Antoine Dubé

[Canada Elections Act, February 12th, 2003]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am always pleased to rise to speak in this House, but today even more than usual, because this government bill is, in a way, almost a gift to us Quebeckers. It is truly an unexpected surprise.

Once recovered from that surprise, we are nevertheless obliged to admit that we agree with the spirit of this bill.

It bears a considerable resemblance to Bill 2, enacted by the Quebec National Assembly in 1977, which has had time to prove its worth. This bill limits contributions to $10,000, a point on which we are not fully in agreement. We in the Bloc feel that $5,000 is ample.

It also allows companies, corporations, unions or not for profit organizations to contribute $1,000. We understand that the intent here may be to remedy an abuse that has existed in the past, but at the same time, out of principle, we prefer the way the Quebec political party financing legislation bans any contribution by a corporation, organization or company.

In practice, if the figure of $1,000 were selected, it would be very difficulty to monitor. During an election campaign, for instance, a candidate for a given party could receive $900. Since some companies are located in two adjacent ridings, the candidate in the other riding could only receive $100.

What, however, is to prevent that same company—for example the Banque nationale or some other bank—from making another contribution in a far distant part of the region, the province or the country, to another candidate at the same time?

It is my impression, in this connection, that even a well-meaning candidate or election committee is not in a position to provide an immediate answer as to whether or not they can accept a contribution from a given company, without knowing where else it might have made a similar contribution.

That is the practical aspect. Because of this complication, and in order to be true to the principle, I feel it would be far wiser and far simpler and consistent,far more transparent as well, to ban contributions from companies, not for profit organizations, labour unions and others.

My hon. colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans responded to a Canadian Alliance member on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. I do not wish to repeat everything he said, but that is not all we should tell him. The member said he supported us. He must have meant to say tolerate, because I do not think that he supports us in the sense of making financial contributions to our party. Not that we would ask him to either.

We are grateful that he supports our presence, but as my colleague, the whip for the Bloc Quebecois indicated, there is no need for that. The people who elected us have spoken. But he was talking about rights. Can a woman be a little pregnant? That is always the example that is used. Either she is pregnant or she is not. If we have the right to exist or to be supported by him, the member should let us enjoy the same rights as other political parties. Otherwise, there is no right, and we are just being tolerated. A right is a right, which is different from being tolerated. This is another aspect.

I would like to give an example, because this issue of new parties in this House has been raised. In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois was not a recognized party, as it lacked the required number of members, in spite of the fact that it already had seven elected members before the 1993 election. There were resignations both from the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, and our current leader got elected in Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Yet our party was not recognized and therefore did not benefit from tax credits until the elections were called, at which time it put up a minimum of 50 candidates.

I think it is wise to learn from experience here. We can always talk about the number of members necessary; that is another issue. We know that here, there have to be 12 members. But that is a whole other issue that we could look at in another debate.

I think we should applaud the idea, which apparently comes from the Prime Minister. In pondering his political legacy, he thought about this issue and remembered that 26 years ago this bill was the first bill adopted by the Parti Quebecois after it was elected, even if it was Bill 2, since the first bill was on language. He said “There is a good idea” and ran with it.

It took him a while, because he has had a long career that started even before 1977. One could say that he could have thought of this much sooner but—

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Halifax for her speech and her approach. This is not the first time I have heard her speak on such issues. It is not that she is a woman, but her comments are ones that we often hear from women. As a man, I am very open to this approach, which seeks to explore every opportunity to avoid war, rather than the usual, traditional approach, which involves demonstrating terrible force in an attempt to force one's opponent to back down.

Like the member for Halifax, I was in my riding this weekend. I felt that the vast majority of people would like to do something. Of course, there are demonstrations, but the member provided a fairly accurate picture of public opinion. She even used newspaper articles, studies, and so on.

People said to me, “If we are going to send an e-mail, it sure will not be to President Bush or Mr. Powell, because they will just ignore it”.

What does the member for Halifax think would be the best way for people from my riding, and others, to express their opposition to a warpath approach, and a way that would be effective?

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

I heard the hon. member, who was asking whether the members had indeed read resolution 1441. I certainly have. He referred to a series of resolutions Iraq had not complied with. I agree, but there have been UN resolutions about a number of countries. I will mention only Israel, which has not complied with a goodly number of them.

I would like to ask him whether he is aware of the reaction of France, which differs from his reaction, the reaction of Germany, Russia, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan, and many others. Public opinion in a number of countries, including the U.K. and Canada, is evidence that there is opposition to an intervention without another UN intervention. Is he aware of this?

What I would like is not just his opinion, but what he thinks of the current international reaction, even in the U.S., where there appears to be a shift in public opinion. I would like his opinion on this.

[International Development Week, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois I would like to mark International Development Week by congratulating the members of the many organizations that advocate and work for developing nations. A special thanks goes out to the organizations of the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale.

Unfortunately, since the current government came into power in 1993, funding for international cooperation has been cut dramatically. Although an annual increase of 8% was announced in the last Speech from the Throne, the absence of $500 million promised for the fund for aid to Africa brings Canada's contribution to 0.27% of its GDP. Note that it was 0.45% under the previous government. This is far from the 0.7% recommended by the UN.

Worse still, the portion of Canada's contribution that is allocated to non-governmental organizations continues to decline because of the administrative costs of purchases made on Canadian soil. NGOs are central to—

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my views at this stage of Bill C-13.

First, I would like to mention, like the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the groundwork done by the hon. member for Drummond. She introduced a private member's bill on this subject several times. Of course, the throne speech ensured that all the bills died on the Order Paper. However, her interest in this issue is long-standing. I remember working with her on the Standing Committee on Health. She was already making representations on this.

