Raymonde Folco

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Fairness is as important between individuals as it is between provinces.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois got so carried away.

I am looking forward to the Quebec finance minister bringing down his budget; we will see how much Quebec has gained, not lost, from the latest federal budget.

Where the member talks about changes made in the transfers, I talk about fairness. Canada is a country where we talk about fairness.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word “nervy” in French is an insult, and I reject this insult. I would ask the member to use more polite language with me.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

First, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance and his staff for the remarkable job they did once again this year with the budget.

For the second year in a row, our federal budget, the Canadians' budget, succeeded in being deficit free, this after two decades of running deficits. The light is no longer at the end of the tunnel, because we have come out of the tunnel. We have every reason to be proud.

I heartily congratulate the minister for having focused his budget on health, thus reflecting the concerns expressed by Canadians, who were increasingly worried about health care, to the point of thinking that it might be in jeopardy. The minister delivered and brilliantly so. Our government listened.

This budget meets the concerns of my constituents in Laval West and of all Canadians. People from all walks of life have expressed their legitimate concerns to me. Thanks to the budget, these concerns are now greatly alleviated. I am referring to issues that concern our aging Canadian population, such as health, and the middle generation, which has to deal with the dependency of both the younger and older generations.

This phenomenon will of course not be reversed with the budget, but at least this budget will give us the means to adjust to the best of our ability to this new situation.

Let me mention a few figures to better show the scope of this phenomenon. In 1981, 9.6% of the population was 65 or older. Since then, this has increased by approximately 1% a year and, in 1996, 12% of the population was at least 65 years of age. It is expected that over 20% of Canadians will be in this age group by 2031. This means that one in five Canadians will be at least 65 years old. Furthermore, I would remind everyone listening that this is only 32 years away, and time is flying.

The aging of our population, a phenomenon common to all industrialized countries, has had, and will continue to have, a number of important consequences.

First, health services must adapt to new demands, for seniors have special physical and mental health problems. Unfortunately, for instance, they lose their autonomy and their mobility. More gerontologists will therefore be needed.

Long term care is more appropriate for this age group. Home care, provided by relatives, helps prevent the loneliness to which they are too often prone. And, of course, research must continue, and it must increasingly focus on developing care for seniors and the next generations.

Like health care services, social services will also be increasingly called upon to meet the needs of a population that is demanding programs tailored to its needs.

Pensions, for instance, will represent an increasingly large component of federal budgets. Other programs will certainly have to be developed to more effectively meet the needs of those losing their autonomy. There must also be support for charitable groups and organizations that will undoubtedly come on the scene to provide assistance to seniors, which will make up one fifth of the population.

In fact, the problem will be not so much one of finding additional resources as of redistributing them effectively, for the rate of dependency will be no higher than it was in the 1950s and 1960s after the baby boom. In those days, the number of young children who depended on their parents' work and care was even greater than the number of seniors who will depend on social services and on their families in the future.

Today, part of the population officially categorized as inactive belongs to that category because it is getting into the twilight years and is taking a well deserved rest to accomplish other things. Thirty years ago, there was a similar part of the population that was simply too young to work, busy growing up and getting an education.

This means that pensions and health care will account for an increasing portion of government budgets to meet the needs of seniors. Inversely, the portion allocated to family allowances and early childhood education will decrease. This trend is well reflected in our 1999 budget. In other words, in proportion of government revenues, there will be more people receiving pensions, but there will be less people in our schools and universities.

With the baby boom that followed World War II, millions of young people who were not going to enter the labour force until the 1970s and who required special care were born in Canada. The Liberal governments of the day responded to this new situation in an intelligent and responsible manner. Specialized social services were provided.

Tax deductions were granted and the health system put in place to respond to a new demographic reality, but today we face a similar situation, but in reverse, with an age dependency ratio closer to what we had in the 1950s and 1960s. This means moving from programs geared toward baby boomers directly to those to be developed for seniors.

Programs must once again keep pace with changing demographics. Now, we must respond intelligently to an aging population, as we did in the past to a younger one. Our government has realized how important this is. We have started taking steps and are even ahead.

