Réal Ménard

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in all friendship, I invite the member for Bourassa to be very careful. He has risen several times in this House to talk about libel and defamation. First, you yourself, Mr. Speaker, should not tolerate those statements. I am sorry, that is not libel.

I do not like excesses, from any side. However, one cannot say that the information in this householder is false.

What it says is that there were kickbacks in the amount of $250,000. Moreover, it identifies the agencies that received money.

I am sorry, but based on the information contained in the householder that was sent, I think that on a factual basis, all members in this House can refer to elements, either within the Gomery report, or within testimonies before other bodies and which attest to its veracity.

However, I agree with the member for Bourassa when he says that we should not call each other thieves, nor call each others names.

I invite the member for Bourassa to be very careful when he makes accusations. He might get caught at his own game. Yesterday, he kept on talking about libel and defamation. It is just as unparliamentary to call someone a thief as it is to characterize someone's comments as libel and defamation.

I understand the disappointment of the member for Bourassa at finding out that kickbacks were paid by the Liberal Party using public funds. In addition, I am certain that the member for Bourassa himself, as a democrat, condemns those actions. I do not doubt either that all members from Quebec are quite uncomfortable with the whole thing. That being said, we cannot turn a blind eye on a sophisticated and well maintained system. Commissioner Gomery talked about a well-oiled machine.

I am certain that the member for Bourassa shares our disappointment, but as we are democrats, we will not shut up.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first I will say that I welcome the invitation made to all parliamentarians in this House to debate without any name calling, without showing disrespect and by getting to the bottom of things.

I am convinced that no one here would want to tarnish the reputation of any of his or her colleagues. That is not what we need to discuss in addressing the motion by our colleague from Bourassa.

How did a question of privilege come to be put before the House? There is a question of privilege because of a fundamental breach of a principle which must guide the entire course of our political activity, and that is the principle of ministerial responsibility. Funds have been used without Parliament having an opportunity to exercise any control and without any means of democratically finding out what these funds were intended for.

Yesterday, I listened to our colleague from Bourassa as he put forward his case. I have no doubt that he was extremely sincere. I would urge him, however, to consider two elements in this debate. The member for Bourassa has called for a substantive debate, and rightly so.

After being elected member of Parliament for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I never forgot that, in the history of the sovereignist movement, three individuals founded political parties to ensure that the sovereignist option would periodically be put to the greatest test afforded a democracy: popular ballot.

Lucien Bouchard, René Lévesque and Pierre Bourgault each founded a political party to ensure that this option would have democratic legitimacy. Had René Lévesque, Pierre Bourgault or Lucien Bouchard—and I could add to the list Diefenbaker, Saint-Laurent and every Prime Minister who rose in this House to defend the principle of ministerial responsibility—read the Gomery report, I do not think they would be saying any different from what the Bloc Québécois is saying.

Let us focus on what Commissioner Gomery himself said. He said, “At a cabinet meeting, in 1997, on February 1 and 2, the government realized that federalists and the government were having a visibility problem in Quebec”.

He had the right to make that finding. People have the right to be federalists in Quebec, just like they have the right to be sovereignists. But no one is above the law. When we read the Gomery report, it is obvious that there are individuals,I regret to say that some are on the government side, who said that the end justified the means.

For a democrat, the end never justifies the means. When we lost the referendum by 50,000 votes, in 1995, Lucien Bouchard showed up at the Dorval airport and said: "yes means yes, but no means no". No sovereignist questioned the verdict of the people.

The criticism that we can make of the Liberals and the government is that they tried to promote their option without accepting ministerial responsibility and going through the no camp. I am sorry but, with all due respect to the Liberal members from Quebec, who have the right to be federalists, who were elected like us and who can be just as dedicated as we are in defending the interests of Quebec, I must say that we are divided by principles. We believe that in a democracy, there are two sacred principles: ministerial responsibility and the prerogative of the National Assembly.

Therefore, I regret to say that, when we look at the report from the Gomery commission, we see that these two principles were trampled down by the Liberal Party.

