Diane Bourgeois

[Komagata Maru Incident, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of motion M-469 from the member for Brampton—Springdale. This motion calls on the government to officially apologize to the Indo-Canadian community and to the individuals impacted in the 1914 Komagata Maru incident.

As we all know, in 1908, Canada passed a law that seriously restricted immigration from certain parts of the world. The Canadian government at the time ordered that immigrants who did not come to Canada by continuous journey—meaning that they did not come directly to Canada from their country of origin—were prohibited from immigrating to Canada. At the time, the law also prohibited Asian immigrants from entering Canada unless they were carrying at least $200. The government took it upon itself to limit immigration from oriental countries. These terrible conditions were what led to the Komagata Maru incident, a sad example of the discrimination against Asian immigrants at that time.

In May 1914, the passenger ship Komagata Maru arrived in Canadian waters off British Columbia. It was carrying about 376 migrants of Indian origin. Some were Sikh, some Hindu, some Muslim. The ship had not come directly from Hong Kong to Canada, but had stopped in Shanghai and Yokohama. Because it had not made a continuous journey, it violated the Immigration Act at the time, that famous edict by Canada. In fact, at the time, no shipping company made a direct journey, and that is what is so terrible.

Because 22 passengers on board the Komagata Maru were considered Canadian residents, they were allowed to land, but the remaining passengers were forced to stay on the ship for two months.

The Conservative government at the time cited legal reasons for prohibiting the remaining passengers on the Komagata Maru from entering Canada: they had not come directly from India by a continuous journey; they did not have the minimum of $200 required; they were subject to a recent immigration regulation that prohibited workers from entering at Pacific ports of entry.

But the government at the time did not deport them from Canada. A few weeks later, five judges of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia ruled unanimously that the immigration regulations were legal and valid and ordered the deportation that had been previously decreed. The Komagata Maru was escorted into international waters by a Canadian war ship. Near Calcutta, these people were told that they were going to be taken to the Punjab. The passengers did not want to go to the Punjab, and a riot ensued. Of the 29 people who were injured, 20 died.

In Canada, there are 750,000 people of Indian origin, including more than 34,000 in Quebec, the vast majority of whom—94%—live in the Montreal area. This event is important to the Canada's Indian community. Indo-Canadians believe that by making an official apology, Canada would right a historic wrong and would recognize this community's important contribution to Canada and Quebec. An official apology is the least Canada could do, and it would also be a way of saying that such incidents must never be allowed to happen again.

In August 2006, the Prime Minister gave a speech in which he confirmed that the Government of Canada acknowledged the Komagata Maru incident and programs were put in place enabling the Indian community to remember what happened and also to recognize its contribution to society.

Although the Prime Minister acknowledged the incident and programs were put in place, no official apology has been offered to members of the Indian community in Canada. It is not enough to offer symbolic apologies. This government is very good at making symbolic gestures but not at taking action.

We believe that the government could also consider other, more concrete means of acknowledging this incident. For example, it could finance a monument commemorating the incident. It could also establish a museum or historical display pertaining to the incident.

An apology must be given. The Bloc Québécois acknowledges what happened and will vote in favour of Motion M-469. There have been other incidents of this kind, and they must not be ignored. I will give two examples.

In 1918, under a Conservative government, Canadian soldiers opened fire on a crowd protesting conscription. Four people were killed and others injured. Furthermore, the people who were fired upon and died were innocent, and were not participating at all in the riot. We believe that the government has an obligation to provide appropriate compensation to the families of the victims. This has never been done.

Another example is the residential schools issue. Nearly 150,000 aboriginals went through hell in the residential schools. Some 87,000 of them are still alive. In 2006, the Bloc Québécois asked the Prime Minister to act on behalf of the Government of Canada and take the opportunity presented by the implementation of the residential schools agreement to offer a long-awaited apology to the victims. The government never did apologize.

In the spring of 2007, the House apologized to residential school survivors for the trauma they experienced because of policies to assimilate first nations, Inuit and Métis children. As a result of those policies, aboriginal culture, heritage and languages were lost, and the victims were left to deal with the tragic after-effects of the sexual, physical and emotional abuse they were subjected to in the residential schools.

Last year, on May 1, the House of Commons agreed to apologize to Canadian aboriginals for what happened to them in residential schools in the 20th century. To this day, the Prime Minister of Canada has refused to offer an official apology to the victims and their families who were abused in residential schools in Canada.

I see that my time is nearly up, so I just want to tell the hon. member that we support her motion. It is a noble and worthy motion. Official recognition of what happened does not cost much.