Regarding the health services, the minister has done well. Over the next five years, $11.5 billion will be transferred to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. In addition, $1.4 billion will be injected into medical research. This is a clear and effective response to the concerns and health needs of Canadians in general, and seniors in particular.

Rumour has it that the Bloc Quebecois was not too happy with the changes made to the terms of transfer under the CHST. Quebec will not get as much, they protest. As usual.

But our colleagues should know that a budget is a whole, made up of different parts. The Minister of Finance can readjust certain transfers to make the whole more consistent and ensure that everything works properly. He can transfer less under a given program in order to transfer more under another. Criticism must not be voiced out of context, or deal with concrete issues in abstract terms.

The fact of the matter is that the so-called cut in transfers under the CHST is more than made up by the increase in equalization payments. With these two types of transfers, in the next 13 months alone, Quebec will receive 48% of all the money paid to the provinces, and 29% over the next five years. That is not bad for a province with 24% of the Canadian population.

The figures do not lie. Quebec, like the rest of Canada, comes out a winner with this budget. In addition to the substantial and impressive funds injected into health, the tax relief announced in the budget is another way to respond to population aging, by leaving more money in the pockets of seniors and the families looking after them.

The 3% surtax introduced to combat the deficit serves no purpose now and will disappear completely. The basic personal exemption rises to $7,131. So the 600,000 Canadians with more modest income will not pay income tax. By the fiscal year 2001-02, our government will have cut taxes by $16.5 billion. Two million low or middle income families will receive increased child benefits.

I am unable to finish, because I am out of time, but I would ask all members of this House to have the courage to recognize that our government, through the Minister of Finance, looked after the real problems of Canadians.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Halton and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Last October, in Kosovo, tens of thousands of displaced people were living homeless as an armed conflict was raging between separatist Albanian Kosovars and security forces of the federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In spite of the protests from the international community and of the attention by the United Nations security council, the conflict continued and innocent civilians suffered. It is only when NATO made a credible threat to use force against President Milosevic that a humanitarian disaster was prevented.

In spite of the positive effects of the events of last October and of the agreements with NATO and OSCE, which the Yugoslav government accepted, no real progress has been achieved toward a durable peace in Kosovo. Diplomatic efforts have not succeeded in getting both sides to the table and the ceasefire in the area remains tense and fragile.

Moreover, I was reading today, in one of the Montreal dailies, that Robin Cook, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, said in the Commons, and I quote “Two weeks ago, I warned the House of Commons that I could not guarantee that the talks would necessarily lead to an agreement. Today I am sorry to say that this is still the case”.

Finally, after weeks of provocation from both sides and the killing of dozens of innocent people, it became clear that, once again, we had to force President Milosevic and the Kosovar leaders to choose between serious negotiations or the use of force by NATO.

NATO support for the diplomatic endeavours of the international community did produce results in Kosovo. On February 6, both parties met in Rambouillet, France, to work out a peace agreement. It is no secret that, to this day, the Rambouillet talks have not been easy.

We know there is still much to be done and that the eventual conclusion of a final agreement would be a significant achievement. Although the outcome of the talks is still uncertain, the involvement of the international community in Kosovo is just beginning.

The conflict in Kosovo has ramifications that extend well beyond the borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We should not ignore the fact that this war-torn region has been devastated because of leaders who shamelessly play on people's fears in order to fuel the conflict. Once again, the Yugoslav government's actions in Kosovo hurt the most vulnerable and make the peace process and the integration of the various ethnic groups in the Balkans all the more difficult.

The displacement of Albanian Kosovar civilians and the polarization of communities resulting from the conflict have had a direct impact not only on Serbia and Montenegro, but also on neighbouring countries. Hundreds if not thousands of Albanians have tried to flee their country because they feared for their lives. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in Bosnia, refugees have also tried to escape from the country. The conflict is having repercussions on all of southern Europe and the international community cannot ignore them.

The Rambouillet talks provide an historic opportunity for the leaders of both parties. For peace is now in sight, if the parties gathered in Rambouillet negotiate in good faith and agree to the fair solution being offered. It is up to them to fulfil their obligations to the UN, to the international community and, let us not forget, to the local populations they claim to represent. This unique opportunity must not be allowed to go by.

