Réal Ménard

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Supreme Court responded very clearly to this issue in paragraph 60 of the reference, just as officials at the Department of Justice had before. I will read the paragraph in question:

Returning to the question before us, the Court is of the opinion that, absent unique circumstances with respect to which we will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

It is not the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, nor the parliamentary secretary who said that, but the Supreme Court.

The provision of the bill not having to do with the marriage celebration, but with freedom of religion, is very clear. In its reference in response to the cabinet's question, the Supreme Court was very clear. I believe that religious challenges will be difficult to establish under section 2(a) of the Charter since, again, the Supreme Court was very clear on the matter.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure either that “hypocrite” is a parliamentary word. I was therefore surprised at how generously the Conservatives, to whom this attribute may also be applied, have made use of it.

That said, I think that the basis of the debate is as follows. There are people who are homosexual and who want to get married for all sorts of reasons, including those I have mentioned: mutual support, fidelity and the desire to live out their days with their partner.

No Conservative member has been able to answer the following question: how does this threaten the freedom of the heterosexual community? Heterosexual marriage, which is being called traditional, will be maintained. My twin brother, who is heterosexual, will not marry a man because this bill passes. Their logic is totally twisted. It does not stand up to analysis.

In the two countries—Canada will be the third—where marriage involving partners of the same sex has been approved, marriage has not been abandoned by the heterosexual community.

What is this association whereby heterosexual marriage, which is being called traditional marriage, will be put to death if another group in society is given rights? This is what I do not understand in the Conservatives' logic.

That is probably why there are as many people in Quebec preparing to vote Conservative as there are still listening to vinyl records.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with considerable serenity, joy and solidarity, I rise with pleasure to speak to this important bill.

As we know, this bill adds an extremely important building block to the institution of human rights. I believe all parliamentarians concerned about human rights have a reason today to delight in the fact that this matter is before Parliament, in order to give homosexual persons the right to enjoy loving relationships and, since it is the issue, to also contemplate marriage.

The origins and roots of today's debate run deep. In the early 1970s, some people went to court to contest the ban on their getting married. I would like things to be put in perspective. It is easy, in such a debate, to get off the track, to mislead the House and even to make erroneous statements.

Bill C-38 does not have anything to do with religious marriage. It is true that, in the division of powers we have in Canada, the celebration of marriage is a provincial responsibility. What has been challenged before the courts in this new century is the question of whether it is compatible with the equal treatment provisions in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to refuse access to what is still one of the great civil institutions in our society, the most important one after schools, namely marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled that it was inconsistent with equal treatment and with Canadians' and Quebeckers' ideals of magnanimity and equality and the recognition of full citizenship rights not to recognize the right of same sex partners to engage in marriage.

It has nothing to do with religion. Every time the Supreme Court has been seized with the issue, it has recognized an extremely liberal definition of freedom of religion. This freedom is defined as the right to profess a dogma, a religion or a world view without fear. I am convinced that no one in this House would want any religious denomination to be harassed or accused of discrimination for refusing to recognize same sex marriage.

It is something else, however, to lead people to think that even secular public officials, whose job it is to apply the law, could fail to do so in the name of their personal religious convictions. All are equal before the law. From the moment that Parliament passes legislation—as we are confident Bill C-38 will pass—this legislation applies everywhere in Canada and there is no room for people who refuse to apply it. People who do not agree with the interpretation of the law will have to do something else.

In any case, it will not be possible to avoid applying the law, any more than it is for a public servant at Revenue Canada who does not agree with the tax tables to avoid taxing people. When someone is a public official, and not a religious official, he or she has a responsibility to apply the law as it was passed by people with democratic legitimacy, that is to say, elected officials.

It is interesting to ask the following question: why do people with a homosexual orientation want to get married? I know a lot of people who are same sex partners and have been together for 15, 20, 25 or 30 years, sharing exactly the same values as heterosexuals, and who have decided to get married.

