Raymonde Folco

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I have one last question for the minister on the definition of the family. We know that the department prepares of list of priorities it uses to determine the type of relationship between an immigrant and the person he will be sponsoring and the members of the family who will have priority and so on down the line.

We have discussed the possibility of establishing a definition of family. We know that a family is defined variously according to the culture. This is a matter I want to put to the minister. In Canada, the family is really a man and a woman, one or two children and grandparents. That is about it. We know that other countries favour a much broader concept of family. I wonder whether the minister would care to enlighten us on how he and his department see the priorities within the family class, and the definition of the family in terms of Canadian immigration.

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, in fact, we have made a number of recommendations to the minister. I want to thank him for his rapid response in order to help reunite families.

I have another question for the minister. When the minister made that statement, many Canadians told us, “Yes, but you know, grandparents coming here are elderly, they will not be able to work, they will be supported by Canadian taxpayers and they may need medication or health care. Who will pay for all that? Who will be responsible for all that?”

This issue is extremely important to Canadians. Can the minister respond to this?

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, Canada's immigration history has not always been a very positive and very happy experience for some. I am thinking of the Chinese community in Canada. Men came to Canada and lived almost all their lives away from family, from their wives, their children, their parents.

We learned something from that: immigrants had to be given every assistance to reunite with their family members. Family reunification was one of the responsibilities of the Government of Canada. The help needed is not only psychological, but social as well. We know it is necessary to help immigrants integrate smoothly into Canadian society. As well, young children can attend school, learn the language and become full-fledged Canadians.

There are, however, a number of problems with this law and these regulations. One area of concern for us is the long delay in processing applications by Canadian residents or citizens to bring relatives such as grandparents into Canada.

There is, therefore, one question I would like to ask the minister about the number of sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents. This number is constantly on the rise, so processing times are constantly getting longer. This is extremely frustrating for the people who are here, and of course also for the family members left behind.

I am therefore asking the minister whether he foresees the possibility of changing the regulations so that a speedier sponsorship process could be used to reunite families more quickly.

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled, “An Examination of New Directions Governing Contribution Agreements for Selected Programs Delivered on Behalf of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada”.

I wish to thank my colleague, the NDP member for Sault Ste. Marie, for bringing forward this initiative to review the government's new directives governing contribution agreements for selected programs delivered on behalf of HSDC.

Some of the concerns we heard from witnesses included the short timeframes to respond to proposals and how the selection criteria is used at times to the disadvantage of tested and established programs.

Once again, I want to thank and congratulate all my colleagues in the government, the official opposition, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP for their contributions, openness and objectivity during our very stimulating discussions.

[Committees of the House, May 12th, 2005]

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I am unable to respond directly to the question, because I was not a member of this committee and I did not go on its cross-country tour.

However, from having worked for over 30 years in immigration in Quebec, I am convinced—as we see from reading the committee's report, which was presented earlier by the member for Kitchener—Waterloo—that most of the people who appeared before the committee told its members just how important citizenship, and the rights and privileges associated with it, was to them. We must not forget that this committee is composed of members from all parties represented in the House.

Unfortunately, I cannot add much more, since I am not a member of this committee.

[Committees of the House, May 12th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the very important question. I know people in Canada say that having parents, grandparents, spouses and grandchildren join their family here creates problems for Canadians. It is an old story that has been heard from the time Canada was created, if not before.

It is when people are here with their family, parents, spouses and children that they can start a new family and feel just how much help Canada has given them in rebuilding not only their family but their life.

I would also like to mention how disappointed I am that the members opposite, the official opposition and the Bloc can take that so lightly. I do not think they realize how seriously new citizens arriving in Canada take their Canadian citizenship and their responsibilities, unlike the people seated opposite me.

[Committees of the House, May 12th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to the reason why we want to discuss Canadian citizenship. Why is it so important in terms of legislation? Why do we need new citizens in Canada? Why should we have more Canadian citizens?

