Pierre Paquette

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the member's analysis. I would like to remind the parliamentary secretary, who, unfortunately, is now leaving, that it is the first time that a government introduces such a bill in the House of Commons. Despite the fact that the equalization formula is renegotiated every five years, the government had never introduced such a bill. So there is something exceptional about it.

I would ask the member if, instead of simply being an insurance policy as the parliamentary secretary was saying, the bill before us is not primarily a tool that will allow the Liberals to adjourn the House as they please.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, especially his conclusion, which was extremely balanced.

In my view, he explained the Bloc Quebecois' position very well. Consequently, I would like to know if, in his view, the fact that this bill is being introduced at this time is not another illustration of the fact that we are currently living, albeit involuntarily, through a period of paralysis in the House of Commons and in this government, because of this unending transition between the current Prime Minister and the future prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in only one minute, I will obviously not be able to provide a comprehensive answer to the hon. member for Champlain.

However, I think he identified the real problem here. Quebec needs equalization within federalism as it exists because we have to get back part of the taxes we are paying Ottawa. We also need health and education transfers to carry out our responsibilities because, as I said earlier, part of our taxes goes to Ottawa.

If we were to get back all the taxes we pay, we would be in a position to manage services to the public much more efficiently than at present. We could avoid duplication and overlap in provincial jurisdictions and abolish all the various institutes and foundations the federal government has established to increase its visibility.

To conclude, let me give the House an example. In the last budget, the finance minister announced the creation of the Canadian Learning Institute, with an initial budget of $100 million. That is $100 million that is going to waste and that could have been used to better educate our children.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps there was a problem with the translation, but I never said that Ontario and Alberta do not like equalization. What I said was that Alberta and Ontario do not receive equalization payments. That is all I said. I did not in any way criticize the opinions of Ontarians or Albertans on equalization. Unfortunately, I am unable to say whether they like it or not. All I said was that they do not receive any.

However, in his comments, the hon. member implied that Albertans and Ontarians are footing the bill for equalization. It is the federal government that pays for equalization, not Alberta and Ontario. Of course, the Alberta and Ontario taxpayers are paying something, as are the taxpayers of Quebec and all the rest of Canada.

I also mentioned in my speech that it was a relatively small amount. For example, for this year, we expect to receive about $183 billion in tax dollars from the federal government, and equalization payments amount to $10 billion. It is not equalization that creates pressure on the federal treasury, any more than would an additional $3 billion if the tax base were such that all provinces, and not just five of them, were part of the new equalization formula.

I want to add one more thing on this subject. The federal government, which slashed transfer payments to the provinces a few years ago, has reinvested very little. It has, however, greatly inflated its bureaucracy.

For example, from 1999-2000 to 2002-04, federal departmental expenditures increased by 34% or one-third. This is not direct services to the public, just government operations. At the same time, program spending, or transfers to individuals, increased by barely 14.5%, which is three times lower.

The budget has been balanced on the backs of the unemployed and the provinces, bureaucracy has been inflated and there have been no improvement to programs such as employment insurance, old age pensions or the guaranteed income supplement. The hon. member for Champlain, who is here, can testify that many seniors are currently deprived of the guaranteed income supplement as a result of the federal government's laxity.

Therefore, program spending has increased at a rate three times slower. Barely 23% or less than one-fourth of the budget went to the CHST.

The problem is obvious. Clearly, for several years yet, equalization will be an important way to ensure equity among the provinces. However, the equalization formula is only one part of the solution needed to resolve the fiscal imbalance between the provinces, including Quebec, and the federal government. Quebec and the provinces have more and more responsibilities and, unfortunately, the money is accumulating in Ottawa, where the responsibilities are insignificant.

In closing, I want to say that if federal spending increases, the surplus in question could quickly disappear. That is why we want the future prime minister, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, to respect the commitment he just made, as well as his recent statements that he wants tighter controls on federal spending. We suggest a 3% annual increase in federal spending, more or less equal to inflation and population growth. He can find the necessary margin in existing budgets to satisfy the provinces' demands with regard to equalization.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill C-54, the purpose of which is to extend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

As mentioned by the previous speaker, this bill must be put in the current context, that of an extremely difficult transfer of power between the current PM and the future PM, the member for LaSalle—Émard. This bill is before us today only because the Liberal Party of Canada wants to retain the whole array of instruments needed to manage this difficult transition without having to come back to Parliament, so that it can close down the House whenever it sees fit.