There is a basic, implacable and established fact which will go down in history as one of the saddest moments of our democracy, as expressed by Justice Gomery:

From 1994 to 2003, the amount expended by the Government of Canada for special programs and sponsorships totalled $332 million, [and here is the scandal] of which 44.4%, or $147 million, was spent on fees and commissions paid to communication and advertising agencies.

This is where I have a problem. My friend, the member for Bourassa, has the right to campaign promoting federalism, to write in newspapers, to speak on the radio and to appear on television. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has the right to use all the eloquence we know she is capable of. However, no goal, nor political circumstance can justify greasing the palms of agencies with taxpayer money and violating democratic principles.

It gets worse. There is nothing more important than ministerial accountability. This means that members do three things: they pass legislation, they adopt budgets and they represent people. I am ready to debate the fact that the federal government has the right to promote its option. However, to set aside millions of dollars in the Prime Minister's office to interfere in the referendum campaign, without having obtained authorization to use those funds for that purpose and without a debate in Parliament to that effect, cannot be justified.

Let us look at what Justice Gomery said. Jean Chrétien's deputy minister, Ms. Bourgon, the highest public servant in a position of authority, who is supposed to be above partisan considerations said, on December 18 1996, in a memorandum to the Prime Minister in which she expressed her concerns about the question of ministerial accountability for funds allocated from the unity reserve on the basis of the Prime Minister's signature, that she was concerned to see that the Prime Minister had taken on a very large burden of responsibility. She thought that a review of future projects by the Privy Council Office or a group of ministers would provide better management of the $17 million, that became, as we know, $50 million, allocated to Public Works and Government Services Canada. Mr. Chrétien did not reply to Ms. Bourgon's memorandum. She reiterated her concerns in a second memorandum dated September 30, 1997 concerning access to the reserve.

This is what Commissioner Gomery had to say, not the member for Roberval, the member for Hochelaga or the leader of the Bloc Québécois, but Commissioner Gomery, with whom the Minister of Transport says he agrees.

I am a democrat. The member for Bourassa is a democrat. As a democrat, I say today that I will never get over the discovery that they did not comply with the Referendum Act. If they want to debate the national issue, we can do so. We can go on radio and television, write articles in the paper and debate in all forums. However, the National Assembly has a law. It provided, among other things for the 1995 referendum, 50¢ per voter, $5 million for both the yes and the no camps. Sheila Copps, who would get up at night to do so if she had to, approved $4.8 million in spending in 33 days.

Thus they doubled the amount of money available to the no camp. Is that democracy? Is that debating by the rules? Former Premier René Lévesque, who would not be very proud today if he were to read the Gomery report, said that the best way to oppose an idea in a democracy was to put forward another, instead of calling names and not treating people with respect.

In our opinion, our option is the best one. I personally have been elected four times and hope to be elected a fifth time as a sovereignist member.

When I wanted to take part in a debate on the option I represent, I did so according to the rules of the game. Once again, no one in the sovereignist movement is disputing the federal government's right to take part in the debate. No one is questioning the existence of the Liberal Party. The member for Bourassa and all of his Quebec colleagues are just as legitimate as all of us.

Where opinion is divided, however, is about abiding by the rules. I took part a few weeks ago in a the 10th anniversary of the 1995 referendum. I think there are as many Liberal members from Quebec as Bloc members who agree that Pierre-F. Côté is non partisan. He administered both referendums in Quebec, decided by order in council with a 30 hour debate in the National Assembly. People were able to debate it.

Pierre-F. Côté pointed out how the federal government had not played by the rules. When 150,000 people got together in downtown Montreal to promote the “no” side, they were entitled to do so. However, I object to the fact that, when they chartered buses and planes to come to Quebec, they did not declare the expenses that made this rally possible. It is not true that this is part of the democratic process.

There are lessons to be learned from the Gomery report, and I hope that these lessons will be learned. First, I think that the true redress to which the member for Bourassa alluded is that all parliamentarians in this House should make a commitment, whether they are federalists or sovereignists. The Supreme Court went even further. It ruled that there must be public funds voted by the National Assembly to authorize those who want to take part in a referendum campaign, but who do not want to be registered as being in the “yes” or the “no” camp. This ruling was made in the Libman case.