Canadians are well aware of the fact that we are, unfortunately, an aging population. The hon. members opposite might want to listen to what it means to be a Canadian citizen, since they are Canadians and are entitled to all the privileges that come with Canadian citizenship, but want to reject it.

Let me come back to my speech. Allow me to explain our need for immigrants in this country. We know that by 2017, at the latest, we will have serious problems in the workforce because we will be unable to fill all the available jobs. We have also known for many years now, given the aging population and the low birth rate, that old age pensions will become a serious problem. Not enough young people are contributing to the pension fund for us to even receive benefits.

In the history of Canada, and among ourselves, who sit in the House of Commons at this time, immigration has been an important issue. On this side of the floor, we are greatly interested in two things: that immigrants continue to come to this country in large numbers, and that they acknowledge they are here to stay. We want the government and the people of Canada to recognize that, when these people receive Canadian citizenship, they are here to stay and will make a major contribution to our culture, our history and our economy.

What is more, contrary to what the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill said last week concerning this side of the House, the government in particular, we have already taken some extremely important steps to help newcomers become full-fledged members of Canadian society.

We know that the government of the province I come from, Quebec, has entered into an agreement with the Government of Canada to enable it to bring in a certain number of immigrants who speak French and are therefore able to adapt more readily to Quebec's francophone community. Quebec has also set up reception classes to help immigrant children to integrate into French language classes. These have been a great success. We can see how much these children have become citizens of Canada. They speak French and live in Quebec, but they are fully citizens of Canada.

As well, contrary to what the member for Calgary—Nose Hill said last week, we are helping family reunification. We know that newcomers to Canada have often left families behind. This is a very important issue. We know what a heartrending experience that is, for everyone, and we want to help. We have already put in place a number of measures to help people sponsor relatives, including parents and even grandparents.

Unfortunately, the sponsorship system is slow, indeed, much slower than we would like it to be. That is why we have made a proposal to the minister. A few weeks ago, the minister himself announced that, from now on, sponsored individuals, especially parents and grandparents, will be allowed to come here on multiple-entry tourist visas so that they can remain in Canada while their applications for immigration and sponsorship are being processed. This means that new immigrants will be integrated as quickly and as smoothly as possible, particularly by becoming citizens.

Since I became a member of Parliament, and even earlier, I have attended hundreds of citizenship ceremonies in Quebec. I have seen thousands of people from around the world swear they will be good Canadian citizens. What does that oath mean? It means that these individuals recognize that being a citizen of Canada means enjoying rights, the same rights as every other citizen.

That has not always been recognized. A citizen who was not born Canadian but has become Canadian is entitled to the same rights as every other Canadian-born citizen. This is something important that we have created here in Canada and that we will continue to recognize. All Canadian citizens are equal before the law. They all enjoy the same rights and the same privileges. They all have the same responsibilities. More and more, people taking the oath before a citizenship judge recognize that to be a Canadian citizen is also a responsibility.

The success of individuals who have become Canadian citizens is obvious here in the House. They have accepted this responsibility. Many people here in the House were not born in Canada and have accepted the responsibility of representing other Canadians, both those born here and elsewhere. These MPs have shouldered the responsibility of being elected, helping to create Canada's legislation and working on behalf of their fellow Canadians, both those born here and elsewhere.

So, the rights and responsibilities that new citizens accept are extremely important. I would even say this is a fundamental part of the oath sworn before the citizenship judge. People who take this oath know and accept this and are extremely satisfied with it.

My riding of Laval—Les Îles has a very high percentage of new citizens, people who came from many countries, including Portugal, Greece, Armenia, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. They all work. They send their children to school. They have agreed to help Canada. They have come here for a better life. However, they have accepted their responsibilities not only toward Canada as a country but also toward their fellow Canadians.

[Housing, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour and Housing. In 1999 the government created a unique program as part of its response to the homelessness crisis in Canada. The supporting communities partnership initiative is a successful and popular program that creates a more integrated and inclusive approach to homelessness.

This program is scheduled to end in 2006, next year. Could the Minister of Labour and Housing tell this House what the government's intentions are regarding this important program?

