Osvaldo Nunez

[Refugees, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The dramatic situation persisting in Rwanda could bring many refugees from that country to Canada. We know that 800 Rwandans from the Tutsi minority already live in Canada, most of them in Quebec.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the Canadian government's policy on Rwandan refugee claims will be and can she promise that every case will be carefully examined so that the people responsible for the massacres cannot seek asylum in Canada to escape justice?

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on January 26 and March 10, I put questions in this House to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the plight of approximately 50 Salvadorian refugees in Montreal who are facing the threat of deportation to their native country. Despite my pressing the point, no action has been taken and the problem remains unresolved to this day.

Yet, my request that this group of individuals be granted permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds was and remains extremely legitimate. If these individuals were forced to return to their country of origin, their safety and their lives would be placed in danger.

Moreover, on December 19, 1993, the minister's colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, recognized himself that political violence was again on this rise in El Salvador. Several reports by the human rights commission of this country, by the UN and by Amnesty International have all reached the same dramatic and incontrovertible conclusion: El Salvador's death squads are still active.

I myself travelled to that country and stayed there from March 15 to 22 last as part of a Canadian mission to observe elections that were taking place. My colleagues and I saw that life in that country had by no means returned to normal. During the election campaign, over 30 people were murdered.

Moreover, we saw firsthand that the peace agreements concluded under the auspices of the UN had been violated and that numerous election irregularities had occurred.

On March 10, I urged the minister to take the time to meet this group of Salvadorian refugees to learn firsthand how grave the situation had become. This group had taken the time to travel to Ottawa from Montreal. Despite giving the minister prior notification, he steadfastly refused to meet the Salvadorians.

I am asking the minister again today to grant permanent resident status to these 50 refugees living under the threat of deportation. I also want to take this opportunity to call to his attention the apparently forgotten case of another young Salvadorian refugee, Mr. Mauricio Flores Romero, who took refuge five months ago in the basement of a Calgary church where he has been living ever since under far from auspicious conditions.

I visited this young man last February. Every member of his family, except for him, has been granted refugee status. I was deeply touched by this meeting. His application is very legitimate. Once again, I ask the government to have some compassion for this claimant.

[Immigration, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, now the minister is backpedalling. Does he not realize that his clumsy action calls into question Quebec's jurisdiction for integrating its immigrants into the French community?

[Immigration, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Yesterday, the ultrafederalist Quebec Minister of International Affairs, Cultural Communities and Immigration, Mr. John Ciaccia, made the following statement: "COFIs teach immigrants to cope with problems of daily life. They are told how schools and institutions work in Quebec. They are given tips on food and housing."

Is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, whom the Quebec government has called to order along with his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, prepared to mind his own business from now on and to apologize to the Quebec government?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-17, that ill-advised legislation of the Liberal government on unemployment insurance will affect three and a half million Canadians. Workers in Canada and Quebec who lost their jobs may not know it yet, but they also lost up to four months of benefits.

Workers are not and should not be considered as responsible for the lack of jobs and the long unemployment spells before they can find a new job.

By reducing benefits this government will only inflict greater suffering and poverty on the jobless, their families and their communities. Those reductions put the blame and the burden of unemployment on them, and that is unfair and morally unacceptable. Many jobless in my riding in the North End of Montreal, some of whom voted for the Liberals in the last election, are really angry about those kinds of antisocial and cruel policies.

But there is worse. The systematic attack by the Liberal government against the most vulnerable in our society, against the jobless is a disgrace.

Indeed, everybody remembers what the Prime Minister said when he was Leader of the Opposition. Posing as the champion of social rights, he decried the policies of the Conservatives who, with Bill C-105, attacked the unemployed instead of unemployment. Those are the very words of the Prime Minister. It is mind-boggling.

Furthermore, in the red book, which served as bible and election platform for the Liberal Party in the last campaign, we can read word for word on page 74: "The Tories have systematically weakened the social support network that took generations to build. Not only have they taken away billions of dollarsfrom. . . people who have lost their jobs, but they have set us on a path to becoming a polarized society, divided into rich and poor-"

Seeing how fast the federal government did exactly the opposite of what it promised and went even farther than the Conservatives in its attack on the most disadvantaged, we can rightly say that this government cynically misled the people for the sole purpose of getting elected.

In fact, not only has the government maintained the same immoral and punitive policy that it denounced when the previous government presented Bill C-105, but it has done worse.

Since the UI program was created 54 years ago, no change of this magnitude has ever been made. No government has ever taken such odious, retrograde and unjust measures against the very people this government publicly promised to help.

This project hits hardest regions where jobs are the most difficult to find. Indeed, the deepest cuts will be made in areas where the regional unemployment rate is the highest. So, in a city with a 6 per cent unemployment rate, a worker who is laid off after nine months will lose five weeks of benefits. But in Montreal, where the unemployment rate exceeds 13 per cent,

and also in the Maritimes, the reduction for the same employment period will be twice as big, that is a ten-week reduction.