Again, I never doubted the democratic legitimacy of Quebec federalists and their right to defend their country, Canada. Today, regardless of which side of the House members are sitting, I hope they will take part in this debate to acknowledge the reason why we must comply with the Referendum Act.

Indeed, it is the National Assembly which will make the decision on the right to self-determination. That is why this violation really hurt. In a referendum debate, it is wrong to say that the end justifies the means, that might is right, that one can spend at will, that one can resort to influence peddling, or that one can ignore the rules of the game and turn a blind eye.

Quebeckers will not forget the Gomery report's incubator and matrix, known as the sponsorship scandal, because it is the direct result of the fact that the issue was not debated openly and in the respect of the rules. Instead, the government wanted to resort to influence peddling, once again, without respecting a referendum's democratic process. That is unacceptable.

There will be another referendum soon. I cannot tell the House whether it will be in two, three or four years. However, I hope that the rules will be obeyed. All the members from Quebec, no matter who, can express their vision of the future. There is a national liberation movement in Quebec. It is a movement that is rooted in the political parties. Everyone is quite proud that in Quebec, we have never gone armed into the streets in order to promote our ideas. We use words to express our platform because we are democrats.

It was words and votes that got us elected. The Bloc Québécois currently has 54 members here. It is the number one force in Quebec. It is not because we are nicer, better looking or more intelligent, but because of what happened at the polling stations. It is the will of the Quebec people for the sovereignist platform to reverberate here in the House of Commons.

When we will be asked to give our view of the Gomery report, we will not call anyone any names nor will we be disrespectful to anyone. During the next referendum campaign, we will invite the hon. member for Bourassa and all the hon. members from Quebec to make a commitment to respect the Referendum Act. Lucien Bouchard said if we win, it will be yes. If we lose, it will be no and we will respect the public's wishes. We will respect their choice by respecting the rules of democracy.

It is governmental responsibility that is at issue in the Gomery report. We must be clear on the sequence of events. No one can deny that the ad agencies received 44% of the $303 million. No one can deny that kickbacks were given to the Liberal Party, since there is evidence to prove it. How did this all come about? In 250 pages, the Gomery report describes the genesis. The way the events unfolded is not a tribute to democracy.

I am sorry, but the Bloc Québécois cannot sit idly by on this. It is not disrespectful toward the hon. member for Bourassa or the other members of the House of Commons representing the Liberal Party to say that, unfortunately, there was misuse of funds and a complex system of kickbacks in a known network. Public funds went to ad agencies and to the Liberal Party. It is sad. I am sure that some Liberals are saddened by this as well.

I am not suggesting that some ministers got richer because of that. That is not what I am saying. I find it disturbing that, in a democracy, the following two things occurred: the Prime Minister concentrated millions of dollars in the Treasury Board, in his office, without going through Parliament, and kickbacks went to the Liberal Party. It should not work that way.

It is our duty to bring those issues to the attention of the public. We would not deserve to sit in this House if we were to turn a blind eye to those actions. So we will not.

We need to learn from the Gomery report. I hope that every member in the House agrees. For a democrat, the end does not justify the means. If Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his cabinet had agreed to come to Quebec to discuss the option and allow a real democratic debate, we would not be in the position we are in today.

Somehow, it is comforting to know that this will never happen again. What do Quebeckers say? They say that they will never tolerate such practices again. I hope that the conviction of people like Pierre-F. Côté and of the electorate will get through to the Liberal Party. We are not asking the Liberals to become sovereignists, nor to like the Bloc Québécois, nor to wish a secession, if this is not what they want. In the name of our democratic legitimacy, we urge them to respect the National Assembly and the rules of the game, and to act like democrats. That is what we want, in essence.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I will answer my colleague's totally non-partisan question. This is sort of our trademark in committee. We leave partisan issues aside.

First, I believe it is very clear that the provinces are responsible for ensuring that the various codes of ethics and professional practice are upheld.

Second, one point is not clear in my mind. I was reading that article 309 of NAFTA prohibits restrictions on the import and export of drugs, except when a shortage is expected. Could the government simply have introduced a bill to prevent the export of drugs? This is not clear to me.

