Réal Ménard

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

I feel that the minister is angry. However, the truth must be said in this House. The minister can be emotional all she wants, no one will prevent me from saying that the government made a mistake when it decided that a 14-year-old child would be considered an adult in court because of the young offenders bill. Let us think about that.

All stakeholders in Quebec have condemned the absolutely detrimental nature of this bill. Without Michel Bellehumeur, to whom we must continue to pay tribute in the House, the government would have acted like a steamroller, without showing any sensitivity toward Quebec.

I had to remind the House of this fact. This leads me to another issue involving the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness when she was health minister. Today, I must point out something about the reproductive technologies legislation. I do not know if she has looked into this issue. Her record is not brilliant, but she is an endearing person.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the current Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is an endearing person, but sometimes, she does not listen. Every time she did not listen to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, she found herself in a situation where she violated Quebec's rights.

I will talk about the legislation on reproductive technologies. There was a consensus in Quebec. You know how spineless the Charest government is when it comes to defending Quebec's interests. Yet, even the current health minister in the Charest government, Mr. Couillard, condemned this bill. Do you know why? Because it contradicted 14 acts that were passed by the national assembly, including the Civil Code. If there is something that makes Quebec a distinct society, it is the Civil Code.

Nevertheless, when she was health minister, the current Minister of Public Safety proposed a bill that was not acceptable to the National Assembly. She wanted to legalize surrogacy while the Civil Code did not recognize it.

I have to mention certain facts. I know that it is difficult. Remember Jean-Paul Sartre, the philosopher, who said that words were loaded guns. Sometimes truth has to be stronger than partisan considerations.

Unfortunately, the then health minister introduced a bill that, once again, was adopted unanimously. Since there is not much that happens on the Hill that I do not know about, I have learned that since the other place did not completely dispose of this bill before prorogation, it could be reintroduced.

In January 2003, with its usual wisdom and clear-sightedness, the Bloc Quebecois proposed that the bill be split in two so that parliamentarians could vote on prohibitions. There was unanimity in the House. Nobody wanted to live in a society that would authorize cloning.

There was some fifteen prohibited practices in this bill. Remember that in January 2003, the Raelians were in the news, and we did not know if they had succeeded in cloning humans.

I see the minister is sighing , but I encourage him to keep calm and to recognize objectively that the facts I am bringing before the House are totally verifiable. If the minister of the day had accepted that the bill be divided into two bills, that is with one on the banned practices, and one dealing with the Canadian agency with responsibility for regulating reproductive technologies, we would have voted against the latter.

We are very much aware that there was a royal commission. Moreover the wife of the former Prime Minister and member for Calgary was a member of that commission, which recommended putting an end to this legislative vacuum.

Since 1993, the present government, here is the dramatic point, the present Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness greatly contributed to this, wanted to do some nation building with health. This is a government that, when the public system was put in place, was paying 50¢ of every dollar spent on health and reduced it to 14¢, thereby creating a common front made up of all the first ministers, regardless of political stripe, NDP, Conservative, Liberal.

At the interprovincial level, we have seen the provinces rise above partisanship and join forces to urge the federal government to restore the transfer payments to their 1993-94 level. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the federal contribution to health is still at 14 cents for every dollar.

At the end of my speech, if the minister wishes to reply, we will ask for unanimous consent. However, I will repeat that, at this point in time, only 14 cents on every dollar invested come from the federal government, which is putting a lot of pressure, as you can imagine, on provincial health systems.

There have been seven provincial public inquiries. In Quebec, we had the Clair Commission. All of these commissions came to the same conclusion, that the problems the provinces have with the health care system are directly linked to the federal government withdrawal from health.

Unfortunately, I have to tell the truth and remind the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that she stood by, while she was health minister, and let the situation deteriorate. It is quite sad. I say so much to my chagrin, because it is not in my nature to be partisan.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

If the minister wants to debate the issue with me I will be pleased to give her some time. However, I must say that this is an indelible mark on her record. She refused to listen to the stakeholders in the area of justice. She decided that a 14 year old child would be deemed--

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Le député veut-il écouter la traduction? Je vous en prie, asseyez-vous. Je m'excuse, je ne peux pas m'interrompre, mais le député peut prendre un siège.