As the Bloc Quebecois and its leader have said over and over again, we believe that this House must keep on sitting no matter how difficult this transition is, and that this bill is premature. There are still five months left before the current equalization payment formula expires. At their last meeting, on October 10, the provincial finance ministers and their federal counterpart said that they would do everything in their power to reach an agreement by March 31.

Why put forward a bill extending arrangements dating back to 1999 that are full of holes? These flaws have been condemned by every single province, in particlar by the current government of Quebec. They were also severely criticized by the Séguin commission on fiscal imbalance created by the premier of the day, Bernard Landry.

Why this bill now? Not because the provinces want to reach an agreement with the federal government. Not for lack of time to find a solution. It is because, for partisan reasons, the Liberal Party does not want to have its hands tied in the context of the difficult transition between the current PM and the future PM, the member for LaSalle—Émard.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois put forward a motion asking the current Prime Minister to relinquish power shortly after the Liberal Party convention to avoid this sort of situation, where a bill which is totally uncalled for at this time is being introduced prematurely.

Everybody will understand perfectly that the Bloc Quebecois does not disagree with the fact that, in the end, if negotiations between the provinces, Quebec and the federal government are not satisfactory, a bill can be introduced to extend the present agreement for a year in order complete the negotiations.

However, the presumption behind this bill is that there will be no agreement. We are making this presumption even though, on October 10, the provincial ministers of finance and their federal counterpart said that they would negotiate in good faith and hopefully would reach an agreement before March 31, 2004. Therefore, The presumption is that no agreement will be reached before that date, not for lack of good faith on everybody's part, but because, for a certain period, this government will not be able to conclude agreements with the provinces. This is because the one person who is really leading the government is not here to be held accountable, but is nonetheless pulling the strings.

We cannot approve that approach. We think that, with five months ahead of us to negotiate and the good will showed by all parties, an agreement can be reached, especially if the present Prime Minister bows out soon after the convention of the Liberal Party of Canada. It would appear that, at the Liberal caucus meeting yesterday, he sort of hinted that it was a possibility. However, we cannot approve the current paralysis by supporting the bill before us.

As I said, we hope to sit with the new PM, the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, during the winter session. We would like to be able to exert pressure on that leader and this government so that an agreement can be reached on a equalization formula that will be more equitable for the provinces.

At this stage, we cannot support Bill C-54 in its present form, not because we will not have to eventually renew the existing arrangements, but because this bill is premature. Supporting it would be like approving the present paralysis of this Parliament and co-operating with the Liberal Party of Canada and the government who want to find a way to suspend the sittings of the House until an eventual throne speech followed by an election.

The Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill on second reading. We hope to improve it so that we have all the leeway we need to reach an agreement before March 31 and submit to the House the new agreement on equalization we are hoping for. We will reserve our decision on the position we will take on third reading.

It is important to remind the House that equalization is a very important tool for the provinces and especially for Quebec. That cannot be denied. The situation we are in is extremely strange, with what we call the fiscal imbalance, in which 60% of Quebeckers' tax dollars end up in Ottawa. This money then has to be transferred back to Quebec and other provinces through programs like the Canadian Health and Social Transfer and the equalization formula, when it would be so simple to let the provinces, and Quebec in particular, have the tax base they need to carry out all their responsibilities.

Clearly, in these circumstances, we will have to improve the existing equalization formula, which distributes the tax burden equally among all the provinces. Ottawa spends about $10 or $11 billion annually on equalization, a relatively modest sum, I would say. Even if it appears to be a fairly large amount of money, it is only between 1 and 1.3% of the gross domestic product. While not a lot, it is nonetheless helping those provinces who do not have a large enough tax base to provide a number of services.

