House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was immigrants.

Topics

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been around for a long time in the House and was part of a government that was in power for 13 years. He is now in opposition, and perhaps for good reason.

He claims to have experience in this area. He claims to have chaired the committee. However, he accomplished absolutely nothing in all the areas that he said were near and dear to his heart. What did he accomplish?

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

I will tell you later.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Why did the member for Kitchener—Waterloo not do what should have been done, regardless of experience? Six ministers, Sergio Marchi, Elinor Caplan, Denis Coderre, Joe Volpe, Judy Sgro, Lucienne Robillard—

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The parliamentary secretary knows he cannot list the names of people, particularly people who are in the chamber.

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, residents of Vancouver Island North know that immigrants are being poorly served. Government policy is a problem, but the problems cannot be blamed on the hard-working staff of the department.

Wait times indicate that it is necessary for the department to hire more staff. People are not getting quality service. We have so many cases in our constituency offices that we have become de facto immigration offices.

For example, since June 2005, we have permanent residents who have tried register their children as permanent residents as well. To this date, the process has not been completed. Their sons and daughters have been going to school in Canada and paying foreign student fees, which are a hardship on these hard-working families. Every time they contact the immigration offices, they are told a different story, and the wait time continues.

Will the hon. parliamentary secretary's government will commit to hiring more staff to deal with the apparent backlog in citizenship and immigration?

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the line where I left off, the appointment of the ministers that have been made in last while have produced more results in matters of days and months than had been produced in years. In fact, those who have been at the helm have actually produced results when the former opposition government and its members did not.

In response to the member's question, part of the problem being experience now is the fact that over the years and under the previous government the backlog grew by 750,000 applicants. That clogged the system because the appropriate funding was not in place. If we look at the funding that has been put in, that is between the provinces and the settlement agreements that have been made, including the injection of $307 million as well as $18 million, it will address some of the concerns—

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the matter of immigration and citizenship in Canada.

The motion before the House states:

That, in the opinion of the House, immigrants to Canada and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are poorly served by this government.

I have only been here two and a half years, but I think this may be the poorest worded motion that I have seen yet. There is no substance to it. It does not suggest anything, it is not specific and it is shallow. It is actually a pretty accurate reflection of the level of discussion I often hear on this issue from members in the Liberal Party.

I have learned a couple of things in the few months since I have been on the committee. First, issues of citizenship and immigration are very important. I visited the offices of Immigration Canada out in Vancouver. When I went in the back room, I saw all the files, I realized that every file represented a person. These are not changes to tax laws or other technicalities. There are real live people on the other side of those files, and it is important those be dealt with fairly and quickly.

It seems to me that the challenges facing the department are administrative and management in nature. These are not ideological issues. These are not partisan issues. I think every person in the House, in fact, every person in Canada understands we are a nation built on immigration. We need immigration and we will continue to need it in the future. This is the reality.

How do we manage this process? How many a year come into Canada? How do we ensure that we get the people our economy and nation needs? At the same time, how do we deal with those people fairly so when they get here, they are able to contribute to life in Canada?

As I think has been said already, there are several chapters in terms of Canadian citizenship. From 1867 until 1947, there was no Canadian citizenship per se. It was not until after the second world war, after 1947, that we had Canadian citizenship. In 1977, 30 years later, there was a re-write of the Citizenship Act and the rules around citizenship changed. Now we find ourselves 30 years later, in 2007, discussing the same issue again.

One of the issues that has been in the news recently is the notion of lost Canadians, people who have lost their citizenship or, in some cases, lost proof of their citizenship. The reason this exists for some people is because some of the rules have changed and have not been very well understood by many people.

Recently, the necessity for many Canadians to get passports for the first time has brought many of these problems to light. They are not new problems, but they have come forward for the first time.

One of 450 cases before the minister now is in my riding. A Canadian born in Ontario moved to Australia in the 1960s. He played hockey there and was asked to play on the Australian Olympic hockey team in 1968. His citizenship was quickly rushed through. It was 30 or 35 years later, when he moved back to Canada, married and worked here. When he went to get a passport, he discovered he was no longer a Canadian citizen. We have been working on that situation and we are going to get that resolved.

The other day when the minister was at committee she said that she had a two track process. The first track is to deal with the cases as they come forward. When individuals think they should be a Canadian citizens, but for some reason are told they are not, she will deal those one on one and assign a staff member to each case to get those cleaned up. At this point there are about 450 of those cases.

I was shocked recently when I heard other members of the House say that the number of lost Canadians was not in the hundreds or even in the thousands, but possibly in the tens or hundreds of thousands, even possibly one million. Those are crazy numbers. I do not know what the answer is, but I do know the minister has made a commitment that she and her staff will deal with them individually to resolve those cases.

