Osvaldo Nunez

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver and found it to be somewhat ambiguous and contradictory.

On the one hand she welcomes immigrants in a very compassionate way, but on the other hand she fully shows why this bill is unacceptable for several reasons. In my opinion, this legislation goes against the traditional policies of the Liberal Party. I remember that the Liberals were opposed to the sometimes excessively right-wing policies of Mr. Valcourt, Mrs. McDougall and other former ministers. Why play these little games today? You do not agree that there is a real problem in Canada, but I see it. There has been some abuse and there are a number of criminals. This is not an exaggeration; it is not a right-wing answer, but there is currently an economic crisis in Canada and this is the worst possible time to legislate on immigration. Why not wait until the public opinion is not so sensitive to this issue? Then we will be able to be more rational about the whole issue.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague from Outremont and I think that many people of immigrant origin will be very surprised at the tone of this speech, which seems to be anti-immigration. He tells us that ten or a hundred people cheat. Do you think it is worth passing a very controversial bill to solve five or ten cases that could have been solved administratively, without the need for a very controversial bill which is criticized by immigration lawyers, by the Canadian Council for Refugees and by the churches?

You mentioned mail from abroad. Customs officers will be able to examine such mail. Immigration officers will be able to seize such mail. Who will say, "We will open this letter and not that one"? Do you not think that there will be abuses? Throughout the world, the mail is inviolable. How could you go so far as to allow ordinary officials who are not judges and not trained in law to seize mail? Can you answer me?

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech in the House today, after the summer recess. Before speaking to Bill C-44, however, I would like to congratulate the Parti Quebecois on its splendid victory on September 12, and also the new Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jacques Parizeau, a man with the stature of a true statesman.

I also want to congratulate the 77 members elected for the Parti québécois, the 47 members of the Quebec Liberal Party and Mr. Mario Dumont, leader of Action Démocratique. Some, like myself, belong to the ethnic community.

I will now speak in this debate on second reading of Bill C-44, which proposes to amend the Immigration Act, the Citizenship Act and the Customs Act. These amendments, according to the authors of the bill, concern 14 specific points. For instance, some changes will have the effect of stopping a person convicted of a major crime-that is, punishable by a maximum prison term of 10 years-in Canada or outside Canada, from claiming refugee status to delay his removal from Canada. Immigration officers will have the power to seize from international mail documents that could be used for fraudulent purposes. In the case of serious criminals, the Immigration Appeal Division will no longer have the power to allow appeals on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Grounds for appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division will from now on be limited to questions of law and fact. A person for whose arrest a warrant has been signed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada, because he represents a threat to public safety, will lose the right to appeal.

Processing of an application for citizenship may be suspended, pending the outcome of immigration proceedings. A person convicted of two summary conviction offences-a minor offence punishable by a prison term of not more than six months-whether the offences were committed in Canada or outside Canada, may be prevented from immigrating to Canada. The minister, instead of the Governor in Council, will have the authority to approve requests for admission on the basis of rehabilitation, and the minister may delegate this authority to employees of the department. The obligation to conduct a new inquiry in the case of a person who has been ordered to leave Canada has been removed, so that a person loses permanent resident status as soon as he is ordered deported.

We in the Bloc québécois agree with the general, underlying principles of Bill C-44, that is to say, the government has the right and a duty to protect Canada and all Canadians against criminals. We agree with preventing immigrants and claimants from taking advantage of Canada's reputation as a host country to leave their country of origin where they have committed serious crimes.

We must eliminate or at least reduce the ways in which immigrant refugee claimants who have been convicted of serious crimes can stay in Canada legally.

We agree with restricting the admissibility of convicted criminals. We must ensure that serious criminals who manage to escape removal are deported as soon as possible. In 1993, Immigration Canada deported 1,200 criminals; between January 1 and May 31, 1994, 600 criminals were deported. This effort

must be pursued for the safety of the people of Quebec and Canada.

We have many more questions and concerns regarding Bill C-44. This bill is an excessive response to certain problems and situations that have arisen over the past few months in Canada. It is the Liberal government's response to the strict, right-wing stand the Reform Party has taken concerning immigrants and refugees.

