Some members think that what I just said is funny. There was only one member in the House and all of a sudden there are several. That makes me happy.
It took the filing of a note by the Bloc Quebecois, on April 11, with the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, to get bilateral negotiations started between Quebec and Ottawa, on the issue of international adoption.
I said clearly, as members will see if they read the committee proceedings, that if the government clarified clause 8 to make sure that Quebec's jurisdictions are not encroached upon, I would agree with the government's arguments and, to a certain extent, I would be able to support the bill. But nothing was done.
Until the very morning of consideration of Bill C-16 at second reading, while public officials were negotiating, I stated my intention to keep an open mind about this issue. Unfortunately, the negotiations failed.
The Quebec minister responsible for relations with the public and immigration sent me a letter on May 9, which is very recent.
On April 11, the Minister of Health clearly indicated in Ottawa that Quebec's adoption secretariat had stated its dissatisfaction. Public officials were present and so were the minister's assistants.
On May 9, the minister responsible for relations with the public and immigration wrote to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicating clearly, and I quote, that:
This bill as it is written will not only cause prejudice to parents and children, but it does not respect Quebec's jurisdiction in the field of international adoptions or its system of civil law.
With the members opposite calling at the top of their lungs for the adoption of a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, I think it is quite clear that this bill comes nowhere near to recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec, far from it.
The amendments introduced by the Bloc Quebecois simply proposed to clarify the situation. What did the Bloc Quebecois amendment say?
Motion No. 3 provided the addition of the following to clause 8:
(2) For greater certainty, the Province of Quebec shall continue to have full jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions, including the acceptance of any psychosocial assessment of adoptive parents and the issue of a letter of no objection to the adoption of a child.
The Bloc Quebecois simply wanted the possibility of amending clause 8 to make sure that Quebec's jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions be honoured. That is all we were saying. The government opposed this motion by the Bloc Quebecois, which wanted to clarify the situation and avoid meddling in the field of international adoptions.
It is impossible to talk one way and vote another. If the government had wanted to be consistent with its own policies recognizing Quebec as a distinct society and recognizing Quebec's Civil Code, it would have voted for this motion.
There is another important aspect and that is the whole matter of the assessment of medical examinations. On a number of occasions, we have explained that we want the reports on medical examinations and the health of the child to be given to the parents prior to the adoption proposal.
The Government of Quebec called upon the department and the minister, on April 11, clearly indicating that it wanted to see these aspects reflected in the regulations. This is one of the problems with this bill. We would have liked to have seen it include clauses addressing this situation, but all that the government has done is to state, under “Regulation” in clause 43: a ) respecting the evidence to be provided for applications and notices under this Act, including medical evidence to establish parentage, and the times when those applications and notices must be made;
There is, therefore, nothing specific about transmitting information on the child's health status. We would have liked to see this transmitted at the same time as the proposal is made, not after processing of the application has begun.
It is not only the Bloc Quebecois and the Government of Quebec which were calling for this to be taken into account in the bill. I took the trouble of looking up the minutes of the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship from when it examined Bill C-63, which is to all intents and purposes the bill we are looking at today, Bill C-16.
When the committee was addressing Bill C-63, one of the witnesses was the Association des parents adoptants du Québec. That association provided some clarification as well as expressing dissatisfaction with the inappropriateness of the current regulations.
This is what the association told the committee:
In order to improve our knowledge of children's health status, we would like immigration services to encourage medical examinations for children when a match is proposed.
Through François Auger, a member of the board of directors of the Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec, they added that:
Parents could then make an informed decision about their ability to take care of a child with a particular handicap. This information should be provided when the match is proposed, and not when a passport is issued, when the adoption process is practically over and parents have already become attached to their child.
Why does the government not accept these arguments? I remind the House once again that, on April 11, the Government of Quebec indicated that this needed to be taken into account, that this obligation should be taken into consideration when regulations were drawn up.
I think that this is important, because the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is saying that it is not possible to inform parents about children's health state at the time of the adoption proposal. The department says it is impossible to require a medical examination before a match is proposed to parents, citing the best interests of the child.
That is precisely what we are talking about—the best interests of the child. How can a parent properly meet the best interests of the child if he is unaware of his health status?
The parents' ability to meet the needs and, therefore, the best interests of the child actually depends on the child's health status when the proposal is made. We asked that this be taken into consideration. We would have liked to see it in the bill. Still, we hope that the regulations will take into account that rather important issue.