However, and this has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Drummond, among others, the current equalization formula is not satisfactory. Therefore, extending it in advance, immediately, presuming that there will be no agreement before March 31, simply condemns Quebec, for example, to lower revenues in the coming year than in the current year. That is quite abnormal in Quebec public finances, as we know.

Moreover, Quebec's is not a unique situation. At present, nine of the ten provinces, all but Alberta, are in financial trouble. Strangely enough, we are being told that the cumulative deficit of all the provinces for the coming year will be about $10 billion. In a way, if the $10 billion that goes through the federal government had gone directly into the provincial treasuries, we would have avoided this money-shuffling game.

That said, the rules being what they are, the equalization formula must be improved. As I was saying, the current formula means that the Government of Quebec will have less money next year than this year, and this at a time when Quebec's finance minister has announced a financial shortfall of nearly $3 billion. I remind the House that if the Government of Quebec does not want to tamper with health and education, there will only be an envelope of $9 billion in which to find that $3 billion. It is utterly impossible.

In the current situation, federal government transfer payments for health and education are inadequate, after the deep cuts we suffered during the war on inflation. Thus, neither transfer payments nor the current form of equalization can help the Government of Quebec fulfil its obligations in health and education. It has no choice. If it wants to balance the budget next year, the Government of Quebec will have to make come cuts in health and education. It cannot find $3 billion out of $9 billion—it cannot. It is impossible. The whole issue of fiscal imbalance is illustrated by this situation.

The current equalization payment is a significant transfer for all the provinces, except Ontario and Alberta. The equalization payment is a significant transfer for Quebec. The fact remains that a certain number of problems have been identified by the Séguin commission, the Government of Quebec, and the provinces.

For instance, there is the fact that the standard being used is based on the situation in five provinces, not all ten. The extremes are excluded, in other words, the Atlantic provinces because they are not wealthy enough, and Alberta because it is too wealthy.

This situation ends up penalizing Quebec, in particular, and other provinces as well. We agree with the provinces, the Government of Quebec and the Séguin commission that the new equalization formula should take into account the per capita fiscal capacity of all ten Canadian provinces, including Quebec, Alberta and the Atlantic provinces, as I mentioned.

The second problem identified by the Séguin commission, the Government of Quebec and all the provincial governments, concerns the equalization ceiling. In 1999, for the last formula that will expire in March 2004, the ceiling was arbitrarily set at $10 billion and indexed each year to nominal GDP.

The ceiling was fully applied only in 2000-01. This denied the provinces entitled to equalization a sum of $224 million. Knowing the provinces' situation with respect to public funding, it is safe to say that money would have been extremely helpful.

The way the cuts are distributed also disadvantages Quebec, because it is done in proportion to the entitlements of each province, and is not based on demographics. That said, when there are cuts to be made, Quebec assumes 62% of the cuts, yet we represent 24% to 25% of the population.

It is therefore extremely important to us that the ceiling on equalization be lifted to ensure there are no shortfalls to the provinces and Quebec.

Another element that is extremely important to the Séguin commission, the Government of Quebec and the provinces, is the tax base used to determine equalization entitlements. At present, these are poorly defined. We know that they are calculated based on 33 tax bases, including property tax. This is a serious problem for Quebec, since the federal government arbitrarily decided to measure fiscal capacity taking into account the income of owners, and not property value.

Common sense would dictate that, when looking at a tax base like property tax, one would look at the value of the property or buildings, and not the income of the owners who live in them. This anomaly results in Quebec's fiscal capacity being overestimated. Consequently, Quebec is being deprived of $800 million.

The gap between the fiscal capacity of the provinces and the average is currently 22%, while the gap based on property values is 35.5%. This too needs to be corrected.

As I indicated previously in a question, the provinces are asking, as the Séguin commission and the Government of Quebec did, that Ottawa make payments much more predictable. There are a number of statistics involved. In fact, some 3,000 figures are used to calculate equalization. It would need to be much more transparent. Also, whenever there are changes in these figures, these changes should not be applied to the current year or retroactively, but rather over a period of three to five years.

In practice, the federal government always ends up spreading the repayment or cut required over several years. But even then, only after strenuous negotiations. There is always blackmail involved on the part of the federal government, which starts off by saying, “You will have to pay”, but, under pressure from the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, the provinces and the public at large, eventually makes arrangements.

