Réal Ménard

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate relevant questions from my colleague. I have fond memories of when she was on the committee, since she represents the very progressive wing of her party. I hear excellent things about the new NDP critic, who will take over from the leader of the NDP. She is responsible and respectable. We are eager to discover our new colleague on the Standing Committee on Health.

Our colleague is quite right. There is a very serious flaw in the bill. A worker could be quarantined for 24, 48 or 72 hours, without the assurance of receiving daily compensation for lost income. The government says, “Compensation is a possibility. The regulations will allow us to do this. However, we will proceed on a case-by-case basis. We refuse to make this a policy”. We think this is dangerous, because whenever decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, they could be discretionary. Consequently, we would have liked the bill to be more definite about this.

The whole issue of compensation is extremely important, but the amendments were unfortunately not accepted in committee.

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with the Quarantine Act, in order to avoid epidemics and the spread of communicable diseases, the government is aiming at requiring individuals with symptoms to undergo a certain examination. Our colleague knows that there are ways of challenging this and that judicial authorization is needed, as I mentioned. The committee amended various provisions in the legislation to refer to reasonable grounds on the part of the screening officer or environmental health officer.

What I was alluding to is the fact that the Supreme Court has determined that an individual cannot be compelled to undergo treatment. This does not have the same connotation or significance as what the member was talking about. The federal government says that it is responsible for quarantines related to public health because it does not want an individual to be a carrier spreading diseases listed in Schedule 1.

There was a case that was litigated a few years ago regarding parents who were Jehovah's Witnesses and refused to allow their child to have blood transfusions. In broad terms, the Supreme Court determined than an individual cannot be forced to undergo treatment. However, one can also not contribute to a person's death. In regard to medical treatment, what I was referring to in my speech was a Supreme Court decision about forcing an individual to undergo medical treatment.

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

It is exactly 71.6%, I am informed by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who knows the Criminal Code backwards and forwards and who is as knowledgeable about opinion polls.

That said, the Jean Charest government is challenging the reproductive technologies bill in court. This is nothing to sneeze at, for this is not a government particularly known for standing up for the interests of Quebec. WIth all due respect, one might in fact call it somewhat spineless.

This is a kind of repeat tendency by the federal government to wish to interfere in areas not under its jurisdiction. It is not surprising to see them doing so in connection with health, since that is still the area of most concern to our fellow citizens.

I do not want to stray off topic, so let us get back to Bill C-12. As I have said, when it was introduced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it was Bill C-36. This bill concerns both human rights and public facilities.

It has been clearly established that the way people move around has changed, and people are in closer contact, so the potential for infection is greater. I am talking about mere proximity, nothing extreme. In public places, even this one, we are seeing requests to wash our hands.Every time we go in or out of the House, we take great precautions. We now realize that even shaking hands can transmit certain things, though not the flu. According to scientific knowledge, influenza is not transmitted by human contact, but is a virus that can remain active a long time.

Let me not get off topic again. Back to the bill. It will give the minister the authority to designate quarantine areas anywhere in Canada. We in the Bloc Québécois, our colleague from Laval in particular, brought in a dozen or so amendments so that the government would never be able to do this without consultation and input from the health authorities, those of Quebec in our case, but those of the other provinces as well.

Unfortunately, I regret to inform the House that our amendments were not adopted by the parliamentary committee. I do regret that. The bill would have been strengthened, without our challenging the federal government's jurisdiction, if a real partnership like that could have been established.

The bill contains another important provision: it creates quarantine officers. These are people found often, but not exclusively, in airports. They will carry out investigations and verify whether someone is a source of infection. I will come back to this issue later, but it looks like an intrusion. The potential for violations of privacy in this bill was quite real. It was so real that the members of the committee felt the need to have the Privacy Commissioner testify. That was the Conservatives' idea. It was not a bad idea and we supported it. We did obtain a number of amendments, particularly concerning detention periods.

Happily or unhappily, I shall conclude by speaking of the number of quarantine officers and we will also look at some criminal law concepts. The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin will have some good memories of that.