The minister's speech today only confirms this shift to the right the minister and the Liberal Party have made. I have read the speech he had made as the Official Opposition Critic for Immigration. He was much more of a humanist back then. I endorsed his ideas and objectives in those days, but not any more.

The Bloc Quebecois has condemned and still condemns the murder of a young woman in a Toronto restaurant and that of a Toronto police officer. The unfortunate fact about these two murders is that they were committed by immigrants subject to a deportation order. The media gave far too much notoriety to these incidents.

On July 7, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration launched a blitz to deport out of Canada some 600 criminal immigrants. To this effect, he set up a special task force of immigration officers and members of the RCMP and the local police, to identify, trace and hasten the expulsion of foreign criminals from Canada.

Based on information from La Presse , this special task force has found, after going over the various cases, that only 90 of the 600 immigrants with serious criminal records were in Quebec.

It also found that half, or 45, of them were already in jail. Seven of the 45 still at large had left Canada of their own free will. Of the 38 cases remaining, 5 have been resolved; three criminals had been arrested and deported, and the other two had been summoned before an immigration officer. As of July 19, in Quebec, there were only 33 cases pending and as we speak, I trust these too have been settled.

The special task force was manned by 4 RCMP officers in both Montreal and Vancouver and by 12 officers in Toronto. In addition to creating this group, the Standing Committee on Justice is reviewing the question of how young offenders who are not Canadian citizens and who have been convicted of crimes should be treated. Finally, a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and Correctional Service Canada for expediting the deportation of foreign criminals.

Again, we urge the government to take the measures required to prevent abuses and protect Canadians and Quebecers against criminals, but we cannot endorse Bill C-44 as it now stands.

In our opinion, some provisions of this bill violate the Geneva Convention on Refugees as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, it restricts without justification the mandate of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Unlike the Geneva convention, this bill does not distinguish between refugee claimants who have committed political crimes in their native countries and those convicted of non-political crimes. In determining refugee status, the first thing to be considered should be the nature and purpose of the offence, in particular whether it was committed for political or other reasons.

On the other hand, there should be a certain balance between the seriousness of the crime and the danger to Canadian society. The Geneva convention, confirmed by Federal Court jurisprudence, states that this element of comparison must be considered.

Professor James Hathaway writes that the seriousness of the crime must also be weighed against the possibility that the life or safety of a person sent back to his or her native country may be at risk. The bill does not address this aspect of the issue.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent people convicted of serious offences for which a term of imprisonment of ten years or more may be imposed from claiming refugee status. This means that the actual seriousness of the offence will not be taken into account, which we think is unfair and arbitrary.

In our opinion, the actual sentence imposed and not the maximum sentence should be considered. Every offence can be committed in a great variety of circumstances, some of which call for the maximum sentence while others only call for the minimum sentence. Our Criminal Code does not specify a minimum sentence for most offences. Therefore, a person could be convicted of a crime for which a term of imprisonment of ten years or more may be imposed without being jailed or fined.

He would only be given a suspended sentence or put on probation. Despite all that, the minister can issue a certificate declaring that person to be a public danger, which I think is unfair and arbitrary.

This situation could violate the Geneva convention. Indeed, the manual of the High Commissioner for Refugees says that in evaluating the nature of the crime allegedly committed, all relevant factors, including extenuating circumstances, must be considered. Do not forget that we are talking about refugees

here, human beings for whom being deported to their country could be very dangerous in some cases and even fatal.

Under the bill, many decisions that were made by the IRB will now be made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his officials. Despite all the criticisms we have of the IRB and the mistakes it has made, I prefer that tribunal to be fully in charge of determining refugee status. It is a quasi-judicial specialized tribunal, whose duty it is to hear the parties. The minister's decision is purely administrative and often politically motivated. Thus, many decisions will be based solely on foreign policy considerations and the state of relations between Canada and the refugee claimant's country of origin. We think that Bill C-44 is a government attack on the IRB's independence.

Obviously the minister did not like some of this administrative tribunal's decisions. So what does he do? He removes a large part of its jurisdiction. This is a blatant contradiction of the Davis-Waldman report, which the minister said reduced the need for him to intervene in the refugee determination process. Bill C-44 does the opposite and considerably increases the minister's involvement in this field. It prevents not only refugees but also permanent residents who committed crimes outside Canada from going to the IRB. This bill must be denounced, for it attacks one of the fundamental principles of our legal system, namely the right of appeal. It takes away the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeals Division for humanitarian considerations following a deportation order based on the commission in Canada or abroad of a crime punishable by ten or more years in prison.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all. Basic rights to a fair and impartial procedure should also apply to foreigners. I agree with the position expressed by the Canadian Council for Refugees that refugees and permanent residents must be able to apply to the appeal division of the IRB.

