Réal Ménard

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very relevant question, as are all the questions my colleague is raising.

It is true that there are some advantages to the British parliamentary system. Naturally, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois—and I say this with a total lack of partisanship—is the primary political force in Quebec. However, in our parliamentary system, the role of the opposition is to improve the government. As we can all imagine, this is a full-time job. We are exhausted when we leave here.

I must say that the government appreciates the Bloc's vigilance. Organized crime has never been a partisan issue in the House, but it should be said that the Bloc has been extremely vigilant in this regard.

Initially, the government believed it could fight organized crime with just the Criminal Code provisions on criminal conspiracy. It needed a little push to take further action. The Bloc was there. I am pleased to note that this is not a partisan issue, but that the Bloc Québécois has shown historic leadership in this area.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have before me an article I wrote in 2001—not that I want to quote myself, but these are the figures I have before me—demonstrating that at that time illegal drug sales in Canada had a value of $10 billion. Thus, the hon. member is correct in pointing out that the cornerstone of organized crime in modern countries, including Canada, is, of course, narcotics.

Obviously, the question the comes to mind is the following is the prohibitionist system in place since 1909 in Canada the best way to effectively fight drug abuse? In the case of marijuana, there is a special committee looking at these issues. In the case of ecstasy, it is less well known. Nevertheless, I share the hon. member's concerns. I know that ecstasy is especially popular at raves. In addition, it is known that ecstasy can cause very serious breakdowns in its users.

Therefore, with respect to the motion by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who asked what we can do to help the police be more effective in their investigations, I am of the opinion that reversal of the burden of proof is necessary in the case of serious crimes, once the accused is found guilty. That is certainly one tool that all law enforcement agencies should support. Therefore, it should be appreciated greatly by law enforcement agencies in Canada. I am hopeful that the vote on this motion will be unanimous.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

It was in the late 1990s. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles does not age, so this is why my dates are a little off.

All this to say that the witness protection program was improved and the $1,000 bill was eliminated. Also—and this is very important—warrants for electronic surveillance, which used to be valid for 30 days, and then 90 days, may now be valid for up to a year. However, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was well advised, because there is a tool missing in the criminal process, the trials and the fight against organized crime, and not just biker gangs. That tool is the reversal of the burden of proof.

We want to add the reversal of the burden of proof, once an accused has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as provided by the law.

The hon. member who spoke before me could certainly have referred to the Collins case. A number of rulings were made on what jeopardizes the fairness of a trial. It is clear that the presumption of innocence must be protected, otherwise the administration of justice could be flawed and even lead to the rejection of the evidence gathered by police forces, under subsection 24(2).

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles does not want that. He wants the conviction to be solidly established. What he is proposing is that once the accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Crown would make the necessary demonstration regarding offence-related assets.

Let us take the example of an individual accused of second degree murder. A trial is held, all the rules guaranteeing a fair trial are respected and a guilty verdict is rendered once both sides have made their case. At that point, how the assets were obtained must be established. It is only then that the reversal of the burden of proof will occur.

This will be an extremely useful tool. Law enforcement organizations should be very pleased with today's debate.

I will not hesitate to admit that I had two mentors in my process of learning about organized crime. In 1995 I was a thirty-something rookie with two years in the House. I had never had any interest in organized crime. Obviously, I had never followed the issues addressed by the inquiry into organized crime, CECO, and all that.

When I did need to know about such matters, I had two mentors. The first was Mr. Ouellette of the SQ, who is a leading expert and now trains others. He told me what a ridiculous situation ensued when people were seen to be involved in transnational drug trafficking, and were multimillionaires with mansions, yachts and goodness knows what else, in short living the good life yet claiming incomes of $8,00, $9,000 or $10,000.

Hon. members will understand the importance of allowing the accused to prove how the crime-related assets have been acquired, once an offence has been proven. This will, understandably, be of great use for investigations, court proceedings and even determining the main offence.

That is what we are dealing with today. I would not like people to think at the end of the day that there is any threat to constitutional guarantees. No one in this House, least of all the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who is a lawyer, wants to do anything to challenge principles as solidly entrenched as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This will be a balance added to what was concluded by the Supreme Court in 1991 with its judgment in Stinchcombe. This has resulted in imbalances. There were no rules prior to Stinchcombe, and after Stinchcombe, all evidence had to be revealed. This means that a police officer had to produce during the trial the notes he had written on a notepad. The department had to disclose the entire body of evidence, whether it tended to accuse or exonerate, and whether it was closely or very tenuously linked to the offence and the charge.

Hon. members will understand how hard it was for public defenders to comply with Stinchcombe, particularly in cases involving shadowing or informants, or in lengthy investigations lasting three, four or five years.

I hope that all the members in this House will adopt this measure, which is constitutional, balanced, effective and intelligent.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the Bloc's justice critic for introducing this motion and working so diligently to ensure that it reflects the wishes of all the parties in the House.