The House will be pleased to learn that there are two quarantine officers in Halifax, four in Montreal, three in Ottawa, six in Toronto, three in Calgary, two in Edmonton and five in Vancouver, for a total of 25. The committee had this confirmed. We had debates on the issue. For example, the Association des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec could have seen health professionals as quarantine officers. Nurses could have performed the function, since they are familiar enough with the early signs of an infection.

In the bill, the minister chose to state that quarantine officers must be physicians. Is that a corporate bias? I shall refrain from judgment and each member can make up his or her own mind on this. Still, the fact is that quarantine officers, in terms of professional qualifications, must be physicians recognized by their own provincial governing body.

There also will be officers of various kinds, including environmental health officers. We understand that the Quarantine Act obviously applies to people entering or leaving Canada.

There will be an obligation, which already exists and has been confirmed, for all Canadian airports to be equipped with a site for examining people who may be infected or contaminated. This is nothing new. It is and will be the responsibility of airport authorities to provide space for this purpose.

At first glance, one might think this is a technical bill that has nothing to do with human relations or rights and freedoms. One might think the bill is not covered by the charter. We know we have a system that protects human rights. In 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in Canada. René Lévesque was opposed to this charter for two reasons. I do not want to get off topic, but Mr. Lévesque said that section 27 on the enhancement of multicultural heritage went against our plan for integration. Quebec has always believed in a common public culture, which, incidentally, began with the late Gérald Godin, MNA for Mercier. Mr. Lévesque was opposed to the charter, the constitution that was imposed on us. Remember the unilateral patriation, the night of the long knives, and all that? The constitutional context is indelibly marked on the collective memory of Quebeckers.

Mr. Lévesque was opposed to this charter, specifically section 27 on the enhancement of multicultural heritage. However, he feared for the linguistic rights of Quebeckers. When we look at the Ford ruling and all the rulings—let us be frank—the Quebec clause has been invalidated. That is what happened with the charter.

Potential access to school was expanded for minorities, but not only for minorities. When a parent did his or her primary school in English in Canada, it was the Canada clause that applied, not the Quebec clause enacted by the National Assembly.

Mr. Lévesque was a visionary. I ask my colleagues to applaud Mr. Lévesque for, without his visionary side, without this grasp he had of the Charter, I think that the history of Quebec would have been different.

Let us not digress, however: back to the quarantine bill. This is a bill which concerns human rights. Why? Because the quarantine officer, to be designed by regulation, will have a power of detention. We know that he will have to be not only a health professional but a physician. In a certain number of cases—I grant you that this will have to be with court authorization—he will be able to detain for several hours, or several days, persons who he has reason to believe are infected to some degree. It is here that the parliamentary committee has shown vigilance in adding the legally sanctioned notion of reasonable doubt.

As the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin knows, it has been clearly established by the courts that one cannot cause bodily harm to a person. One cannot even compel a person to receive medical treatment. With regard to the Rodriguez case—whose connection to the Quarantine Act will be clear to everyone—and the issue of assisted suicide, it is important to know that the Supreme Court has said that section 7 on the right to life, liberty and security of the person does not imply the right to quality of life. The Supreme Court refused to declare invalid section 241 of the Criminal Code concerning persons who assist with a suicide.

Let us not forget the essential thing: all of this is to point out that Bill C-12 allows considerable powers of detention. The committee wanted to mark out those powers to some degree, and to ensure first of all that the trigger mechanism can be activated only on the ground of reasonable doubt and after an investigation.

A final note on travellers. To make it very clear to everyone, clause 28(1) of the bill creates very specific obligations for travellers. Indeed, under the Quarantine Act, when on Canadian soil, a traveller arriving from Paris, London, Berlin or anywhere else around the world, will be required to undergo a health assessment. This traveller will have to agree to the treatment identified by the quarantine officer. This is still subject to the qualifications I made earlier.

Let us look at another aspect of the bill, namely the whole issue of compensation. As we know, this issue took up a lot of the committee's time.

As I have less than a minute left, I shall conclude. In a nutshell, Bill C-12 is constitutionally valid, because it falls under the government's jurisdiction. It is a technical bill which, in some regards, should raise concerns about human rights.

