Réal Ménard

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a bill that proposes to totally eliminate linkage regulations. My neo-Bolshevik friends introduced this bill.

It has a certain merit. However, with all due respect, it lacks subtlety. It is reasonable to question the balance that must always be sought between innovative and generic industries.

It would be difficult, however, to say that linkage regulations have to abolished completely. We must not lose sight of the historical context. Until the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney changed the Patent Act, Canada had a system of compulsory licenses. In other words, a company manufacturing and marketing a drug obtained an exclusive license. With the payment of a royalty to the company, the drug could be copied.

For years, because this system of compulsory licensing in return for a royalty—royalty was the word at the time—was in effect, it was felt that Canada performed poorly in the area of research and development.

Obviously, if it is possible and relatively easy to copy a drug, that does not provide not much of an incentive for the biomedical industry to make investments.

These investments grew over the years. I saw the figures last year. Between the marketing phase and the research phase, from the moment the molecule is isolated to the moment the drug is available for consumption, it can easily take 10 to 12 years. We are talking about an investment cycle involving several million dollars.

Following a royal commission, Canada decided it wanted to change its system, at least in terms of drugs. When the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney came into power in 1984, they changed the law a few years later.

Now, it is no longer a compulsory licensing system, but an exclusivity system. In other words, to be a patent holder you have to submit an application to Health Canada and Industry Canada through the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Then you get exclusivity, not from the date the patent is obtained—which was the case with the former legislation—but when the Conservatives passed their Bill C-91, exclusivity was granted for 20 years from the date the application is submitted to Health Canada and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Note that this is not market exclusivity for 20 years, since two or three years can go by before a patent is granted.

The Bloc Québécois cannot support the bill as it now stands. We have a large caucus in the Bloc Québécois, this great force of national liberation, this leading political force in Quebec that is here to stay, as everyone knows, if that is the wish of our fellow citizens. The Bloc Québécois cannot support the bill as it now stands. Why? Because we cannot agree to put all these innovative industries on an equal footing. We cannot say that marketing a patent, for example, for a washing machine or a dryer is the same as marketing a drug patent. There need to be guarantees for infringement protection. That is what the linkage regulations are for.

The linkage regulations are not perfect. I am even prepared to acknowledge that the innovative industries have engaged in delinquent behaviour, by extending patents that had expired. I believe what our colleague from the NDP was trying to say was that the industry used provisions in the linkage regulations, themselves established under the Patent Act. These provisions provided an opportunity, when there was an allegation of infringement, to automatically get an injunction for up to 24 months.

This mechanism is indeed questionable. I have statistics showing that between 1998 and 2003, there were almost 80 cases brought before the courts concerning notices of allegation. In two cases out of three, the generic companies won, which means the notices of allegation were not founded. It is true that in the past innovative companies used the linkage regulations not to protect themselves from infringement, but to extend their patents. This is unacceptable, as this was not the intention of the legislator.

We acknowledge that there are major investments that need protecting. The bulk of pharmaceutical research facilities are located in Montreal, not necessarily in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, but more in West Island. These investments must be protected. Yet at the same time it is not acceptable to tolerate patents being perpetuated by claim mechanisms.

It must be acknowledged that the government has recently modified the regulations in order to protect us somewhat against that, in order to make use of the linkage regulations less easy, less automatic, less immediate, not to protect against infringement but rather against evergreening.

The Bloc Québécois, believing that this balance must exist between the generic and innovative drug industries, cannot support questionable practices which lead to evergreening.

That said, we do not feel that the solution proposed by the NDP, that is total abolition of regulations, is reasonable. Unfortunately, my neo-socialist friends sometimes let themselves get carried away with solutions that are a touch excessive. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois, in all circumstances, provides that balance between what is desirable and what is feasible. I believe the Bloc Québécois worked very hard in committee to ensure that the linkage regulations are maintained, but used wisely.

Still, we must recognize that it may take 10 years from the time a molecule is isolated to the time a drug is available to consumers, and this can represent investments of up to $800 or $900 million. This money is not coming from the unions or workers or governments, but rather from the private sector. I do not want to shock my socialist friends but, in our system, it is normal to expect a return on an investment.

We do not tolerate abuses. We want a balanced policy and I believe that repealing the regulations in their entirety is unreasonable.