The minister also said when she was at committee the other day she recognizes that some changes are needed within her department. She also recognizes that there is a vast amount of experience sitting around the citizenship and immigration committee table. She expressed a willingness and an interest in working with us moving forward and not to act unilaterally. That is the right course of action and is responsible on her part. I go back to my first point which is that this is neither an ideological nor a partisan issue, that is the appropriate way to go forward.

What I find frustrating is that I regularly hear members of the Liberal Party suggest either directly or through innuendo that somehow the Liberal Party is the party of immigration and by extension that other parties are not parties of immigration and even may be anti-immigration. This is patent nonsense.

The Liberals want to move into this top line number of admitting 250,000 or 280,000 or 300,000 people. We can pick whatever number we want as a target, we can set the bar as high as we want. The bottom line is we have to fix the management of the department so that these cases are dealt with more quickly and we get rid of the backlog. At that point we can have an honest discussion about possibly increasing the number of immigrants coming to Canada.

My staff and I actually looked at the number of immigrants who have landed in Canada from 1980 through until 2005. We made this simple little graph that I will table. The graph shows how the number of immigrants has changed from year to year.

What is really obvious when we look at this graph is that starting at about 1984-85 until about 1993-94 there was a dramatic increase in the number of immigrants coming into Canada every year. After 1993-94 it went up and down and up and down. Last year it finally got back to the level it was at in 1993.

I said that immigration is not a partisan issue but I cannot help but notice that it was under the last Conservative government that the number of immigrants coming into Canada grew consistently year after year after year and that during the 13 years of Liberal rule, it dropped and then it went up, and then it dropped some more and then it went up, and finally after 13 years, it probably got back to where it was.

If I accomplish nothing else here today, I would like to tell Canadians and I would like to remind my colleagues on the Liberal side that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. When the Liberals want to turn this into a partisan issue in terms of the Liberal Party being a party of immigration, that is patent nonsense, number one. Number two, my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, talked about the fact that we cut the landing fees in half. He said that after 10 years of resettlement fees being frozen in Canada, it was this government that increased it by over $300 million in the budget this year.

I believe that this government and the minister are making a good faith effort to deal with these issues, to try to expedite these processes, so that when people come to Canada, they can quickly start to make contributions not only to Canada and to our economy but to themselves and their families. Whether we are talking about foreign credentials recognition or whether we are talking about not putting people in a $1,000 hole when they get here, we are taking concrete steps to actually improve the process so that the department works better and we can bring the immigrants into Canada and we can treat those people fairly.

Today's motion suggests no remedy. It does not say we should do x, y and z to fix this problem. It just says that immigrants and persons seeking citizenship are poorly served by this country.

Immigrants coming to Canada could certainly be served better and people seeking Canadian citizenship could certainly be served better. Those are things this government intends to do and are things on which the minister is working. When people want to make the point that our system is not perfect and could be improved and if we work together we can improve it, I will buy that. But for members of the Liberal Party to suggest that somehow management of this file and dealing with immigrants and citizenship issues in Canada is one of the Liberals' strong suits and something they are proud of, as my colleague the parliamentary secretary said, three times the Citizenship Act got to the cusp and then there was an election, and two of those three times it was a Liberal majority government that dissolved itself.

I look forward to answering questions people have. I look forward to working on this file. I look forward to improving the situation for all Canadians.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the comments being made referred to historic things that are happening.

Let us take one case in particular which is happening in my riding. It is the case of Deirdre Pinto who has been waiting for two years. I am not going to try to throw the blame on one side or the other. She is a married woman who has been waiting for permanent residency for two years. The hon. member talked about how much has been done over the last year, but not much has changed and in fact things have probably gotten worse. Ms. Pinto has been waiting and each time she calls she is told there are 20 cases ahead. This is being done in northern Ontario.

The hon. member comes from a rural riding and I am sure he appreciates how rural ridings sometimes get overlooked. In the case of immigration there is one person in Sudbury covering all of northern Ontario. Any time there is an immigration case, it goes on that person's desk. That person does not cover just immigration. That person has a number of things to do. I hear the Conservative government say how it is pumping more money and more resources into it. There is one person in Sudbury. And please, I do not want the member to tell me that it is the Liberals' fault.

I want to know what the government is doing to help rural Canada and northern Ontario do well as far as immigration and helping process people so that they can come to Canada and lead fruitful lives and actually add to our society and not just sit there waiting for their card to come in. In the case of Ms. Pinto, she has been sitting for two years waiting for the opportunity to work and to be a contributing member of society.

I would appreciate an answer that actually is an answer and not one that says it is the previous guys' fault.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Nipissing knows, while I am not from northern Ontario, I have spent a lot of time in the north. I have a great fondness for northern Ontario and some of the issues and challenges faced in the north. As I said before, there are administrative and management challenges. The member is right; people should not have to wait two years to get that kind of an answer.

