Debates of Nov. 30th, 1999

Supply

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and I would like to ask him these three questions.

Could he not make a commitment, while the Standing Committee on Justice is preparing its recommendations on legislative changes among other things, to not close any RCMP detachments in Quebec, starting with the one in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot? I agree with my colleague from Drummond that they are doing an excellent and much needed job.

Second, can he assure us that his government is aware of the lack of police resources and is committed to putting a great effort into strengthening them? This will let the criminals know that, when planting season starts in May, the fun is over and things will never be the same; they will no longer be the ones calling the shots?

Third, can he—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Unfortunately, there is not enough time left for the third question.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the same rumors as everybody else, but I must say that they are only rumors.

My colleague is asking me to take a stand on these rumors. It is absolutely impossible for me to do, and it is understandable.

However, it seems to me that the second question he asked me is extremely important. He alluded to the lack of resources available to the RCMP. Treasury Board asked an independent organization to make a study on the RCMP's levels of financing. This study will show us what we must do to help the RCMP fulfill its mandate, which is getting larger every day.

Let us not forget that the DNA bank and gun control, for example, were added to its responsibilities. Many functions are being added to the RCMP's responsibilities. Consequently, we should perhaps ask if its resources are adequate.

When the report is made public, and considering what was said in the throne speech, I believe it would advisable to give the RCMP what it needs to fulfill its mandate.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, I would like to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for this motion, and I will say that I support it wholeheartedly. It really is an excellent initiative, and I thank the Bloc for having given us the opportunity to address an issue which affects our children and the their future in our country.

I would like to deal more fully with the activities of organized crime groups involved in drug trafficking.

This is a subject for which I have a keen interest. Just recently, there were reports in the newspaper about a police operation in the riding of Ahuntsic, in the northern part of Montreal. The operation, called Operation Embryo, led to 205 charges being laid against two youth gangs. These young criminals between 19 and 25 years of age had been active for about two years in my riding and the neighbouring ridings, where through intimidation and harassment they sold drugs in elementary schools. They did not became gang members at 19. They had been recruited at a younger age by organized crime.

This is exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. This is why I approve of the opposition motion for an in-depth study. It will not go on too long, and I think it is a good idea not to give too much time to the justice committee. Even though I am no longer a member of that committee I can say that I keep an eye on justice issues and particularly this one.

I personally want to congratulate the various police forces of my area and of Montreal North for this operation, which was a big success and helped to ensure the security of the population of my riding of Ahuntsic.

This government is keenly aware that most organized crime groups are very actively involved in drug trafficking. I just gave an example of the fact that they are recruit school children everywhere.

In its recently published report on organized crime in Canada, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics found that nine out of ten organized crime groups are involved in drug trafficking. Moreover, drug trafficking is for these groups the primary source of revenue, a very lucrative source. According to the federal government's best estimate, the size of the Canadian market for illicit drugs would be between $7 billion and $10 billion.

Recently, an study of the impact of organized crime published by the Department of the Solicitor General confirmed to what extent members of organized crime are involved in and help support illegal drug trafficking. Again, I want to support what was said by my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, about what happened to our colleague from the Bloc Quebecois because he spoke out against criminal activities. He is faced with a terrible situation and I want to tell him that we all support his actions. We want to ensure that he will prevail against this organized crime group that has threatened his family. It is really deplorable.

Of all the activities associated with organized crime, it is illegal drug trafficking, as I said, that has the worst consequences for Canada, because of its social and economic impacts and the violence associated with it.

Studies to put a dollar figure on the cost for Canada of illegal drug trafficking estimate it at between a conservative $1.4 billion a year and nearly $4 billion a year for the three provinces in Canada with the largest populations, namely Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.

If we also take into account the fact that more than 93% of these groups resort to violence and other forms of intimidation, we get an increasingly threatening picture of the impact drug trafficking has on our society and, particularly, on our children.

