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.