House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 43% of the vote.
Immigration And Refugee Protection Act June 4th, 2001
moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 41 the following new clause:
“95.1 The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee claimants as of the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and until a decision is made in respect of that claim.”
Armenia June 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I have risen in the House to talk about the Parliament of Canada recognizing the Armenian genocide.
Over 1.5 million people were killed, disappeared, in the course of the Armenian genocide, a deliberate act of a government which had decided to eliminate this population.
The first motion in which I participated was in 1996. It was introduced by the member for Ahuntsic, Michel Daviault, and its purpose was the same as that of the motion today.
The motion back then was agreed to, but the government was very careful to replace the word genocide with the word tragedy.
We have now entered the third millennium. It is perhaps time that the Government of Canada followed in the footsteps of many international parliaments and had the courage to call a genocide a genocide.
There have always been governments who have taken it upon themselves to wipe populations off the map. Even here, in 1755, there was an attempt to wipe the Acadian people out of existence.
It did not succeed. It seems that, however great the desire to destroy, there is a life force which keeps these peoples alive and keeps them remembering. They remember that destroying a people is like destroying a person: it is a wound from which one does not recover.
There is a sizeable Armenian community in Laval. This is a community that never fails to amaze me, as its members are so well integrated into Quebec society, while at the same time ever mindful of who they are.
There are great-grandmothers in Laval who are survivors of the Armenian genocide and who have transmitted to their grandchildren and great-grandchildren the painful knowledge that someone once wanted them dead.
I believe that a country like Canada, which passes itself off in all international forums as a champion of human rights, has a duty of conscience to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Numerous motions have been passed, even in the Senate. One of the members of the Senate has proposed a similar motion.
Will this government have the courage to recognize the Armenian genocide? I do not believe that this government lacks compassion. What it does lack is the courage to differentiate between economic interests and values. I believe economic interests are important, but I also believe that, over and above economic interests, values must come first. If the economy is what takes precedence, we will be able to accept just about anything, and I do not believe that is what Canadians and Quebecers want.
Are there many countries in the world that have recognized the Armenian genocide?
Beginning with Canada, there are two provinces that have recognized the Armenian genocide. These two account for some 60% of the total population of Canada. Hon. members will realize I am speaking of Quebec and Ontario.
Thus, 60% of the people of Canada acknowledge that the Armenian genocide did indeed occur and must be recognized.
We will head south a little. In the United States, a number of individual states have also recognized the Armenian genocide. The ones close to us include New York, Massachusetts and Delaware. In the centre, things are quiet. However, it is not surprising to discover that California too recognizes the Armenian genocide.
What about Europe? France, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Belgium and Cyprus have recognized it.
In South America, Uruguay and Argentina have also recognized it.
On June 18, 1987, the European parliament, in accordance with the guideline of the UN human rights commission issued two years previously, also recognized the Armenian genocide.
I am having a very hard time understanding why the Government of Canada is resisting what has become a matter of fact. We may well be in the third millennium, but genocides will continue. With the speed of communications, will international society let peoples disappear because a government has decided they should?
At the start of the 20th century, communications were much less sophisticated than they are now, as we know. The Rwandan massacre occurred not so long ago. There could be other ones, whether it is in Africa or in Asia. Do we not have a responsibility to act as a watchdog?
If the Government of Canada recognizes the Armenian genocide, will it not send a clear message that it will never again close its eyes on a future genocide? We cannot change the past, but we can recognize that a genocide took place and we can regret that it happened. In the future we may have to make decisions that will involve the respect for individuals, nations and our society's values.
I call on all parliamentarians to begin a personal reflection on values such as compassion and respect for individuals. None of us can reject out of hand the kind of reflection that we must make as parliamentarians and citizens.
The motion before us cannot be a votable item. I deeply regret it, but there will be other ones. I hope the next one will be a votable item, because I tabled one a few weeks ago, with the same objective: that parliament recognize the genocide.
