Michel Bellehumeur

[Business Of The House, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the leader of the government in the House what is on the legislative agenda for the coming week.

[Organized Crime, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that instead of acting like an armchair quarterback and waiting for a bill to appear out of thin air, preferably drafted by divine inspiration, the minister take a look at documents produced by the RCMP and Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, which state that, and I quote:

The Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine have a vast arsenal of weapons and munitions and are determined to go to the very limit. At stake in this war is control of the drug trade in the Montreal area and elsewhere in the province.

These are federal documents.

Considering what he said yesterday about Quebec's bill, would the minister agree that his rather innocent interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights is undermining his own efforts to find effective ways to deal with the bikers' war?

[Organized Crime, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice rejected out of hand the text of a bill drafted by the Government of Quebec that would outlaw biker gangs.

However, the very same day, two Hell's Angels were released because of lack of evidence, a murder was committed in Donnacona, there was an attempted murder in Thetford Mines, a Molotov cocktail exploded in Quebec City, and sticks of dynamite were found in a garbage can in Longueuil. This is all connected with the biker gang war in Quebec. Otherwise, it was just an average, care-free day for the federal Minister of Justice.

By using the Charter as an excuse for his lack of political will, is the minister not broadening the scope of the charter so that it protects biker gangs like the Rock Machine and the Hell's Angels more than it does law-abiding citizens?

[Criminal Code, April 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak to a bill introduced by a member who has taken the time to move amendments to the Criminal Code. The bill clearly reflects the concern of the hon. member for a problem he has encountered in his riding or a problem experienced by his constituents.

However, I will say right away that I cannot support this bill. I cannot support the bill introduced by the hon. member of the Reform Party, and I will explain why, very briefly.

First of all, I will quote the text of this amendment to section 41 of the Criminal Code:

Every person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

This indicates right away the intent to criminalize a certain activity.

who (a) trespasses on a dwelling house or real property; and (b) has, within the previous twenty-four hours, been lawfully removed from, or prevented from entering, that dwelling-house or real property.

This section might have two different applications. We have to look at the context. The hon. member on the government side gave a good example, the one about young people loitering in a shopping mall or on the sidewalk, and the owner of the mall or the merchants want them to leave. There is also the somewhat more serious case of quarrels between neighbours or members of the same group, when the court is asked, because such procedures exist in the Criminal Code, to prohibit this man or this woman from entering certain premises. In such cases, the judge will make the following order: he will prohibit a person, because he had previously uttered threats or been otherwise troublesome, from being on the other person's property.

The Criminal Code already contains provisions to deal with any breach of such orders. This aspect that may be affected by this amendment is already covered by the Criminal Code. So something else would be added, since when an order is breached, the person is brought before the court and then has to suffer the consequences of his actions.

In the other case, someone mentioned earlier the example of loitering in commercial buildings or even in front of a private residence or elsewhere. I think I agree with the government on that

score. This kind of behaviour should not be criminalized, and as a member of the Bloc, I think we should look at the broader context. I think it is more a municipal problem than anything else. It is a problem that local authorities, in other words, municipal councillors and mayors of municipalities, can deal with by passing appropriate bylaws on loitering.

As far as I know, many municipalities in Quebec and across Canada have already passed bylaws in their municipalities to prevent young people from making a nuisance of themselves one way or another in public places or in front of private residences.

My point is that the hon. member was probably well intentioned when he decided to propose this amendment to the Criminal Code, but an amendment has to add something new, it has to fill a void. At the present time, I think that our municipal bylaws, the Criminal Code and other appropriate legislation already deal with this problem and that it is unnecessary to amend the Criminal Code by adding an additional paragraph as proposed by the member of the Reform Party.

This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are not in favour of Bill C-247.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by saying that I am very happy to see the government bringing back Bill C-17 so that it can be duly passed, in light of all that is going on in Quebec with the biker war.

On a number of occasions now, the Minister of Justice has told us that with Bill C-17 a series of things would be changed, which is supposed to make the work of the police easier. However, Bill C-17 went to first reading on March 8, 1996. For a bill that is as good as this one, it took the government a little while to table it so that we could give our views on it.

I will be able to come back to this at third reading and go into further detail. Right now, I understand that the debate is on the amendment presented by the government. I must say from the outset that we are in favour of this amendment in principle. If you followed the arguments of the Bloc Quebecois in the House as well as in committee at all, you will know that we have always favoured rehabilitating people in conflict with the law and returning them to society. In my view, the government's amendment is along these lines. You will therefore understand that we support it in principle.

I do not know if people realize it, but something rather extraordinary also took place this morning with respect to Bill C-17, in that the House gave unanimous consent to present amendments at this stage.

When we are dealing with an issue of importance to society, whether we are talking about Quebec or about Canada, all parties are able to set aside politics and move ahead with an extremely important bill; we did so this morning with two government amendments. We unanimously consented to the introduction of these amendments by the government.

