André Bachand

[Chrysotile Asbestos, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today hundreds and hundreds of demonstrators are meeting in Quebec City to call on this government to take action and set an example in the safe use of chrysotile asbestos.

These men and women from Asbestos in my riding, and Thetford Mines in the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic are fighting for their survival and want their MPs to do something.

Here in Ottawa we should lead by example. This week's announcement about the removal of asbestos from the parliament buildings sends a very mixed message.

I am joining these men and women in order to raise parliament's awareness regarding the safe use of chrysotile asbestos, a natural product which is found in Canada and which saves lives.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when regulations are set by consensus, they have built-in mechanisms that come in handy when it is time to modernize these regulations. Any analogy is lame, I agree, but the five main principles of the Canada Health Act are pretty vague. Provinces can do almost anything they want as long as they maintain a minimum level of service. The problem with this legislation is that it is not reviewed on a regular basis.

As far as public health is concerned, we should have shared national standards. Of course, these would be implemented by the provinces, which would be done again by consensus or under an agreement with the federal government. Jurisdictions clearly have to be respected.

The constitution is very clear on this issue: court challenges are always possible. Quebec has not gone much to the supreme court recently to get an opinion on a constitutional matter. Still, all the provinces and even the federal government have the power to do so.

So, I do not think it is really a problem. Maybe we just need to change the players on the other side. If we all agree to work together, I believe that we can get the people opposite untwist their knickers, so to speak.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Jurisdictions are part of our everyday life in government. They must be respected.

That being said, a jurisdiction shared by everyone is called leadership. We are saying that it is not because there is a jurisdictional problem that the federal government does not have a unifying role to play.

This morning, our leader, the member for Calgary-Centre, said that this was what co-operative federalism was all about. The fact that there is a problem in a jurisdiction does not mean that I will not help it. One does not leave someone to rot because one is not supposed to be on his sidewalk. One gives him a hand, while respecting jurisdictions.

We are saying that it is not a case of setting norms or standards, call them whatever, and then imposing them on the provinces. That is not what this is about. There must be consensus with our partners. Once this has been obtained and created, then yes, a national standard can be drawn up.

As for the issue of drinking water, there is no getting away from it. It is a matter of life and, unfortunately these days, a matter of death. The federal government must play a unifying role, all the while respecting jurisdictions. For us in the Progressive Conservative Party, respect for the provinces is probably the most important, because it also involves respect for the regions and the people who live there.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris. I know that you are a personal admirer of the member for Brandon—Souris. I am sure that you will wait for the end of my speech in order to hear what he has to say.

Today, we are talking about drinking water, because problems exist. Water is primordial. It is life. Except that now it can also mean death or illness. It is something we must therefore talk about.

I had the opportunity in an earlier life to be the mayor of a municipality and the reeve of an RCM for 11 years. As such, I had to deal with two water contamination problems.

Between you and me, we were not prepared. The first time, the problem involved ammoniacal nitrogen, and I will not give a course on chemistry. What is ammoniacal nitrogen? It is a mixture of dead leaves, detritus and fecal coliforms from both animals and humans which completely unbalances the filtration system.

The basic filtration system in a small or medium size municipality is not complicated. Water is drawn from a river or a well, and sodium hydroxide, alum and chlorine are added. That is it.

When things are out of balance, they increase the chlorine to kill the bugs. However chorine cannot kill all the bugs in the water. So some people got gastro-enteritis but, thank God, nothing more serious.

A few years later, another problem arose. This one was due to a spill: liquid manure got into our main reservoir and, once again, threw everything out of kilter. Again, we had problems with the public. Following theses disasters, there were a number of them throughout the country, people changed their way of doing things. They evolved. They adapted. They created new regulations, new laws, except that they were not uniform.

In Quebec, for instance, the regulations are not applied the same by all municipalities. Why? Because they do not all have the same means. The government of Quebec has probably been one of the most active governments, producing new regulations and new statutes, although there has been a bit of a delay because of the applicability of this legislation.

The municipalities are told “This is what you have to do”. However they lack the expertise and means the major urban centres have. Some provinces are not as advanced as others. The comment is often made to the federal government “What are you doing messing about with drinking water? That is a provincial jurisdiction”.

People's health is not provincial, not federal, not municipal, not the responsibility of a school board. When there is a public health problem, we as elected representatives have a duty to assume our responsibilities and to do something. This does not mean overstepping jurisdictional rights. If people are not putting the interests of those they represent foremost, it is the role of this parliament to let them know and to take the appropriate steps.