Northern Ontario was built by immigrants and not 100 or 200 years ago, but a lot of the communities there were built by immigrants in the last century. One of the challenges that I know exists in northern Ontario is that communities are actually trying to figure out how to get more immigrants to go there so that they can add to the local economy and add to the quality of life in the north.

That is something I feel strongly about. First of all, individuals such as the woman mentioned, should not to have to wait that long. That is something we have to do better. Second, specifically for northern Ontario, I hope--

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Sorry to interrupt, but there are other members rising. When members see that more than one person has risen at the beginning of a question and comment period, they should try to keep things short so we can get as many people on as possible.

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of coming here in 1975. I am an immigrant to this country and I am keenly aware of all the opportunities this country has afforded me. Yet when I talk to immigrants now in my community of Hamilton Mountain, the very word “immigrant” has become a dirty word.

Similarly people in my community are worried when we talk about recognizing foreign trained professionals and accrediting their credentials that they have earned internationally. For me that is a huge concern because we should take pride in being immigrants. We as a country need foreign trained professionals for our society, for our economy.

I wonder if the member could tell us what exactly the government is doing to ensure that immigrants feel welcome in this country, that immigrants can participate fully in our country and enjoy the same opportunities that I had as a newcomer to this country.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, immigrants are a positive force in Canada. I would also be concerned if I heard people use the word “immigrant” or referred to immigration in some negative light. We need to take every opportunity to remind people that the vast majority of us are descendants of immigrants. We need immigrants in Canada.

In terms of what we are doing, several things have been identified already. We have reduced the landing fees, especially for families. That is certainly a step in the right direction.

As to foreign credentials recognition, people come here from other countries and bring their professional or technical skills set and they have to wait two or three years to find out whether they can actually practise in their fields. We have all heard the stories of professionals and others delivering pizzas or driving taxis when they could be working as engineers and doctors.

In my rural riding there are two doctors in a small community who both come from Hungary. Both are women who were born in Hungary and are now practising medicine in Canada. The residents of that community are absolutely delighted that these two foreign trained doctors are living in the community and providing medical services.

If immigrants can practise their skills and trades, they will be welcome in any community in Canada.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues in the official opposition for giving the House this opportunity to discuss an issue as important as citizenship and immigration.

I must point out, however, that none of the successive governments we have seen has been very successful in this area. It is a very complex portfolio, one that needs significant changes in terms of policy decisions related to it.

The government we see before us has been improvising incessantly since coming into power, particularly concerning citizenship and immigration. This is nothing new. We have seen five different ministers in five years, and two Conservative ministers in one year. Frankly, the minister seems to change just when he or she begins to understand the file.

To illustrate just how poorly immigrants in Canada and people waiting to obtain Canadian citizenship are served by the federal government, it is important that I highlight three files, as examples. The immigration file is significant enough that we could debate it here for hours and hours. Some of the issues are: the refugee appeal division; the absence of mechanisms to find a long-term solution for individuals protected under the moratorium on deportation to their country of origin for security reasons; updating the Citizenship Act to address the issue of dual citizenship and to correct certain deficiencies that are causing people to fall victim to this archaic act.

Many people born between 1947 and 1977—as my hon. Conservative colleague mentioned earlier—are now learning, as they apply for their first passport or renew their passport, that they are no longer Canadians, because provisions of the Citizenship Act of 1947 apply. The Citizenship Act of 1977 was not retroactive. Thus, these people are now learning that they are not Canadian citizens.

The irony is that I asked the minister this week, and she was unable to say what would happen in the event of a negative decision. I understand that she is looking at cases individually and will try to expedite matters for people whose Canadian citizenship is not in doubt.

By the way, I am in favour of not removing people while their case is being studied. However, the minister is unable to tell the members of this House what would happen in the event of a negative decision. Some people who have lived here for many years have always believed they were Canadian citizens.

With regard to the time when the laws were in effect, the department has not proven that information was easily accessible and that people could be aware of everything that happened and all the legislative changes regarding citizenship. In short, these people have voted, they have received benefits and they have gone to school here. Then, when they are about to leave on a trip abroad and they apply for a passport, they find out that they are no longer Canadian citizens.

I find it unacceptable and unfair that people should be kept in such uncertainty. Losing one's citizenship has serious consequences, which could go as far as removal. Yet the minister has been unable to tell us here in this House what impact a negative decision would have and what legal recourse would be available.

Let us turn our attention back to the refugee appeal division. The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-280. This is another example of the government's inaction. The legislation is in effect, yet the sections pertaining to the refugee appeal division have not been implemented or enforced since 2002. The Conservative government did not take the first opportunity to enforce legislation that was democratically adopted in this House, in order to correct the unfair treatment of refugees. We were therefore forced to introduce Bill C-280 on the refugee appeal division.

I just want to remind the hon. members why the refugee appeal division is needed: for the sake of efficiency. A refugee appeal division would make it possible to correct substantive errors in law.