My comment to the government across the way is that, if it had shown a little more political will, it could have tabled other amendments in line with what the Government of Quebec was asking for regarding an anti-biker gang bill. If the members opposite had had the political will to resolve what is a horrendous problem for Quebec, we could have proceeded in the same way, that is with amendments at this stage, and again we would all have given our unanimous consent, because this terrible problem must be resolved once and for all.

But instead the government again decided to turn a deaf ear, as it did with Bill C-17, since this bill was tabled on March 8, 1996 and it is now April 8, 1997. The government could have moved this bill along, since it tells us that police forces are depending on it to resolve certain problems.

On the substance, then, I have nothing to say. This is an amendment in keeping with the major orientations of the Bloc Quebecois, but I would like to send a message to the Minister of Justice and perhaps also the law clerks on the way these amendments are presented to us. We had a major job deciphering what was presented to us. We had amendments in English, and amendments in French that were not necessarily exact translations. The Criminal Code has to be consulted in order to see that, in fact, there are subparagraphs (a) and (b) in English, while in French there is a single paragraph.

I believe that the Minister of Justice and the hundred or so law clerks working with him ought to have thought of making changes at this stage so that a lawyer arguing a case in court could make himself understood, regardless of whether he is speaking in English or in French. I do not know whether subparagraphs, like those in the English version, make it easier to understand; if so, perhaps the French version should have the same structure.

I was just saying to the law clerks seated at the table-and this is not aimed at them, since I understand that this is a Department of Justice directive-that, if a lawyer is pleading a case in French

against an anglophone colleague who cites subparagraph 742.1(b) to the judge, he will think the French version is not up to date because there is no subparagraph to section 742.1. I think there is a problem here. Is it merely a language-related problem? Is it really just to respect the French and English ways of drafting texts? Perhaps, but still lawyers must not be prevented from understanding each other in a court of law.

I believe that the French and English texts ought to be designated and structured in the same way. If there are subparagraphs in one text, there must also be subparagraphs in the other, whether in English or in French. So the problem was at the translation level, since the section is a very technical one. I still feel it is important at some point to ensure that the texts match, so that there may be true understanding.

But, for the people of Quebec who are following the debates-when someone states that he is for, or against, a given clause, for example-I think that they should know why their Bloc Quebecois MPs are in favour of this amendment, and I shall finish on this point. This is an amendment to Bill C-17, which modifies a series of sections in the Criminal Code dealing with suspended sentencing, or more specifically the amendment which we are addressing.

As I have just pointed out, although there are subparagraphs to section 742.1 in the English version, there are none in French. Section 742.1 would read as follows:

742.1 If a person convicted of an offence, other than an offence for which a minimum prison term exists, is sentenced to less than two years' imprisonment, the court may, if it "is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2", order the offender to serve his sentence in the community so as to supervise the offender's behaviour, subject to the conditions imposed pursuant to section 742.3.

The Bloc Quebecois has no hesitation in supporting an amendment that stresses the reintegration and rehabilitation of a person who has been charged with an offence. This is about reintegrating someone as quickly as possible in the community so that he becomes a law abiding citizen. This may be someone who has been in trouble with the law and was subsequently given counselling and treated for certain problems or a person who has changed his ways and can be quickly reintegrated in the community if he does not endanger public safety.

I was listening to what reform members had to say this morning. It may be something they experience in Western Canada, and their speeches probably reflect the positions of their constituents, but I thing that in Quebec, we are not that pessimistic about reintegrating these people in the community.

There is a difference between what is reported by members from Western Canada and our experience in Quebec. I agree we have certain fundamental principles, we have laws that regulate parole and the whole system, but I think we should pay special attention to this whole area of reintegration, and above all, we should not prevent anyone from being reintegrated into society. As I see it, the positive aspect of this amendment is that it supports reintegration while including some very important safety measures.

That is why I am pleased to support this amendment to Bill C-17, an amendment the official opposition in the House of Commons has been waiting for for a long time, and this morning it is pleased to support this amendment, so that Bill C-17 can be passed as soon as possible.

[Criminal Code, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good case where the Bloc has contributed in an exceptional way to improve a bill or even to impose its vision on some matters.

I take this opportunity to commend the hon. member for Québec, who was one of the people that started this whole debate on sex tourism, excision and other related matters in Bill C-27.

However, as is often the case with the Liberal Party, the opposition had to take the initiative and to introduce private bills to get it to respond. Bill C-27 is a blatant example of that: the hon. member for Québec introduced a series of bills, among others, on sex tourism, as well as sex tourism in other countries, so that the government would budge.

The hon. member for Québec did not merely introduce a bill. Since the government tabled Bill C-27, which we are examining, the hon. member, as well as the official opposition, have very closely followed the committee work. Testimony heard in committee indicated that the bill fell short on some things, so we tried to co-operate with the government, to move some amendments so that Bill C-27 would come as close as possible to meeting the objectives of the private member's bills tabled by the hon. member for Québec, particularly with regard to sex tourism.

A number of witnesses told us that this Liberal bill does not go far enough, and that we should give it more teeth if we are to get effective results in protecting sexually abused children in third world countries.

