Réal Ménard

[Supply, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Contrary to what our colleague from the NDP is suggesting, there is no agreement between the parties, since the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of this amendment.

[Health, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in December 2002, Sainte-Justine hospital presented its development plan entitled “Growing up healthy” and sought federal government help in funding a new research centre. Two and a half years later, the federal government has still not deigned to respond to the hospital's request.

Does the Prime Minister intend to put an end to concerns and commit to doing its part in funding the Sainte-Justine hospital project in the amount of $120 million?

[Criminal Code, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-313.

Let us be honest, this bill is totally Conservative in its logic. As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was saying, we cannot support this bill, which proposes to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 years, as it is now, to 16 years.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with what has been empirically recognized and scientifically observed, and what is just basic common sense, namely that, generally, it is not advisable to have sexual relations at 14. At that age, a person is still closer to childhood than to adulthood. Puberty may not even have started yet and it is certainly not advisable to have sexual relations.

I think I am not being overly moralistic if I say that when entering the world of sexuality, one must be prepared and have enough information about healthy sexual practices, about the meaning of commitment and, let us say it, about the loss of a certain naivety. Indeed, one's first sexual experience is a defining moment in one's life.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am 43 years old. Incidentally, I thank you for your kind wishes on my birthday this week.

I must say that, back in the days when I was in high school, sexual activity tended to start later than it does today. We even had a saying in Quebec about someone being a late bloomer in matters of sexuality. But we must recognize that things have changed.

Why do young people, at least some of them, start being sexually active earlier? Obviously, there are all sorts of theories on the subject. There has been investigative reporting into this matter. Apparently, there is a connection between early sexual activity and information. With Internet and the increased speed at which information is circulating, the shroud of mystery surrounding sexuality is lifted earlier for today's young people, who have access to information from an early age and, as a result, start experimenting with sex earlier.

Once again, we do not agree. We fully realize that not having sexual relations at age 14 is desirable. However, we are not prepared to go one step further, as proposed by the Conservative Party, and make it criminal, which would involve the judicial system. This would mean that charges could be laid against young people who had sexual relations.

This is the kind of unfortunate situation that shows how out of touch with Quebec realities the Conservative Party is. In the performance of my duties as an MP, I do not remember meeting many young people and many stakeholders who are in favour of criminalizing early sexual activity.

Should we not, as a society, work to provide information and ensure that sexual education classes are made mandatory instead? Sexuality should be discussed at home and in the young people's milieux. The objectives we pursue as a society would ensure that, by the time young people have their first sexual relations, they are informed and prepared.

Having sex for the first time signifies a loss of innocence. It truly marks the entry into adulthood. It should be entered into with complete responsibility and awareness.

Is there anything more beautiful than sexuality? When two people are attracted to one another and are ready to express their feelings by having sex, this should not lead to criminal charges. Obviously, they should be ready, prepared and fully informed.

With that caveat I would add that the Bloc Québécois is fully aware that extreme vigilance must be used in the entire issue of sexual exploitation. The Criminal Code, as we speak, includes provisions. The Supreme Court made a ruling in early 2000. Since the Sharpe case, more provisions have been added to the Criminal Code on sexual exploitation and also child pornography.

I know there is not a single member in this House who does not want Parliament to be extra careful in dealing with the issue of sexual exploitation. There is nothing more terrible, horrible and appalling than the thought of an adult sexually exploiting a child in a relationship that cannot be one of equals, given the traumatic effect this has on the child's development. The Bloc Québécois agrees that in the Criminal Code as well as in the application of the law, we must be extremely vigilant when it comes to sexual relations between adults and children.

If our colleague's bill were to pass, we could end up with the following situation. A 16-year-old boy has consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl. They are both very mature and fully capable of assessing the scope of their actions. They are moved by true love. They have protected sex. They have a satisfying and mutually agreed to sexual experience. However, because one of their parents, the girl's for example, disapproves of the choice in partner, charges could be filed.

Is that any way to handle this issue? We do not think the bill is very helpful.

