Réal Ménard

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I know that in this House the temptation to be partisan is part of our natural instincts as politicians.

At this moment, we must trust the minister. First, because he is a young minister—not young chronologically, but young in his responsibilities. I think everyone has the right to a kind of beginner's luck. I am ready to take his word when he tells me that he wants to work for the welfare of the victims by expanding the compensation.

Once again, I think it is better to have a deadline. If we start with good faith as a given, then it is bad faith that must be proven. If in a few months the minister has not been able to deliver the goods, unfortunately, we will have no other choice than to push him as far as we can.

But at present, like my colleagues, I choose to trust the minister and believe that we will be able to settle this issue in a non-partisan way. I want to believe that the Christmas deadline is a good one. Still, if the minister can convince us it is not feasible, we will be patient, but what we really want is for this compensation to be expanded.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, yes the minister has our friendship and consideration this evening. I would not want him to think we were not grateful to the minister.

Perhaps I will call a point of order shortly, because I would like, with the House's leave, to have the minister explain to us in detail the connection with the actuaries. Perhaps I just did not grasp it, but I would like clarification that the reason we need deadlines is that we are moved by a passion for restorative justice.

We are making reparation. Unacceptable injustices have been committed. I have confidence in the minister as far as the deadlines are concerned, but we are in early November now. The minister may go before cabinet, and I know that it is necessary to present a cabinet memorandum. I know that the Treasury Board must be consulted. Let us, however, try nevertheless to keep Christmas as our deadline, one I feel is realistic. If the minister were to announce that to us in the February budget, we would be satisfied. He has our complete confidence as far as his willingness to solve the problem is concerned.

If ever he were to do so before Christmas, not only would he have our total confidence, he would also be assured of our everlasting friendship.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I do not want to be giving you direction, knowing you are the kind of man who needs handling with care.

I am very much aware of the importance of this debate and the solemnity that surrounds it. I remember in the mid-1990s when Allan Rock was Minister of Health and a colleague in the House went and placed a rose on his desk because this was such an emotion-charged issue. It is impossible not to be moved when half the people who contracted Hepatitis C have died since we became aware of this tragedy.

The beginning of all this is the discovery in the 1980s that blood supplies had become infected. The sad thing is that this tragedy not only has a human face, as of course it does, but that there is also a human failing involved. Of course we do not want to restrict this debate to human responsibility.

Last evening, I reread some excerpts from the Krever report. This all came to pass, I must remind hon. members, because of our somewhat blind trust in the Red Cross. This does not, of course, in any way diminish the philanthropic role of the Red Cross, but it is nonetheless true that there was a test available as far back as 1981 in the U.S.

At first, the government did not want to regulate blood. We did that only in 1989 for blood, blood products and derivatives, under schedule D of the Food and Drugs Act. Why did the government take so long? Not out of evil intent or any lack of an acute sense of responsibility. It is because we were all sure that, since the Red Cross was on the case, we could rest easy.

So we were amazed to learn, in the 1980s, that some supplies had been contaminated with two viruses. There was HIV, of course, and about 1,000 people contracted it. At the time of the Krever report, in 1995, they were saying that a potential 10,000 or close to it had been infected. Why stick to a chronology here, when we hit a wall from 1986 to 1990? A sad fact, but one we must keep in mind.

I am very pleased at the open-minded attitude of the minister. I have been told about his humanity, and how progressive he was as a premier. He was even health minister in British Columbia as well, I am told, so I know he is familiar with these matters.

The fact is that we have to act quickly. I would like the minister to share our desire, as parliamentarians, to set ourselves a deadline of no later than the Christmas holiday. The House is likely to adjourn around December 17 or 18, as it usually does. Until then, the minister could commit to go to cabinet with a memorandum, go to the Treasury Board and return with a motion.

If the House wants to work with the kind of speed it can have when the urgency of a situation dictates, we can move very quickly. This place has been known to move bills through first, second and third reading within 48 hours. I am sure that the minister would find consent from all the parties to set a deadline so that access to compensation is expanded by Christmas.

We cannot address these issues without paying tribute to the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which was founded in 1953 and spends nearly $500,000 a year on research. Our rules do not allow me to mention the presence of anyone in particular in our galleries, but, if hon. members look this way with me, behind me, they will notice people who are following very closely our discussions and who have been extremely persevering and visionary.

I think that this would be a fine homage to pay to those who, over the years, have volunteered to get involved in research and fundraising and to represent people.

What was the situation? An amount of $1.1 billion was set aside. To date, perhaps $400 million or so has been paid or will be at some future date. When I talked with representatives of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, they estimated that between 6,000 and 7,000 claims could be filed. This means that, in this kind of scenario, there is plenty of money in the fund to expand access to compensation.

