Raymonde Folco

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-283, introduced by the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

I want to start by reading a section of Bill C-11, an Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. Unfortunately, I only have the English text with me. I want to read subsection 24(1), which states in English:

A foreign national, who in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

I draw this to the attention of the House because in my opinion, the private member's bill that is being presented cannot be supported in that there are already mechanisms in place to allow visitors to enter Canada under the normal criteria. Let me deal with a few of the objections that I have with the bill.

The first one is that the bill discriminates against those who do not have the means to post a bond. Let us face it; the kind of bond that would have to be posted would have to be important enough in terms of money. We are thinking $20,000 or over. Anything under that would not be a deterrent for anyone. Who could afford $20,000 or more if that person was from a developing country and wanted to come and visit a member of his or her family here? The posted bond would have to be very high, $20,000 or more, and in case of default how would this money be collected?

More important, this is the beginning of what we on this side of the House see as a two tier system for immigration. God knows we have tried hard enough on this side of the House over the last 50 or 60 years to actually reform the immigration law in this country to make the immigration law as non-racist and as non-discriminatory as possible and as non-discriminatory against people who have little or no money.

This is a bill that discriminates for people who have money or who have a sponsor who has money. This would be a two tier system.

I also see a great danger here, namely the danger that consortiums, immigrant and refugee smugglers will take advantage. How? Money is put aside and a person who wants to come here, but was previously refused the possibility of coming to Canada, is smuggled in. Once the person arrives in Canada, he is forced to reimburse his sponsor with interest. And how would this reimbursement be made? It would be through years of poorly paid labour, as we have already seen. We saw it several years ago when a large number of people came here illegally by ship from southwestern China. These people just dropped out of sight. They arrived in Canada and were never seen again, even though money had been deposited. This sum will have to be high enough. At that point, it is the sponsored person who has to reimburse it, and at what price.

Another point is that people who have money and who have been refused, and I emphasize the point that they have already been refused entry into Canada, would be able to enter regardless of any reason for which they had been refused as long as they had the money. I refer to this two tier system which I mentioned before.

There are already a number of possibilities which are available to people wishing to enter Canada as temporary visitors. I have just mentioned section 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but that is done without a bond. That can be done without the person asking for money.

In the case of a family emergency, a marriage or a baptism, or tragically there may be a sudden death in the family, I am chair of a caucus where we have made a number of simple recommendations to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration so that these requests can be quickly dealt with and people can arrive in good time for the ceremony for which they have asked to come to Canada. There are ways for these people to come without having to post a bond.

There is no reason to deny a request unless there are real serious reasons for it, and the bill does not even touch this matter. There may be some cases, and there are cases, where when a tourist wishes to come to Canada he or she is refused because there is not a strong attachment shown to his or her country of origin and the officials are afraid he or she might not go back. There are sometimes some very real reasons that person cannot enter Canada. Certainly this bill does not even touch this particular aspect.

Clause 5 of the bill adds subsection 7 to section 183 of the act and reads in part:

Despite any other provision—

(a) may not work or study while in Canada

(b) may not apply for an extension of their authorization to remain in Canada—

When tourists arrive in Canada and have a tourist visa valid for a few weeks or months, there is a real possibility for them to apply for an extension of their visa, not once but twice. In this bill, though, it would be impossible for these people to extend their tourist visa.

I would like to mention, notwithstanding anything that a member of the opposition might have said, that this bill really does run against the Geneva convention, the protocol on refugees of 1956. It is very important. Some of the people opposite might think that our charter is not important. They might think that the Geneva convention is not important, but on this side of the House we think it is fundamental.

Canada would be forced to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the UN convention for the protection of refugees and to return individuals to their countries because of the bond stipulated return. What would happen if while that person was here as a visitor to Canada a conflict erupted in his or her home country, as has been the case in Chile, Honduras or Iran? Does that mean we would send that person back to his or her home country in spite of a non-conflict over there? This is totally against our rules and regulations. This is against the kind of commitment that Canadians have made to those people who come and are on the international scene.

I would like to bring members' attention to some very recent changes to the immigration policy which show that the Liberal government has been very open to immigration and continues to be. The government is very open to the kind of difficulties that families may have when they want a family member to come here to visit. On February 18 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration changed the policy to allow family class members to remain in Canada while their applications are being considered. How could anyone say that we are against immigration? This is something that makes it even easier for family class members to be sponsored. This will go a considerable way to reduce any backlog and deal with administrative concerns.

Of course there is a large number of people who want to come, but through these recent changes the backlog will be reduced.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the fact that, in order to be eligible under Bill C-283, the applicants would have to have been refused entry into Canada. The reasons for this refusal would have to be examined first before these people could be told: “You have money, you can enter.” In no way does this bill analyze the reasons for the refusal.

