Pierre Paquette

[Committees of the House, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade regarding the supplementary estimates.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House to revert to presentation of reports by committees, so that I can table the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question. I think he just demonstrated the aberration of the decision made by RCMP authorities.

Anyone who looks at a geographical map realizes that an RCMP detachment is necessary in the Magdalen Islands. Indeed, we are several hours away from the continent by ferry and access by air is not easy either.

It is really a bureaucratic decision that was made, without any consultations whatsoever. That decision was made unbeknownst to Parliament and in a cavalier fashion. I can relate my own personal experience. I had phoned Mr. Bourduas to make an appointment with him. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness had told me that no decision would be made. I was supposed to meet him on the Friday, but the closure of the nine RCMP detachments was announced on the Wednesday.

There were no consultations and the decision was made without a real knowledge of the situation. This is an arrogant and truly bureaucratic decision.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Chambly, who also has great experience with administrative tribunals. We used to run into each other at the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

His speech leads me to draw a parallel. It is not the same thing, but it has to do with fear.

In Quebec, during the process of accrediting a union, we know full well that employees can be threatened by the employer, as we saw recently in the Wal-Mart case. That is why when a union submits enough cards, it is presumed that the majority of employees are in favour of the union. We know that the accreditation system requires 50% plus one, which, in a democracy, is entirely normal. Accordingly, if the labour relations board finds that the cards are valid, accreditation is given without a vote.

In the rest of Canada, most of the provincial jurisdictions have an accreditation method whereby, even though cards are submitted, a vote is held if it is not clear that there is a majority of cards plus one. This gives the employer the chance to threaten employees on accreditation before a vote is held. In a way, in the Quebec accreditation model, we have reversed the burden of proof. It is up to the employer—who has the upper hand—to demonstrate that it is not true that the majority of employees want to unionize or not.

I find what the hon. member for Chambly is suggesting interesting. It is the exact same thing here. Those who have the information and who have the upper hand, are the criminals. We are reversing the burden of proof to have them tell us how they acquired their financial assets or property when the income they declared over the years simply does not correspond to their wealth.

In a way, Quebec's approach of reversing the burden of proof is reflected in the motion and the bill.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his question. The reference he made to the four RCMP officers who were killed gives me an opportunity to extend my condolences to the families and the community that have suffered this loss. I think that we are all affected by it.

In my opinion, this incident shows how dangerous it is to weaken the network of RCMP detachments in the field.

Earlier, I heard my colleague, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord, rejoice over the fact that the detachment in Saint-Jérôme will remain open. I am happy for her. However, I believe that Joliette also is a regional capital and that the Lanaudière region would deserve to have the RCMP detachment in Joliette remain open.

The proposal made by RCMP management was to send the remaining officers—and very few remain—to Saint-Jérôme and Trois-Rivières. This will mean no RCMP officers in the Lanaudière region. I do not think that, without this physical presence, this region will be properly protected.

Also, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said, we have corn plantations but also tobacco plantations. There are still a few. These provide excellent opportunities for squatting. This is an everyday reality.

I would like to stress one point. We are fighting here for the nine RCMP detachments to remain open not only in their present locations, but also with a sufficient number of officers. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies say that, on the Liberal side, they shared the same concern. The strength of the detachment in Joliette, which should normally have been at 12, and that is a minimum, was down to just two or three.

Little by little, the communities were being put in front of a fait accompli, just like this Parliament right now. The government has a responsibility to bring RCMP management back into line.

I could quote testimonies from school principals, even private school principals, saying that, with the RCMP gone, drug trafficking in school yards, in high school, will increase dramatically because they have neither the means nor the expertise to control that. There is a serious storm brewing.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was told I had 20 minutes. I believe that the two other 10-minute speeches were to come a little later on.

This year is the 100th birthday of Einstein's theory of relativity, so I was wondering whether I was the first human being to experience the effects of that scientific phenomenon.