We must bear in mind, however, that several provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and even the health minister's home province, I think, have already expanded access to compensation. Four provinces did so. The federal government must follow suit. Why? Because these persons who received blood transfusions or blood products did not contribute to their own misfortune. This is not an instance of negligence, where those involved are responsible for what happened to them.

We had appropriate confidence in a system where the federal government had delegated to the Red Cross the supply, distribution and monitoring of blood products. We know how authoritative the Red Cross was when we discussed these issues. Unfortunately, we know how events turned out. That is why it is so absurd to have set up chronological criteria. Why did the government establish chronology as a condition? It was because they said in 1986 an indirect test did exist, while after 1990 all blood products were examined.

We must put that on the list of things to accomplish together as parliamentarians by Christmas. There is no need to be partisan. Sincerely, I think that the opposition ought to apply pressure.The parliamentary secretary threw me such a powerful look that I cannot help but think he was a little angry. Today we held a press conference with all the opposition parties. We did not do so out of partisan feelings, but to press the government for action.

When the health minister rises in this House to say he is sincere and wants to work on expanding compensation, we are ready to take him at his word. We know that he wants to work to this end. I do not think we should doubt the minister's word. I know that in a few years, when he reckons up what he has accomplished in the House, unlike David Dingwall or the hon. member for Sudbury or Allan Rock or the hon. member for Edmonton Centre or the hon. member for Papineau, the minister will be pleased to say that among his accomplishments he acted on the first recommendation of the Krever report.

All parties in this House will be grateful to him. If the minister believes that the Standing Committee on Health can play its part, then of course, we shall do so. This issue is too serious to let it drag on. Let us be proud to say that this Parliament can settle this issue unanimously. There are not many issues we settle unanimously. There are not many issues on which we reach consensus. The question of increasing compensation may be one. I challenge the minister, in a friendly way, to settle this issue before Christmas. I think that we will be very proud parliamentarians to have this issue behind us.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Including the families?

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for the open-mindedness he has shown. Speaking for all my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, I would certainly like to tell him that whatever form of collaboration is decided upon, we will be ready to take part.

I have two questions to ask him. Since the Krever inquiry there have been five health ministers. I believe that carrying out the first recommendation of the Krever commission would truly be very generous of him and that it would be worth his while to be the minister who got it done. It is a true challenge and he is up to it. I know he will have the cooperation of all members of this House.

Can he tell us exactly how many people have received their claims, as of this moment? The information we have as an opposition party is that nearly $400 million has been spent to date and some 7,000 people have received compensation, although the government was supposed to compensate 22,000 of them.

Can he bring us up to date on this matter? I point out that we have some people in the gallery today from the Canadian Hemophilia Society.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-13 to amend the Criminal Code. The battle against organized crime, or to put it more broadly, the administration of criminal evidence, has always been of great importance to the Bloc Québécois and to all my colleagues.

I cannot help but make the connection between Bill C-13, which we have before us at this time, and the very pertinent activism of the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier and other colleagues in this House. In fact, all opposition parties tabled a bill calling for the burden of proof to be reversed in the case of the proceeds of crime, once guilt has been established, of course.

In the mid-90s, a heinous crime was committed; a young girl called Tara Manning was murdered. A problem arose when it came to determining guilt. There was no provision for collecting DNA samples in order to prove that a suspect was guilty.

It was a very important time when this House acted with great diligence, because the bill in question was passed through all stages in less than 48 hours. It was proof that, when members work together, this House can act very quickly. It was also proof that, in all our deliberations, the issue of criminal law and the fight against organized crime have grown considerably in importance in recent years.

I recall that young Daniel Desrochers was murdered in 1995 in my riding of Hochelaga. At the time, there was no anti-gang legislation nor any provisions regarding organized crime, such as we have now.

I had organized a meeting between young Daniel Desrocher's mother and Allan Rock, who was then justice minister. It was not easy to achieve a balance between bringing members of large criminal organizations such as the Hells Angels, Rock Machine and Bandidos to justice and ensuring that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was respected.

The bill before us today refers directly to the national DNA data bank. I was mentioning the case of young Ms. Manning. It was after that case that we established the national DNA data bank, which the Crown may consult.

The Conservative Party of Canada's justice critic has reminded us that it is not automatic. It is true that when the Crown wishes to take a sample of a bodily substance, it must ask for a court order. In one way, this is understandable, because taking samples of bodily substances is something quite intimate.

Criminal law always involves a delicate balance between the expectation of privacy and the sound administration of justice by means of evidence. In criminal matters, there must not only be a preponderance of evidence. The same test is not found in civil law. In criminal matters, the evidence must be beyond any doubt. That is understandable.

