Osvaldo Nunez

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to explain why a special committee of the House should be set up to examine public expenditures, especially in the context of employment. The first and most obvious reason is the absolutely disastrous situation of government finances in Canada.

The second reason is the fact that the public has lost confidence in its parliamentary institutions, which is something very dangerous for democracy. Indeed, the general public, as well as the Bloc Quebecois, feel that there is still some fat in the government administration.

Moreover, because more and more people live in poverty, and because the middle-class is getting poorer and poorer, the government has a moral responsibility to the public. It must have a transparent style of management, and it must also demonstrate the efficiency of its structure. In other words, the government must prove its integrity to all Canadians, regardless of their economic situation and class.

Economic growth must be accelerated and unemployment must be reduced to lighten the deficit and the national debt on a long-term basis.

I come from a working family in Chili, where unemployment and underemployment are extremely high. As a lawyer in my country, I worked for unions and for the government, mostly in labour relations.

Here, I was a servicing representative for 19 years in Quebec's labour movement. I was very active in the FTQ and the Conseil des travailleurs et travailleuses du Montréal métropolitain.

My first concern has always been employment as well as the well-being of laid off workers. I sincerely believe that every person has the right to a job which is well-paying, satisfying and compatible with his or her skills.

Through my involvement in the union movement, I often witnessed tragic events, for individuals and families, when workers would lose their job, particularly when a company would close down for good. This is even more tragic when the people affected are workers over 45 years of age who have spent their entire working life with the company. Unfortunately, the legislation, both federal and provincial, does not adequately protect the workers who are affected by mass lay-offs.

Statistics Canada said that the recession was over. However, the current economic recovery is very different from the one which followed the last recession in 1981-82, in the sense that it has taken a long time to come and it is still slow. This is mainly due to the refusal or the inability of federal and provincial governments to stimulate the economy and create jobs. The current financial problems of governments have more to do with increasingly insufficient revenues than with expenditures.

This insufficiency is due to the large number of unemployed people who, of course, cannot contribute and must instead get help from the state. The fact that the last recession eliminated more permanent jobs than the previous one in the eighties says something about the magnitude of the present economic dislocation.

The deterioration of the job situation has adversely affected every sector and region, as well as every category of workers.

However, it is the manufacturing sector that was hardest hit, and very early on, by the recession. A total of 248,000 jobs in this sector have been lost across Canada. What a disaster! In the space of four years, one in every six jobs disappeared.

The recession has affected full-time jobs the most. The only net gains in this sector have been in the part-time field. Job losses have been concentrated in Canada's two main industrial provinces, namely Quebec and Ontario.

Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson has just wrapped up a trip to Europe. During his trip, he announced investments in the order of $180 million which he claimed would create some 350 jobs. However, since he was sworn in as premier last January 11, roughly 1,800 jobs have either been lost in Quebec or have been targeted for elimination.

Virtually every region has been affected, either by a plant closure, by staff cutbacks or by relocations. Plant closures have been the heaviest in the Eastern Townships. The closure of the Asea Brown Boveri kettle plant was just announced. A total of 340 workers will lose their jobs.

I personally came to the aid of ABB, Asea Brown Boveri, employees in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu when another plant shut down two years ago. I also helped the workers at the Philips plant in Saint-Laurent when a decision to close the facility put more than 1,000 people out of work.

The Montreal region has also been hard hit. Proctor and Gamble is closing and laying off 100 employees in Pointe-Claire. Dominion Textile is shutting down its dyeing plant and as a result, 105 jobs will disappear.

On the cultural scene, the Musée pour rire is closing its doors after receiving several million dollars in public funds. As a result, 40 people have been laid off.

In my own riding of Bourassa which includes the municipality of Montréal-Nord, the unemployment rate is hovering around the 30 per cent mark, if we include social assistance recipients who are able to work. And yet, Northern Telecom has just shut

down its facility, throwing another hundred or more people out of work.

I should also point out that the fishing industry which provides work for the vast majority of the 6,000 Quebecers from the lower North Shore, is in dire straights.

Unitel has announced it was cutting 150 positions in Quebec and the Discus record chain that it was closing down 13 stores and laying off 200 employees. And the list of closures and layoffs in Quebec and Canada goes on and on.