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing my comments to you, in accordance with our Standing Orders. You know how important civil liberties are in a democracy, and we are not prepared to grant excessive powers to the RCMP. We believe that the anti-terrorism bill, the public safety bill, goes too far and we are not ready to follow the lead of the government.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is usually a very reasonable woman, notwithstanding the work she has done on the young offenders issue and her reference to the Supreme Court. Of course, there have been abuses.

I would never be able to forgive the current Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness—who, as we know, was the Minister of Justice and who is said to be very close to the current Prime Minister—or forget her actions regarding the Young Offenders Act. I should point out that Michel Bellehumeur, the former member for Berthier—Montcalm, who was appointed to the bench and is currently a judge in the criminal division of the Court of Quebec, had tabled 2,997 amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Of course, everyone knows about his legal expertise. Still. What a man, what a great parliamentarian. The spirit of Mr. Bellehumeur is still very present in this House.

However, the minister was particularly narrow-minded and stubborn. She refused to listen to Quebec as a whole and to all the stakeholders in the area of civil justice.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with you that it is a rather unaccustomed thing, most unusual in fact, for us to be here at 7:20 p.m. Not that your company is not agreeable, or that of our colleagues, but I think our viewers need to understand what we are doing here.

If we are still here in the House of Commons at 7:20 p.m. it is because the government has done something that is in total disrespect of the opposition. This is a rather sad event, since we could have hoped, and might have expected, at a time when the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and government House leader has released a document inviting our reflection on how to breathe new life into this Parliament, how to bring parliamentarians closer to their constituents, and how to renew the parliamentary process, that the government would be somewhat more respectful of the opposition.

What is the object of the debate we are engaged in this evening? It is a motion before the House inviting parliamentarians to reinstate all bills as they were before prorogation. Use of the term before prorogation invites us to understand that there is at least one paradox in the proposal submitted to us.

First of all, it is the present government that decided to send the members home. If we had continued with our work, as we had been sent here to do in September, we would normally have been here sitting in November and December. Thus we would have been able to pass a number of extremely worthwhile bills on which people had placed their expectations.

I am thinking for instance of the electoral reform, the marijuana issue, and the recognition of same sex partners. We might have expected to see the government introducing a bill to amend the Human Rights Act. I will come back to that point a little later.

However, instead of that, for reasons of blatant partisan politics, the government chose not to let parliamentarians sit. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere of democratic deficit in which we were steeped right from September on.

There were two camps. On the one side, a prime minister and MP for forty years in this House in the person of Mr. Jean Chrétien, leader of the government since 1993. On the other, a party leadership hopeful, the member for LaSalle—Émard, whose rapid ascension, and the way he became leader of the Liberal party will be judged by history.

Nevertheless, the fact is that the democratic deficit was real, so real that I hope all the members who are ministers will agree that it was an embarrassing situation to say the least. There was a government leader put into a minority position, exiled by his own colleagues. The fact is that Parliament did not sit in November and December.

And today, we have more of the same, with a chorus of scandal. The Auditor General, an officer of the House by extension, has released a report that reminds us of the common thread that ties the words corruption, nepotism, favouritism and partisan politics together, and unfortunately, it is the Liberal Party. Today the government wants us to get back to business in the same place where it earlier prevented us from sitting.

Do you think this is democratic? The opposition members, it is agreed, have a role to play in a democracy. The government is facing an experienced opposition. The Bloc Quebecois has always been extremely responsible in fulfilling its duties. We hope that when the government wants to introduce bills, it will do so with respect for the opposition and that it will present them for first reading and second reading, send them to committee for examination, and then proceed to third reading.

There are bills for which we are prepared to cooperate with diligence and speed. I am referring to the whole issue of drugs for Africa. The government chose to call this bill the Jean Chrétien bill. The lack of partisanship makes us realize that the former member for Shawinigan did a good thing. I understand that all parliamentarians wish to pass this bill.

Of course, that does not mean there will not be amendments. My friend, the former parliamentary secretary, whom I hold in great respect, knows, as a former surgeon, how important drugs are in the lives of our fellow citizens. He has spent years in relatively good health. He could use a little more exercise, he has put on a bit of weight, but for the most part he is in good health and we are glad.

