Pauline Picard

[Supply, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to participate in this debate, as it deals with what will certainly be one of the most important issues in the next millennium. The Bloc Quebecois motion reads as follows:

That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to conduct a study of organized crime, to analyse the options available to Parliament to combat the activities of criminal groups and to report to the House no later than October 31, 2000.

This debate is all the more important that it affects me as an elected member of parliament representing a riding located in central Quebec, where drug dealers have used agricultural land to grow the illicit substance.

I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for his courage. In spite of death threats on him and his family, he chose to continue his crusade against what he calls a real scourge. It does take courage, but it was also his duty as member of parliament to protect the interests of his fellow citizens.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is the one who received death threats in this case, but other members of this House may also have received threats relating to their work, because they took their responsibilities and did their job as parliamentarians, as elected representatives of their fellow citizens. Now, they have become victims of violence. This is unacceptable.

As I mentioned earlier, in Quebec's central region and in the Montérégie, more than 50% of farmland is contaminated by the presence of cannabis producers who take advantage of corn crops to grow a very high quality product, which ranks among the best in the world. My colleague explained why it is important to act and to provide the necessary tools to police forces, in addition to strengthening our legislation.

I want to take a brief moment to urge the solicitor general, who is responsible for the RCMP, to keep regional RCMP offices open. There is a threat hovering over our regions. A study was conducted and a report was produced, which indicates that regional RCMP offices, whose staff has great expertise in dealing with organized crime locally, might be slated for closure and their staff relocated.

At present, everyone in the community, including municipal councils and chambers of commerce, is opposed to such a change. It just does not make sense. At a time when there is already a shortage of tools and resources to fight this scourge in our regions, the government lowers the boom by saying “We are closing your RCMP offices”.

Moreover, these officers are working in close co-operation with other police forces, such as the Sûreté du Québec or the municipal police forces. Municipal police officers insist that the RCMP officers, who have expertise in this area, have to be kept in our regions.

Parliament has to deal seriously with this issue and realize that organized crime is rampant in Canada and around the world. We have to ask ourselves whether enforcement of current measures is enough. In the light of everything we heard this morning, I think not. Current measures are not enough.

The Bloc Quebecois did an extensive study and sounded out several stakeholders, people responsible for enforcing current legislation. They are unanimous in saying that it is not enough.

The Canadian Police Association, in a release dated October 8, stated that “The dreadful reality is that organized crime has reached epidemic proportions and police forces feel frustrated because they lack the tools and resources to fight against it”.

I would like to recall here what the Parliament of Canada has done in terms of legislation. I feel it is important to mention it.

The Witness Protection Act now makes it possible for police to better protect people who co-operate to obtain evidence against criminal organizations.

As a result of the Criminal Law Improvement Act, police can more easily be involved in activities used as a front.

The anti-gang legislation, Bill C-95, which was enacted in April 1997, includes the definition of gang in the Criminal Code.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gives police the power to conduct controlled drug sale and delivery operations through undercover agents.

Despite all these legislative provisions, enforcement authorities seem to be unable to put a stop to criminal gang activities.

Drug trafficking is still the main source of revenue for most organized crime groups. Of all the activities related to organized crime, it is the illegal drug trade that has the worst consequences for Canada, given its social and economic effects and the violence that stems from it.

In studies that try to give a dollar figure for the cost of the illegal drug trade in Canada, this cost ranges from a conservative estimate of $1.4 billion a year to almost $4 billion a year for Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.

I would also like to mention the main difficulties encountered by enforcement authorities and crown prosecutors.

On top of limited budgets, police organizations complain about the inability of the justice system to support their efforts: sentences are often shorter than the length of the investigation; the infiltration of criminal organizations by enforcement officers, which is very difficult because belonging to such organizations entails having committed criminal acts; the difficulty of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused became rich by committing a series of specific and identifiable criminal acts, a difficulty that could be eliminated by a reversal of the onus of proof; in some cases, the difficulty in exchanges of information between police forces and various departments, such as Immigration Canada and Revenue Canada; the inadequacy of provisions for the protection of witnesses and jurors.

Finally, in light of this brief overview of organized crime in Canada, it is important to take stock of these instruments to see which could be improved or complemented by new legislative, administrative, or financial measures.

I conclude by appealing to all members of parliament to vote in favour of this motion by the Bloc Quebecois, so that we can finally put a stop to this scourge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I always congratulate him for his skills as a speaker, including his metaphors and his sense of humour in presenting his views on these issues.

First, investments in research and development are necessary, and researchers in hospitals and universities really want them.

In fact, a number of Quebec groups have applied for funds to the secretariat of the acting governing council for research institutes.

The Bloc Quebecois supports increased investment in research, including health research. As my colleague pointed out, 60% of all biomedical research in Canada is done through pharmaceutical companies located in Quebec.

It goes without saying that we are behind them, and we agree that they should get investments and funds from the government to bring their research to fruition.

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

So, on that note, I will conclude. Right now, Quebec is in the process of reducing its deficit, trying to stimulate employment, maintaining its health programs and educating its children.

Why does the federal government always try to make things difficult for us? Why does it invade our jurisdictions and try to take away all our powers?

We are in favour of establishing CIHRs, but we would like the government to restore now the money it stole from us in transfer payment cuts. If it has any money to put into health care, it should give it back to us so that we can fund our institutes ourselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise to speak to Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Following on the speech by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, our party's health critic—and I will take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent job he is doing—I would first of all like to revisit what he asked our Reform colleague just now. He asked him whether he admitted that this bill ought to have been introduced long ago and that there ought to have been more investment in medical research.

