Réal Ménard

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I feel that we must beef up clause 29 of the bill and define what we expect in the way of reasonable changes.

I think we have to beef up this bill. In conclusion, I repeat, we need to give the Canadian Transportation Agency more muscle.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, since I have a railroad yard in my riding. It is not surprising, since Montreal was one of the first industrialized cities.

Allow me first to take a couple of minutes, since this is my first speech in the House since our return. First, I want to wish all my colleagues a good return to Parliament and a warm welcome to the pages working with us.

I have sat in this House for 13 years now—less than you, Mr. Speaker—and I believe this is the first time we have had pages who are twins. They are Alain and Joël Dupuis. One is studying management and the other communications and political science. Their parents are Diane and Régent Dupuis from Sudbury.

I thought this was worth mentioning. We have twins in the House of Commons working on the floor at the same time. I am a twin and I thought it worth mentioning. I would like to give them a warm round of applause and I ask all my colleagues to join in. That being said, Alain is here and he would be pleased. Now back to the matter at hand.

I greatly enjoyed the speech made by the Bloc Québécois whip. He was quite eloquent when he spoke of the trade-off between economic imperatives and the reasons we are here in Parliament. Our first loyalty is to the quality of life of our constituents.

Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is in eastern Montreal and is a former working-class area. It is therefore not surprising that a railroad was set up there at the end of the 19th century. It was established in relation to the first industrialization.

Industrialization began in my neighbourhood. St. Lawrence Sugar, a refinery still operating on Notre Dame Street, was the first company established in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Back when this company set up shop, the city of Maisonneuve—which was then quite distinct from Montreal—offered tax breaks to attract more industries. We tend to forget that Maisonneuve was a very prosperous city. Some even called it the Pittsburgh of Canada. There were textile and shoe-making industries, as well as the Vickers shipyard. These industries produced a generation of specialized workers who earned a very good living and raised large families in six- or eight- room apartments in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Generations spent their lives there and benefited from local industrialization. Of course, the railway was an important factor in the economic growth of big cities.

The problem with railways and their operators is a lot like the problem with the Port of Montreal. There comes a time to reconcile economic imperatives and quality of life concerns. CN-CP has thought of itself as a city within a city for a long time now. I remember having certain conversations with its senior executives. With all due respect, I did not get the impression that quality of life figured very prominently among their priorities. I know that many of my House colleagues have the same complaints I have raised on behalf of the constituents of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

We are under no obligation to accept anything in the name of economic development, jobs in the community, or bringing people in to work where they live. It is not right for railway companies to operate 24/7.

Railway tracks can be found near Moreau, Wurtele, and Lespérance streets and Place De Léry, where up to three trains pass by every day and operations go on 24 hours a day; we can only imagine the situation. We can imagine what it must be like for someone to be awoken from a deep sleep after working all day, after getting up at 6:30, putting in an honest day's work, coming home at 5:00, making supper, giving the children a bath and putting them to bed, but not before their homework—of course the homework must be done—getting ready for bed, and then at 2 a.m., a train goes by or a whistle blows or engines are switched.

I have seen worse in my neighbourhood in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve: locomotives sitting idle for two or three hours, like it was nothing. As for pollution and oil, I have been told that the windows in the residential areas are always covered with a thin blackish film that is very difficult to remove.

Things have changed since the days of Émile Zola. It is no longer necessary to completely separate economic needs from quality of life. It makes no difference whether one lives in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve or elsewhere in Canada or Quebec, it is entirely reasonable to ask lawmakers to intervene.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. We can most certainly rely on the spirit, determination and wisdom of the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, our transport critic, a man of the law. Although he did not write his bar exams, he is a notary, and therefore has a legal background. He is a former mayor who has experience as a spokesperson for a national association, the Union des municipalités du Québec. This man is very concerned about land use planning and the regulatory powers of municipalities. However, he also shares the same primary concern as every member of this House, that is, the quality of life of our constituents.

I know that there have been many class action suits. I am aware that class action suits were launched by Blainville and the former city of Outremont—no, at the time the city had been incorporated into Montreal but now it is a city again, so I will say the city of Outremont. These two cities were convinced that, as the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said, the Canadian Transportation Agency, as a quasi-judicial body with comparable authority to a superior court, could hand down decisions and require the various transportation companies to take mitigation measures.