What are these values? Obviously, spouses want to mutually support one another. There is also fidelity, the desire for recognition as a mutually exclusive couple. So we have mutual support, fidelity and, of course, last but not least, a third value, which is the need for social recognition. It would be extremely sad not to see homosexual unions receiving the same consideration and respect as heterosexual unions.

During this entire debate, people have tried to make us believe that homosexuals are less capable of commitment and seriousness in a relationship. This begs the question. Who has threatened the institution of marriage?

I am not saying that people have to get married. Common-law partners mutually support one another, obey the law, pay taxes, are involved in their communities and are model citizens. No one has to get married. However, believing that just because people are homosexual, they are less capable of honouring the commitments of marriage, just does not hold water, in my opinion. Allowing the marginalization of homosexuals is a form of blatant discrimination.

Currently in Canada, eight provinces and two territories have permitted homosexuals to marry in the last few years. Has anyone in the heterosexual community been denied their rights? Has allowing homosexuals in Canada to marry infringed on the freedoms exercised by the family or the heterosexual community? No one in the House could give an example of a negative consequence that could be attributed to the recognition of homosexual unions and life as we know it, or as our communities should know it.

One political party in this Parliament has systematically practised institutional homophobia. Since 1993, its members have asked us at every opportunity to consider homosexuals as second class citizens. I am happy that the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and a majority of Liberal members have never responded to this call to treat homosexuals as second class citizens.

The official opposition voted against recognizing same sex spouses in the public service, against recognizing spouses as common-law partners, and against section 718 of the Criminal Code prohibiting hate crimes and giving harsher sentences to those who beat up homosexuals. The official opposition is going to vote against the recognition of same sex marriage. That is their right. Perhaps they are doing so for political reasons, but, once again, I am quite pleased that a majority of parliamentarians in this House have chosen to put an end to the institutional homophobia that exists and denies full citizen rights to gays and lesbians.

Why is it important to recognize same sex couples? It is important because from now on in the public schools in our communities, we will be able to say that the issue of marriage and the family encompasses the right of gays and lesbians to be full citizens. Anything that contributes to giving a sense of respectability to same sex unions and to gays and lesbians as individuals deserves to be encouraged.

Did you know that there are still many adolescents who, at age 15, 16 or 17, discover their homosexuality and wonder how they will fit into society in the future? Well, in the future, if a young person, regardless of where he is in Canada, wonders what his place will be in society, he will know that in his professional life and in his romantic relationships he will be recognized as a full citizen who contributes to society. I am convinced that this will be a positive step to his full acceptance as an individual.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely surprised by the remarks of the member for Scarborough Southwest. I think this member is hypocrisy incarnate, if hypocrisy is to be found in this House.

Today, under the cover of shared jurisdictions, he invites us to reject the bill, when his opposition is based in reality on his continual rejection of any kind of recognition of the rights of gays and lesbians.

Mr. Speaker, I took part in all of the meetings of the committee you brilliantly chaired, I have to say. We know very well that the section of the bill causing the member concern is declaratory and that the essence of the bill is not the marriage ceremony, but the underlying conditions.

If the member is honest, let him rise and through you, Mr. Speaker, say he rejects the right of homosexual persons to enjoy loving relationships, because he does not like homosexuals. Each time he has had a chance in this House, he has said so. It has nothing to do with sharing jurisdictions. We know where the hypocrisy lies.

[Health, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Health realize that the best way to alleviate fears on this matter is to make a clear promise that he has no intention whatsoever of imposing fines that would result in reduced health transfers to Quebec?

[Health, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health does not preclude imposing fines on Quebec and the provinces following the Supreme Court ruling that opens the door to private sector health care. This is inconsistent with what the Minister of Transport said last Friday in this House, when he accused the Bloc of “trying to come up with scarecrows to frighten people”.

Can the Minister of Health allay the real fears arising out of the Supreme Court's recent ruling and promise not to punish Quebec?

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with our colleague that in the range of options available to consumers, there are some natural products that can be very beneficial. However, with all due respect, there were a few problems with the wording of the bill.

