Michel Guimond

[Contraventions Act, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of this motion.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote no on this motion.

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I seek clarification. Did you put the question on the first amendment? I absolutely did not hear it.

[Foreign Affairs, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we are dealing with a civil war and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and the situation could deteriorate further.

Does Canada, along with the other states involved, intend to explore other avenues in order to avoid the irreversible solution of sending an implementation force?

[Foreign Affairs, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, despite the presence of an international mission in which Canada plays a part, the situation in Haiti is becoming an increasing source of concern, as we receive confirmation that the rebels have taken over Cap Haïtien, the second largest city in that country.

What plans does Canada have to respond to this rapidly changing situation?

[Income Tax Act, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill brought forward by my colleague from Prince George—Peace River.

This subject is of particular concern to me. I have had the opportunity to introduce a bill along the same lines, but with different amounts.

I was concerned with this situation because two good friends of mine went through an international adoption process. I have helped them in their efforts. I can tell you that this is a difficult process, particularly with certain countries.

I would like to say a few words about my good friend Linda Picard from Chateau-Richer who adopted a Russian boy. His name is Kyril and he is now about 7 years old. He was one and a half when he arrived here. He adapted very well to the Quebec culture. I met him recently and he was telling me that he was at the top of his class in French. He still has relations with people of the Russian community in Quebec. He is seven years old and he is fluent in Russian and in French. This is quite an achievement.

I am also thinking of a good friend of mine who lives on my street, France Vézina and her spouse, Patrick Boilay.

International adoption often comes to mind following television reports that show human dramas. A human drama, whether it is a famine or a civil war that affects adults, is always hard to witness, it is a terrible situation. However, when young children are also suffering, it affects us even more, particularly when we ourselves have children.

In the case that I was referring to, that of France and Patrick, they had seen a documentary on the television program Le Point , which showed orphanages in China where young girls would literally die. As we know, generally speaking, women and girls in China do not enjoy the same social status as men. This is a country where a lot remains to be done in terms of gender equality. The girls were left in orphanages that more or less became the places where they would die.

Following this documentary, France came to see me. She said that she had seen it on Le Point and that it made her cry. She and her spouse already had two children born in Quebec. They followed the procedures and, several months later, they went and adopted another child.

Our heart and our feelings often take precedence over monetary considerations. In this area, one may well say: “It will cost whatever it will cost, but I want to go oversea and bring back a child, regardless of the costs involved”. The purpose of the bill is not to fully compensate those who make that decision.

I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, who pointed out that the Quebec government is a leader and provides some tax incentives. This shows that we do not only do bad things in Quebec. The minister responsible for northern Ontario, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, said that this was ingrained in Quebec politics. He seemed to be implying that in Quebec we are a bunch of crooks, and that the sponsorship scandal that is tarnishing the government is par for the course.

That statement is utterly false. The hon. member even had to retract his remarks and apologize.

This is proof that, in the case of a number of social and fiscal laws in Quebec, we are at the forefront of several provinces of Canada. This is what makes Quebeckers different, and this is what makes us different as a people and as a nation. I am pleased to hear this from my colleague of British Columbia.

We know that this bill is to amend the tax act to allow for the deduction of expenses of up to $7,000 relating to international adoption. I want to reassure my colleague by telling him that we will be in favour of his bill. We agree with it, although it is a private member's bill, and all members should be able to vote with their conscience. I can tell you that I cannot speak for all my colleagues, but we already had the opportunity to debate this issue. I believe this bill will easily be supported by my colleagues, the Bloc Quebecois members.

However, if I may make a suggestion, perhaps it would have been worthwhile to raise the $7,000 limit to replace it instead with the real costs. It is true that financial data vary. However, the number of children adopted through international adoption is still minimal or not significant in Canada. Considering the fact that costs may easily reach $20,000 or $30,000, perhaps it would have been worthwhile to raise the amount. This is not a criticism that I want to make about my colleague's bill, but simply a constructive suggestion.

Even if I tell you that this phenomenon is still not yet widespread, it is growing. I had the opportunity to examine the statistics when I introduced my own bill. We realized that the phenomenon has been growing in the last 10 years in Quebec and Canada.