The costs to Canada are huge, if we also take into account lost productivity, illness, death, violence, crimes against property and robbery that can occur as a result of drug trafficking or use.

Drug dependency has dramatic consequences on the life of people, and particularly on the future of our children. Trade and economic indicators cannot adequately measure the lives that are destroyed and the unrealized potential due to drug use nor the losses sustained as a result by society. The individual is not the only one that loses out. There is an impact on families, children, friends and society as a whole.

When all is said and done, these intangible consequences could well be the worst damage caused by the illicit drug trade to our country and our communities.

Illicit drug use, we know, occurs mostly among children and have-nots. Street kids are particularly vulnerable.

Cannabis is the most popular illicit drug in Canada. Cannabis consumption is said to have increased considerably in the last few years, and production of cannabis in Canada also seems to be on the rise.

In 1985, Canadian marijuana represented 10% of the total supply on the Canadian market. In 1995, it had reached 50%. We have grown from cannabis consumers to producers and exporters in the last few years.

It is absolutely horrible. I am one of the members in the House of Commons who supports what the health minister has initiated in terms of doing studies to see whether the consumption of marijuana for health purposes should be decriminalized. I support the Minister of Health in this study. I hope that the conclusions will lead to the beginning of the decriminalization of marijuana in our society. That is a personal opinion that I am giving on that issue.

The federal government is fully aware of how bad the situation is. This is why it has adopted a series of measures to try and solve the problem.

We are encouraged by the co-operation between federal, provincial and municipal police forces to fight the illicit cultivation of marijuana. I believe that if marijuana consumption were decriminalized, we might see less crime related to its sale and purchase.

The government has taken a number of initiatives in order to ensure that there are tools that are needed by our crime enforcement forces across the country in order to fight organized crime. I believe that other speakers before me have listed some, but I would like to list them again, because this question keeps coming up from the opposition.

We have invested $150 million for the RCMP to upgrade and enhance a national police information system. We have invested $18 million for the national DNA data bank initiative, giving police a powerful tool against serious violent criminals, an additional $78 million to the national anti-smuggling initiative, which will combat illicit drug trade and an additional $15 million annually to put more RCMP officers in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal airports to ensure that the drug trade does not come in freely through our borders.

The government approved $13.8 million for the RCMP, to be used for workload increases in 1999 and 2000. We established 13 proceeds of crime units across the country in the RCMP. The RCMP has recently created the new position of deputy commissioner of organized crime to oversee and co-ordinate the force's efforts at the national and international level.

I would like to say once again that I support this motion 100%, and I encourage all members of the House to give unanimous support to the great initiative taken by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke just a couple of minutes ago about the feeling of camaraderie we have, but I cannot stay away from thinking about some of the comments a couple of government members, people who are in responsible parliamentary secretary positions, have made. For example, the preceding speaker to the last one talked about the proceeds of crime. He must know that for every dollar collected, it is currently costing the government $1.40. In other words, there is no net gain there.

The other thing is, why has the government been so long, long, long in finally bringing forward a money laundering bill? The government was talking about the Pan-American group and the NORAD group on combating drug trafficking while at the same time there were severe cutbacks to the enforcement capability of the RCMP in the lower mainland of Vancouver, where police cars could not roll, where the RCMP officers could not even use their cellphones.

It just goes on and on. The question is simple and straightforward. I believe everybody in the House is in agreement that this is an excellent initiative. However, I have to ask a government representative, a government member, a parliamentary secretary, if this is such an excellent initiative, and it is, why it took the opposition to bring this initiative to the government for the government to finally get on the stick and start to do something.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I believe he was not listening very closely to the comments of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who in fact stated all the different initiates we have taken over the years. As former parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice I can also mention our crime prevention initiative of $31 million and all sorts of other initiatives we have taken and will continue to take.