I think it warrants a little more investigation. We know our time is limited. We cannot take another two or three years to consult and consider. Clearly the states are going to move. As was mentioned earlier, nine bills have been introduced, by Republicans and Democrats alike.

I think, however, that it is worthwhile arguing for a little more room to consult and discover what sort of legislation would be most appropriate. I think the Standing Committee on Health, of which my hon. colleague is a member, has work to do in this regard.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, our colleague's comments are very pertinent and clearly show his knowledge of the issue. I agree with everything he says. I will perhaps add one explanation.

In the U.S., the relationship to medicine is rather different. This is, in my opinion, really one of the consequences of a desire to let market forces govern the health system. Hon. members will recall that, when he was president, Bill Clinton mandated his former wife, the first lady at the time, to carry out a study on the costs of “socializing” the U.S. health system just a little bit, but that reform never came to pass.

That does not surprise me. Although consumers are better protected in certain other areas, I feel that the U.S health system still leaves a great deal of leeway to the private sector and to market forces. This is, I believe, the reason we are in a bit of a bind here.

It is cause for concern that there have been nine bills introduced in the U.S. Congress, not all from Republicans but from Democrats as well. There is certainly a bit of hypocrisy about wanting this protection on the one hand but not wanting to respect the law on the other. Our colleague is right to encourage us to be cautious.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be able to come closer to you. This takes me back to the days when the Bloc Québécois was the official opposition. Of course, there is nothing to prevent optimistic thoughts about future seating arrangements, but that is not what we have to talk about tonight.

The Bloc Québécois has asked for this very important debate. All colleagues in this House recognize the intensity of our trade relations with the U.S. but precious few of us would be prepared to support drug exports. Motions have been made by a number of members, among them the likeable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, one of the deans in this place. It seems to me that he may even have shaken hands with Wilfrid Laurier, his roots go back so far in the House of Commons.

The motions by the various members cause us to reflect upon the leeway we have here. In fact it is hard to propose solutions on something like this. Formally, given the treaties Canada has signed—trade treaties in particular—it is not clear whether it could enact legislation completely banning exports.

We know that there are provisions in these trade agreements that allow us to restrict exports if there is an anticipated crisis or danger of shortage. Might a permanent arrangement that would prevent drug exports not end up in a dispute with the United States? That is something to consider.

One fact remains, however. The number of Canadian Internet pharmacies has tripled since 2003. Today there are more than 150 of them, and half of those are in Manitoba. Of course, I understand the Conservative health critic's interest in this, since he is a Manitoba MP. I know this is a very important industry, with more than 1,000 jobs connected to it.

What is the explanation for the American attraction to our drug availability program? The first factor of course is that in Canada there is relative control over the sale of drugs. I say relative because people must not think that the control is over retail sales.

The patented medicine prices review board was created by the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney. I do not wish to bring back bad memories for the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. However, the fact remains that the Conservatives created this organization at a time when patent duration was the subject of much debate and when Canada was not very competitive in terms of patent protection for industry. We moved from 10 to 17 years, and then from 17 to 20 years. As a result, we created a quasi-judicial body called the patented medicine prices review board, which controls the price at the factory gate.

So there is an action remedy system. Prices are limited to the median. For a drug available elsewhere, its retail price in seven countries is compared. If the price is determined to be excessively high, the patented medicine prices review board may take steps to force the industry to refund a portion of the retail price to consumers. That said, at present, drug prices are 35% lower than they are in the United States.

In passing, I want to say that, in recent years, the Bloc Québécois has been concerned that generic drugs were not controlled. We know that the patented medicine prices review board has no jurisdiction over them, although Canada has expanded its jurisdiction with regard to patents, but not necessarily with regard to generic drugs. The provinces decide which drugs will be on a formulary, and therefore eligible for a refund.

I also want to say that as a Quebecker and someone sensitive to the importance of research—I am very sensitive, and the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is well aware that I have been known to cry in certain circumstances—I have often raised this question in caucus and added it to the agenda.