During the vote this afternoon, I could not believe that anyone would refuse to fly the flag at half-staff for soldiers who go to war. Folks have no problem going to Valcartier to tell the soldiers that they are a great bunch of people, and that it is a shame they have to go and fight, but those same folks do not want to lower the flag for them, for our Quebeckers. That is very upsetting.

In short, we are delighted that the member, the members of the Bloc Québécois, and other members of Parliament are willing to recognize the flagrant injustice suffered by the passengers of the Komagata Maru.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate today's motion. From the outset I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I will reread the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, following the recognition of the Quebec nation by this House, the government should move from words to deeds and propose measures to solidify that recognition, including compliance with the language of labour relations of Quebec’s Charter of the French language regarding enterprises under federal jurisdiction located in Quebec.

In November 2006, this government presented the following motion, which was adopted by the House of Commons:

That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

This recognition is a victory for the Bloc. The government was pressured into presenting that motion because the Bloc Québécois, at the time, forced the government's hand by presenting its own motion recognizing the Quebec nation. As a result, Canada recognized our existence as a national community for the first time.

The dictionary defines nation as a group of people, generally large, characterized by awareness of its unity and a desire to live together. The nation is the community we belong to, the group we identify with, the group we talk with in order to make decisions that concern the organization of our society.

It is also a favoured place for making decisions of a political nature, and to recognize a nation is to finally recognize the existence of a political body equipped with legitimate rights and political aspirations.

By recognizing the Quebec nation, the House of Commons has recognized Quebeckers' right to control their own social, economic and cultural development within Quebec.

The House has also recognized the legitimacy of Quebec's repeated requests to give Quebeckers the power and necessary resources to develop their own society.

Nonetheless, the recognition of a nation has to be much more than symbolic—which it is right now. Nations have rights and the one right they have in particular is the right to self determination, in other words, to determine their own development themselves. And if Quebeckers form a nation, it is not up to Canadians to dictate how that nation should organize its society.

That said, a consensus is building in Quebec on the fact that the Quebeckers form a nation and, what is more, have done so for a very long time. Back in the early days after the conquest, Lord Durham referred to two nations in conflict within the same state. Then we had Maurice Duplessis, who spoke of it in 1946; Jean Lesage in 1963, Daniel Johnson in 1968, and René Lévesque's reference to Canada's being composed of two nations each equal to the other. I could name a number of other instances as well.

On October 30, 2003, the Quebec National Assembly passed the following motion unanimously:

That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation.

The motion does not say that the people of Quebec form a nation if Canada remains as it is, or that Quebec is a nation if it opts for sovereignty. It says that the people of Quebec form a nation, period.

We can conclude from this that Quebeckers form a nation regardless of the choices they make in future. Canada has recognized that the people of Quebec form a nation and it must act accordingly from here on in.

This takes me back to the French fact. The last census in 2006 presents some worrisome findings on the status of French outside Quebec, as well as within Quebec, Montreal in particular.

French has lost ground everywhere in Canada, including Quebec, even though more immigrants than ever are speaking it in the home. The last Statistics Canada census revealed some very worrisome figures indeed. Even though the number of persons with French as their mother tongue increased between 2001 and 2006, their relative weight decreased and they represent only 22% of the population.

As for the language in predominant use in the home, the relative share of French is constantly dropping, from 26% in 1971 to 21% in 2006. This is a source of concern to francophone communities outside Quebec. In all territories and provinces outside Quebec, unlike the figures for English, the number of those using French predominantly in the home is lower than the number of those with French as their mother tongue. According to the 2006 census, 4.1% of the population outside Quebec report French as their mother tongue, a drop from the 4.4% of the 2001 census. This is a continuation of a trend that has prevailed for more than half a century.

In Quebec, the number of persons speaking English most often in the home rose by 40,000 between 2001 and 2006. The rate of increase in the population reporting English as most used in the home was 5.5% over 2001, or twice the figure for French in the home.

On the island of Montreal, the percentage of those reporting French as their mother tongue in 2006 dropped to below half of the population. It is said that the increase in English as language of use is eight times that of French. These are not my figures, they come from Statistics Canada.

This is a cause for considerable concern. They say that the gains the francophone group can hope to make because of increased mobility toward French will still be neutralized by the effects of international immigration. I have already mentioned Lord Durham, who was sent out from England after the troubles of 1837. He said that the primary and firm intent of the British government of the day was to introduce an English population into this province and the only way to accomplish that was through immigration.