It would be better for everyone if the rules were clear and if the amended equalization amounts, based on a statistical variation, were spread over three to five years so that the provincial finance ministers, in their budgets, would not have to deal with unexpected clawbacks or changes to the transfer payment amounts under the formula. As I mentioned, all the provinces have reached consensus on these demands.

Under the formula proposed by the provinces, the fiscal capacity of all ten provinces, instead of five, would be taken into account. However, this would cost the federal government $3 billion.

Obviously, the Minister of Finance is saying that this is impossible. This week, to everyone's surprise, he announced a technical deficit, a new invention of the Department of Finance. This tactic has already been used to hide any surplus. First, as you will remember, a $3 billion contingency reserve was created. Since that did not do the trick, the current Minister of Finance invented a new category called economic prudence.

When he was asked in the House to explain the difference between the contingency reserve and a reserve for economic prudence, he could not, because there is none. That side is merely playing with numbers to avoid having to reveal the actual surplus and is hiding the true state of federal finances from the public, as well as the fact that the federal government is able to meet the provinces' demands, for example, that the fiscal capacity of all ten provinces, not five, be calculated.

I would remind hon. members that, for the fiscal year ending in March 2003, the Minister of Finance was talking about a $3 billion surplus just weeks ago. Three weeks later, oddly enough, the surplus had reached $7 billion. It is rather disquieting that the finance minister cannot estimate the amount of surplus at the same amount on two occasions only weeks apart. This is an error of 133%. Hon. members might say this is a trifle compared to last year, and they would be right. In 2001-02, the then finance minister, now member for LaSalle—Émard, and prime minister to be, was 493% off. So this year is somewhat of an improvement.

Oddly enough, the Bloc Quebecois, with its meagre means, is able year in and year out to predict the surplus within about 10%. In the past four years, we have never been more than 10% off.

So the Liberal government is employing a strategy to camouflage the true condition of public finances by underestimating the surplus—their past tactic was to underestimate the deficit, now they overestimate the surplus—in order to make the public think they do not have the money. But they do.

For example, for the coming year, the Minister of Finance tells us he is already in a technical deficit. This is something new he has come up with. His technical deficit means in fact that his surplus will not be as large as projected. Instead of three or four billion, it will be something less.

There will in all probability be a surplus. I am even convinced that it will be three or four billion. This surplus is, however, not called a surplus any more; now they call it a technical deficit. This is just smoke and mirrors. Fortunately, fewer and fewer people in Quebec and Canada are buying that story.

With our calculator and our very simple model, we did a rough estimation of what the surplus will be for the current year. We believe that the government will easily end up with a $6 billion to $7 billion surplus. This means that there is more than enough room to follow up on the provinces' request and increase the tax base so that equalization payments better reflect the actual fiscal capacity per capita of each province--and we are talking here about $3 billion--and to commit immediately to transferring the $2 billion provided for in the health agreement.

This is the $2 billion that has been used shamelessly for blackmail over the last few weeks. We know that the government will have enough money to address the provinces' concerns with regard to equalization payments and health transfers.

We have five months ahead of us. I am asking the federal government and the Minister of Finance to undertake negotiations in good faith, as requested by the provinces and by Quebec, to find a solution as quickly as possible. We have the money and we can do it.

If the future prime minister wants to take part in these negotiations, it is fine with me, but we do not want to hear about an extension of fiscal arrangements. We know full well that this will take away all the pressure to negotiate on the part of the federal government, and we will probably end up, in the spring of 2005, with another extension or with an arrangement that is not satisfactory.

If they negotiate in good faith, they can find a solution to this problem and, as I was saying at the beginning of my remarks, this is why we will be voting against this bill at second reading, hoping that we can amend it in committee to take into account all the elements that I just mentioned, and then be able to vote in favour of this principle at third reading.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, October 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has mentioned the consensus reached by the provinces on the proposal made by the Quebec government regarding amendments to the equalization formula. I would like to know if he agrees with the provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, that in the new equalization formula to be negotiated between the federal government and the provinces, which we would like to see settled before March 31, the provinces should be asking the federal government for more predictable payments.