I was glad to see that 40% of all international adoptions in Canada are made in Quebec. There are statistics on this. What I am telling the House is based on the figures I have. Between 1993 and 2002, out of the 19,600 international adoptions in Canada, 8,100 were made in Quebec alone, that is, 41% of the 19,600 adoptions made between 1993 and 2002. A little over half of the children adopted by Quebeckers come from Asia, 59,5% to be exact, and they come mainly from China.

I forgot to mention one thing. We may have colleagues in this House who have made an international adoption. I remember that one of our colleagues in the Bloc, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, adopted a girl named Rosalie from Thailand. This beautiful and adorable little girl does not seem to have any trouble getting used to the Quebec culture. I think she is giving a lot of satisfaction to her father, our hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who is well known for his fiery temper. Sometimes we ask him to think about Rosalie and it usually calms him down.

But who am I to talk about people with a fiery temper, I know I am not always easy to deal with. Since I have to drive back to Quebec City at the end of day, the House will understand why I want to tone it down a bit and not get so worked up.

As I was saying, 59.5% of these children came from Asia, and mainly from China, and were adopted by Quebeckers.

Another 18.8% come from the Americas, and in particular Haiti. About the same proportion come from East Bloc countries, like Russia, Belarus and Romania.

I see that my time is almost up. I just want to add that probably all the members of the Bloc Québécois will wholeheartedly support this bill, as long as it is a free vote, especially since it was part of our platform in 2000.

[Sponsorship Program, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during the 2003 general election in Quebec, the federal Liberals repeated the same scenario. They used taxpayer's money to pay for a survey by Createc Plus and provided the survey to the Quebec Liberal Party.

How can one explain that the federal government not only used taxpayers' money for partisan purposes but also violated once again Quebec's election legislation?

[Sponsorship Program, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2001, Createc Plus conducted a survey of voting intentions and the image of the party leaders. As a defence, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tells us that, now that it has been caught, the Liberal Party of Canada will pay back.

Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tell us if the findings of the survey conducted during a Quebec byelection in 2001 were provided to the Quebec Liberal Party?

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this bill, which is in response to the Supreme Court decision in the Figueroa case.

As we know, Mr. Figueroa is the leader of the Communist Party of Canada and he testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the previous session of this Parliament, during the November 7 recess. Clearly, this bill needed to be reinstated as Bill C-3.

We will recall that, in that case, the Canada Elections Act was challenged by Mr. Figueroa. In 1993, the Communist Party of Canada lost its status as a registered party because it failed to nominate the required number of candidates. To be recognized under the Elections Act and by the Chief Electoral Officer, the parties must nominate at least 50 candidates. That is how it used to be. Mr. Figueroa challenged this decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in his favour, stating that the 50 candidate requirement for political party registration was unconstitutional.

This meant that a party could be recognized regardless of the number of candidates nominated, even just a single one. This means that a party could nominate a single candidate, and the Chief Electoral Officer would have no choice but to register the party and recognize it as a registered party.

The legal argument used by Mr. Figueroa, which the Supreme Court accepted, was that this 50 candidate threshold was in violation of section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to vote, among other things. The court ruled that the 50 candidate requirement was putting a restriction on the right to vote and, to a certain extent, on the development of smaller parties.

Members know that, in law, discriminatory rules may be imposed, but one of the tests the Supreme Court uses is to determine whether this element of discrimination is acceptable in a free and democratic society. This test is applied in many areas.

Without giving a lot of examples, I will mention the standards set for the height of an airline pilot. This issue has been legally tested. For safety reasons, someone too small or too big for the cockpit layout could not do the work of a pilot. For instance, someone who was 7 feet, 4 inches tall—my children still get after me for talking in feet and inches—was rejected because a cockpit is designed with a certain minimum and maximum in mind. Clearly, a person who is too far from the controls cannot operate the aircraft.

The company was, in effect, discriminating, but the issue was to determine whether that discrimination was justified or not in a free and democratic society. In the case of the Elections Act, the number of 50 candidates has been judged unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has told us that section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be interpreted rather broadly. Section 3, which guarantees certain rights, particularly the right to vote, is interpreted with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process, rather than the election of a particular form of government.