As I was saying, I was very proud to be part of that group in 2000. Our efforts during the election campaign brought the battle against organized crime to the forefront of the campaign issues. Because of all the other things that were going on, like Shawinagate and the sponsorship scandal, we did not have as much success with the organized crime issue. . As a result, at our request, and with pressure from the public as well, from public opinion as a whole, the government introduced Bill C-24, which amended the provisions of the Criminal Code. It was passed on June 13, 2001, with our support. We had after all indirectly instigated it. It came into effect on February 1, 2002.

Thanks to this bill, amendments to the Criminal Code have given law enforcement additional tools, for example, on the issue of the proceeds of crime. So there have been many more indictable offences that have been covered by the amendments to the Criminal Code.

Previously, only 40 crimes were categorized as organized crime offences. With the new provisions, we will be talking more about designated offences, which will encompass the indictable offences covered by the Labour Code and other federal statutes, apart from a few exceptions established by regulation.

So the broadening of the application of the provisions of the Labour Code to the proceeds of crime now enables law enforcement to seize, block and confiscate the profits that can be derived from possible criminal activity and are connected to and facilitated by organized crime.

Of course this was an important step forward, but we must go further still. That is why we are proposing in this motion another provision which should be added to the Criminal Code to address organized crime specifically. This is true in Quebec as well as, unfortunately, all over the world. So it is time for the Parliament of Canada to acquire this additional tool of reversal of the burden of proof with respect to the proceeds of crime, plus the introduction of the notion of the balance of probabilities.

As was mentioned by the previous hon. member, there was a federal-provincial-territorial meeting last January 23 and 25, at which the justice ministers discussed an amendment to the Criminal Code. There might be reason to make a minor correction to what the Liberal member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies said about certain provisions proposed by the Quebec justice minister and not by the federal justice minister, who subsequently endorsed them—I will not get into this—which were intended to reverse the burden of proof.

This proposal of the Quebec justice minister Mr. Jacques Dupuis was endorsed by all the provincial justice ministers as well as the federal minister. At the conclusion of discussions on this proposal, the ministers supported it, considering that it was necessary to facilitate confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The federal justice minister then said that it was necessary to improve the confiscation rules and that he would quickly produce amendments that were in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This had been mentioned by the previous Liberal member. Therefore, in my view, including this cut-off date of May 31, 2005 in the motion will assure us that the Minister of Justice will take action on what he said in late January.

It may be important to point out also that this proposal stems both from a suggestion made by Quebec's justice minister and from Bill C-242 introduced last October by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

It is interesting to read the following about the Bloc's position on the issue of reversing the burden of proof in the February 5, 2005, edition of Le Devoir , a newspaper read by few people in English Canada unfortunately:

—The Bloc Québécois, the first political party to propose reversing the burden of proof, with its Bill C-242 introduced in the Commons last fall, has adopted the idea. “This is a proposal that the Bloc likes,” confirmed Richard Marceau, the party's justice critic. We will have to wait and see which offences will be listed in this new bill, which, according to Mr. Marceau, should be introduced in the spring by federal justice minister Irwin Cotler.

Indeed, as everyone knows, May 31, 2005 falls within that timeframe, springtime.

At present, subsection 462.37(1) of the Criminal Code places on the crown prosecutor the burden of proving that the property to be forfeited is proceeds of crime related to the offence committed. This means that the Crown has a double task: first, get the accused convicted, and second, prove that the property in the possession of this person was illegally acquired. Then, of course, steps have to be taken to obtain its forfeiture.

Thus, we see that, with the proposal to reverse the burden of proof, we will greatly facilitate the task of the Crown who, once there is no longer any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, will throw back on the accused the onus of demonstrating that they did not obtain the property or the assets with illegal money.

I would like to get back to the initiative of Quebec's justice minister by reading what he wrote in the major Quebec newspapers at the beginning of February. It would be important for people who are listening to take note of this. Concerning subsection 462.37(1), Mr. Dupuis, who is the justice minister and attorney general of Quebec, came to this conclusion:

If the proposed amendment is enacted, an accused who is convicted of an indictable offence will be required to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the property in respect of which the Attorney General is seeing forfeiture is not proceeds of crime related to the offence of which the accused has been convicted. Our proposed amendment goes further than the amendment in Bill C-242 recently tabled in the House of Commons in that it applies to all indictable offences, not only criminal organization offences.