This is an area of the utmost importance. I now understand, seeing the government members' lack of interest in commenting on it, why the Canadian government has not rushed to invest more in medical research.

Speeches and debate coming from the government side have been lacklustre debate. A few government members spoke for form's sake. The ones doing the work are the opposition members. Is this due to lack of interest, lack of courage or a bit of cowardice? One might well ask.

I would like to give a little scenario in connection with the bill. Last February, the present Minister of Health announced that he would be injecting new money into the creation of what may be termed virtual institutes of research.

It must be understood that no infrastructures will be created. There will be a kind of networking, as is already being done in certain sectors in each of the provinces. For the medical research laboratories, there will be an attempt to create a network so that these people can speak to each other and co-ordinate their research, in order to enhance its effectiveness.

The main thrust of the bill we are looking at today is the outcome of recommendations made by an interim committee, comprising 34 members of the scientific and academic community. Hon. members who heard the speech by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve a few days back will recall that he listed the scientists and academics on that committee. These people have great reputations.

To simplify things, the Canadian institutes of health research will replace what used to be called the Medical Research Council. These institutes will have a broad research mandate. They will develop new approaches to research in biomedical matters and on issues more directly affecting the social sciences.

In his budget, the Minister of Finance announced that the government intended to double funding over three years for the health research institutes. Funding will amount to $500 million in 2001-02. That is not insignificant, and we applaud this budget increase. The research laboratories needed it. The institutes' permanent governing council is expected to be operational by April 1, 2000.

What we understand from this networking is that the institutes will deal with four major sectors of health research. They will focus their work on various types of research in four sectors specifically.

The first sector is the very important and vital field of biomedical research. At least 60% of the biomedical research in Canada is done by pharmaceutical companies in Quebec.

The second sector is clinical research. It too is very important. It also plays a basic role in the discovery of pharmaceuticals.

The third sector is that of health systems. Currently, all provincial governments are dealing with health care reforms. They have had to move toward ambulatory care. They are trying to see if their system is well organized to make it as effective and efficient as possible, and thus provide the public with the quality of care and services it deserves.

The fourth sector covers cultural society and population health. Research institutes will bring about a strategic repositioning in health research to solve major medical issues. Moreover, we will also have to invest in research on heredity, genetics and the human genome.

The House had the pleasure of listening to the speech by the hon. member for Jonquière, who is intensifying her efforts to have a genetic engineering research institute established in her riding. It would be a good thing if the government such research could be carried out in the riding of Jonquière.

In short, Bill C-13 seeks to formally establish the Canadian institutes of health research to organize, co-ordinate and fund health research at the federal level. It also repeals the Medical Research Council Act and defines the structure, role and mission of the institutes.

We support the bill as regards its purpose and the virtual establishment of such institutes. It is appropriate for the whole research network, all researchers and scientists to co-ordinate their efforts and talk to each other to truly ensure effective research, and we must also provide them with the most effective tools to enable them to carry out their research. We have no problems with that, and we agree with this way of repositioning medical research.

But we do have a problem with the preamble of the bill, because instead of recognizing the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over health care, the government merely recognizes the fact that they play some role in that area. Indeed, the second “Whereas” reads as follows:

Whereas Parliament recognizes the role of the provinces in health care and that the Government of Canada collaborates with provincial governments to support the health care system and health research;

But it should have indicated that it is the responsibility of the provinces to manage health care services within their territory and that their agreement is necessary when their jurisdiction is involved.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. It is the same old story. Health care is a provincial responsibility. Why is the federal government always bent on extending its tentacles and constantly eroding provincial jurisdiction?

Health care and education are provincial responsibilities. In Quebec, we are determined that we will never allow the Liberal government to interfere in our areas of responsibility.

If any money is to be invested in medical research, it must take the form of social transfer payments, so that we too can double our grants to researchers in our universities and medical research institutions. So—

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Could I please have the floor, Mr. Speaker?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know if the minister is taking part in this debate on research institutes or if he is still on questions and comments. I rose to speak when he finished his first question, but the member—

[Social Housing, November 22nd, 1999]

How can the government claim to want to fight poverty, considering that, since it took office in 1993, it has not invested one penny in the construction of new social housing units in Quebec? Is this acceptable behaviour on the part of a government that claims to care about poverty?

[Social Housing, November 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most effective ways to improve the plight of the poor is to build social housing units, because such a measure has a direct impact on poor families and significantly contributes to their quality of life.

How can the government claim to want to fight poverty, considering that, since it took—

[Karine Vanasse, November 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a young actress in my riding, Karine Vanasse, has just received the Bayard d'Or as the best actress in the Festival international du film francophone in Namur, Belgium, for her performance in Léa Pool's film Emporte-moi .

Karine is now working on another feature film, L'instant fatal by Céline Baril, and playing in the new TV series Les deux frères , while continuing to act in the program Les Débrouillards .

This young woman, who is also the official spokesperson for the magazine Filles d'aujourd'hui , is now seeing doors open for her in the United States and new upcoming projects.

Karine Vanasse's career is now taking off in keeping with her talent, and we cannot but wish her every success.

[Reproductive Technologies, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for amounts as high as $150,000, it is possible to obtain ova corresponding to certain very specific criteria, such as the appearance of donors, on the Internet in the United States.

Since the government has still not proposed any framework for the new reproductive technologies, such a situation could arise here. When, therefore, does the government intend to act?