Pierre Paquette

[Points of Order, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am sitting next to the member for Québec and I never heard the word “cocotte”. Because of all the commotion, some may have thought that it was meant for them

As for “carpette”, or doormat, and “Québécois de service”, or token Quebeckers, these words have already been used on several occasions, without any intervention on your part. We feel that these expressions are simply part of the political debate. There is absolutely nothing unparliamentary about these words.

[Parti Québécois, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it was 40 years ago today, on April 29, 1970, that the first seven members of the Parti Québécois were elected.

On that day, 23% of Quebec voters put their trust for the first time in a party that would change Quebec's political scene by carrying the dream and the hopes of a people and a whole nation, and by defending the ideals of social democracy.

From that day on, Robert Burns, Claude Charron, Marcel Léger, Charles-Henri Tremblay, Guy Joron, Camille Laurin and Lucien Lessard would promote these aspirations in the National Assembly.

Incidentally, it was in that election that, for the first time, the Parti Québécois presented candidates in every riding of Quebec.

From then on, the sovereignist movement would be able to rely on democratically elected representatives to promote the reason why René Lévesque created the Parti Québécois, namely to achieve Quebec's sovereignty.

I invite all Quebeckers to take part in the celebrations commemorating this historic event and the long road that has been travelled since. These celebrations are taking place this evening, in Montreal. Bravo!

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for this question because, in my 10 minutes, I was not able to talk about all of the problematic elements in Bill C-11.

I spoke about the distinction between safe countries and the other countries, but there is also the problem of timing. It is obvious that it would be unrealistic to hold an initial hearing eight days after a person claims refugee status.

The member gave the example of woman arriving in Canada who had been a victim of sexual assault. Her world will have been turned upside down. Eight days would not be enough time for her to find a lawyer and build her case. As well, like others claiming refugee status, she may have had to leave her country of origin without the necessary documentation, if she ever had it, to make her claim.

There is absolutely no way that this eight day timeline can stay in the bill. We intend to propose amendments to make this timeline more realistic. As the member said, this timeline would not be workable on the ground.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Jeanne-Le Ber for his question as well as his work on this file. He is doing an extraordinary job and it shows in his comments and the results he gets.

He is absolutely right. By creating a distinction between so-called safe countries and other countries which, by definition, would not be designated as safe, we will create a bureaucratic maze in which the appeal division would only hear one type of refugee.

We obviously support the goals behind creating an appeal division. In fact, we have introduced a number of bills, the latest by the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, but the anticipated benefits of the reform will be lacking. We feel that a simpler solution would be to increase the number of board members and ensure that the appeal division hears all of the refugee status claims.

Once again, well done to the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

We can only hope he will come back, although I doubt the hon. member for Outremont feels the same. My point is that we have been waiting for this measure for nearly eight years. This also explains, in large part, the injustice of the current system, which was never completed. I will come back to this later.

We believe that this notion of safe country is discriminatory, because it means that the refugee claims of individuals from so-called safe countries will not have the right to appeal their cases before this appeal division and will have to take their cases to the Federal Court, as is the case right now. We have already seen all the problems and concerns associated with such a situation. We saw the example this week of the pregnant woman from Guinea who, just a few minutes before she was supposed to board a plane for her deportation, was granted a four-month stay of deportation by the Federal Court.

Since the Appeal Division has not been instituted, they will have to keep going to the Federal Court to make sure that the new evidence her lawyer has uncovered is taken into account and she can get refugee status. In this instance, the lady was more or less fooled by a consultant, who did a poor job of preparing her case. She cannot appeal because the Appeal Division will not come into force until two years after the bill passes.

I want to remind the House that a real appeal procedure for refugee claimants should have been instituted as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act took effect in June 2002. The Bloc Québécois also had a unanimous motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on December 14, 2004 asking the Liberal government of the time to immediately institute the Appeal Division.

Despite the adoption of this unanimous motion, the Liberal government did not budge, no more than the ensuing Conservative government. We therefore introduced private member’s bills, including Bill C-280 instituting the Refugee Appeal Division, which was introduced in October 2006.

We were back at it in February 2009 with Bill C-291. It is very sad that the bill was defeated by a single vote, 142 to 143. If it had not been for the notable absence of several Liberals, the bill would have passed easily. I hope they are asking themselves some serious questions in the Liberal Party. Is there really any difference between the Conservative government and the opposition? For my part, I do not think so. I like to say they are like two peas in a pod, but it is not very funny.

If not for the cowardice of certain Liberal members, the Bloc bill would have passed. We are glad all the same to see in Bill C-11 that the Refugee Appeal Division is finally being implemented. Once again, though, we think it is appalling that some refugee claimants will be precluded from the Appeal Division because of the distinction the bill draws between safe and unsafe countries. I think this is discrimination. We will ensure, therefore, that the witnesses who appear before the committee do what they can to enlighten the government and the members of all parties so that this regrettable situation is corrected.

In addition, the minister is playing with words when he says that the claims from people from safe countries will be expedited. The procedure will certainly be accelerated, but only because these claimants will be precluded from any recourse to the Appeal Division. As soon as the immigration official makes his decision, these claimants will be accepted as refugees or will have to leave, unless they take their case to the Federal Court. We will certainly take issue with this.

