Gérard Asselin

[Points Of Order, February 24th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Bill C-20, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document.

It is the brief submitted by the Regroupement des gens résolument souverainistes to the parliamentary committee of the Quebec National Assembly on Bill 99.

[Point Of Order, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to respond very quickly to a point of order raised by a member of the official opposition, who wanted to see documents tabled by the Bloc Quebecois in both official languages. If I have the unanimous consent of the House, I am going to table a document that is in both official languages.

The document in question was published by the official opposition in December 1999, and is called The New Canada Act . If I may, I shall read the table of contents.

It includes an “Overview” on page 2; “Backgrounders” on page 5; part A, “Improvements to the Operation of the Federation”, also on page 5; “Secession Contingency Rules”, on page 9; the “New Canada Act” on page 10.

The “Preamble” is on page 10 also. Part A is on page 11, along with parts entitled “Improvements to the operation of the federation”, “Principles“ and “Division of powers”. The part entitled “Federal Spending Power” is on page 12—

[Point Of Order, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have not one, but two documents to table this morning.

Following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Bill C-20, which denies the Quebec people their fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of this House to table one of those two documents that will enlighten it.

It is an article from an important document, entitled “For Quebec, Time Is Running Out”.

My second document is the Quebec chief electoral officer's report on the results of the 1995 referendum, in which 93%—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is certainly an excellent speech, one that I wish I could understand. Unfortunately, there is some problem with simultaneous interpretation.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, perseverance pays off.

I have trouble figuring out the member's position. I must congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who guessed the member is going to support the bill.

The member started by saying that it was both a bad and a good bill, that he was against it, but that he would support it. He was against same sex couples being married, but he is willing to accept their staying together and being recognized. I really have trouble understanding the member, and people who are listening to us probably have the same problem as I have.

If the House recognizes same sex couples, it must give them the same benefits and obligations as heterosexual couples. If we give them the same benefits and obligations, are we ready to recognize that a homosexual couple, a gay or a lesbian couple, can have a family and adopt children? What will happen when a homosexual couple applies for an international adoption? We know that heterosexual couples, a man and a woman, can adopt children internationally.

For example, a homosexual couple, two men, applies to China to adopt a little girl. The investigation will show they are both men, they have been living together for several years, they are working, they own a house, and have a good income. But will foreign countries be willing to give children up for adoption to homosexual couples?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Charlevoix, having been elected in 1993 and re-elected in 1997, I think that my logic is sound and that I represent my constituents well.

In 1973, when I decided to marry my girlfriend, I wanted a family. Unfortunately, it did not happen in the first few months. It took a few years. I even resorted to adoption. I adopted a little aboriginal child, who will be 18 on July 2.

Subsequently, nature began to co-operate. Of course, I was teased. There were even some people who told me “Gérard, now that you've read the operating instructions, you know what you're doing”. After adopting our first child, we had a boy and a girl.

When the bill says that same sex couples should have the same benefits as opposite sex couples, does this mean that even two men who have been living together for a period of time could apply to adopt a child?

We have all been to school. Children pick on each other asking questions like “Who is your mother? Who is your father?” In the case of two men living together who have adopted a boy or a girl, is this any kind of example to set the child?

If the same benefits, up to and including the right to adopt children, are provided, I am absolutely opposed.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have here a document that says the purpose of this omnibus bill is to extend to same sex couples the same benefits and obligations that apply to opposite sex common law couples.

I would like to give an example. My father, who is 76 years old, is retired. The youngest of my brothers, from a family of 12 children, has decided to take my father in, since he is still single.

Could my 76 year old father, who worked all his life, who raised 12 children and who paid taxes to the federal as well as the Quebec government, not benefit from such legislation since he is living with my brother? This legislation applies only to men or women who are in a sexual relation. Because my brother is not in a sexual relation with my father, he will not be able to benefit from these measures.

If a same sex couple, two men or two women who are in a sexual relation, who share the same bed, who have been living together for more than a year, can benefit from tax breaks, is Bill C-23 not discriminatory against a daughter who takes her mother in or a son who takes his father in?

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, following the Prime Minister's decision to introduce a bill denying Quebecers' fundamental rights, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, the hon. members for Charlevoix and the hon. member for Manicouagan will hold tomorrow, at the Hôtel Sept-Îles, an important press conference to condemn Bill C-20, which denies Quebecers' fundamental rights, and to also condemn the federal government's policy not to have a committee travel to consult Quebecers.

I ask for the unanimous consent to table a document to that effect.

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, has introduced a bill that concerns Quebec.

I see that the Liberal Party members are not interested in the minister's bill. They are absent.

[Points Of Order, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, following the introduction by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of Bill C-20, which denies the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the report of the chief electoral officer of Quebec on the results of the referendum—