Nevertheless, let us use this as an example. For several months, we considered the bill of another colleague—not the bill on natural food products and natural health products—on fetal alcohol syndrome. We had the same reaction.

At the committee table, people called for a national strategy for fetal alcohol syndrome. When we looked at the elements of this strategy, we realized that the responsibility and expertise of the federal government hardly went beyond information.

They printed off pamphlets and sent them to various professional bodies. These pamphlets contained information on preventing the syndrome. However, beyond that, when you go to a doctor's office for a prescription or a healing strategy, the federal government cannot help.

I think it is no different for fetal alcohol syndrome than it is for mental illness, cardiovascular disease or cancer. The federal government might be able to invite people to come to the table to exchange information, but we do not need a national strategy for that.

The best system and the best service the federal government could provide is to increase transfer payments, just as all the provinces have been asking it to do for almost 10 years.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I can reassure him that I am not in any danger of running out of air; I am fine. My health is good. I thank him for his concern.

Words do have meaning, however. The motion can be amended if he likes. It refers to “a national strategy to reduce the growing human...costs” and calls upon the government to “fully fund and implement”, adding “with... all stakeholders”. As the motion is worded, the initial principle is that the leadership and implementation of this strategy would come primarily from the federal government. This I think must be acknowledged.

Our colleague says the provinces will be the ones responsible for running the whole thing. The motion can be amended to indicate that. If the motion called upon the federal government to restore transfer payments so that the provinces, exercising their own jurisdiction, could develop strategies on cancer, mental illness and heart disease, then we would have been in favour.

I would like to ask our colleague whether he obtained the support of the National Assembly. I do not think the Jean Charest government, the Parti Québecois or the ADQ would support such a motion. As an MP from Quebec, I consider myself the spokesperson for the consensus in the National Assembly. I call for full respect of jurisdictions, particularly the sacrosanct ones, such as education and health. I would be extremely surprised if the National Assembly would give its support to anything worded in this way.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this official opposition day.

First, I want to pay tribute to volunteers in communities throughout Quebec and English Canada who help those afflicted by cancer, mental illness or cardiovascular disease. Often, caregivers are the ones making such commitments, and this demonstrates tremendous solidarity within our communities.

I will try to make my remarks as detailed as possible. I would not want to give the impression that mental health, cancer and cardiovascular disease are unimportant to the Bloc Québécois.

In the near future, one in five Canadians will likely develop a mental health problem. Obviously, the seriousness of these problems can vary; nonetheless, one in five individuals is at risk.

Currently, every eight minutes, a Canadian is diagnosed with cancer—be it breast cancer, colon cancer or another cancer. It is quite scary and a cause for concern, but that is the reality.

Cardiovascular disease is, clearly, also a problem. If every MP who has lost a loved one to cardiovascular disease raised their hand, there would be a big show of hands. I am certain that most of us know someone who has died from this disease.

However, I believe that our Conservative friends used faulty logic to identify this problem. I respectfully submit that what the Conservatives are proposing will not allow us to truly resolve the real problems.

First, I want to re-read the motion for those just tuning in. Then, I will explain why the Bloc Québécois will not be able to support this motion. This motion has been moved by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, my colleague, the Conservative health critic, an MP from Manitoba, a monarchist and a fascinating fellow. That is how I tend to describe him.

It reads:

That, given a national strategy is needed now to reduce the growing human and economic costs of cancer, heart disease and mental illness; the House call on the government to fully fund and implement the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control in collaboration with the provinces and all stakeholders, and given that Canada is one of the few developed countries without a national action plan for effectively addressing mental illness and heart disease, the government should immediately develop and initiate a comprehensive national strategy on mental illness, mental health and heart disease.

I must begin by saying that the motion is certainly well-meant. We do, of course, live in a time when chronic diseases are wreaking havoc in terms of productivity and morbidity. I cannot, however, resist pointing out that the word “national” appears four times in the 10-line motion. When the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia uses that term, he is, of course, referring to Canada. One might therefore legitimately ask the following question. Does the type of strategy the member is calling for have to be driven from Ottawa?

