Joe Comartin

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have two answers. First, it is up to the people of Haiti to make that decision. Second, if we were that concerned about security in that country, why did we reduce the amount of money we were giving it? Why did we pull out the police forces we had there? We were trying to help establish a solid police force.

We are not without blame in this regard. However, who gets to make those decisions? It should not be a foreign country. It should be the people of Haiti.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair it is not me alone who is calling for this. CARICOM has called for it and the government of South Africa has called for it. The point is we as a country signed on to a democratic principle when we signed on in 2000, I think, to the Inter-American Democratic Charter. We signed that. We said that we would respect democracies.

Therefore, will we be able to say that we have a right to go in every time there is humanitarian abuses? I do not know if there have been. I have to say that to my friend. I have not been part of an inquiry into Haiti. I have not been there.

I say to the member that we have as a country a responsibility to honour democracy. There is nothing that I know of that tells me that it was not a proper election that elected him.

I see the Americans now beginning to build. Are we going to say that we have a right to determine what elected officials should be removed and which ones should be allowed to stay? I do not support that.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

I do not think any of us know, Mr. Chair. I have indicated in my address this evening what the NDP is calling for, and that is there be an international inquiry, an investigation so we can determine whether President Aristide's version is accurate or is the American version accurate. We are calling for that only.

I do not think it is possible for anyone to know at a distance. I was not in the room, neither was the member and neither was anyone on the government side. There is no way of knowing what happened on February 28 and 29 when President Aristide signed that document and then left the country. However, we could find out by way of an international inquiry.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

No, that is in fact what happened. It was at that point when the international community should have said that it was going in to support the elected government.

I want to take a second issue with the minister when he talks about his assessment of the support of President Aristide. Everything I have heard is that the country is badly divided. However, to suggest that there was overwhelming support for him leaving is not accurate as far as we can see from the facts.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, there are two questions there. I have to say to my colleague across the aisle that he is rewriting history a bit. The reality is that ultimately President Aristide did agree to that plan. It was the rebels who refused to. Yes, at that point--

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by asking a question. Why is it necessary for Canada to do something about Haiti? I can answer simply that we have many reasons. It is the only other francophone country in this hemisphere. It is the poorest country in this hemisphere.

As my colleague from the Bloc has mentioned, there is a very large Haitian community in Montreal. They live here in Canada. They are citizens.

I have a particular connection because one of the orphanages in Haiti has been extensively funded by the Windsor-Essex County community. I think that is true of a number of communities across the country. As a country and as individuals in smaller communities, we have reached out to Haiti.

Other hon. members have stated that there have now been 34 coups d'état since the country achieved independence two centuries ago. This is the second coup d'état against President Aristide.

I was disturbed by the response to my question from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I think he repeated it at another point in his responses. He said that we should just forget about the history, that we do not want to go back and revisit that.

The reality is that the other countries of Caricom throughout the Caribbean and Central and South America are not at all happy about Canada's role. I do not think I am overstating it, but a good number of those countries see Canada, France and the United States as being part of an occupying force. We have significantly damaged our long term relationship with those countries.

I was particularly concerned when I heard the minister again speaking in terms of it being a fragile democracy. He may have been using it as a euphemism or as an excuse, but it sounded too much like the argument put forward by President Bush and his administration, that they do not feel any responsibility for, as they put it, failed elected leaders. They get to determine who is a failed elected leader. If we are going down that road with the Americans, then we are very much endangering our relationship with Caricom.

We have heard a good deal in the media and to some degree from members this evening about elections in Haiti. When we go back and look at the history, there were no complaints about the 2000 election when President Aristide was re-elected overwhelmingly. The methodology that was used was only complained about after the fact, by the U.S. and the OAS, but not before. It was simply used as an excuse.

It was interesting to hear the comments from the member from the Conservative Party who used the term “regime change”. That is very much what occurred. To suggest that President Aristide voluntarily resigned when he had a gun pointed at his head, figuratively speaking of course, is just playing with semantics. For us to say that we could find the wherewithal to move troops in, and I am pointing the finger not only at Canada but at France and the United States, at the drop of a hat at the time when he was gone and could not do anything to help protect the democracy that was there before the rebel attack, we have heard from all members their concern about this. I share in their concern as well.

I mentioned earlier a community in my area that has been very generous in helping an orphanage in Haiti. One of our priests is in Haiti and has refused to leave. He certainly was in danger.

We knew of the violence that was going on. The solution to that violence was not ousting the president. The solution was moving in an international multilateral force that would have supported the government and democracy. What we in fact have said to the whole hemisphere is that if enough violent opposition could be mounted, we would see that the elected government would go and we would help replace it. That is the message out there right now.

I want to make a point in terms of history and that is why I am so concerned that the minister seems to be willing to forget it. Haiti is the poorest country in the hemisphere by far. The United States was controlling a large sum of money which was not paid into Haiti. This money could have gone a great distance in dealing with some of its economic problems.

That sum is $650 million and it has been sitting unused, unavailable to them for over two and a half years now. We did not do anything about getting that money released for them.

The position of the New Democratic Party is that it is unacceptable to have sent in our army and unacceptable that we permitted the removal of Haiti's president, Mr. Aristide, thus ending his presidency. It is unacceptable.

We have a number of requests and suggestions. First, we want to have American forces replaced by a peacekeeping mission under the United Nations, as soon as possible.

