Michel Bellehumeur

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Earlier we listened to the Liberals, and we made no disparaging remarks. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to ask the members opposite not to make any disparaging remarks either, and we will get along just fine.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the minister tell me where in the bill the leaders are mentioned, because, according to the definitions in the clause under study and in the subsequent clauses, an individual must have committed an offence. We know perfectly well that the leaders are not the ones committing the crimes, but rather their subordinates.

I would like to know from the minister where the bill deals with the leaders and how he intends to implement these clauses, if it does.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Yes, it is because we are in the Bloc Quebecois that we are called to order as the Liberal member across has said. However, I will address the Chair, because I am pleased to do so.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, earlier the minister spoke directly to someone for 15 minutes and you did not call him to order. I will address my remarks to him through you, Mr. Chairman.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Minister, I find it very refreshing to hear you in the debate on this bill saying that your department has been working on it for 18 months.

However, I find that rather strange, because barely four weeks ago the Prime Minister was saying that it did not come under his jurisdiction and that he was washing his hands of it. I am very glad though that the government changed its position and agrees that it is within its jurisdiction to legislate in this area.

I would like you to convince me about one thing, because I heard you speak on a number of occasions, and when I look at the definitions and the wording of the bill, I see that we do not perhaps agree on an important point. I wonder if you would tell me clearly what clause in this bill applies to the leaders, since you say to the press that the bill deals with the leaders?

I must say, at the outset, that this bill is a step forward and the government is going to do everything it can to get it passed. The step you have just taken is something we have been asking for since 1995. What the government realized just now, we have known since 1995. However the government failed to act.

Had it acted in time, we would not be considering this bill one week before an election call, even though you say you do not know the date. Let us not bury our heads in the sand, we are adults and we can see what is going on both in this House and outside it. I do not understand why the government did not act faster. That having been said, Mr. Rock, where exactly in the bill does it refer to the leaders, since, the way I understand it, according to the definitions in the bill, a crime has to be committed?

[Criminal Code, April 14th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-27, you will understand that, at this stage of the debate, the government is already aware of the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

In this bill, I think the Bloc Quebecois has already, on a number of occasions, distinguished itself in the debate concerning amendments to certain provisions of the Criminal Code to protect, among others, children and young women who, in certain situations, were subjected to certain painful practices. We have tried on many occasions to have this debated in the House and in committee.

Today, accordingly, Bill C-27 addresses a number of issues, including female genital mutilation, criminal harassment, child sex tourism, testimony by children, prostitution and procuring. It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois supports the government's approach on all these issues.

I would like to remind the government that the Bloc Quebecois member for Québec has worked, I think, extremely hard to advance the debate and, to a certain extent I would say, to persuade the government to take the direction it did with Bill C-27. I will just mention her private member's bills: Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the sexual exploitation of children

outside Canada, and Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the genital mutilation of female persons.

As a result of these two bills, of questions in the House and the pressure by the entire Bloc Quebecois-since the entire caucus supported the hon. member for Québec in this-the government decided to act and to introduce the bill we now know as C-27.

Given its origins, you will understand that the opposition is in favour of bill C-27. The opposition has always been in favour of bills which advanced the debate, which were aimed at remedying situations and shortcomings, and Bill C-27 is one such bill.

As I was saying, then, Bill C-27 addresses a number of aspects, including sex tourism. Given the stage we have reached, I will go over it component by component, with comments and a list of certain things we would have liked to have found in the bill, but unfortunately do not. The Bloc Quebecois will, no doubt, manage to get the government to give in, as it has this time with this bill, with a future amendment to the Criminal Code, or in another Parliament.

Now, when referring to sex tourism, we must understand the context. Everyone will agree with me when I say that the exploitation and victimization of children for purposes of sexual gratification is odious, but does unfortunately exist. This is not something much seen in Canada, but it does unfortunately exist in the third world, in the Asian countries. Poor and disadvantaged children in the developing countries are sometimes abused sexually by tourists from Canada and from Quebec.

In the name of profit, children are kidnapped, beaten, humiliated, and exposed to all manner of diseases, some of them fatal. If we were to do nothing about this, I believe we would be indirectly contributing to this universal scourge.