The government seems to think that the system to which workers are contributing is being systematically abused by those people who most frequently rely on unemployment insurance. Hence, it considers some citizens as being less deserving than others, simply because they live in less fortunate areas of the country or work in seasonal industries. It is as if we were to refuse to give health insurance benefits to chronically ill people because they rely on the system more often than others.

For ten years I was a part-time arbitrator at the unemployment insurance office in Montreal. In that capacity, I witnessed numerous disturbing tragedies suffered by people who were seeing their benefits being cut off for different reasons. These people who were already living under the poverty level were then forced to give up their home because, under these conditions, they were no longer able to pay their mortgage.

These human tragedies have increased and have become even more dramatic since April 1993, when Bill C-113 passed by the Conservative government was implemented.

The government should take into consideration the findings of a recent Gallup poll which sets at 70 per cent the number of people in Quebec who oppose this unemployment insurance reform which will certainly reduce the number of UI beneficiaries, but will increase by the same number the total of welfare recipients.

Reducing unemployment insurance payments, as the government is doing, will not give jobs to the men and women thrown out of the work force, even though the Minister of Finance is claiming that the 2.28 per cent reduction in UI premiums for employers will create 40,000 jobs. If this screwy logic were true, all we would have to do would be to reduce the premiums by another 85 per cent to find jobs for all the unemployed in Canada.

In February 1993 already, 50,000 people braved an Abitibian cold of minus 25 to demonstrate against a similar bill tabled by former minister André Valcourt.

Yesterday, the caucus of the Bloc Quebecois received the major leaders of the FTQ-the Quebec Labour Federation-for which I worked for 19 years. They voiced their strong opposition to the cuts in social programs, and in particular to Bill C-17.

On May 1st of this year, the major Quebec unions will be holding a gigantic demonstration against the neo-conservative policies of the Liberal governments of Canada and Quebec. Rest assured, Madam Speaker, that I will be there.

The Canadian union movement-I conclude, Madam Speaker-is unanimous in its opposition to Bill C-17, and this includes the CLC which has 2.2 million members. For all these reasons, I will vote against the bill.

[Integration Of Immigrants, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to the media the minister said that the COFIs were hiding the Canadian reality. Does he not realize that by saying that he challenges all that had been accepted under the federal-provincial agreement, the Cullen-Couture agreement, signed in 1978, which recognizes the distinctiveness of Quebec and allows it to integrate its immigrants into the French community?

[Integration Of Immigrants, April 14th, 1994]

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

The minister wonders whether the teaching material used by the COFIs, centres for the integration of immigrants into the French community, refers enough to Canada. He is reported to be about to intervene, despite the fact that this material has been approved by the Quebec Department of Education.

Should I interpret that as an indication that the minister disputes not only the know-how of Quebec when it comes to the integration of immigrants, but also its exclusive jurisdiction over education?

[Citizenship Act, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's statement announcing plans for the development of a new Citizenship Act as well as measures, some quite vague, to speed up the administrative process involved in processing citizenship applications.

We, members of the Bloc Quebecois, recognize that, in the rest of Canada, the Citizenship Act reform announced by the minister may seem meaningful, especially in view of the many obstacles to obtaining citizenship which, as the minister indicated, are attributable to a slow administrative process.

We believe that doing away with citizenship judges is a step in the right direction. It is a fact that this structure is costing taxpayers a great deal and is partly responsible for the backlog in the processing of citizenship applications.

Everyone agrees that a great many of those appointments were actually partisan or political ones. This kind of patronage by the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in our citizenship courts has to stop. That such a backlog exists in the processing of citizenship applications is incredible. As we speak, 220,000 people are waiting to be heard by a citizenship judge, and their numbers are growing by 10,000 every month in

spite of the fact that we have 32 citizenship courts across Canada.

In his 1990 report, the Auditor General severely criticized the absence of performance standards within the citizenship registration and promotion program.

The amount of time required to process applications had increased considerably. In 1986, 91 per cent of all citizenship applications were processed in less than nine weeks, whereas in 1989, only 30 per cent of applications were processed in the same period of time.

Despite the fact that there have been no follow-up checks, delays continue to be a major problem, one that needs to be corrected as quickly as possible. Under the circumstances, the decision to close the citizenship office on St-Denis Street in Montreal is baffling. Will the delays be shortened as a result of this closure, Mr. Speaker?

Clearly, we can no longer accept delays of two years between the filing of the application and the actual administering of the oath of citizenship. Moreover, this anachronistic oath requiring a person to be faithful and to bear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England and to her heirs and successors should also be carefully reviewed.

Having said this, I would also say how surprised I am that the minister has asked the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to make recommendations to him by the month of June. This is not very much time, considering that all aspects of the citizenship issue need to be addressed. Why does the minister not table his bill right away so that the Committee can examine it in the usual manner?

