Réal Ménard

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague, but there have been indications that the government was dithering on this issue. I am glad the government is in favour of making the provisional Standing Orders permanent because it is in the best interest of all parties. I will trust my colleague.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely pertinent remarks, considering what is happening this morning in this House.

I know that the word “hypocrite” is not parliamentary, and I am certainly not going to use it, but I believe that the word “Pharisee” is.

Still, it is rather unbelievable to witness such a situation this morning. When the Conservatives were in opposition — remember that this took place in the post-Gomery period — they wanted Parliament to be more transparent, for parliamentarians to be more efficient, more accountable, and they wanted to enhance the role of every member. They wanted to put parliamentary business at the centre of this reform.

We know that members spend a great deal of time in committee. I remember when I was elected in 1993, the leader of the Bloc Québécois at the time, Lucien Bouchard, told us that question period was important and made it possible to exercise some control on the actions of the government, but that it was in committee work that a member reached his true worth. It was there that a member’s knowledge of an issue could be seen, it was there that in-depth examination was carried out and it was there that bills could be improved.

We were looking for a revision of the Standing Orders and the adoption of these new rules, which were one of the demands of the Conservatives. I recall even some aspects that were not contained in the new Standing Orders. For example, when they were in opposition, the Conservatives wanted all private members bills brought to a vote. They said that whenever there is a debate, reports or bills, there should be an exchange between parliamentarians.

What a government of Pharisees we have there! What hypocrisy; what a shame after the promise given for the government to back track! The current prime minister, who was then the leader of the opposition, had made demands for an amendment to the Speech from the Throne. All political parties, all the party leaders were agreed on a reform of the Standing Orders. Today, a government that receives 17% of the projected vote in Quebec, and almost 30% nationally, is acting like those traditional parties who lose the confidence and respect of our fellow Canadians. Why? Because they say one thing when they are in opposition and do the opposite when they are in government.

Thankfully, this is not a majority government and, God and the voters willing, it will never be. This is a government that is unable to follow through on promises. Members in this House may have differing convictions. We can lean toward the left or the right. We can believe in government intervention or have greater faith in private enterprise. We may have a different vision of the social contract by which we exist and interact. But, in a Parliament, you cannot behave in such a way as to do the opposite of what you said when in opposition. That is unacceptable and, once again, it goes to show that the Conservatives are an immature party, unable to govern the state respectfully.

Let us get into a bit more detail. What did the reformed Standing Orders provide? First was the matter of opposition days. Members know that, for each parliamentary calendar, opposition parties may submit to the table officer a list of topics of current interest for the consideration of the House, which will be votable. Understandably, the number of opposition days is proportionate to the respective number of seats of the various political parties.

This means that the official opposition has more opposition days than the Bloc, and the Bloc has more than the NDP. Opposition days are an important mechanism whereby political parties can draw attention to problems. For example, the Bloc Québécois had opposition days on the POWA, the lack of control over gasoline prices, the missile defence shield and lumber. When they were in opposition, the Conservatives maintained that all opposition day motions ought to be votable. Now, they want to backtrack on that. They do not want all opposition day motions to be votable.

Again, how can we expect Canadians and Quebeckers to respect this party when it is unable to follow a guideline, and its principles, sense of honour and commitment keep changing depending on which side of the House it is sitting? That is unacceptable.

Another aspect of the Standing Orders that was a major improvement, an operating procedure that was to the benefit of all parties, is this ability to convene parliamentary committees on shorter notice. Before the amended Standing Orders were adopted, we could not convene a parliamentary committee without giving 10 days’ notice, whether it was the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities or the Standing Committee on Finance. Parliamentary committees could be convened on 10 days’ notice. Now, if the request is signed by a certain number of permanent members, a parliamentary committee can be convened on five days’ notice. This is important, because even when the House is not sitting, parliamentary committees may have to make decisions.

When our colleague, the member for Joliette, was the Bloc Québécois international trade critic, he asked that the committee be convened in the middle of the summer because of the softwood lumber agreement. At the time when my colleague from Joliette asked that the committee be convened, the softwood lumber agreement was causing the forest industry some concern. As a result of the questions asked by the Bloc Québécois, the government was of course persuaded to improve the agreement. There are therefore times when parliamentary committees have to be convened.

I would note the excellent work done by my colleague the foreign affairs critic in the last few years, and wish her a prompt recovery; she should be back with us in the near future, or at least that is what we hope for her. Our colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île had to ask that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be convened because of the crisis taking place in the Middle East, the Lebanon crisis.