If this type of sex tourism exists, however, it is because there are people interested in it. We are speaking of people who are usually well-off, who come from the rich countries, the Canadians, the Germans, the Italians and the French. We had to set an example, and Canada has already done so on a number of occasions, no doubt because of the history of this country and its international image developed over the years. We have always set examples in certain areas of activity, and here again we are showing the world how far ahead we are. I am particularly pleased that this idea originated with a member from Quebec.

So, we have financially well-off tourists paying for trips to exotic countries solely for the purpose of purchasing the sexual services of children. I do not think anyone in Quebec or in Canada is prepared to tolerate that. It is a situation we must do something about, everyone agrees. But there are limitations, and I understand that. We had to find a way to structure this bill so as to overcome these obstacles. I think we managed to meet our objective, to some extent.

Why do these people, these customers who are financially well off, go outside the country? Because in Canada it is a criminal offence. They argue that they have so much love to give and want to give it to children in third world, to other people. And they argue-I heard all kinds of things when I was looking into this-that their love was shared, that it was mutual.

People also told us there were cultural differences, that some things that were not allowed in Canada were allowed in other countries. There are all kinds of misconceptions here that should be cleared up, and we must tell these people, who may be quite sincere, that what they do is wrong. Their arguments do not hold water, because according to the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, a child's right to security, health and life is sacred, whether you are in Asia, France, Italy, Canada or Quebec.

The problem was that we needed to send a clear message, and I think we were successful. By passing this bill, the House of Commons will send the message that these are serious offences. This was the context that led us to consider passing legislation to deal with this. We know the typical customer, and we also know the explanations they give, and all this had to be reflected in this bill.

Because of the subject matter, this bill was not easy to discuss in committee. I realized that as I listened to testimony and put questions to witnesses. These are rather delicate matters involving a great many concerns, including cultural differences, because Bill C-27 deals with various sexual aspects of the lives of certain people.

This bill confers a measure of extraterritoriality on the Criminal Code. The authorities can prosecute a Canadian national abroad. The Bloc agrees with that; in fact, our members would have liked to go a little further in this respect. Unfortunately, the amendments we proposed in the House of Commons and in committee were not passed. However, what is already proposed in Bill C-27 regarding the law's extraterritoriality is already a step forward, because there was nothing like this before. So we say congratulations. Bravo. We have understood part of it. We would have liked it to go further, to be more detailed, but it is a step forward, and we willingly support a bill that has an impact in this area.

There is another extremely important element, that which concerns excision or female genital mutilation. Here again, the Bloc tabled a bill in 1994 to prohibit genital mutilation. Because it is

important to see the work the Bloc has done in this matter, it is worth pointing out that, on a number of occasions in 1994 and 1995, the member for Quebec City, who was particularly interested in this, asked the Minister of Justice some questions. At the time, the Minister of Justice said we did not need a special section in the Criminal Code, since it already covered this sort of mutilation. Everything was covered in the Criminal Code. There was no need for change, etc.

The minister is dishing up much the same sort of thing now regarding biker legislation: "Everything is in the Criminal Code. There is no problem. Everything is there. The tools are there for the police". So, you will understand that we might have some reservations. This would not be the first time the minister has done an about-face on an issue because of the pressure the Bloc Quebecois exerts and will continue to exert. We exerted pressure in the case of genital mutilation and we are doing it in the case of biker legislation and on other issues as well. We will continue to ask the right questions, to do the right thing for the security of Quebecers and of Canadians as well, because the amendments we are seeking to the Criminal Code will benefit Canada as well as Quebec. It will all perhaps be part of the future partnership of Quebec and Canada, very soon to come about, I am sure.

Next is genital mutilation. With respect to Bill C-27, I am very pleased that my colleague, the government member, mentioned very clearly during his speech that it was impossible to consent to excision in Canada. You will recall that, during first and second reading of this bill, a person 18 years of age could consent to genital mutilation. This showed a great lack of knowledge of the practice, because it is not carried out by Quebecers and Canadians but primarily by people whose culture is somewhat different from that of Canada. It is easy to put pressure on a young woman of 18 years and one day, when she comes of age, and to say to her: "If you want your husband to love you, you must have this done".