We were extremely surprised—not to say disappointed—when the Federal Court of Canada declared ultra vires the authority the Canadian Transportation Agency thought it had. If I am not mistaken, this is the third bill we have had about transportation. My colleague from Laval, who has been very involved in transportation issues, will correct me if I am wrong, but this is the third time this bill has been introduced.

I also recall that the leader of the Bloc Québécois sincerely hoped that this bill would be a priority in the previous Parliament. And we would have been happy to make amendments to it. The bill could be greatly improved. We could go much further. At least it was a starting point, and for the first time we had a bill stating that the Canadian Transportation Agency, a quasi-judicial body, had conciliation and arbitration authority and could receive complaints from members of the public experiencing all sorts of problems. Obviously, we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, do I have one or two minutes left?

[Canada Elections Act, September 19th, 2006]

Spousal.

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has stated its position on this issue several times, as did my colleague from Roberval a few years ago. Our position is unchanged. In view of the Supreme Court's ruling and referral concerning judges in Prince Edward Island, we hope that the commission will be totally independent of Parliament, and that it will consider a number of totally independent criteria, including the state of the economy and the ability to pay. We also hope that judges' and members' salaries will be linked.

As I said earlier, we were comfortable with the scenario proposed in 1999. The Prime Minister earns the same salary as the Chief Justice. Ministers earn three quarters of that and members earn half.

We do not understand why the Liberals and the Conservatives chose to sever that link. In the end, they chose to intervene by arbitrarily setting judges' salaries. We do not think this is the right thing to do.

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

The former president of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada—pardon me if that was not what I said—stated right there in the Gomery commission hearings that to be appointed to the bench in Canada, one had to be a card-carrying Liberal. Obviously, I would like to think that this could not be farther from the truth.

That said, Richard Marceau, the former member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who served well in this House, introduced a motion to strike a subcommittee to study the judicial appointment process. The Bloc Québécois considers reforming the appointment process for Supreme Court justices a priority.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that my time has expired. How time flies. I hope the members will have some questions for me.

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

I just heard the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles refer to events that occurred prior to this Parliament. I know that he certainly wanted to underscore how proud his government is to have introduced the transparency bill.

That being said, the judges in a system like ours, in a parliamentary democracy, must have three characteristics. They must be totally impartial and well paid to be shielded from any attempts to corrupt them or any desire for financial gain. In addition to being properly paid, they must be totally independent and have security of tenure. In other words, we cannot have a system where a government that is unhappy with a judge’s decision can decide to move him or refuse to renew his term.

It has certainly happened that certain Conservative members with major responsibilities, whose names shall go unmentioned, have said that some judges in our political system engage in judicial activism. I have even heard the Prime Minister say that judges should not interpret the charter in a way that fails to respect the will of Parliament since its members are elected by the people.

There is a certain truth to that. Clearly, Parliament has the most legitimacy. However, it is wrong think that our judges engage in judicial activism.

It is extremely rare in our political system to see laws overturned. Of all the legislation brought before the Supreme Court since 1982, only about 8% has been overturned. I do not know whether the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities shares my view, but in general, legislation is not overturned. There is very little judicial activism, although that does not mean that there is none.

For educational purposes, I point to the example of the decision in the Grant case, where Alberta was forced to add sexual orientation to its human rights code as a prohibited ground for discrimination.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois commends the government’s commitment to refer the bill as quickly as possible to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but we do not acknowledge the substance of the bill. The Bloc Québécois will thus make substantial amendments to this bill.

Why are we not in agreement? First, as was pointed out by the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, one of the best parliamentarians in this House, whose talents as an orator are recognized and admired by all, a man known for his great self-control, it is important to have an independent mechanism for setting judges’ salaries. We would not like to end up in a situation where parliamentarians had to negotiate directly with judges. Imagine the situation that would place Parliament in. Furthermore, in 1999, a balance had been reached. I should specify, for the sake of historical truth, that the Liberals upset this balance.

I have to say that, unfortunately, the Liberals played some cheap political games. They upset a balance that had been the wish of many. This balance was that the prime minister received the same salary as the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Obviously, in a democratic system, the person who is the authorized spokesperson of Canadians, who is elected by the will of the people, should not have less legitimacy than the chief justice.

We also know that ministers have great responsibilities. Under the 1999 scenario, they received three quarters of the salary of the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The members, servants of the people if ever there were, received 50% of the salary of the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

This balance was upset. I must say that the former prime minister of Canada made it into a partisan issue, and a deliberate choice was made to break with what was proposed by an independent commission in 1999.