I agree with the member that we need more money. That is exactly what we stated in the throne speech. When the Minister of Finance brings forth his budget I believe there will be initiatives, although I will wait to hear what the minister has to say, that stem from our pronouncement in the throne speech of what we would like to do. I encourage the hon. member to support the Minister of Finance and the government to ensure that there will be more funds to combat organized crime and the illicit drug trade.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this very serious motion to the attention of the House.

I should thank the previous speaker from the Liberal Party for her remarks but unfortunately rhetoric is cheap. The hon. member should refer to a news release done by the Minister of National Revenue. He referred to Bill C-18 which provides customs officers with the power to arrest and detain individuals suspected of having committed offences under the criminal code. Unfortunately the minister forgot to include Halifax and Halifax airport and harbour. That is a piecemeal approach.

The government made Clair, St. Stephen and Woodstock in Atlantic Canada part of this initiative but ignored the most important airport in Atlantic Canada and the most important harbour on the seaboard in terms of giving our customs officers the tools and the training with which to work and with which to protect themselves.

Unfortunately a while back the government got rid of the ports police as a cost cutting measure and gave the ports over to local police authorities. The hon. member from Cape Breton said quite clearly that was a mistake. RCMP and law enforcement officers across the country have been cut severely in terms of their resources. Because of that organized crime has had more or less a free hand in the country.

Although the hon. member's rhetoric is very important and although I appreciate her comments, will she be able to convince her government, especially in light of Bill C-18, that there are some serious flaws? Will she encourage the revenue minister to include Halifax airport and the Halifax port in this very important initiative?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I understand how committed he is to ensuring that his constituents have the necessary services.

As I said in my speech and as the parliamentary secretary said, we are committed to ensuring that there are more funds. As I stated, we have given more money to Vancouver. I do not believe it was rhetoric. I truly believe what I said and what was said by the parliamentary secretary.

The government is committed. We said that in the throne speech. I encourage all members to support the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue in the ongoing program to combat the illicit drug trade and to ensure that police forces across the country have the money to do their jobs properly.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government members who are working with us today. I think all members of the House want this issue to be referred to the appropriate committee, because we all know too well that nowadays there are few problems more urgent and more serious than organized crime.

I have been following this issue very closely for several years now, because I was the member of parliament for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in 1995 when, for the first time ever, a car bombing killed an innocent bystander, 11-year old Daniel Desrochers, who had the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

That was when I realized that we, as parliamentarians, have to fight organized crime. Organized crime does not come out of the blue. Not every society has to deal with this problem. There are certain conditions that foster organized crime. First, it happens in a wealthy society that has communications networks, airports and various means of transportation, because organized crime is interested in globalization and needs to do business and to connect with people on other continents.

Organized crime is also rampant in bureaucratic societies. In that regard, we must acknowledge, even though our democratic rights are very dear to us, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the legal guarantees stipulated in sections 7 to 14 do sometimes undermine investigations.

We are facing a far from trivial paradox, since, as members of parliament and as members of Canadian society, we are dealing here with only about 200 individuals. As we know, there are in Canada 38 criminal biker gangs, one of which in particular, the Hell's Angels, is made up of less than 200 individuals in Canada, but has fifteen chapters, six of which are in Quebec. These individuals and this highly criminal group have managed to beat the most clever strategies and to infiltrate all spheres of society.

One must never forget that organized crime operates in stages. First, organized crime fights for a territory. This happened in Montreal in the early 1990s.

Then, organized crime turns to money laundering. One example of this stage is the Hell's Angels and the criminal biker gangs. In Canada we are now at this second stage. The Italian Mafia has mastered the third one. Once control over a territory has been gained and money laundering activities are going on, we move on to the third stage, to investments in both legal and illegal activities.

I believe that we must all recognize that this situation allows organized crime to go on from generation to generation. The Hell's Angels have been around for 50 years and obviously they have an interface with lawyers, accountants and businesses.

In Montreal, for example, 83% of licensed beverage establishments are controlled by people with connections to the underworld. We must not imagine that the police do not know all this. Police officers are dedicated people; just like us, they want to fight organized crime effectively, but they do not have the resources they need.

