Yvan Loubier

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I mentioned a number of problems with Canada's laws and the Criminal Code, but there are many others.

This is why our motion calls on the House to instruct the justice committee to seriously consider the situation and the state and strengthening of these laws to make them really effective.

I said earlier that Canadian laws do not consider membership in a crime gang a criminal act, yet everyone knows how the organizations run and who is at the head of them. However, because we are sticklers for rules, because we have a charter of rights and freedoms—which I respect—and because there are do-gooders in our society who say that we must be careful and apply the charter, we do nothing. The charter is not meant for criminals.

The same applies to warrants for wiretapping. At one point, we have to stop being so soft. Some wiretapping warrants, which are for six months or a year, require extraordinary action, even action that discourages all police forces.

It is extraordinary, because I have seen determined, experienced and highly competent police dealing with equipment that is of no help to them. Most of all, there is the legal system, which allows criminals to laugh in everyone's face, because it is very permissive and full of loopholes. It even attracts criminals from other countries to come here to carry on their activities, because Canada is more permissive and Canada is a better place to do business, at least their kind of business.

We as parliamentarians have got to put a stop to this. We have a huge responsibility, and we must take this responsibility seriously.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some emotion to address the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois concerning organized crime.

A few weeks ago, I hired a helicopter and was flown over my riding. This proved to be a strange but enlightening adventure, as I now realize the scope of the phenomenon, just how much the gangs have taken over in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

In viewing my riding from the air, and in talking with colleagues afterward, I became aware that some 25% to 50% of fields in Quebec, and the same percentage in Ontario, have been commandeered by organized crime for the production of one of the best grades of cannabis in the world. It has nothing in common with the pot of the 1970s, as it contains 7 to 30 times more hallucinogens.

My flight, coupled with the discussions afterward, also opened my eyes to a very serious situation: the thousands of farm families terrorized year after year by organized crime, families prevented from enjoying their property in peace, from even going into their fields on pain of death. Their lives and their children's lives are threatened, and they do not dare set foot in their fields because they have been booby-trapped and there could be an explosion. These people have had enough, and they are appealing to us.

I have also seen that the problem in our cities is becoming more and more serious. My colleagues referred this morning to the situation in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. We are all aware that criminals are growing cannabis by hydroponics in a greenhouse or basement, or right out in the open in the middle of a city, and that there are shooting galleries all over the place. This is becoming more prevalent in the city as well as in the country.

I also realized something even more serious. The cannabis produced here is of such a high quality that it is often—and in fact increasingly so—traded for the same quantity of cocaine or heroin, for example on American markets. This means that the fields in Quebec, like those in Ontario and in other regions across Canada, are being used to smuggle huge shipments of cocaine and heroin on the Quebec and Canadian markets.

Since these drugs are smuggled in huge quantities, prices are low, which allows organized crime to sell it to children in the polyvalentes or high schools. Not only cannabis, but also cocaine and heroin, are found in the polyvalentes.

It is no surprise that, every year, there is an increase in the numbers of 12 and 13-year olds who use these hard drugs, and the children of anyone here could be among them. We should be very aware of this issue and its long term impact on our society.

We have to realize that organized crime makes money primarily from drug trafficking and production. The Canadian market alone generates $10 billion U.S. annually. The international market, which is controlled in part by some biker gangs in Canada, could reach $500 billion U.S. annually.

Moreover, drugs and organized crime are also the cause of several acts of violence in our society. For example, biker gangs are engaged in wars to control the drug market.

In Montreal, in 1995, an 11-year old child died because of these biker gangs and their turf war for a share of the drug market. It is not surprising, because it is worth $10 billion for Canada and $500 billion U.S. for the world.

Our inaction also involves social costs. For Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia alone, the costs related to the consumption of drugs are estimated at some $4 billion. Our children, at the age of 12 or 13, are hooked on cocaine or heroin. We have a big responsibility.

Since 1994, no fewer than 79 murders have been committed in Quebec alone for the purpose of gaining control of the drug markets. There have been 89 attempted murders, 129 cases of arson and 82 bombings. In 1998, there were 450 acts of violence related to control of the drug market.

Each time such things occur, innocent people can die, just like the Desrocher child in 1995. We cannot let it go on.

I have started this fight and will continue it to the end first and foremost for my little Rosalie, but I do it as well for all children in Quebec and Canada. I do not want them to be the next victims of these criminals whom we welcome here with our permissive laws and whose trade flourishes year after year because of our inaction.

I have got to know the RCMP a bit better recently, everyone will understand why, but all police forces are doing an admirable job. They are competent and determined people. Very few people would go to work with a smile if they faced the same environment as the police forces in Quebec and Canada.