I have done a bit of research on the age of consent. I have here a comparative table of various countries, and it shows that among most major democracies and large countries—large in terms of population, not hegemony of course—Canada comes out in a good middle position.

For example, the age of consent in Mexico is 12. We know Japan to be a relatively puritan society, and we are familiar with some characteristics of that culture, the little, sometimes nervous, laugh, people who are aware of their place, enterprising, ready to serve. Theirs is a society where order is valued and relations between people are clearly circumscribed. That does not mean, of course, that every Japanese is devoid of romantic thoughts. Nonetheless, it is surprising to learn that the age of consent in Japan is 13 years, that is a year younger than in Canada.

Austria, so famous for its romantic waltzes, which you yourself may have been entranced by, Mr. Speaker, in earlier days of course, has an age of consent of 14. In Iceland, that nordic country where beer flows in abundance amidst an atmosphere of celebration, the age is also 14 years.

Italy, that romantic Mediterranean country of pastas and wine—which sounds tempting as the weekend approaches—also has an age of consent of 14. In Denmark it is 15. in France, the country of Marianne, the eldest daughter of the Church, that most Jacobin French republic, the age of consent is 15.

I will close by saying that, regretfully, the Bloc Québécois will not be able to support this bill.

[Request for Emergency Debate, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the Chair could seek the consent of the House to debate this issue this evening, as if it were an emergency debate. I know that the Minister of Health is very concerned about this matter, as are our NDP and Conservative colleagues. I think the House may consent to taking the time to determine our plan of action and express our opinion on this issue.

[Request for Emergency Debate, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in all likelihood, within the next few days, the American Congress will pass legislation allowing drug imports. I know that all parliamentarians have heard arguments from individuals and pharmaceutical companies about the potential depletion of Canada's supply, leading to drug shortages.

In my opinion, it is important that the House provide clear guidelines to the Minister of Health on what our plan of action should be, under such circumstances.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who is responsible for the status of women, for her very relevant question. I apologize for not providing more detail on this matter.

My colleague is asking whether we need to worry about dead animals. She will be pleased to know that we raised this issue in committee. From a strictly logical point of view—and logic reigns in every aspect of my colleague's life—it is quite possible for animals on board a plane, a ship or any other mode of transportation to be potential vectors of contamination. Hence the obligation to report and provide a certificate.

I would like my colleague to ask me another relevant question.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

A pleonasm, indeed. Let me reword that. This is almost like in a courtroom, with all the objections. I am happy to have an attentive audience.

We were concerned about the possibility that a person placed in detention could be detained for more than 48 hours. We had concerns about the principles of natural justice and, basically, the fact that these individuals could not seek legal advice and that the reasons for detaining them were not clear, especially since, initially, the bill did not really provide for the possibility of appealing decisions.

We know the importance in law of the ability to review decisions. All my colleagues in this House are indignant about the fact that the Immigration Act passed last year abolished the refugee appeal division. It should be recalled that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at the time, the member for Bourassa, promised that the situation would be corrected. Another minister has now moved to immigration. We are on our third incumbent in this position, and the right to appeal to the refugee division still has not been re-established.

All my colleagues share with me the deep indignation of these people over such a violation of a principle of natural justice, namely the right to appeal a decision and have it reviewed.

Immigration is not an unimportant matter. There are four great immigrant countries in the world: Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. Immigration is important. This issue brings us back to our national sovereignty project. In immigration, there are two great problems, two great visions of the integration of Neo-Quebeckers.

We in the Bloc Québécois have always felt that the future had to be built with immigrants. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity, by the way, to pay tribute to our critic for immigration, the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

I would like to finish by saying that the immigration issue takes us back to the two major ways of integrating people. There is Canada's multiculturalism model, where people are led to believe that we can keep our own culture, regardless of our country or place of origin. Then there is the Quebec model with its shared public culture. Gérald Godin, formerly the member for Mercier, used to say, “There are 100 ways to be a Quebecker, but the important thing is to be one in French”. That is why, in Quebec, French plays an integrating role in regard to the shared public culture and why we had Bill 101. The father of Bill 101, the former member for Bourget, Camille Laurin, occupies a special place in our hearts.

