Allan Rock

[War Criminals, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am among those who believe that after the second world war too many governments did too little for too long to deal with the presence of alleged war criminals in Canada. What I can do today is provide an accounting of the efforts made by the government since it took office in late 1993.

Immediately after taking office we intensified efforts to prepare for prosecution those cases we felt were appropriate for criminal proceedings. In 1994 a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in the case of Finta made criminal prosecution a very remote prospect and very difficult practically.

As a result, in January 1995 the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I announced that we would commence 12 cases within the following three years, civil proceedings asking the court to denaturalize and deport those against whom we would allege that there was a lack of candour when they applied for entry into this country and those against whom we would allege there was evidence of complicity in war crimes during the second world war.

We will do better than the 12 over three years. By the end of this month we will have commenced all 12 of those cases. That is not to say we have done enough because we have not. We will continue to work on other cases where there is evidence to justify proceedings.

The government will continue to work because there is no statute of limitations on the moral imperative to act where there is evidence that there are such people among us.

One last thing, if I may, there are those in this country with information to assist us. I urge them to go to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and provide that evidence so we can act on it.

[Organized Crime, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has no monopoly on concern. The members on this side of the House, the members of the government caucus, are just as concerned about the safety of communities in the country as are the hon. member and his colleagues.

If the hon. member thinks that the bombings taking place are going to be stopped because we change words in the Criminal Code of Canada, he is sadly deluded. What will make the difference is good, solid, co-ordinated police work with sufficient resources and municipal, provincial and federal governments working together constructively to do the job.

That is not achieved with narrow partisan political speeches. That is not achieved by pointing fingers and becoming flushed. That is achieved with good, solid, hard work, and that is exactly what the government is going to do.

[Organized Crime, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, may I express my disappointment at the tone and the approach taken by the Bloc Quebecois in relation to a matter which should engage our serious and non-partisan attention.

There are people in communities in Quebec, in Ontario and across the country who are worried about their personal safety by reason of organized crime, motorcycle gangs and bombs exploding in the streets. In that atmosphere the answer is not to exchange partisan barbs in some political exchange. Rather the approach

should be to work constructively to see what can be done to improve the situation, and that is what I intend to do tomorrow morning in Quebec City.

The fact that these crimes are being committed may have something to do with the need for improvements in the criminal law. It also has something to do with the ability of the police to work in a co-ordinated fashion with the municipal and provincial governments, using powers within their jurisdictions, with the allocations of resources by municipal and provincial governments.

The member should not pretend that this difficult situation will be resolved simply by changing words in the federal statute.

[Organized Crime, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Perreault also said there was no magic or simple solution, such as an anti-gang law.

We must work together, in good faith, setting aside partisan politics. We must work together constructively in the search for solutions. Of course, police forces want tools to help them in their work.

But as I said, we have already taken action, and if it is possible to identify other approaches, I am prepared to take action again.

[Organized Crime, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, because of the wording of the hon. member's question, I must repeat that we have already taken action as a government and passed concrete and effective measures to improve the Criminal Code as it relates to organized crime. For example, in Bill C-17 we proposed and are now adopting valid measures in this regard.

Once again, as I said, at the meeting we will be holding withMr. Perreault in Quebec City tomorrow morning I intend to discuss and examine with him and other individuals involved all the approaches open.

[Organized Crime, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the Government of Canada has expressed its views and shown an interest in this situation.

We have already met with police forces from Montreal and elsewhere to discuss possible amendments to the Criminal Code in order to resolve this matter.

But, as I said yesterday, I intend to meet with Mr. Perreault and others tomorrow to discuss all the possibilities and strategies open to the Government of Canada in order to work with the Government of Quebec, with municipal governments and with police forces in order to deal with this difficult situation.

[Organized Crime, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to face such challenges calmly and to look at every option and every possible approach. As I said, it is academic and premature to discuss section 33, the "notwithstanding" clause.

I would rather first consult with Mr. Perreault and officials from the municipalities of the Quebec City area, to see if it is possible to act without resorting to section 33. Again, it would be premature to provide a reply to the questions put by the hon. member.

[Organized Crime, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is premature to consider such an

option. The important thing right now is to meet with those involved and, as I said, to look at all the options with an open mind.

The hon. member referred to Bill C-17, in which we proposed several changes to the Criminal Code, so as to strengthen the legislation. I hope that with these measures, and perhaps other ones which I will discuss on Thursday morning with my Quebec counterpart, Mr. Perreault, we will be able to improve the situation.

[Organized Crime, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member and I share the same goal, that is, to improve the law and the Criminal Code, to help the police. If it is possible, after our meeting Thursday morning in Quebec City, to identify specific, valid, and constitutional measures, we will adopt them, we will propose them here, in the House, for debate.

If the hon. member or his colleagues have some ideas, I am open to them. As I said today to Mr. Perreault, the most important thing is to equip the police, validly and constitutionally, with the tools they need to fight organized crime and to protect Canadians throughout the country.

[Organized Crime, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before we have a debate in the House, I think we have first to identify the specific measures we can take to strengthen the Criminal Code.

We must look at the situation, meet those who are involved in Quebec and then, if possible and desirable, introduce a bill for debate here in the House.