The former prime minister and member for Shawinigan introduced in this House legislation that will make drugs, possibly in a generic version, available to third world countries, and not just African countries. The schedule in the bill shows that drugs could be available in Latin America, Africa, of course, but also in all the developing countries.

This is something we had to do. Without an accord, WTO rules would not allow generic drugs to be available if patents existed. The bill corrects this situation. Of course some agencies are worried about the issue of the right of first refusal. I am thinking of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, a largely federally funded agency that started in the early days of the epidemic. It is a very well informed agency that has always given this House and parliamentarians extremely good advice.

However, the fact remains that witnesses could have their say before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, but in its general composition, the bill is good. We are happy to adopt it. We are happy to pass it quickly.

Nevertheless, this is not the case for all bills. The Bloc Quebecois has serious concerns about the legislation on terrorism and public safety. Why? Because we are sons of freedom and we are not prepared to follow the U.S.

Let me tell you about the American model. The Americans have passed anti-terrorism legislation called the Patriot Act. This raises some serious concerns about potential violation of civil liberties. I think that members of this House are not prepared to follow in the Americans' footsteps.

Unfortunately, under the public safety bill, the anti-terrorism bill, civil liberties could be threatened, personal and identifiable information could be transferred to the RCMP where it is not warranted, ministers could make interim orders and parts of the Canadian and Quebec territory could unfortunately be subjected to excessive control.

Under the circumstances, it would be better to reintroduce the bill at first reading and let the opposition parties speak their minds.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is not a bad person. She is well educated, has a PhD and used to teach law.

[Radiocommunication Act, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the first time since we came back to the House. The debate today is on Bill C-2, which, obviously, is the second bill introduced after the throne speech.

Of course this is an important bill, but we would have preferred that the second bill before the House deal with the issue of health and the need to restore funding to 1994-95 levels, as requested by the premiers.

That said, it is still the case that the bill on broadcasting, or cable television, is important. The Bloc Quebecois, whose sense of responsibility is known to this House, has made it known through its heritage critic, the hon. member for Québec, that our members will support this bill.

Earlier, I was listening to my friend, the hon. member for Lotbinière—L'Érable, who made some very pertinent remarks. He comes from the cultural sector himself, having been a radio host for nearly a decade, I believe, at a station in his riding.

It came to me that this bill is to culture what tax invasion is to the government. Like anyone who has watched television from time to time, I have seen the advertising campaigns done by the artists. We may tend to forget the fact, but this bill concerns more than the industry; it also affects the creators—the broadcasters and the artists—because, when there is piracy, when consumers receive music or programs they have not paid for, then royalty payments are smaller and it is the creators who are penalized.

We know that the creative genius of artists is very significant, vibrant and dynamic in Quebec and—I will not argue—in the rest of Canada, even though these two cultural agendas may conflict once in a while. As you know, Quebec has chosen the path of a common public culture, while the rest of Canada has chosen the path of multiculturalism. But this is not the time to discuss that.

So, Bill C-2 deals in a rather appropriate way—and this is why the Bloc Quebecois will support the principle of this legislation—with the issue of piracy, specifically as regards satellite signals.

This is not a minor issue considering that a coalition set up to deal with the theft of satellite signals or, in other words, to fight the pirating of these signals, estimates that, and this is unfortunate, between 500,000 and 700,000 homes in Canada are receiving satellite signals without proper authorization.

The bill proposes increased monitoring mechanisms that will, I believe, be twofold.

The overall responsibility will be given to the new Minister of Industry, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who, as we know, has fulfilled major duties in this House. When she was first elected, in 1997 if I am not mistaken, she was appointed minister of Labour. Then, the Prime Minister gave her the Immigration portfolio. At the time, I was our party critic on immigration issues and I hope the minister has fond memories of those days. Later on, she became the President of the Treasury Board, where she played a more discreet role. Now, she is the Minister of Industry.

Under clause 5, the Minister of Industry will have very important powers, because she will be the one who will issue the certificates authorizing the import of satellite signals. She will have to take into consideration a number of factors before issuing such certificates.

Up to this point, we support the bill. We fully realize that this is the role of the legislator and we do not question the fact that radio broadcasting and telecommunications are a federal jurisdiction.