That said, all my colleagues will understand that the connection I wanted to make between immigration and quarantines is the following. In a country that welcomes a lot of people—on October 1 every year, Canada announces its immigration plans and last year the figure was 248,000—it is very important to ensure that the most judicious measures are taken but not measures that infringe on human rights. That is why the Bloc Québécois tabled amendments to Bill C-12, because it seemed to us that we should seek a better balance.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

I am sorry. That was a slip of the tongue.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

My colleague says it was more than two weeks. Time passes so quickly in good company. However, I think we may have spent three weeks examining a bill as fascinating as the quarantine bill. We would not have wanted to be elsewhere.

Clause 47 of the bill speaks of the power to inspect all conveyances arriving in Canada and the granting of the means to act, if necessary. Finally, it concerns the possibility of conveyance inspection, but it goes further. Not only may a conveyance be inspected, it may be rerouted. That means it can be asked to turn back and leave Canada if there are reasons to believe it could be a vector of transmission.

Before I go any further, I would like to speak of a debate that took place in committee. The bill provides for the establishment of quarantine zones, which were first thought to be airports, but which could be other sites. We asked the following question in committee with respect to quarantine zones: if a quarantine zone is established and 300 people are put in quarantine there and prevented from earning their living for one, two or three days, should they not be compensated? Should they not receive some financial compensation to ensure no prejudice? The bill is a little unspecific. It was a little slack, if I may put it that way. It was felt that the minister could provide compensation.

So things were left a bit fuzzy, you might say.

The question arose as to whether the minister ought not to be required to compensate people quarantined. Our Conservative friends, in an uncharacteristic attack of generosity, brought in an amendment to require the minister to compensate them. I would not want my colleagues to think that the amount of compensation was cut and dried. It was to be determined by regulation.

There was quite a debate in the committee, and people were divided, some in favour, some opposed. We in the Bloc Québécois reached a middle of the road conclusion, a balanced position. We cannot define ourselves otherwise than as agents of balance, a kind of political homeostasis which has always been greatly appreciated where we come from.

We had agreed that those quarantined deserved compensation, but the extent of it needed to be determined. Of course, if 10,000 people were involved, the public treasury would be sorely taxed. We did not want to adopt any excessive measures, so we indicated our agreement with the principle but linked to it the concept of reasonable criteria as they exist in law for situations where it is required. All in all, it was a great debate, as the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes has said.

Now, to move on to a very important clause in the bill, clause 44. This deals with the obligation for cadavers, body parts and other human remains imported into Canada to be accompanied by a death certificate, with the exception of cells, tissues and organs for transplantation. This clause requires some serious consideration. Deaths may even occur on board an aircraft or other carrier. The possibility of vectors of contamination connected with cadavers must not be treated lightly. That is why this obligation is there. I know my colleagues will address the justification of such a clause as seriously as I.

It is indeed possible that bodies may be on a plane or other means of transportation. Our transportation critic ought to look into this in depth, because those things do happen.

Moving on, while taking this bill very seriously, as we should. Clause 30 of the bill was certainly the source of some concern for us. It states, “The minister may, on the minister's own motion, review any decision of a quarantine officer to detain a traveller and... order the traveller's release.

I must say that the committee heard a law professor from Dalhousie University, which usually produces very fine lawyers, while not as fine as those from the University of Ottawa or Laval University. It is almost a tie between Dalhousie and Laval.

Allow me to digress briefly. This year marks a milestone in the history of Laval University, which is celebrating the 350th anniversary of its foundation. This calls for a round of applause for everyone who graduated from that university, to which we owe valued members like the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes, who is renowned for his rigour and patience, and the member for Témiscamingue, who was interested in civil law but eventually went into criminal law. Indeed, being comfortable with legal aid issues while not minding taxation and free trade issues whenever possible was one of this member's strengths.

Coming back to the bill. I would not want to get sidetracked, because the rule of relevance could be applied.

We were concerned about the possibility that a person could be detained in detention for more—

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have been dying for a long time to speak to Bill C-12, the Quarantine Act. I would like to thank my party's whip for enabling me to speak to a bill as fascinating as it is scientifically interesting.