Currently, mechanisms are in place that enable people to appeal to the Federal Court, although they must first obtain permission to have the case heard there. Only technical legal errors can be corrected at that level. The appeals division is the Conservative government's first opportunity to correct an injustice. We need the appeals division to make the system more efficient.

There is also a substantive reason: consistency of the law. A centralized appeals division ruling on merit, as well as decisions made by experts, would lead to a fairer legal interpretation of the need to protect a person seeking protection. In other words, these people could be certain—or at least more confident—that their case would be treated fairly and equitably.

Every day, our offices receive cases concerning refusal of refugee status. When we look at the files, we see that they have dragged on for quite some time. That is often the argument the government tries to use: it takes months and months to resolve refugee claims that are refused.

There is a big problem with the reasons for refusal. Careful analysis of the cases reveals a number of elements that are open to interpretation. Moreover, because the files could not be corrected early in the process, the problem persists. These people use every tool at their disposal to appeal and to try to get protection.

That is unfortunate, but I also understand where my Conservative colleagues are coming from. Under the Liberals, none of the ministers had the courage to set up the appeals division. The arguments were many and, at times, perhaps even valid. But the explanation given back then is no longer valid today.

As to the absence of political will, we are now dealing with a conservative ideology, and refugees are under unjustified attack.

Consequently, with respect to the appeal division, I would hope that the Conservatives' position is going to revert to what it was when they were the official opposition.

I would also like to point out that, at that time, one of our colleagues was the official critic for citizenship and immigration. She travelled twice across Canada to consult and she came to the conclusion that we needed the appeal division.

I would further like to remind this House that a motion was unanimously adopted in committee about the need for the appeal division. What I find utterly bizarre now is this reversal in the position taken by the Conservatives, who, now that they are in power, are dragging their feet.

I raised a second point, the fact of the thousands of foreign nationals who have been denied permanent residence and who cannot be sent back to their countries of origin because of a moratorium due to unsafe conditions. On that point, we are offered the argument that they can always return to their countries of origin. The primary reason they are here, however, is that their countries appear on a list and they are not being sent back because of the widespread climate of insecurity that prevails in those countries.

These people can be here for years without being able to get decent jobs, continue their education or get proper health care, as everyone else who comes here is able to do. So I would remind this House that these people come from countries that are on the list of moratorium countries, and that they cannot be sent back for reasons having to do with safety and security.

These measures affect nationals of Afghanistan, Burundi, the Dominican Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. They came here to the Hill to demonstrate, and they met with a number of members. New Democrat, Bloc and Liberal members have repeatedly raised the problem of people who have been living in legal limbo for a very long time.

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have proposed any measures to create a mechanism for regularizing their status. One after another, the people responsible for immigration here have not shown the will to stop the injustices.

I will not repeat every point raised by my colleagues in relation to processing times and the backlog. I will remind this House that it was the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that raised the backlog problems.

In 2004, we asked the minister to table the number of cases in the backlog. Just this morning I was given the number of applications received in 2006 and 2007. I must say, frankly, that the situation in Asia and Africa has not improved significantly.

When I look at the numbers for the backlog in the regional office in Mississauga for processing the files of parents and grandparents, I do not see a clear improvement.

There is a lot of work left to do, whether in terms of permanent residents, qualified workers or business people who settle here. Entrepreneurs and business people who come here do not get any respect. The backlog keeps growing. These people arrive here wanting to enhance the economy. It is the same situation with refugees and sponsored persons.

The issue of citizenship is of concern to us right now. Since 2004, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I have been a member since my election, has studied the Citizenship Act a number of times and found that this legislation is archaic.

Today we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the 1947 legislation. We are also celebrating the 30th anniversary of the 1977 legislation. Today we learn that people who thought they had Canadian citizenship, and who have enjoyed all the services and benefits that come with this citizenship, are not Canadian. This archaic legislation has created victims. I think we have a responsibility to remedy these injustices.

During the meeting with the minister, I also raised the issue of Canadian children and young people who are living abroad.

When I asked what information was available on the points of service and offices abroad, I was told that by going to the Web site of these offices or directly to these offices, I could get information on how young Canadians could register to keep their citizenship.

Before the end of the meeting, we learned that in the Hong Kong office and some others, the information was not even available. With all the technology and information available today, people still do not have access to information on how to register properly. How can we—in 1947, in 1977 or in 2007—tolerate anyone being a victim of legislation? We have repeated it many times in committee and in press conferences: this legislation is necessary.

I could go on about other issues, but for now, these are the three that perfectly illustrate the inaction of the Conservative government.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue an area with the Bloc member, and I am sure she can get lots of advice from her colleagues on the other side.

I think all of us are troubled with the issue of skilled newcomers to Canada, whether they be professional people or tradespeople. They apparently come from other countries where they have worked in those trades and so on but have difficulty getting licences and being recognized in this country.