I also want to take this opportunity to criticize the minister's decision to hold consultations outside Parliament and the committee framework on immigration levels for the next ten years. This issue is vitally important to the future of the country. Furthermore, the Official Opposition has no representation in such an outside consultation process. This goes against parliamentary standards worthy of a democratic society.

It is necessary and useful to discuss the administrative, regulatory and legislative measures needed to improve the situation. It is surprising, however, to hear the minister say that one of the objectives of the committee should be to redefine the true meaning of Canada and citizenship, as if somehow these concepts became blurred with the passage of time.

Clearly, the common vision which he would like all immigrants to share is not one-dimensional, but rather multidimensional. We have already said here in this House that there is not only one Canadian reality, but at least three: one for francophones, one for anglophones and one for first nations or aboriginal peoples, whether in Quebec, the Prairies or the Maritimes.

As far as we are concerned, the Canadian reality is not the one painted by the minister, one where citizens form one big family united by common values and the desire to fit into the same mould. As members of a society with its own distinct characteristics, Quebeckers feel a sense of attachment first and foremost to Quebec's economic, social, cultural and political institutions. This was the case long before the Bloc Quebecois sent members to Ottawa, or the Parti Quebecois sent representatives to Quebec City. This attachment to Quebec soil and the unique identity which flows from this sense of belonging are historic realities, ones which must be embraced not only by those who have lived in Quebec for several generations, but also by immigrants like myself wishing to settle permanently in the province.

This morning, I read the statements made by the minister. He is concerned about the vision of Quebec that is being projected by the COFIs in the province. There is nothing unusual going on here, since it is the minister's Liberal colleagues in Quebec who run these centres. Above all, I would ask that the minister not interfere in education as this is a provincial field.

National pride and a sense of attachment to a society, be it Quebec or any other, flows above all from the welcome extended to immigrants, from the way in which their differences are respected and from the process whereby immigrants learn about the history and culture of the people of their adoptive land.

The residents of the Prairies, British Columbia, the Maritimes, Ontario and the Northwest Territories all have their own distinctive cultural features.

In conclusion, while we do not oppose the reform of the Citizenship Act, we must not allow ourselves to be deluded into believing that national identity comes only through citizenship. No, it stems from a desire to live and work in, and to help build a country.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

That will come. I wish to point out his contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of Montreal North. Montreal North also has a recently formed economic and community development corporation that is doing a great job for the people of Montreal North, especially with boards on economic issues that bring together representatives of the people.

The citizens of Montreal North want a federal riding that they can really identify with. In fact, I have consulted the residents of Montreal North about changing the name of my riding.

My riding is named Bourassa, after an outstanding man, a former director of Le Devoir , a great intellectual. But we have a problem because there is a provincial riding with the same name, Bourassa, and there is always confusion. My constituents want the riding to be called Montreal North, so it is more closely identified with our city, just as ridings in other Canadian cities are called Calgary West, Calgary East, Edmonton North, Edmonton South and Québec-Est; they take their name from the city where the riding is located. That is not the case in Montreal North and I am often asked where Bourassa is. Sometimes it is also confused with the former Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa.

We want to keep our riding as it is now. For all these reasons, I oppose the amendments moved by the Reform Party and I support the bill. Rather than proceed with arbitrary administrative revisions, I think that we should instead look at the basic criteria for forming federal constituencies. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would vote for this bill.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for Bill C-18 which suspends the process of redrawing federal electoral boundaries.

My riding of Bourassa takes in the entire city of Montreal North. Currently, I represent the 85,516 residents of this municipality. Under the proposed readjustment, the riding's population would increase to 94,214, whereas the average population of federal ridings is 91,500.

If the proposed reforms are carried out, my riding will extend beyond the limits of Montreal North. This municipality is steeped in history. It has its own well-established traditions and a very strong identity. For over 75 years, it has been home to a vibrant community, organized with people, not just administration, in mind.

In our opinion, the new administrative distribution is totally arbitrary. Montreal North has its own community, economic, social and cultural agencies. There are many community agencies in Montreal North that are doing an amazing job. Montreal North has over 3,000 volunteers. My riding, like the rest of the province, was hard hit by the economic crisis from which we are just now emerging. Fortunately, we can count on community agencies that are doing incredible work.

One local community social service centre in Montreal North recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. A few days ago, a benefit dinner and gala were organized by the CLSC foundation of Montréal-Nord. All local officials were in attendance, including yours truly in his capacity of federal MP. I want to take this opportunity to praise the remarkable work of the director general of the centre who has been there since day one. I also want to assure the centre that it can count on my complete co-operation.

The residents of Montreal North also have close ties to the mayor of their city who has held this post for over thirty years. He recently celebrated three decades in office and I was on hand for the festivities. He enjoys the public's support. Unlike me, he is not a sovereigntist or a member of the Bloc Quebecois. However, I would add that-