If the antagonists shoulder their responsibilities and take this opportunity to reach a peace agreement, the international community should support their efforts. Implementation of a peace accord in Kosovo will certainly be no easy matter. Rebuilding the civil institutions destroyed during months of fighting, introducing a democratic political system and creating a representative police force are daunting tasks.

The OSCE and other organizations will face quite a challenge implementing the civilian aspects of a peace accord. Without a safe environment, however, none of these undertakings will even be possible. It is impossible to envisage a positive outcome.

But NATO is in a position to make a tremendous contribution to peace in Kosovo, having already played a crucial role in ending the hostilities and getting the parties to the negotiating table. Once an accord has been signed, as was the case in Bosnia, NATO's presence will be essential to implementing the military aspects of the accord, separating the forces and supervising troop withdrawal.

NATO will be just as important in establishing a safe and stable environment for the civilian reconstruction of the country and the establishment of peace, and that is what we are talking about. This is a vital contribution that NATO, with its incomparable experience, can readily handle.

As regards the United Kingdom, London would like to help by sending troops to establish peace in the Serb province, but only as part of an international force ensuring stability.

To respond to the member for Compton—Stanstead, I read in the same paper that the some 8,000 British soldiers are on standby and that according to the Pentagon spokesperson, the rapid dispatch of marines is an obvious option.

We can see therefore that other countries are preparing to intervene under the NATO umbrella. As concerns Canada, we have been playing an important role in the Balkans for a number of years.

After years of peacekeeping with the blue berets serving as part of the United Nations' forces in Bosnia, we will continue as a member of NATO and its stabilization force to make a significant contribution to peace in the region.

The international community recognizes that NATO has played a vital role, not only to establish peace in Bosnia, but to help preserve this peace and to bring the country closer to stability and normality. Once again, NATO is called on to establish peace in the Balkans and, once again, Canada must be prepared to play its role.

The international community is contemplating deploying 30,000 men under NATO command in Kosovo to oversee the application of a future peace accord.

At this crucial time, in this crucial place, we must protect the investments we and our allies have made in the Balkans over the past ten years. Recent history has shown NATO can play a positive role in supporting the international community's determination to restore peace and promote stability.

Clearly NATO's presence in Kosovo is critical if one wants to give peace a real chance. It is a well known fact that for a long time now President Milosevic has been making commitments, only to break them as soon as he no longer is the focus of international attention. It thus follows that a peace agreement without teeth would be easy to ignore and would most likely fail.

NATO's credibility made these negotiations possible, and without it peace would not last in Kosovo. We believe Canada, as an important member of the alliance, has a crucial role to play in any NATO operation in Kosovo.

We have accomplished a lot, but there is still a lot to do. NATO's role in Kosovo is clear and crucial, and Canada has an important role to play to ensure the alliance's intervention is a success.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to the charge of racism. My record speaks for itself. I have worked practically all my life with people from various backgrounds, no matter where they come from and no matter what colour they are. I take great exception to this charge.

We must not close our eyes to the fact that we may be born elsewhere. It is not an insult to be born elsewhere. It is a fact of life.

Once again the comments of the hon. member of the official opposition are on subjects that are absolutely not part of the debate. When he first rose this morning he said that we were not having a debate about the citizenship question, so I challenged the member to speak on the question of citizenship. Why does he want to go back to immigration? We know there is a link between the two, but we also know that in the near future we will have a debate on immigration in the House.

I ask members of the official opposition and of all other opposition parties to debate the bill before us which deals with citizenship. We will come to immigration in due time.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the question from the hon. member of the opposition.

First of all, there is a legal agreement between Quebec and the Canadian government with respect to immigration and refugees. The Government of Quebec has a large say in the criteria for accepting immigrants into Quebec.

I would remind the member that the Government of Quebec already enjoys considerable autonomy in this regard.

Furthermore, the Government of Quebec has criteria such as knowledge of the French language and the culture of Quebec that it uses in screening immigrants wishing to come to Quebec. That is one point.

The second is that, under this agreement, the Government of Quebec receives a large sum of money from the federal government, giving it complete control over all the budgets for integrating immigrants into Quebec society. By integrating, I mean learning the French language and the culture of Quebec.