If a province is in line, that is fine. Debates may, however, be raised at some point. Provinces are starting to set up commissions. Quebec, for instance, held a symposium on water a few years ago. It even declared a moratorium on all water bottling plants in Quebec. Major commissions of inquiry are cropping up in the various provinces. If there are a few fatalities, a few cases of illness, a commission is struck. There is no uniformity, and the information is not even shared.

What we are saying is that the federal government must be in a position to bring together all partners in order to put criteria in place, standards for across Canada. There is nothing dangerous about a standard for all of Canada. It will be a minimum, one that will need adjustment, of course. It is not good for 30 years; adjustments will need to be made within a certain timeframe. This is an evolving situation, and so standards will have to be adjusted as we go along in order to keep our water drinkable.

The greatest reserve of drinking water is in Canada. People drinking Canadian water have been dying. Although the situation does not really lend itself to such a comparison, if we were the top beef producer in the world and people were dying from eating beef, a whole industry would be at risk.

What do people do when there are problems with their drinking water? Instead of putting pressure on all levels of government, including the federal and provincial governments, they walk over to the convenience store and buy bottled water, because they have no choice. This does not solve the drinking water problem in Canada.

What we are saying is that time has come for the federal government to assume its responsibilities. We are not necessarily talking about a bill like those that used to specify which screw, hose or pipe to use. We are not talking about hardware; we are talking about global issues.

We must ask our partners in confederation to assess the situation and to take action. This is a public health issue.

I am telling my colleagues from Quebec “Do not be afraid, this is not a Liberal motion”. I know that the Liberals are in office. I know it is disturbing and tiring. It is upsetting to see the government introduce bills. It is always messing around with the grey areas, in terms of jurisdiction. However this is a motion from a political party that is respected by the regions and provinces. We need help to push the government in the right direction.

This motion does not jeopardize the jurisdictions of the provinces. If they want to do the job, let them do it. Are we not part of a country? The federal government has a role to play. It must contact its partners, so that they can find solutions together.

Do not start a war, do not start fighting over provincial jurisdictions. We know all about that. In any case, the supreme court is there, should the federal government get involved in provincial jurisdictions. Under the constitution, an appeal is possible. The problem is that there are some grey areas in the constitution.

We are saying that people must get together. Drinking water is under provincial jurisdiction, but its export is a federal matter. In this House alone, is there a minister responsible for water in general? Is there one? No. Five or six ministers at least are involved: the ministers of health, public works, intergovernmental affairs, the environment, fisheries and oceans, and so on. Everyone has a say on water issues, and more specifically, on drinking water.

My provincial colleagues, including those from Quebec, should not be afraid to support such a motion. They should tell themselves one thing, which comes from the civil code of Quebec, and that is, we have to act reasonably, according to the spirit of the civil code. If we act reasonably, we can avoid many problems when they arise.

We invite the members to set a course, to look in partnership at the best solutions and standards. Standards change. If there is ever a problem, we in the Progressive Conservative Party cannot be accused of doing nothing.

This is only a motion, and we are an opposition party. This is why we hope that both the government and the opposition will work together to ensure respect for jurisdictions. It is time to stop getting our knickers in a twist. I know it is difficult with the government opposite. We must stop and recognize that there is a real problem. If one province does its job, so much the better. If there is one that does not, or if public health is at risk, no one better come to me saying it is a jurisdictional issue. It is an issue of accountability, and that starts here in parliament.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when the solicitor general is asked to take action in some matters, he answers “I cannot interfere with the work carried out by police officers. I cannot interfere like that. It is only normal and fair that I respect this line between my role as a legislator and the work done by the police”.

We are told there is a process to follow, that the minister is not involved, that he does not really know what is happening and that he cannot interfere. But now, he wants to stick his nose in, with this bill, one of our toughest pieces of legislation, which goes after organized crime. With all due respect, I am not sure he has the capacity to do so and, furthermore, generally speaking, politicians have no business getting involved in this.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Montcalm who, as has again been demonstrated, is very knowledgeable on this issue, much more so than I am.

The provisions regarding mere memberships in a criminal organization raise the whole issue of proof. They raise the whole issue of the charter. A balance must be struck. Unfortunately, I will be unable to answer the member's question as clearly as he would like, as I am not really knowledgeable about the whole issue and the workings of the bill.

Once again, mere membership only shows an intention and I would like to raise a few questions: proof, the charter, the presumption of innocence. It is a right. People are considered innocent until found guilty, with the exception of income tax and employment insurance. In the justice system, one is innocent until found guilty. In the case of income tax and employment insurance, people are first considered guilty and it is up to them to prove that they are innocent.