I think there is no doubt in the minds of the Bloc Québécois that this strategy cannot be federally driven.

If our colleague had proposed increasing transfer payments and encouraging the provinces to set aside funds for cancer, mental illness and, of course, the whole area of cardiovascular disease, the Bloc Québécois would obviously have been a staunch supporter of this motion. I believe, however, that it must be acknowledged that such is not the case.

I had the pleasure earlier of an impromptu conversation with spokespersons for the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control and the Canadian Mental Health Association. What they had to say was a bit different.

If the intended objective had been to create a co-ordinating point where representatives of all provinces and territories could sit around the same table and exchange information on diagnostic tools, preventive approaches and available therapies, then the Bloc Québécois could not be opposed, out of good common sense and a degree of generosity. That is, however, not what we are dealing with here; this is about implementation of a national strategy.

It is really about giving the federal government a bigger role in health. In any case, the motion before us cannot be isolated from the national issue. This is really the main point the Bloc Québécois is making. One cannot claim, on the one hand, to respect the prerogatives of the provinces, and on the other, ask the federal government to have a national strategy. They are irreconcilable. There is a kind of paradox or contradiction.

I know that the Conservatives like to say that they support provincial rights in the 19th century tradition and want to respect the jurisdictions of the provinces. I only wish I could believe them. But reading the motion before us, I can hardly believe that this is a sign or demonstration of a desire to respect the provinces and their jurisdictions.

That is the general background that leads us to vote against this motion. I would like to tell you about a little experience I had a few years ago. I am obviously not 20 years old any more. I have been in this House since 1993 and have been health critic since 1999. In fact I think that I am the dean of the health critics. I do not think that anyone in the other parties has been on the Standing Committee on Health longer than I have.

I do not claim to be the incarnation of stability within the Bloc Québécois during what are shaping up to be some interesting times. But that is another debate, and we do not want to get off track.

This being said, a few years ago the Health Minister at the time, Allan Rock—the member for Etobicoke Centre, which whom you yourself sat, Mr. Speaker—was appointed, in a non-partisan gesture by the Government of Canada, to be the Canadian representative to the UN. You will remember him. Allan Rock was a lawyer, not a bad person, and he appeared before the Standing Committee on Health. At that time, Mr. Charbonneau, the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies—a riding that has now been renamed Honoré-Mercier — was appointed to UNESCO by the government in another non-partisan gesture. Mr. Charbonneau was the parliamentary secretary to the Health Minister—Mr. Rock at the time — and he had asked the Standing Committee on Health to study the whole issue of mental illness.

It is obvious that these illnesses are a major problem and will even be one of our most important concerns over the next few years. If it is true that one in five of our fellow citizens will have mental health problems over the next few years, ranging from slight depression to more serious illnesses, this is obviously something that we need to be concerned about.

So I was opposed to the motion.

The Standing Committee on Health began its work and heard witnesses from Health Canada. Are members aware how many Health Canada officials could talk to us about the department's mental health initiatives? In all, in a full committee, there were three officials who had the expertise and who had done full-time research into mental health.

Why am I saying this? It is not because the officials were not competent or not doing their job to the best of their ability. However, do they seriously think that the federal government, which does not have responsibility in this, can be a motive force in connection with problems as serious as mental illness, heart disease or cancer?

Those who provide care, make the diagnoses, are familiar with drug therapies and are working on detection technologies in hospitals are all part of a strategy.

It is fine with me to talk about strategy, but what is this strategy about? A strategy has to include prevention first off. Prevention has to do with the factors affecting health, including the environment, food, physical activity, recreation and stress management. The responses to all these variables are to be found in provincial jurisdictions.

A national strategy, if there has to be one, begins with prevention. None of the major factors in prevention is connected with an area of federal jurisdiction.