Yet the federal government ran and won the last election on a platform of job creation. Their slogan was "jobs, jobs, jobs". The opposite is happening, with more and more massive layoffs.

On Saturday, February 12, 1994, the FTQ will be holding its annual meeting on the solidarity fund, the primary purpose of which is to create jobs. I take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to its founding president, my friend and colleague Louis Laberge.

He will soon be replaced by Mr. Fernand Daoust as chairman of the board of the solidarity fund. Known mainly for his three years as president of the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec and 22 years as secretary general of the same central labour body, my very dear friend Fernand Daoust is also a man totally devoted to the cause of the workers.

Fernand Daoust is a man of great stature. The Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec is gaining in him a president who will no doubt apply all the talent we is famous for to help achieve its goals. On that subject, I would like to tell you more about this FTQ solidarity fund which is a positive labour initiative to save and create jobs.

I am not done, Mr. Speaker, but I will close on this. True economic recovery will result in less unemployment and more tax revenues.

[Tribute To Louis Laberge And Fernand Daoust, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for 19 years I worked with the FTQ, where I was privileged to work with two great Quebecers who dedicated their lives to defending the cause of the workers. They will shortly be leaving their respective posts.

This House must give special tribute to Louis Laberge who has been the president of the FTQ for 25 years and who was the founding president of an institution unique in Canada, the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec. The House must also give tribute to Fernand Daoust who has been secretary-general of the largest Quebec labour confederation for more than 20 years, and its president for the last three years. Saturday, he will become president of the Fonds de solidarité.

These two great advocates of social justice and champions of Quebec's cause have had a great impact on the evolution of Quebec through their constant dedication and involvement, and deserve our admiration and gratitude.

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Léonard. Saint-Léonard is the riding next to Bourassa and we have a lot in common, including an important Italian ethnic minority.

I also want to express my support regarding the committee's policy to reduce by $5 million a year House of Commons expenditures. This is an important message to send to the public, particularly in a period of economic crisis. I also want to say that I will support any measure to enhance the status of the work done by MPs, as well as to improve Parliament's effectiveness.

I have a question for the hon. member: When you looked at parliamentary reform and drafted the proposal which you tabled in this House, did you take into account the experiences of the United States, France and Great Britain?

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her election as an MP. She is from one of Canada's important minority groups, and since I too belong to one of them, I think that we should be able to work together for Canada's minorities.

The member mentioned unemployment. I believe that in Canada, minorities are particularly affected by unemployment and the economic crisis. I would like to hear her views on equal access programs such as job access and affirmative action for minorities. I hope the government will make more room for minorities in the federal public service where they are under-represented.

[Points Of Order, February 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to the statement of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, I must deplore the minister's failure to co-operate with critics from the other parties.

We did not receive the text of his statement-a document prepared months ago-until 1 p.m. and we received only one copy, despite the fact that we had requested two. This is not the first time this has happened. The same problem occurred a few days ago when the minister gave a press conference. We received a copy of his statement only as the press conference was getting under way. What happened to the minister's promise to work with us? I must deplore this lack of co-operation.

Regarding the substance of his statement, I would say that immigration policy does represent an enormous challenge not just for Canada, but also and above all for Quebec. In referring to the new levels of immigration announced yesterday, the minister neglected to mention if he had consulted with Quebec. If he did, when did these consultations take place and under what circumstances?

The minister also broached subjects not directly tied to new immigration levels. For example, concerning criminals, I agree with him that Canada should not let them in, but I hope that he is not merely stating good intentions. Precedents in this regard were set by former governments, and even by this new government of which the minister is a member. We agree that immigrants and bona fide refugees should be allowed into Canada, but not criminals.

Regarding appointments to Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board, more commissioners are expected to be appointed in the coming months. We will be watching the minister closely to ensure that the appointments he does make are not based on political affiliation. I hope that he will consult with all interested parties, including Quebec.

Naturally we share his concern about women refugees. This new issue is also a priority for us. We must protect women who have been persecuted, raped and abused and when appropriate, we must grant them political refugee status in Canada.