In closing, I want to say that, in the future, we will need to monitor drugs without any real therapeutic benefits. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board refers to three classes of drugs: classes 1, 2 and 3. I believe that we must work with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that new drugs coming onto the market and for which Health Canada issues an advisory have real therapeutic benefits. I agree with the NDP that, in the past, things have been somewhat lax and drugs with no new therapeutic benefits were marketed.

According to our estimates, this has contributed to a 50% increase in the cost of drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I sense your impatience. There is no medicine for that. The only cure is for me to sit down and give the floor to someone else.

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to that of other members to congratulate all the parliamentarians in this House who have worked on making this bill the best and the most perfect bill possible.

Admittedly, this is a highly humanitarian bill. In the past, our examination of drug costs and issues related to research and development has tended to cause division between the parties.

I believe that the current Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was the Minister of Industry at the time when this bill was referred to the committee. The committee achieved a perfect consensus, which should also be reflected in the allocation for the Summer Career Placements Program this year. But that is for another debate. Without digressing, I would like to plead in favour of the status quo, if the minister gets my drift.

That having been said, I have three short questions for my hon. colleague. First, could he remind the House of the degree of cooperation that was anticipated in connection with this GMO issue? I know that there were expectations concerning the bill in that respect. Second, could he remind us of the difference between compulsory licensing and the current system? Third, could he remind us of the importance of schedule I, which lists the countries which will be allowed to bid and to which the shipping of medicine will be allowed? I think it would be helpful, for the benefit of our fellow citizens, if he could read this list.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I recalled her taking part, as I did, in the deliberations of the committee on alcoholic beverages in Canada. Our colleague tabled a report in this regard. The issue is not whether we want there to be information available on fetal alcohol syndrome, because all parties support this principle. The issue is whether the measures are effective. As legislators, we must ensure a bill will be effective, before it becomes law.

The Bloc voted in favour of labelling tobacco products and the 10 rotating warnings. Although the labelling was appealed right to the Supreme Court because it was considered to take up the commercial space of the tobacco manufacturers, that did not stop us. However, in the case of alcoholic drinks, we had no study on the benefits and the scientific evidence.

I think the Quebec model, with Éduc'alcool, the college of physicians and the health department, was a lot more successful with the target clientele. I think the member for Mississauga South was involved in a moral crusade, which deserves our respect. However, we cannot stop here. As we know in the business, good feelings do not always make good politics. We cannot stop at good feelings. Further analysis is needed.

In terms of effectiveness, unfortunately, we did not have these studies. We had them when the Standing Committee on Health reviewed the matter of regulating tobacco products. The Department of Health had presented studies.

Here again, a minimum standard of rigour requires us to consider the consequences and effectiveness of the bills we pass. In this case, scientific evidence was not on the side of the member for Mississauga South.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words and his questions.

I think that my colleague was present at the committee when the Bloc Québécois proposed a motion to have justice department officials appear. They have not really taken a position, it must be said, in the debate raised by our colleague. Would it be prejudicial to freedom of expression? What we know for sure is that there was a risk. I think that this scenario was even mentioned in a brief to cabinet, which the committee members did not see.

What we know is that the freedom of expression guidelines were determined by the Supreme Court in two decisions: the Sharpe decision on child pornography and the Irwin Toy decision on advertising children's toys. It is acknowledged that freedom of expression basically depends on three things, in particular not being harassed on the basis of one's beliefs.

The government's objective must obviously be considered. For example, if the Supreme Court had been asked to rule on such a question, it might have looked into whether it is in the public interest to ensure that alcohol is consumed responsibly. I think that the Supreme Court might have answered yes to this question.

Then there would have been other questions. First, it would have asked whether the means that the government used were proportional to the objective. Is it proportional to want in a way to limit the space on the label for producers and manufacturers? I think that the Supreme Court might have answered yes to this question. Second, the Supreme Court would have tried to determine the effectiveness of such a measure. I think that this is where the member's bill might have been a bit more vulnerable. In any case, we are in the realm of speculation here because the Supreme Court was not asked to rule on this.

Insofar as microbreweries are concerned, I think that our colleague was also present at the committee when the Association des microbrasseries du Québec came to see us in the person of its utterly charming president, Ms. Urtnowski. It is necessary to know that some microbreweries use very traditional methods. In some cases, labels are put on manually. Microbreweries would obviously have had to acquire technologies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though they do not have the same wherewithal as the national brewers or the same market share.