I do not understand this double talk, this holier than thou attitude, this hypocritical attitude, which makes people incapable of keeping their word and makes them say one thing when they are in opposition and another when they are in power. What point is there in having a minister responsible for democratic reform? What point is there in talking about recognizing the role of members of Parliament? How can we think that the public will respect their elected representatives if the government zigs and zags and is incapable of keeping its word?

What a disappointment! God and our fellow citizens willing this government will never get a majority. I am convinced that our fellow citizens will sit up and realize how unworthy this government is of being given another term.

[Divorce Act, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[Divorce Act, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this second hour of debate on the bill introduced by our colleague from Lethbridge, namely Bill C-252.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We are not planning to make a habit of it, but when sensible and balanced bills come along, we are always happy to cooperate, especially where private members' bills are concerned. A member can really show the full extent of his or her talent with legislation like that. In my caucus, I have always maintained that debate on private members' bills should not be limited to one hour; instead, two hours a day should be allocated to debating these bills. I think that would be one way to enhance the role of MPs.

That having been said, Bill C-252 deals with the Divorce Act. Members might remember that, for a long time, divorce was pretty unusual. There was even a time, long ago, when an application had to be made to the Senate or a private bill had to be introduced for a divorce to be granted. In time, divorce has become much more mainstream. In terms of division of powers, one could of course find it somewhat illogical that Quebec has jurisdiction over separation from bed and board and matters relating to civil law, but not divorce. In fact, every Quebec premier from Daniel Johnson to Jean Lesage, and from René Lévesque to Jean Charest has traditionally called for divorce to fall under the responsibility of the Government of Quebec, through its National Assembly. This way, we would have full and complete, integrated and consistent jurisdiction over family matters, even though divorce is admittedly something that is always painful for someone to go through.

What the bill introduced by our colleague from Lethbridge proposes is to amend section 16 of the Divorce Act, which provides for custody orders. Increasingly divorces take place by mutual agreement and the divorce process is not judicialized. There are nevertheless legal and administrative matters that require court intervention. The granting of custody is one of these matters.

Section 16 of the Divorce Act says that a court of competent jurisdiction—in Quebec, this is the Superior Court—may, on application by either or both spouses or any other person, make an order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody and access to, any or all children of the marriage. This is subsection 1 of section 16.

Subsection 2 also says that the court may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an interim order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all of the children of the marriage, pending determination of the application.

What is also important is that, in our divorce legislation, the issue of the children’s interests has always been extremely central. The wish is for the courts, when deciding on shared custody, access and visitation, to do so in the light of the child’s best interests.

There is extremely important jurisprudence defining what are the child’s interests with respect to his development, emotional stability, growth and education. That is why, contrary to what our fellow citizens think, custody of a child is never automatic. There is always a set of factors that must be assessed by the court. What is central are the child’s best interests.

A few years ago, this Parliament created a committee to review the whole issue of children. For the Bloc Québécois, it was the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher who sat on the committee. The committee again specified, confirmed and reconfirmed that the child’s interests, the child’s best interests with respect to his development, emotional stability, growth and education, must be central to the Divorce Act. Among the factors that a court of justice has to evaluate, this one must be paramount.

Subsection 16(10) of the Divorce Act states, and I believe it is worth quoting:

In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

We must therefore not assume that the courts will favour one parent over the other. It is established in our laws and set out in the legislation: we recognize that the child should maintain contact as much as possible with both parents, and that it is the responsibility of the parent who has primary custody to facilitate visiting with the other parent.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our colleague from Lethbridge on his new responsibilities, since he was elected chair of the sugar caucus. In fact, he and I both have refineries in our ridings. The sugar industry is extremely important and we see a threat on the horizon. The previous Liberal government wanted to negotiate an agreement with Central American countries to bring in even more sugar duty free. Obviously, that creates a problem in terms of competition, particularly concerning production costs for the large refineries in our regions. We will see if the current government also wants to pursue those negotiations.

So, the member for Lethbridge has new responsibilities and I would like to assure him that I will be at his side when the time comes to defend the sugar industry.

The hon. member for Lethbridge has proposed adding a subsection to section 16. This new provision, probably the result of representations made to him by some of his fellow citizens, would constitute subsection 16(11), and would read as follows:

Subject to subsection (8), in making an order under this section, the court shall ensure that a spouse who is terminally ill or in critical condition is granted access to a child of the marriage.

The hon. member for Lethbridge must have received representations from parents living with an incurable or debilitating disease or a degenerative disorder that was an obstacle in the evaluation of their custody rights by a judge or the Superior Court in Quebec’s case.

We all know that a person should not be deprived of access to a child of his marriage because of a health problem. To the contrary, this should be a facilitating consideration. The provision suggested by the hon. member for Lethbridge leads us to support this amendment.