Invariably, the issue is that the provinces control the licensing and certification. I practised law for 25 years and for me to practise law has nothing to do with the federal government. I must be approved to practise law in Saskatchewan and the association to which I belong, the Law Society, decides whether I can practise. This is also true for engineers, doctors and so on.

From the Bloc members' standpoint, would they be in favour of the federal government using trade and commerce or some area of the Constitution to override the provinces so we can get this problem sorted out and then newcomers to Canada could get on with their lives and practise their trades and professions? I wonder if the Bloc would be in favour of doing that.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to discuss a topic I did not cover in my speech.

I am not sure if my colleague knows that Canada and Quebec share jurisdiction over immigration. As previous ministers acknowledged in committee, Quebec is ahead in the recognition of foreign credentials. There are also several studies that have been done by the Quebec Interprofessional Council.

When its representatives appeared before the committee, their main interest was in funding. We are still waiting for our share of the $18 million announced by the Conservative government. When the Liberals were in power, we were also waiting to receive a transfer of money to continue our work in recognizing foreign credentials.

I will rely on the information provided by the Government of Quebec and the Quebec Interprofessional Council, and I will stick to their main demand: the transfer of money to help them continue the work already done and that the federal government is poised to do.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention to my colleague that if the Prime Minister wants to stand up and make the suggestion that we override the jurisdictions of the charter in Alberta and other places, I would applaud that. I hope the suggestion is made to the Prime Minister in that regard.

I have a question for my colleague, and I think it is an important consideration because she has seen a number of ministers come and go. In the case of the Liberals, it was one every two years. In the case of the Conservatives, it is one every six months. That is the average we have and that is the problem we have.

One of the problems we have in the department is that we need to split the citizenship and immigration parts because they are totally different. Citizenship has the mandate for all Canadians and naturalized Canadians should never be looked upon as graduate immigrants. Immigration has a totally different set of challenges.

We need to somehow depoliticize the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as much as possible. The challenges are there for all parties, all Canadians and certainly all governments when they get into office. One of the ways we could do that is to have longer term membership on the committee and appoint ministers who understand the portfolio.

In the case of the last Parliament, we had a critic over there who had been a critic for about four years. She had two cross-Canada tours and was by far the most knowledgeable person on the Conservative side to deal with the file. We also had the member--

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order, please. The hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Kitchener—Waterloo because he has given me the opportunity to point out in this House that, under a Conservative government, there have been various departmental models. I remember that, in those years, we went back and forth about separating citizenship and immigration. The department was toying with the idea of attaching immigration to public safety. The public was not in favour of that move. There was also consideration given to immigration and Revenue Canada being thrown together. It was presumed that all immigrants probably cheated on their taxes, did not pay them, and that there were financial issues. Then they had the idea of combining citizenship and immigration.

I am not disputing this decision, but it is good that my colleague for Kitchener—Waterloo reminds us that there are two acts. Since 2002, the Immigration Act has stressed border control and a tougher stand has been taken since 9/11.

In the process, immediately after immigration, individuals are encouraged to take out citizenship. After having been placed under a magnifying glass, gone through the immigration process, suspected of wanting to defraud the system, at the citizenship stage they are told that they have to prove their loyalty, their values and that they must have certain things in common. I can understand what happens in real life to these people. Sometimes expectations are not met because people experience difficulties and discrimination.

People do not find suitable employment. They lose their qualifications.

It is appropriate to question at this time whether or not citizenship and immigration belong together. The immigration process has become stricter and so we expect, in the citizenship process, that people will like us and that they will accept wholeheartedly the values which perhaps a majority of them did not come here for. People obviously come to this country to have a good life. They have come here because Canada has a good reputation in terms of human rights, although this is being disputed at present.

As I said, the current immigration process is not focussed on integration but on security.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Catherine Bell NDP Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, around the world, we see the changing social patterns of people. For instance, people from around the world are meeting up on the Internet. I have constituents who are in this situation. They visit abroad with no difficulty. They find a fiancé and the fiancé then wants to come to Canada to see the person she intends to marry in the person's home situation, to check the character and all those things. However, these people run into many problems when they apply for a visitor's visa. They are often turned down on the assumption that they will not return to their country of origin. Most of these people have good jobs and security in their home countries and their wages, for example, are much higher in their home country than they would be here because many of them end up driving taxis. However, that in itself is no reason to deny a visit.

People are about more than money. In many instances, these are mature people who are well established in their careers and lives. We trust them to be responsible but the government's system seems more designed for the infrequent fraud than for the average, law-abiding, tax-paying, responsible citizen.

How can the government improve the system to address the changing social patterns that we see?

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Mr. Speaker, this relates to what I was explaining earlier.

In the past, there was some discussion of making immigration part of public security, and then, part of Revenue Canada. Finally, it was decided that it would be more popular, in terms of public opinion, to join immigration and citizenship.