In criminal law, when the evidence has been weighed, a sentence 10, 15, 20 or 25 years in prison may be given. It is normal and desirable that the day on which the sentence is passed, all elements of proof should be not only conclusive, but irreproachable and beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Therefore, Canada has a national DNA data bank.

Before the bill before us was presented by the Minister of Justice, a distinction had been made between primary designated offences and secondary designated offences. The Crown's responsibility differed for the two types of offence.

Primary designated offences are offences of a sexual nature, involving child pornography, procuring, and living on the avails of prostitution and juvenile prostitution. These are extremely serious and shocking offences, and our fellow citizens expect those found guilty of such offences to be heavily sentenced.

For offences under section 487.4 of the Criminal Code, the Crown could automatically request a court order for samples. The court was not as vigilant in the case of secondary designated offences. It is not that the court took these offences less seriously, but stronger arguments had to be presented in order to obtain samples for this type of offence.

I am talking about offences that are nonetheless criminal, for which criminal charges can be laid or summary proceedings taken, but the charges are less serious than charges related to sexual offences. These offences include criminal harassment, uttering threats, breaking and entering, intimidation, arson, and so on.

Bill C-13 extends the list for both categories of offence. Obviously, it links with the legislation we passed on child pornography and adds to existing offences. The bill offers something quite new. Only prosecutors will be able to request court orders. If a prosecutor, which in most cases is a crown prosecutor, wants samples of bodily substances taken in relation to the charges before the court to be submitted to the national DNA data bank, then it is up to the prosecutor to do so. Nothing will be done automatically any more.

It is understandable that bodily substances, be they hair, nails or any nasal secretion, are very important in building evidence. I need only mention a certain decision of the Supreme Court. The story goes like this. An individual was arrested for stealing a truck, charged and read his constitutional rights. He was taken in for questioning, during which he blew his nose. Without his knowledge, the prosecution collected the tissue, which was admitted in evidence and would contribute to his conviction. As it turned out, the prosecution's evidence was ruled inadmissible under section 24.2 of the Charter, because it was collected without the individual's knowledge.

This goes to show the very important a role in terms of evidence played by bodily substances through their almost unequivocal identification of offenders. The bill before us adds offences to the list of primary and secondary offences, but requires the Crown, the prosecution, not only to initiate proceedings but also to request that substances taken from an indicted offender be included in the national DNA data bank.

The Bloc Québécois is generally in favour of the bill, with a few incidental changes.

[Quarantine Act, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-12, the new Quarantine Act.

Members may recall—no one here was alive at the time, but I am making a historical reference—the first Quarantine Act dates back to the 18th century, more specifically to the year 1794. It is important that all countries have provisions allowing them to tale swift action when infectious diseases are discovered or anticipated.

As the hon. member for Laval—who was making her maiden speech in this House on Friday—aptly pointed out, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. We will suggest a few amendments to the Standing Committee on Health. However, as regards the principle of this legislation, we agree of course that taking action in such circumstances is a federal responsibility.

I would like to mention the main focuses of this legislation. If Bill C-12 is passed, carriers would be required to disclose all cases of disease or death occurring prior to their arriving in Canada. This means that it will be mandatory for a ship, a railway company or an airline to report diseases discovered onboard.

This bill would also make it possible to require travellers who have a communicable disease or have been in close proximity to a person who has a communicable disease to present themselves to a screening officer or quarantine officer. My colleagues will agree that this is more than reasonable.

As well, the use of screening technology would be allowed at the entry point into Canada. This may seem equally reasonable but we have a small question on this.

I see that clause 14 of the bill allows “any person authorized by the minister”— this being the Minister of Health—“to use any screening technology that does not involve the entry into the traveller's body of any instrument or other foreign body” in order to determine whether a traveller has symptoms of a communicable disease.

That strikes me as a bit general, an opening to abuse in certain circumstances. I wonder whether it might be replaced by the wording “any medically appropriate technique”.

In passing legislation, we must not betray the intent of the legislator. As much as possible, therefore, where appropriate, the bill needs to be precise so as not to allow any openings for abusive interpretations or confer upon the Minister of Health any powers we do not wish to confer upon him.

This bill would also permit the inspection of any conveyance arriving in Canada, and the disinfection and decontamination of the conveyance, its contents and cargo, if necessary.

This bill, which appears highly technical, certainly forces us to reflect a bit about globalization. When the first quarantine laws were enacted, back in the 18th century, 1794 to be precise, hon. members will agree that people's mobility was relatively limited. Travel was not without discomfort; the means were not as highly developed as they are now.