We spent several committee sessions studying this quarantine bill. We were generally in favour of modernizing an act that dated back to the 19th century. It had been passed at a time when methods of transportation were developing especially quickly, including ships, which played a major role. Over all the years since then, new transportation methods have developed and new technologies have emerged. Nowadays, there are trains, airplanes, and even high-speed trains.

When one speaks about globalization and the heightened, ongoing and increasingly worldwide contacts among people, it becomes apparent that travel is no longer a marginal phenomenon. If we were to do a little poll here by show of hands to determine how many of us have visited one, two, three or four continents, we would soon see that travel is not unusual. People are obviously in closer contact than in the 19th century. There was an urgent need, therefore, to modernize the Quarantine Act.

Throughout the committee hearings, my colleague, the member for Laval and I were concerned about how frequently the wording of act left a lot of discretionary room to quarantine officers. For example, there were often no references to notions of time and accountability. The amendment that was clearly most often formulated by all the parliamentarians in committee had to do with the fact that there was no mention of the expression reasonable and probable cause, which is well defined in law.

We therefore tabled several amendments. We made the bill more acceptable and were in favour of its general arrangement.

Before going into greater detail about this bill, it should be recalled that we had two major reasons for concern.

The first was that the Minister of Health can designate the quarantine zones. This means that if there is an epidemic or pandemic, the Minister of Health can designate an area to be quarantined on his own without referring to his counterpart responsible for health and social services in Quebec, New Brunswick or any other province. The Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment on this matter, but it was unfortunately not accepted by the government.

We were disappointed to see that the government had not read our study asking for a quarantine zone. Of course, quarantine zones are often located in places such as airports, which do not pose any problems, because these come exclusively under the federal government's jurisdiction.

However, if a quarantine zone were established in a location that does not come under the federal government's jurisdiction, our critic on intergovernmental affairs would surely rise in this House and say that the government does not respect jurisdictions. He would be justified to do so. I should add that he is a vigilant person with a very keen mind, and we would never want him to be placed in quarantine.

So, we were concerned that the federal government might decide alone to designate a quarantine zone, without consulting authorities in the provinces affected.

We also had concerns about the medical technology. The real novelty in this bill is that the minister will designate certain persons. We wondered who these persons would be. Would they be doctors, nurses or health care professionals? Currently, it is primarily those who make initial contact with newcomers, such as customs officers and others. It is mostly they who control access at our borders when people arrive here.

We wondered what skills and conditions would be required to exercise the powers provided under Bill C-12. I will read clause 14, which is probably the most important provision in this legislation:

Any qualified person authorized by the Minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screening technology authorized by the Minister that does not involve the entry into the traveller's body of any instrument or other foreign body.

Of course, I sensed for a moment that all sorts of fantasies had gone through my colleagues' minds, but let us keep things at a medical level.

The expression “any...person authorized” was too vague and it was important to be more specific. As for the expressions “any screening technology” and “entry...of any foreign body”, hon. members will admit that they are very general. The Bloc Québécois, ever mindful of its responsibilities, tabled an amendment to refer instead to “appropriate medical technologies”. This amendment sought to set some limits.

The bill proposes a number of new points. For example, a new requirement applies to the operator and crew of conveyances. These may be planes, boats or land vehicles. They are required to report all cases of illness or death on board before their arrival in Canada. It is understandable that those responsible for these means of transport might be able to identify possible sources of infection. It is an act of civic duty—the obligation to report them—now enshrined in the law. The aim of the mandatory reporting is obviously to prevent the spread.

Clause 15 is also of some importance. It concerns the obligation on travellers who believe themselves to have a communicable disease or have been in contact with a person with a communicable disease. They must present themselves to a quarantine officer on arrival or departure. Initially it was felt that this should be a voluntary measure and not a requirement. A person who thinks they have malaria, German measles or measles is required to present themselves to the quarantine officer on their arrival or departure. Obviously, the quarantine bill concerns people from outside coming to Canada.

This is a fascinating bill. We have studied it for two weeks.