I recently met a police officer, whose name I will keep to myself, who told me that tailing just one individual—for example when they know a person is a member of one criminal gang or another—can cost taxpayers from $400,000 to $600,000. Do members really know how deep and widespread the problem is?

The interesting part in the motion of our colleague, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, is that it is not partisan; let me repeat how very grateful I am to all members in this House who supported the motion.

Organized crime can be found in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. It can be found in the Montérégie, in Alberta and in regions right across the country. The only way to win against the modern version of organized crime is to work together, to create a common front made up of all members of parliament, an unbeatable common front because we will all stand united and determined in our fight against crime.

I hope the justice committee will examine what they have done in Japan. Naturally, the political context is not the same here as in Japan. I will say right away that there is no charter of rights and freedoms there. In Japan, groups similar to the Hell's Angels are not allowed to wear crests. Any public reference to this type of organization is prohibited. I think this is an interesting idea.

Again, a police officer was telling me “You are quietly driving along highway 20, on your way to Quebec City. You know there are members of organized crime behind you going 40 kilometres an hour. Nobody is going to pass them. Nobody is going to dare pass them, because they are seen as something strong and invincible”. We do not have legislation to prohibit the wearing of crests.

There is a myth surrounding the rise of these gangs. Never has a member of the Hell's Angels ever been kicked out of the gang, because of the incredible solidarity that exists within the gang.

Japan, which has had its share of problems with organized crime, has taken steps that have helped, I would not say to eradicate the problem—because it is not true and I would not want to imply that it is—but to control the progression of biker gangs.

I think the idea of prohibiting any public reference to these organizations and the wearing of crests should be considered by the parliamentary committee.

I was in the House at the time and I believe I was the first MP in 1995 to introduce a private member's bill following what happened to young Daniel Desrochers. We were truly convinced, all of us, the Liberals as well as people on this side of the House, that we needed anti-gang legislation.

There was a problem though. We could not make it an offence to belong to a criminal organization because, under common law, one cannot be found guilty by association. One can only be found guilty by virtue of one's acts, one's behaviour.

We could not directly declare a member of a group like the Hell's Angels a criminal. So we created a new offence called an organized crime offence. Today, we must recognize that in spite of all our good faith—and I am convinced everybody acted in good faith—the legislation has not produced the expected results.

The reason for this is twofold: first, the offence itself is far too serious. An offence under the Criminal Code or any federal act is punishable by a five year jail term. Then the organization, whether formal or informal, must have a membership of at least five, and the individuals accused of the organized crime offence must have had a criminal record over the past five years.

This is the theory of the three fives. The result of this is that unfortunately, in spite of the fact that police officers have solid evidence to present a test case before common law courts, we cannot at this point benefit from the work done on Bill C-95.

I would have a lot more to say about organized crime, because it is an issue which deeply concerns me. My hope is that we will spare no effort and not give in to blackmail and intimidation. We should follow the example of some of our colleagues. What they did has shown us what we must learn on this issue.

I am convinced that all the parliamentarians who take part in the work of the justice committee will do so in a spirit of good faith, determination and open-mindedness.

If we work together, in a non-partisan fashion, we will win the fight against organized crime.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the previous speaker from the Liberal side but the question, in a little different form, is just as valid for the Bloc.

One of the problems we have in Canada is the severe cutbacks to the RCMP. Some detachments are short 40 members and money is a problem. At the same time, one of the initiatives the government claims it has taken to combat crime is the national gun registry with in the neighbourhood of $300 million already being put in up front.

Hopefully the member for the Bloc has informed himself as to the usefulness of the gun registry. In fact, the papers in Quebec today had some excellent articles on the national gun registry and its ineffectiveness. I recommend that he reads some of those papers. They are in French so it is difficult for me to get all of the different nuances. However, it becomes clear that there are some huge problems.