What goes on in those offices at this time is exactly the same as what happens in the offices of most of our colleagues. Certain citizens have been known for years. They have made their contribution, they have been here for several years, they are well established and have a family. It is entirely normal that their families want to visit these citizens. However, what is abnormal is the ridiculousness of the reasons for which they are refused. They are refused because there is concern about their return to their country of origin. Those people already have a job there and they are attached to their country of origin. It is only natural to want to visit one's family members. Are we seeing a tougher stand? Did the Conservatives' arrival change things? The situation has been the same for many years, but I think it has intensified since 2001. One government after the other has fueled fears and maintained the impression that such restrictive rules are needed.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this morning's debate on the Liberal opposition day motion on immigration policy.

I have to say that I am a little disappointed in the Liberals' motion. It is a very vague motion. It does not give any specific suggestions about what the Liberals would do to fix the problems in our immigration system. I wish that the Liberals had been a little more specific and that we might have been able to pin them down and hold them accountable for some of their ideas in this debate, but I welcome the opportunity to highlight immigration policy and the need for improvements to our immigration system.

Other people mentioned the frequent changes in ministers at the head of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I have been here since 2004 and there have been four different ministers of immigration, two under the last Liberal government and now two under the current Conservative government. That is a real problem for immigration policy. That is a real problem for leadership of this department that is so crucial to Canada, both socially and economically.

I think it is high time we did something to change the political sensibilities around this ministry. For too long it has been considered the dog job of cabinet, the cabinet job that nobody really wants. I think it is such a crucial job and is so important in the lives of so many Canadians that it is time we had ministers who are keen about this area of policy, who are interested in it, and who are interested in asserting political control over the bureaucracy in the department.

The situation of immigrants in Canada today is a very serious one. We know there is a significant prosperity gap for new immigrants. A recent Statistics Canada report indicated that new immigrants are today 3.2 times more likely to live in poverty than people born in Canada.

That is a huge problem for Canada. New immigrants should not have to live in poverty. Living a decent life should not be one of the things they have to give up when they come to Canada. They should not have to give up the dream of living a better life here in Canada, but that is definitely the experience of way too many immigrants in Canada.

This has not changed significantly for over than a decade. Through most of the 1990s, new immigrants were 3.5 times more likely to live in poverty.

The prosperity gap facing immigrants is something that we absolutely must address if we are going to have a successful immigration program and continue to entice people to come to Canada, and we also must address it just for plain fairness and justice reasons.

There is also increasing frustration among immigrants to Canada. I think this is a promise gap that we have here in Canada. We make promises to immigrants when we encourage them to apply to come to Canada. We tell them about how important their contributions are to Canada and how they will be welcomed in Canada. In our immigration application system, we give them points for their work experience and their education, validating that work experience and education, telling them through that process that it is important and is something that Canada values.

When they get to Canada, they find out that this is often not the case, that their work experience and their credentials from their education in their countries of origin are just not recognized here in Canada. That problem has gone on for far too long. I think it is a significant promise gap that we have with regard to new Canadians. We cannot afford to let that go on, because it is going to affect Canada's ability to attract immigrants in the future.

Those are some very general comments. Now I want to be very specific about what issues the NDP would take on in the area of immigration and citizenship policy. I want to be very specific and give concrete examples of what we in this corner of the House would do on these important policy areas.

The first thing I want to talk about is the need for a new Canadian citizenship act. We have heard how there were three attempts by the former Liberal government to update the immigration act, which has not been changed since 1977. Unfortunately, these attempts never got the priority they needed from the previous government to actually make it through the House of Commons. They all died on the order paper.

In the last Parliament, members of the citizenship and immigration committee heard from both ministers that if we worked on suggestions for a new citizenship act they would bring that act in. Neither of them did it. The committee prepared several reports on citizenship policy and I think made some excellent suggestions. We held cross-country hearings on the issue of citizenship. We diligently did the work we were asked to do. We made it the priority for the committee in the last Parliament, but unfortunately those ideas were not taken up.

Unfortunately, the new Conservative government is also refusing to bring forward a new citizenship act. In fact, it cut the budget money for the development of that act, the $20 million that was set aside. The new minister, again sounding like previous Liberal ministers, just this past week at committee said that if the committee did more work on suggestions for changes to the citizenship act, she would entertain them. We have done that work. It is on the record. The minister has access to it.

We need to look at issues like revocation of citizenship, which is important to new Canadians, who feel that, unlike people born in Canada, their citizenship can be revoked.

We need to look at the issue of lost Canadians, people who have a deep attachment to Canada, many of whom have lived in Canada all their lives but who do not have Canadian citizenship because of some quirk of the citizenship laws or a quirk in the way they were administered. That needs to be fixed legislatively. It is okay to deal with them as individual one-on-one problems, but there is no appeal of a decision that turns down citizenship after that kind of individual attention by the minister and her officials.