I am not proud of the fact that the Conservative government is perpetuating this tradition. That is why the Bloc Québécois has to present some amendments. I do not understand why the Conservative government does not go back to the recommendations made by the independent commission.

Once one begins to question this principle, it removes the impartiality from a principle that should be totally and absolutely impartial. If the bill were adopted, the chief justice would earn $298,500 and the prime minister of Canada would earn $295,400. Admittedly this not exactly below the poverty line, but nevertheless the prime minister would be less well paid than the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Once again, where judges’ pay is being decided, we have to be guided by some principles. In the Bloc Québécois, we believe in the independence of the judiciary. The former member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is a man who has served this House well. Richard Marceau, a bright mind, a brilliant jurist, a seasoned parliamentarian, a man known for his keen judgment, who has had only one loyalty, namely the people of Charlesbourg, has suggested to the justice committee that a subcommittee be formed to study the appointment of judges. Imagine our surprise, not to say our indignation, when we heard the former president of the Liberal Party of Quebec say during the Gomery commission hearings that, if you want to be a judge in Canada, you have to have your Liberal Party membership card. Imagine our indignation. Imagine our consternation. There was a sort of collective disgust.

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine how pleasant it is to be here at 8 p.m. talking about Bill C-17, which goes to the heart of our democracy because many countries all over the world look upon the Quebec and Canadian legal system with considerable envy. It has been extremely well tested, is recognized for its impartiality and is based on the merit principle.

Since I was elected in 1993, I have always been interested in the appointment of judges, and especially in how law is generated. We could ask ourselves the following question as parliamentarians: what are the skills needed to be a good judge?

I said this went to the heart of parliamentary democracy.

[Judges Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the idea of referring the bill to committee as soon as possible, although we are close to adding amendments.

However, we do not agree with the bill. I was in this House in 1999. Despite my youth, I have been here since 1993. There was a mechanism that linked judges' salaries to MP's salaries. According to what was suggested in 1999, the Prime Minister had to earn the same salary as the chief justice of the Supreme Court, ministers had to earn three quarters of the salary of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and members of Parliament, half.

If we passed the Conservative's bill, the Prime Minister would earn less than the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Does he think this is a message to send, in terms of democratic legitimacy?

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 16th, 2006]

I do not wish to call up bad memories for the House. However, it is a fact that it was Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who created the National Forum on Health—that he chaired himself— which allowed citizens from across Canada to have their say.

The idea to create the Romanow Commission stemmed from that forum. This commission of inquiry, which was not a royal commission of inquiry, no longer wanted there to be 10 health care systems. It recommended there be only one. It even went as far as proposing that there be a common procurement policy for drugs and a single order form, under the federal government's responsibility.

Health care is something that is highly visible. The Bloc Québécois cannot let the Conservative government get away with this. I hope that we can count on the vigilance of the President of the Treasury Board and that he will tell his government that health, particularly public health care, falls under provincial jurisdiction.

I salute the President of the Treasury Board, a progressive man in his caucus. I know that, in terms of ideology, he is a dove. Within the government, there are hawks, there are doves and there are night owls. However, I will not comment on that.

That said, Premier Charest—who lacks backbone somewhat when it comes to defending Quebec's interests—is a man who has sometimes been rather complacent about the Conservative government. Premier Charest used to be a Conservative MP. Once when this House was in committee of the whole, there were two Conservatives. Things have changed. That was the will of the people, and the Bloc Québécois respects democracy. Regarding the Public Health Agency of Canada—and I invite the President of the Treasury Board to pay attention—Premier Jean Charest, who was the member for Sherbrooke, said that Quebec had created its own health structures.

As I mentioned earlier, Quebec has the Institut national de santé publique. Quebec has created its own health structures, and they work. These structures will cooperate with the ones that are put in place, but duplication is out of the question.

That is the real question. How can we think that a public structure with a $665 million budget will not be tempted to dominate, to sprawl and to intervene in jurisdictions that are not its own?

I remember well the years when the Liberal government reduced health transfers and the provinces were in serious trouble.

One of the negative aspects of Canadian federalism is this sort of fiscal imbalance that can be created. The government can table a budget and cause fiscal destabilization of the provinces without any negotiations or any advance notice to the provinces.

From 1993 to 2001, successive Liberal governments completely starved the provinces. The provincial premiers—New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals and people from the Parti Québécois—took a common stand and eventually won an agreement on health and restoration of the public money that the provinces had been cruelly deprived of.