Here, the proposal of the Quebec justice minister goes even further than what we have in Bill C-242. The federal justice minister is obviously free to go further than what we have proposed. We will obviously see the proposed provisions after studying the bill, which will be introduced before next May 31.

However, in the case of the Quebec justice minister, he proposes not just crimes related to gangs or organized crime but all criminal acts. He continues:

Despite the expertise Québec has developed and our success in offence-related property forfeiture (since 1996, property worth a total of $32 million has been forfeited)—

That is not chicken-feed, but everyone will agree that it is not very much in comparison with the proceeds of crime.

—it remains difficult to prove that a particular item of property is in fact proceeds of crime. Establishing that proof is a lengthy and painstaking process. Our proposed amendment to reverse the burden of proof will further enhance the claim that crime does not pay

It was the Quebec justice minister who wrote this in the large dailies in Quebec.

So there is evidently a broad consensus now. I can see it in this House as well as in Quebec society. While still complying with the human rights charters, the burden of proof is being reversed for criminals who have been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

The balance of probabilities is also extremely important. Ordinary citizens are not happy that criminals famous for their illegally acquired riches can avoid their responsibilities because no tax is paid on what is not declared.

One of the aberrations to which this has led is the fact that they have been entitled to legal aid in some trials. This leaves the public cynical.

With the adoption of this motion and the introduction of the following bill, we will help to reduce this cynicism and clear up the general climate in Quebec and Canada, and in the end, strengthen democracy—something that is wanted by everyone in this House.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on an issue about which I readily admit I am not an expert, even though, like any law-abiding citizen of course, I abhor having to do with organized crime in its various forms. We know that not only criminal organizations are a threat to public safety and security but they cause social dislocation and disrupt the cohesiveness of a society like that of Quebec.

I also want to think the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. He was described earlier as not only an outstanding lawyer but also a very active parliamentarian. I would like to remind this House that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was behind another decision made by this Parliament, a simple decision but one that had to be followed through nonetheless.

We will recall that he was the one who proposed that $1,000 bills be taken out of circulation, because it is well known that organized crime, the mafia, makes extensive use of cash and that large denominations made it relatively easy for such mafia and criminal networks to move significant amounts of money.

Now, with the disappearance of these bills following the initiative by our colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, the criminal gangs have a harder time moving and laundering all this cash, since the largest bank note available from the Bank of Canada is $100. I have seen that more and more, all over, people are refusing $100 bills.

As a result, it is not surprising to see the motion presented today by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I shall read it, so that our listeners know what motion we are debating:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to better fight crime, the government should introduce a bill by May 31, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden o fproof as regards the proceeds of crime, requiring the accused, once found guilty, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained using the proceeds of their criminal activities.

Here we see something I think is extremely important. First there is the fact that, obviously, we are proposing a new measure to give additional tools to the forces of order and the courts to fight crime, namely reversing the burden of proof regarding the proceeds of criminal activities.

Obviously, in order to protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there will be a number of provisions, and I will speak of them later. However, I think it is just as important to point out that in his motion, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles refers to a date: May 31, 2005. It ensures that the intentions of the Minister of Justice, which have been repeated a number of times, will become reality.

I remind the House that on many issues—and I know I am off topic a little—the Liberals have assured us there will be changes. For example, the Prime Minister of Canada, in front of the entire television audience, millions of men and women—I am sure the hon. member for Chambly remembers this well—announced that he was going to make changes in the employment insurance eligibility threshold. Well, June 28 was a long time ago. We have had an opportunity, with the budget, to see this government's response to its promise, and there has still been no substantial change in the eligibility threshold. As a result, we are continue to wait for a promise that was made in 2000.

It is important, in terms of this motion, to focus on this deadline, which will ensure the tabling of a bill, instead of waiting as we do in so many cases, “Solution to follow. We are considering it. Wait and see”. Earlier, during question period, I heard the Minister of the Environment say, “Wait, in a few weeks we will have the Kyoto action plan”. I know I digress, but I cannot resist the urge to talk about the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who announced the tabling of new foreign policy directions for December. We are March and we still do not have any news about the deadlines.