We want to see an international force sent as well, also under the United Nations. Its mandate would be to disarm the population and find and destroy the many caches of arms in Haiti.

There must be a viable, long-term solution to Haiti's problems—its political and economic problems—including reparations. This solution must be primarily designed by the Haitian people.

It will be necessary for Canada to support and assist with transparent and honest elections in Haiti.

We ask for a return to full and complete democracy in Haiti, followed immediately by the freeing of $650 million for economic and medical aid. This amount, now being withheld by the United States should be given to the Haitian government.

We also ask for Canadian and international long-term financial aid, and training for a professional police force in Haiti.

Finally, we ask for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the forced resignation of Mr. Aristide.

On that final point, again I would urge the minister, as I did in my question to him, that he consider seriously having Canada participate in insisting that this type of an inquiry go on so that we can determine in fact whether President Aristide left voluntarily or was forced out.

[Haiti, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the minister has made reference to trying to cooperate with CARICOM, which yesterday or on the weekend, I believe, along with the government of South Africa, called for an international investigation as to the manner, methodology and circumstances in which President Aristide was ousted.

Although I have heard the minister talk this evening about the president's resignation, there of course is a major dispute over just how that came about. I am wondering if the minister could address whether Canada would be prepared to encourage that type of international investigation as to how President Aristide came to be out of office.

[Petitions, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the cutting of trees that is going on in the county of Kent in southwestern Ontario as an attempt to head off the emerald ash borer which is flowing through that area. There have been many reports about the way trees have been destroyed.

The petitioners are calling on the government to intervene and provide for an environmental assessment that would determine whether in fact the cutting of trees is an ecologically sound practice and to stop the cutting of trees until that assessment takes place.

[Petitions, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions.

The first one deals with the use of intense active sonar. The petition sets out in detail the significant detrimental impact on marine life, mammals and fish. There are approximately 250 signatures on the petition. The petitioners call on Parliament to intervene with the navies of the world to reduce, if not totally eliminate, that type of sonar and replace it with less intrusive and low frequency sonar.

[Income Tax Act, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-246. It takes me back to my earlier period as a lawyer when I practised family law almost exclusively and handled a fair number of private adoptions during that period of time.

The NDP supports the bill that has been put forward. It is a further attempt by this legislature to acknowledge the role that adoption plays in Canada.

Adoption is a relatively new phenomena in the last 40 to 50 years. It is interesting to note when we look at the opinion polls that adoption has become highly accepted and has moved up toward the 80 percentile. We would not have found that 50 years ago. Adoption has become an accepted form of developing families in Canadian society.

Bill C-246 attempts to treat, in a tax advantage aspect, biological parents and adoptive parents in an equal fashion. It would recognize that there are different expenses and that society should subsidize those expenses, depending on how a child is brought into the family, whether biologically or by adoption. We provide medical benefits for mothers who are pregnant and we do not expect them to pay for those medicare services. Society subsidizes that family. Bill C-246 would do the same thing for adoptive parents.

I heard the comment from one of our Liberal colleagues about the number of adoptive parents who are adopting babies as opposed to adopting older children. They cannot have children biologically, but may have gone through great expense in their attempts to have biological children. They have already incurred a substantial amount of expense. The bill would assist them to start a family by providing them with some tax relief.

It is worth nothing that this tax relief is not only for those parents who are adopting babies. It would also extend to parents who are adopting family members such as nephews and nieces or maybe children of close friends who have died in some tragedy.

I am thinking of a case that came through my office recently involving friends of mine. There was an earthquake in Egypt and both parents were killed. There were three children in the family who were in their mid and late adolescence. The children happened to be visiting their grandmother in Egypt that day. Both parents were in the house when it collapsed. The grandmother was not capable of taking care of the children. The remaining family members living in Canada who were Canadian citizens were kind enough and responsible enough to take on that responsibility. However, this was a financial burden for them. They had three children of their own and instantly doubled their family in a very traumatic.

The type of tax relief provided in Bill C-246 would have certainly helped this family. It would not have resolved all of their financial difficulties, but it would have helped. I can repeat these kinds of stories.

These families reached out, oftentimes in a traumatic situation, and took on additional responsibility. That is something society should applaud. We should see what we can do to help them. This bill would go some distance to accomplishing that assistance.

I want to make another point. Speaking from my own experience, I can attest to how expensive adoption is, whether it is done inside Canada or outside Canada. I know how much the legal fees are; I know how much the legal process costs. I know what the home studies cost. Psychologists or social workers are brought in to assess the family in a home situation to determine whether it would be appropriate for the family to adopt a child. All of that costs money.

In addition, if the child is being adopted from outside the country, the adoptive parents will have expenses in the other country. Oftentimes they have very substantial travel and accommodation expenses when they move into the other country to pick up the child and bring the child back to Canada.

The $7,000 deduction proposed under Bill C-246 is a very modest amount compared to what it costs most families, particularly for adoptions that take place outside Canada, especially overseas. The $7,000 is a very small proportion, and is probably in the range of 25% to 35% of what it would actually cost a family to adopt a child.

I congratulate the member from the Conservative Party who has brought the bill forward at this time. It has been brought forward on other occasions and the legislature has not seen fit to adopt it into law. We hope we will see a different pattern as a result of his ongoing encouragement to the legislature to pass it into law.