However, as far as the provisions regarding mere membership are concerned, I would say that it is one where the whole case law would have to be considered, and the member for Berthier-Montcalm knows much better than I do the difficulty in proving and maybe the possibility to make mistakes.

Then again, Bill C-24 solves many problems concerning definitions and numbers. But will maintaining provisions on the simple fact of being a member not bring back the whole problem of a clear and easily applicable definition? It is something we must keep working on and I certainly hope that all members, including my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, will keep on doing so in committee.

[Criminal Code, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, on a most important issue: Bill C-24 on organized crime.

Before I start, I also wish to recognize the work done by my colleague, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, to inform and educate the caucus about the whole situation concerning this bill and the application of various pieces of legislation on organized crime.

I also wish to recognize the work of the member for Berthier—Montcalm who, for several years, has urged the House, effectively I must say, to raise awareness among elected representatives of the whole issue of organized crime, which, admittedly, has been highly and overly publicized in Quebec. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois has done an excellent job on this issue. During the election, it was the highlight of its platform. This did not translate into more seats, fortunately. But the issue is still important.

I am not a lawyer. Some will say this is good. However, when it comes to organized crime, not being a lawyer, I do not fully understand all the intricacies of this bill. Let us look at the issue in its broader context.

The first time I ever heard the term organized crime—and you will also remember this, Mr. Speaker, since we are about the same age—was during the hearings of the CIOC, the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime. It was in the early 1970s and, for one of the first times, the television stations were on the air for long periods of time broadcasting not the full hearings, but enough so that we could follow what was happening on a daily basis.

On this commission, which generated a lot of changes, sat eminent lawyers, including two who later had political careers at the federal level and another one who left the provincial political arena not too long ago. That just goes to show that it was an important commission that raised awareness about what was called at the time the “mafia” or the “mob”. What we learned from these hearings was absolutely incredible and the governments reacted. The legislation was overhauled.

At the time, we were not necessarily talking about the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machines. We were talking about the Italian mafia, street gangs and American mobsters. The Russian and the Chinese mafia were more or less active, but still an important issue was addressed. A lot of people ended up in jail. Public awareness was raised and both the police and the government acted. A few more mafia figures and mobsters were thrown in jail. That created a vacuum, which was quickly filled.

What we have to realize is that legislation like Bill C-24 will not, by and of itself, solve the whole problem of organized crime. A mere $200 million over five years will not solve the issue. Organized crime is changing.

What happened at the time is that small biker gangs in Quebec began to get together and fill the vacuum. There was a biker gang in just about every town that had a population of a few thousand people. But these gangs moved on to bigger things. They learned the ropes and they got organized, to fill the vacuum and work with the various figures in the mafia and the mobs.

The expression organized crime implies that criminals know how to get organized. This means that we must be smarter—when I say we, I am thinking of the legislators, but also of the law enforcement bodies, of the people involved in the enforcement of these laws and of the members of our justice system, including lawyers, attorneys and judges—and get organized.

An act was passed in 1997, but we quickly found out that it was flawed. During these months and years, organized crime got organized. But the federal government kept waiting, even though it knew there were problems with the 1997 act, which is the most recent one. Now, Bill C-24 will correct some of these flaws.

We on this side of the House realized one thing: the government does not have any vision when it comes to fighting organized crime. The Prime Minister once said “Personally, I do not care about vision and programs. Bring me a problem and I will solve it”. He was recognizing the fact that he lacked vision.

In the case of the Minister of Justice, the problem is glaring. People are shooting and killing each other, innocent victims are getting hurt, but she will not move. There is a consensus in the legal community and among police forces that the minister is not taking action. We had an election campaign but she still was not moving.

Finally, the minister woke up and, at last, she came up with a bill. Thank goodness.

But again, let us not fool ourselves. This is not a perfect piece of legislation. We will give it our support because it is truly a step in the right direction to correct deficiencies. However, because crime gets organised, parliament must also get organized in the next five years to monitor decisions, the jurisprudence, and listen to those in charge of implementing the legislation, the difficulty of the proof, while complying with our Charter.

We opposed the use the notwithstanding clause, as requested by Quebec. We thought it would be excessive, given the judicial and legislative process that the House could use. But we must get organized, and we are able to do so.

The great thing about this legislation is that it will simplify things. We will have to see what happens. Since a judge convicted a number of people under the 1997 legislation—there was a big gang of people indicted under that legislation awaiting trial—many have admitted their guilt. Why? Because they will get sentences which, without being reduced, will be in keeping with the spirit of the act.

So, since the judgement convicting people under the 1997 legislation, dozens and dozens of accused people awaiting trial have recognized their guilt. We are happy with that, because this will save months in detention and loads of money. These people might get away with lighter sentences. Not making out a case restricts the amount of information made available, and there are fewer informers.