I have often included this issue on our meeting agendas. We have to recognize that the branded pharmaceutical firms, those doing research, are also behaving inappropriately. What they do has been called evergreening. In fact, a patent was to last 20 years. From the date of the application to the appearance of the generic drug on the market no more than 20 years could elapse. The branded companies filed secondary patents, thereby establishing an automatic 24 month injunction and starting the cycle over, regardless of the content.

As soon as an allegation of copyright infringement is made, under the Canadian system, which is quite similar to the American one, evergreening begins. It does not appear to me to be done for the benefit of consumers. In my battles, I have always had the support of our party's critic for industry, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He is a member of the party's left and supports consumers' interests.

We also try to understand why Americans are interested in Canadian drugs. Our pricing system is quite controlled. Furthermore, 70 million Americans have no insurance. So when they face calamities and health problems, they have to pay full price for drugs. In some cases in the states, when you become ill without health insurance it can literally bankrupt you. This never or rarely happens in Canada.

From a technical standpoint, the whole issue of the export of drugs needs to be considered. It is not clear what level of government is responsible. What we do know is that no law in Canada currently prohibits the export of drugs. Provincial laws contain prohibitions.

I am more familiar with the situation in Quebec, where pharmacy legislation promotes the patient-doctor relationship. It is not possible for a practitioner in Quebec to fill a prescription for a U.S. citizen without facing a system of penalities going as far as being expelled from the college of physicians. Why? Because under the Pharmacy Act of Quebec a doctor must see the patient in person, must give a diagnosis and must develop a treatment plan. Unlike a doctor from Manitoba, a doctor from Quebec who fills a prescription issued in the U.S., could be found guilty and be expelled from the college of physicians.

That is why there are so few Internet pharmacies in Quebec. I am not saying there are none. The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is nodding his head. He probably read the same papers I did.

In closing, I think it is important for us to debate these issues. I know that the Standing Committee on Health will be conducting a study. The Bloc Québécois for the most part agrees with the idea of prohibiting the export of drugs.

Obviously the jurisdictions will have to be respected. As I was saying, Quebec already has rather hefty provisions to protect ourselves from this phenomenon. We know this is a debate that has well and truly been launched. Several million dollars are at stake, besides which if Canada were to supply the U.S. on a very large scale, it would have a shortage of drugs. Judging by the production infrastructure of companies, both generic and branded, it is not at all certain that we will be able to respond to this demand that is predicted to be 10 times greater than our own.

I am anxious to work on this issue in the Standing Committee on Health.

[Health, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while the federal government is increasing the number of anti-smoking campaigns, packs of cigarettes sold on the Kahnawake reserve do not have any of the warning labels required by health regulations.

Instead of interfering in the jurisdictions and responsibilities of others, why does the federal government not worry about ensuring its own laws are enforced and requiring warning labels to be put on these packs just like any others?

[Mental Illness Awareness Week, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since its inauguration in 1992, Mental Illness Awareness Week has sought to open our eyes to the reality of mental illness.

Those who suffer from it have remained in the shadows for far too long. Too many of them are reluctant to seek the help they need, and the general public is insufficiently aware of the burden mental illness places on society.

Mental Illness Awareness Week seeks to raise awareness of the level of mental illness in Canada; to reduce negative stigma about mental illness; and to promote the positive effects of best practice in prevention, diagnosis and medical treatment.

If we know more about mental illness we will be able to detect it early and offer help when it is needed. Any one of us can be affected, regardless of age, financial position, race or gender.

I encourage my colleagues to be part of the solution, and to visit the Mental Illness Awareness Week site in order to learn more about how to deal with this illness and to dispel the misconceptions that surround it.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that all parliamentarians in this House will want to join me in saluting the relevance of your ruling, which allows us to fulfill our role. Of course, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou deserves a lot of credit for putting this housing issue on the agenda of the House. This issue is of primary importance, nearly as important as life itself. Indeed, we cannot give meaning to our lives, be involved in our community and perform our civic duties if we do not have a roof over our heads.