Would he agree with the solicitor general of Ontario who two weeks ago said that the government should scrap the national gun registry and put more police on the street to fight organized crime and some of these other things? Would he agree that should be the tact of the government, to save those hundreds of millions of dollars, put it into fighting organized crime and putting more police on the street?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that we should abolish the national firearms registry, because I think it is important, whether we are a politician in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Montreal or Winnipeg, to know whether there are firearms at a crime scene or any other place. I think the registry was one of the bill's good points.

As for the operation of the registry, some members of our caucus have told us that there may be some technical problems. But this in no way detracts from the merits of a bill such as the one we supported, Bill C-68. I agree with the principle of the bill and I think that all parliamentarians who are interested in helping to reduce violence in our society have a responsibility to support it.

I caution the hon. member against jumping to a facile conclusion. Yes, more police resources are needed. This is clear, and all members of the community who meet police officers are well aware of the problem.

But organized crime is not just about police resources—it is also about evaluating evidence. Since the Stinchcombe ruling in 1994, the crown is now obliged to disclose all evidence. This includes notes taken by police officers as well as all recordings.

What does it mean when evidence is disclosed? It obviously means that it cannot be used in a subsequent investigation, and this makes the work of the police singularly difficult.

I suppose it is the price of a full and comprehensive defence. I would say in closing that organized crime is not about police resources, but about evaluating evidence and legislation, as members on this side have realized.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like initially to applaud the initiative by the Bloc Quebecois on today's motion.

I think, however, the debate should go a little deeper. I find regrettable the remarks made by my friends in the Reform Party on the Firearms Control Act. We should applaud the passing of this legislation, especially in light of the massacre at the école Polytechnique a few years ago. I find such remarks rather regrettable.

I would like my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve to tell me whether we should restrict the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second, in his own view of things, would legislation on marijuana, for example, also have an impact on organized crime?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is relevant. I think we have to consider this issue as parliamentarians.

If I were left to my own devices and had to decide only on the basis of what would best serve the interests of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I would not hesitate to say that we should use the notwithstanding clause and declare, for five years—this is what the notwithstanding clause provides; we can use it or not—but if we use it, we can declare the 38 existing motorcycle gangs outside the law for five years.

Yes, I think this is something that must be used and considered.

On the subject of the legalization of marijuana, the link may not be so direct, because it is in hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine that organized crime deals. I think we have to look at this. Our colleague will recall the excellent work done by the member for Rosemont to have marijuana legalized for therapeutic purposes.

I have not decided whether we need go further. First off, I do not tend to think we need to. But I think the parliamentary committee will give us all the latitude we need to hear people whose expertise is probably broader and more defined than mine.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in an important debate, as my hon. colleague from Berthier—Montcalm put it, given the expansion of organized crime in Canada and in Quebec.

I want to stress how important the issue of organized crime is to the Bloc Quebecois. I am thinking of that the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who, in 1995, introduced an anti-gang bill, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, who put forward a bill on money laundering and $1,000 bank notes, and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who was not afraid to expose what farmers were going through and to stand up for them. I also want to commend the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert as well as my hon. colleague from Berthier—Montcalm for the contribution they have made on the motion before the House.

The Bloc Quebecois has been worrying about this important issue for a number of years, and I am also worried about it, because in my riding of Quebec, several gangs are fighting to gain control over the territory.

Today's debate is also about the quality of life and the security of the people. I want to remind those who are listening of Daniel Desrochers, the young boy who was the innocent victim of a car bombing in 1997. This most unfortunate incident prompted us to question the effectiveness of the tools at our disposal.

In today's motion, we ask that the Standing Committee on Justice examine the various aspects of organized crime and recommend solutions to this problem. We know that organized crime is on then rise. Its control extends beyond alcohol and drug trafficking, to such things as the theft of luxury cars. Recently, we heard about a stolen luxury car ring. Is this related to organized crime? This must be investigated. Other things are stolen too such as trucks, luxury items, offensive weapons and counterfeit money.