This bill is also contrary to the right of family reunification. In some cases, a person will be deported even though his whole family stays in Canada. It is really regrettable that this fundamental aspect of Canada's immigration policy, which is part of the program of the Liberal Party of Canada, is being attacked in this International Year of the Family. This might violate conventions signed by Canada, such as the convention against torture, the principles of the United Nations on arbitrary arrest and detention, the Geneva convention on human rights in wartime, the declaration on disappearance and missing persons, etc.

In that context, the bill might also violate sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. I also oppose the provision which provides the right to search international mail and authorizes immigration officers to seize identification papers and other documents sent by international mail or other means, in an attempt to circumvent the Immigration Act. This could lead to abuse. It is to be noted that immigration officers already have the authority to search those seeking to be admitted to Canada, as well as their baggage.

The bill also authorizes immigration officers to request a warrant for the arrest of any person who does not appear at the meeting to which he was summoned. The police will arrest that person and his name will be filed at the Canadian Police Information Centre. Under normal circumstances, police will arrest a person only under the authority of a warrant delivered by a judge. We know that a person will often not show up because he moved and did not get the notification to appear. On September 13, I attended the National Conference on Immigration, in Ottawa. Working group no. 7, which was set up by the minister during the consultation process, looked at control and law enforcement, which are the issues dealt with in Bill C-44. Why did the minister not hold consultations before tabling this legislation?

I am asking that this bill be referred for review by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Lawyers specializing in immigration law, as well as the organizations working in the field of immigration and with refugees, including the Canadian Council for Refugees, should have the opportunity to be heard by the committee. I am also very interested in hearing from the IRB. For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill at second reading.

I want to take this opportunity to raise other issues related to immigration and refugees. In Quebec, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration closed four regional offices in July to concentrate all its services in a single centre located in Montreal. This decision must be strongly criticized and this is what we are doing today. We must oppose these closures which have resulted in lost jobs, in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada. There is another problem I would like to mention, namely the new rates recently imposed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Many people who were granted refugee status by the IRB are unable to pay $500 per adult and $100 per child to secure permanent residence in Canada. I made representations to the minister and his department in the hope of finding a solution to this problem but so far with little success. How can you demand immediate payment in the amount of $1,400 from a newly arrived family in a state of total despair and often without any money whatsoever?

If I may digress for a moment, I would like to salute the employees of Ogilvie Mills Ltd, especially those of ethnic origin, who have been on strike since June 6 last. Located in Montreal, this mill manufactures Five Roses flour.

Today, they are protesting on the Hill and I will meet with them later on. I take this opportunity not only to express my solidarity to them but also to ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to table a bill amending the federal Labour Code by including an anti-scab provision. Such a provision already exists in the Quebec Labour Code and is very successful.

As you well know, Madam Speaker, I came to Quebec in 1974 following a military coup which took place in Chile on September 11, 1973. My wife, my two children, then five and three years old, myself and thousands of other Chileans were very well received by the people of Quebec who were profoundly generous. We worked and continue to work hard to ensure a better life for our children and our grandchildren and to make our contribution to the progress of this society.

However, today I am profoundly sad because of this anti-immigrant sentiment in Canada and because of this anti-refugee sentiment in Canada.

It is appearing in Canada as in rich nations all over the world.

The contribution of immigrants to all sectors of the economic, social, cultural and even political life of this country is immeasurable.

I am proud to have been elected, last October, to the House of Commons by a majority of francophones in Montreal-Nord, with the support of the labour movement and various ethno-cultural communities, twenty years after coming to this country. I am even prouder of the fact that my leader asked me to be our party critic for citizenship and immigration.

I believe that this bill, even though it contains certain positive elements, will be perceived as linking immigration and criminal activities and will therefore exacerbate xenophobia and racism in Canada. Statistics clearly show that new immigrants are more law-abiding and that their crime rate is lower than that of Canadians by birth. This bears repeating.