That is why the Bloc Québécois put forward an amendment to the effect that manufacturers who produce less than 300,000 hectolitres would not be subject to the regulation proposed by the member for Mississauga South.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Éduc'alcool went to university campuses to explain that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It told pregnant women the same thing. The most difficult audience to reach are those who drink and drive, the hardened drinkers who get behind the wheel in the evening. It is true that there is still more work to be done, as we learned from Ms. Nadeau of Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Then there is another consideration, the motion made in committee by the member for Guelph to kill the bill, and let us not mince our words on that. There are terms like infanticide and regicide, but I do not know what the term for killing a bill would be. The member for Guelph moved to have the bill deemed not to have been adopted in committee, so it died. There was another possibility, which the Bloc members could not support, to have the federal government set up a national strategy on fetal alcohol syndrome.

We do, of course, acknowledge that this syndrome is a reality that must be addressed. When I represented the Bloc on the parliamentary committee reviewing the non-medical use of drugs, I recall visiting places—Winnipeg, Manitoba, for one—where FAS was a severe problem.

We believe, however, that it is not the role of the federal government to come up with such a strategy. Where fetal alcohol syndrome is concerned, the health facilities are often involved. We in the Bloc Québécois do not believe that this is the role of the federal government, nor that it is in the best position to set up such a strategy.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time the federal government might be tempted to intervene in the health care field. I remember, when we were studying the new reproductive technologies bill, how I warned the government that this bill was obviously unconstitutional. The Liberal MPs did not want to listen to me.

Now today they are faced with a court challenge. The Liberal government of Jean Charest—a government that does not show a lot of backbone in defending the interests of Quebec—has nevertheless felt obliged to appeal in order to challenge the constitutionality of the new reproductive technologies legislation.

The federal government is periodically tempted to intervene in the health field above and beyond its jurisdictional limits, which are aboriginal health, research, veterans and patents. We cannot, therefore, be in favour of such a strategy.

My congratulations to the hon. member for his enthusiasm and hard work. I would ask him to let the provinces do their job as far as fetal alcohol syndrome is concerned, taking as their model the Éduc'alcool program in Quebec, which has produced convincing results in the struggle to combat problem drinking.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate on a motion introduced by my Conservative Party colleague relating to a report adopted by the Standing Committee on Health.

The entire debate started after the hon. member for Mississauga South introduced a private member's bill. I was listening earlier to the remarks by that member and sponsor of the bill, and I believe that the background needs to be given.

Nevertheless, I want to commend the member for his perseverance here. He has been interested in this issue for many years—a decade—already. There is also a lesson in it for us. In politics, it is essential to have motivations or beliefs. It cannot be said that the member has no convictions.

However, we must also admit that good intentions do not always make the best policies. If we have anything to learn from the history and experience of Bill C-206, introduced by our colleague from Mississauga South, it is that we must always listen to what witnesses have to say.

When this bill was studied in the House at second reading, most opposition health critics came out in favour of it in principle. We were, of course, in favour of warning labels being made mandatory on bottles containing more than 1% alcohol. That alone struck us as a good idea.

The beauty of the parliamentary system does not, however, reside solely in the work of the House, important as it certainly is, but also in committees. A good forty hours were invested in committee in studying this bill more closely. We came to realize that, unfortunately, scientific evidence did not support the solution proposed by the hon. member.

Everyone has acted in good faith on this: the government, the opposition parties, the parliamentary secretary, all have worked very hard. They all wanted to come up with the best possible legislation, keeping two objectives in mind: combating the harmful effects of alcohol and providing the most pertinent possible information.

With the exception of a few organizations such as MADD and the Canadian Medical Association, which were in favour of the principle, after considerable scrutiny, those who had analyzed the bill in depth did not recommend that we pass it in its present form.

I have heard my colleague draw a parallel with the regulations adopted a few years ago when I was on the Standing Committee on Health. I am, in fact, rather proud of being both the youngest member of the committee and the oldest, in years of experience, having been a member since 1999. So I was on the Standing Committee on Health when it reviewed the tobacco regulations. I think there was a considerable difference between those two bills, however. Why? When the government introduced the tobacco regulations, the difference was this:

First of all, the scientific studies. The Canadian Cancer Society alone submitted a pile of scientific studies on the harmful effects of tobacco, and these were provided to all parliamentarians.