Diagnosis follows prevention. From a sampling of the population, those in whom the three diseases I referred to are either active or dormant have to be identified. But who is responsible for prevention? First, a CLSC, then a long term care centre, an emergency room or a hospital. How can the federal government be useful in prevention or detection?

Further along in the strategy, after prevention and detection, comes cure. If care is required, where can it be obtained? In a hospital, of course. How is this care provided? It is provided by health care professionals. Who accredits the health professionals through the professional bodies? The provinces. Who makes the medication available? I will come back later on to the federal government's strategy to create a national drug formulary. Formularies exist already for available therapies.

The Quebec government and the official opposition are considering this issue. I want to take a few moments to wish best of luck to Louise Harel, the MNA for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, now leader of the opposition in the National Assembly. She is the first woman occupy this position. I do not want to get off topic, but I mention Ms. Harel because she is the PQ's health critic. The National Assembly's social affairs commission is currently considering a drug policy. However, who decides what medications to include on the formulary? Certainly not the federal government.

So we see the subtle inconsistency from which the Conservatives are unfortunately—and temporarily, I hope—suffering. They are intimating that the House could implement a national strategy. However, none of the major components of such a strategy, from prevention to detection, from therapies to hospitalization, gives us reason to believe that the federal government could make a difference here.

The best thing the federal government could do would be to increase the transfer payments.

Earlier, the Minister of Health—I was going to record him, but I understand this could bring him bad luck—said that, over the next 10 years, federal funding will increase to $42 billion. Bravo! We are not afraid of saluting this initiative. The more money there is for health care, the better for everyone. However, even with this investment, the federal contribution to the health care system is less than 25%.

I want to remind everyone that, no matter what their political stripe—and there have been Conservatives, New Democrats, sovereignists and Liberals— whenever all the premiers have met, since 2001, they have called for the federal contribution to health care to reach 25%.

Such is the insidious nature of Canadian federalism. Every government uses themes to promote nation building. Health is a top priority for our constituents. Naturally, it is on everyone's mind. These days, we cannot simply talk about old age, we have to talk about very old age. It is no longer unusual in our communities to meet people who are 80 or 85 or 90 years old who are seem younger. They are in great shape and active in their community.

We have examples in our own caucus, such as the member for Champlain. He is a senior, but an extremely dynamic man, who is energetic and in good health. Why? Because he watches what he eats, he avoids excesses and he manages his stress level. That is the secret of getting to old age, Mr. Speaker.

In short, we cannot support the Conservative motion, even if it is well intentioned. We are of course concerned about the whole issue of chronic disease. And, yes, cancer, mental illness and cardiovascular disease are prevention, research and treatment priorities. These areas were identified in the 2004 agreement. However, we do not think the federal government should be the motive force.

I remind you that, in recent years, the federal government has been using health for nation building. What is the federal government's inspiration? Not just that. I have to say, with regret, in this regard that my NDP colleagues, so progressive in other areas, have latched on to the federal government and the Romanow report. What is the federal government's bible? It is the Romanow report. What does the report recommend? It is as plain as day. The report advocates putting an end to ten health care systems and having only one.

It is even true that the report has pushed audacity to the new height of calling for a single drug recognition system with one formulary for all of Canada. Is that not insidious?

In closing, because I see my time is running out, I say that we cannot support the Conservative motion. We ask them to take the logic of respect for the provinces to its conclusion and not ask the federal government to take the lead with a national strategy, when it is not the competent player to do so.

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know that time is running out. I simply want to ask the minister a question. Later my colleague from Laval will have the chance to explain why we are not in favour of this proposal by the Conservatives.

Is the root of the problem not a problem in and of itself? The situation would perhaps be less problematic in a much more functional political system than the one we have had for the past few years. The federal government has the resources but the provinces have great needs, in health especially. Health is the most inflationary item for any government.

From 1994 to 1999, the government unilaterally and substantially cut transfer payments. To achieve the objectives being proposed by our Conservative colleagues, would it not be easier to considerably increase the transfer payments and allow the provinces to define their own strategies for fighting cancer and preventing mental illness and heart disease?