This problem exists throughout Canada. We know there are 38 gangs across the country. That is why we are calling for more effective laws so we have the tools we need to fight organized crime. The tools we have now are not effective enough. Police officers also share that view. Several speeches were made this morning in which the issues of lack of funding or inadequate legislation were raised.

Right now, several units have joined forces. I am referring to the Carcajou unit. There is also the anti-gang legislation that was passed, Bill C-95. It seems that we may have the necessary tools to meet the needs, but these tools must be re-evaluated or improved through increased funding.

Under Bill C-95, the anti-gang bill, a criminal organization means any group, association or other body consisting of five or more persons having as its primary activity the commission of an indictable offence for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more. The bill created a new offence.

Those who belong to criminal organizations must be judged the same way as those who commit criminal acts.

We also want improved tools to fight money laundering. The $1,000 bills in circulation largely favour organized crime. There could be some improvements in that regard.

As regards the dubious transactions conducted through the banks or investments made in the various casinos, the police could be informed in the event of a reasonable doubt—not in the case of an honest individual who invests or purchases with $10,000, but when there is doubt about the source of the money—so they may be equipped to pursue the individuals or at least investigate the source of those assets.

They say the police are impotent when it comes to alcohol and tobacco smuggling. La Presse had an article on this in fact. That does not mean that they do not do an excellent job, but if we could give them a hand through certain legislation in doing their work and improving what they are doing, it would be great, since we know that the heart of the issue are people's quality of life and security.

They even say that at the federal department of justice they did not know how to remedy the failings in the law that prevent the police in their investigations from buying smuggled items such as cigarettes and alcohol. When the police infiltrate a band involved in organized crime and cannot buy the alcohol or cigarettes, there is doubt within the band—

[The Speaker]

Unfortunateley, I must interrupt. You have at least four minutes left in your speech and five minutes for questions and comments following oral question period.

Auditor General's Report

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Volume 2, for September and November 1999.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Kiyoshi Takahashi

[Lou Sekora, Liberal, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to announce the accomplishments of Mr. Kiyoshi Takahashi who is one of my constituents.

Mr. Takahashi has recently returned from working for 16 weeks in Bangkok, Thailand for an organization called the Canadian Volunteer Advisers to Business.

He provided technical assistance and introduced new techniques for quality control as well as new products for development in the field of mineral compounds.

Culture

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the World Trade Organization meets in Seattle, we once again hear the calls that Canada has to protect our culture.

But precisely what do these people want to protect? Are they upset that last year four of the top ten female singers in the United States were Canadians Céline Dion, Shania Twain, Sarah McLachlan and Alanis Morissette?

Are they upset that last week both Céline Dion and Shania Twain had their specials carried by American television networks in prime time during the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday?

The only thing our talented Canadian performers need to be protected from is the inferiority complex that the government perpetuates. It is an insult to Canadian performers to suggest that the only way they can compete on the world stage is with the government's protection.

If these cultural protectionists are truly interested in the well-being of Canadian performers, they would be out there promoting them, not trying to isolate them.

Canada Sports Friendship Exchange Program

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a fantastic experience for 30 young hockey players from the town of Wallaceburg in my riding. They are taking part this week in the Canada Sports Friendship Exchange Program with a team from Gatineau, Quebec.

Funded in part by the Department of Canadian Heritage, the principal aim of this hockey exchange for these 14 to 16 year olds is to foster friendship and a better understanding between our Canadian francophone and anglophone youths and their families.

It will also enhance their knowledge of our great nation's history and geography. The big highlight for the kids was a visit to the Corel Centre today to watch the Ottawa Senators practise, followed by a friendly non-competitive game on the NHL ice with free tickets to tonight's game with the Chicago Blackhawks.

The team from Quebec will go to southwestern Ontario in the near future. It also shows that on or off the ice our Canadian youth, French and English, are united in friendship.