We would have liked the BQ amendment calling for provincial jurisdictions to be respected and for no quarantine areas to be established without the prior consent of the province concerned. We would have liked a little more compensation. But, overall, this is a bill that deserves to be passed. The Bloc Québécois will support it.

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Canoes are not used quite so much.

All that to say that the SARS crisis was a real revelation. We did not realize that there could still be major sources of infection, and that virology could attain mass proportions.

The minister responsible for the Public Health Agency of Canada—which we will fight to our dying day because of its intrusions into provincial jurisdictions— knows that one of the characteristics of the public health variables at the present time is that 85% of new illnesses discovered have an animal connection. It is important to keep this in mind.

That said, Bill C-12 enables the Government of Canada to do certain things without its jurisdiction being contested. I must digress for a moment, because there is a problem, unfortunately, with the Public Health Agency of Canada in regard to jurisdiction. The officials and even the minister, my friend the member for St. Paul's, know very well that there is a potential for intrusion because public health, on the face of it, is under provincial jurisdiction.

If we are talking about care for Native peoples or veterans, then we acknowledge that there is no possible encroachment. Constitutionally, this jurisdiction is valid, recognized by the courts.

Let us talk about patents, for example. I hope that, one day in this House, my colleagues will realize just how much I have considered this matter, just how balanced my opinion is and just how important it would be, before long, to be able to have a debate on the new realities with regard to evergreening.

As a result, when it comes to quarantines, patents, veterans and aboriginals, for which the federal government is the trustee, there is no problem with infringement on areas of jurisdiction. When it comes to public health, there is a real potential for this to happen, so the Bloc Québécois will have to be extremely vigilant.

Before I come back to the Quarantine Act, I want to provide a little background.

I mentioned earlier, with a certain amount of pride, that I was the senior member of the Standing Committee on Health. I thank my leader, my whip and my House leader for entrusting me with this responsibility. We considered the bill on new reproductive technologies, to which our Conservative Party colleague alluded. When I read the first version of this bill, I immediately sounded the alarm, since this seemed to me to be a clear case of infringement. In fact, where are infertility treatments provided? Obviously, in clinics and hospitals. This was a clear infringement.

We must remember that 71% of Quebeckers are dissatisfied with Jean Charest's government.

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure, in the next 20 minutes, for this is in a way the mandate I have set for myself, to speak to you about this exciting Bill C-12, the first version of which had been introduced by the minister of Foreign Affairs and used to be known as Bill C-36. Our television viewers—and we know that there are many at this hour—will no doubt be happy to learn that the number attached to bills corresponds to the order in which they are introduced in this House. So that means that this is the 36th bill being introduced by the government.

Those clarifications having been made, let us talk about the Standing Committee on Health. And I will take the opportunity here to thank my party for entrusting me with responsibility for health. After all these years, I derive a certain satisfaction from being the dean of the Standing Committee on Health. I believe I am the youngest in terms of age, but the dean in terms of seniority, since I have been there since 1999. As the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher knows, I have been through the great debates on labelling, tobacco products and so forth. So I have some experience, let us admit, on health issues.

The quarantine bill is rather technical, and we might think that it does not have much to do with human rights. But that would be wrong for, as I will show, the committee wanted to amend some 30 clauses—now I am getting the attention of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin—to introduce a concept that has a very specific legal meaning, namely reasonable doubt.

The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin used to be a penal law professor at the Université de Montréal. I know that his courses were popular: just one exam, no term papers, reasonable jurisprudence. He was a sought-after professor and he also served Quebec well in his various ministerial capacities.

That said, in regard to the quarantine bill, legislation from the 19th century—I think that only the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell could actually refer to this period from memory—the legislation has not been reviewed very often. The way diseases are spread is no longer the same. We will remember that ships were the main means of transportation in the 19th century. Now, as our transport critic knows, people travel by plane. There are trains, too, maybe, in some places, but the main means of transportation remains—

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for his speech, which was often passionate, as we know Conservatives can be on certain issues. I will ask three questions of my colleague, a chiropractor by trade who, like myself, has followed the proceedings in parliamentary committee very closely. It is a committee, incidentally, which functions quite well and is relatively free of partisanship.