I must say that, in the history of the Bloc Québécois, the effective and intelligent struggle is constitutional, as our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue has demonstrated. It must be said right away—and I will return to this as well—that it is a matter not just of an effective and intelligent fight against organized crime but of a fight that should be consistent with the constitutional guarantees, of which, at the top of the list, may be found the right to be presumed innocent, with all that implies in procedural terms, as the Supreme Court did.

I was saying that, in the history of the Bloc Québécois, we were able—whether it was my old colleague, Michel Bellehumeur, or other colleagues, such as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—to take an interest very early in the history of our party in the struggle against organized crime. We will all recall that very publicly. Of course, people a little older than I will no doubt remember the CIOC. There was a bit of a lull in public opinion. However, what catalyzed a heightened awareness of the extent to which organized crime was threatening our communities was certainly the car bomb attack on August 9, 1995, ten years ago already, in Adam St. in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, killing young Daniel Desrochers. We know that this meaningless attack was related to a motorcycle gang war, in which there had been 147 deaths and 150 attempted murders.

These were important issues in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and even 2000. They were so important, in fact, that the Bloc Québécois devoted one of its opposition days in 2000 to the formation of a special committee of the Standing Committee on Justice, on which I sat along with Mr. Michel Bellehumeur, who has been elevated to the bench. We are all familiar with his talent and persistence. At the time, 13 recommendations were made, all related to the issue of gangs.

My colleague just recalled Bill C-24, but we must first remember that it took three years before we got an anti-gang law. I must say that the Bloc Québécois played an extremely important part in this. The first anti-gang act, which had been Bill C-95, did not work. Why not? Because five people who had committed five crimes punishable by five years in prison, in other words serious crimes, were needed.

Law enforcement agencies were telling us that in the branches in 1995, 1996, 1997, there were, for the Hell's Angels for example, 38 chapters in Canada. Young people with no criminal record were being recruited. It was clear that the organized crime offence in the Criminal Code could not be used.

There were all kinds of provisions. In fact, about a dozen laws had been passed to fight organized crime. Among others, there was a witness protection program. In addition, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—he will correct me if I am wrong—had sent a message to the Association of Chiefs of Police. He had introduced a bill to withdraw the $1,000 bill. If I recall correctly, it was in early 2000, 2001, 2002.

[Epilepsy, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, March is epilepsy awareness month. Epilepsy is a neurological disorder affecting 120,000 Quebeckers.

Epilepsy is not a disease but a symptom resulting from abnormal, involuntary electrical discharges in the brain, which cause seizures. Most people with epilepsy lead active and productive lives, thanks to medical advances. The greatest challenge that people with epilepsy face is being accepted by a society full of fear, myths and misconceptions about this disorder. Epilepsy does not shorten life span. Epilepsy does not cause brain damage. Epilepsy does not affect intelligence. Epilepsy is not contagious.

I invite everyone to wear a lavender ribbon during the month of March to raise community awareness about the needs of people living with epilepsy, including their need for respect.

[Wal-Mart, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada's January 17 news release is quite flattering toward Wal-Mart and invites people to consult Wal-Mart pharmacists for information on Health Canada's anti-smoking campaign.

Is the Minister of Health still proud of his association with Wal-Mart after what happened in Jonquière? Has the federal government become one of the associates of Wal-Mart, which thumbs its nose at Quebec labour law?

[Wal-Mart, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health negotiated an agreement with Wal-Mart to display anti-smoking pamphlets in all its stores.

Given the recent events in Jonquière in Saguenay, does the federal government not think it would be sending a far better message if it pulled its displays from Wal-Mart and negotiated just with other chain stores to distribute its anti-smoking programs?

[Gasoline Prices, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate instigated by the Bloc Québécois, which has, for a long time, had a keen interest in what is certainly one of the most important issues for consumers, namely, the price of gas. This is an important issue, not just for those who work, but also for the businesses that must use oil.

The members of the Bloc Québécois have repeatedly tried to make the government understand that not only are there risks of collusion within the industry, but also that there is a real disadvantage for the consumer. Who has not had the experience of going to the gas station at the beginning of the week, and, lo and behold, the price of gas per litre has gone up by 2, 3, 4, 5 or 10 cents?

I found it rather rich to hear our colleagues in the Conservative Party of Canada trying to be reassuring with respect to the behaviour of the industry, one of the most profitable industries, as we will show later.

Thus, my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, is bringing forward a motion that has two aims. Allow me to read the motion to make things clear for everybody.

That, in the opinion of theHouse, the government should take action with regard togasoline prices by: (a) setting up a petroleum monitoringagency responsible for preparing an annual report on all aspectsof the industry—

We are well aware that, in Canada, for example, the cost of drugs is controlled. So, when there is a situation of relative consumer dependency on one type of industrial sector, it is quite normal to consider that the state has a responsibility to monitor or even control the cost, the inflation price index, the price increase of a food product deemed essential to daily life.

The motion proposes to set up a petroleum monitoring agency, which would be separate from the Competition Tribunal and the Competition Bureau. We are not saying that this bureau is not doing a good job or that it is not useful. We are saying that it does not have the authority to force people to testify and to conduct independent investigations. So, it cannot monitor or divulge information, as the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou was saying . In this sense, the bureau cannot play the role of watchdog that we should be able to expect.

