Réal Ménard

[Extradition Act, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of this legislation, and in fact the bill itself, since, as it was mentioned, it updates a century old act. Who knows, Mr. Speaker, you might reach that age too.

Before getting into the thick of things, I would like, with your permission, to wish a happy 20th birthday to an employee of the House of Commons who works in the West Block, and who is at our service every day. That young person is Jude-Étienne Blanchette. I would ask the members of this House to join me in wishing him a happy birthday.

[Marriage Act, 1997, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, but I am also a bit surprised. First of all, we should not forget that the conditions of a valid marriage are not an issue this Parliament should be dealing with. We should not suggest that the federal Parliament has anything to do with this issue. That is why I do not think the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest is addressing a pressing issue.

The issue we should take a stand on and debate in this House is whether we believe that two men or two women can really love each other and live with a certain set of values I share. Citizens who are taxpayers and concerned members of their communities deserve some recognition on the part of the legislator.

But let us start at the beginning. We should take into consideration the fact that, in the next few weeks and months, various courts of law and administrative tribunals will render their decisions.

A minute ago, I was quite proud to hear the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest quoting from my remarks. He said: “The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve would like a debate in Parliament.” I agree. This debate should take place in Parliament. However, when I stated that position, I was speaking as the sponsor of a bill on the recognition of same sex couples.

Let anyone give me a reason why two men or two women who freely engage in a consensual union—which is what we are talking about here—and want to spend the rest of their life together could not have some kind of institutional recognition of their union.

For some, this institutional recognition will be marriage. For others, it will be a civil union contract. Throughout the world, dozens of countries allow two men or two women to have their commitment and their mutual obligations and responsibilities legally recognized.

From what I see in the gay community, marriage is certainly not what the majority wants and certainly not the most pressing issue. What I see in the gay community, which is my community, are people, two men or two women, who live together, who support each other and who match perfectly the definition of spouse.

In law, what are the three attributes that define the concept of spouse? I know there are distinguished lawyers in this House. There is one on my left and one on my right. I do not think I am mistaken when I say that, in law, the concept of spouse comprises three elements: cohabitation, common repute and, in certain cases, the presence of children.

If two men or two women not only choose to engage in a union, to support each other and to share their daily existence but also define themselves as such within their community, let anyone give me one good reason why these people should not be recognized as a couple.

Why should they be recognized as a couple? Because if we do not do it, we send two extremely negative messages to the public. First, we lead people to think that this type of commitment between two men or two women is less genuine, less noble, less worthy of respect that a commitment between a man and a woman, and this is not true.

If some people here have doubts about that, why not consider the Nesbit-Egan couple, in British Columbia, who have shared their lives for more than 40 years. They have all the characteristics of a loving couple, active in their community and deserving of their peers' respect.

There is a second reason for recognizing same sex relationships. I remind this House that this is the true issue that we will have to deal with because, in the next few months, courts of law as well as administrative tribunals will be asking legislators to amend legislation.

Two men living together are citizens and taxpayers as well as consumers of services. If, as a member of parliament, I live with someone for two, three or four years and that I die, I would like anyone to give one good reason why my partner should not be entitled to a survivor's pension? Why should my partner not be entitled, when he goes to employment insurance, to a moving allowance? Why should he not be able to benefit from a registered retiring savings plan? Why should my partner be exposed to discrimination in the area of immigration?

There are about 70 federal statutes giving a heterosexist definition of a spouse. I think we have the responsibility, as lawmakers, to ensure that we also have a homosexist view of the issue.

It is rather surprising to hear what the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest had to say. I do not question his good faith. However, I am surprised to hear that he is taking a strictly legalistic point of view.

I urge the hon. member, when he replies, to tell us if, yes or no, he recognizes that two men or two women can live together, be attracted to one another and enter freely into a relationship. Because this is what it is all about. When someone is gay, when someone is a homosexual, no one forces that person to get involved in a relationship. There are, of course, people who do not get involved in such a relationship, who do not fully live up to their true nature, because of social pressure.

Could the hon. member admit that it can be a great thing, a fulfilling and respectable thing for someone to live in a same sex relationship?