Madam Speaker, as you can see from my accent and my name, I am a Quebecer of Chilean origin. I came to Quebec 20 years ago following the 1973 military coup in Chile. I have to say that I was warmly welcomed by Quebecers, labour unions, religious groups and international co-operation agencies as well as agencies working in the field of human rights.

Before I arrived here, I was told I would be going to Canada and I was issued a visa. I was happy because in my mind, Canada was, and still is, a democratic country. However, when I arrived in Quebec, specifically in Montreal, I realized that there were two countries within Canada, two founding nations and peoples, two official languages and two cultures, each with its own history.

Then, I understood the great aspirations of Quebecers, their desire to defend the French language, their traditions, their culture and their history, all the more so because I came from a country where the people had fought for similar goals against powerful forces, against the penetration of English into Chile and throughout Latin America, and for the right to develop their own culture and traditions.

I became a sovereigntist. I have nothing against English Canada, where I have many friends especially within ethnic communities and within the labour movement. However, I support the creation of a country, Quebec, which is the deepest aspiration of Quebecers.

During my term in office, I plan to travel throughout Canada and discuss these ideas with my friends everywhere. When a couple has problems and cannot continue to live together, it must face reality. I think this analogy can be applied to Quebec and next year, the referendum will prove that this is so.

Like my party, I am a staunch supporter of immigration and I would hope that members of ethnic communities will not fear Quebec sovereignty as we sovereigntists feel that they will prove to be a formidable asset for Quebec and for Canada.

At this time, I would like to dissociate myself from the position taken by other members of this House who are afraid of immigration and afraid of refugees. At times they propagate anti-immigrant sentiment and demand not only that harsh restrictions be placed on Canadian immigration levels, but also that claims of refugee status on political grounds and under the Canadian Charter be denied. I wish to dissociate myself because my position is vastly different from that of members who view immigration and refugees in this light.

The minister is not telling us anything new about immigration levels this afternoon. He is quoting the same figures a the Conservatives: 250,000 immigrants will be admitted to Canada in 1994. We have no qualms about this figure as long as Quebec can have its say on the numbers admitted to Quebec.

As far as the mix of immigrants is concerned, we are in favour of Canada and Quebec throwing open their doors to political refugees. Canada and Quebec must honour their commitments. Canada was a signatory to the Geneva Convention relative to political refugees and we have to meet the humanitarian assistance requests that we receive from all over the world, where over 20 million refugees live in various countries. We discussed the situation in Bosnia a few days ago and I mentioned at the time that Canada should be open to Bosnian refugees.

So, I maintain that Canada must also tackle the causes of this form of immigration, that is to say political or economic refugies, and try to solve the problem that exist in the countries of origin. People leave their countries because of problems such as racism, religious strife, poverty, the widening gap between industrialized countries and developing countries, political repression. We want Canada to be generous with refugees, while at the same time addressing the problems that brings them here in the first place.

Based on the minister's announcement, we can see that the number of refugees admitted will increase only slightly, by 3,500. We think that this is not enough, in view of what is going on in the world, in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and other countries, including El Salvador.

I questioned the minister about the situation of Salvadoran refugees, but I did not get an answer in this House. Today, we read in the papers that the expulsion order has been suspended. That is not what we asked to minister to do. We were asking for a policy stating that Salvadoran refugees would not be returned to El Salvador because there are violent troubles in that area. Last December, the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself was telling us that political violence had flared up again in El Salvador. Death squads are still active there. Reports from various organizations, Development and Peace, Amnesty International, the UN and even the Salvadoran Human Rights Commission, all note the violence with disapproval.

What the minister was asked to do was to apply to El Salvador the same policy as for Haiti, China, Iraq or Somalia. That is all we were asking and all the fifty or so Salvadoran refugees in Quebec were asking.

What the press reports today is that there will be a review, but that has already been done. What we asked the minister to do is to exercise his jurisdiction. He has that power, under the Immigration Act, to intervene on humanitarian grounds, and he should use it to resolve the case of these Salvadoran refugees.

He announced to us a few days ago what he intended to do about work permits for refugee claimants. We agree, we said so, but we would also like the minister to act more quickly.

Why wait three months to give a political refugee claimant a work permit, as well as a medical certificate which he must have obtained before? This still takes a long time. If we do not want the refugee to collect welfare, he must start working as soon as possible.