I ask the minister to immediately launch a comprehensive awareness and information campaign to apprise all Canadians of the facts regarding immigration including the benefits that flow from it, as well as the huge contribution immigrants have always made to this country.

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak in the debate on third reading of Bill C-35, an Act to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Once again, as I already said on second reading, I tell you that I will vote against this bill, for almost the same reasons that I mentioned in my speech on June 13 in this House.

Since there was no written document explaining this complex bill, which amends several laws, I carefully reread the speech given by the minister when he presented it. Unfortunately, the minister gave no details or precise justification at that time. His long speech covered only generalities concerning citizenship and immigration policy and of course he again praised his government.

I agree with the principle of the bill and with merging immigration and citizenship in the same department. However, some people, myself included, question the department's name. Should it not be called the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and not the other way around? That is, should immigration not come before citizenship?

In fact, the tens of thousands of new arrivals who come to settle in Canada every year are immigrants first and then several years later they become citizens.

The main reasons that I will vote against this bill are as follows. First, clause 4 of the bill says that "the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to citizenship and immigration" and I emphasize the word "relating".

Obviously, this provision is too vague and too broad. Immigration has always been a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction and Quebec has had its own department and its own minister since 1968.

Knowing the Liberal government's centralizing designs and judging by the inroads already made in these past few months, I fear that the minister and the department will unduly infringe on provincial powers.

I only mention the case of the COFIs here. In this House, we already denounced the minister's attempts to impose on this typically Quebec institution the obligation to promote Canadian unity. What a clear example of meddling in a field of exclusively provincial jurisdiction like education!

The minister is required to respect the agreements signed by the federal government and the provinces, especially in Quebec's case, where the Cullen-Couture agreement and later the McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement are very specific. I want to warn the minister and tell him that the Bloc Quebecois will never allow the minister or his government to meddle in fields of provincial jurisdiction.

I remind you that other laws, including the one passed recently on the Department of Revenue, have specified and defined the minister's powers. Why was it not done in the bill under consideration? Another important provision is clause 5, which says that the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may enter into agreements with any province, group of provinces or any agency thereof or with any foreign government or international organization, for the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of policies and programs for which the minister is responsible.

We submitted an amendment to eliminate the word "agency" to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. This is the only amendment that was accepted by the Liberal majority, since clearly the government must negotiate and sign agreements with the provincial governments which these agencies come under. We also proposed another amendment requiring the federal government to table the signed agreements in the House. Incredible as it may seem, the Liberal majority defeated this legitimate, very justified amendment.

The Liberals even voted against tabling the agreements signed by ministers with other governments and with international organizations. Nevertheless, the tabling of such agreements is a common, justified practice in the legislatures of all democratic countries, since such agreements sometimes provide for spending that the legislature is entitled to supervise, monitor and control. The minister and his department should be more open, especially because in his report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, five fiscal years ago, the Auditor General of Canada devoted four chapters to all aspects of the immigration program.

He came to the conclusion that the information provided to Parliament and therefore to the public was incomplete and fragmentary. The other major objection that we have to this bill concerns clause 10, amending the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act. This provision gives the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his Secretary of State for Multiculturalism the mandate to promote the Canadian identity. This is a new mandate and we have trouble understanding why the minister added this to a bill which he said is only administrative in nature.

Why this urgency to promote the Canadian identity, if not to fight the sovereigntist movement on the eve of a provincial election in Quebec and a referendum to follow in 1995? Especially because when this government talks about Canadian unity, it denies or ignores the Quebec identity, for all practical purposes.

Another consequence of this provision is that it increases the already existing confusion between the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the mandate of Citizenship and Immigration. Although this function should be exclusive to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already begun to appropriate it by proposing new legislation on citizenship which according to him would be aimed at promoting both citizenship and important Canadian values.

Unfortunately, the minister is becoming increasingly obsessed by the issue of Canadian unity. In the process, he is just fanning the flames of controversy between Quebec and English Canada. This discussion is not at all unifying, as the minister seems to think. The failure of federalism is the failure of Canada as a confederation.

Last May the minister raised the rates for immigration services. For instance, an application for permanent residence for refugees, obtaining a visa, a minister's permit, passport, and so forth, all of which creates a lot of problems for refugees who do not have the wherewithal to pay $500 to obtain permanent residence.