As the leader of the government knows, the health system is critically short of money. This will be important, because initially, the federal government was to contribute 50% of program operating costs. Even with the agreement that the government of the current member for LaSalle—Émard signed with the provinces, the figure is not much higher than 25% or 30%.

As you can see, this situation is not acceptable. I hope the Conservative government will have the courage to table a bill shortly to restore the transfer payments.

I saw the Prime Minister yesterday on public television, for which all members of the Bloc Québécois have the greatest respect. I saw, on the CBC French network, that the Prime Minister wanted to flip flop on the issue of the fiscal imbalance and that he was preparing the provinces for the fact that the extent of the fiscal imbalance was not so bad, even though this Prime Minister had the nerve to go to Sainte-Foy during the election campaign and tell Quebeckers that his party would resolve the fiscal imbalance. And now that I see the Prime Minister getting ready to dither and go back on his word, I certainly hope I never have to rise in this House to say that the Prime Minister has broken his word and not made all the investments expected by Quebeckers, including the Premier of Quebec.

We saw yesterday on CBC French television how worried and anxious the Quebec Premier was that the Conservatives would not deliver the goods. It is at times like this that we realize how fortunate it is that the Bloc is here in this House and is vigilant. We will not abdicate our duty to be vigilant and to force the federal government to solve the fiscal imbalance problem. It is too easy for the Prime Minister to show up at Ste-Foy and make promises that he later disowns.

In short, Bill C-5 does not respect provincial jurisdiction and the creation of a public health agency is not necessary. As for epidemics, I will say that all the public health managers can have meetings. The expected cooperation could very well be coordinated through existing interprovincial mechanisms without creating a new structure with a $665 million budget.

The Quarantine Act already includes the necessary provisions. If ever the situation necessitates it, the federal government can invoke that legislation but we will not let the federal government do its nation building with the health issue. We will not let the Conservatives follow the tradition instituted by the Liberals, either. And I know that for the Conservatives the bible on health care is the Romanow report. We will not let the Conservative government invade Quebec's jurisdictions, particularly not jurisdictions as sacred as health and social services.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 16th, 2006]

It has public transit and the Outgames, as the hon. member for Laval so rightly informed us.

It became apparent in Canada that the royalties system was not conducive to establishing a domestic research industry for bio-pharmaceuticals. At the time, this was a demand by the brand name drug industry, the one doing the research, which was mainly located in Montreal. The generic drug industry was copying in a way and not doing a whole lot of original research. These days I know that has changed somewhat.

I was the health critic. This was a good time in my life. It was stimulating and I had the pleasure of working on the same committee as the hon. member for Laval. We got up in the morning and saw each other in committee. Those were wonderful years in our lives—a great time in my life. All that to say that the brand name drug industry was originally located in Montreal and was calling for a properly protected public patent system.

The President of the Treasury Board was still just a baby then, but he will certainly remember that the Mulroney Conservatives had introduced Bill C-91, which was warmly received throughout Canada and Quebec and which, at the time, gave patent protection for 17 years. International rules have changed. This has increased to 20 years.

All that to say that when it comes to patents, epidemics or research, we understand that the federal government wants to intervene because this is their responsibility. However, when the federal government takes steps to intervene in matters of public health, there is a slight problem, a failure to respect jurisdictions. This is going too far and we would have liked members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec to rein in the government by telling it there are no prerogatives more sacred than health and education.

Just remember Maurice Lenoblet Duplessis, the illustrious member for Trois-Rivières. It is a tradition in Trois-Rivières to elect illustrious, talented members and I am here to say that this tradition continues. Maurice Lenoblet Duplessis set up the Tremblay Commission, which called for full respect of the jurisdictions of health and education.

Why did the federal government table a bill to create the Public Health Agency of Canada? I would like to point out that, for the past two budgets at least, there has been a considerable allocation of resources. I saw that the Public Health Agency of Canada was given $665 million in the 2004 budget and that its resources have been growing.

This is extremely troubling because, clearly, the Public Health Agency of Canada will want to do some nation building in the area of health care, as we all know. We in the Bloc Québécois are perceptive, astute and wise enough not to be fooled by the government's ploy.

I remember that in 1997, then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the member for Shawinigan, created the National Forum on Health. At that time, I was a young MP in this House, high-spirited, energetic and confident about the future. I told my caucus that the Liberals were going to use the forum to do some nation building and would barge into health care. I was not far off.