Gasoline Prices

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to his website on gasoline prices, René Goyette is becoming known throughout Quebec and Canada. His www.abacom.com/essence website has become one of the sites with the most hits in the Province of Quebec.

According to Mr. Goyette, it all started when there was a sudden gas price hike a while ago. Mr. Goyette, along with myself and many other drivers, is fed up with high gas prices.

Surfers are invited to input the gasoline price in their region. All they have to do is click on a map of the province to find out where the best price can be found in their vicinity. Every region of Quebec is included. This site has become a means of defence against the gasoline companies.

I invite people to participate in the vote that is part of this web site.

Drummond Chamber Of Commerce And Industry

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the gala evening of the Drummond chamber of commerce and industry, recognition was given to a number of people who contributed to the development and visibility of Drummond in 1999.

The young actress Karine Vanasse was named personality of the Year, jointly with a couple, Marielle and Pierre Tremblay, who were named Quebec's jewellers of the year.

The Distinction award was given to Jacques and Louis-Jacques Laferté for their business.

André Jean, president of the Caisse populaire de Drummondville, was named 1999 builder of the year. Napoléon awards were given out to a number of other people in a number of other categories.

On behalf of all the people in my riding of Drummond, I wish to extend my congratulations to these personalities and entrepreneurs who have distinguished themselves over the past year.

Quebec Wing Of Liberal Party Of Canada

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister of Canada, I wish to congratulate the 1,400 party members, 40% of them youth delegates, who attended the convention of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Those present, including delegates from my riding of Ahuntsic, submitted and proposed resolutions indicative of their desire to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

I would especially like to congratulate a young delegate from Rosemont, Naomi Arpin, who submitted a resolution about incest. She was a victim of incest and introduced specific resolutions for the improvement of the Criminal Code.

Let us not forget that the work done by the volunteers of the Liberal Party of Canada is of capital importance. It helps develop a blueprint for society that is adapted to the realities of today and tomorrow.

My congratulations to all delegates who attended.

Child Pornography

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1999, the Minister of Justice said this about child pornography: “We are acting immediately. We will not wait for this case to reach the supreme court”.

Since she made those statements, a 300,000 signature petition has been tabled calling for the reinstatement of the possession of child pornography as a criminal offence. Numerous individuals have used the Sharpe decision as a defence to avoid prosecution. Sixty-three Liberal MPs and six Liberal senators have called on the Prime Minister to invoke the notwithstanding clause and further the petitions that have been circulated.

The result of this is the Minister of Justice has received 6,500 signatures on a cruelty to animals petition. The minister has decreed this issue as pre-eminent in the legislative sweepstakes.

It is regrettable that this minister has her priorities so wrong.

Montfort Hospital

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Ontario divisional court handed down its ruling on the reduction of services at the Montfort Hospital. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the Health Services Restructuring Commission's decision ignored the principle of protecting and respecting minority rights entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.

It is a great victory for all Franco-Ontarians and for all official language communities in Canada. It will serve as a precedent in future court cases, and sends a signal to those who are constantly trying to limit the strength and vitality of our communities.

I hope that the Government of Ontario will take action accordingly and look for ways of improving services to francophones in this issue and others. The survival of the official languages is what a united Canada is all about.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a court once again sided with Franco-Ontarians when it ruled that the Montfort Hospital would remain open because it is essential to the development of francophone communities.

With this ruling, the Ontario divisional court taught a great lesson to all of Canada. A fundamental distinction must be made between token bilingual services that have no impact on the erosion of communities and a linguistic duality that requires the existence of French language institutions to ensure the development of francophone communities.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates the whole S.O.S. Montfort team for this great victory, and particularly Gisèle Lalonde.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes that predominantly English speaking provinces will get the message and will immediately take action to provide their French speaking communities with the institutions that they need. If Canada is a country where the expression linguistic duality means something, then predominantly English speaking provinces will act quickly and will spare their francophone communities costly legal battles that they will lose in any case.