Yesterday, the minister announced new financing measures for immigrant services which will come into effect in 1995-96. The government will not pay the social benefits of teachers who give language courses for new immigrants, although these benefits are included in their collective agreements.

This decision affects many agencies that receive funding to offer immigrants certain services such as programs for immigrant settlement and adoption and language training programs for immigrants in Canada.

This decision will create a lot of problems for these agencies which are doing very good work, and for employees whose social benefits will be reduced.

On Monday, the minister tabled another bill, Bill C-44, to amend the Immigration Act, the Citizenship Act and the Customs Act. Under this bill, persons convicted of a major crime will no longer be able to claim refugee status to gain entry into or postpone their deportation from Canada.

We agree with these principles, but we want to look very closely at each and every one of Bill C-44's provisions. If necessary, we will move the appropriate amendments.

At this time, however, we would like to make some preliminary comments.

First of all, in my view, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has overly reacted to a very real problem, albeit one that is marginal and nowhere near as widespread as the Reform Party and the press would have us believe. I think the minister caved in too readily under the pressure and the sharp criticism voiced by certain Reform Party members.

To my mind, some of the provisions in this bill run counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The bill also gives immigration officers the power to intercept and hold mail from abroad which could contain documents related to a person's identity, when the officers have reason to believe that these documents could be used for fraudulent purposes. Madam Speaker, do you not think that this provision clearly violates the principles and rules contained in the charter?

It is our duty as elected members to fight prejudice and discrimination against refugees. As the people's elected representatives, we must show compassion and generosity, which are fundamental values of Quebecers and Canadians. With all due respect, I think that my colleagues in the Reform Party who sometimes make inflammatory statements are encouraging public intolerance towards immigrants.

I am extremely pleased that the vast majority of people I met in Alberta-I made two trips and visited Calgary, Edmonton and Banff-including lawyers, ethnic leaders and church members, do not share this approach of the Reform Party, which I consider anti-immigrant and anti-refugee.

I want to pay tribute to Edmonton's ethno-cultural association and to Calgary's multicultural centre for the wonderful work they are doing to integrate newcomers.

Twice I visited Calgary and met with a young Salvadoran who took sanctuary in the basement of a church. I showed my solidarity with this refugee. Unfortunately the refugee did not get shelter from the Reform Party. Fortunately now an understanding took place and this young Salvadoran is free.

I thank the pastors, university professors and professionals, as well as the Latin American community, for having helped this young Salvadoran who can now stay in Canada. I am proud of this Latin American community, which did such a marvellous job in Calgary for one of its brothers.

In closing, I want to emphasize, on the 125th anniversary of the first immigration program and of the first Immigration Act passed by Canada, the outstanding contribution made by the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have enriched Canada and Quebec.

I also want to mention that I participated this past weekend in two very important ethno-cultural events in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North. First, a special event organized by the multi-ethnic community centre of Montreal North, which gave diplomas and honourable mentions to students who passed their French course. What a fine example of harmonious integration.

The second event I participated in was the gala organized by L'Ouverture youth centre, which gave awards to the best students of ethnic origin in each of the schools in my riding. Most of these students were of Haitian, Latin American and Vietnamese extraction. I commend L'Ouverture youth centre and particularly its director, Félix St-Élien, for this initiative and for excellent work promoting closer intercultural links among young people in Montreal North.

I take this opportunity to point out the efforts made by the Haitian community to solve problems and smooth their transition into Quebec society. Finally, I want to acknowledge warmly and express my deep gratitude to the thousands of volunteers and hundreds of organizations throughout Quebec and Canada that work so hard to provide settlement and integration services to our new fellow citizens.

[Immigration, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. For several months now, immigration officers, especially in Montreal and Toronto, have been requiring from refugees whose status has been recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board a passport from their country of origin. They have been requesting those people to contact their embassy or consulate to apply for a passport in order for them to review their application for permanent resident status.

My question is this. Is the minister aware that the demand imposed by immigration officers upon refugees whose status has been recognized jeopardizes the safety of those people and that of their families in their countries of origin?