[World Health Day, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, “Making Every Mother and Child Count” is the theme of today's World Health Day celebrations. Yet, in parts of Africa, despite great progress, African women have a 1 in 16 risk of maternal death during pregnancy. This was part of an empowering presentation last night by Dr. Florence Mirembe of the Makerere Medical School in Uganda.

I wish to congratulate the Minister of International Cooperation for her announcement today, increasing by over $90 million Canada's contribution to projects aimed at improving maternal and child health in developing countries.

As Chair of the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population and Development I encourage our government to increase public sector aid to international development to 0.7% of our GDP by 2015.

That is what we consider our fair share toward meeting our commitment to fund programs that support reproductive health, equal rights, population issues and sustainable development.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-272 which was introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

I would like to say at the very outset that all parties in this House support the intent of this bill seeking to reunite families, to help Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada bring members of their family to Canada so that they can live here together. Naturally, we are all in agreement. And not only does the government agree but I think that, at this point, it is essential to point out that the opposition members who support this bill have not read the legislation, the act and its regulations, on citizenship and immigration.

Our Canadian legislation on immigration and refugee protection already provides that a Canadian citizen or permanent resident may sponsor a relative who is not his or her brother, sister, child or spouse, regardless of age, if the sponsor does not have a spouse, a common-law partner, a conjugal partner, a child, a mother or father.

It is clear in the regulations what is already in there and what would be pointlessly added through this bill: a relative who is a child of that mother or father, that is to say a brother or sister; a relative who is a child of a child of that mother or father, that is to say a grandchild, and so on and so forth.

The regulations, which are already part of the legislation, state very clearly that members of the extended family of a permanent resident of Canada or of a Canadian citizen can be sponsored by this citizen or permanent resident.

So, what is the point of this bill? I think the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, who introduced this bill, did not read the legislation or its regulations very well. I invite him to do so.

I want to point out that it was the Liberal Party of Canada that, from the beginning, opened Canada's doors to the immigration of non-whites and non-Christians, an immigration that treats everyone in the world equally. It was the Liberal Party of Canada that opened up immigration to persons of colour, people not only from northern or eastern Europe, but from Africa, Latin America and Asia, East Asia in particular.

I do not understand what the members opposite mean when they talk about unfair immigration. This is simply not so since we know that our government, for several years now, has done everything it can to ensure that immigration is as fair as possible, regardless of race, religion, gender and so forth.

It is important to remember that our government now has a new policy to allow members of the extended family—and I emphasize, the extended family—during their sponsorship period, to come and stay in Canada while their sponsorship is being processed.

This is another indication of what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada has done. Let us say that aging parents are involved and a son or daughter has applied for sponsorship. These parents can come to Canada while their sponsorship application is being processed. In that sense, families are reunited in a humanitarian way that, I think, is an example to the world.

Canada's immigration and refugee protection legislation is indeed a model for the entire world. Everywhere we go in the world people talk about our immigration law.

I represent the riding of Laval—Les Îles in Quebec. It is a riding with many francophones, but it is also multicultural. I can tell the House that many people come to my office asking for help sponsoring a family member. Adopting a private members' bill that repeats what the regulations already say is not the way to help these people come here. Instead, our government is trying to help these people to wait with their families, here in Canada, until they can be legally sponsored by a family member.

Thus, I would like to emphasize that the key point here is that an extended family is already accepted in the regulations governing sponsorship. The wording, which I read a few moments ago, saying, “a relative who is a child of that mother or father”, may seem quite muddled. Still, it was a way for the legislator, when drafting these regulations, to be very clear about the definition of a relative or family, since we know that families are defined differently according to the culture and the country from which they come. Consequently, this definition in the regulations of the extended family, which includes the grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts and cousins is meant to be as broad as possible.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we, the Liberals, the government in office, do not oppose the spirit of this bill. We will vote against the bill, but not because we disagree with its principle; we agree with that. It is simply that the bill is totally unnecessary, because it simply repeats what already exists in the Canada's immigration act.