The reference to April 30, 2005, in the motion by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is extremely important.

I was saying that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles had taken extremely important legislative initiatives to combat organized crime. I talked about the $1,000 bills he stopped from circulating. I also think that Bill C-242, which he tabled on October 28, 2004, was the forerunner of this motion and the debate we are having today. In a way, this bill forced the Minister of Justice to assume his responsibilities.

The purpose of Bill C-242 was to reverse the burden of proof, which we are discussing today, and would require the accused, once found guilty of criminal activity, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were acquired honestly and legitimately.

I am talking about October 28, 2004. We are now March 2005, so there is consistency in the approach by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. This falls in line with the work the Bloc Québécois has been doing for many years to make sure that not only the Criminal Code, but the entire machinery of government is able to fight this scourge that is organized crime and the mafia networks.

The initiatives by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—and I am talking for instance about Bill C-242—have received support from members of all parties. I know that Bill C-242 received strong support from the NDP and the Conservative Party. Today, I am pleased to hear that the government side is preparing to support this motion.

This motion is the result of initiatives by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and also of many years of work by the Bloc Québécois to give the government and the Criminal Code the means to fight organized crime.

I very clearly recall running for the first time as a Bloc candidate in Joliette in 2000. Back then, the Bloc Québécois, during and after the election campaign, was extremely virulent about organized crime. The Liberals took this issue rather lightly.

I remember, early in the election campaign, a senseless murder in southern Lanaudière. The only political party candidates with enough courage to take to the streets with the people and condemn such criminal acts causing the death of a completely innocent bystander were members of the Bloc Québécois. I was extremely proud, as a political newcomer, to be associated with a party that was not afraid to speak out against organized crime.

I know that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did so too as an individual and he has paid the price in many ways, in terms of his own safety and that of his family. This is the stuff the 54 members of the Bloc Québécois are made of. I could say that this is the stuff the 75 Bloc MPs—the number in 2000 and in the last election—are made of, meaning that they will promote the interests of the public and their constituents, even if, unfortunately, it means paying a price that, as in the case of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, was perhaps higher in some cases than in others. However, we are happy that his life is no longer in danger.

If the reversal of the burden of proof in connection with the proceeds of crime were added to the Criminal Code, it seems to me that we would be in a position to reassure our fellow citizens, society in general, that they will have less need of to resort to action like the marches of the year 2000 to protest the unsafe conditions they were living in.

I see you telling me I have one minute left. I was told I had 20 minutes to speak. I have never seen 20 minutes go by so fast in my entire life.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the remarks of my colleague from the Montreal area. As I did earlier with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I would like to ask him what his thoughts are about the consistency of government action in the fight against organized crime.

Following the adoption of this motion and the introduction of a bill—he has indicated that the federal justice minister had already announced his intention—I wonder if the member would agree that, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot suggested, the consistent thing to do would be to also keep the nine RCMP detachments in Quebec open. I know that the Quebec Liberal caucus has spoken out against their closure. I would like to hear him on that.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his remarks. First, it is a subject he knows very well because he has been fighting organized crime for a long time. Also, he was instrumental in founding Info-Crime, which he mentioned at the end of his speech. It was due to his initiative in the Saint-Hyacinthe region that I followed suit in Joliette. And now we have our own Info-crime committee.

I am wondering why the government members seem to be preparing to vote in favour of this motion. Once this motion has been adopted and later a bill introduced to reverse the burden of proof, would it not be consistent to review the decision that was made by the RCMP, and approved by the Minister of Public Safety, to close nine RCMP detachments? I know that my colleague is as aware as I am of the squatters who grow cannabis in farmers' fields. The farmers are often terrorized and do not dare turn them in. Would it not be logical, after the vote on this motion and the introduction of a bill, for the decision to close nine RCMP detachments in Quebec to be reversed?

[Softwood Lumber, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will meet with President Bush on March 23, and it is rumoured that he will not raise the issue of softwood lumber at this meeting. In fact, no trade dispute appears to be on the agenda.

Will the Prime Minister admit that it would be completely irresponsible of him not to discuss softwood lumber with President Bush, given the importance of this issue and the importance of a return to full free trade in softwood lumber?