We know that because of a number of different mechanisms, the payments often vary from one month to the other. The provinces have therefore asked that the impact of statistical changes be spread over a period of three to five years.

This being said, I would like him to tell me if he finds this acceptable.

[Criminal Code, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. It contains useful amendments to the Criminal Code. Moreover, those amendments are along the same lines as the suggestions the Bloc Quebecois has been making for a number of years regarding organized crime, in particular the new offence with regard to traps placed by organized crime to protect its illegal activities.

I think it is important to remind those who are listening that the bill not only proposes more serious offences with regard to an individual who places a trap that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person, but also contains provisions allowing the use of as much force as is reasonably necessary on board an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that would be likely to cause injury to the aircraft or to any person aboard.

The bill would also amend the provision dealing with the provision of information on oath in relation to weapons. It would also create an exemption to the offence of intercepting private communications in order to protect computer systems.

Bill C-32 would make other amendments to the Criminal Code. It would also amend the Financial Administration Act in order to authorize the federal government to take necessary measures to protect its computer systems. The bill would also amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Security of Information Act and the Criminal Code in order to make corrections which are basically technical but which are of interest nonetheless. In particular, the bill would make corrections in relation to equivalence between the two official language versions. You know how important it is—and I think you share this point of view—that the two languages be treated equally in federal institutions.

Therefore, this bill addresses several aspects. Clearly, for several of my colleagues—and I believe that the speech given earlier by my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, was rather eloquent in that regard—the new offence with regard to placing traps is somewhat symbolic, because it is in line with the amendments that we have asked for to fight organized crime.

Placing a trap is already an offence under section 247 of the Criminal Code. The proposed changes would make the provision more explicit and establish new offences. Currently, this section establishes a maximum five-year term of imprisonment for anyone who sets a trap with intent to cause death or bodily harm to persons, no matter where it might be.

This offence, with some minor changes, can still be found in Bill C-32. New offences are established. First, if a trap actually causes harm, there would be a 10-year sentence instead of the current 5-year sentence.

If a person sets a trap in a place used for a criminal purpose, the maximum sentence would be 10 years. If a trap set in a place used for a criminal purpose actually causes harm, the maximum sentence would then be 15 years.

Finally, if the trap causes death, wherever it is set, the maximum sentence would be life imprisonment.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot clearly explained how important this new provision is, especially when fields are used to grow marijuana or cannabis despite the efforts of both the public and the police. Such crops are taking over the land of farmers. They are a threat to the farmers, to their property and to their families. We have seen cases where a farmer realizes members of a criminal organization are growing cannabis in his fields. He faces a terrible dilemma: either keep silent to protect his family, which would make him an accomplice, or endanger his family, his life and his assets.

Sometimes, criminal organizations will leave a small envelope with money, so that the person will be indirectly guilty of being involved in this activity.

Consequently, a number of things must be done. The amendment concerning the placing of traps is one of them. However, as the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot was mentioning, some elements should be added. The Bloc Quebecois has already proposed these elements, particularly with regard to membership in a criminal organization, even in a so-called passive way, so charges may be laid against these people.

The other measure we are also calling for concerns the reversal of the burden of proof. I think the member explained it well earlier.

That being said, I would like to put this in the context of consistency. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned this earlier. In his region, citizens and stakeholders took action. Indeed, they created a committee to promote the Info-Crime line 1-800-711-1800, if memory serves. It is a little like 911. This time, it is 711.

People can anonymously report crimes that they witness. Police will do the work of gathering the evidence. At least, police forces will be tipped off. Often, this is also a way for a community to solve a problem. For example, a drug injection site in a neighbourhood can cause a whole lot of problems for families living in this neighbourhood, with regard to children's safety. It is not always easy for someone to call the police, to give one's name, to see the police car arrive at one's home, to see the officers get out and ring the door bell, while one's neighbour across the street has a drug injection site. Consequently, with this Info-Crime number, this can be done anonymously and confidentially. Then, police forces do their job and build the case.