Second, there was a fundamental difference in that the cigarette manufacturers are obliged to rotate the messages.

The regulations called for a dozen or so different messages a year, staggered at different times, so that no sense of easy familiarity with the medium could develop. If a person is exposed to the same message for months or years on end, it loses its effect. That is the first distinction.

Another distinction that was pointed out to us is that serving alcoholic beverages in a glass is not the same as in a bottle. People are served in glasses in licensed establishments and not in bottles. Consumers are therefore not directly exposed to the message. That is a very important difference.

Third, an organization as large as Éduc'alcool, with its likeable director general, Hubert Sacy, popularized what is probably one of the best known advertising campaigns. If people were asked—especially Quebec residents—what is Éduc'alcool's slogan, 80% to 90% would certainly say, “Moderation is always in good taste”.

Éduc'alcool is a not for profit organization, in this case, a consortium independent of the government. It brings together people representing brewers, the Société des alcools du Québec, universities and researchers, who have managed to implement far more effective educational methods than those proposed in the bill.

It is interesting that in Quebec we have a regulation adopted several years ago that requires alcoholic beverage producers to give a certain percentage of their revenues for awareness campaigns. Under the regulation, which is administered by the Régie des loteries et courses du Québec, they may give those funds directly to an organization that does preventive work or to one that does research, but one way or another, a certain percentage established by regulation must be given to ensure that there is an awareness campaign.

The scientific evidence, the facts and research that were available, did not point in a direction that would make us feel comfortable supporting the action suggested by the member for Mississauga South. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments. We would have felt better if the Quebec model had been used as the basis. We do not want an approach that says we are going to slap on regulatory labels if we are not certain they will be seen and read.

The hon. member for Mississauga South is right to remind us that it is their corporate duty. We cannot allow companies to make profits the way breweries and distilleries do without being good corporate citizens. Most of these companies do have in-house programs that provide safe ride home services, for instance, or information on the negative effects of excessive drinking on society.

Éduc'alcool submitted a research summary. They summarized the research available mostly in the United States and Canada, but also in Europe. They submitted a document outlining the impact of mandatory labelling.

We are not saying this was pointless. It is certainly not as black and white as that. In fact, the hon. member for Laval—who took an interest in this issue in committee—and I would never make such a blanket statement.

Consumers are indeed provided with some information, but there is no scientific evidence proving that mandatory labelling changes, in any way, the behaviour of people with drinking problems or a serious addiction to alcohol, people commonly referred to as heavy drinkers. Let us be honest, mandatory labelling has absolutely no effect on them.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research was represented at the committee by Ms. Nadeau, the Vice-Chair and herself a psychologist. She asked us to think about three consequences.

First, the approach of the hon. member for Mississauga South was somewhat lacking in nuance. He intimated that alcohol consumption of itself was reprehensible. In scientific terms, however, an occasional glass of red wine with a meal at the Cage aux Sports or elsewhere in good company, whatever may be your preference— The fact is that a little glass of red wine from time to time savoured in good company as one of life's little pleasures never did anyone any harm.

If we took a little survey here, even among my ascetic neo-Bolshevik friends, rigorous at work and disciplined in bed, I would be very surprised to find a member of the NDP caucus who has not at some time raised a glass of red wine in a toast. I would be very surprised if there were no parliamentarian here who does not consume alcohol in moderation on occasion. I would in fact be very surprised that the hon. member for Mississauga South is abstemious to the point of excluding any sort of alcohol from his life.

The fact is that the message the bill sent lacked subtlety, according to what Éduc'alcool told us. Terrorizing people is not the best way to educate them and neither is the cut and dried approach. A little glass of red wine never did anyone any harm.

Second, my colleague from Laval will speak later and develop this idea further—the warnings proposed by the member for Mississauga South included one on driving under the influence of alcohol, which could indeed be harmful. However, there was a warning that alcohol consumption during pregnancy could harm the baby. This is true.

My colleague from Laval asked about funding for the publication of a brochure that was distributed wherever this information would be useful, with the result that surveys revealed that 90% of women were aware of the hazards of excessive consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.

Éduc'alcool shouldered its responsibilities and worked with the Quebec health and social services department and the Collège des médecins du Québec. I do not know how it works in English Canada, but the LCSCs and Quebec hospitals display posters with this kind of information. However, the intention is not to traumatize or terrify, but rather to gently provide relevant educational information, which is essential for reaching the target audience.

