Marc Lemay

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his support of the motion introduced by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The parliamentary secretary of the Liberal party intrigued us with a question. I would like to put it to my colleague. I would like him to tell us about a possibility.

This motion will result in a bill which, we hope, will be passed unanimously by the House. With this bill, how can we trace money that is laundered here in Canada but comes from crimes that might have been committed outside of Canada, or money transferred for example to tax havens from crimes committed in Canada?

Does the hon. member have an answer to that question?

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my honourable colleague for Champlain, and the answer is unambiguous. Indeed, in Canada, a sacrosanct principle obtains: nobody can be found guilty of a crime unless he has had a fair trial, and his guilt has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. In the case of interest to us, the accused must have been found guilty.

Here is an example I have been personally involved in; it happened in spring 2001. Houses, snowmobiles, planes, off-road recreational vehicles were seized. According to the bill that will be introduced, when the accused has been found guilty, at sentencing, he has to prove that the seized assets have not been acquired by criminal means. That is the answer. It comes after conviction.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Two things. First, if the money is here in Canada and there is evidence it was earned—if I may use the expression earned—through crime, I personally believe this money should come under the framework of the bill and be seized. Second, those who have this money, in bank accounts or elsewhere, should be asked to demonstrate to the court that it was not used in or come from organized crime or criminal activities.

Internationally speaking, with Interpol throughout the world and with today's telecommunications and communication, we think there are ways of tracking money transfers. Canada will have to exert pressure to have this money seized, no matter where it is found, by virtue of it coming from an offence committed in Canada. However, I invite you and Parliament to take the first step by introducing this bill so that we can pass it. We will reverse the burden of proof and then we will go to the next step.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hochelaga.

I want to thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for this motion, which raises awareness of the extreme importance of the issue we are debating today. This issue deals with reversing the burden of proof for criminals who have been found guilty.

I must say at the outset that I am a lawyer and that I practised criminal law as defence counsel. Therefore, I have a very good understanding of this issue, which has been a sensitive issue in the organized crime community for a very long time.

The Bloc Québécois has put a lot of pressure and made numerous requests to bring the federal government to pass legislation to fight organized crime, which has been present in our country for way too long. In Quebec, in particular, we saw unfortunate events, horrible events, that made the public realize that enough was enough and we had to put a stop to that. That is why Bill C-24, amending the Criminal Code, was brought forward and passed. Then there was section 426.3 of the Criminal Code. I will not go into any details, but many of my colleagues and myself have made arguments under this section on several occasions, saying that it was incumbent upon the Crown to demonstrate that the offence was linked to organized crime. It was indeed quite a burden.

Not only was it necessary to demonstrate the individual's guilt with regard to the evidence against him and the crimes of which he or she was accused, but the Crown also had to prove that the assets obtained were linked to organized crime, which meant that there was a direct connection between these assets and the offence for which a guilty verdict was rendered. The burden of proof was very difficult for the Crown in those cases.

We believe that this is a very good bill, which should be brought before Parliament, and that this motion should be expedited so as to put an end to the Crown's obligation to assume a burden which, quite often, is very heavy. Especially since the motion tabled by my colleague, which I invite the House to adopt unanimously, is recommended by all the attorneys general of Canada and the justice ministers of all the provinces, including Quebec. We believe that the Minister of Justice of Canada would be well advised to table a bill on this subject promptly. That is why we are proposing this motion today.

I want to stress that the motion and the bill that might result from it are closely related to the offences of organized crime. Obviously we could not ask to have it apply to all crimes. It has to be related to organized crime.

I would draw attention to the fact that organized crime does not simply mean crimes committed by motorcycle gangs or groups of that ilk. Very often a criminal organization is very very difficult to dismantle.

A criminal organization, within the meaning of the Criminal Code, is three persons who together facilitate or commit criminal offences. So this must be demonstrated before one can say that a person is charged with organized crime. Quite often, alas, the Crown withdraws that charge because it had or will have difficulties proving the link between the three individuals, the link they would have had to commit the crimes.

Now, quite often, when the Crown manages to prove that these persons have committed crimes and so form a criminal group within the meaning of the Criminal Code, the assets seized—since very often a huge amount will be seized—must on a balance of probabilities constitute proceeds of crime obtained in connection with that designated offence. Hence this is a burden of proof that is extremely difficult, if not almost impossible very often, for the Crown to demonstrate.

The objective of this motion is to force the government to table a bill to stamp out organized crime and in particular money laundering. I emphasize that an individual who is found guilty and convicted will not be at the end of his pains, for he will have to demonstrate to the court that these assets were acquired legitimately.

Allow me to emphasize this. It is not the purpose of this motion and this bill to limit the presumption of innocence, which is extremely important. In our criminal law in Canada and Quebec, anyone appearing before the court is presumed innocent until the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime with which he is charged.

So this motion, which I hope will lead to a bill, would have the proposed reversal of the burden of proof apply only once the accused has been found guilty of a criminal offence. It is very important that this take place only at the sentencing stage, so that it does not violate the principle of presumption of innocence. Of course, I am offering you the example of a case that occurred recently right here in the Outaouais region, in spring 2001. Individuals were arrested all across Quebec, who were suspected of being members of an organized gang—what we call it is not important—whose seized assets were valued in the tens of millions of dollars.

The bill we want to see introduced in Parliament by our Minister of Justice would ensure that, once found guilty, the accused could no longer benefit from being presumed innocent because they have been found guilty. The burden of proof will be reversed and they will have to demonstrate that their assets that have been seized were not obtained with drug money, for instance.