We therefore struggled in committee, and I must say it was quite a battle, to have the Criminal Code recognize that a person could not consent to this practice, whether she was 5, 10, 15, 20, 35 or however many years old, without being charged under the Criminal Code.

But we also emphasized, and I think this will perhaps be up to those who administer justice and enforce the law, that cultural groups who have this kind of practice in their country must be educated and given information.

There are penalties in place and I think this is a very important step for Quebecers and for Canadians. Naturally, there are some weaknesses. We would have liked to see certain provisions in the bill, including one that very clearly makes it a new offence in the Criminal Code, to have it singled out in order to draw it to the public's attention. We would also have liked to see genital mutilation considered aggravated assault and clearly indicated as such in the bill, but it is not.

In addition, there are various interpretations of the procedure itself. Do we allow excision when performed by qualified doctors and so on, for medical reasons? I think some things could have been spelled out more clearly, given the importance of the issue. Unfortunately, the minister was unwilling to bend on this point. I understand that, since he had just given in on a major element in his bill where consent is concerned, he was not going to do so with the whole list of Bloc demands made in connection with this bill. At any rate, we do support Bill C-27, because it represents a step forward.

Naturally, where criminal harassment is concerned, the Bloc is totally in agreement there too. This is putting some teeth into what is already in place. The Criminal Code contained certain provisions about criminal harassment, but the sentence was so minimal that, to all intents and purposes, they were hardly ever enforced.

You will readily understand, then, and I will conclude with this, that the government had the entire co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois on Bill C-27 in order to make the bill the most applicable, the most in line with what we are experiencing in Canada, and particularly the most stringent in order to protect those we wish to protect, that is to say, children, young women and all those who suffer directly or indirectly from the scourge of sex tourism, excision or any other offence of a sexual nature.

We support Bill C-27, which was introduced by the government and which is, to all intents and purposes, virtually a carbon copy of the private member's bills we in the Bloc Quebecois tabled in the past.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

As my colleague just said, lucky the Bloc Quebecois was here to keep reminding the Minister of Justice of Quebec's biding interest in Bill C-17.

You will recall that on Monday, April 7, the Bloc Quebecois practically had to threaten the government opposite with amendments that would add provisions concerning anti-biker legislation before the government suddenly decided to bring back Bill C-17.

I think this was another important gain for the Bloc, the way the minister decided to act on Bill C-17 by bringing it back to the House.

Again, we have always been very consistent in our position on Bill C-17, in other words, we have always said yes, it is a good bill. What the Minister of Justice proposes in Bill C-17 is an improvement. The Bloc Quebecois is prepared to support the government 100 per cent on this bill, but considering recent events in Quebec, he should take advantage of this opportunity to amend this bill by including, as requested by Quebec, a provision that would open the way to legislation or provisions dealing with bikers and organized crime.

The government has often told us to go to Quebec City, go to headquarters and see our former leader. Get him to agree, and then come back, and more of the same. As far as criminal law is concerned and Quebec's right to have its own anti-biker legislation and even regarding the most far-reaching provisions in Bill C-17, the Bloc and the Parti québécois are definitely on the same wave length. The minister was forced to admit that sovereignists are unanimous about the need for this kind of legislation. He had to do something to make up for the mistakes he has made in this area.

So he brought back Bill C-17. The government even proposed amendments at a stage when it does not usually do so. We gave our unanimous consent. Our co-operation with the government was exemplary. We have tried to make this bill as good as it could possibly be, with some very useful amendments so the police will be able to do their job. And I think Bill C-17 will provide the police with additional tools so they can deal with at least part of the problem of crime in this country.

The Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly asked the minister how he intended to deal with crime. He kept saying: "Now listen, Bill C-17 is going to deal with all this. We will pass Bill C-17 in the House, which will introduce various changes, and the problem will be solved". So why has Bill C-17 yet to pass third reading, although it was tabled on March 8, 1996, when it passed first reading, and today is April 11, 1997, more than a year later?