Many have turned to immigration to supposedly alleviate labour shortages. However, most immigrants to Quebec are anglophone. That is why it is extremely important for immigrants coming to Quebec to understand that they are coming to a province whose official language is French.

Currently, we have to deal with Canada's multiculturalism policy. What is the difference between multiculturalism and Quebec's interculturalism? Basically, Canadian multiculturalism arises from the Canadian belief that all citizens are equal. It enables all Canadians to preserve their identity, be proud of their origins and feel a sense of belonging, whereas in Quebec, interculturalism allows people to be proud to live within the Quebec nation.

There are numerous problems with the Canada Multiculturalism Act. People do not want to speak French. When they come to Canada, they are told that they are part of a multicultural continent. Quebec's approach—asking them to learn French—does not appeal to them much. Newcomers can easily become confused, because Quebec portrays itself as a French-language state, but it is in a bilingual country that promotes bilingualism.

People arriving in Quebec are getting conflicting messages. And who can blame them? We have to make every effort to integrate them into francophone society. That is why we have our francophone society charter. I would note that the purpose of the charter is to define the linguistic rights of all Quebeckers, the right to speak French, the language of the majority.

[Public Works and Government Services, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in committee today, Justice Gomery criticized the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office. He stated that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a public servant to refuse to act on a request by someone from the Prime Minister's Office.

Is this not confirmation that, in the Rosdev affair, the actions of the Prime Minister's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, constituted political interference?

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds will not be enough for an answer to this question.

The Government of Quebec may perhaps have lacked vigilance. Nevertheless, the Autorité des marchés financiers did its job. Having a single Canadian national commission, however, does not give us the assurance that this will not happen again. One need only look at the United States and its single commission. That did not prevent—

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my hon. colleague's question, because it gives me the opportunity to explain more about the International Monetary Fund.

I do not know where my colleague found his quotation, but in budget 2008, presented here by the minister, page 134 states:

In 2007–08, Canada participated in the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) Financial Sector Assessment Program. The IMF concluded that “Canada's financial system is mature, sophisticated, and well managed. Financial stability is underpinned by sound macroeconomic policies and strong prudential regulation and supervision”.

That being said, let me address the second part of his question. He asked why it would not be good for Quebec to do business with Ontario. First of all, Quebec does do business with Ontario at this time, although it does not have a passport system. Also, the Minister of Finance must prove to us that Quebec and the provinces will in fact benefit, much more so than they do at this time, from developing their regions and their own businesses.

I am surprised to hear a Quebecker from the Quebec City area ask such a question.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to take the opportunity offered today so that I can state my opinion about this unprecedented economic power grab against Quebec and the provinces that the present Conservative government is preparing to carry out: the creation of a common securities regulator. It is truly an unprecedented economic power grab, designed to give the federal government the upper hand. We know that when the information and the financial power are all in one hand, then that hand is holding all the powers needed to crush a nation.

The 2008 budget confirms what was announced some years ago as one of this government's intentions: create a single securities regulator. This has been talked about for a number of years, as we know. It has been 40 years, in fact, since the idea that Canada should have a single window or a single securities regulatory body first started circulating. The subject really got brought back to the table in 2003, under the Liberal government, which created a committee of experts to study the possibility of creating a single securities commission.

In 2005, the Ontario government decided to do its own investigation and so it assigned a group of experts, which became the well-known “Purdy Crawford group”, to study the benefits of a single system for regulating securities. We all know that Ontario wants to have both the Canadian stock exchanges and the securities regulation system concentrated in that province. As well, the 2006 federal budget took up the idea again, and it then came back in the November 2006 economic statement and the 2007 budget.

Finally, the present Minister of Finance took up the idea, but this time he asked his committee of experts to draft a bill, or what could become a bill, to create this single securities commission.

For the benefit of the people listening to us, I would like to recall what we mean by securities, because not everyone is accustomed to that term. These are securities that could be negotiable or exchangeable, that could be listed on the stock exchange, shares, obligations, investment certificates, obligations, warrants or insurance policies. In other words, everything that can be traded on the stock exchange is considered to be a security.

This securities market, this commerce, is currently regulated in Quebec by the Autorité des marchés financiers. That is the body that is responsible for all regulation of these securities. Because it has a clearly defined mission, the Autorité des marchés financiers is also responsible for enforcing the laws governing the financial sector, which includes insurance, securities and deposit institutions, except for banks, which are under federal jurisdiction. The Autorité des marchés financiers also supervises the distribution of financial products and services.