That is what we could have used in the cases or events that have come up since 2001. However, the Crown has used plea bargaining to make sure individuals plead guilty, saying, “If you plead guilty to this offence, we will drop the gangsterism charge and allow you to recover some of your property”. Under the current motion and the resulting bill, this would be impossible. The onus will rest entirely on the individual.

I will conclude by saying that when the bill is passed—which I hope will happen as soon as possible—I call on Parliament and Canada, through its Minister of Justice and international relations, to tell the world that we have joined Australia, Austria, France, New Zealand, Germany and the United Kingdom in sending a message to criminals, “Be careful, if you want to do business in Canada, you will pay a high price”.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated the speech our colleague has just given. I will, however, have just one question for him.

His speech demonstrates clearly that the Conservative Party is opposed to the budget we will be voting on about 63 minuted from now. Do all of his colleagues think the way he does, and will they be voting against the budget this evening? If they did, we would be having another election, and the Liberals would at last end up in opposition.

[Petitions, February 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of several hundred residents of my riding who are opposed to the Government of Canada's getting involved in the missile defence program the U.S. would like to put in place.

[François Bourque, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a day of joy for the people of New Richmond, Chaleur Bay, the Gaspé peninsula, and all of Quebec, celebrating the success of François Bourque, a 20-year-old skier who won the bronze medal in the super-G at Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.

This young man from Gaspé has become the first Quebecker and only the third Canadian to win a place on a super-G podium.

This third-place finish practically guarantees that François Bourque will be participating in the World Cup finals when the 25 best athletes in this discipline compete.

With the Winter Games in Turin just one year away, our hopes could not be higher. The Bloc Québécois congratulates François Bourque and wishes him all the success a talent like his deserves.

[Persons with Disabilities, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the 8th regional telethon for persons with disabilities was held in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. The event is an outstanding example of social solidarity and collective generosity.

Approximately $287,067 was raised. This money will be used exclusively to provide help and services to local persons with disabilities, regardless of the disability.

The success of the telethon can be measured by the great generosity of donors and the work of the 1,200 volunteers who have demonstrated the goodness of their hearts and their sense of caring and sharing.

The funds raised are administered by the regional service organization Ressource d'aide et de services pour personnes handicapées de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Thank you, and bravo for your dedication.

[Jean-Jacques Martel, February 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region is deeply saddened as it mourns the loss of one of its pioneers, Mr. Jean-Jacques Martel.

Born in 1927, Mr. Martel became a prospector who did a great deal for mining development in the Abitibi area. A generous man, a dedicated builder of our beautiful region, he was the member of Parliament for the former riding of Chapleau from March 31, 1958, to June 18, 1962. With his unequivocal love of the region, he defended his constituents' interests with great energy.

My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois join with me in offering our condolences to the Martel family and the entire community of Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Income Tax Act, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion. We will explain why to the hon. members from the governing party.

For 30 years I have been involved in sports locally and internationally. I have a few words for the hon. members from the governing party. I want to know how much money Olympic athletes receive to be able to train year round. After deductions, they can barely make ends meet.

The purpose of this bill is not to increase the amount of money that goes to elite athletes such as Despaties, Heymans or others who are currently sponsored, who receive money from sponsors and file annual income tax returns. I am talking about the up and coming athletes, those who are at the developmental level. My focus is on them this evening. That is why we will support this bill.

It is the parents who pay for these athletes, who get up every morning at 6 a.m. to train. These athletes do not get a break on the weekend either. Sometimes a foundation might be set up to help them improve and get a little further, foundations such as the Gold Medal Club in Montreal, the athlete's fund in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and others. However, these athletes should be able to get a tax break for the money they receive from these foundations. It is totally unfair and unacceptable for this not to be the case.

The tax break would be $8,000 in addition to the $8,000 that every citizen in Canada is entitled to claim. That way, our athletes, whether at the elite or the developmental stage, especially those who show great promise, can have $16,000 of income that is not taxable. That is the very minimum.

I will read the bill as presented:

income for the year, not exceeding $8,000, received by an athlete—

If the hon. member agrees and if Parliament allows, I would add the word coach because they have coaches.

—received by an athlete from a non-profit club, society or association—

The athletes do not get help from major companies. It is the little regions and the little villages that end up creating a foundation when a local athlete is suddenly thrust into the spotlight, so that they can help him get to the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, the Pan-Am Games or even a world championship. When such a foundation is created, the athlete ought to be able to deduct what he received from it on his income tax return. Otherwise, this is totally unfair.

The government tells us that it has programs available to help our athletes. It does in fact have programs to help those at the elite level. But those at the developmental level receive a mere $900 a month for accommodation, living expenses . We know that athletes need to travel to meets. I know of some badminton players who will be in the Ottawa region this weekend and will have travelled from as far away as Abitibi, the North, or Yellowknife. These competitors have had to pay their own way and they do not get any money back.

We accept the solution the hon. member has come up with. I think that Canadians would agree to giving our athletes a tax break on the first $8,000 of their income.

I think that is a bare minimum when we look at how much it costs for housing, food, clothing, sports gear and tuition fees. We will define the term athlete. Sport Canada already has one and we will apply the same one. They are just trying to create a problem where there is no need of one.

With respect, we are going to support the hon. member's proposal, and we hope that this bill can get passed as quickly as possible. We must not forget that we have the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics coming up in 2010. Our athletes are in full preparation mode already and we know they are going to be there. They must be helped and this is one way of helping them.