Michel Bellehumeur

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague and I can see once again that the hon. member for Mercier has a very good grasp of the issue of organized crime and of its scope, in Quebec and in Canada.

Her calm and rational tone was a reflection of today's debate. Indeed, all the parties said they would support the Bloc Quebecois' motion. We feel this is a very important issue which deserves to receive all our attention, and the other parties obviously think so too.

I have a question for the my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier. I know she is very interested in what goes on at the international level. I am sure she said something about this, but I missed the beginning of her speech. I would appreciate it if she could comment about what is being done at the international level, if she had not already done so in her speech.

I realize that we must first have good national legislation. Obviously, we must first clean up our own backyard, but my question to the hon. member is about what goes on at the international level. Does the hon. member think that, once we will have cleaned up our act, there are things that must be done at the international level? Is some form of co-operation desirable? Are there useful lessons that could be learned from European countries, as the hon. member has frequent contacts with them and comes back with good ideas? I know that she recently travelled with the Minister of Justice precisely to talk about organized crime at the international level.

I would like to hear the hon. member, because she has a unique experience. The Bloc Quebecois is lucky to have her, because she increasingly brings her great expertise to us and to all Quebecers. I would like to hear her comments on this issue.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Québec. I believe she has a very good grasp of the whole issue of organized crime in Quebec.

The member for Québec has often condemned this situation in caucus and, more importantly, asked that something be done in the House to fight organized crime. I understand full well her concern and the approach she advocated in her speech. She made an excellent speech, by the way, and I believe she has a very good grasp of the whole issue.

My question for the member is rather simple. As we know, she is very much involved in the issue of poverty and she fights for people living in poverty. Here is the question I would like to ask her: Does organized crime not take advantage of poor people or does it not exploit people in need, for instance with its loan sharks or any other example the member is aware of? I would like to hear her thoughts on the issue of poverty as opposed to crime.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party for his question and take note of the fact that it will probably support this morning's motion.

His question is an extremely complex one and a response would take more than the time available to me this morning. As far as infiltration is concerned, with $200 billion to $500 billion U.S. yearly, organized crime can certainly buy people off, including members of parliament and ministers, not just police officers. I do not think that any individual or group is protected from organized crime trying to buy them off at some point in time.

I have as much confidence in the political system as I do in the justice and law enforcement system. Both Quebecers and Canadians have certain values, and cannot be bought off as easily as that. It must be realized, however, that this is a risk in Quebec and Canada at this time, and we need to see whether the legislation is sufficient protection.

When I spoke of infiltration, one of the useful tools in law enforcement is infiltration of criminal groups. At present, with the legislation available to us, it is extremely complicated and difficult for police officers to infiltrate such groups. For one thing, they need years to move up in the ranks of organized crime until they reach the decision makers, the kingpins.

I am saying this morning I hope that, if the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights considers this question, it will look very carefully at legislation enabling the police to infiltrate criminal groups in order to discover whether there is a way to help them do so. In this case, would society agree to an amendment of the Criminal Code to enable those infiltrating, the undercover officers, to commit acts that are illegal under the Criminal Code so criminal groups will consider them criminals?

The police tell me they have “officer-sources” within certain criminal groups. When a gang leader has doubts about the loyalty of one member, do members know what this person is asked to do? He asks them to go and kill someone. Under the Criminal Code, this person is a criminal, at the moment. There is no way this person can be exempted from the application of the Code.

In addition, this person is in a tough position. If he does not kill anyone, his days are likely numbered. If he does, his days are likely numbered as well, because he will be treated as a criminal under the Criminal Code.

Has society reached a point where we will authorize an undercover officer, with all the proper authority, to go so far as to commit a crime, to go so far as to commit murder in an effort to protect society and save tens or hundreds of people, perhaps? I think we have reached this point, and we must examine the issue in committee.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will certainly talk about it in his speech. There may a lack of funds, but the issue goes beyond that and we must take a serious look at all the legislative tools available.

Speaking of legislative tools, the issue of witness and jury protection immediately comes to mind. Are jury members adequately protected , since they must decide whether an accused is guilty or not while all his friends are sitting in the front rows, staring at them throughout the trial? This is very intimidating. It is not surprising that we have difficulties finding people willing to sit on a jury and follow the rules.

Then there are the witnesses. Do we provide adequate protection to witnesses? We should check to see if we do.

Building a case is one of the major problems faced by police officers. They have techniques to infiltrate crime gangs, but is it enough? Should we not review certain provisions in the Criminal Code to allow undercover officers, as they are commonly called, to commit criminal acts to be on the criminals' good books and eventually be in a position to testify? This is an extremely complex area, but we must take a look at the whole issue.

We must improve the exchange of information between the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec and various departments, because police forces complain that communications are very bad.

I could spend another hour discussing this issue, but my time is almost up, so I know I have to wrap up. I will conclude by urging all members of this House to forget about the fact that this is a motion from the opposition, from the sovereignists in this House, because we are simply asking that the committee conduct a serious study of the whole issue of organized crime.

