless realize today that we as parliamentarians have become aware of what is going on in organized crime because people have taken action. Some of them are fellow residents in my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, including the mother of young Daniel Desrochers, Josée-Anne, who circulated a petition and who used every public forum to awaken parliamentarians.

I think that whoever we are and wherever we sit in this House we owe a debt of gratitude to Josée-Anne Desrochers. The police also acted and created CAPLA, the Comité d'action politique pour une loi anti-gangs. There was all sorts of pressure. As well, there was my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, who took the lead in this matter and very early on spoke to the minister on a number of occasions. He was very stubborn, obsessive and persevering, I would say. It helped, because his efforts were not in vain. The proof is that today we have legislative measures.

Here are a few indications of the scope of organized crime, showing how its effects are felt throughout society, and how important it is for us, as legislators, to be extremely vigilant.

In 1992, the underground economy was estimated at 5.2 percent of the gross national product, some $36 billion. That is in 1992 dollars. In today's dollars, those numbers would be a lot higher.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that annual losses associated with unrecovered stolen vehicles-which is also one aspect of organized crime-amount to $293 million; $293 million per year for stolen vehicles. A pretty considerable sum.

In 1994, Canadian chartered banks estimated their losses due to fraud at $143 million. Within organized crime, there is a sort of specialization. Some groups have become expert in what we call counterfeiting bank notes and putting them into circulation. I think this is a specialty of Asian groups, who have become quite expert at it. In 1994, the banks reported they had lost $143 million because of fraud.

The most interesting number comes from very knowledgeable people in the field-the police forces-and concerns the income generated by organized crime, which is estimated at $20 billion. The figures for revenues from crime are close to the figures for the Canadian deficit. How much is the Canadian deficit? My colleague for Berthier-Montcalm, who follows these issues closely, could tell me the exact amount, but I believe it is $19 billion. The Canadian deficit is about $19 billion while revenues from crime total $20 billion per year. Is it possible, as legislators, to remain idle when confronted with this fact? I think not.

However, despite all the good things I said concerning the government-and believe me, this is extremely circumstantial-the fact remains that it could have done much more. We made representations to the government. So did other groups, that is police forces and other people involved. We know perfectly well that the next step will certainly be the laundering of money. We know that. The fact that Canada is a money laundering paradise is very well known. Canada is extremely liberal on that matter. This cannot go on.

I must tell you the police community made a very important demand, that is the obligation for the major chartered banks to report any suspicious transaction over $10,000. This is extremely important for those who investigate to be able to trace back the origin of suspicious transactions. Right now, chartered banks must keep a record of all operations that they think are suspicious, but they are under no obligation to report them.

I think it would have been worthwhile to include a legal provision specifying that failure to report such operations may be a punishable offence. I am convinced that banks would have co-operated, because the Canadian Bankers Association has taken some internal measures to detect dubious transactions, but all this must become an obligation.

Police officers had also asked that $1,000 bills be taken out of circulation. Is there anyone in this House naive enough to think that ordinary people walk on the street with $1,000 bills in their pockets? Mr. Speaker, if I you were to do a survey in this place, I am sure that very few of us-including yourself, the pages, the members of this House and the people in the gallery-would have a $1,000 bill in their pockets.

We know full well that the $1,000 bill makes it possible for some people to carry large amounts in their pockets and we know for sure that the $1,000 bill is a boon to organized crime. The Canadian Police Association has asked that the $1,000 bill be taken out of circulation, and that is something that will have to be considered.

Here is another extremely important demand: I was telling you earlier about the need to have banks divulge dubious transactions of more than $10,000, and I think that must not be restricted to the banks. Casinos could also be included in that list, as well as travel agencies and all those businesses trading in luxury items that may eventually be infiltrated and help us trace the criminal chain of command.

These are some measures we are suggesting. I think the justice minister will welcome them. I want to remind him that the reality of organized crime is not temporary. It is a huge threat. To this day, organized crime has managed to poison the life of entire communities, and I am thinking of course about the eastern part of Montreal with what happened in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but it is not only the eastern part of Montreal that is deeply affected by this reality.

This reality is also a daily concern for the people of Saint-Nicolas, who have mobilized to fight this problem. Is it acceptable that bunkers can be built in urban centres, near residential areas, and that people can openly and publicly make money through illegal means and disturb the peace within our communities? I think not. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to do everything in

our power to stop these people, to hold them accountable, to send them to prison and to launch investigations.

Too often, over the past few years, I heard people say that it was the police's fault, because they did not build good cases. I took part in public debates, open lines and television shows where the easy argument that was used was: "If the police did a better job, it would be easier to fight organized crime".

I think this argument does not withstand scrutiny because each time a police force wants to press charges, there are prosecutors and lawyers who study these cases to see how well the evidence would stand up in court, to determine if it could be challenged or not. It is not just about police resources; it is also about the Criminal Code and giving the courts the interpretation tools they need.

I am not saying that adding police resources is not a good thing. I am thinking of course about the Carcajou squad, in Montreal, and GRICO. It is indeed a good thing. When, in a special squad, you have the means to shadow individuals, the more people you have in your squad, the easier it is not just to build solid cases but to act quickly.

There is something that must never be forgotten. You know how devious the whole field of law is. You know the effect one decision can have on case law and how it can change the course of law. I know that my colleague, the member for Berthier-Montcalm, who is a lawyer, one of the best I would say, but not a criminal lawyer, is aware of the 1992 Stinchcombe ruling. How did this affect case law? It meant that, with respect to disclosure of evidence, the public prosecutor is obliged to file, before the trial, all the elements that contributed to the evidence.

This means that all information regarding a tail, personal notes, videotaped material, everything that contributed to the evidence must be handed over to the defence. This is fraught with consequences, because it forces those building cases to be extremely imaginative, extremely innovative in order to outwit their opponents from one trial or investigation to the next.

On the whole, I think this is a bill that deserves our support. As the opposition, we are going to co-operate. We did so today. We have acted very expeditiously.

I say again to the minister that, whatever we can do, whatever forum he would like to send us to, whatever demonstration we can take part in to ensure that this bill is passed before the imminent election that you know will see us back here as the official opposition, just as we are now, we will co-operate.

If the minister wants us to make representations to the other House to help things along, we are prepared to do so because we have known for several months that partisanship has no place in this issue of organized crime. All my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois agree with me that, when public safety is at stake, when the tranquillity of entire sections of the community are threatened, we have a responsibility to act quickly, not to be complacent.

That is what we have done as the official opposition and that is what we will continue to do in the coming days.