Maud Debien

[Burundi, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The situation is very tense in Burundi since the murder, in October 1993, of the first democratically elected president of that republic. In recent months, some 50,000 people have died in the conflict between the two main ethnic groups, and there is every indication that another crisis is looming. The recent assassination of the minister of energy and mines has exacerbated the situation and there is a great deal of insecurity in the country.

Can the minister tell us about the current situation in Burundi and the means being considered by the UN and Canada to prevent a crisis?

[Federalism, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when he tabled his budget, the Minister of Finance said, with a smile on his face, that the era of flexible federalism had now arrived. However, we had to be suspicious of that smile, which was more akin to the kiss of Judas.

How can the minister be serious about flexible federalism when he is considerably limiting the financial margin of the provinces by reducing transfers, while at the same time maintaining national standards for welfare, health and post-secondary education?

After promising to reduce overlap and duplication between the two levels of government, the minister has now decided, despite all the opposition, to keep control over a sector as vital as manpower training.

In its editorial of today, Le Devoir says that current federalism ``manages without us and clearly declares itself to be imperial''.

This is what federalism has become.

[Message From The Senate, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, On December 9, I rose in this House to ask the Prime Minister about the referendum process in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois wanted to know, and still wants to know, if the Prime Minister stands by what he wrote in his autobiography where he said: "If we lose the referendum, we will respect Quebecers' wishes and accept separation".

The Prime Minister answered my question by saying, first of all, that he wanted a clear question, adding that he would not answer any hypothetical question. The Prime Minister should realize that he is inconsistent in his statements. By not clarifying his stand on wishes democratically expressed by Quebecers, the Prime Minister is refusing to give an opinion on the right of the Quebec people to decide their future.

Before being sovereignists or federalists, we must all be democrats. I dare hope that nobody wants to make Quebec an independent country or to maintain it within the Canadian federation against Quebecers' will.

Moreover, the Prime Minister would do well by following the lead of his colleagues, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the hon. member for Mount Royal, both of whom recently recognized that it is up to Quebecers to decide their future. The Prime Minister has shown partisan behaviour instead of political responsibility during Question Period last Friday. It is urgent that he display an attitude appropriate to his important responsibilities as a head of state.

Besides, during the same debate last week, the Prime Minister wrongly accused sovereignists of hiding their option by using a question referring to a draft bill containing 1,600 words. He said that many federalists were refusing to participate in those consultations because of this little trick. Those were terrible and very inconsiderate remarks.

Should we remind him of the consultations which surrounded the Charlottetown Agreement? Should we remind him that the Charlottetown Agreement contained not 1,600 words but well over 10,000 words? Yes, 10,000 words. The Prime Minister and his party were not at all shocked. On the contrary, they promoted the content of that agreement all across Canada.

You must admit that the qualms the Prime Minister has today are quite recent and his rationale seems one-sided. The federal government and its Quebec branch have to talk about the real options. Let them remind us that they have nothing else to offer but the status quo.

The truth of the matter is-and the Prime Minister should admit it-that federalists do not want to take part in consultations on the referendum because they have nothing to suggest but the old status quo. It may be Christmas and a time to eat traditional dishes, but that does not mean the federal government should serve us the same rehash.

In fact, the federal Liberals do not want to travel across Quebec and talk with citizens of every region. When you cannot argue for your political ideas with logical arguments, you use every kind of trick to divert the debate onto procedural details.

You cannot negotiate or manipulate the soul of a nation, nor can you put a price on it. No, the soul of a nation can only be seen if the people can democratically express their will. That is what the Government of Quebec is proposing and what the Prime Minister of Canada is rejecting. The Prime Minister must accept this inescapable fact and take part, with his colleagues, in particular the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, in the pre-referendum consultations the Government of Quebec will be holding.

[Immigration, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to statements made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Schelew affair is not closed.

Many questions remain unanswered and the whole thing is starting to look more and more like a government cover-up operation. After the vice-chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board resigned, not proceeding with the inquiry has saved the minister from having to answer legitimate questions about the serious allegations made against Mr. Schelew.

The minister can no longer dissociate himself from the questionable, to say the least, methods used by his government to make the problem disappear, especially since it is not known who authorized the Treasury Board to give him $100,000 in severance pay.

The minister no longer has a choice. It is his duty to shed light on this issue. His credibility, as well as that of his government and of the board, are at stake.