This is why it is extremely important that Bill C-24 be passed properly and quickly. Hopefully, the government will listen to what opposition members—whether the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the member for Berthier—Montcalm or some other members of the NDP or the Alliance—have to say. Anything that comes from the opposition is not necessarily bad but, between you and me, things that come from the government are not necessarily good either. There is a middle ground, however.

I hope that the good work of members in support of the government—because members are legislators; we are not here to complain for the sake of complaining, but to legislate—will be taken into consideration and that the minister will listen.

We wish that this bill will be effective. I am not sure that $200 million over five years will be enough. Where does this figure come from? How did the minister come up with $200 million? Was it just because it sounded nice?

I will, if I may, look at the costs before, during, and after the Quebec summit. How much is $200 million? The security costs for two Quebec summits and perhaps one APEC meeting add up to about $200 million. Where did the minister pull out that figure? This budget should be revised annually. We cannot say “Here is $200 million. That is it; now forget about us”. The minister thinks that with $200 million over five years everything will be fine. Is that it?

I want to thank the House for its attention and reiterate the basic principle: if criminals get organized, we must keep one step ahead of them.

[Health, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if parliament is mature enough to study the impact of bulk water exports, should it not be mature enough to study health care? The problems within the system are well known. Elected representatives know what is at stake.

They have a vision of what could be done. They talk to people. They meet people. Why on earth by creating this commission is the government making official its immobility for at least 18 months?

[Health, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after three years of study and $12 million in spending, the national forum on health submitted its exhaustive report to the Prime Minister.

Most of the provinces have done studies or established commissions on the health care system. The other House is working on this very issue. Despite all, the government is setting up a commission of inquiry. Why?

Why not ask the members of this parliament to study this and draft policies, as they already know all the ins and outs of the problem?

[Alcoholic Beverage Labelling, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I too, will be brief. The quality of the speeches made by the previous speakers was such that I could even refrain from taking part in this debate.

First, I think the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the member for Mississauga South deserve to be congratulated for the interest they have been showing in this issue for several years. Some nine or ten years ago, a committee presented a report on fetal alcohol syndrome. Recommendation no. 5 dealt with labelling.

Other measures were also recommended at that time. Some were implemented only a few months ago or a few years ago. We know the government is slow and this is why opposition parties have to push a little.

Thank God something else was done. The government helped to some extent, but it must be noted that the industry, as a result of that report or other reports, realized the importance of awareness and education campaigns and started to do something about it.

We saw brewers and winemakers, state monopolies such as the SAQ in Quebec, take a portion of their revenues, a small one of course, to educate people on the effects of alcohol. An effort to increase awareness has been made over the last few years by the provincial governments, which control their liquor boards, by the federal government and by the industry. However, there remains an issue that is pretty important: labelling.

Of course, we should not get into a labelling frenzy and get to the point where a bottle of beer or a bottle of wine carries several warnings. Too many warnings kill the message.

However, there is nothing better than to start at the beginning. If someone is aware of fetal alcohol syndrome, that person might also be aware of the global impacts of alcohol for the rest of his or her life. If a woman is not too familiar with the consequences that alcohol can have on her unborn child, with a good education program and adequate warning labels, other people will let her know.

Of course, when we see a label we do not pay too much attention to it, but when we see a pregnant woman close to us we tend to say “Be careful”. I have the chance to have a little boy, my angel. I never even thought of offering a glass of wine to my wife when she was pregnant. If she had taken one glass of wine, the baby would not have suffered from the syndrome. That is not the point, but at least there is an awareness. If everybody was more aware of all this, we would hear less comments like “Come on, just one little glass will do no harm”. But sometimes we do not know the effects that alcohol can have on a person. There again, we should not panic. The baby will not develop the syndrome with just one glass. All this is a matter of awareness.

This is why we are wondering what consequences the labelling done in the United States will have, as we said earlier. Of course the industry is worried. This is normal. When we see other legislative follies, I think the industry is right to be alarmed.

That said, the industry's current labelling practices for exports might well apply domestically as well. What finer message to send to the public than to tell them that parliamentarians, in a motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, are going to force the government, in a manner of speaking, to take them into consideration. We will have to cross our fingers and hope that the motion will acquire a “C” instead of its present “M” and that it will lead to a real bill the House will be able to consider very quickly.

I will stop here. I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for her initiative. Speaking of the New Democratic Party, I often treat the opposition parties well, but the NDP has been—and we see this evening once again—a sort of social conscience for the country. We are very glad of its existence.