I would first like to ask what his party's view is on compensation. We know that a number of witnesses have said they would like to see the possibility of a per diem payment when a quarantine zone is established in Canada, even if it has to be established, of course, by regulation. I am not asking our colleague to tell us how much that per diem should be, but I would like him to speak to this all the same.

Secondly, this is a bill whose regulations, which will be made by order in council, are extremely important. Does he share my view that, as with the Tobacco Act to some extent, it is very important for parliamentarians to look at these regulations? We know that the regulations often determine the “operationalization” of a statute, and that it is increasingly common practice in this Parliament to ensure that hon. members can see these regulations in the end.

And third, can he tell us whether he considers Schedule 1 of the bill to be complete? If not, what other types of infections would he like to see in it?

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I know that you have things well under control.

If I may, I would like to put a few questions to our colleague and friend. Incidentally, I knew her predecessor very well, the former member for St. Paul's. He was a phlegmatic person, who had a lot of composure and a bit of a British temperament. He was my friend and I know that the hon. member opposite is also my friend.

I have three questions to put to her. The Standing Committee on Health spent many hours working very hard because, as we know, the Quarantine Act dates back to the 19th century. It really needed to be modernized. Let us not forget also that, in the 19th century, ships were the primary sources of communicable diseases, since they were the main means of transportation. Today, the most important provisions of the bill deal with aircraft.

I would like to get the opinion of the minister who, as we know, is a doctor, regarding the issue of compensation.

We know that the bill allows the minister to designate any place in Canada as a quarantine facility. The Bloc Québécois took into consideration the jurisdictions of the provinces and proposed amendments on this issue. I want to ask the minister about her views on the issue of compensation. In light of this power held by the minister, our fellow citizens could conceivably be stranded for 24, 48 or 72 hours and prevented from getting back to their workplaces. Does the minister not think that it would have been advisable to include some compensation formulas?

I also want to ask her if, as a doctor and a parliamentarian, she can express her views on the list found in the schedule and review with us the various diseases found on that list.

[Quarantine Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-12 to update the Quarantine Act. Since this act dates back to the 19th century, the proposed amendments will modernize it and make it workable and more in line with today's various epidemiological contexts.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principles behind the bill, and raised a number of questions in committee. We need to realize first the ways epidemics spread in the 18th and 19th centuries are completely different the way they spread today. People were far less mobile, and if they did travel it was mainly by train. Nowadays, the major vectors in the transmission of epidemics include means of transportation such as aircraft. Certain provisions of the act will require all carriers to report any illness or death occurring on board before they arrive in Canada.

It is important to understand that the Quarantine Act has nothing to do with control mechanisms within the country. Those are the responsibility of the various public health agencies. Its purpose is rather to focus on the transmission of epidemics at the various Canadian entry and exit points.

In its present form, the bill requires travellers who have a communicable disease, or who have been in close proximity to a person who has a communicable disease, to present themselves to a screening officer or quarantine officer, so that a number of controls can be performed.

I must say that, throughout its proceedings, the Standing Committee on Health was concerned that the travellers who will be checked by a screening officer or a quarantine officer should have various forms of recourse available to them. For example, a number of committee members proposed amendments that were adopted to ensure that the controls performed by quarantine officers are carried out within a reasonable period of time. We felt that this period should be less than 48 hours.

As we know, the Quarantine Act gives to the Minister of Health the power to establish quarantine zones. We may think that these quarantine zones will be created primarily in airport facilities, but they will not necessarily be limited to these areas. If the Bloc Québécois has one regret, this is it. Even though we worked in relative harmony in committee, and even though the Bloc Québécois supports the objectives of this legislation, we would have liked the bill to clearly state that a quarantine zone and perimeter cannot be established without the approval of the health authorities involved.

