Alain Giguère

[Canada Pension Plan, May 18th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-326 is as simple a request as can be. It simply seeks to turn monthly payments into biweekly payments. This would enable people to plan their spending and would also minimize the crowds at the pharmacy at the beginning and end of the month.

This is so simple that it should not even need to be debated. This very simple request is very easy to grant. Still, we have to debate this issue because the government is opposed to the idea. Those opposed to this idea are refusing to debate the importance of accommodating people who are entitled to services.

We have to wonder why the government is turning down such a simple request. Personally, I think the answer is to be found in the government's record. This government was in power when Nortel and Bowater went under, but it refused to amend the legislation to give pension funds preferred creditor status. That would have been easy to do too.

Tens of thousands of workers have seen their pension funds disappear. They were entitled to that money and they worked hard to earn it, but the government decided that the workers' pension funds would not be given preferred creditor status.

The government refuses to allow people who lost money in their pension funds to claim it as a capital loss on their income tax returns. That would not have been hard, either. When anyone who owns shares in Alcan, Suncor or any other company loses money on the stock market, they can deduct this capital loss from their income.

However, workers who have spent their entire lives investing in a pension fund that collapses as a result of poor performance by the stock market or, more specifically, poor performance by the managers of the companies for which they work, do not have the right to this tax deduction. This also shows what must be done and what has not been done.

The government had the choice, but it decided not to renew the $200 million that was supposed to be used to build social housing for seniors. A number of units could have been built with that amount, even though it was insufficient for the entire country. Two hundred million dollars was better than nothing, of course, but the government reduced that amount. In fact, that $200 million is no longer available.

Unfortunately, the government did not stop there. What does it want to do in the future? It wants to increase the age of eligibility for old age security benefits and the guaranteed income supplement from 65 to 67. This move will save the government $10 billion. The government could cover this $10 billion because Canadians have always paid their taxes and been responsible. Yet, once again, the government is cutting $10 million. Cuts are being made to Service Canada staff, which will cause more delays in processing claims. It is never-ending. People are efficient and consistent in filing their claims. They were not asking for much: a payment every two weeks rather than once a month. It is not hard to make a transfer or to press a button twice a month so that the money is transferred directly into people's bank accounts. Yet, the government is refusing to do something so small and simple.

When the government is asked to guarantee safe and affordable housing for seniors, they do not answer the call.

When the government is asked to guarantee eligibility for prescription drugs, once again, it there is on one home to take the call. This drug coverage already exists in Quebec and we would like to extend it to all of Canada in order to ensure that drugs are accessible at a low cost. There would be economies of scale. When it comes to real financial security for seniors, the Conservatives are playing hide and seek.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper's personal apology is a good thing. He apologized as an individual. However, we are not asking for an individual to make a personal apology, but for the leader of the country to speak on behalf of the nation and apologize on behalf of the people and the Government of Canada.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite history. But we can study it and make amends.

I am not really interested in who was responsible for what at the time this motion was moved. What I do want to know is what we are going to do today. And I believe that we can apologize. That is called being mature.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a black mark on its history, like all nations with a history.

Canada is a free, democratic and forward-looking country. Nevertheless, we must look into the eyes of the victims' descendants and give them an official apology, not as individuals, but as a community, as a people, as a country. It is vital that we apologize to these people; they are entitled to an apology. It does not cost a lot to apologize and it is an excellent way to defend democracy.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this story prompts us to honour our duty to remember. Remembrance is the only way for us to understand our past and prepare for our future. Remembrance helps us promote and protect law, democracy and justice. Our duty to remember calls on us to consider this dark chapter in our history, pass judgment on it, apologize openly and clearly, recognize our wrongdoing and invite those who were wronged to join us in building a better Canada.

Some historical background is important here because this event did not happen by chance. It happened against the backdrop of a specific society: Canada in 1914.

In 1914, Canada and India were both British colonies. We were all British citizens. Everyone held the same citizenship. At the time, that community was made up of barely 4,700 people, barely 1% of the population. It was a small community that got its start in 1897 when Indian soldiers arrived in Canada and decided to stay here and put down roots. The community was organized but very small.

At the time, anti-Asian xenophobia was pronounced in Canada, and the Indian community was not the only target. Xenophobia also cost the Japanese and Chinese communities dearly.

There was therefore a strong feeling of xenophobia toward these people who, let us remember, had the same citizenship as us. They were British citizens.

This xenophobia was not new. In 1907, the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council formed the Asiatic Exclusion League. It lobbied to curb what it called the yellow peril—Asian immigration. This council was even responsible for a race riot. On September 7, 1907, some people's businesses and assets were vandalized. Many people were injured. This type of incident is called a pogrom. On September 7, 1907, there was a pogrom in Canada.

At the time, the Laurier government established a commission of inquiry under the direction of the then deputy minister of labour, William Lyon Mackenzie King, the future Prime Minister. He came to a very sad conclusion: Indians were not made to live in Canada because they were accustomed to a tropical climate and had other customs that were vastly different from ours. We were far from inclusive.

This report led to a racist law and decrees. Decree 920 prohibited people who were not coming directly from the country in which they had citizenship from settling in Canada, and decree 926 required all Asian immigrants to have at least $200 in their possession.