So far, the minister has not answered requests that these permits be granted quickly. In any case, we know that these refugees will not compete with Canadian workers because refugees will usually get only low-paid unpleasant jobs that other people cannot or will not do.

I noted a glaring omission in the minister's statement, in that he said nothing about Quebec and the Ottawa-Quebec agreement. As you know, immigration is a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has always been concerned about immigration, even in the last century, because it is a vital problem for Quebec as it is for Canada. I would say that it is even more vital for Quebec because Quebec's birth rate is less than the Canadian average. Immigration in Quebec must make up this population deficit.

Immigration is also intended to ensure economic prosperity and openness to the world. Quebec is open to the world, but immigration to Quebec must ensure the perpetuation of the French fact. Quebec is the only French-speaking state in North America. We made demands, we fought the fight and in 1968 we created the Quebec Department of Immigration. In 1978, the Couture-Cullen agreement gave Quebec the power to choose its immigrants. Later, this agreement was improved by the ministers, Monique Gagnon-Tremblay and Barbara McDougall. Today, regrettably, the Quebec Department of Immigration and Cultural Communities has been merged with the Department of International Affairs.

But our main concern is the survival of French in Quebec, and it is closely tied to immigration. You know, as I myself have seen, most immigrants to Quebec integrated with the English-speaking minority. This has been aggravated by the federal government's policy of bilingualism in Canada.

We want Quebec to have immigrants. We also want them to be French-speaking as much as possible or at least able to join the French-speaking community as I was. I speak Spanish; I learned French because I joined the French speaking majority in Quebec.

We also want immigration in Quebec to be regionalized. Too many immigrants are concentrated in Montreal, 90 per cent. That is why we say and repeat that bill 101 is absolutely necessary in Quebec and we would like English Canada to understand that.

Since Bill 101 in 1976, our children must attend French schools. I hope that this concern for immigration in Quebec, a distinct society, will become part of the minister's message in the future. Moreover, we want the agreements reached between Quebec and Ottawa to be honoured. For instance, by increasing the number of people admitted under the family reunification program, the minister is imposing a burden on Quebec since Quebec has no say in this program. The federal government sets objectives and Quebec does not have anything to say about it. I hope that in the future you will pay more attention to this aspect of the immigration policy.

The final objective of our party, and of the entire sovereigntist movement in Quebec, is to put the immigration policy under Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction. Again, Quebec is open to foreigners and immigrants; we want to build a just, democratic and fraternal society that is open to the world and based on solidarity.

[Immigration, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the media were saying today that the board is a privileged haunt of patronage appointees and incompetents. Could the minister commit himself, today, to changing the rules of appointment, so they are based on qualification rather than on political affiliation?

[Immigration, January 27th, 1994]

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

The inquiry by professor James Hathaway of Toronto on the Immigration and Refugee Board, commissioned by his own department, concluded this week that the minister is failing in his duty, that the board is disregarding the most elementary rules of fairness toward refugee claimants, and that incompetent commissioners have made dubious decisions based on questionable grounds.

When is the minister going to reform the board to restore its credibility? What does he intend to do about decisions already made by these incompetent commissioners?

[Human Rights, January 26th, 1994]

I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Why has government suspended all deportations of Chinese, Haitian and Somali nationals and why will they not commit to doing the same for Salvadorans?

[Human Rights, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Human rights are still being violated in El Salvador, in spite of the 1992 peace agreements. Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada recognized it on December 17 last when he talked about the re-emergence of political violence in El Salvador. In spite of the prevailing alarming situation, the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the request for asylum of about 50 Salvadoran individuals who now face expulsion from Canada. My question is this: Does the minister intend to do something about these expulsion decisions which could endanger the lives of these Salvadoran refugees if they were forced to go back to their country?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, briefly, I think Canada's role at the international level is also to promote democracy and the democratic process all over the world. Recently, I was a member of Canada's official delegation that was sent to Russia to supervise the December 12 elections. Our role in these elections, which also included a referendum, was greatly appreciated by the people. I think we should accentuate Canada's role not only in the promotion of peace in the world, but also in the development of democracy.