Let us take the very specific example of the Dorval Airport. If, among a group of travellers arriving from Sri Lanka—I am giving this example to illustrate my point—a source of infection is identified, in this specific case, we would have liked the quarantine zone to be established only with the approval of the Quebec health and social services department.

This is why the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments which, unfortunately, were not adopted by the committee and, consequently, by the government.

We had many debates in committee, including on SARS. Although it is particularly relevant to Toronto and Ontario, the committee members asked specific questions. It is true that this bill will enable the minister to make regulations concerning a number of very important definitions and questions.

We considered whether it would be relevant to be able to offer compensation to people held in a quarantine zone and possibly prevented from returning to their work or families for 24, 48 or 72 hours. We wondered if it might not be a good idea to compensate those people.

Of course, it is not easy to set a standard. Some colleagues mentioned the average industrial wage. I think the minister should look into the question again.

Being in quarantine does involve some restriction of personal freedom and possibly being deprived of the right to work. However, the amendment on this was not adopted by the committee. I believe the chair did not want to agree to this kind of amendment in case it would commit public funds and thus require a royal recommendation.

We also looked at the responsibility of the operators of facilities, for example, an airport where quarantine has been declared. Obviously, an emergency is involved. The parliamentary secretary reminded us in committee that the Quarantine Act has not been used in the past 100 years. It is not therefore a everyday measure.

However, to the extent that the Quarantine Act is invoked, what responsibility should this government and Parliament assign to those running such facilities? In fact, they will have to give up their space, their equipment and collaborate with the government as is to be expected in socio-health crises. Personally, I must say that I agree with the idea of granting some type of compensation.

This is the fear, among others, of airline representatives. It must be recognized that often the airlines and their staff are the ones coming into contact with the passengers arriving at their facilities. Airports could be induced to give up part of their facilities. We are comfortable with the idea that there would be some compensation for this.

There is another provision in the bill, a schedule that cabinet will be able to review. This schedule lists a number of diseases that could result in quarantine. Some of the ones identified are viral. Others were added to the list based on changes in medicine.

In committee, we made sure, if it ever became necessary to add a disease or infection to the list in Schedule I of the bill, that the conditions were in place to allow this to be done quite quickly.

We therefore believe this is an exceptional bill in that it should be used in unusual situations. The aim of this bill is to make the Quarantine Act even more effective.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill and the main amendments included in the notice paper . I believe that all the members did a good job in committee. In fact, we clearly understand that such a bill was essential in a world where germs and diseases can assume proportions that, today, require our vigilance as citizens and as parliamentarians.

[Ubisoft, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Ubisoft, a company with the world's second largest team of video game creators, has just confirmed that it will invest $700 million over the next five years to expand its operations in Montreal, thus creating 1,000 new jobs.

We salute Ubisoft's dynamism and recognize that financial support from the governments in Ottawa and Quebec City had something to do with this decision.

This example of Quebec-Ottawa cooperation gives legitimacy our questioning of the federal government's silence regarding any assistance it might provide to Bombardier in its ambitious proposal for a new family of aircraft. On December 15, the Government of Quebec presented Bombardier with a contingency plan in order to encourage the aircraft maker to develop its new aircraft at Mirabel. Ottawa has been as silent as the tomb so far.

The Prime Minister should take his inspiration from the federal participation in the Ubisoft file and take a clear position in favour of Quebec for Bombardier. Let us remind him that—

[Médecins du Monde Canada, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the international network of Médecins du Monde has officially recognized Médecins du Monde Canada as an autonomous delegation. This organization and its founder and president Dr. Réjean Thomas have celebrated five years of existence. Dr. Thomas is a well-known specialist in the battle against HIV-AIDS and is renowned for his boundless energy and his exemplary determination and commitment in promoting the respect and compassion all victims of ostracism deserve.

The organization has already had successful missions to Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. It has just announced that it will be going to Southeast Asia because of the devastation caused by the tsunami. It recruits volunteers and raises funds for its own projects. Financing comes from public funding, individual and corporate donors and private foundations.

I encourage everyone to support the activities of this admirable organization and its extraordinary work through the essential role it plays in relieving human suffering.