I believe that, at times, the member for Mississauga South had a small tendency to believe that the message had to be stern and categorical, rather like the Lacordaire movement of earlier days, sometimes neglecting the nuances. I think that this was not the best approach.

Once again, we believe that the Quebec model is extremely important; I am talking about the coalition created around Éduc'alcool, with awareness campaigns and obviously some in-house programs by the major national brewers, but above all with Éduc'alcool taking the lead. This organization visits, for example, the university campuses.

Éduc'alcool has raised our awareness with anti-binge drinking campaigns. I am addressing the pages in particular. I am asking students to always stay in control. The end of term and exam time can be stressful. People want to party. They wind up on campus, where there may be drinking games. This trend started a number of years ago. Such activities should be avoided. I am warning our friends in particular, the pages, who are so dear to us. They have done an excellent job this session. I ask my colleagues to applaud them for their devotion during the entire session.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, does the government realize that voluntary standards are useless and that we could end up with the same disastrous results as with the implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol, in which the government chose the same voluntary approach for the automotive industry?

[Genetically Modified Organisms, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as regards GMOs, the government decided to proceed with the voluntary labelling of products. The result, according to environmental groups, is that consumers are no better informed than before, and this approach has not yielded any results.

Will the government put an end to this voluntary approach in the labelling of GMOs, and will it adopt compulsory measures instead, which are the only ones that can produce tangible results?

[Charter of Rights and Freedoms, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are rising today to celebrate the 20th anniversary of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for which the Supreme Court decisions in Andrews and Law have set out the outline and analytical framework.

We in the Bloc Québécois are staunch defenders of the principle of equality for all before the law. The right to equality is a demand rooted in the history of Quebec, and is actually part of it.

Need I remind the House that the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an ambitious, generous and progressive charter, is turning 30 this year? The right to equality is enshrined in its section 10, speaking volumes about the humanist and progressive values of Quebec's society.

But today we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of section 15, as well as the adherence of the courts to the principle of equality, the courts having adhered to it with openness and humanity, often going beyond the letter of the charter.

On this anniversary, the Bloc Québécois cannot, however, overlook the fact that the charter is an integral part of the Constitution Act of 1982, which was imposed upon Quebec and which every successive government in the Quebec National Assembly has refused to sign.

This 20th anniversary is also a time to look at equality between men and women. At a time when we are debating same sex marriage; when the federal government has yet to pass pay equity legislation; when Canada has still not signed the convention on child labour; when the government is voting against bills that would eliminate discrimination against EI recipients; when social condition has not yet been included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, is there really cause for celebration after 20 years?

Let us recognize that more remains to be done. The recent events that have disrupted democratic life in Canada and Quebec remind us of our duty to be vigilant, to ensure that the decisions made by this government are made with the collective interest in mind, and not the benefit of a few, to ensure that our decisions help better the living conditions of our fellow citizens, and not exclude, ostracize or sideline any of us.

The right to equality must not be taken lightly or casually. On this 20th anniversary of section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I take the opportunity to reaffirm that the Bloc Québécois intends to remain, as it has always been, its staunchest defender.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on the motion introduced by my Conservative Party colleague. I consider this motion very important. Of all the subjects brought to the attention of the House, today's motion is certainly among the most important.

We must remember that, in June 1985, an Air India Boeing 747 exploded over the Atlantic. There were no survivors. Of the 329 passengers on board, 278 were Canadians.

This tragedy, in the form of terrorist attacks, is clearly one of the most important matters that parliamentarians must consider. This sad chapter in Canadian history was not an act of God. It was the result of a conspiracy, a plot and a deliberately organized attack on a community.

The way in which the legal system handled such a case is nothing to be proud of. I believe that it is completely legitimate for the Conservative Party, out of solidarity with the 278 Canadian victims and their families and loved ones, not to accept what has happened. There are increasingly serious indications, even from the courts, that some evidence was tampered with and other evidence was destroyed.

How can anyone be satisfied with the outcome when the agencies responsible for enforcing the law, the ones responsible for uncovering the truth about the worst airline disaster and the worst act of terrorism in Canadian history, might have destroyed evidence and failed to act diligently in their investigation? How can anyone be satisfied when the families, Quebeckers and Canadians are not satisfied?

