Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I wish to inform you that I will share my 20 minutes with my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
We have to look at why the Bloc Quebecois felt the need to debate this issue today. In fact, it is not just today that we have felt the need to address this issue.
The whole thing really began with the events that occurred in Montreal in 1995 when young Daniel Desrochers was killed by a bomb blast. We immediately felt the need to look at this issue.
Later on, we had Bill C-95. It is true that the Bloc Quebecois supported that bill. Members will remember that it was passed on the eve of a federal election call. In other words, it was that or nothing.
I would ask members opposite to read the comments that we made back then. We said, among other things, that the legislation would never allow the police to catch the leaders, that it would never allow it to gather evidence. The leaders are always those who call the shots. Those at the bottom of the pyramid carry out the orders and pay for those at the top, who are never caught. We said that it would be much too difficult to collect evidence against these leaders and that crown attorneys and the police would come to the same conclusion.
Then in 1996, since that legislation was not enough, the Bloc Quebecois member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is just behind me, introduced a private member's bill that basically sought the same objective as today's motion, namely a tougher act to fight organized crime. This is nothing new. That was in 1996.
During the election campaign in 1997, we debated this issue. We were calling for strong laws to fight organized crime, which is very active in Canada and Quebec.
In the fall of 1999 a motion to establish a sub-committee to study organized crime was unanimously passed. This did not come out of nowhere, it was once again the Bloc Quebecois that had deemed it important to study the issue with every parliamentarian from every political party gathered around the table to work out a solution. It was adopted unanimously, and the sub-committee is in the process of studying the whole issue, but I will get back to this later on.
In June 2000, the three Bloc members on the sub-committee on organized crime issued a letter in the media saying that every available tool should be considered, including the use of the notwithstanding clause if necessary. That was in June 2000. If we were talking about it at the time, it was not as a result of some incident or an attempt on the life of a journalist.
On September 1 I addressed the Canadian Police Association in Halifax. I raised the issue in my speech. I said “I think we have reached the stage where we must consider the possibility of using the notwithstanding clause should it be necessary to reach the goal we are pursuing, namely an efficient legislation to fight organized crime”. This is nothing new.
During the day, I heard the Liberals say that the decision to raise this issue today was an emotional reaction to the shooting of a Quebec journalist. This is not true. We want to debate this issue today because it is our first opportunity to do so and especially because all kinds of events took place, including that one. There were other events as well. The biker war has killed 150 so far. That is a lot of people, and it is nothing new.
Our position has not changed since 1995. There is nothing new.
What is new, however, and I have to say it, is the arrogance shown by the government which has refused to allow the House to vote on our motion, to vote on a very concrete measure forcing the government to introduce, by October 6, effective legislation to fight organized crime. On top of that, on the same day, the Minister of Justice has announced that she will propose a motion to limit debate on another bill, the one dealing with young offenders. As a Quebecer I must say that I find this rather bizarre.
On one hand we have the Young Offenders Act which works well in Quebec. Quebecers are telling the minister “Do not touch the law, it works fine. We do not need your Bill C-3”. Yet the minister has informed us that she is going to steamroller over anyone who opposes this bill and ram it through.
On the other hand Quebecers are nearly unanimous in calling for legislation with teeth to battle organized crime effectively. The government tells us “There will be no discussion”. We did manage to get some discussion tonight, at last. And the government tells us “There will be no vote either”. How can Quebecers find anything of themselves in this government?
I do not seek to win any votes with this. The Liberals are the ones looking for votes. For the Liberal government, the equation is this “What do we have to do to get more votes?” Attack 12-year-olds, maybe lower the age to 10, put them in jail. As far as major criminals are concerned, there is the Canadian charter of rights. That protects them. They have the same rights as anyone else.
I believe the Minister of Justice's thought process makes no sense. Since 1995, coming back to the subject, certain things have been done. The witness protection legislation has been amended. There is an act aimed at improving penal legislation. There is the 1997 anti-gang legislation to which I have already referred; the legislation regulating certain drugs and other substances has been changed, as has the legislation on the proceeds of crime. The criminal code has been amended in just about every possible way imaginable, as has the Narcotics Act. The $1,000 bill has even been withdrawn, something the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for the past three or four years at least.
Today, however, there is one thing that must be pointed out. What is it? In 1995, there were 28 criminal biker gangs in Canada; in 2000, there are 35 such gangs on police files. The police have all the details on who the gang members are and so on.
They are more organized and richer than ever, and the government opposite is saying that everything is fine, that everything is under control and that there is no real need to change anything. There is especially no need to invoke the notwithstanding clause and section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is alarming. People are worried, and with good reason.
There is a real need for the sub-committee on organized crime. Everything that I have heard here represents facts that can be found in public documents. The only member who broke his oath, the only member who passed on privileged information that he received in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is looking at the issue of crime, is one of the members of the Liberal government across the way.
I think that members opposite are looking for a way out because they are finding all this too much work. They are either lazy or irresponsible. We, however, will not back down. This evening the debate is about whether it should be a crime to belong to an association of criminals. If so, we will sit down and look for a solution up to and including using the notwithstanding clause, but that is not an end in itself.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is studying the whole issue of organized crime, has a long road ahead of it. From it we will learn exactly what needs to be changed in the long term. There are things to do: protection of jury members, the way criminals move about across the country, the border problem. A number of things are involved.
I have taken part in many open line shows. When I say that people are anxious it is because they are, but they are also fed up with a do-nothing government. What they want is something that moves. We are no longer in consultation mode with respect to criminal organizations. We are in action mode. Something has to be done and the public expects that from a responsible party and from a government that claims to be responsible.
Today I invited the Prime Minister to assume his responsibilities as the head of the government and demanded that parliament vote on this important issue of fighting organized crime. He did not assume his responsibilities at the appropriate time. I would hope that there are people on the other side who will wake up and put the Prime Minister straight.