I am asking members to overlook that fact and to vote with the Bloc Quebecois so that a serious, non-partisan study of the whole issue of organized crime can take place, and that a report be submitted to the House no later than October 31, 2000. This would allow us to begin the new millennium with good tools to fight organized crime effectively.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the debate we are going to have in this House today is an extremely important one. Members will agree that on an opposition day the matter debated is usually the one the opposition feels is most important at that time.

We could easily have discussed the constitution today, with all the things that are going on across the floor of this House and with the Prime Minister's desire to pass legislation that will provide a framework for Quebec, a framework for certain things that fall under its exclusive jurisdiction, and which the people of Quebec alone can decide in connection with its future. We could have discussed the constitution, but the Bloc Quebecois preferred to address another matter which is, without a doubt, the most important one, not only today but probably in the next century.

It is truly important that today people become aware of the existence of a major problem in Canada and in Quebec: organized crime.

Our motion is one of open-mindedness. With this motion, the Bloc Quebecois is reaching out not just to the government opposite, but to all parties in this House. We are asking all the parties in this House to conduct a serious and non-partisan study, as we are capable of doing and as we have done in the past, of important issues such as organized crime, with the sole objective of finding a solution to a serious problem.

What is the problem? Why does the Bloc Quebecois think the problem is important enough to take a day in the business of the House? Why does it want to try to convince the government and the other opposition parties to join it and adopt a motion asking this House to instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime and to make proposals, if necessary, after listening to witnesses?

Why? Because in recent years, and particularly since 1995, a number of events show the magnitude of the problem and the urgent need to take action. Since I only have 10 minutes, let me briefly remind the House that in 1995 young Daniel Desrochers died following the explosion of a bomb. I am sure the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will talk about that incident, because it happened in his riding. The explosion was related to a biker gang war.

In 1997, two prison guards were gunned down in cold blood. It would appear from the information we have that the shooting was related directly to organized crime.

Very recently, as if that were not enough, colleagues in this House have received death threats. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is one, because he dared to criticize the growing of marijuana among corn plants, a practice going on in his riding, and to defend the farmers in his riding. He strongly criticized unacceptable activities and received death threats.

I was looking at statistics before coming here. Between 1994 and 1998, there were 79 murders and 89 attempted murders connected with battles among biker gangs in Quebec alone. However, this problem is not unique to Quebec. It occurs in all the other provinces as well, but I did not have statistics for them this morning.

We talk of murder and attempted murder, but there are also arson and bombings. Over the same period, there were 129 cases of arson and 82 bombings. This is from RCMP sources, which are no doubt reliable.

In terms of drugs, what is the value of the illegal drug trade at the moment in Canada? This is a little more difficult, because the calculation is based on drug seizures. Naturally, seizures account for only a part, and we have to extrapolate to get a total value. They say illicit drugs in Canada are worth between $200 billion U.S. and $500 billion U.S. That is a bit of money.

This is why I am saying the subject is very important. Probably the most important issue in the next millennium will be an effective response to organized crime, because at the rate of $200 to $500 billion U.S. annually, it will not be long before it controls almost everything in Canada. We must therefore give thought to whether the legislation before us will do the job.

The Bloc Quebecois began a broad consultation in June, which it stepped up in September. We have met with many stakeholders: police officers, judges and law enforcement officials. It is clear that our present tools may not be up to the task.

The purpose of the motion we are introducing this morning is to ensure that all parties become aware of how extensive a problem organized crime is and of the shortcomings of our current legislative tools, as we have come to realize.

The police will say they need bigger budgets. And in fact, when we look at the last few years, we see that, despite its protests to the contrary, the government has cut, or is getting ready to cut, police budgets and the budgets of certain RCMP offices.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

moved:

That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October 31, 2000.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the government opposite would have done some thinking between the tabling of its first bill, Bill C-48, and its second one, Bill C-8.

I thought the government would have done some thinking, listened carefully and reread the statements and speeches made in this House, and taken the bill back to the drawing board to make it more acceptable.

Not so. I was not planning to take part in the debate this afternoon, but this is too much. I must speak up. I notice that the government tabled exactly the same bill as before, a bill that was rejected by many and rather seriously challenged by the opposition. The hon. members must realize that we can no more accept it now than we did before.

I looked at this legislation from a lawyer's point of view, since I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for justice, and since all issues in a bill that relate to justice are of interest to me. I looked to see if the government opposite, which is supposed to act responsibly, does at least respect jurisdictions and the Constitution for which it fights so hard, as we saw during oral question period. We live in the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister would say. But does that country at least respect its constitution?

We must look at clause 5 of the bill to realize that the Liberal government does not respect the Constitution for which it is fighting. Worse yet, it even creates overlap within its own departments, and I will conclude on that.