In 1907, it was not common for people to have $200 in their pockets, particularly if they were from a country as poor as India was at that time. Exploitation, misery and famine were prevalent there. The most recent famines in India occurred only a few years ago.

This measure was accompanied by measures imposed on Indo-Canadians by the Government of British Columbia at the time. Indo-Canadians did not have the right to vote. It was decided that they did not have the right to vote in either provincial or federal elections. In addition, they were prohibited from working in professional occupations. They could not be lawyers, pharmacists or accountants.

In 1908, this desire not to have any members of the Indian community in the country even led the Canadian government to invite all members of the Indo-Canadian community to leave Canada and go to British Honduras. People knew full well that the living conditions in British Honduras were not particularly good. They declined the offer, and rightly so.

In 1913, there were some attempts to weaken this law.

The law was declared ultra vires, because the use of the term “Asian origin” could prevent a British colonist and his children born in India from coming to Canada. The government addressed this issue immediately by replacing “Asian origin” with “Asian race”. This was the first time that an exclusion was made based on race in Canada.

This was the context in which the Komagata Maru arrived at the Port of Vancouver on May 23, 1914. Canada had been informed of the vessel's impending arrival and had decided, by decree, to deny these people the right to enter Canada. Under the pretext that there was already an overabundance of unutilized labour—this was in 1914, right before the First World War, when all the men would be mobilized—a decision was made to prohibit the labourers, workers and artisans from getting off the boat, before they had even arrived.

Understandably, when artisans and labourers are prohibited from immigrating to Canada, they are left with few choices.

The 376 passengers arrived in despicable living conditions. As soon as they arrived, they were incarcerated in the very boat they arrived in. They were not allowed to land.

The premier of British Columbia at the time, Richard McBride, declared that British Columbia should remain white. He was crystal clear. People who were not white were not welcome. People who were not Christian were not welcome.

In terms of individual justice, this is a very sad story. The people were incarcerated on a boat without any judgment or decree. They were presumed guilty and incarcerated, no questions asked.

What was the Canadian government's approach to reviewing the immigration files? It essentially applied the law to a group. It selected a few individuals, judged them and applied the sentence to everyone. The migrants were not given individual hearings or individual trials. They were judged as a group, not on their individual merits, but those of another. Our country's most natural and most fundamental rules of law were trampled on.

In the end, Canada had to right this wrong. Failing to honour our most basic rights was unacceptable.

As a result of bad faith in the application of justice, only 24 of the 376 individuals were allowed entry into Canada. What a joke. The others were sent back to India where pent-up frustration led to a riot that caused 25 deaths.

This is a black mark on Canada's history. It must be made right because Canada is a democratic country. I am very proud to be a member of this Parliament and I invite all members to share my pride and to help right this wrong.

If we fail to right such wrongs, repeated errors will become systemic flaws. We will not fail in our duty. We will right past wrongs and build our future. We will remember our past shortcomings as we build a future in which we respect those who were not respected in the past.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, despite the story of that unfortunate crossing, racist laws were still in effect after 1914. If I am not mistaken, they persisted in Canada until 1947, after the Second World War.

Can my distinguished colleague give us some historical background about how those laws were repealed?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the last speaker, I wondered whether we were even sitting on the same committee. All of the witnesses said that this bill—its very essence—should be rejected. I will name only a few of them, not the least of which include: the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association and UNICEF. This bill does not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada's civil liberties legislation or the international conventions.

A few amendments are not enough to change the very essence of this legislation, because, through an arbitrary ministerial decision, this bill gives the government the right to detain anyone it deems to be a “designated foreign national”.

Will the government amend this bill to remove the concept of “designated foreign national” or not?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for commenting on this plan that we consider particularly toxic, in that people will be well aware of what they are investing but will have no guarantee of what they will get back. This is not savings; it is not really a pension plan. It is quite simply a financial instrument to enable financial institutions to make even more money.

The banks will be the first to benefit from this money. They are the ones that get paid first. Perhaps the hon. member can provide confirmation: it is the financial institutions that collect the administrative fees, that set rates to make a profit. Then, if there is a return, it goes to the participants' savings, and if there is a deficit, if the return is negative, the financial institutions are in no way prevented from collecting administrative fees and setting a profitable rate, which worsens the shortfall.

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has heard from dozens of witnesses in a very short period of time, because the Conservatives want to pass Bill C-31 very quickly, but the bill does not correspond to any of the fundamental principles of Canadian justice.

In fact, too much power is concentrated in the minister's hands. He even has the right to remove permanent residents who have been living here for years.

This bill will foster intolerance of refugees and xenophobia. Deport, control, remove, incarcerate: Conservatives like to use these terms. They do not hesitate to promote a bill that, according to the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This bill goes against too many of our principles.

I will leave the fearmongering up to them.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 8th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about a visionary budget.

What does that vision have to say about the 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 2008? Over 400,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector, and those were good jobs. Because of those job losses, Canada, which is a petroleum exporter, now has to import refined gasoline. That is what things have come to. What does that vision have to say about giving up on wealth creation? There is nothing in the budget about reviving the manufacturing sector, a wealth-creating sector. What does their economic vision have to say about that?