Monique Guay

[Sponsorship Program, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is trying to hide behind the work of the Gomery inquiry in order to refuse to give answers here in this House about the use of sponsorship money by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Does the Prime Minister realize that he does not have to wait until the end of the Gomery inquiry to tell us the truth? I repeat my question. Did any minister from his current or former cabinet have meetings with agencies, yes or no?

[Sponsorship Program, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a former communications expert and right hand of one of the owners of an agency at the heart of the sponsorship scandal has confirmed that he met with members of the Chrétien cabinet or people from the Prime Minister's Office.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that none of his former or current cabinet ministers participated in meetings with agencies to divert money from the sponsorship program to the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on Bill C-38 began, I knew it would be surrounded by a lot of emotion and that perhaps there would be some diametrically opposed positions taken. This is a topic that stirs up some strong feelings, of course.

I think that the majority of the Bloc Québécois members on this side of the House have discussed this and are in favour of the bill. I am in favour of it and I will tell you why.

This is the tenth time that the matter of same sex marriage has been brought up in the House of Commons. The Minister of Justice has had the courage to bring it back one more time so that it may at last be enacted and same sex couples may be assured of the same rights as any other people who want to make a life together. It is not about sex. It is about justice. It is also about love.

I recall the speech by the leader of the Bloc Québécois who spoke a great deal about love. That is, after all, the bottom line to it all. People who want to be together, be they two men, two women or a man and a woman, are people who love each other. They want to live together, to protect each other, to share their lives.

That is part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone has the right to be happy. If that is a way for them to be happy, let us allow them to marry and be happy, at last. We are talking of civil unions here.

The bill even protects the religious institutions by ensuring that the government does not interfere in areas over which it does not have jurisdiction. The precise reason for this being included in the bill is to satisfy some of our colleagues, the Conservatives among others. This appears, however, not to be enough for them.

Let us follow the logic as I have heard it in this House—and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. They said marriage is reserved for having children, but in 2005 people are no longer having children. In Quebec, anyway, I know that our birth rate is very low. So does that mean that people who do not want children should not be allowed to marry? The argument could be taken that far.

Does this mean that a person whose spouse has died—like myself—and who has no desire to have any more children, cannot remarry because he or she is not going to have a family? This is illogical, but it is the logic being used when they tell us that marriage is about having a family.

In our times and in the current context, it does not make sense to limit the argument in this way. It is a diversion to try to have us see things a certain way or to justify a position against same sex marriage.

Are we holding up progress by making democratic reforms here? Just look at those who have already gotten married so far. How did they manage? They went to court and the court ruled against the province to allow these people to get married.

If we do not resolve this at the federal level once and for all, then every time a gay or lesbian couple wants to get married, they will have to go to court and spend a lot of money. This costs the government money as well. At the end of the day, these couples will win and get married anyway and the problem will still not be resolved. We must not bury our heads in the sand. This situation has to be resolved.

Everyone has equal rights. We know full well that for many years the gay community has had many challenges. Gays and lesbians have been looked upon unfavourably and have been mistreated by the public because they were not necessarily understood.

Homosexuality is a fact. A person is either homosexual or not. It is not an illness. It is simply a person's attraction to someone of the same sex. They have every right to live this way, there is nothing wrong with it.

There is no sense in trying to show that it is wrong to live this way. We live in a modern society and we are well aware of our reality.

Such is our reality. We must be able to deal with it. We must ensure that the rights of every such individual are respected. Not so long ago, we women were nobodies. We did not have the right to vote. So we fought the battles we needed to fight to get where we are. Today, women sit in Parliament and have the right to vote. They earned this right, and it will never be taken away from them. This is now part of our democracy.

I want to take this one step further to try to find a solution for people who want to marry. There are horror stories about this. I have heard everything. It is not always easy for homosexuals to admit their homosexuality to their family, parents and entourage, because society still does not fully accept it.

That said, we can try to imagine the process homosexuals have to go through if they want to marry. At one point, barely 30 or 40 years ago, homosexuals adopted their partners to ensure that their entire inheritance would not be lost in the event of a death. What happened if they were not married? What consideration were they given? They were not even considered to be common-law spouses. Consequently, the family could take the entire estate; it could even contest an inheritance because the individual who had shared the partner's life was considered a non-person.

If someone puts a lot into a relationship, into a couple, if someone invests in a house and property, that property has to be protected and we must ensure that if both of them invested, both of them reap the benefits. If one of them dies, at a minimum the inheritance must go to the other or be handled in accordance with the person's wishes. It should not be possible to deprive someone of what he or she has built up over the years along with his or her spouse.

That is not all. There is not only the legal aspect, of course, but also the emotional aspect. We have to change and progress.

In my riding, there are certainly some differences of opinion. Some people are in favour and others less so. However, we do not meet with such great reluctance, I do not think, as my colleagues in the Conservative Party in their ridings. This proves that Quebec is indeed distinct and very different. People are more open-minded in Quebec. However, I have met some priests who told me that it just does not make sense. On the other hand, I have also met some priests who told me that it was time to take care of this and that they hoped I would vote in favour in this bill.

