Michel Bellehumeur

[Organized Crime, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in their letter to the minister, the mayors and the Quebec Minister of Public Security talk about an exceptional situation. Exceptional measures are therefore required. I asked the minister a very clear question, but he did not answer it.

I want to know, if the Quebec government and the vast majority of mayors from the Quebec City area who are stuck with this huge problem ask him to go so far as to use the "notwithstanding" clause, whether the minister is prepared to go that route to follow up on the request made by these municipalities and those who are stuck with that problem?

[Organized Crime, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as we saw this morning, mayors from the Quebec City area and the Quebec Minister of Public Security sent a letter to the federal Minister of Justice reminding him that, under Bill C-17, for which he is taking credit, he has additional powers, but that this is still not enough. The minister must go further to stamp out organized crime.

Given the reply he just provided to the Leader of the Opposition, I am asking the minister whether, when he refers to valid and constitutional clauses to stamp out organized crime and biker gangs, he is alluding to the "notwithstanding" clause in the Constitution, and whether he is prepared to go so far as to use that clause in the fight against biker gangs?

[Organized Crime, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will neither hold an emergency debate, as requested by the Bloc Quebecois, nor undertake to act on proposals made by the Government of Quebec to deal effectively with the gang war. Meanwhile, the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine are causing mayhem in Quebec.

My question is for the Prime Minister and I would like him to answer because this is a very important question. Will the Prime Minister admit that, by being stubborn, he is protecting criminal biker gangs instead of protecting the life and safety of innocent people in Quebec?

[Organized Crime, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister appears to be out of touch with Quebec reality. There is a bikers war in Quebec, and it has been going on for some years, but the Prime Minister keeps blathering on, as though nothing was wrong.

How can the Prime Minister contend, as he did today, that we have all the tools necessary to combat the activities of criminal biker gangs, when in Quebec not one week goes by without buildings being blown up, or worse, innocent bystanders being killed?

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Why did you disappear, Martin?

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

We would like to hear you.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

We saw that with Bill C-71. We saw that with the Montreal Grand Prix.

[Privilege, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

What the hon. member said about the way we proceeded is correct. However, I think the member raised a very important point about procedure. It would be worthwhile having an enlightened decision from the Chair on this so we could use it later on.

When I gave consent for the committee to follow this procedure, I was very familiar with Bill C-46 and aware of the consequences and the speed with which they wanted it passed, given that it pretty well had universal approval. We also knew that there were a lot of women's groups and that the Supreme Court had reached decisions that concerned Bill C-45.

All this resulted in the opposition's agreeing in full knowledge of the situation to not follow the rules. What I would like clarified-and it is your job, I believe, Mr. Speaker-is that I do not perhaps entirely agree with the way my colleague has interpreted the new powers of the committees. I think there is a rule providing that, following second reading, the committee receives the bill, hears witnesses and so on.

There are two questions I would like you to answer The first is this: What rule prevails under the Standing Orders? The second question I would like you to answer to help the committees eventually is: If the members of a committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, unanimously agree to proceed other than in the way the rules provide, is it legal for them to do so?

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, outside of these empty words by the minister, which quite obviously do nothing to solve the problem, since it continues in Quebec, what does the minister have to say today to the family of little Marianne, who was hit by shards of glass in her own home, in her own crib? Or to the people of Saint-Nicolas, who watch helplessly as criminal organizations occupy their entire territory?

[Justice, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Since August 1995, when young Daniel Desrochers died as the result of the explosion of a vehicle boobytrapped by organized crime, there have been a number of other explosions. Innocent people have been wounded, blood has been shed. Whole cities and towns are in shock. Municipalities such as Saint-Nicolas, Montreal and Quebec City have no idea how to cope with a problem of this scope.

On September 21, 1995, the minister said that he was carrying out consultations and that he was optimistic about finding a solution. Since the problem is still there, worse in fact than in 1995, can the minister tell the House what solution he has found to the problem of motorcycle gang wars?