I firmly hope that this motion will be a votable item and that parliamentarians will stand up and tell the world that Canada no longer tolerates genocides, because they are totally contrary to the human values of equality and respect.
Immigration And Refugee Protection Act June 1st, 2001
I would ask the Conservative member to control his enthusiasm.
Motion No. 7 aims at reintroducing what can currently be found in the legislation. Under the present legislation, there are two stages to the removal of a refugee or of a permanent resident to his or her country of origin. The adjudication division is responsible for the removal order, and the appeal division reviews the circumstances of the case.
Under clause 64 of the bill, the decision will be made by the officers, with no possibility that the case be heard by a court of law or an independent tribunal.
Everyone in this beautiful country recognizes the value of our justice system. I find it particularly troubling that a person would be denied the right to appeal a decision that went against his or her expectations.
What I am asking in my amendment is that clause 64 of the bill be deleted in its entirety since it is aimed at denying a protected person or a permanent resident the right to appeal a removal order.
That is the third amendment. Should that amendment be defeated, which is highly unlikely, we will support Motion No. 8 proposed by my colleague from the Conservative Party.
There is still hope.
Immigration And Refugee Protection Act June 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, all four motions in Group No. 2 have been put forward by the opposition parties.
I would love to be proven wrong and see at least one of these amendments supported by the Liberal majority. That is how naive I can be on any given Friday.
The first amendment is from the Canadian Alliance. This amendment, which we will support, clarifies the concept of security.
Reference is therefore made to the definition found in the act. I will not say more about this amendment, except to reiterate that we will support it.
The second amendment is also from the Canadian Alliance. However, I do have some reservations about this one.
This bill already involves many stakeholders. Since only a few stays are provided for in the bill, to set up a new committee to examine the merits of an application to stay a removal order has me a bit concerned. So, we will be voting against that amendment.
The third amendment is by far the most important.
Immigration And Refugee Protection Act June 1st, 2001
moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-11, in Clause 64, be amended by deleting lines 32 to 43 on page 29 and lines 1 to 6 on page 30.
Parental Leave June 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the desire of Quebec to keep rehabilitation the priority for young offenders, the need to readjust tax matters between Ottawa and Quebec City and the Quebec parental leave program are all the focus of consensus in Quebec, which largely transcends partisan lines, since the future of Quebec is involved. The federal government response to each consensus has been consistent: no.
In refusing to negotiate, is the minister aware of the message he is sending to Quebec families, stating clearly “If you want a parental leave program that meets your needs, you have only one option, become sovereign”?
Parental Leave June 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, last week the national assembly passed the law to establish the Quebec parental leave program.
This law, passed unanimously, has the support of the unions, young Quebec families and management. All that is lacking to get the program going is to have the federal government agree to sit down and negotiate with Quebec.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs capable of making a commitment on behalf of his government to begin negotiations with the government of Quebec? Yes or no.
Income Tax Act May 30th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate on second reading of Bill C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
It is not every day that we have a private member's bill with such an objective. Why would the Income Tax Act be changed? To provide tax credits to people who use public transit to go work or for occupations other than work. We know that there are now a lot of volunteers.
Before going into this bill in more detail, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work done by my colleague from Jonquière. The hon. member for Jonquière was an extremely dynamic and active critic when she was involved with environmental issues. Everyone in the House surely remembers the determination and the passion with which she pursued the government on the issue of MOX. Our colleague is someone who believes that the environment is everybody's business, that it is the responsibility of each and every one of us.
If it is an individual responsibility, can you imagine what an essential responsibility it is for governments? There was a predecessor to the bill introduced today, which was proposed in 1999 by the hon. member of the NDP, Nelson Riis, who was a colleague of ours, as far as I am concerned, from 1993 to 2000.
At that time, the motion introduced by Mr. Riis called on the government to examine the issue of a tax credit for the use of public transit. That motion was very clearly passed: 246 yeas, 25 nays. It was quite a surprise.