In the part of the bill that deals with the Constitution and the enlarging of marine areas, clause 5 states, and I quote:

An amendment to Schedule 1

This schedule deals with titles and marine conservation areas.

under this section or subsection 6(2) may be made only if a ) the Governor in Council is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area—

It must therefore be established whether the submerged lands they wish to include in the conservation area belong to the federal government. According to this section, which I would put in the context of Quebec, when I think of the St. Lawrence River, the immediate answer is that they do not, that the federal government is not the owner of the bed of the St. Lawrence River.

We know this is what the bill says. There are three sites in the St. Lawrence River and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that the federal government wants to turn into marine conservation areas. It is ignoring subsection 5(2) and wants to go further still.

Why do I say that the riverbed does not belong to the federal government? Quite simply because I am referring to the Constitution Act, 1867. As a member of the Bloc Quebecois, I must look at the British North America Act, 1867, the Constitution, because it is the overriding law right now, because the Canadian Constitution is the number one law that everyone must respect, including the federal government.

Section 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the management and sale of public lands come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. I know it is complicated, but what is quite clear is that the floor of the St. Lawrence River belongs to the province of Quebec, to Quebecers, and not to Ottawa.

How will they implement their nice little legislation if not through a show of force? We know how easy it is for the government across the way to flex its muscles in these areas, and we will probably witness another show of force when the time comes to implement this legislation. Legally however, based on the existing legislation, we can only conclude that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the floor of the St. Lawrence River.

I know it is complicated, as I said earlier. The government opposite finds it complicated, so you can imagine how ordinary citizens feel about it. They find it extremely complicated.

I said so in a previous speech, and I want to say it again because some of my constituents from Berthier—Montcalm just cannot believe it and they ask me “Michel, is it really so complicated?”

When you look at the St. Lawrence River and at the fish in these waters, you do so from the perspective of Quebec fishers. They realize that the banks of the river indubitably fall under provincial jurisdiction. They belong to Quebec. Now, if they want to fish, they need to register their boats with the federal government. The St. Lawrence river bed falls under provincial jurisdiction, but the water itself, the seaway, falls under federal jurisdiction.

It is very complicated for the average person. Add to that federal protected areas and wildlife reserves located in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

Maybe the government opposite should at least start respecting legislation that concerns it directly. It should at least accept these jurisdictions and accept exclusively provincial jurisdictions.

I have not yet talked about fish. A fish, as such, is under provincial jurisdiction, but there are federal quotas. Recreational fishing requires a provincial licence, but commercial fishing also requires a federal licence.

It is quite complicated. Yet it could be a lot simpler if the government opposite were more co-operative, if it were not always intent on doing only as it pleases. It seems the only person here who has a monopoly on the truth is the Prime Minister. Everybody else is crazy and is wrong.

Again, we have examples in the area of wildlife protection. In Quebec, we have a good example in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. It is a good example to follow simply because both levels of government co-operated to make something that works and that is in harmony with the Constitution of Canada.

Both levels of government agreed to create a marine wildlife reserve with a co-ordinating committee made up of various people selected by both the provincial and federal ministers responsible. Each contributed half of the required funding. It is working out well, because there was consultation.

As for the bill before us, all stakeholders came to tell us in committee that the federal government had not consulted those involved sufficiently. They did not consult the Government of Quebec sufficiently, for one thing, and its property is involved.

We are beginning to get used to this. I have spoken about the bottom of the St. Lawrence. Everyone here in this House agrees environment is a shared jurisdiction. Clearly, under the Canadian constitution, the environment concerns both federal and provincial levels. If something is covered by environmental legislation, both levels of government have to be consulted.

I have also referred to the federal government's desire to overlap and bypass Quebec's jurisdictions. At the federal level, that there is departmental overlap.

This bill overlaps Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada jurisdictions. People from both of these departments came before the committee and told us “This makes no sense. There is too much overlap. People will not understand at all. It is too complicated. The government needs to go back to the drawing board”.

Today I realize that the bill under consideration is exactly the same. Let the Liberals go back to the drawing board before they propose something. At least the people responsible for application of this legislation within their own departments will have nothing to say against it.

Before closing, I would like to make some very important quotes.

Do I have leave of the House to quote three or four very important witnesses, who had things to say that the government would do well to listen to, or to listen to again? Once is not enough for this government.

I would just like about another five minutes on top of my ten.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is a rule here in this House, to the effect that a minister or member of parliament may ask a question to the hon. member who just made a speech, but that person should be given sufficient time to reply.

The minister has a lot to say, I see. He simply should have his name put on the list of those who want to speak for 20 minutes, like everyone else in this House, and not take up the time of the member who is making a speech in reply to the outrageous claims made the minister.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

This is a debate, not a point of order.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member, but since what he said is so interesting, I find it most unfortunate that there is no quorum.

Could you call for quorum so that the Liberal members can come and listen to what we, on this side of the House, have to say?