We need to look at the oath of citizenship, which should probably mention Canada. I think that would be a good thing, and we perhaps should talk about the charter and its importance in our society.

All of those things need to be in that new citizenship act.

In this corner of the House, we would also eliminate fees for an initial citizenship application. There should be no financial barrier to becoming a Canadian citizen. Unfortunately, as we know already, new immigrants often live below the poverty line. We know that many new immigrants cannot afford the application fees to take their full place in Canadian society. No one should have to put off making that important decision because they cannot afford the fee for an application. We would eliminate the fee for an initial citizenship application. I am pleased that in the last Parliament the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration agreed with that suggestion.

We would completely eliminate the right of landing fee that is charged to immigrants. When this fee was instituted back in the 1990s by the Liberal government, we saw it then as a head tax, a tax on new immigrants, a tax on people who need every penny they have access to as they are settling in Canada. These are some of the people who can least afford to pay a special levy or a special tax.

We opposed that fee when it was introduced and we have constantly called for its complete elimination. The Conservatives took a half measure. They reduced it by half, but if a $975 fee is wrong, a $475 fee is wrong, as would a $100 fee be wrong, and we call for its complete elimination.

Today again we heard about the importance of the recognition of international credentials. What a huge brain waste this represents to Canada. What a huge economic loss it is for Canada. What a huge spiritual loss it is for many new Canadians who are not allowed to practice the profession to which they feel called and for which they have been trained and have great experience in.

This has been tossed around. It has gone back and forth and up and down for years. We used to hear from the Liberals about how complicated this issue was. They would go on about all of the federal government departments, of which I think 14 are involved, and about how all the provinces and multiple departments in provincial governments have an interest, as do all the professional associations and unions and all the post-secondary educational institutions.

It is true that there are a lot of people who have an interest in this, but that does not absolve us from the responsibility of taking an appropriate initiative to help with the recognition of international credentials. There is no excuse for putting that off.

The Conservatives, to their credit, put some money toward this in the budget. Unfortunately we cannot give them full credit, because we have not seen any action on it yet. It is still being promised again and again. Just this past week, the minister used that same Liberal answer about the incredible complexity of the issue to excuse why no action has yet been taken on dealing with the important issue of the recognition of international credentials.

The NDP has put forward a seven point specific program about what an agency to deal with international credentials should look like and what its responsibilities should be. That work was done largely by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina. I would invite anyone interested in this issue to visit her website and take a look, because it is a very important and specific proposal on the issue of recognizing international credentials.

This is also an issue that contributes to the prosperity gap of new Canadians. If one is a trained professional, a doctor or an engineer for example, and ends up driving a taxi or working in a convenience store, one will suffer a real prosperity gap between potential income and what can be earned in those kinds of jobs. This is something that we have delayed for far too long. We need to take very specific measures on it, and we have made these kinds of specific proposals.

Another issue that has faced many immigrants is the definition of family in the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Unfortunately, it does not cover the range of important relationships that are part of Canadian families today. It does not recognize the diversity of family relationships of many people from different cultural backgrounds and more Eurocentric family configurations.

New Democrats have been proposing a solution to that for a number of years. We call it our once in a lifetime bill, whereby once in a lifetime a Canadian citizen or permanent resident could sponsor someone outside the current definition of family. We think this is a helpful solution. It is a helpful suggestion that would make it possible for families to be reunited here in Canada and for the important people in families to come to Canada. I am glad the NDP member for Parkdale—High Park has reintroduced that important legislation in this Parliament. It would be a small measure toward recognizing the importance of families and immigrant families here in Canada.

We heard this morning again about the need to implement the provisions of the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, passed by this Parliament in 2001, regarding the refugee appeal division. It is unbelievable that the Liberal government before this and the current Conservative government can refuse to act to implement the current immigration law. I think that shows contempt for Parliament. It is a very serious matter. We need that measure of fairness. It is not expensive. No one thinks that implementing this is going to bankrupt the department or the government. It is a very cheap measure considering what justice and fairness it involves.

It came out of a compromise during discussion on the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act when the IRB panels were reduced from two members to one. Everyone agreed that some measure of appeal was necessary against a decision made by only one person. That was when the paper screening process, the refugee appeal division, was added to the legislation. So there is especially no excuse for not implementing this when it came out of this kind of discussion and this kind of compromise on legislation in this chamber. There is no excuse. It is sad that we are debating a piece of legislation from the Bloc, a bill to implement provisions of a bill that was already passed. How ironic is that? How unnecessary is that?

Also on the issue of refugee policy, the private sponsorship program needs to be reaffirmed. This is the program that has brought Canada world recognition for its refugee policy. This is the program for which Canada was awarded the Nansen Medal by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees back in the 1980s. This is the program whereby small groups of grassroots Canadians take responsibility for refugee settlement. There is no better program. This is a program that saves the government money because individual Canadians take on the financial responsibility for refugee families. It involves community members in resettlement work. The program guarantees successful settlement of refugees into our communities.