A law professor once told me that from a legal point of view, moral standards become outdated faster than anything else. As lawmakers, we cannot take a moral stance and say that something is good or something is wrong, that some people deserve our respect and others do not. As lawmakers, the issue we always have to keep sight of is discrimination.

There is discrimination when lawmakers refuse to grant a category of citizens rights another category of citizens enjoy. And that is what happens when we refuse, as members of parliament, to recognize same sex spouses.

The real issue we will have to debate in the coming weeks will not be marriage but the recognition of same sex spouses. I will personally introduce a private member's bill providing for recognition of same sex spouses.

I heard people say “If we attack the institution of marriage, if we refuse to believe that children must be raised by a man and a woman engaged in a strictly heterosexual relationship, we will undermine the institution of marriage, and not only will we undermine the institution of marriage, but we will, at the same time, undermine society”.

Can we recognize that there are many different kinds of relationships? The speech by the member for Scarborough Southwest was certainly a moving appeal—I am not questioning his good faith—for the traditional family as we know it.

However, the model the member is calling for, that is a man and a woman with children, is no longer the only and dominant model. There are many single parents who raise their children alone and who instil into them extremely respectable values. They are well adjusted and active in society and they deserve our respect as citizens.

I believe that the member for Scarborough Southwest is raising an outdated issue we should not be debating in the House, because marriage falls under provincial jurisdiction. I believe we must put an end to discrimination and, for federal members of Parliament, this means we must recognize same sex spouses.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

The hon. member tells me it is 21. Is that right?

It is that very quest for accuracy that means she always has the latest information available. What a wonderful team we are.

Let me hasten to add that 21 states have ratified the treaty. A number of these are developing countries. Others are so-called developed countries. I will list them quickly, so that members will know what we are talking about. They are: Jordan, Germany, Grenada—no pun intended, Spain, Brazil, Australia, France, the United Kingdom, Austria, Slovakia, Peru, Mongolia, Japan, Ecuador and the Fiji Islands.

We must speak plainly today for the benefit of those listening. This is truly an international movement. It is quite different from the situation in 1963 when the first partial test-ban treaty was signed, although that was important in its own way, make no mistake. Looking back, however, there is no denying that the 1963 treaty, with its much shorter list of signatories, was much more limited in scope than the treaty we are discussing might be. The same is true of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Today, as parliamentarians, we can be part of a movement that will be echoed in several other parliaments, in press releases and in communities, and that will send the clear message that we will not accept the use of nuclear arms as a means to express one's ideas or to participate in international politics. This is an extremely important step.

Mr. Speaker, as a person who has a great deal of experience and a wealth of knowledge—as confirmed by your grey hair—you will remember that about 30 years ago, when I was a university student—it was not that long ago, as I am barely into my 30s—as are our young pages, we talked about the balance of terror. That was a reality.

There were various schools of thought concerning the international situation, including the notion of flexible response and that of the balance of terror. At the time, this was a preconceived notion in the international community.

The Minister of Public Works will remember that. It was a preconceived notion about the possibility, for certain states, to own nuclear weapons and, ultimately, to use them. What pacifists like the hon. member for Laval East and myself feared was of course that these states would not spend so much money merely to stockpile nuclear weapons, without thinking of using them some day.

That is why we said it did not make sense not to have international controls, moratoriums and inspection systems.

The international inspection system is not the only major feature of the treaty that we, as parliamentarians, will help promote. There will be some 300 sites throughout the world that can detect, analyze and process all sophisticated systems and movements that may be linked to nuclear weapons.

Not only is this system going to exist—and I am told it will cost $6 to $7 million for Canada's 15 or so stations—but as well there will be the possibility, if one of the signatory countries commits a violation, for pressure to be brought to bear, so that other signatories can call for a system of inspection. If there is a refusal to co-operate, the case can be taken as far as the security council.

It is more or less in keeping with Montesquieu's principle of equilibrium that the international community will have the ability to pressure recalcitrant states and those who refuse to honour their signature.

Let us remember, and let us take pride in this and promote it: this is a treaty to prevent the use of nuclear testing as a provocative symbol of a nation's power. That is nothing to be sneezed at.