What is even more surprising is that since 1999, after recognizing the need for such a study, the government that was re-elected for a third term with a huge majority has forgotten everything about it. They do not talk about it any more.
We know that governments are like citizens. Sometimes they need incentives. The bill introduced by the member for Jonquière acts as an incentive. Will the government agree to consider and implement this bill? I wish I could count on it, because it would send a clear message to everyone in Canada and in Quebec.
We realize that the environment in increasingly deteriorating, especially in overindustrialized countries, like Canada and Quebec that are in the shadow of the United States.
The recent decision by President Bush to ignore the commitments make in Kyoto is very worrisome, just like the lack of a strong response from Canada to that decision.
Vehicles are accountable for 32% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty-two per cent is a lot.
I have been living in Laval since 1967. In the last 30 to 35 years, I must say that the number of cars has increased. Of course, with the development of the suburbs traffic towards downtown Montreal has increased significantly.
In 1976, I could leave Laval at 7 a.m. and get downtown in 20 minutes.
Now when I come to Ottawa, and I do it at least once a week, I must be in my car by 6 a.m., and I can assure hon. members that I am not speeding; I cannot drive fast. It takes me between 40 and 50 minutes to leave the island of Montreal at 6 in the morning.
Does this mean that ten years from now people will have to get up at 5 a.m. if they want to avoid spending two hours to cover 20 kilometres?
My colleague is asking that there be a tax credit. The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve referred to subsidized parking spaces. Of course, here, as members of parliament, we have a parking space that is in addition to our salary. It is the same at General Motors. My point is that there are many places where this is provided.
The alternative is to get a bus pass. However, if I live in Laval and work in Montreal, I must spend twice as much money on that pass, because I must go from Laval to Montreal. Worse still, if I live in Laval and work on the south shore, I must get three different passes. These costs add up.
Why not recognize that a tax credit should be given to those who are lucid enough to decide to leave their car in the driveway and do their bit to help reduce pollution? Why not do that?
I know that the Minister of Finance has tremendous responsibilities. I know that tax abatements are very difficult to implement, but I also know that certain large corporations already enjoy sizeable ones.
Why not average citizens? Why do people who earn their living and must travel not get a break? Perhaps this would have some effect on the thousands of motorists who jam the Jacques-Cartier, Champlain, highway 15 and highway 13 bridges every morning. Perhaps this would motivate them to do their bit too.
Personally I hope that the government votes in favour of this bill. We are about to head off for the summer and it would perhaps be a nice thing we could all do for ourselves to pass this bill and be able to look forward to a cleaner environment.
We know that asthma and allergies are on the increase. This would eliminate these problems for our young people. Our seniors, for whom air pollution is a big concern, particularly for those suffering from pulmonary or cardiopulmonary problems, as many do, might perhaps be able to enjoy a quiet walk through the parks in metropolitan Montreal. They could say “My God, the air is a bit better”.
I know that I am dreaming, but when one stops dreaming, one has already died a little. I claim to be full of life, just as full of life as the member for Jonquière, and just as full of life as the majority of the members who are going to vote in favour of the bill introduced by the member for Jonquière.
Immigration And Refugee Protection Act May 30th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of television viewers and perhaps of members in the House, I would just like to briefly recap how the minister introduced Bill C-11 in February.
What the minister said at that time was that Bill C-11 was a bill that could be described as tough. Its purpose was, of course, to open the door wide to the hundreds of thousands of people who want to come here and whom we need if Canada and Quebec are to continue to make progress. However, the government also wanted that door to be tightly closed to people unacceptable to our societies.
What I can say is that the great majority of the witnesses we heard were in agreement with the minister. The bill is extremely tough. In fact they are concerned. People are concerned.
In committee, we considered the bill clause by clause. There were hundreds of amendments presented by the opposition parties or by the government.
I must agree with my colleague for London North Centre that there have been improvements. I acknowledge that. They are not enough, however. They are very much insufficient, and this bill continues to be an object of concern. It is perhaps the fashion, however, in this Liberal government, to take a hard line. Last night, for instance, the bill we voted on in third reading, Bill C-7, was another fine example of this hard line.