I am very grateful to the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for tabling a bill founded on common sense. Can we imagine being in the shoes of those who established the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation after the second world war? They wanted to ensure that there would be affordable housing, first for post-war citizens, but also, and more importantly, for those who had pressing housing needs.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation behaved like a bank, like a financial institution interested in accumulating surpluses. It has tried to hoard money and it has not done all it could to improve the housing situation.

As the MP for Hochelaga, I am extremely pleased to take part in this debate today. I am doing so thinking of the housing organizations in my riding, particularly Entraide logement and the BAIL committee with Mr. Laporte, who is now working under contract with FRAPRU for a few months. In Hochelaga, we are well aware of how effective housing is as a tool to combat poverty.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou is proposing that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation set aside the equivalent of 5% of its portfolio of loans and maintain a reserve fund of up to $100 million for contingencies, and so on. That sounds like a common sense approach to me. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not a financial institution. It is not there to accumulate surpluses. Who would have ever thought that the CMHC would have $4.2 billion in accumulated surpluses? If nothing is done, if we do not act on the bill introduced by the member for Beauport—Limoilou, we could see surpluses as high as $8.3 billion. That makes no sense.

How these surpluses came to be is in itself worrisome: overestimated borrowing costs, excessive rates charged to citizens for loan guarantees and, of course, the fact that the cost of managing social housing programs has been lower because interest rates were lower. This is, therefore, an extremely important bill. This bill calls for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, subject to the two conditions stated, namely setting aside 5% of its portfolio of loans and maintaining a reserve fund of up to $100 million for contingencies, to give a rebate, to distribute the rest of its surpluses to the provinces, which have primary responsibility, with the municipalities, for social housing. I understand that my hon. colleague's bill provides for this refund, this redistribution to be in proportion of the provinces' population.

That is absolutely unacceptable. We must not think that the housing crisis has subsided in our various communities. I was rereading the policy statement sent to us by my friend Cosmo Maciocia, who is responsible for social housing on the City of Montreal executive committee. I do not want to make any partisan remarks since Montreal is in the middle of a municipal election. However, I will point out that the Tremblay administration launched an operation called Solidarity 5000 Homes, in Montreal. This is not insignificant. Close to 4,800 housing units have already been delivered or will be delivered soon.

Obviously, we must not think that this operation, Solidarity 5000 Homes, which is worth mentioning, has solved all the housing problems in Montreal. It is true though that the situation has improved compared to what it was three years ago. Indeed, vacancy rates were lower then than anyone could imagine. But the needs are still there and they are significant.

I will talk about Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. In my part of town, thanks to Solidarity 5000 Homes, 170 housing units were built and 138 are yet to come. I will take this opportunity to thank Mrs. Édith Cyr, from my community's technical resource group or GRT, who has done an excellent job on this. As we know, it is the GRTs that deliver the housing units, help organizations with the planning and sign the contracts. GRTs play an important role between the time when the need is identified and the time when construction begins on a housing unit. If further proof is required that the need for social housing is still huge, here it is: in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve alone, it is estimated that an additional 455 units could be built if the funds were available, but they are not. There is not one cent left in Operation Solidarity 5000 Homes; all the funds have been allocated.

I want to give some examples of the needs in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. The Chaussures Pitt property is on Nicolet street. Everyone has heard of this shoe store: it is part of the consortium owned by Yellow. This building will be retired. With funding, 35 housing units could be built on that site. The Résidence Maisonneuve could be converted into 10 housing units. The property on Bennett street behind the Propulsion agency could provide another 35 units. And 200 housing units could be built beside Saint-Clément park. The former Viau cookie factory that supplied us for years with Whippet cookies, which, Mr. Speaker, you have probably tried, is now available. Condo apartments could be built there, but since there is also a housing construction program, 200 units of social housing could also be built. The former École des métiers de l'Est, on Darling street next to the Hochelaga school, could also be converted into 71 housing units. I will not get into details as to whether it should be affordable housing or come under the Accès Logis program. This decision should be made by the developers in cooperation with the various municipalities. The message we are trying to send this morning is that there is a enormous need for housing.