In the region of Lanaudière, following what was done in Montérégie, particularly in the region of Saint-Hyacinthe, a committee promoting the Info-Crime line was also created. However, this has produced a number of results that are perhaps not as good as those the member has mentioned. Unfortunately, the number of fields taken over for marijuana production has certainly not been reduced by 80% in the region of Lanaudière, but it is obvious that this has had an effect.

I have a hard time understanding that while private citizens are tackling the problem, the federal government is letting the RCMP pull out. A report by RCMP internal management suggests that nine detachments out of 22 in Quebec be eliminated in order to concentrate the workforce in a few major cities.

In the Lanaudière area, for example, we have a detachment with four officers in Joliette. That is not a big detachment. On the RCMP website, we read that the Joliette detachment has 13 officers. I phoned, and I was surprised to learn from one the officers there that there are only four of them left. The tactic used by the federal government and the RCMP is rather simple. The officers are offered transfers to other regions. When they agree to a transfer, the position they are leaving behind is not filled. That is how the Joliette detachment, in the Lanaudière area, has been reduced to just four officers, when it should have 13.

Even those this detachment is too small, it does a crucial job backing up the municipal police in Joliette and elsewhere, and the Sûreté du Québec. The RCMP has the expertise to search premises and build cases, something other police forces are not in a position to do right now in the Lanaudière area.

Indeed, if the RCMP's administrative report is ever implemented by the Solicitor General in the Lanaudière area, it will be a disaster. If the area is looked after from Saint-Jérôme and Trois-Rivières, with no RCMP detachment locally, it will be a field day for those taking over farm land.

In this regard, the government is being inconsistent. Today, in Bill C-32, we are being presented with an initiative to protect the life of innocent people, but at the same time, the government is making decisions for reasons that make no sense, since the government is still raking in substantial surpluses.

This year, there is talk of a $7 billion surplus, which is more than double the $3 billion surplus that was announced.

It seems to me that, to be consistent, the government must ensure that the Joliette detachment and the other eight that could be closed not only maintain their personnel but have it brought up to the level where it should be. In our case, four is not enough. That number should be increased to 13.

The RCMP also does very important work with school boards to build files on drug dealers who use our schoolyards or the vicinity of our schools to approach kids who have just started high school or sometimes have not even finished grade school and transform them quickly into dealers themselves.

As you know, drugs are expensive. First they get the kids hooked on drugs. Then they tell them that if they start selling drugs in their school, they will make enough money not only to buy drugs for themselves, but also to buy some luxury items.

Without concerted action on the part of school boards, municipal police forces, the Sûreté du Québec and the RCMP, organized crime will make inroads into our schools. Also, as I mentioned, with regard to organized crime taking over farmland to cultivate marijuana, we will lose whatever gains had been made in the region of Lanaudière.

I would expect a minimum of consistency on the part of the government and more concrete assurances than what we have had these last few days. In a planted question asked by a Liberal member, the Solicitor General was not even able to give us the assurance that there would not be any follow-up to that report. All he said was that no decision had been made yet.

Fortunately there is an election coming. I think I can keep the detachment in Joliette at least until the election, and I will make it an election issue. In fact, I have launched a campaign directed at public sector decision-makers, including mayors, reeves, school principals and school board officials, to offer my support in order to keep the RCMP detachment in Joliette.

It is not that I want a federal presence in the Lanaudière area. But since we are paying too much in taxes to the federal government, we want our money's worth. As long as we pay taxes to the federal government, I expect to have the same services in the Lanaudière area as those provided elsewhere in Quebec and in Canada.

If the federal government were to decide that the RCMP presence is no longer required in the Lanaudière area and throughout Quebec, then the money should be transferred to us and I am sure the Sûreté du Québec, with an increase in staff, will be able to take over. However, as long as we keep paying taxes to Ottawa, as long as the people of Lanaudière keep paying taxes, we want to have access to the services paid for by our taxes, especially following any RCMP reorganization.

Now, the offences for placing traps are, as we have indicated several times, a step in the right direction, although we expected a lot more. As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot pointed out, we will see how the upcoming megatrials turn out, and the Bloc Quebecois will come up with appropriate enhancements to the Criminal Code.

Let me now turn to the use of force on board an aircraft.