This is their environment. They do not have the resources they need to go up against organized crime and the billions of dollars it can call up year after year to expand its operations. The RCMP budget shows $77 million under the heading of anti-drug activities, and $40 million under the heading of money laundering. This is ridiculous, particularly since the budget has shrunk by 12% since 1994, while organized crime is increasing exponentially. However great a job they do, their budget is in no way adequate.

It is the same with respect to the agreement between the RCMP and the armed forces for the loan of equipment, including helicopters. In the fight against drug traffickers, it is vital that there be hours of helicopter time available year after year. For all of Quebec, there are 150 available hours. Ten or twenty times that is needed.

Furthermore, the Canadian judicial system is not helping. Once again, these are competent, experienced people I have had occasion to deal with recently. They have pointed out certain weaknesses in the judicial system. By the way, I thank them for this information, for this wonderful contribution.

I have identified five weaknesses in the legislation, but it will be up to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to identify many more and to find solutions.

First, the sentences handed down are ridiculous. Sometimes, they are shorter than the time it took to find people guilty and conduct an investigation. This is becoming ridiculous, and the ringleaders are never charged, because it is not possible to make the charges stick.

Sentences in Canada are so lenient, compared to sentences elsewhere in the world, that the country attracts criminals. Drug traffickers like to operate in Canada; I can see why, with sentences like that, which are much lighter than in the United States. They have a market in which their activities can flourish, unimpeded.

Gang membership is not a crime under the Criminal Code, as it is almost anywhere else in the world. It should be. Belonging to a crime gang, or a gang recognized as such, is a crime and we ought to identify all 38 gangs operating in Canada, whether they are involved in drugs or something else, as such.

My response to the rights activists is this: the charter of rights and freedoms contains a notwithstanding clause, and I trust that the charter was put in place not to help criminals, but to help honest folk.

It must also be proven that the property of criminals has been obtained through criminal activity. Why do we not follow the example of the United States, where the onus is on the criminal to prove that his possessions, the fancy house, the boats and so on, that he owns although having no visible source of income, are not the proceeds of crime.

I could have spoken of electronic surveillance, of the weakness of the clauses relating to money laundering. I call upon my colleagues to support our motion. The same thing could happen to them as happened to me and to the thousands of terrorized people living in fear of organized crime throughout Quebec and Canada.

I call upon them to support the Bloc Quebecois motion and to set themselves promptly to the task of fighting organized crime to ensure that families in Quebec and Canada can live in peace and quiet and in safety, and that they can enjoy their lives without having to deal with criminals who are out to get them or who are commandeering their property to produce the drugs that will eventually kill our children.

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Even in Saint-Hyacinthe.

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13. I would like to take this opportunity to greet Mr. Gary Carter, who is here with us today.

I am pleased to speak to this bill that formally establishes the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. These institutes will be responsible for organizing, coordinating and funding health research at the federal level.

In his last budget, the Minister of Finance announced that these institutes would be allocated a $65 million budget for their first year of operation. This budget is to increase to $175 million the following year, in 2001-02, for a grand total of $500 million, when combined with the funding already set aside for the Medical Research Council.

We are pleased to see that the federal government is putting more money into health research since it is a crucial area. I should say from the outset that we in the Bloc Quebecois—my distinguished colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve included—will see to it that Quebec gets its fair share of those funds.

In the past, when looking at the distribution of federal funding for research and development—and we can go back 20 or 25 years—we could see that Quebec did not get its fair share, a share that reflected its demographic weight. On average, Quebec received about 14% of the federal funding for R and D, and so far, nothing has changed.

With the new funding provided by this bill and the money handed out year after year not only in various areas of medical research, but also in bio-food, high technology and other industries, we just want to ensure that Quebec is getting its fair share.

Someday, I hope the Quebec members of the Liberal Party of Canada across the way will rise and demand, as we have since 1993, that Quebec receive what it is owed. They were elected by Quebecers, but I have yet to see one of them take a single step to demand justice.

As I indicated earlier, we support the establishment of these institutes, especially since new funding will be allocated to one very crucial area, medical research.

However, we do have some concerns, which is why our eminent colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will be moving amendments on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. For instance, we feel that Bill C-13 stints on the role of the provinces. Of course, members opposite tend to forget, as they did these last few years and especially in the throne speech, that health is an area of provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, the province has jurisdiction over health.

This is a fact that is barely acknowledged in the bill. And since the bill is based on the constitutional divisions of power, the provinces are given short shrift. The bill says that the provinces and all kind of people will be consulted, and so on, but nowhere does it say that health is an exclusive jurisdiction.

For example, the bill states:

—consult, collaborate and form partnerships with the provinces and with persons and organizations in Canada that have an interest in issues pertaining to health or health research;

We would have like to see a statement recognizing that the provinces are fully responsible for health and that they will be the first partners informed and consulted, particularly with regards to the defining of the different health research institutes.

I emphasize that the Quebec government is finalizing a science policy. It will identify strategic areas in health research, including mental health, cancer, human genome and biotechnology.