The best interests of the child must still be the core of all legal decisions. That is in section 16 of the act. This is how the law has evolved.

We know very well, though, that it would be sad. It is already difficult enough to have health problems and this should not be a reason. So long as other conditions are present in the family environment, the health setbacks of the child’s father or mother should not be a reason to stop encouraging contact with this parent, a fruitful relationship that might be an end-of-life relationship for one of the parents.

We know the comfort a child can provide.

We are going to support this bill in principle. If the House so desires, it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This committee has quite a bit on its plate right now because the Conservative government has introduced seven bills with very different prospects. Most deserve to be voted down, but the Bloc Québécois will give this one a lot of consideration.

I wish the hon. member for Lethbridge the best of luck.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, part of this responsibility lies with the government, but if we had waited for this government to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it never would have happened. That is why the courts also have a responsibility.

I challenge the hon. member to add to the list of achievements he just gave by voting in favour of the motion by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. If he votes to restore the funding, the next time he rises in the House, in addition to the three achievements he just mentioned, there will be the reinstatement of the court challenges program. Every member in this House will be grateful to him.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Québec is right, and her remarks are especially relevant since she was in attendance at the summit of la Francophonie.

We know what the Prime Minister said in his speech at the summit of la Francophonie. But, beyond that, one has to recognize that it takes an awful lot of nerve to show up at the summit of la Francophonie with such a poor record in terms of protection of rights. I think that it is totally legitimate for the hon. member for Quebec to point out this incongruity which voters will remember come the next election.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, with whom I often chat at the gym, but I must state that, in my opinion, the comments he has just made are most unfortunate. First, when the day comes that Quebeckers decide to become sovereign, it will be as a result of a democratic movement advanced by a referendum.

Second, when the Bloc Québécois arrived in this House in 1993, Lucien Bouchard worked with the former member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis on the matter of francophones living outside of Quebec. We had proposed a sort of oversight body. Even René Lévesque had done so at the time of the St. Andrews initiatives. We proposed a parity structure. We would look at how francophone minorities outside Quebec are treated and you would look into how anglophones are treated in Quebec, anglophones who have the right to services in their language, from kindergarten to university.

We have never been ashamed of the way in which we have treated the founding minority of Quebec, that is the anglophone minority. The fact that we will become sovereign through a democratic process must not be interpreted in any way as an indication that we intend to abandon francophones outside Quebec. That is not the intention of the sovereignist movement, nor of the National Assembly, and I urge my colleague to validate and to verify the documents that we have presented on these issues since 1995. That was done by Mr. Bouchard through our heritage critic at the time, Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The civil marriage rights of same sex couples are now established in law. We voted on it in this House. They are part of the protections provided for in our key human rights documents. There have been court challenges, and we know how those turned out.

I take comfort in knowing that, should this government stoop so low as to introduce a motion to revisit the issue, we would quickly put this government in its place by defeating the motion. As I understand it, Bloc and NDP members agree, and I think our Liberal colleagues will too.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there will be far fewer ways for people to get help.

For example, the list of cuts includes the social development program that supported manpower adjustment programs and helped people with disabilities. I am not saying those people will no longer have a program, but I am saying that we have good reason to be worried. Once again, that was totally unjustified. We are not experiencing fiscal hard times. Even if we were, that would not justify weakening minority groups.

Recently, the President of the Treasury Board appeared on television, all smiles, signing a $15 billion cheque.

To add insult to injury, along with his $15 billion surplus announcement, the President of the Treasury Board announced $1.1 billion in cuts that will affect the most vulnerable. We will not forget that.

[Committees of the House, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier for presenting this motion, which follows the tabling of the eighth report. It is quite incredible. It is hard to fathom the government's intentions; basically, they are doing everything to target the most vulnerable, to weaken those who truly need the government's assistance.

It seems that Conservatives believe in social contract. However they believe in it when everything is going well, in times of prosperity when there is no need to rely on solidarity.

Who would have thought that a government could be so low, so irresponsible, so servile and petty—to use words that are parliamentary—as to abolish a program that calls for total spending of almost $3 million, because that is what it comes down to for the court challenges program?

I have been here since 1993 and one of the stupidest things I have heard in my life as a parliamentarian came out of the mouth of the Prime Minister. I truly could not believe my ears when he justified himself in answering a question from the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. The member asked why the government was abolishing the court challenges program, and what was the Prime Minister's response? In all his wisdom and enlightenment, the Prime Minister said that the government had no intention of introducing unconstitutional legislation.