[Immigration Act, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, we continue with the amendments to Bill C-44 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

The changes proposed to clause 19 of Bill C-44 by the official opposition have two objects. First, Motion No. 21 would add the words, and I quote: "On being satisfied that a notice of appearance or a summons has been served on any person"-

This addition is necessary if we want to make sure that a notice of appearance or a summons has been served before an arrest warrant is issued against an immigrant. The government must make sure that the person summoned knows that he or she will have to answer questions, appear or give evidence, before issuing an arrest warrant.

The amendment would require proof that a notice of appearance has been served before proceeding with the arrest. This might seem a bit hypothetical, but without it we might be faced with regrettable situations. For example, a permanent resident could be summoned for questioning as part of an investigation. There could be several reasons for not answering the summons: change of address, difficulties communicating with the people with whom he or she lives, or simply oversight by spouse or children.

Can we issue an arrest warrant for reasons that trivial? Did we think of all the possible consequences of an arrest which might not be warranted? Why not avoid all these unfortunate situations by amending the bill to make sure that the person summoned or asked to appear has indeed been notified to do so.

I believe that the other amendment to clause 19 of Bill C-44 will be unanimously approved by the members of this House. Basically, it seeks to align the French and the English versions of the bill.

Clause 19 of the French version does not mention the reasons why a person may not appear as a witness or for an inquiry or an examination. When comparing the French version with the English one, it becomes obvious that clause 19 is not subdivided the same way, since in English there are two subsections, ( a ) and ( b ), and none in French.

Moreover, words equivalent to "or proceeding in relation to the decision" do not appear in the French version. Our amendment seeks to specify the reason for the appearance. It would be very unfortunate indeed if these amendments were not adopted. It is important that the laws be the same for francophones and anglophones alike, and that they be as precise and well understood as possible, in both official languages.

[Summit Of The Americas, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the Summit of the Americas held in Miami, the three trade partners currently in NAFTA invited Chile to join. Even though the negotiations will only start in May, preparatory work will begin as early as January. We in the official opposition welcome and applaud this initiative taken by the NAFTA partners.

Besides the above mentioned negotiations, the 34 countries at the Summit of the Americas agreed to begin negotiations on hemisphere-wide free trade with a target date of 2005, and NAFTA will eventually be part of this broader agreement.

Given such openness, we are convinced that Quebec, as one of the most fervent proponents of free trade on the American continent, will be warmly welcome by the trading nations when it becomes sovereign. But for now, on behalf of the official opposition, let me say Bienvenido al Chile.

[Immigration Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois involves deleting clause 18 from Bill C-44. Without this clause, section 24 of the Customs Act would not be amended.

Section 24 authorizes mail, documents or anything that may serve to establish the identity of a person to be intercepted. It is proposed to give immigration officers the power to seize and search parcels and documents suspected of being used fraudulently. We think that such provisions probably contravene the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. The Bloc Quebecois amendment is to prevent the government from being taken to court over this.

We also question another aspect of this clause in Bill C-44, and that is the introduction of reverse onus. In our judicial system, the accused is initially presumed innocent, at least that is how it has been so far. But the mail seizure provisions reverse the burden of proof. Also, there is no indication of the basis on which seizure will be decided and the nature of the mail determined.

How will customs officers determine the contents of packages before they are opened? What will tell them that a given mailing is highly likely to contain illegal documents? We think that such procedures will be impossible to justify legally.

Therefore, clause 18 may pave the way for abuse. Opening mail without the consent of the recipients goes against the most elementary of fundamental rights. In a society that recognizes the rule of law, you do not tamper with mail, to the best of my knowledge. Moreover, Bill C-44 is not overly transparent, by not mentioning the circumstances under which the mail, parcels or documents will be opened.

Regardless of our concerns, Mr. Speaker, clause 18 will be difficult to enforce.

Customs officers who testified on Bill C-44 before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration told us that, over the past decade, 259 federal mail inspection centres had been eliminated. There are only six remaining to do this kind of work. Efforts to increase the powers and workload of employees who are already unable to meet the demand are probably wasted. The government should make sure that existing provisions are enforced and allocate adequate resources to this end.

For the sake of compliance with the charter of rights, respect for fundamental rights and practical reasons as well, I encourage hon. members to vote for Motion No. 5 put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Immigration Act, December 12th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Mr. Speaker, just a few days after his appointment as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the present minister said in an interview with La Presse that he wanted a system with as little political intervention as possible. He added that in the judicial system, for instance, there was no political intervention. Once a judgment was made, that was it. He also said that he wanted to reduce political intervention and felt that a stronger appeal mechanism would be the answer.

