Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Armenian People, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, the international community commemorates the Armenian genocide of 1915, which resulted in the death of over one million persons.

On March 24, 1998, Robert Kotcharian, the prime minister of the Republic of Armenia at the time, called for international recognition of the genocide, which was not “the tragedy of the Armenian people only”, but a tragedy for “all of humanity and is a heavy burden for the Armenian people because it has gone unpunished and, worse yet, has not been condemned as it ought”.

In North America, the Ontario legislature, the Quebec national assembly and the states of California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York have recognized the Armenian genocide.

The Bloc Quebecois hopes that Canada, in keeping with its values of justice and compassion, will have the courage to adopt the following motion, which I moved in March: “That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity”.

[Government Of Quebec Budget, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time a woman, Pauline Marois, tabled the government's budget in the Quebec National Assembly.

This budget stood out for its sensitivity to the needs of the public and its resolutely social democratic thrust, including an additional $2 billion for health care funding which is coming out of the Government of Quebec's revenues and not from federal transfers, which now account for only 14 cents on every dollar invested in health care in Quebec.

The budget also contains commitments for education funding which are well above what was expected, tax cuts which target low- and middle-income earners, major support for the resource regions through tax holidays and other incentives for local processing and, finally, additional anti-poverty funding.

In closing, I wish to draw the House's attention to the announced creation in Laval of a biotechnology and human health complex and of the Centre de développement des biotechnologies, evidence of the Bloc Quebecois' firm desire to support the research and development sector. In short—

[Ethics Counsellor, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor knows perfectly well that the name of the Prime Minister remained on the shareholders' record, since he had examined all the books, so he said.

How does the Prime Minister explain the ethics counsellor's failing to reveal this fact during the election campaign, other than in order to keep the fact that he was in a conflict of interest from the public?

[Ethics Counsellor, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, among other statements to the Standing Committee on Industry, the ethics counsellor said that the value of the sale of shares in the Grand-Mère golf club could neither rise nor fall.

Yesterday's documents indicate clearly that the Prime Minister lost money in this venture. With this inaccuracy, the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor has lost whatever credibility he had left.

How can the Prime Minister not admit that we have before us one more reason to think that his counsellor tried to cover for him in all this?

[Immigration, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in September 1999, the Canadian authorities received a request for the extradition of Gaetano Amodeo, who was being sought for murder in his country. A few months later, the RCMP admitted that it has lost track of the dangerous criminal.

My question is for the solicitor general. Why did the RCMP, which had been aware of the request for extradition since September 1999 and which had lost track of Amodeo at the end of 1999, wait until December 2000 to ask Immigration Canada for help in arresting this criminal?

[Immigration, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in January 1999, the wife of Gaetano Amodeo made an application to Immigration Canada in which the name of her husband, a notorious criminal in Italy, appeared as a dependent. That same month, the RCMP was informed that an arrest warrant had been issued for Amodeo by a court in Palermo.

How does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain that, at the time, her department, which has access to the RCMP's central file, failed to connect Amodeo the applicant and Amodeo the criminal, thereby delaying his arrest by several months?

[Right Of Landing Fee, March 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on Motion No. 231 tabled by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should eliminate the Right of Landing Fee (ROLF) on all classes of immigrants to Canada.

We all know in this House that Quebec and Canada are the number one destination for many immigrants. Thousands of immigrants choose Canada or Quebec as their adopted country to improve their lives and reach their full potential.

As we know, Quebec and Canada both need immigration to at least maintain their current population. Therefore, the government regularly sets targets regarding the number of immigrants to be received. Last year Canada received 226,837 immigrants and refugees.

For 2001 we should be receiving 200,000 to 225,000 immigrants and refugees and these numbers will increase by 10,000 for 2002.

However these people must pay certain fees which we think limit the possibility of immigrating to Canada and constitute an undisguised form of discrimination for some.

We also think that the right of landing fee, or ROLF, also known as head tax, is an unacceptable constraint.

It is interesting to note that the term head tax comes from a tax imposed on Chinese immigrants by the Canadian government at the end of the 19th century.

Starting in 1880, many Chinese workers took part in the building of the CPR. Once the railroad was built, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. Between 1885 and 1923, Chinese immigrants, unlike European immigrants, had to pay quite a substantial head tax to come to Canada. From $50 per person in 1885, the head tax increased to $100 to finally reach the astronomical amount of $500 by 1903.

To say it was a staggering amount of money at that time is an understatement. In fact, it is estimated that by 1923 that awful tax had generated $23 million for the Canadian government, which would translate into about $1 billion nowadays.

The current landing fee of $975 per adult immigrant coming to Canada was set by the current Liberal government in 1995. At the time, the fee applied to both immigrants and refugees. Public outcry prompted the government to stop collecting that fee from refugees in February 2000.

However it still applies to other immigrants who have other expenses to pay when they come to Canada. Besides the landing fee set at $975 per immigrant over 19 years of age, the permanent residence application costs $500 per immigrant over 19 years of age and $100 for anyone younger.