Can you imagine the stupidity of such a statement, which is all the more worrisome coming from a head of state, a prime minister, a man who has major responsibilities when it comes to the value of equality?

Of course, governments never introduce unconstitutional legislation. When a submission is made to cabinet, the Minister of Justice must ensure that the content of the bill is compatible with various human rights mechanisms. In the Canadian example there is the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights, adopted in 1962, the year of my birth.

But that is not the substance of the debate. The substance of the debate is that certain rights are denied today. The law is in fact a changing thing. Our view of the law is subject to a certain evolution, for morals change. We no longer define indecency as it was defined in the 19th century.

Take the death penalty for example. It was partially abolished in Canada in 1977, and definitively in 1982. Ultimately, it can be called cruel and unusual punishment in light of the Canadian Charter.

So how can a head of state, in this instance the Prime Minister, say that his government does not intend to table unconstitutional legislation?

We will be returning to the Conservatives’ record on human rights. However, it is true that when a bill is tabled in this House, it has been evaluated by the Department of Justice.

Nonetheless, that is not what we are talking about. The court challenges program is primarily a means of verifying the scope of rights. Moreover, the fact that a right is not recognized by the Supreme Court in 2006 does not mean it will not be recognized in 2012. I have some examples.

First, we know that the Conservatives are not fond of homosexuals, not fond of people of the homosexual orientation: they have exercised a policy of institutionalized homophobia. I am not saying that individually they are homophobes.

I am not saying that. I will give some examples.

Since 1993, each time they have had the opportunity, the Conservatives, as a group, have voted against the rights of gays and lesbians. That is called institutionalized homophobia. I am not claiming that, as individuals, they are homophobes.

Imagine if the Bloc Québécois had voted nine times against the rights of aboriginal people. Imagine if the Bloc Québécois had voted nine times against the rights of women. Imagine if the Bloc Québécois had voted nine times against the rights of the cultural communities. Well, on nine occasions all of the Conservatives, with about five exceptions, none of whom unfortunately are current members of this House, voted that way. Those are the facts.

There was the first bill I tabled, on recognition of common-law spouses, which was supported by Mr. Lucien Bouchard and almost all of my caucus. This was in 1995. I remember that the vote on my bill was held on a Monday morning, and Alfonso Gagliano was the Liberal government whip. That was the only time in my life I voted on a Monday morning, and it was concerning my bill. Now, Sheila Copps was the only Liberal cabinet minister present at the time in this House. She represented the generous, humanist left wing of the Liberal Party. That Monday morning in 1995, however, other hon. members, 55 in all, supported that sole member of the Liberal cabinet present in the House.

So the Conservatives have voted against the rights of gay men and lesbians nine times. That is not insignificant.

In 1995, when the motion I had introduced regarding same-sex common-law partners was voted on, Allan Rock amended the Criminal Code to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in section 718.2.

This was referred to as a provision relating to violent crimes motivated by hate. In imposing a sentence, the judge may look to a number of provisions under which he may find that there is an aggravating circumstance.

In the second vote on Allan Rock’s bill, all of the Conservatives voted against it.

The same was true when former minister Anne McLellan introduced a bill dealing with recognition of same-sex common-law partners. Obviously she introduced a bill because she was well aware that the federal government had little hope of winning the foreseeable court challenges.

The Conservatives introduced a motion saying that homosexual unions were not real families.

They voted against Svend Robinson’s hate crimes bill.

In committee, they voted against an amendment I proposed relating to access to new reproductive technologies by lesbians.

Twice they voted against a motion relating to marriage introduced by the Conservatives, and against a bill relating to marriage introduced by the previous government.

And so on nine occasions, the Conservatives, as a parliamentary caucus, have voted against the rights of gay men and lesbians.

In 1995, a couple who had lived together for 40 years challenged the provisions of the law relating to the old age pension income supplement that is paid to people who have not reached the age of 60 or 65 years. They had been living together for 40 years, but one of them was not eligible because same-sex common-law couples were not recognized. At that point, the Supreme Court said that sexual orientation had to be added to section 15 of the Canadian Charter as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

There is an example of a case which allows the Supreme Court, whose responsibility it is to bring about progress in the law, to take an updated look at our important legislation and the management of public funds used to assist minority groups in challenging laws.

I will say it again, when the Prime Minister rose in this House to say that his government did not intend to introduce unconstitutional legislation, that was one of the stupidest things I have heard in this House. Of course the government does not introduce unconstitutional legislation. It is the courts that bring about progress in the law, in some circumstances.

I have cited the example of minority groups in terms of sex, but could we not say the same thing about minority groups in terms of language?