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, and I still do not understand why he is refusing to convene a royal commission of inquiry to look into this very dubious affair, the likes of which I have not seen in the 20 years that I have been in this country, and to examine the lobbying issue as well. Some light needs to be shed on this affair and on the role played by lobbyists. In my opinion, all of these issues need to be clarified.

Tomorrow, the government will be introducing a bill aimed at regulating lobbying activities. I hope that they will be very clear and that we will have the opportunity to debate this very important bill.

I also fail to understand why the bill is so contradictory. On the one hand, the government says no compensation will be awarded, while on the other hand, the bill allows the minister to grant sums of money to the parties involved. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry enlighten me on this apparent contradiction?

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a distinction between refugees who are outside Canada and those who come here and apply for refugee status. She expressed a number of reservations and apprehensions, but I would like to tell her that we have a system in this country, the Immigration and Refugee Board, whose commissioners are asked to determine who is a bona fide refugee under the Geneva convention and who is not.

I sometimes think such apprehensions are unfounded. I would also like to inform the hon. member that in all countries, in the United States as well as in Europe, refugees knock on the door to ask for political asylum. This is not unique to Canada. This is common throughout the world. That is why independent and autonomous bodies are asked to determine who is a refugee and who is not.

[Immigration, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary what is being done by Immigration Canada to make sure that people who are responsible for such slaughters will not be able to take refuge in Canada.

[Immigration, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Prime Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister.

According to representatives of the Rwandan community in Quebec, it appears that a Hutu immigrant, Léon Mugesera, who arrived in Canada in August 1993 and who is currently a trainee at the Université Laval, would be partly responsible for the massacre in Rwanda.

Before his departure for Canada, Mr. Mugesera is said to have urged his fellow Hutu citizens to go on the warpath and decimate Tutsi families.

Given the serious allegations made by the Association des immigrants rwandais du Québec, will the government inform us of the findings of the Immigration inquiry regarding Mr. Mugesera?

[Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act, June 13th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to join the debate on Bill C-35, establishing a Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

This bill also amends a number of acts: The Access to Information Act, the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act, the Employment and Immigration Commission Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Immigration Act, the Department of National Health and Welfare Act, the Privacy Act, the Public Service Compensation Act and the Salaries Act.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, it is a fairly complex piece of administrative legislation. The minister has just told us that it was his decision to transfer immigration from the former Department of Public Security to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The original switch was made arbitrarily by the Conservative Party in June 1993. We in the Bloc attacked that original Conservative decision, because it associated immigration and immigrants with criminal acts probably constitut-

ing attacks on the security of the state. We strongly opposed the decision by former Prime Minister Kim Campbell.

In light of the far-reaching re-organization by the new Liberal government, and of the bill's complexity, we would have preferred the government, and in particular the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to provide us with a detailed document explaining the Bill.

We will vote against the bill at second reading, because it contains certain clauses that we cannot accept. For example, clause 4 provides that "the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating"-and I want to stress that word "relating"-"to citizenship and immigration".

This strikes us as too broad and too vague a provision. We would like the Minister's area of jurisdiction to be defined clearly and precisely. In any event, we want to avoid abuse of these powers by the Minister, and duplication of work done by other departments and government agencies.

Above all we want the minister to respect scrupulously the scope of the provinces' jurisdiction over immigration. We have already criticized the minister's intrusion into an area of Quebec jurisdiction, the orientation and training centres for immigrants. We will never permit the minister to interfere in education, which is exclusively a provincial responsibility.

Another major objection to this bill is found in clause 5, which specifies as follows: "The Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may enter into agreements with any province, group of provinces or any agency thereof"-and I stress the word agency-" or with any foreign government or international organization, for the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of policies and programs for which the Minister is responsible".

We do not agree that the word "agency" should be included in the Act. It is dangerous. The federal government must negotiate and sign agreements with the provincial governments responsible for these agencies. Using a word like that, the federal government could short-circuit the authority of the provinces, something we find unacceptable.

Another clause we cannot accept in its present form is clause 10, amending section 4 of the Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act; this clause reads as follows:

The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to multiculturalism and Canadian identity.

As well, clause 11 adds the function of promoting the understanding of Canadian identity. This provision does not exist in the legislation now in force. Why does the government want to add it now, if not to block the rise of the sovereignist movement in Quebec? Furthermore, the respective responsibilities that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Canadian Heritage will have are not clearly delineated.