Another important aspect is the whole issue of the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois regarding the time of the oath. I submitted that amendment, of course, as the critic on these issues, with the support of my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the former Bloc Quebecois critic for citizenship and immigration. The amendment, which was rejected by the government party, reads as follows:
The Commissioner presiding over a citizenship ceremony shall, during the ceremony and in the presence of a representative of the Government of Quebec, give to every new citizen residing in Quebec a copy of the following documents and an explanation of their purpose: the Charter of the French Language (R.S.Q., c. C-11); the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (R.S.Q., c. C-12); the Election Act (R.S.Q., c. E-3.3); and the Declaration by the Government of Quebec on Ethnic and Race Relations, signed on December 10, 1986.
Why give these documents at the time of the swearing in? This in fact answers the other definition to which I alluded earlier when I said that there was of course a legal citizenship, but also a broader one, based on collective identity. It is because Quebec is a receiving country and an open society that we wish the arrival of new Quebecers to conform to the reality of Quebec.
The Quebec Charter of the French language expresses the desire of Quebecers to be able to continue to live and work in French. Why? Because Quebec, and the francophones of Canada as well, are in a precarious situation, representing only 2% of the population of North America, because we are a fragile society, a French society within North America, we want the message to be clear: Quebec is a country, a province in which people relate to each other in French. We hope that new Quebecers will be able to come to know that reality, which is well represented in the Quebec Charter of the French Language but also in the Quebec Election Act.
Quebec's election legislation is a source of pride to us, because it was the outcome of a consensus, a desire to involve the greatest number of people possible in a democratic society. Citizens are equal and have the right to clear expression. In many ways, the Quebec Election Act constitutes a model of which we are proud. We would like to be able to inform new Quebecers of their right to be able to express themselves democratically within the electoral process.
I would point out, if I may, that the proposal which aroused the ire of the hon. members across the way was not the position of the Bloc Quebecois alone. The reaction could have been “Oh yes, it is those Quebec separatists who want to see these documents provided”. No, I would like to remind hon. members of some of the stakeholders from Quebec who decided to support this motion.
Members will see that the represent a number of groups in Quebec civil society. There is Antoine Dorsaint, the spokesperson for the office of the Christian community of Haitians in Montreal, representing one of the largest and most dynamic communities in Montreal. He supported the motion of the Bloc Quebecois to have the documents given during the swearing in ceremony.
There is Claude Corbo, whom many of you know well, among others, the minister who is the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. Mr. Corbo is a former rector of UQAM, political science professor and author of a number of papers on the Quebec condition. Mr. Corbo cannot be called a sovereignist. This motion makes a lot of sense and it demonstrates the desire of Quebecers to live democratically, with French as their common language.
I have other names. There is the Greater Quebec Movement, which decided to support this motion. These people decided to say “Yes, Quebec is a democratic society. Yes, in Quebec we want things done in French, we want to work in French, live and grow in French. We support the motion by the Bloc Quebecois”. This is the decision a number of stakeholders made.
I was rather in favour of the principle of the bill. Yet, the more I studied this bill both in committee and with colleagues, consulting members of the community, the more I understood clause 8. I find it unfortunate, because we gave the government a fine opportunity. It could have ensured that clause 8 will not encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. With this amendment, we gave the government a wonderful opportunity. It guaranteed respect for Quebec's jurisdiction with respect to international adoption. The federal government refused to recognize this principle in our motion.
The door is wide open for the federal government to barge in. Even though this government introduces motions in the House recognizing the distinct character of Quebec, the fact of the matter is that this is just lip service when it comes time to pass bills that will have the force of law. This government has shown no openness to an amendment to clause 8, even up to the end of consideration at report stage. This bill discriminates against parents in Quebec.
I can tell the House today that it will be difficult at the end of this months-long process, which began with Bill C-63, to vote in favour of Bill C-16.
I am warning the government. Recently, I discussed the interpretation of clause 8 with a number of constitutional experts. They told me that there had certainly been a case for calling this clause unconstitutional. The government should listen up. It cannot shut its eyes and blunder into provincial jurisdictions. It should be careful because there could be repercussions and the government should be ready.
I conclude my speech so that I will be better prepared to debate another bill later, that being the bill to amend the immigration act and the refugee determination process. If there is a problem, it will be in this bill as well. We must look at this closely because the system is not working.
There are waits of 13, 14, 15 or 16 months for an IRB ruling, because it is a slow machine, a lax machine, a machine that is illogical and the cause of real human tragedies.
We have all had someone come to our constituency office to tell us of an intolerable situation caused by the system for granting refugee status.
Not only are more resources needed, but as well the length of time the board takes to reach a decision must be looked at. I believe six months would be acceptable. Someone arriving here and seeking refugee status should not have to wait 18 months for the board's decision. What message is being sent to the person who has settled in this host country, in the meantime? Sometimes, after 18 months, he is told that he does not meet the criteria of the United Nations Refugee Convention.
The matter needs to be looked at in order to ensure that Quebec and Canada continue to be a host country that respects people's rights and also respects the desire of communities to express themselves as freely and democratically as possible.