Now, we must be clear, this is not something that happens automatically. There are a number of mechanisms that must be adhered to for enforcement of the treaty. What we are discussing here is a multilateral approach involving a number of states. The treaty will come into effect 180 days after ratification by a certain number of states.

First, there is a reference to 44 designated states. It must be pointed out that Canada is one of these. It has been said already that 21 have signed, to be exact, with more to come. Canada and Quebec must play a persuasive and promotional role, and make their voices heard so as to encourage countries like Vietnam, the Ukraine, Turkey and Switzerland to follow suit.

Switzerland has long been a model of a peaceful country active in international relations. It had a hands-off policy while being present anywhere major events were taking place. Many in this place have much to learn from this. South Africa and many other countries also provided learning experiences.

This was the train of events. There are five nuclear powers and a number of nations that decided on their own, probably with a little pressure from the international community, not to join the nuclear club. France is a case in point. The French are our neighbours across the Atlantic; they are like-minded people. However, we must not forget that, until recently, France was involved in nuclear testing. It is refreshing, interesting and comforting to think that France, along with four other nuclear powers, has now agreed to sign the treaty.

I am thrilled to see that, as parliamentarians, we can contribute to a better world. This debate today is about the future, not the past. We can help build a better world knowing that, in a democracy, the best way to support or defeat an idea is to put forward a better one. This can only be done in a constitutional state, and through persuasion. Persuasion is this capacity to debate and exchange ideas in parliament and any other elected forum, where the power of words is what gives rise to policies.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty Implementation Act. Part of my great enthusiasm harks back to my youth, for when I was 18 or 19 I was very much involved in the peace movement.

From those years I have always retained my conviction that, if we must participate in international life—and heaven knows we must—we need to set ourselves the objective of using our powers of persuasion within major multilateral forums to convince others through the strength of our convictions, the strength of our arguments.

What does a bill like this one tell us? That we will not accept nuclear power as one of the means to maintain international order.

Rising above all partisan differences, it must be said that these ideas have support in Quebec, and in English Canada as well, we must acknowledge. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has reminded us in caucus on a number of occasions that Canada was a very early signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, as well as the Limited Test Ban Treaty of the early sixties. All this to indicate to you that these ideas are part of our political community, for which we should rejoice.

But where will an act and a treaty such as these lead us? We will have an opportunity to offer a bit of an explanation on the mechanisms. The act and the treaty are valuable as a model, for we are well aware that some states still have nuclear weapons today, and others are being tempted, spontaneously—or so one might think, anyway—and if there were no pressure from the international community, would conclude that there is some security in having nuclear arms, in continuing to do research and to increase the sophistication of prototypes. This is a threat to international peace, directly and indirectly.

One cannot, of course, avoid thinking of India, a place I have had the pleasure of visiting. One does not need to be long in India to realize that many other needs need to be addressed and other resources developed, rather than investing in nuclear weapons production or related technologies. Then, of course, there is Pakistan, and some other countries such as North Korea.

By becoming a party to this international treaty, Canada is making a commitment to contribute financially to its implementation, but also to assume three specific responsibilities which I want to mention, even though I am not as knowledgeable as the members of the parliamentary committee, who worked really hard on this issue. We should explain to those who are listening to us today that the signing of this treaty by Canada, as one of the 44 countries expected to sign it, means of course that we pledge to criminalize nuclear testing in Canada.

We also have an obligation to report any chemical explosion greater than 300 tonnes TNT-equivalent. Any breach of this obligation will be considered to be an indictable offence. Of course, anyone who causes a nuclear explosion, as well as that person's associates, will face a jail sentence.

It is interesting to see that this treaty will also provide us with more sophisticated means to detect what could be called a nuclear potential.

Canada will take part in a vast international monitoring system that will rely on a number of networks and on countries that will allocate resources to make it possible to not only monitor but also detect, locate and measure nuclear explosions.

One can see the preventive nature of this international monitoring system, which will use 321 monitoring stations. Canada will do its share, since about 15 of these stations will operate on its territory.

This is interesting, because an idea is turning into reality. This is cause for celebration for those of us who are involved in the peace movement. This bears repeating. Quebec has traditionally been very strongly in favour of denuclearization, in favour of making sure no one in the international community can use the nuclear threat for coercive purposes.