Despite the support we had from some women's groups, social interest groups and even legal experts, the Liberal government waited until the last minute to move amendments to try to meet the demands of the Bloc Quebecois. Even these last minute amendments failed to support our goals in dealing with sex tourism.

That is why, once again, the official opposition felt it had a professional obligation to put forward in this House an amendment about the extraterritorial impact. I invite government members to think very seriously before coming out for or against the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Québec in the overall context of the implementation of this bill.

In some third world countries, in Asia, in India, sex tourism is a very profitable industry. In spite of the government's last minute amendments, we have to understand that any country where sex tourism exists must submit a request to Canada so that the attorney general can prosecute the individual who committed the offence in that country.

Tell me what country where sex tourism is known to exist, where it is tolerated, would do that. According to witnesses, there even are countries that favour sex tourism because it is good for the local economy. Considering the clause that is before us, why would those countries themselves ask the Canadian government to prosecute someone who practised sex tourism on their territory? None will do it. Those are often countries which encourage sex tourism.

The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Quebec aims at giving the Canadian government the power to prosecute individuals who commit the crime. I understand there are issues of territoriality and extraterritoriality. However, we should not forget that the law aims at protecting the young.

Again, several young people who appeared before the committee told how individuals sexually abused them. Often, it is Canadians who go to other countries, and it is people who know them who sexually abuse these children, these young women or young men.

I think that the amendment presented by the member has only one purpose, that is to better protect the children. If there is a problem with enforcement, we will take care of it as we go along, but we must at least help the families and the victims by giving the Attorney General of Canada the ability to prosecute those who sexually abuse children and who even profit from sexual tourism.

In closing, I ask all the hon. members on the government side to read very carefully the amendment; it is very short, but very broad in scope. If they have the time, they should also read the testimony of some young people who came before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to complain about the fact that Bill C-27, which was introduced by the government party, falls short of the objective sought.

I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Québec should be adopted because it would correct a deficiency in the bill as written by the Liberal government. In the case of Bill

C-27, as in the case of several other bills, we see that the government has tabled a series of amendments and a bill, and following the testimony of a number of people before the committee, the government intends to make further amendments. This is akin to tabling a bill without knowing what consequences it will have or considering all the possibilities it will open up.

Although they may have done so in the case of a number of other clauses, I think they failed to amend this particular clause and go as far as the hon. member for Quebec was suggesting. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this amendment to Bill C-27, and I would ask that the government give this amendment serious consideration. I hope it will also vote in favour of the amendment, with the official opposition, so as to improve the bill and help it achieve its objective to protect children.

[Organized Crime, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have been calling for this legislation from the minister for two years now. He should perhaps pay attention and produce more realistic laws.

I would remind the minister that he is the guardian of the Criminal Code and of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that if, with his hundreds of lawyers and the millions of dollars he spends in his department, he is incapable of drafting legislation that passes the test of the charter, the problem lies not with the Bloc Quebecois or the Government of Quebec but with the Minister of Justice.

Since he has just mentioned it, and in the light of the discussions he has had with the Government of Quebec in the past two or three weeks, will he promise that the amendments he is about to table, that he claims to be about to table, will be in line with one of the three scenarios of the Government of Quebec and will incorporate as well the four criteria set by the Government of Quebec to put an end to the bikers' war? In particular, will he promise that this legislation will be approved, passed and in force before the upcoming federal election is called?

[Organized Crime, April 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, as we see again today, the minister has decided to do a bit of petty politicking with this and create a media diversion to hide his lack of political will.

Far from simply doing something to resolve the war of the biker gangs, he is deliberately twisting the practical and realistic proposals of the Government of Quebec.

Given that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code, has yet to be passed and is supposed to resolve part of the problem, will the minister accept the full co-operation of the official opposition in amending this bill at the stage it has reached in this House to include in it one of the three scenarios proposed by the Government of Quebec?

[Organized Crime, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what tone I am supposed to take in addressing this House. Since yesterday, because no action was taken, there have been two more deaths in a bomb explosion in Quebec. I think the minister needs to wake up and smell the coffee, and do something as soon as possible.

He also needs to keep in mind that there are at least 15 biker clubhouses in Quebec, 15 fortresses, and the gangs continue to wreak havoc.

The Minister is going to Quebec City, and not to see the sights. The mayors are waiting for an answer to their questions. In order to settle the problem of these fortified biker clubhouses once and for all, and to do away with all the nasty business they are involved in, is the minister prepared-and this is a serious matter-to announce tomorrow to Minister Perreault and all the mayors who are waiting for some action, that, as soon as possible, he will propose to the Canadian Parliament legislation that will ban motorcycle gangs once and for all?

[Organized Crime, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister understands the reality and the great urgency involved, and particularly the fact that there are major faults in his system.

Need we remind the minister that we again had proof of this yesterday, when a certain Daniel Nault, a Hell's Angels sympathizer, was acquitted, thanks to the Criminal Code the minister refuses to amend, although he had been arrested with a working bomb in the trunk of his car.

I am asking the Minister of Justice whether he does not acknowledge that this is striking proof that the Criminal Code as it stands is not strong enough to stop the motorcycle gang wars?