However, a year later, we have Bill C-44, which in our opinion does the exact opposite of what the minister said he wanted to do, in November 1993. This bill puts excessively centralized powers in the hands of the minister and his officials.

During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we heard this confirmed by many agencies. Bloc Quebecois amendments for deleting clauses 13 and 25 of Bill C-44 were supported by the Canadian bar association, the Canadian council for refugees, the Quebec immigration lawyers' association and the refugee lawyers association, for instance.

The present legislation allows permanent residents convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more may be imposed to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division. This appeal may be invoked to quash a deportation order or to stay execution of such an order on compassionate grounds.

Maintaining clauses 13 and 15 which reinforce the minister's powers of political intervention means that the minister and members of this House will be constantly asked to review immigration cases on compassionate grounds.

We are well aware of the pressures on elected representatives and especially on the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Public opinion, exacerbated and conditioned by a few sensational cases and the media's coverage of then, and, of course, political pressure from countries we do not want to offend for commercial or economic reasons are just a few examples.

Because of these pressures, it is easy to imagine what kind of decisions will be made: decisions based on a set of subjective, unpredictable factors that will vary from case to case, despite

their similarities. Are we prepared to take that risk? Certainly not. The system already lacks credibility. Why make it worse?

We can expect another problem if the new legislation is not amended. As we know, immigration officials no longer meet clients in their offices and no longer answer telephone calls directly. Unfortunately, all processing of immigration files has been centralized, and regional offices are now an empty shell. To politicize the process will deprive immigrants and their relatives of the opportunity to talk with the officers in charge of making decisions which will be critical for them.

Moreover, as was pointed out in the Auditor General's report in 1990, the Davis-Waldman report and by many public servants, there is an obvious lack of training among immigration officers. This may seriously jeopardize the fairness of the process.

We cannot endorse this desire to centralize and politicize the immigration decision-making process .Decisions will be made behind closed doors. Generalists lacking the necessary training would make the decisions now made by specialists. There is no guarantee that, under these conditions, in similar cases, decisions will not be different and therefore inconsistent. Why trivialize these decisions by turning them into administrative decisions whereas, at the present time, they are quasi-judicial and based on case law with a proven track record?

Moreover, Bill C-44 proposes that the immigration minister become a new court and replace the IRB when it comes to the evaluation of risks. Thus the minister would become party to every case before the appeal division. Is it because he recently lost certain cases that the minister now wants to give himself new powers?

Moreover, under clause 14 of Bill C-44, the government wants to give the minister the right to appeal to the appeal division any decision made by an adjudicator. The current act provides for the minister to appeal only in two specific cases, when a person was found admissible or not deportable. None of the arguments presented by the government as to why the act should be amended to allow the minister to interfere with the decisions made by the adjudicator has convinced us.

The government is interfering with the whole process. There does not seem to be any more limit on the type of appeal the minister may launch against a decision made by an adjudicator. This is another blatant example of the minister interfering with and taking over the appeal division operations.

Let us make sure that the wishes expressed last year by the minister, and with which we totally agree, are respected. Let us minimize political interference in the immigration process. It is in the spirit and for that purpose that the official opposition has moved these amendments. Let the IRB Appeal Division do its job and keep the minister and bureaucrats out of this quasi-judicial process, which still needs to be improved.

For all these reasons, clause 13 and 15 should be eliminated and replaced by sections 70 and 77 of Bill C-86, now in force.

[Immigration Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the explanations provided by the minister, I think it is important to reiterate the objectives of the motions to which the hon. member for Bourassa referred earlier.

The purpose of Motions Nos. 13 and 14 tabled by the Bloc Quebecois to amend Bill C-44 is twofold. Motion No. 14 would add two categories of individuals to the list of those who cannot be deported for criminal behaviour. Motion No. 13 would amend Bill C-44 to take into account the seriousness of the crimes committed and the sentences actually handed down to permanent residents.

Let us first look at Motion No. 14. Paragraph ( a ) seeks to exclude from the deportation process persons who were admitted to permanent residence in Canada before attaining the age of ten years, where it is demonstrated that the persons have no emotional, family or other ties to their country of origin.

Some permanent residents arrived in Canada as children. For all sorts of reasons, these people never sought to obtain Canadian citizenship. Now, they are adults and work here; they also have a family here, but no longer in their country of origin. These people are, in essence, Canadians or Quebecers. We think that sending them back to their country of origin makes no sense and is inhumane.