Madam Speaker, you are not unaware that Canadian unity is a subject that profoundly divides Quebec and English Canada, the government and the opposition. Why does the government want to include this controversial provision in a bill whose sole objective should be to provide a legal structure for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?

We shall vote against this bill on second reading, and we want it to be referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for consideration.

I take this opportunity to criticize the minister, once again, for launching his show on Canadian identity at a time when the Bloc Quebecois has elected two-thirds of MPs from Quebec, on the eve of a provincial election that the Parti québécois will win, and on the eve of a referendum to be held in 1995.

It is clear that the government organized these hasty and premature consultations on citizenship with the sole objective of blocking the battle by the people of Quebec. The review of the Citizenship Act was not in any sense a priority, either of the government party or of the opposition parties. A resolution to that effect and discussion at a recent convention of the Liberal Party of Canada held in Ottawa in May 1994 raised no interest among the delegates.

The minister should on the other hand concern himself with the solution to concrete, more immediate and pressing problems such as the backlog of more than 220,000 requests made by permanent residents who often have to wait several years before getting their citizenship and Canadian passport.

We also denounce the minister's intention to close the Citizenship Office on Saint-Denis Street, at the corner of Beaubien Street, in Montréal, and his decision to transfer and centralize visa functions in Ontario and Alberta.

In addition to citizenship, the new department is also responsible for immigration, a matter of shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces ever since Confederation, in 1867, pursuant to section 95 of the British North America Act.

Canada, then a country of 3 million inhabitants, adopted its first immigration act in 1869. On June 25, we will be commemorating, as the minister said earlier, the 125th anniversary of this first act and of the first Canadian programs in this area.

I would like to pay tribute, here, to the 12 million newcomers who have since arrived in Canada. Together with the First Nations and the two founding nations, they have build this country. They continue to arrive from all parts of the world to

participate and contribute to Canada's and Québec's economic, political, cultural and social development.

As an immigrant myself for the last 20 years and as critic for the Bloc Quebecois in matters of citizenship and immigration, I want them to know that my party and myself greatly value their precious contribution to the building of this country.

We believe jurisdiction in immigration matters should belong exclusively to Québec. Québec must be able to exercize all powers in this area in order to maintain its demographic weight and its survival as a distinct society and as the only French-speaking state in North America. Québec has always claimed this jurisdiction and you know, Madam Speaker, that today it has its own department, the ministère des Relations internationales, des Communautés culturelles et de l'Immigration.

Québec has made progress, but insufficient progress compared to what is at stake. Since 1971, Canada and Québec have signed several agreements on immigration. In 1971, the Cloutier-Lang agreements were signed; in 1975, the Bienvenue-Andras agreements.

The third and most important is the Couture-Cullen agreement which was signed in 1978 under the Parti québécois government. The agreement signed in February 1991 by ministers McDougall and Gagnon-Tremblay increases and clarifies Québec's powers in the field of immigration. According to that agreement, Québec has the right to select the independent immigrants who wish to settle in the province.

Apart from selecting immigrants, Québec looks after their integration and determines the immigration levels for the province. The francization of immigrants is the responsibility of the COFIs.

According to this agreement, Canada remains responsible for national standards and objectives concerning immigration, the admission of immigrants and the control of visitors related to criminality, health and security as well as the administrative handling of requests and the physical admission at the various entry points.

Québec is therefore exclusively responsible for the selection, reception and integration of immigrants destined for the province. As for the immigration levels, the federal government must, before April 30 of each year, inform Québec of the options under study concerning future levels of immigration by category of immigrants.

For its part, Québec must, before June 30 of each year, that is in a couple of weeks, inform Canada of the number of immigrants, also by category, which it expects to admit in the year or years to come.

I might add that the Immigration Act requires the minister to consult the provinces on demographic needs, labour-market issues and regional distribution.

One very important aspect of this agreement is the formal commitment on the part of the federal government to withdraw from reception services, linguistic and cultural integration, counselling and placement programs for immigrants.

The Government of Canada provides fair compensation to Quebec in respect of such services. The province was awarded financial compensation as follows: $75 million for 1991-92; $82 million for 1992-93; $85 million for 1993-94 and $90 million for 1994-95. Any subsequent compensation levels will correspond to the basic amount of $90 million and will increase to keep pace with overall federal expenditures.