Who can believe that, in a country as wealthy as Canada and Quebec, 150,000 people do not have a permanent place to call home? In Quebec alone, 393,000 households have been identified as being in dire need of housing. When over 30% of personal income is spent on housing, there is a problem. Imagine what happens when it is 50%. Yet, over 100,000 households spend more than 80% of their income on housing.

This is an extremely relevant bill that has been lauded and awaited by housing advocacy organizations. If I had time, I would no doubt talk about the SCPI program. But I do not. However, we do need to send a clear message that we, as parliamentarians who want to fight poverty, need to vote in favour of this bill, which would make funds available to communities so they could provide social housing to those who desperately need it.

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I clearly understand the comments made by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

I know that Canada has ratified a number of conventions on drugs and narcotics. I was not given a mandate by my caucus today to discuss an issue as specific as the one referred to by the hon. member. However, I am inclined to think that the Bloc Québécois would approve such a measure, but the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs would certainly have to take a close look at this.

It is risky to take a stand without having looked at the fine print of such legislation. However, I would say that I agree with the hon. member that drugs remain the foundation of organized crime, whether we are talking about hydroponic greenhouses for marijuana, cocaine, the new drug called “crystal”, or ecstasy. These are extremely disturbing realities.

I had the opportunity to sit on the special parliamentary committee that reviewed the use of drugs for non medical purposes. We recommended the decriminalization of marijuana. The whole issue of an import-export permit system was not examined by the committee. However, I think we can, subject to an in-depth review, support the solutions proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am touched. I want to thank my colleague and our colleagues on the government side.

More seriously, the bill the government is introducing is part of a continuum. In 1997, the House passed Bill C-95, which, for the first time, criminalized membership in criminal organizations.

Bill C-95 was based on three criteria. There had to be five members who had committed an offence punishable by more than five years during the preceding five years. The police felt this was not workable. It was extremely difficult to lay charges under the provisions of Bill C-95.

However, Bill C-95, introduced in 1997, did have some positive aspects. For example, it extended warrants for electronic surveillance, which used to be valid for only three months. It is not easy to get a warrant for electronic surveillance. You have to go to a justice of the peace and document why a warrant is needed. Bill C-95 made it easier to get warrants for electronic surveillance and extended them to a maximum of one year.

In order to successfully lock up and charge ringleaders such as “Mom” Boucher, shadowing is needed. The use of informants is indispensable in criminal law. “Mom” Boucher would never have been convicted if it were not for informants and shadowing. Electronic surveillance warrants also play an extremely important role.

Over the past few years the witness protection program has also been improved. It is now possible to get a new identity, to be protected and to receive compensation. Not that we are talking a lot of money. We do not give $3 million to every person who helps solve an investigation. Nevertheless, a lot has been accomplished: electronic surveillance warrants and new organized crime related offences.

Quebeckers are very familiar with journalist Michel Auger. He is a renowned, respected and extremely courageous crime reporter. He was attacked in the parking lot of the Journal de Montréal on Iberville Street and shot. After that attack, provisions were added to the legislation in regard to intimidating journalists, public servants, those who administer the law and, of course, elected officials.

All this lead us to provide additional tools to fight organized crime more effectively. I will only give the example of the Hells Angels. During their good years, they had 39 chapters; today, they have 34. There are about 500 of them and most are considered to be members of criminal organizations. It is extremely difficult to prosecute them.

Today, we are going further. We are reversing the burden of proof. We are allowing the Crown to initiate proceedings against individuals in the upper echelons of organized crime. It goes without saying that if a person is found guilty of a punishable offence that carries a sentence of more than five years, that person is not a rank and file member of a criminal organization.

So, this is a very positive legislative measure. It was requested by the Canadian Police Association and by a number of stakeholders in civil society. We must be grateful to all the parliamentarians who worked to have the Criminal Code amended and turned into a much more effective and functional tool than had been the case until now. Just think of the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, when a war was going on in our communities, including Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Rosemont, Saint-Nicolas, on the outskirts of Quebec City, or on the South Shore. This was going on in our communities. It was very frightening for our fellow citizens who, of course, did make representations to us, their elected officials.

I thank my hon. colleagues for their friendship and, in some cases, their affection, and I am grateful to them for listening to me during five additional minutes.