But people think differently. They do not feel any need at all to pour out their feelings in public. Some do, but others feel no need. Often it is the silent majority that supports us.

It is therefore very important to realize that we have moved forward, we have made progress, and it is time to settle this issue. When the Conservatives told us a little while ago that they did not want this to be one of the government's priorities, it occurred to me that we have dithered too long on this issue. This has been dragging on for too long and we should settle it once and for all. If we were to put our shoulders to the wheel now, instead of talking about it for weeks, months or even years, it would already be settled.

I sincerely believe that we must support this bill. Let us give all human beings on this earth, in Canada and Quebec, a chance to be equal. Let us give everyone a chance to be happy, to be in love and to live well. If that happens through marriage between two people who love each other, regardless of whether they are men or women, for me, it does not matter: it is a sign of love between two people. I hope, therefore, that we will win this vote in the next few weeks.

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government is initiating proceedings against the agencies because it feels that there is enough evidence of extra billing. However, whether it is the generous contracts awarded to Jean Lafleur or the forced contributions of his employees, the existence of a Liberal food chain is just as obvious.

How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services be satisfied with prosecuting these agencies while refusing to give back the dirty money? Is this not a case of a double standard?

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government just announced that it will prosecute the advertising agencies that were awarded fat contracts and that billed for much more than the work they actually did.

How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services justify his eagerness to prosecute these agencies, considering that he keeps asking us to let the commission do its work when we question him about the Liberal Party giving back the dirty money?

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be extremely brief. Sometimes, here, connections are not made. This is probably one of those times. If, in voting to reverse the burden of proof, the government does subscribe to this and does introduce legislation, I hope that it will implement measures that will enable the re-opening of various RCMP detachments, instead of the reverse. It would be only logical. I sincerely hope that the connections are made in the right places and that ultimately a solution to these problems can be found.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague and I can appreciate his situation. I understand how people can feel abandoned in a situation like this. We are talking about an important resource, because these are people with special expertise in the specific field of safety, as well as in investigation and intervention of a type that is different from those conducted by our other police forces. We need them in the field. Organized crime is also a specialty of theirs. Without them, there is a void, and serious problems might arise.

The idea of a telephone connection is absolutely preposterous. This is nuts. There is no way that an RCMP officer will be able to deal with problems in the Magdalen Islands by phone. We have to be realistic.

It is obvious that not only the detachment in Gaspé must remain open, but also that serious thought ought to be given to reopening the one in the Magdalen Islands. I encourage my hon. colleague to make representations and to continue fighting, as he has in the past, for the detachment in the Magdalen Islands to reopen and, above all, to prevent the one in Gaspé from closing.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

First, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who had the courage to present this motion today. This motion will force or invite the government, which appears to agree with it, to introduce a bill. The reason the hon. member has presented it today is that this issue, reversing the burden of proof, has already been under discussion and a solution sought for a long time. We want the situation clarified.

Obviously, we know that in Parliament things often proceed slowly. Bringing this motion before the House today, and discussing it all day, has made it possible to get a general idea of the members' feelings. I have seen much stormier debates in this House during an opposition day. It appears there is some consensus among the political parties. It feels as if we are moving forward with a situation where we really want to find a rapid and practical solution—one which everyone is waiting for eagerly.

Our primary role as human beings is to take care of ourselves, each other and our children. We can see what is happening in the schools today. One need only look at the big high schools or even primary grades. People come in to sell their illegal products—drug products—to our children. These people come from organized crime. Everyone knows that. They are known. Ask any teenager: they all know exactly where to get drugs.

That is at the foundation. As legislators, we must try by every means possible to fight against it. Reversing the burden of proof is one solution. It is not the only solution, but it can help a great deal. When criminals are arrested, they will have to prove to the rest of us that their property really belongs to them and that it was earned legally, not illegally.

I am rather concerned about what my colleague from the NDP said earlier. I hope I understood correctly. He was talking about Manitoba and said that even if people were not facing criminal charges and not found guilty, they could ask for this kind of investigation. If there are suspicions about someone, they can ask whether that person's goods were legally obtained. I think that violates the Charter of Rights and Liberties.

What we are proposing is more applicable to a situation where, after an accused is found guilty, he must prove that his assets belong to him and that they were earned lawfully.

Obviously, this is ascertained during investigations currently underway. Some have gone on for years. It costs taxpayers millions to try to prove that a known criminal obtained his assets legally. Some cases have been dragging on for seven years. They have already cost millions of dollars.

We should not have to pay to prove that a criminal's assets were obtained with the proceeds of his crimes. It should be the other way around, and that is the reason for our motion today and for this debate.

In my opinion, this would be a enormous progress. It would be a step forward. However, we must also consider allocating resources for this. We cannot simply pass legislation and then think that it will be enforced on its own. That is not how things work.