I would like to make a quick aside here, to indicate that I strongly encourage the hon. member for Outremont to reintroduce former Bill C-26, which conferred powers of mediation on the Canadian Transportation Agency. I cannot understand that member's lack of backbone. We need him to show a little more gumption in defending the interests of Quebec. This is very important.

Yesterday I was speaking with a woman mayor who sits on one of the committees of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, a very important lobby group. I believe that the leader of the NDP has had connections with this in the past. Railway transportation is an extremely important problem.

I have been told that the railways run through some 1,400 communities in Canada. It is quite incredible to realize that CP and CN are acting like railway delinquents.

In my riding, Hochelaga, CP works 24 hours a day, because it serves the port of Montreal. Some of our constituents, who live in residential areas near the tracks, find their peace is disturbed at all hours of the day and night, morning and afternoon.

I think the hon. member for Saint-Lambert has a similar problem. As I said, it affects 1,400 communities in Canada. We do not yet know what number the new bill that deals with this issue will be given; the previous one was Bill C-26. Our constituents know that the number of a bill corresponds to the order in which it is introduced in the House, and we do not know when this bill will be introduced. Nevertheless, I am not explaining myself very well with respect to the dithering by the member for Outremont. I hope he is not one of those servile ministers who blindly follow orders from the lobbyists for CP and CN, whose power all of us on the Hill are familiar with.

Luckily for consumers, there is someone like the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, our transport critic, who is shrewd enough to understand the negotiations required in such circumstances. I hope that the Minister of Transport will soon introduce a new bill identical to Bill C-26 so that the Canadian Transportation Agency can intervene. As we know, it is a quasi-judicial body that issues official rulings.

We will recall that citizens of Oakville, Ontario, asked the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations allowing it to intervene in the operating conditions of the major national carriers such as CN and CP. Since the carriers have the funds needed to contest legislation, both the constitutional and more practical aspects, they contested the power and prerogatives of the Canadian Transportation Agency and they won in a Federal Court ruling, in 2001, if I remember correctly. Once again we are in a situation where, unfortunately, the railway companies have total control unless we, the legislators, can intervene.

That is the end of my digression, which was brief and really timely in this debate on quarantine and intended to remind hon. members that the mobility of persons is a consequence of globalization. One of our colleagues in this House looked into that matter. We are not talking about just an opinion. Our colleague gave it some thought and realized that the political boundaries of a state do not necessarily match its economic boundaries anymore.

Naturally, the mobility of capital, people and goods creates a flux, a constant movement of our fellow citizens. The border between the United States and Canada, for example, is one of the most open. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles could perhaps remind me who said, “Geography has made us neighbours; history has made us friends”. This is how the relationship between Canada and the United States was described. I think it was by former Prime Minister Diefenbaker.

I will conclude, because I have only one minute left, by saying that we will support the bill in principle. While we understand that it is the role of the federal government to look at potential areas of infection, we are concerned because the federal government is trying to claim certain prerogatives.

For instance, I read in the bill that the federal government planned to deal directly with the authorities. These would be health officials. Clearly, that is not desirable. But, in principle, we will support the bill.

My hon. colleague from Laval and I will put amendments forward at the Standing Committee on Health. We will work with the sense of responsibility that has always been the trademark of the Bloc Québécois team.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I will simply say two things. Obviously, the hon. member cannot criticize me for being optimistic by nature, even very optimistic.

I know he will understand that the right to self-determination belongs to the people of Quebec and that the rest of Canada will understand that it is in its best interests to be part of a common market and to ensure that the junction of our respective interests benefits both sides.

Indeed, I do think it is possible to build a new country on the basis of an association.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, perhaps our hon. colleague will remember this man named René Lévesque, who, in the early 1980s, recognized the nation status of 11 first nations.

Quebec is a pretty good model when it comes to its relations with the first nations. As sovereignists, we have always acknowledged that we need to have a relationship, cooperation and special recognition for the first nations. I think that the policies put in place by René Lévesque and his successors ought to be an inspiration for all the members of this House who are respectful of the rights of the first nations.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In international law and as sovereignists have been explaining for three decades already, what makes a nation is very clear. There are five essential elements: a vernacular language, which is, in our case, French, among others; effective control over a territory; a people demonstrating a will to live together; democratic institutions; and a history.

Very simply put, this is what a nation is. Nations have a right to self-determination. Two international conventions recognize this. This is why Quebec is destined to become a sovereign state in the world, which will not prevent it from forging associative links as determined by its interests and common values.

I am very surprised that our colleague has not realized that Quebec is a nation, since we have cast the net wide. When we maintain that Quebec is a nation, it is something that is not unanimous, but there is a relative consensus in Quebec.