What concerns me the most is the fact that the bill gives the minister the legal authority to designate safe countries of origin. According to the government, safe countries of origin generally do not produce refugees, have a good human rights record, and protect their citizens well.

Sometimes, even in countries that are relatively democratic, people can be harassed or have their lives threatened because of their sexual orientation, gender or religion.

For all these reasons, we will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at second reading in order to study it in committee. I remind the House once again that we want to see the regulations before proceeding to clause by clause study of the bill.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

First, I would note, as have some of my colleagues, that the refugee claim backlog, which has gone from nearly 20,000 in 2006, when the Conservatives came to power, to over 60,000 in 2009, is essentially a product of the delay in appointing immigration board members. The government is therefore primarily responsible for this crisis. Obviously, the appointments that have been made are not entirely to our taste. I am thinking of Pharès Pierre, for example, and his Duvalierist past. He is now an immigration board member, when numerous Haitians in Montreal have made or will be making refugee protection claims or applying as members of the family class. That is extremely disturbing.

It must be pointed out that the bill contains measures that are worthy of consideration, but it also contains disturbing measures. There is good and bad, and because the Bloc Québécois always works scrupulously, it has decided to send this bill to committee. We will therefore be voting in favour of the bill at second reading in spite of the reservations we have. I have to state immediately that we are expecting the minister to make the substance of the underlying regulations for Bill C-11 available to the committee. A lot of things are being introduced in this bill, such as the concept of safe country, that we do not know the concrete meaning of. The Bloc Québécois cannot give unconditional support as long as its questions remain unanswered.

The concept of safe country is in fact one of the items that seems most problematic to us. There will be good refugees, the ones who come from a country where there are flagrant human rights abuses. On the other hand, claimants who come from countries that Canada recognizes as safe, based maybe on purely diplomatic and geopolitical reasons, will be regarded as bogus claimants, even though they may have suffered intimidation and harassment, and even if their personal safety may be endangered. We consider this to be a discriminatory criterion that must be rectified when the bill is examined.

I said that we hope the regulations will be made available to the committee. To us, that is a need that must be met before clause by clause study of the bill. How can we agree to adopting a new concept, such as safe countries, if we do not know the criteria the minister will be applying to draw up that list?

On the other hand, we are quite pleased that the bill finally creates a refugee appeal division, which we have been calling for since 2002. That is almost as long as I have been serving the people of Joliette as their MP, given that I was elected in 2000. As I recall, when the amendments creating the refugee appeal division were passed, Martin Cauchon was the Minister of Immigration. He left this House a long time ago.

[Resignation of Member, April 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, many members of the Bloc Québécois caucus were quite surprised to learn that the member for Winnipeg North was resigning the seat she has held since 1997. She has always been so eager to engage in parliamentary debates and to express her ideas.

The member held a number of positions within her caucus. She made a major contribution to parliamentary debate and repartee, I must say.

I worked with the member for Winnipeg North for several years on the Standing Committee on Finance, which gave me an opportunity to appreciate her uncommon ability to balance rigour and empathy. The member was always well prepared for committee meetings. She brought stacks of newspaper clippings with her to support her positions. She also cared deeply about helping society's most vulnerable and those left behind socially and economically.

Even though we did not agree on the constitutional future of Canada and Quebec, I believe that we shared the same vision of the future of society, a future moulded on the principles of social democracy.

In my previous life, I was very interested in the birth of the social democracy movement in Europe at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. I must confess that often, when the member for Winnipeg North let fly with her polished oratory and her fiery and heartfelt arguments, I was reminded of an early 20th century German social democratic activist, Rosa Luxemburg. I had no trouble seeing her in that role.

Riopelle paid tribute to Rosa Luxemburg in one of his paintings. Unfortunately, he cannot do the same for the member for Winnipeg North, but I believe that he would have been pleased to do so.

Naturally, I wish her all the best in her future endeavours. I may not be as naive as some. I do not get the sense that she will end up spending much time with her family, no matter how much they want her to.

We wish her all the best in her future endeavours. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and myself, I would like to thank her for all of her hard work.

[Ethics, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot call Rahim Jaffer just a private citizen. He is the former chair of the Conservative caucus and the spouse of a former Conservative minister. Quite frankly, we should not be treated like fools.

The proof that there was lobbying is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities forwarded two projects pushed by Rahim Jaffer to the director general of strategic priorities at the Department of Transport.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is in the public interest to reveal all contacts by this unregistered lobbyist?

[Ethics, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the explanation given by the Prime Minister and former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer does not stand up. Not only did the latter's company submit $850 million in proposals to government, but two businessmen and Nazim Gillani are convinced that Rahim Jaffer was a lobbyist.

Will the Prime Minister table in the House, for the sake of transparency, the list of meetings he, his ministers, parliamentary secretaries and their staff had with this unregistered lobbyist?

[Tax Harmonization, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if Quebec achieves sovereignty, then we will have 100% of the power, not just 22%.

According to Quebec's finance minister, Raymond Bachand, negotiations on compensation for harmonizing the QST and the GST are at a standstill because the Conservative government is demanding that Quebec give up its legislative power over taxation. This is another attack against the Quebec nation. The federal government owes Quebec $2.2 billion. It should give Quebec the same treatment as Ontario and British Columbia and reimburse this money.

Why require such an act of submission and resignation from Quebec?