Each province, except Ontario, has a group, an agency, an authority or financial markets that belong to it alone. However, to ensure the free circulation of money within Canada, each of the provinces has adopted a passport system.

These are agreements among the provinces that enable Quebec companies, for example, to do business on the Alberta or Saskatchewan markets or the market of any other province.

Above all this, but not heading it up, is the Investment Dealers Association of Canada. All the provinces and territories and the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, except Ontario, can do business with the international securities regulator.

This morning I heard a member of the party across the floor say that a single Canadian capital market would help Canada open up to the world. We are already open to the world, though, thanks to the fact that both the provinces and Canada can do business under the aegis of an international securities regulator. There are no guarantees that we would open up a larger market if we had one common regulator or one common agency for regulating securities.

The provinces have their own securities regulators. They have had this power ever since the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 92(13) says that this is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction or power.

It is fascinating to see just how determined the Minister of Finance is to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction and particularly areas within the purview of Quebec, which has the power to manage the free flow of capital.

Quebec's jurisdiction must be respected. As we have often pointed out today, Ms. Jérôme-Forget, the Quebec finance minister, sent quite an explicit letter to her federal counterpart saying and I quote:

First of all, I reiterate that the existing regulatory system in Canada works well—

In addition, it has been noted that the OECD and the International Monetary Fund have congratulated Quebec and Canada on their passport system and the free flow of securities.

The minister says, on the other hand, that the Government of Canada would do better if it applied its energies to its own fields of jurisdiction and:

—worked to more effectively crack down on economic crime rather than trying to impose itself in a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

We have made reference to the Vincent Lacroix story, but that could have happened in any other province.

I want, therefore, to ask the Minister of Finance to back down. If we are really a nation, as the people on the other side of the House seemed to recognize, then they must recognize that we are entitled to our own financial powers and these powers should be respected.

[Blainville's Portuguese Community, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, for many years, the Portuguese community has been flourishing in Blainville with its vibrant culture and deeply rooted family values. It is never easy to be accepted in a new place, so 10 years ago, the community began organizing a dinner and dance event to share its traditions.

Ida Tavarez pioneered this annual event. She has devoted herself, body and soul, to helping Portuguese people who are new to the beautiful Blainville region integrate and develop a sense of belonging, and to raise funds for the parish. Her smile, her perseverance, and her dedication have made her a leader and a symbol of the vitality of our community.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I would like to congratulate Ms. Tavarez on her 10 years of community involvement and tenacity, which have proven how open the people of Blainville are to welcoming new cultures into their midst.

[Quebec Scout-Guide Week, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, February 22 is World Scout Day, and Quebec's Scout-Guide Week will take place from February 17 to 23. Scouting is both a program and a lifestyle. It enriches the lives of thousands of children and youth from 5 to 26 years of age, focusing on the integrated physical, intellectual, emotional, social and spiritual development of the individual.

Leaders who contribute to educating these young people are committed adults who facilitate activities that are in harmony with nature to instill values of leadership, independence, self-confidence, respect, cooperation and environmental protection in youth. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I salute all young scouts and guides, as well as their group leaders, for their civic participation. Have a great week.

[Government contracts, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more and more instances of political interference in the Prime Minister's Office. His press secretary interceded in support of Rosdev and met with a company seeking government contracts in the military sector accompanied by a Conservative Party fundraiser, Leo Housakos. That same press secretary, in cooperation with the office of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, pushed hard with the Port of Montreal's board of directors in order to ensure that one Robert Abdallah, a former manager with the City of Montreal, was appointed to run the port.

Will the Prime Minister admit that political interference is a common occurrence in his government—

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which I find very funny.

First, I hope that there will never be any Bloc Québécois senators in Ottawa. There should not be, because the Bloc Québécois is not here to occupy seats in the Senate. It is here to stand up for Quebeckers' interests.

Second, nowhere in the law or the bill that has been introduced does it say that there would be more elected senators from Quebec and Ontario.

Third, this bill was introduced because the current makeup of the Senate is making things difficult for the current government. The government is doing everything it can to discredit the Senate. I happen to think that those people work very hard. Nevertheless, we in Quebec do not want to get involved in Senate reform because we do not believe in a second, upper house. Not only is this a historical fact—as I said earlier when I talked about Gil Rémillard and Robert Bourassa—but Quebec has always wanted to be recognized and has always wanted provincial governments to have certain privileges. Governments of the other provinces will want exactly the same thing.