The problem is that the line between the right of the legislator to enforce a law concerning satellite broadcasting and programming and the right to privacy is not all that clearly defined.

The Bloc Quebecois, through our industry critic, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who also happens to be an experienced parliamentarian, will be asking for the privacy commissioner to appear before the committee.

Why is it so important to hear what the privacy commissioner has to say? First, as we know, for the last five, six or seven years, personal and identifiable information has become a matter of great concern for legislators.

I would like to digress for a moment. As we all remember, the government erred when it proposed setting up a megafile. In cooperation with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the former minister of Human Resources Development wanted to establish a megafile that would have greatly invaded people's privacy. At the time, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, called for the megafile to be dismantled. The privacy commissioner supported the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who warned the public about this. Therefore, confidential, personal and identifiable information is a matter of great concern.

The problem with this bill is that it will create an inspection program. Under the authority of the industry minister, inspectors would be able to enter dwellings. If there is a presumption or evidence of piracy, searches as defined under criminal law will be carried out.

That can be risky. As the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable has said, the systems for signal theft may be part of a computer program. As my friend, the hon. member for Portneuf is aware, when a computer search is carried out, other more general information may be found as well. There may be personal information about dating, family photos and the like, but there may also be financial or medical information, or accounting details.

When a computer search is carried out, how can we be sure people's rights will not be encroached upon, and the information gathering will not infringe on people's right to privacy? This is why the Bloc Quebecois will introduce amendments in committee that will enable us to place wiser and more appropriate limits on inspection powers.

Unfortunately, I am obliged to say that this is not the first time in this House that powers have been assigned to inspectors which would allow them to go beyond reasonable limits. I must add that the Minister of Industry—and everyone knows, moreover, what friends we are—did nothing to reassure us when she rose to speak. She did not tell us what sort of intervention is planned, and how the power of the inspectors will be kept within wise limits.

There is one other thing, and this will conclude my remarks. We are also concerned by the fact that the costs of the seizure could be borne by consumers. This is another thing that must be verified. This could violate individual rights to privacy.

In short, this is not a bad bill. We recognize that the lawmaker must intervene in all matters relating to the illegal decoding of satellite signals. There is recognition here for our creators, artists and everyone else making their living from the cultural industry. However, we believe that this goal, as noble as it is, must not lead to actions that would violate the right to privacy. The powers relating to search and seizure as set out in the bill do cause some concern.

As a result, the Bloc Quebecois will ask the Privacy Commissioner to appear before the committee.

As members know, committees are no place for partisanship. Parliamentarians do not always give the best of themselves in this House. All parties give the best of themselves in committee, when public hearings are held, when people are heard and when we manage to improve a bill.

Naturally, the government must be prepared to listen. We have great hopes that this will be the case.

[Health, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the same thing has been repeated three times.

In the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister said that the municipalities need stable and recurrent funding to meet their priorities. Does he not see that the same is true for health, that the system also needs stable and recurrent funding, as the provincial premiers told him, and that a full GST rebate would be the first solid step toward reaching this objective?

[Health, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the number one priority for Quebec and the rest of Canada is health care, an area that has been underfunded ever since this Prime Minister reduced the federal share of funding from 22% in 1994 to 16% today.

Why has the Prime Minister not taken concrete action, as he did for the municipalities, and reimbursed the hospitals for the GST they are paying? This would have been a worthwhile and significant action, instead of mere words.

[Criminal Code, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-20, in a perspective slightly different from that of the previous speaker of course, but it is the role of Parliament to offer different perspectives.

I would like to start by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Justice, particularly the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, in the beautiful area of Quebec City, Quebec's national capital, who has worked very hard with all the parliamentarians on the committee to report an improved bill.

We must remember that this bill was in response to court decisions attempting to determine what constituted child pornography offences and what constituted the right to freedom of expression. Any attempt to oversimplify this issue should make us suspicious.

The basic premise of the bill is a real and perfectly defensible one and I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that we are opposed to it. We must not change or allow the law to be changed in such a way that children under the age of 14 could have sexual relations with adults and vice versa.

There is a bias in this bill reflecting this reality. Representations were made by a number of groups, and parliamentarians as well. Also, I had the pleasure of exchanging ideas with a member of the other place—I do not think our standing orders allow me to name her—who has been looking into this whole issue of sexual exploitation for a decade. She testified before the subcommittee on solicitation laws.