Canada is a country to which people gain entry by having money. There are a certain number of neutral criteria.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming a tradition on the other side of the House to insult the members on this side. However, I will disregard my feelings.

A budget normally does not go into a great deal of detail. It gives the large orientation of the government in terms of how much money will be spent on programs. I would like to add that in terms of what is called in French “les collectivités”, let us not forget that the provincial governments are responsible for these collectivities and that they are an extremely important partner for the federal government.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to be quiet, so that I can continue my speech.

My suburban riding is interested. We have seniors, and small and medium size businesses. These are people who are interested in the kind of speech I gave. This is the information that I wanted to give them.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the term “canned speeches”. I think the tradition in this House has always been to be respectful of other members. I ask from the member the same respect that I would give him if he were to make a speech. This is a speech that I have written in response to what I think will interest the constituency that I represent here in the House of Commons, which is Laval—Les Îles.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Laval—Les Îles is a suburban riding. We do not have farms. I could not in a 10 minute speech cover all--

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member's question would be to say that, first, the Government of Canada is not the only partner in this undertaking. We must not forget that the provinces are the leading partners, if I may say, in this program. Second, in regard to doctors in particular, the medical associations all across Canada are also extremely important partners.

I would like to add that more of our doctors graduated abroad than in Canada.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in Parliament to respond to the budget delivered so eloquently by our finance minister yesterday. I want to congratulate everyone who worked so hard to present such an action oriented, thoughtful budget that embodies so well the changing requirements of Canada.

This is an eloquent budget for Canadians, whatever their situation, whether they have young children, work in a company, or run a small or medium business, whether they are health care professionals, work in research and development or in technology, or whether they are concerned about the environment. This budget responds to the needs of seniors, in particular, and to our housing infrastructure needs. This budget responds to their needs.

This budget contains three major messages. First, Canadians know that the government keeps its word; second, our government has a vision for the future; and third, our government has a role to play with confidence on the international stage, one that we will play with pride and dignity.

In the time that I have I will deal with four main areas of the budget: seniors; workforce integration of newcomers; regional investments; and, if time allows, global responsibilities.

In my riding of Laval—Les Îles, there are over 27,000 persons between the ages of 65 and 74. More than 15,000 are women, 13,000 others are over age 75, and a little more than 3,000 are over 85. Only 920 of these people are men, unfortunately.

Today, the Province of Quebec as well as Toronto and Vancouver are among the regions with the largest populations of seniors. Not so long ago, in 1991, 92% of persons aged 65 and over lived in their own residence and 28% lived alone, as opposed to 8% of people between ages 15 and 64. These figures have not changed very much. As the finance minister said, women make up a large proportion of the elderly.

The seniors in my riding will be satisfied with this budget. The increase of $2.7 billion over five years in the guaranteed income supplement far exceeds the $1.5 billion promised for the same period. In all, 1.6 million seniors who are now receiving guaranteed income supplement benefits will benefit from this increase, including the 50,000 or so who will soon qualify for it. Our government takes care of the million elderly who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and who will benefit from the 2005 budget.

The report of the Liberal Task Force on Seniors, tabled in February 2004, called for the creation of a ministry dedicated solely to seniors. Our government has responded. I want to say to that unidentified individual who appeared before the Task Force that the government is taking “a leadership role in developing a comprehensive integrated approach to today's and tomorrow's seniors”. That is a quote from page 9 of the report.

The government is assuming its responsibilities and responding to the task force's request by creating the new National Seniors' Secretariat, which comes with a commitment of $13 billion over five years.

It means that with the establishment of this secretariat within the Department of Social Development Canada, seniors' organizations will no longer have to deal with a maze of different avenues when it comes to dealing with seniors' related policies. This secretariat will be equipped to promote better coordination of government programs and services that matter to seniors. It will also serve as a focal point for collaborative efforts with provincial, territorial and municipal partners.

I would like to add that I am very pleased the interventions I have made with the minister for a very long time have finally paid off.

While seniors are a growing population, the reality is that our workforce needs far outstrip the supply. Statistics Canada continues to tell us that if we do not pay attention we will have a society that cannot meet its labour force demands. If that happens, regardless of what we do as a government, productivity will suffer, services will suffer and our capacity to play any significant role on the world stage to have a robust economy will be diminished. Our birth rate is still below replacement value at approximately 1.2 persons per couple.

That is why our labour force today, and in the foreseeable future, will depend on the skills of immigrants. Newcomers have told the government that they need to be even better equipped to work within Canadian institutions and begin to put their skills to real use in their new home, Canada.