The facts of this case are extremely complex. We do know that after the bombing it took over 15 years for the RCMP to lay charges.

Understandably, in matters like this, investigations are long, complex and painstaking. There are also constraints as far as the burden of proof is concerned, and even about how things need to be conducted before a court of justice and a magistrate. There is, however, nothing to justify evidence being destroyed by law enforcement agencies. I think we should be grateful to the Conservative member for this motion which might take the form of an historic reparation if this Parliament voted unanimously in favour of it.

So, 15 years after the incident, with more than $28 million invested in the investigation, the RCMP finally laid charges against two individuals who were arrested in October 2000. They were accused of first degree murder and conspiracy in the explosions involving flights 182 and 301.

Finally, in April 2003, the trial of the two co-accused was begun. During the process, the RCMP tabled thousands of pages of documents containing evidence. In its submission to the judge, it stated that CSIS, which had members of the Sikh extremist organization wiretapped prior to the attack, had an informant—standard practice in these circles—who knew the plane was going to explode. Apparently CSIS asked its informant, three days before flight 182 was to depart, not to take it.

On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, that is close to two years after the trial of the two co-accused began on RCMP charges of conspiracy and murder in the first degree, Justice Josephson of the BC Supreme Court acquitted the two of premeditated murder, attempted murder and conspiracy.

The court case ran for 19 months, and 115 witnesses gave testimony. This decision does not close the case, since an ongoing RCMP investigation might lead to other charges.

How can it be that, for all these years, CSIS, which has been accused of having destroyed tapes that could have contributed to the evidence and to the process of the trial, has not been called upon to explain itself? What is the most distressing in this scenario is that people expect law enforcement agencies to contribute to the conclusion of an investigation and to help cast some light on this terrible air tragedy, the worst act of terrorism in the history of Canada.

How can there not have been any sanctions? How is it that we are not in a position at this time to have a clear and unequivocal picture of the role of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?

It has come to my attention that a Supreme Court justice, the one who presided over the trial, acknowledged before a court of record that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had erased recordings and destroyed evidence.

Now that the court has determined that evidence had been destroyed, additional action needs to be taken. We believe that an independent judicial inquiry is needed in order to lift the veil of mystery and ambiguity surrounding this case. The Liberal Party has already promised an inquiry to Canadians, Quebeckers and the families.

A few weeks ago, I read in the papers that the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, himself a member of the Indo-Canadian community and with whom I had the pleasure of travelling to India a few years ago, has accused his government of being lax, dragging its feet and failing to meet the standard of responsibility and vigilance required in an incident like this.

Twenty years after the tragedy, it is unacceptable to any parliamentarian that the families do not have an answer and that we have not investigated the Canadian Security Intelligence Service mess. Again, an independent inquiry would help prevent similar injustices from happening again and would ease the pain and suffering of the families.

Of course, we are not starting from scratch. The RCMP has also conducted an investigation. Suspects have been identified and charges have even been laid before a number of courts. People have been punished. The main suspect in the plane explosion in Japan is the one who put the explosives in the suitcases. He was punished, served 15 years in prison and then tried to move to Great Britain.

In many ways, we have to acknowledge that the details of this tragedy are still too obscure, and we are right to ask for inquiries.

This is not the first time that the RCMP and CSIS have used tactics that might be described as reprehensible, to say the least. We have also had unfortunate incidents in Quebec. I will obviously not make any comparisons. I am well aware that nothing in terms of human suffering, distress and desolation can equal this tragedy, which took the lives of 278 Canadians.

Do we not need to affirm once and for all that it is unacceptable under the rule of law for law enforcement agencies to not cooperate fully in an investigation? This is the distressing part.

In recent years, we have had the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. I am thinking of the decision in Stinchcombe, which identified the duty of the Crown in all matters of disclosure of evidence. Indeed, it defined the extent of the effort required of the Crown in disclosing evidence. However, prior to that, if the RCMP or CSIS can be criticized for their handling of evidence or lack of integrity, no parliamentarian in this House can claim we live entirely under the rule of law.

Let us make no mistake. Some claim that, since the trial lasted over 15 months, all of the information has been made available. I think the Conservatives are right in saying that an independent inquiry would permit a more in-depth investigation.

I will stop here, because I am being told it is time for oral question period.