This issue itself is not new, since, in 1989, the then federal government appointed the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, known as the Baird commission. This commission, after having spent or used $28 million and questioned over 40,000 witnesses, which was phenomenal, tabled a report in 1993.

In 1995, this government implemented a voluntary moratorium on the issue, not that that made much difference. This became significant with regard to public opinion in 1997, when British scientists succeeded in cloning a sheep they named Dolly.

This has caused so much concern to scientists and officials worldwide, including UNESCO, that in November 1997 this UN organization issued a universal declaration on the human genome and human rights. According to UNESCO, human cloning is an attack against human dignity and, as such, must be prohibited.

We have witnessed recent events, after the three announcements by Clonaid, a firm associated with the Raelian movement, and all the publicity surrounding these announcements.

This bill was introduced last December, belatedly, if you ask me. It was not for lack of studies. As I said, it has been under consideration since 1989. Why have waited so long? Granted, this is a sensitive issue. But at the same time—because it was and still is a sensitive issue—it was important that the Parliament of Canada look into it. It is now doing so. Better late than never, I suppose. The issue is now before Parliament.

At this stage, we can say that the bill to prohibit reproductive technologies, or cloning, is pretty clear. As the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska just said, it remains a debate about values. He is right about that. We can feel it even in our ridings, regardless of our affiliation.

In my riding, supporters of my party have different opinions, and they have made them known. There are also people who, while they do not support our political option, share their concerns with me as their MP. This is great, because that is how I have always envisioned the role of member of Parliament. First and foremost, as representatives of our ridings here in Ottawa, we must take a stand on bills or motions, as we are now.

I have always shared the member for Drummond's concerns about cloning. However—and I am not implying that she will disagree with what I am about to say—I feel it is both prudent and correct to leave open the possibility of stem cell research.

This can, of course, turn into a debate among experts, particularly concerning the point at which an embryo ceases to be an embryo and becomes a fetus, and so on. There are criteria in the legislation, which we shall address a little later on.

The idea of research being authorized by ministerial order is both pertinent and appropriate, since it is known that there are a number of diseases, such as Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, diabetes and others, for which research might one day find a remedy or rather a solution.

Of course, there would have to be guidelines, ones that were as specific as possible, because we must not allow things to be done indirectly because people do not want them done directly.

In this connection, there are many in my riding who share my view that it is wise to address the issue of research within a very precise framework, not for the purpose of human cloning but rather to allow stem cell research with a view to finding solutions for certain illnesses.

That was the view I wanted to express at this stage of the debate, both for myself as an MP and also for the riding I represent, in connection with this bill.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

They are conservative.

[Natural Resources, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am most certainly in favour of respecting the environment.

Would the minister be prepared to sign the agreement with Quebec including a proviso to the effect that he was doing so without prejudice to the rights of the federal government, as he did with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?

[Natural Resources, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources maintains that the agreement for oil and gas exploration in the St. Lawrence has not yet been signed because Quebec does not accept the federal government's regulatory framework.

Does the minister realize that by delaying the signing of the agreement, he will set back the whole exploration project by at least one year?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

I appreciate his attention, but I am having difficulty concentrating.

As well as the cuts to transfer payments, there have also been cuts that have had an incredible effect on the unemployed over time. Employment insurance has been cut, and this has affected the regions. My colleague from Jonquière often points out in this House the effect this has on our ridings. We have seen that in particular in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, despite the Minister of Justice's talk of moral victory—I do not know if there can be such a thing as an immoral victory. I think the Bloc Quebecois victory was a stunning one.

I would like to digress for a moment. Like the Minister of Justice, others ask “What about the relevance of the Bloc? One wonders what a BQ supporter is doing in Ottawa.” My response is that, as long as a majority of people vote for the Bloc Quebecois, there will be Bloc Quebecois members here. If that is the way things are, it is to meet a need. The people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay are no less smart than anyone else, nor are the people of Berthier—Montcalm. They voted for the Bloc Quebecois, for people who defend the interests of Quebec.

During oral question period, I was closely observing the Liberal members from Quebec, in particular, the minister opposite. There was a sense that they wanted to applaud questions posed by members of the Bloc Quebecois on regional issues, so good were the questions. But no, they were obliged, instead, to applaud the poor answers given by the ministers concerned. It is amazing to see what people in power must do.

I know that the hon. Minister of Justice probably does so unwillingly. I know that he knows Quebeckers. He is from the Charlevoix region. It is too bad that he chose to get elected in a very comfortable Liberal riding in Montreal. He knew that in Charlevoix, it would have been much harder. Without wishing to be critical of him, the Liberal Party is not popular in Charlevoix. So he ran in a very comfortable riding. There being less pressure in Outremont than elsewhere, he has more time to spend on government matters. This is all good and well for him, but the people of Charlevoix prefer to be represented by a member like my hon. colleague in the Bloc Quebecois. This member works very hard.

We also have the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable, who works very hard, and the member for Jonquière, who works very hard defending the interests of Quebeckers. There is also the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He is the Bloc's critic on transportation. He talks about the real issues that concern Quebeckers.

For as long as sovereignists take an interest in issues that concern Quebeckers, there will be members of the Bloc Quebecois in this House. Some might join other parties, like the Progressive Conservative Party. But currently, if the Bloc Quebecois were not here, there would be 36 silent Liberal members voting along party lines.

In closing, I wish the hon. Minister of Justice, as well as my hon. colleagues, a Merry Christmas.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

I have a lot of difficulty talking at the same time as another member, especially when that member is a minister. He is in the first row and even more audible. I know he wants to wish me a Merry Christmas, but I would ask him to be patient and do so when I have finished speaking, if possible.