Once again, what is it about the court challenges program that the government is afraid of?

This is not the first time that this problem has arisen. Remember that this program was established in the 1970s. It is worth recalling that under Brian Mulroney, who was in fact more progressive than conservative, in their next to last year in power, the Conservatives wanted to abolish the court challenges program. In fact, they did not want to abolish it, they abolished it. It was only when the Liberals returned to power, in 1993, that the program was reinstated.

Obviously, there was great indignation over the elimination of the program. All the human rights activists made their opposition known. This is typical of the current government. It has no sympathy for the most vulnerable people. It is not sensitive to minorities. A government really needs to be low to slash literacy programs. It really needs to be low to attack the status of women.

I would agree if a government were to say that a part of its responsibilities is to periodically evaluate how effective programs are in light of their objectives. We are not against program reviews and evaluations. But this government cut the court challenges program because it thinks that minorities do not need government assistance.

Do they know how much it can cost to go to court? This is not a gratuitous criticism of lawyers; everyone has a right to earn a living. When a good lawyer wants to challenge some legislation and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, he has to write statements of argument and must be very well prepared in order to back up his challenge. The legal fees for all this can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Let me say parenthetically that two of my fellow citizens, Michael Hendrix and René Leboeuf, were the first to challenge the lack of equality when they were refused a civil marriage. They relied on the court challenges program because section 15 of the 1982 Canadian charter provides for equal treatment. What equal treatment means is not specified in the act. It is the courts that have defined what equal treatment is.

Does anyone think that we would have made the great legal strides in minority rights without the court challenges?

It is terrible to see what is happening now. It is terrible to see this lack of sensitivity on the government’s part.

Maybe we need to look into whether the court challenges program is well managed. Maybe it should not be administered by a non-profit agency. We are open to this kind of discussion. But that is not what the government wants to hear. The government says that this program is not needed because it will not introduce any unconstitutional legislation.

This government is extremely dangerous insofar as human rights are concerned. The Conservatives’ agenda is of deep concern to anyone who is a member of a minority, to anyone who believes deeply in equality, and to anyone who believes that minorities deserve to be helped to defend their rights.

I cannot name one person in their cabinet or even their caucus who is an advocate for minority rights. I believe that two Conservative members may be somewhat more sensitive to the issue. I cannot name them, but the parliamentary secretary to the senator who has not yet been elected has some sensitivity.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board is moving ahead, but has not yet fully matured in similar files. He is giving me a sign, and we will see how he votes when his government introduces a motion to revisit the issue of civil marriage for same sex couples. The member is nodding his head and gesturing. I would like to assume that he is concerned about minority groups, but I am curious to know how he will vote when the time comes. If memory serves, he is not among the short list of Conservative members who supported the bill introduced by the former Liberal justice minister concerning marriage rights.

It is a rather sad state of affairs when we begin bargaining with minority rights and when we hear that $1.1 billion has been cut, even though there is a budget surplus of $15 billion.

I saw the President of the Treasury Board on television, quite happy to be on camera to sign a $15 billion cheque. Meanwhile, our constituency offices had received the list of programs that were cut. Surprisingly, the programs cut were the programs that helped those less fortunate through literacy, housing and status of women.

Proof that this government in not interested in hearing public debate on human rights is that, in addition to cutting the court challenges program, it also abolished—yes, abolished—the Law Commission of Canada. True, the commission was known to question governments and to recognize, in its opinions, that the current state of rights may not be generous enough towards a certain minority group in our society. Nevertheless, a government that is proud of its minorities is one that gives them the tools they need to assert their rights.

I will close by stating that it is possible to support the court challenges program without necessarily supporting institutional bilingualism in Quebec. I hope that the member for Ottawa—Vanier will agree, although I doubt it. We all have an interest in helping the francophone community outside Quebec, for example, to become as dynamic as possible. In a minority language situation, one has to constantly fight for access to institutions. The governments did not just wake up one morning and decide to ask what they could do to improve the situation of minorities. It was the court challenges program that made it possible for linguistic minorities to gain access to educational institutions and to manage their own school boards. Just remember the fight that was waged on behalf of the Montfort, a French-language hospital.

Finally I would like to say that this government will pay dearly for its insensitivity towards minorities, no matter which ones. The Bloc Québécois, and the other opposition parties, will never condone this lack of sensitivity towards minorities. On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues and all the members of this house, I say shame on this government. One day its representatives will have to explain their gross neglect of minorities. We will never be a party to abolishing the court challenges program, a valuable program that defends human rights. And if this government has any sense of responsibility and honour, it will restore the budget of the court challenges program, which strongly supports human rights.