One of the amendments that we will certainly propose will be to the effect that the Government of Quebec, like all the other provincial governments, must absolutely be consulted and that its research priorities must be taken into account in establishing the health research institutes.

There is another problem with the provision I quoted earlier. In the bill, the expression issues pertaining to health is used more often than the word research. This bothers us because the use of the expression issues pertaining to health leaves the door wide open for the federal government to interfere in various ways in the area of health.

One amendment we will certainly put forward will be to clarify this issue and to replace the expression issues pertaining to health with the word research, because what the government wants to achieve with this bill has to do with health research and not. We hope this is a mistake and that the federal government does not intend to interfere in the area of health, which is under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. We will clarify that, and my distinguished colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will work to make this bill clearer.

We support health research because it is fundamental, and this is something I cannot overemphasize. However, the few hundred million dollars that will be spent on health research over the next three years must not overshadow the fact that this government made huge cuts in the health sector. Cuts in transfers to the provinces, particularly for health care, have had devastating effects, the full extent of which is still unknown.

I always feel uncomfortable when the Minister of Finance rises in the House, which is a very solemn place, and tells us he increased transfers to the provinces for health, post-secondary education and income security, as this is not true. He did not even increase transfers. He keeps cutting them and he will continue to do so until 2003.

By then, this brazen Minister of Finance, who keeps spouting nonsense during oral question period, will have cut $33 billion in transfers to the provinces. Half or close to half of that amount would have been allocated to health. This is not peanuts. In Quebec alone, there will be a shortfall of $850 million in the health sector this year, while the cumulative cuts imposed by this brazen minister will total $6 billion of which half, in Quebec, would have been earmarked for health.

On the one hand, the minister invests a few hundred million dollars in health research, while on the other hand he is cutting billions of dollars which should have been used to help the sick, to manage hospitals and to make more beds available.

We have been talking about oncology for a while now in Quebec, Ontario, and other regions of Canada. These billions of dollars could have been used for all that. But the Minister of Finance preferred to take that money from the provinces. He is the one mainly responsible for the mess in hospitals, but that does not bother him in the least.

It takes some nerve to do what he did, particularly when he says, hand over heart, that he cares about the plight of the sick and of the poor children. This is sheer hypocrisy.

I have never seen such hypocrisy in this parliament as when the minister puts his hand over his heart while talking about poor children and sick people, when he contributed to making these people suffer even more.

The House can expect my eminent colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, to move a series of amendments to make this bill more acceptable.

[Newly Sovereign Countries, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an invention by the other side of this House that newly sovereign countries experience economic difficulties. This is far from the reality.

Claude Picher wrote this morning “When the former Czechoslovakia was divided, all observers felt that the Czech republic would be far better off than the Slovak. The opposite was what occurred.”

In fact, according to the OECD, the most successful newly sovereign countries have been the countries of central Europe that have had to make the difficult transition toward a market economy.

Another wrong idea being spread by the federalists is that the economic performance of the major countries such as the G-7 is better than that of countries of similar size to Quebec. The growth of the G-7 countries for 1990-98 was 1.8%, while that of countries the size of Quebec was, again according to the OECD, 3.1%.

A sovereign Quebec, as the 16th-ranking world power, would be true to this trend toward superior economic performances.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State said he had spoken of this with the Prime Minister himself, and had reached the conclusion that action had to be taken.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister confirm what the Secretary of State has said: that the decision has indeed been reached to introduce a federal bill relating to a future referendum in Quebec?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on RDI the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development stated that the government would be forced to do something to avoid the dirty tricks that, according to him, occurred during the last Quebec referendum.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Are we to understand from these words that the government has made its decision to act, and all that remains to be determined is the details on how a future Quebec referendum will be managed?

[Transfer Payments, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when enough is enough.

Since 1994, this Minister of Finance has cut $21 billion from health care and social services. That is a fact. And he is going to cut another $12 billion by the year 2003. That too is a fact.

Will this minister, who has accumulated $8 billion in surplus in the first six months, bow to the arguments of the provinces and give back $3.7 billion to fund health and education? That is what he is being asked, nothing else. alternative?

[Transfer Payments, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for some months now, the alarm bells have been sounding to warn us of an imminent crisis in the health sector.

Yesterday, all of the country's ministers of finance sent a clear message to the government: We want our money back.

Does the Minister of Finance realize that, in making drastic cuts to transfer payments to the provinces for health care, he has created a situation that is about to explode? Is he waiting to see victims before finally consenting to listen to us?

[Budget Surplus, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, why is the Bloc Quebecois persisting? Because this government does nothing, and there are problems in the schools, in the hospitals and in the most disadvantaged families.

Will this government understand that this would take less than a fifth of the huge surpluses expected over the next five years to turn the situation around in the hospitals, in education and with those who are most disadvantaged in society? Do they understand that, or are they going to continue to play deaf?