However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice recalled that some bills were tabled in 1994 and 1995. So they go back even further than March 1996. I wonder. Bill C-17 is supposed to be the answer to all our problems with crime. Because of C-17, we do not have to pursue legislation we have been demanding for months and even years-anti-biker legislation-to deal with the majority of criminal offenses. So why did the minister, who has been responsible for these matters since 1994, not table it so it could be passed?

Allow me to make a short digression. The biker war is currently an issue, but you will remember that, as early as 1982, the municipality of Tracy, in Quebec, asked for a special law to deal with the problem. The mayor of Sorel-Tracy asked for such a measure, because a bunker was being built by the Hell's Angels.

So, this problem has been with us for a long time. Now, the parliamentary secretary is reminding us that the bill, which the minister has had in his hands since 1994, has yet to be adopted.

If the minister had had any political will at all, and a good dose of humility to admit his mistake regarding the anti-biker legisla-

tion that is being asked of him, he could have introduced the necessary amendments and enlisted the same degree of co-operation that he received for his own amendments, on Monday. The minister could have enlisted the participation and co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois and, I am convinced, of the third party, since the result would have been a more comprehensive bill.

But the Bloc Quebecois will show magnanimity. We will once again give the minister a chance, because he promised us that legislation would be introduced next week. We are anxiously waiting for this legislation, but with an open mind. I hope the minister will follow up on our representations, on those of a large number of Quebec municipalities, and on those of Quebec's Minister of Justice, Mr. Bégin, and Minister of Public Security, Mr. Perreault.

In events surrounding the biker war and Bill C-17, I was somewhat surprised to see in the newspapers that the federal justice minister was accusing his provincial counterpart, Mr. Bégin, of being responsible for the fact that Bill C-17 had still not been passed. The federal minister said: "Bill C-17 could have been passed, but Mr. Bégin, the Quebec justice minister, is partly to blame for the fact that it was not".

I think it important that I mention to the House a letter, just to show that sometimes the Liberal government opposite puts out misinformation. On July 9, 1996, Quebec's deputy justice minister and deputy attorney general, Michel Bouchard, wrote to George Thomson, deputy minister and deputy attorney general of the federal justice department, to express his strong interest in seeing Bill C-17 passed as quickly as possible.

I know that earlier the parliamentary secretary cited a letter from New Brunswick's justice minister, Paul Duffy. In fact, New Brunswick has followed this issue with a great deal of interest, for essentially the same reasons as Quebec, but I find it strange, unless I missed something because I had to step out to make a phone call, that I did not hear the parliamentary secretary mention Michel Bouchard, although Mr. Bouchard wrote a very interesting letter to the deputy minister of the federal justice department on July 9, 1996.

I will read the first paragraph, because I know it sums up Quebec's position. It says: "Bill C-17, introduced in the House of Commons on March 8, 1996, contains many criminal amendments that we have been calling for for several years now and that have been approved by the conference to harmonize legislation".

A little further on, it reads: "The introduction of these new measures alone will, in the short term, save us millions of dollars, a not insignificant amount in the context of the budgetary constraint facing us all. It will therefore come as no surprise that we were extremely disappointed to learn that passage of this omnibus bill, which was already postponed until last spring, has again been postponed".

He went on: "You will therefore understand our great desire to see Bill C-17 among the bills the federal justice minister is determined to move on as quickly as possible".

This letter is dated July 9, 1996. Nobody should be blaming the provincial justice minister, Mr. Bégin, for the delay in passing this bill. I think that all provincial attorneys general were in agreement that Bill C-17 should be passed as speedily as possible, given certain factors that I will mention in a few minutes. Why are these attorneys general in Canada and in Quebec in favour of Bill C-17? Why is the Bloc Quebecois in favour of this bill? Because it contains some very important elements that are necessary to update the Criminal Code.

I will presently discuss the main components of this bill. The third party in the House probably would have liked to see a much harder line in this bill on parole, for instance, and the repeal of section 745, but I can assure you we do not share the position of the Reform Party on this part of the Criminal Code. I think the minister has taken a major step forward, but, as I will explain later on, he should have done more.

Here are some of the main areas affected by Bill C-17. The bill proposes a series of changes to deal more effectively with the proceeds of crime. Some of these changes will help the police to carry out seizures, including the money that makes the world of organized crime go round. In politics, money makes the world go round; the same is true of organized crime. I think we must have all the tools we need to seek out the proceeds of crime.