Getting back to my historical narrative, with an eye to industrializing the country and opening up the West, Canada recruited a vast pool of foreign labourers, primarily Chinese peasants. The Rockies were breached and East and West were united by the railway. This migration movement which lasted until World War II involved solely the Northern Hemisphere. Immigrants were British, Americans, Finns, Italians, Russians, Germans, Ukrainians, Jews, French and Polish.

However, following World War II, decolonization and communication advances gave rise to new migratory flows, and these are likely to increase in the coming years.

In 1990, the United Nations Population Fund warned that the global population would increase by one billion during the decade of the nineties.

Most of this increase would occur in developing countries where the birth rates were highest. Many of those seeking to immigrate favour the more prosperous, less populated countries. Canada and Quebec rank high on their list because of their resources and wide open spaces.

Canada and especially Quebec are interested in taking in a considerable number of immigrants because of their low birth rates. Moreover, we also lose a part of our population to emigration. It is estimated that emigration levels represent one quarter of immigration levels. For example, during the 1980s, more people emigrated to Italy from Canada than vice versa.

Under the McDougall and Gagnon-Tremblay agreement, Quebec can receive a number of immigrant proportional to its demographic load, plus 5 per cent. This means that in theory, Quebec could receive 30 per cent of all immigrants admitted to Canada.

In fact, Quebec received 47,532 of the foreign nationals admitted to Canada in 1992, that is to say approximately 19.2 per cent, which is roughly equivalent to the average observed over the past five years, which was 19.1 per cent.

This debate on Bill C-35 leads us to take a brief look at this government service, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, which is seeking to legalize its organization but has in fact already moved beyond the preliminary stage. And what we have before us is not very encouraging.

Because of timid, ambiguous and inconsistent policies, we cannot find out where the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is going. He favours never-ending consultations and takes forever to make decisions. He enjoyed a period of grace, but it is over. He had raised some hope after the questionable, inefficient and at times inhuman management of the Conservatives. Today, his inconsistent policies are widely criticized, in particular by immigration lawyers, refugee advocacy groups, ethnic groups, government officials, and so on. You will probably find that out this evening in Montreal.

He has made public two reports he had commissioned himself, namely the Hathaway report and the Davis-Waldman report. Clear and specific recommendations were made, but the minister does not know what to do with them. He suspends deportations, but does not say what will happen to the 10,000 refugee status claimants whose applications were turned down by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

My office has received numerous inquiries on this subject and officials know as little as we do. Meanwhile, asylum seekers are left in limbo. Which files will re reviewed? By whom? When? Under what circumstances? No one knows.

Another example of inconsistency is this announcement made by the minister to the effect that potential refugees may be submitted to a lie detector test to prevent fraud, which is illegal as far as we are concerned. What a ridiculous idea!

The minister and immigration authorities sometimes show deep ignorance of the extremely dangerous political situation in some countries that refugee claimants come from and occasionally they show a lack of compassion as well. For example, take this case of a pregnant young woman who was deported on February 23, given sedatives without her consent and returned to her country of origin, Zaire, which is devastated by an insidious civil war. I said to the minister and I repeat: "Such a serious case deserves an independent inquiry because such behaviour is unworthy of a civilized society". Why does the minister refuse to order such an inquiry?

There is another area where mistrust is systematic. More and more people who do not have passports are required to go to the consulate or embassy of their country to get one, even though they are already recognized as refugees. You know, if a refugee has to go to the consulate or embassy of his home country, his life could be in danger, and especially the lives and safety of his family still in the home country.

Furthermore, I ask the minister to refer any new appointment of IRB commissioners to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. So far, this committee has reviewed no appointment, despite allegations of patronage in some cases.

Finally, I wish to denounce the minister's decision to hold consultations outside Parliament on immigration levels and policies for the next five years, at a cost of over $1 million.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration should be responsible for these consultations, which are a priority for the Official Opposition and for public opinion in Canada and Quebec. All parties are represented on the committee-the government party, the Official Opposition and the Reform Party. This is not the case on the various working groups set up by the minister, from which the Bloc Quebecois is totally absent. It is not democratic to hold these consultations without the opposition being present.

For all these reasons, we will vote against Bill C-35.