This definition takes into account the reasons why individual participation in the electoral process is important, in particular, respect for diversity of opinions and the ability of each person to strengthen the quality of the democracy.

A little while ago, I heard the leader of the government tell the House that it was important to do something about the democratic deficit and I made a comment to the hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, because we know that this is the government's new hobby horse. Ever since the events of September 11, September 11 has been the excuse for everything. Everything was a pretext to deprive people of certain rights—because of September 11.

This government has found a new hobby horse, namely that now we must fix the democratic deficit. Unfortunately the government does not always walk the way it talks, and the same old Liberal methods we have known for decades often still prevail.

The court also said that the members and supporters of political parties presenting fewer than 50 candidates meaningfully participate in the electoral process. The court held that the ability of a party to make a valuable contribution is not dependent upon its capacity to offer the electorate a genuine government option.

In committee, several experts suggested that perhaps the issue of 50 candidates being deemed unconstitutional should be appealed. We cannot appeal to the Supreme Court, but perhaps we could have another recourse to ensure that a number, such as the number one, is not considered valid.

Many people have told us that we should consider the possibility of recognizing a party that presents at least 12 candidates. I remember asking certain academics, “Why the rule of 12?” The professors of administrative law and constitutional law pointed out that to have official party status in this House, the rule had been set at 12 members. Consequently, the rule should be the same for the number of candidates nominated.

However, I would like to point out that I am completely against this parallel. A distinction needs to be made with the rules inside the House for recognizing a party with respect to parliamentary proceedings and debates. Short of 12, the party is considered independent or a group of independent MPs.

This happened to the Bloc when the party was being formed. I believe the highest number of Bloc representatives in the 1990s was 9 or 10 members. They were considered a group of independent members.

Consequently, the rule of 12 should not be placed in the context of the number required for official party status in the House, in order to be accepted by the chief electoral officer.

In conclusion, I would add that we agree with the principle behind Bill C-3. We feel that the bill creates new measures for promoting the registration of entities as political parties.

We also think that we must pay particular attention to the addition of a definition of political party in the Canada Elections Act suggesting that the primary objective of a political party should be to participate in public affairs. We need to know what exactly is meant by “participate in public affairs”.

We will be resuming work in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on this matter, and may decide to hear from other witnesses. Nonetheless, at this stage, we agree with the principle of the bill.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I simply want to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton East and wish her good luck during her nomination meeting, which will be held on March 7. I hope that, with 10,000 members, it will be held in Copps Coliseum. I will not call the member by name, but the Hamilton arena bears her name. Unless they try to hold it in the Valeri Arena, but there is no such arena in Hamilton. It is the Copps Coliseum there.

I want to thank the hon. member for Hamilton East for her comments. I know that she is very sensitive to Quebec culture. I have had the opportunity to discuss this with her. She knows my riding, which includes Île-d'Orléans, well. I think she has family and friends in Île-d'Orléans. She is quite sensitive to Quebec's views.

I want to tell her that I think her view shares a great deal with the position of the Bloc Quebecois. This is consistent with a statement she made in Le Soleil on May 11, 2003. She simply asked the following question, and I want her to expand on this. She said:

How can recommendations on the weaponization of a country be made without first consulting the public?

She also said the following day, May 12, 2003, in Le Devoir :

There must be a public debate before we move on the issue of star wars. The cabinet acting alone cannot reverse the direction this country has taken for the past 20 years.

I could quote other statements. This new government—or should I say this new Prime Minister?—that was sworn in on December 12, promises us that it will work very hard to overcome the democratic deficit. I would like the hon. member for Hamilton East to tell us if the direction the government is taking at present is part of a movement or if, once again, the Minister of Defence's views are dominating. We know his views and his position on the missile defence shield. Does the hon. member for Hamilton East agree that the people should be consulted on such an important subject?

I thought it was interesting that she launched her campaign at a Tim Horton's. She really wanted to demonstrate that she was a leadership candidate who was close to the people, close to ordinary folks. I would like her to tell us whether Canada has the means to spend billions of dollars for the weaponization of space, when the needs we have here are so glaring, while 1.5 million children are living in poverty and often do not have enough money to eat before they go to school.