The Government of Quebec receives the money from the federal government and allocates it for the provision of courses in the French language and the culture of Quebec. Immigrants to Quebec are therefore able to learn the province's language and culture and be as fully integrated as possible into Quebec society.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely surprised by what the member of the official opposition has just said. He said that the minister has ignored Canadians. It seems to me that it is quite the opposite. The minister has travelled from coast to coast to coast. We all know that she travelled across Canada last year, met with hundreds of Canadians and asked for public consultation from coast to coast to coast. She has done this in my own riding and throughout my home province of Quebec and other provinces. That is one aspect.

The second aspect is that the intention of debate is to consult members not only of her caucus but of the other caucuses, the official opposition and the other opposition parties. This is exact reason we have parliamentary debate. It is Canadian tradition to debate a bill at second reading so I do not understand the comments of the hon. member across the floor.

We are talking about citizenship by birth. This particular bill continues the Canadian tradition of saying that children who are born on Canadian soil automatically become Canadian citizens. This is a longstanding tradition as I explained in the speech I just made. We want to continue this most important Canadian tradition.

I would like to ask a question of the hon. member who I know is a Canadian that was not born here but was born elsewhere. I cannot understand how people who have come here, who have been received into our Canadian family, can make comments which mean they would like to close the immigration door once they are on Canadian soil. This is totally unacceptable.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the comments made by the members of the opposition in the last few minutes. Nowhere in this debate in which the members of the official opposition have participated have they mentioned anything about the Citizenship Act. The reason behind this debate is to make suggestions to the minister responsible regarding the bill before us now. Nowhere have I heard any creative or constructive suggestions regarding this bill. I remind the Canadian public that those members are talking about immigration and not about citizenship. My own remarks will touch directly on the subject.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in the debate on Bill C-63 introduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This is a bill I support fully, for a number of reasons.

Canadian society and its values have changed since the citizenship law of 1977. Canadians have changed. They now have friends and neighbours of various origins. More than ever they do business all over the planet. They adopt children from overseas and they travel more often than ever before.

With all these social changes, the distinction between citizens and immigrants has now often become synonymous with the distinction between existing citizens and potential citizens.

The wording of the new legislation on citizenship reflects what each of us feels increasingly in our identity as Canadians. By touching on political identity, this legislation reflects Canadians.

This legislation is the people of Canada. It is itself a citizenship act, because it does more than simply create legal Canadian citizenship, that is official citizenship for legal purposes. It also draws on Canadian citizenship, everyday citizenship as reflected in the love we feel for our country, the specific way we are Canadians.

I would like to emphasize two important aspects of Bill C-63. First, it corresponds to our modern way of understanding citizenship. Second, it recognizes the increased importance we give to the sentiment of belonging.

Traditionally, the Canadian concept of citizenship was better defined as the law of the soil rather than the law of the blood. Since the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, a child born of Mexican parents, for example, automatically became a Canadian citizen at birth if he was born on Canadian soil.

Even then, Canada was innovative. Our country was beginning to distance itself from narrow nationalism based on the law of the blood, which had twice brought disaster to Europe.

Our citizenship supports our values, which lead to the law of the soil, and in turn, based on acceptance and collective construction, support citizenship. Our citizenship is thus a constitutional identity rather than an organic, a tribal or even a mystic one.

This logic brings us to consider adopted children who, when this bill becomes law, will no longer be differentiated from natural born children. This is one of the important changes proposed by Bill C-63. Our government recognizes the importance of adoption for the family. And in fact for family members this will probably be one of the most critical events in their life.

An immigrant who becomes a citizen enjoys the same rights as any other Canadian, but in return, he or she has an obligation to respect the values and standards that make these rights possible. These exclusive rights we must not forget are actually acquired privileges and such privileges do not come free of charge to anyone.

Bill C-63 introduces a modified oath that places greater emphasis on the defence of Canadian civic and democratic values, rather than merely seeking to create a formal attachment to an abstract Canada.

Canada represents a particular set of values, experiences and feelings for each of us. The suggested oath briefly summarizes the rights and responsibilities inherent in our citizenship and identity as Canadians.

Canada is proud of its democratic principles and these principles apply to all residents. Non-Canadian landed immigrants have the same rights as Canadians, with one exception: they may not take part in the political aspects of democracy in this country.