Let us examine the pharmaceutical industry, about which I have learned a thing or two in my role as health critic. The government has introduced the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which can oblige companies to testify. We are talking about big companies that perform research, the major innovative companies. The review board can issue orders that have the same weight as those issued by the Federal Court. It can even force the pharmaceutical industry to give back some of its profits when the revenues are deemed unjustified because of excessive prices.

I believe this was the example that the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou had in mind when he presented this motion in the House.

If we went to Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Moncton or any other major Canadian city, would hon. members agree that our fellow Canadians, irrespective of any kind of partisanship, are concerned by this collusion between the industries? When one increases its prices, everyone increases theirs at the same time. We are told that the review board could not conclude that there was indeed collusion. This is like some kind of vicious circle. It is circular reasoning.

Indeed, why was the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Commission not able to come to this conclusion? Because the Competition Bureau, whose mandate it is to set up the tribunal, does not have the resources needed to do so. The tribunal cannot force witnesses to testify; it does not have access to records; it cannot divulge data, which is why it was unable to come to this conclusion.

Let us stick, however, to common sense as we think of our constituents, with the week-end fast approaching. I remember the collusion that we witnessed, in Montreal for instance, before the construction holidays, in July. We saw the big oil companies raise their prices. This government has no backbone: while the law of silence reigns, it ignores the interests of the consumers and says, “No, there is no need for it, there is no need for concern.“ It is not really concerned about what happens to consumers.

Consumers are not the only ones who should be concerned. The status quo is not in the interest of big business either. I heard my colleague, who defeated our colleague, Mr. Bertrand, at his nomination meeting. He does not seem to be concerned about the situation. I invite him to be more vigilant because there is collusion. As consumers, we cannot allow the situation to continue.

Of course, governments collect taxes on gas. I have some numbers here. The federal government collects 10¢ per litre. The Quebec government can collect up to 15¢. There are regional differences. There are regions where the tax can reach 15¢. In some remote areas, such as the North Coast, the Lac Saint-Jean area, the Abitibi area, it can be 10¢. In certain border areas, the tax can be as high as 14¢. However, the root of the problem remains.

If we look at the profits recorded, we realize that Petro-Canada recorded an unbelievable increase in profits, so huge and exaggerated are they. They leapt upward by 564% in 2003, not 50 years ago, but two years ago. I repeat that Petro-Canada's profits increased by 564%, from $88 million to $584 million in the first quarter of 2003. We do not object to companies making profits, we are in a capitalistic regime. If companies make profits, it is because they take the risk of investing.

However, when a company declares a return on investment that translates into $584 million profits, we have good reason to ask questions. A few moments ago, we were told—and I am sure my colleague listened carefully—that 5¢ was a reasonable margin for refining. However, in some situations that were brought to our attention, profit margin at refining reached 21¢. Are we not right to think that that is not in the best interest of the consumer?

I am somewhat angry, in spite of my deeply calm and placid temper, when I see the Liberals and the Conservatives, the two great traditional parties, unite in a common front that goes against the interest of the consumer. I think that the Competition Bureau must be given somewhat more extensive powers. The commissioner must be able to do real investigative work.

We must not end up again in a situation where, on the eve of a long holiday, like the construction sector holiday in Quebec, the big oil corporations hike their retail prices—the gas liter had undergone a huge increase—and we are told in this House that there is no need for concern. Only obvious contempt for the consumer can lead the two major parties to express such irresponsible and uncaring views, that in no way serve the interest of the consumer.

[World Aquatics Championships, February 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after a saga drawn out over several weeks, one of the most prestigious events next to the Olympics, namely the World Aquatics Championships, is indeed going to be held in Montreal.

This is a major last-minute victory for Mayor Gérald Tremblay, who has been engaged in a huge battle to convince FINA to reconsider its decision and award the 11th aquatics championships to Montreal.

This is also a victory for all Montrealers and all Quebeckers. The City of Montreal has regained its reputation as an international venue.

It is also a significant victory for aquatics competitors, such as Alexandre Despatie, Philippe Comptois, Audrey Lacroix and Yannick Lupien, and all the other Quebec participants, who will now have the opportunity to compete before a home town crowd.

The Bloc Québécois salutes Mayor Tremblay for his dogged determination, and congratulates the City of Montreal. Let this also be our first opportunity to applaud our Quebec competitors as well as those who will be competing here for other countries.

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question of heading off topic. You know that I have always had enormous respect for such questions, but the rule about relevancy deserves to be respected at all times.

Our colleague had worked with us on the health subcommittee and reviewed the first Canadian Strategy on HIV/AIDS, around 1996. Our colleague is quite right in saying that this is catastrophic, a pandemic. This is not an epidemic. An epidemic becomes a pandemic when more than one continent is affected. I do not believe that, in the context of quarantines, obviously, we would quarantine carriers of this virus.

In terms of international cooperation, for which we are still seeking at least 1% of the GDP, efforts must continue. Our colleague's observations are quite astute.