In the first group there are four amendments, two presented by the government, which I can assume will be passed with great unanimity. Two others are presented by the Bloc Quebecois.
The first amendment by the party in power, which I shall read for the benefit of our audience, is really within the framework of what this bill is about. The amendment proposed by the minister at clause 3(1)( i ) is to promote international justice, and I quote:
—and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks;
Understandably, no one can be opposed to such an addition, and this focuses on the importance Canada attaches to human rights. We can only hope that the proof of this will be forthcoming in future years, and that there will not be any slip-ups as far as the respect of human rights is concerned.
What the second part of the Liberal amendment is really about is replacing the word néoquébécois, which is not anywhere in the bill, with the term permanent resident.
The second amendment, this one brought forward by the Bloc, is much more important. My colleague from London North Centre mentioned that under this bill the minister will have to table the regulation in the House and refer it to the committee.
All of the witnesses we heard were concerned about the fact that much of the enforcement measures will be dealt with in the regulation. The legislation itself is rather vague.
However, in the bill as amended in committee, under clause 5 that stipulates that the regulation will be laid before the House and then referred to the appropriate committee, we have noticed that a small provision, clause 5(4), was tacked on, which reads as follows:
5.(4) The Governor in Council may make the regulation at any time after the proposed regulation has been laid before each House of Parliament.
Therefore, the governor in council would be able to make the regulation as soon as it is tabled. In some ways, this provision undermines that amendment agreed upon in committee.
What we want is for clause 5(4) to be completely deleted. Since the previous speaker referred to this amendment, I do hope that the government will understand that clause 5(4) needs to be deleted.
The third amendment is also from the Bloc Quebecois. I may still be naive and somehow that makes me proud, but I truly believe that we will have the unanimous consent of the House on this one, because all it does is add the words a protected person. Clause 19, which this amendment deals with, refers to the right to enter and remain in Canada. The current provision only mentions the right of entry of permanent residents.
What we are proposing is that the officer allow a permanent resident or a protected person to enter Canada, a protected person being someone who has refugee status, if satisfied following an examination on their entry that they have that status.
It must be noted that in committee the minister clearly indicated that obtaining refugee status could indeed be considered as a travel document. Therefore we think this amendment must be passed by the House.
Finally, the last amendment in this first group is from the government. It is rather interesting, because it is of a cosmetic nature. We have before us a most important bill that affects people and families, that will have an impact of the future of tens of thousands of people, and the government is bringing forward a cosmetic amendment. It is replacing the word travail by the word emploi in the French version.
Now that I have gone over the four amendments, I will continue to speak about this bill, which is aimed at dispelling certain theories that we hear out there, particularly in western Canada. What we hear is that Canada has really become a haven for people who have something to fear from the justice system, very often for good reasons.
It is perfectly understandable that a country such as Canada would not want to have such a reputation. However, this has nothing to do with reality. Recently, we had the Amodeo case. Clearly, he should never have entered the country, but he did.
However, does a single case become a majority? No, there are a few cases, as there are everywhere. We have to realize that people in organized crime and professional terrorists are highly intelligent and very capable and that the best organized law will probably never keep them out entirely.
The dangerous part in this bill arises from our desire for an impenetrable border, which means we risk rejecting honest people who want to contribute to Canada's economic and social growth. In this regard, for Canada to do without this essential support, which is a bit like oxygen, is a very poor choice.
As I said earlier, at the moment hundreds of thousands of people are awaiting approval. Will they or will they not be able to come to Canada? Four hundred thousand people is a lot. We know the minister puts the figure at 300,000 a year. We never reach it.
The aim of the bill is to perhaps improve the record management process, and we support this goal, because everyone here, especially members from large cities, knows that we have an incredible number of people waiting months and years.
Immigration And Refugee Protection Act May 30th, 2001