These people grew up in Canada and developed their talents, as well as their flaws, here. They are a product of Canadian society. It would be too easy to get rid of criminals by sending them back to their country of origin, which they left as young children. Moreover, deportation could be too harsh a sentence for the offence committed. Not only would these people have to serve a sentence for their crime or crimes, but they would also have to keep living abroad afterwards, far from their family and friends, in a country which is often foreign to them.

Second, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing an amendment to paragraph ( b ) so that permanent residents who have resided in Canada for ten years or more cannot be removed from Canada. This addition is similar to the other amendments and would make Bill C-44 more compassionate for people who have been in Canada for a long time.

By adopting this amendment from the Bloc Quebecois, Canada would not be the first country to act this way. For example, Australia which is often compared to Canada because of its British tradition and liberal immigration policies, already has legislation in this area. Hence, children who settled in Australia before they were ten years old cannot be sent back to their country of origin.

France's immigration policy is reputed to be much more restrictive than ours. However, it has passed legislation to prevent immigrants who have been permanent residents for more than ten years from being expelled.

The government must go beyond partisanship and go along with the Bloc. For compassionate and humanitarian considerations, we must amend Bill C-44 and pass Motion No. 14.

We must also amend the bill by adopting Motion No. 13. To determine the seriousness of the crime, the actual sentence must be taken into consideration, and not only the maximum penalty for a particular type of offence.

In its current form, Bill C-44 only takes into account the nominal sentence, that is the maximum penalty for the type of offence committed, and not the sentence imposed by the judge. Indeed, even though under the Criminal Code a term of imprisonment of ten years may be imposed for a particular offence, the principles of sentencing are applied by the courts in determining the sentence.

For example, a person convicted of breaking into a private residence can receive a life sentence. Offences such as aiding and abetting the issuance of fraudulent credit cards are punishable by a ten-year sentence and could justify the deportation of the accused.

In our legal system, sentences are generally much less severe than the maximum sentence. In some cases, it may not be a term of imprisonment or a fine, but only a suspended sentence, probation or community work. A person could therefore receive a very light sentence and still be forced to leave the country.

Moreover, if our amendment is not adopted, this provision of Bill C-44 could violate the Geneva Convention. The manual of High Commissioner for Refugees says, and I quote: "With regard to the nature of the crime presumed to have been committed, all relevant factors, including extenuating circumstances, must be considered".

Bill C-44 must reflect these remarks. We must adopt the amendment before us to avoid legal complications. The Canadian government cannot refuse to take into account the actual sentence imposed, which is indicative of the seriousness of the crime.

As for the sentence of two years less one day, everybody knows that it is the cut-off point for sentences served in a provincial penitentiary and those served in a federal institution. In Canada, the courts consider the nature of the crime before imposing a term of imprisonment of two years or more. In our legal system, there is a clear difference between a sentence of two years or more and a sentence of less than two years in terms

of the seriousness of the crime. Our amendment reflects this legal reality.

I encourage all members to vote in favour of Motions No. 13 and 14 for simple common sense reasons. As we have just seen, the purpose of Motion No. 13 is to take into account the actual sentence imposed by the judge and not only the maximum sentence of ten years for certain types of crimes. As for Motion No. 14, it is designed to prevent the deportation of de facto Canadians.

[Immigration Act, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk about the motions introduced by my colleague for Bourassa. Of course I will not list them all. I would simply like to say that the motions which are being debated seek to

amend Bill C-44, and in particular clause 3(2) and (4.01) and, of course, the corresponding references.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the general scope of those motions, particularly with respect to subsection (4.01), which confers a wider jurisdiction to the senior immigration officer at the expense of the adjudicator and this transfer of authority seems unjustified to us.

Indeed senior immigration officers who are in fact officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration would be given greater powers at the expense of the fair treatment provided for by the quasi-judicial mechanism, that is, the power of the adjudicator.

Subsection (4.01) confers and re-inforces what was already provided for in the act, namely the concept of expeditious justice without any procedural guarantees and without the presence of a lawyer or a counsellor.

Besides being authorized to make exclusion orders against certain persons already referred to in section 19 of the act, under Bill C-44, the senior immigration officer will be allowed to make an exclusion order against all classes of inadmissible persons, to order an inquiry and to allow such persons to leave Canada forthwith.

Obviously, in our opinion, the government is slowly dismantling the arbitration structure for the benefit of its officials. We should be concerned about that and reject the measures proposed to that end. This is the precise purpose of the motions that the hon. member for Bourassa explained so well.