Our colleague from the NDP proposed a motion to the committee on which I represent the Bloc Quebecois with our colleague, the critic for justice. The senator made us realize that, of the problems we are facing, human trafficking is the biggest. Bigger than property trafficking, and bigger than drug trafficking. The danger exists that children will be used and exploited for sexual purposes.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill because it creates a new criminal offence in Canada that did not exist before. It amends section 153 by adding subsection (1.2), which stipulates that, in order to determine that a person--meaning a adult--is ina relationship with a young person that isexploitative of the young person, a judge may take into account thenature and circumstances of the relationship.

Under the Criminal Code, it is already an offence to have sexual relations with anyone under 14 years of age, and that is understandable. There should be something beautiful, egalitarian, and noble about sexuality that contributes to personal growth, which is not the case for 11-, 12- or 13-year-old children who do not have the maturity or experience to engage in, enjoy and benefit from a sexual relationship.

That is how the Criminal Code used to deal with this. For decades now, courts have been convicting individuals who have sexual relations with children under 14 years of age. This bill makes it clear not only that a adult in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of that young person—note the use of the word exploitative—cannot have sexual relations with the young person, but that the nature of the relationship will be taken into consideration. Originally, the bill set out a number of criteria to be used to determine if a relationship was exploitative.

The first of those criteria was, of course, the age difference between the adult and the young person. The second one was the evolution of the relationship, and the third one was the influence the adult had over the young person.

The Standing Committee on Justice, as I understand--the parliamentary secretary may nod if I am right--added a fourth criterion, namely the age of the teenager.

That goes to the heart of the bill. We believe all those things are relevant. The biggest traffic in the history of mankind, no longer of goods only, but of human beings, is a problem compounded by Internet and new communications technologies. It is now possible to get a lot of information and have access to sites showing teenagers.

This is why a new offence has been added to the Criminal Code; it is aimed at those individuals who have sex with children under 14.

The issue is not as straightforward as it may appear, because of the right to freedom of expression. Of course, no one would claim that freedom of expression justifies having sex with a person under 14. The Supreme Court handed down a decision. What did it say about child pornography? I would like to quote the following:

I conclude that “artistic merit” should be interpreted as including any expression that may reasonably be viewed as art. Any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support defence.

What the Supreme Court said is that we should never interfere with an artist's creative process. As law makers, we are certainly concerned by the Supreme Court's very broad interpretation of freedom of expression and creative process. This is why we had to set limits.

Bill C-20 says that if the depiction of sexual acts with teenagers goes too far, under Bill C-20, it will not be accepted even if it is part of a creative process. That is indeed setting limits.

The definition that would be found in the bill, if passed, would include some safeguards. Thus, we would talk about material that might objectively consist of child pornography, and I quote:

c) any written material the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years.

This would be an offence under the current legislation. We understand there should be a balance. We agree that there might be painters or other artists who will, in their creative process, reproduce scenes of nudity that might involve children. What we do not agree with is written material the explicit and dominant characteristic of which is the depiction of an activity for a sexual purpose and involving people under the age of 18. I think the difference is extremely important.

I was a little sad about the comment from our Canadian Alliance colleague. He suggested that some parliamentarians, because they support Bill C-20, might agree with the fact that there are sexual activities without consent with children. I think we must recognize and say that this is not the objective of the bill.

In substance, the bill would create a new offence, the exploitation of children with the intent of having sexual activities. It would include safeguards in this definition.

When this offence is brought before a court of law, we believe there would be enough safeguards to ensure there is no abuse.

The time that was allowed to me to make my point on this issue has expired.

[Canadian Grand Prix, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the owner of the Montreal Canadiens, George Gillett, maintained yesterday that the federal government had promised funding to save the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal.

Can the government tell us if this is indeed the case and how much funding it promised?

[Canadian Grand Prix, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while Normand Legault, the promoter of the Grand Prix, is working to save the event, the government is negotiating with Molson behind the scenes and may derail the whole process.

Instead of all these parallel approaches, would it not be better for the government to send a clear message to the private sector by making a public commitment to a financial contribution that would save the Grand Prix in the end?