Under the current Canadian legislation, the use of reasonable force on board an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence is permitted. It also explicitly recognizes that everyone on board any aircraft in Canadian airspace or on board any aircraft registered in Canada in flight outside Canadian airspace is justified in using reasonable force when he or she believes it is necessary.

The clauses introduced by the legislator in Bill C-32 do not create a new right since criminal law already recognizes an individual's right to use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime. However, as departmental representatives stated, the new provision makes this principle explicit and expands it.

We support the principle behind this provision for two reasons. First, we all remember the terrible attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001. This showed us how vulnerable we are to violence in an airplane. Obviously, a plane is an enclosed space. First, there is the cockpit, with the pilots and a set of extremely sensitive technical devices; a group of people is confined in this enclosed space. Therefore, we must ensure that passengers have all means at their disposal to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Even if there is a slim chance that this clause may help prevent an attack, the victims must not become the criminals. It is common sense to ensure that the Criminal Code protects those individuals using force to prevent a crime. Furthermore, we support the principle behind this amendment since it aims to fulfill Canada's obligations under the Tokyo convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft.

The Bloc Quebecois always believes that clauses under a multilateral framework must be respected. This is true of the Tokyo convention, but we have encouraged the government to ratify all major international conventions. There was the Kyoto protocol, the International Criminal Court, and more generally, foreign affairs policy. Canada has not yet signed, however, the Cartagena protocol on biosafety.

As you know, in the whole debate surrounding the U.S. military action in Iraq, the Bloc Quebecois argued in favour of multilateralism, especially through the UN. We are pleased that the pressure we, the people of Quebec in particular, and the people of Canada in general, brought to bear resulted in Canada not joining the American government in this unilateral action. Members will understand therefore that signing a convention like this one is definitely in keeping with the directions the Bloc Quebecois is developing at this level as well as others.

Other provisions deal with how peace officers should apply for a warrant to search for and seize weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, explosives, and related licences, authorizations or registration certificates out of concern for public safety.

For such a warrant to be issued, a peace officer must satisfy a justice that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person possesses these items and that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of this person or of any other person for this person to possess these items. As we know, in a decision rendered in July 2002, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the wording of section 117.04 of the Criminal Code violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section sets out the procedure for a peace officer to apply for this kind of warrant. The court approved the purpose of legislation, which is to prevent deaths and bodily harm, particularly in the context of family violence, but found that the section dealing with the application for a warrant did not afford sufficient protection to individual rights under the Charter.

The new wording of the section provides clarification. Members will understand that, while it considers that Quebec's Charter of Rights ought to have precedence over the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Bloc Quebecois nonetheless supports the principle of complying with the charters with respect to rights and freedoms.

Unfortunately, I have run out of time to address intrusion detection systems. Perhaps another time.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-32.

[Criminal Code, October 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the member that it is preferable to have a preventive rather than a repressive approach with regard to the use of marijuana.

One of the problems raised by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is the fact that organized crime takes over farm land and threatens the life of farmers and their families.

In the region of Lanaudière, small game hunters discovered marijuana plants that had been planted in fields belonging to farmers who had nothing to do with that but who were living in terror.

As for the idea of increasing the penalties for setting these types of traps that are often used by organized crime to protect its illegal crops, does the member think that this is something that could be useful not only in Quebec but in all of Canada?

[Criminal Code, October 29th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member, following his speech, if he thinks that the fact that the RCMP is presently looking at a report to reorganize its personnel geographically is consistent with this bill.

For example, in Quebec, we were told about the possible closure of nine detachments. There is an RCMP detachment in my riding of Joliette. We were told that it would be closed and that these RCMP members would be posted to Trois-Rivières and Saint-Jérôme to serve the whole territory of Lanaudière.

Does the member think that this kind of talk about closing RCMP detachments is consistent with the approach taken by the government in this bill?

[Criminal Code, October 29th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his testimony, because that is exactly what it was. I would like him to add to what he said since he mentioned in this speech that the people in his area have decided to take action. I would like him to tell us about the work that he himself and other stakeholders in his area have done and that has had an impact throughout Quebec.