This is what the government did in its 2005 budget. Thanks to a $398 billion investment to improve the settlement and integration programs and the client services for newcomers to Canada, we will have a workforce that can meet the needs of our prosperous economy. This includes investing $125 million over three years for the next programs, the workplace skills strategy and $30 million more over three years as well for literacy.

This government has a vision. Even the leader of the Conservative Party seemed to agree with what the Minister of Finance had to say.

He said that he did not see anything in this budget that would warrant two elections inside a year.

Yes, part of our vision as a government is our determination and commitment to developing people skills, human capital after all, because it is among the cornerstones of the Government of Canada's economic and social policy.

As a country, we cannot on the one hand welcome skilled immigrants, bring them into this country since we need their skills, and then leave them to fend for themselves. As devoted as they may be to Canada, they will not stay.

We need to encourage that workforce to be as skilled as possible. We need an inclusive workforce. One of the ways we can continue to attract and retain skilled immigrants is by helping them to adapt to their environment. We must give them the support they need because Canada benefits. The $398 million will go a long way to making that happen.

Part of our workforce integration strategy for newcomers will include the recognition that foreign trade professionals are a skilled group of people whose talents are being wasted. This is at a time when Canadians across the country are complaining about how difficult it is for example to find a family doctor. Those doctors that we have are overworked and are about to retire without a more cohesive replacement strategy in place.

Part of our government's vision to meet the increasing health care needs is to more effectively and quickly assist internationally trained health care professionals who have trained outside Canada with a $75 million infusion over five years to strengthen health care under the 10 year plan, and to accelerate and expand their assessment and integration. Evaluation of their skills, knowledge, language proficiency and prior learning activities will be more effectively carried out.

Investing in the regional economies of this country is a major priority for this government. In his first Speech from the Throne in 2004, repeated in the 2004 budget, our Prime Minister made a commitment to work together with municipalities in order to create and strengthen inter-governmental partnerships, while complying with the respective jurisdictions. This is the only way to channel the national priorities and the objectives in the cities and communities of Canada.

Like rivers that flow to the ocean, the regions are part of a greater whole. We cannot allow ourselves as a government to be shortsighted, because it is only collectively that we can achieve our objectives.

Part of those first steps called for a 57.1% GST rebate. This has been increased to a full 100% which means municipalities will receive more than $7 billion over the next 10 years to help them fund much needed infrastructure projects such as roads, transit and clean water.

Tomorrow starts today because economic development in the Quebec region will benefit since the government will also be investing more than $300 million over the next five years to support the region.

What does this actually mean per capita in real dollars? It means economic development in the region will be supported by $221.5 million or $44.3 million per year and will become a permanent increase to Quebec's community economic development budget. Local economic development among small and medium sized enterprises can then be supported by the Quebec agency.

By means of the community development program—

[Committees of the House, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-22, an act to establish the Department of Social Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.

Bill C-22 as well as Bill C-23 represents a recommendation to the standing committee in June 2000 when Parliament had an opportunity to review the report. This is a concrete example of the work of the committee in dealing with legislation.

It is also an indication of the commitment of our government in terms of the Prime Minister's priorities in strengthening Canada's social foundations. We now have a focal point with these two pieces of legislation in our social development.

[Rafik Hariri, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sympathy to the people of Lebanon, whose former prime minister, Rafik Hariri, has been assassinated.

Death is something that is inevitable and expected, but always a shock. The death of Mr. Hariri was particularly devastating. The whole country is indeed in a state of shock after losing a man who held such hope for his country.

The former prime minister was a much loved leader and a benefactor to young people seeking a better education, but lacking the means to pursue their dreams.

A philanthropist, he believed in moving beyond diversity, creating harmony and building a society free from tyranny.

I offer my most sincere condolences to Canadians of Lebanese origin in my riding, Laval—Les Îles, and in Canada, as they mourn Mr. Hariri, a man of vision.

[Committees of the House, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.

With your permission, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their cooperation in reviewing this very technical aspect of the legislation in such a short time. It heartens me to be working together with my hon. colleagues from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party.

It goes to show that when partisanship is put aside much can be accomplished to ensure that Canadians are given the highest quality of service.

[Black History Month, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is a time of celebration for Canadians of African descent and it is a time to reflect on the significance of their history in Canada and the substantial economic and social contribution they continue to make to this day.

2005 will mark 50 years since Canada signed the first formal labour market agreement with the Caribbean. This marked the beginning of controlled immigration from non-white countries. This was a domestic scheme now known as the live-in caregiver program. Since then we have depended on teachers and other professionals to fill our labour needs.

Seventy per cent of our total labour force growth is now made up of immigrants. They come from the Caribbean and other parts of the African diaspora.

I congratulate therefore the 2,000 or so constituents of Laval—Les Îles of Black African descent as they celebrate their history. I also want to thank them for continuing to contribute to improving their adopted land, Canada.