I remember being in Montreal—in my early twenties, which is in sharp contrast with members whose names I shall withhold—when the city was declared a nuclear free zone. I am very pleased with the fact that Montreal was one of the first cities in the world to make this kind of commitment, and I think we have every reason to be proud of that.

We are debating nuclear weapons today, but this is an opportunity to make connections with the whole military industry. As I recall, and my colleagues will also recall this, one of the first actions taken by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who is now the Premier of Quebec and will be for a long time—this is our strong belief, and I can see my colleague nodding in agreement, he being one of the finest minds of his generation, I might say without fear of exaggerating, and above all an extremely wise statesman—was to appoint me, the young member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, a dashing idealist, happy to be here while not losing sight of the need to defend the interests of Quebec, as the critic for conversion of the military industry to civilian uses.

It all hangs together. Today, 44 designated governments are being asked by the international community to ratify a treaty that will ban nuclear testing.

In broader terms, we must strive to ensure that the defence industry, which has great influence in certain governments, will quietly convert to the use of civilian technologies.

I have worked very hard, and not alone because you know how ineffectual we are on our own, but the Bloc Quebecois as a whole quickly understood that in one very modest way, aware of the more international stakes, we could change things in our own communities by putting pressure on nuclear arms and defence technology producers to convert.

It is important for us as members of parliament to make this a concern, because we know very well that in countries where governments could effect the sort of conversion I am talking about, it is not done without government help. For example, the United States is resolutely following this route, with the help of the government.

When you produce gunpowder, munitions or other items related to military technology, you need public support to effect such a conversion, to scout out new markets, to change production systems and to come up with a better use for civilian purposes.

It all hangs together. The issue of nuclear bans and control and the nuclear test ban are an extension of the campaign we in the Bloc Quebecois have waged in order to reduce the use of defence technologies.

I was saying three obligations would ensue from Canada's ratification of the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. I think it also has to be said that Canada, like Quebec, has a responsibility to encourage the designated countries to make a commitment quickly in their national parliaments to ratify this treaty, which must soon take effect.

It is not insignificant that some 20 states have already ratified this treaty.

[Montreal Convention Centre, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is asleep at the switch on this issue. I want to ask the real ministers from Montreal: Will they intervene to get Ottawa to do its part? Will the ministers from Montreal stand up and pay their share of the bill now?

[Montreal Convention Centre, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the secretary of state responsible for regional development.

The secretary of state is hiding behind the infrastructure program when it comes to explaining his failure to act on the Montreal Convention Centre issue. The fact is that priorities in terms of infrastructure were set by the Quebec Liberals in 1993 but, in 1997, only $20 million was allotted to such projects.

Will the secretary of state act on the consensus that exists in Montreal, where everyone wants the convention center to be expanded? Will Ottawa pay up, and pay up now?

[Chilean Refugees, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is directly responsible for the situation several Chilean families facing expulsion are now finding themselves in.

By waiving the visa requirement for Chilean nationals from January 1995 to June 1996, Ottawa attracted 3,595 Chileans.

My question is for the Minister of Immigration. Since she is personally responsible for the problems these people are now confronted to, will the minister grant the Comité de soutien des Chiliens its three requests: a moratorium on deportations, financial support for resettling and diplomatic follow-up—

[Chilean Refugees, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

While the Government of Quebec is examining the cases of Chilean refugees, the federal Minister of Immigration is sending them back to their country before Quebec has even finished its analysis.

Can the Minister show some compassion and humanity, and stay the deportations of the Chilean refugees until Quebec has finished looking at their files? Will she have a heart?

[Montreal Congress Centre, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the decision to expand the congress centre is a major decision for Montreal, and one that even Claude Ryan's Liberals supported.

Does the minister responsible for regional development realize that, because his government is denying financial support, the minister is jeopardizing some 14 regional, national and international conventions scheduled to be held in Montreal, thereby making Montreal grow poorer?

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go through you, if I may, to wake up the Minister of Human Resources Development, and to ask him whether he is going to get up and announce to us that he is going to ensure that the employment insurance fund is not going to be misused and if he is going to be the defender of the unemployed. Yes or no?