We must be able to ensure that there are enough people in the field dedicated to this. Once again, I come back to the situation with regard to the RCMP detachments, because this has affected many of my colleagues, including my colleague from Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The Magdalen Islands are facing an extremely serious and acute crisis.

It is no less acute in all the other ridings. There is my colleague from Joliette. When a murder was committed in his riding, it made the headlines in Quebec. It involved a young man in his twenties who was a bar owner and who had refused to let gangs sell drugs there. He was murdered in cold blood, just like that, on the sidewalk.

So, there are situations where criminal groups are still very powerful. Quite often, the only way to deprive them of that power and strength is to seize their assets, so that when they come out of jail—assuming of course that these assets were illegally obtained, and I am quite convinced it is the case for some of them—these people cannot resume their criminal activities. They will have no choice but to operate under the legal system, like the rest of us.

Here is another personal example. I used to own a commercial building, and two young women wanted to start a business. They opened a bar in our small town, but one day some members of a criminal organization showed up and told them bluntly that they wanted to sell drugs in their bar. The two women refused and soon received death threats. They had to shut down their business, because they were afraid they would be found dead on the sidewalk. Such situations still exist today.

Therefore, in order to try to avoid such situations, we must put in place all the necessary tools—not only the reverse burden of proof, because it is part of a whole set—to fight crime in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. I am convinced that doing so will lead to a better society.

However, we must act rather quickly. As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned earlier, there are some major criminal figures in Quebec, particularly Normand Robitaille and Maurice “Mom” Boucher, who has a big smile on his face, even though he is in jail.

If we cannot use the burden of proof, once these individuals come out of jail they will still have their three Mercedes, two boats, three houses, etc. They will have spent a few years in jail, where they will have been well treated—to be sure—because they really know how to behave in that environment, since it is their field of expertise. Currently, when they come out of jail, they can simply get their assets back, quickly reorganize their criminal gang, reintegrate their former position as leader of a criminal gang, and resume their operations, because they have the money to do so. Therefore, we must put a stop to that.

The day that we are able, as in the case of Maurice “Mom” Boucher for example, to seize his illegally obtained assets and to see to it that he can no longer use this money to commit crimes, it will change a lot of things. We have to start with one individual so that others realize that there are laws and there are things going on in the field that prevent them from engaging in these kinds of activities from now on. We have to take a stronger stance to attack the problem at its roots, meaning that we have to try to protect our children as best we can.

In Saint-Jérôme, in my riding, the RCMP provides services and has an excellent knowledge of the area. In fact, RCMP officers recently discovered in our region a counterfeiting ring that came from the United States. It had been there for a long time, but they were waiting for the right moment to proceed with the seizure. They did an excellent job because they know their people. If they are withdrawn from the area to be sent elsewhere, all the work done in the past will be wasted. They also do a lot of work with youth. So we must ensure that these positions are maintained because they are part of a whole, as I was saying earlier.

I am very pleased to see that there is a certain degree of consensus in the House today in support of this motion.

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on his remarks. He too, I imagine, is very concerned about the children, given all the battles he has waged over cannabis in his region. A tip of the hat for all the work done. We must continue, never stop. This has become a serious problem in Quebec.

The techniques that organized crime uses in my region to produce cannabis have become very sophisticated. They even grow it on trees. Luckily, a plantation of this kind was found very near where I live, through the use of a helicopter. There was an incredible amount of cannabis. This fight must continue.

That being said, I am very happy that the RCMP detachment in my area has not been closed because it is a regional capital and it would have been pretty counter-productive to do this.

Insofar as the burden of proof is concerned, it is obvious that if you are in organized crime and make some purchases, some acquisitions, you would not be crazy enough to put them in your own name. Doing this, the investigations that we have to do now—because the burden of proof does not exist—cost a fortune because we have to go to the source, to the basis. But if they had to provide proof, things would move along much more quickly. It should not be up to us to pay for the investigations but up to them to provide complete, incontrovertible proof that something was honestly acquired.

I would like to hear my colleague speak to this. What does he think? Does he think that the investigations would be done much more quickly? Does he also think that, if there is no proof that a certain house or boat or car was purchased legally or honestly, it should be seized immediately to ensure that these people will no longer enjoy the proceeds of organized crime?

[Member for Terrebonne—Blainville, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the many activities marking International Women's Day, the Milles-Îles chapter of the Réseau des femmes d'affaires du Québec yesterday revealed the winners in three categories: business women, women who care, and the younger generation.

In the women who care category, which honours a woman from the Lower Laurentian region who has shown outstanding community and social involvement over the years, the prize was given to my hon. colleague for Terrebonne—Blainville, the Bloc Québécois critic on international cooperation.

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville is not only a woman who cares, she is also a woman of passion and action, with an indomitable will to serve her community and a commitment to build the Quebec nation.

All my colleagues, her staff members, and everyone in the Bloc Québécois applaud her determination, know-how and dedication, so eloquently recognized.

We also want to congratulate Josée Aubin and Carole Nantel, the other finalists in the same category. Bravo to all.