Everyone agrees that this tax is clearly unfair and prohibitive. While the government is raking in surplus after surplus by diverting the surplus of the employment insurance fund, it is still collecting a landing fee from immigrants. Two thousand immigrants at $975 each make for a lot of money. It comes to about $200 million a year.

These actions by the government show once again its insensitivity toward the poor in our society. Indeed, many people want to immigrate here but do not necessarily have much money. This tax does not at all take into account the economic resources of individuals or the economic conditions in their country of origin. In the end, the door is wide open but only for those who have the means to pay.

While the federal Liberal government is accumulating surplus upon surplus, Quebec is welcoming some 12,000 refugees annually. The slowness in the processing of claims by the federal government results in staggering costs for Quebec. It is estimated that it costs about $100 million annually to take charge of people waiting for a ruling by the Immigration and Refugee Board and the federal government will not consider reimbursing Quebec for these costs. It is too poor. Clearly, the only reason for this landing fee is to put money in the federal treasury.

Another worrisome thing about this tax is that it is an impediment to what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration considers one of her priorities: the reunification of families.

We know that many immigrants are not necessarily rolling in money. For those who apply to sponsor a member of their family, this tax is a major obstacle.

It is clear that Bill C-11, which is now before the committee, would allow us to examine this tax and the government's real objectives. It is essential that the federal government significantly lower this tax or, better yet, abolish it.

[Government Contracts, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the apparently successful bid from Garadex Inc. and First National Funding Corp. is $7 million higher, and does not include the major investment of $1 million for computer wiring done by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in the present building and the major costs associated with a move to a virtual building in the middle of an industrial park.

What were the reasons for the minister's decision? Is this another brilliant example of this government's management skill?

[Government Contracts, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since 1983, Revenue Canada's address in Laval has been 3131 Saint-Martin Blvd. It seems that this address is soon going to change.

Further to a call for tenders concerning the lease for these offices, will the Minister for Public Works and Government Services confirm that the lowest bidder, the present landlord of the building, the Fiducie des chauffeurs d'autobus et de retraités of the Société de Transport de Laval, was not selected?

[Emancipation Day, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. 242 from the hon. member for Calgary East, concerning Emancipation Day. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should proclaim August 1 of each year Emancipation Day in recognition of the heritage and contributions of Canada's black community.

While February, which seemed very long, is Black History Month, this motion provides us with an opportunity to mark an particularly important event for the black community in Canada and in Quebec.

Indeed, August 1 marks the coming into effect, in 1834, of the Emancipation Act introduced by Thomas Buxton in London's House of Commons, in 1833. That act ended slavery in all the British colonies. This was 30 years before President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed Black American slaves.

When we think about slavery, the first thing that comes to mind is the history of slaves in American plantations. Who can forget Gone with the Wind or the television series Roots ? But we must remember that slavery also existed, although on a lesser scale, north of the United States in what was then called British North America, i.e. the Maritimes, Quebec and Ontario.

At the time of the conquest in 1759 there were 1,132 slaves of African origin on the soil of New France, although the French crown had never authorized the slave trade in New France.

Following American independence the number of slaves grew, particularly in 1783. Certain Loyalists left the United States to settle in British North America, taking their slaves with them. It was thus that 2,000 slaves arrived in the land we inhabit today. Slavery remained legal in British North America until 1834.

Unlike slavery during the same period in the United States and in other parts of the British Empire, such as Jamaica, where slaves represented the bulk of the manpower on large sugar cane plantations, slavery in British North America may quite rightly seem to have been a fairly minor phenomenon.

The legislation tabled in 1833 took effect on August 1, 1834. It abolished slavery throughout the British Empire. However, it provided for a transitional period of from four to six years during which slaves would have to continue to work in the same place, but as apprentices.

This legislation made provision for immediate measures to be taken to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire. Accordingly, all children born during the proceedings leading to the passage of the legislation, or under the age of six, were free. All slaves over the age of six had to serve an apprenticeship of six years, in the case of slaves working in the fields, and four years, in the case of others.

The legislation provided that apprentices were not to work more than 45 hours a week without pay and that they should be paid for any additional hours.

For their part, plantation owners had to feed and clothe all their apprentices. They also had to provide a fund for the moral and religious education of former slaves.

Finally, compensation of 20 million pounds—I do not really know how that translates in today's terms—was to be paid to slave owners.

In the context of the 21st century, this law is a nightmare. However, it marked the end of slavery in much of the world.>

August 1 is currently commemorated in Jamaica, the former British Guyana, in the Caribbean, areas where slavery lasted some considerable time.

In 1834 runaway American slaves turned to the British colonies in North America until 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln implemented the Emancipation Proclamation.

Many of us had little knowledge of the experiences of our brothers and sisters in the Black community right here, in Canada and Quebec.

The motion before us today shed light on an ignoble period in our history, but one we cannot ignore. To recognize August 1 as Emancipation Day is to recognize the deplorable, often horrible, treatment accorded a whole group of people. It is to regret its occurrence and, in the end, it is to apologize for it and remember that the values of respect for humanity, equality and justice give societies their real strength.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore supports this motion, seeing it as an expression of a desire to recognize the equality of individuals and the right to freedom.