If I may digress for a moment, this is what Mr. Bégin made very clear in a proposal that was rejected out of hand by the Minister of Justice on Monday, a proposal that favoured anti-biker legislation, with provisions that would help the police seize their money, their property, their bunkers, their armoured cars and their big limousines. The bill will make all this possible. I think that by cutting off their livelihood, it will be possible to get rid of the organized crime element. I just wanted to say that in passing.

As for other aspects of this bill, there were several changes with respect to computer-assisted crime, counterfeiting and the fraudulent use of credit cards. I think we have to move with the times. The Criminal Code goes back many years and has to be updated regularly. That is the purpose of Bill C-17. We certainly had no objection to updating the Criminal Code.

There are also provisions to deal more severely with driving under the influence. Here again, I think that considering certain court decisions, it was necessary to amend the Criminal Code in this respect.

There are also provisions-and this is very important as far as the provinces are concerned-that will save money while helping counsel with court appearances. For instance, there are provisions for videoconferencing and the issuing of warrants by means of modern communications. Here again no one would have thought of this ten years ago, but, today, with informatics and the whole field

of telecommunications, things like remote appearances are possible so as to save money for the provinces, which administer justice. All that is in Bill C-17.

Clearly we support these provisions, but, once again, I think things could have gone further, as for example with the provisions on money laundering, because this is glossed over somewhat. Canada, let us face it, is the best country for money laundering. The Liberals opposite often boast that Canada is the finest country in the world, but in this finest country in the world, we annually launder, according to estimates, between $20 billion and $90 billion.

The police estimate it as follows: only some 10 per cent of drugs are seized annually. The seizures are worth between $1.5 billion and $4.5 billion a year. A quick calculation reveals that 100 per cent would be over $20 billion.

The President of the Treasury Board is looking at me with great interest. I am sure he sees a lot of numbers, but he has only to consult the Canadian crime service and the RCMP for confirmation of my figures.

Bill C-17 should contain provisions to reinforce the whole matter of money laundering to further prevent it and to better equip the police so Canada loses its title.

I will conclude on this point. The title is awarded by the great jurists of the world and by the Americans annually in September, because American inquiries and commissions look into the matter. Every year, the Canadian government is encouraged to strengthen its legislation to prohibit this activity because of the border between Canada and the United States.

I could go on with my speech, but I see my time has run out.

[Criminal Code, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that Bill C-17 was tabled or rather brought back to the House this week. As you know, the official opposition had to approach the federal Minister of Justice on several occasions until he finally agreed to introduce Bill C-17 in the House, a bill which was and still is anxiously awaited by practically all the provinces, since they are responsible for the administration of justice.

[Human Rights, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it has only been going on for seven years, so I can understand that the minister has not had the time to hold a meeting of his officials.

I find the responses of the government and of the minister this morning most puzzling. If I understand the minister correctly, Canada seems to have abdicated its traditional role as defender of human rights. Otherwise it would have cast its real vote by now, and we would know where it stands. As things are now, we do not know where it stands and are still waiting, despite the importance of the issue.

By refusing to stand up to intimidation by China and by putting the defence of international human rights on the back burner, does the minister agree that Canada is a party to the imprisonment of Chinese political prisoners, and to the detention of the 11th Panchen Lama, the chief spiritual adviser of Tibet?

[Human Rights, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for the past seven years, China has succeeded in blocking any vote concerning its human rights violations. But the real vote, the one he is talking about, is when a country sponsors a resolution.

Is the minister telling us that, with all these changes, these things he will be deciding about in the future, and so on, Canada has caved in to the blackmail and threats of political and trade reprisals from this country?

[Human Rights, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Yesterday, before the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, Canada refused to co-sponsor a Danish resolution condemning human rights violations in China. Yet, since the massacre in Tiananmen Square, Canada had never failed to co-sponsor

similar resolutions. Canada has apparently given up defending human rights internationally.

In light of the fact that China is systematically, blatantly and continually violating human rights throughout its territory, and particularly in Tibet, can the minister tell us why the Canadian government did not support Denmark's action, which condemns the failure to respect human rights in China?