There is a backlog of 10,000 or 12,000 applications for the program. This means that groups of Canadians ready to receive a refugee, highly motivated Canadians, are not being allowed to take on that responsibility. It is not like there are no refugees waiting around the world to be resettled in Canada. The Canadians waiting to do this work will look for other opportunities if this volunteer possibility is not available for them. We cannot afford to lose this program. Everyone in the House stands up and talks about how Canada is recognized around the world for its refugee work and it is largely on the back of this particular program.

To have people in the public service tell people who work these programs, who run these programs, that it is being used as a backdoor for family reunification applications is completely unacceptable. We need to restore the integrity of this program and get rid of the backlog, and ensure that grassroots Canadians can take their place in this important work of refugee resettlement.

In this corner of the House we agree that we need special measures for persons fleeing militarism and who for reasons of conscience refuse to participate in illegal or unjust wars. The current example before us are people who served in the American armed forces who are refusing to serve in the war in Iraq. This is a war that Canada took a very clear position on. It refused to participate in it and now people who have also made that decision of conscience are seeking sanctuary in Canada after refusing further service in the American armed forces.

I have a motion on the order paper for a special program that would allow these people, after two years, to become permanent residents in Canada. Canada needs to take a stand against militarism, not unlike the one we took during the Vietnam war when many Americans who protested that war and service in the American armed forces found sanctuary in Canada.

We also need, and a motion is on the order paper, to eliminate the application fee for refugees whose status is determined in Canada. They should not have to pay the application fee for permanent residence. We do not make refugees, who are determined outside of Canada, pay this fee given that refugees are again some of the people who are most financially disadvantaged and often live in poverty. These are some of the people who can least afford to pay an application fee which should be eliminated immediately.

On the question of visitor visas, too many Canadians are refused the ability to have a family visit for an important occasion because relatives overseas are turned down for visitor visas. We need to ensure that there is a process in place that ensures that those important family occasions are able to take place and that people can come for a funeral, birth of a child or a wedding. It is absolutely unconscionable that Canadians would be denied the presence of family members from other countries for those kinds of important occasions.

We need to increase the processing capacity at Citizenship and Immigration Canada to ensure that the backlog goes down. That department took one of the hardest hits in the 1990s when the Liberals were doing their gutting. Immigration and environment were the two departments that took the most significant cuts and those have never been restored in all the time since then.

With the issue of temporary foreign workers, we need a program that ensures that Canadians have first crack at jobs here in Canada no matter where they live in Canada, and that foreign workers are not brought in until we can be assured that Canadians are not available to do those jobs. When we bring in foreign workers, we must ensure that they have the same rate of pay, the same wage standards, and the same employment standards that Canadians would expect on the job.

Unfortunately, the requirements to ensure that have not been put in place. We cannot allow temporary foreign workers to be exploited for their labour in Canada as has too often been the case in recent years and months.

We also need a greater emphasis on family reunification. We know that this is one of the key aspects of our immigration program. It has been for many years. We always talk about the needs of family reunification, the needs of the Canadian economy, the needs of nation building, and the needs of protection of people in danger when we talk about our immigration and refugee policy. Unfortunately, family reunification seems to have dropped off the radar. The Conservative ministers do not use that mantra. They do not use the family reunification piece of that.

Those are some of the things that we in this corner would do and to that end I would like to move an amendment to the Liberal motion.

The amendment reads that the motion be amended by adding the following after the word “government”: which should immediately remedy this situation by undertaking measures including introducing a new Citizenship Act, eliminating fees for initial citizenship applications, completely eliminating the right of landing fee charged to immigrants, immediately instituting an agency for the recognition of international credentials, changing the definition of family in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to better represent the reality of diverse family relationships, immediately implementing the Refugee Appeal Division as provided for in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, reaffirming the commitment to the private sponsorship program for refugees, instituting special measures for persons fleeing militarism and who for reasons of conscience refuse to participate in illegal or unjust wars, eliminating the application fee for refugees whose status is determined in Canada and for refugees who have experienced domestic violence, ensuring the issuance of visitor visas to allow overseas family members to attend important family occasions in Canada, increasing the processing capacity at Citizenship and Immigration Canada to significantly reduce the application backlog, ensuring temporary foreign workers do not fill jobs for which Canadians are available and that these workers enjoy employment conditions and wages at the established Canadian standard, and placing a greater emphasis on family reunification.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Order, please. As the House knows, amendments on opposition days are only debatable if they are accepted by the sponsor. I would simply ask the sponsor of the motion, who is in the House, whether this amendment is acceptable.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and ImmigrationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON

No, Mr. Speaker.