Other than that, a landed immigrant may enjoy all aspects of life in Canada and the accompanying economic and social rights.

Later on if immigrants decide to really get involved in building our country, they will have to show that they are willing to do this in full knowledge of the requirements and responsibilities expected of citizens. They will have to ask explicitly for the privilege of citizenship and show that they understand all the implications of this new status.

I would now like to look at the second aspect of the citizenship bill, the key role a feeling of belonging plays in national unity.

We are all aware that the rules of trade have changed a great deal. Economic borders have become more permeable. International organizations and agreements such as NAFTA, APEC and WTO have codified laws and informal agreements that manage, encourage and facilitate transnational trade. Because trade is increasingly carried out across borders, business men and women travel much more often than they have ever done.

The government therefore understands the constraints faced by businessmen and women and recognizes the economic contribution they make.

Under the present legislation, three years of residence in Canada are required during the four years preceding an application for citizenship. However, in response to this new economic reality, Bill C-63 will allow a landed immigrant to reside in Canada for three years during a five-year period in order to qualify for citizenship.

We must not lose sight of the fact that citizenship is the cornerstone of political participation, a participation which is not fully possible for someone who has not had the opportunity to assimilate the country's values.

Thanks to Bill C-63, however, we will now require physical presence by the immigrant, and “cut-rate” citizenship will no longer be available.

I would now like to address the most important topic, the loss or the denial of citizenship for reasons of serious crimes.

Our government through Bill C-63 has shown that Canadians are not naive. Because citizenship is such an important notion, utmost vigilance is required. Immigrants who have come to Canada by the use of fraud and who come here to take advantage of the Canadian way of life through a false declaration will find the door closed to them.

Moreover, persons guilty of serious crimes or deemed to be a threat to national security will continue to be unwelcome. Bill C-63 enables us to tighten up this important means of rejection still further in order to protect Canadians properly.

In the same vein, the mechanisms for cancelling citizenship provided in Bill C-63 make it possible to do away with potential fraud or error by revoking the citizenship of persons who ought not to have been granted it.

This does not in any way mean that we will treat old and new citizens differently by threatening new citizens with a punishment inapplicable to old ones, namely loss of their citizenship. All citizens are equal; this is an inviolable principle.

No, this is an acknowledgment that, since the conditions necessary for recognition of citizenship have not been met by certain persons, it will be as if citizenship had never been granted to them.

Canada wants good honest citizens who are able to integrate. Someone who has committed fraud in this connection has, quite obviously, never met the prerequisites of the law. What is more, the serious crimes he has committed may rightly be interpreted as constituting a danger for all Canadians.

In addition, in certain cases citizenship will no longer be as readily passed from generation to generation as in the past.

In a family who has lived abroad for two generations, the third generation could now lose their citizenship at age 28. Let us use as an example a Canadian couple who today seeks a residence in another country. Their children will remain Canadian citizens throughout their entire lives. However, their grandchildren will have to come back and live in Canada for at least four years in the five years preceding their request to remain Canadian citizens and this before their 28th birthday.

In conclusion, I would like to add that Bill C-63 proposes legislation that is better suited to the Canada of today, while still retaining the historical, cultural and linguistic elements that have shaped the identity of our country, and continue to do so. They will even be enhanced and enriched by the contributions of new arrivals from all of the world's regions and all of the world's cultures.

Whether refugees or immigrants who have come to Canada to rejoin family members, to invest or to make new lives for themselves, these newcomers will understand, thanks to this new process of naturalization, that they are becoming members of a big family that owes them much but—and it is vital to keep this in mind—to whom they owe just as much.

[Bill C-55, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for Canada, Bill C-55 is the best solution to a complex situation, for it fully respects our international trade obligations and fits in with our traditional cultural policies.

It will ban a practice which threatens the continuing success of the Canadian periodical industry, namely elimination of Canadian content by offering an unfair advantage to foreign publishers as far as advertising revenues are concerned. This bill protects against price gouging, which already goes on domestically, even in the U.S.

Above all, it maintains fair market conditions for Canadian publishers, without imposing a tax or in any way limiting the content of periodicals, creating subsidies, or limiting readers' choice.

This bill is, therefore, a logical and effective solution.