House of Commons Hansard #57 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was airbus.

Topics

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Exactly. Where is the former minister of immigration? Maybe we should have her in the House and she could speak to it.

Members of the NDP are behind the bill 100%. We think it is workable. It is manageable. It has incredible support in the community. We have had petitions and letters come in on this issue. People want to see this happen. We could do something small, but it would have a big impact on the lives of people.

This is a private member's bill, so members should be make up their own minds about it. They should look at its merits, never mind what the parliamentary secretary said, and think about their constituents and whether they would support a measure like this. If members address the bill on that basis, they will find that they have to support it.

Again, I congratulate the member for Parkdale—High Park for bringing the bill forward and for sticking with it. Members of the NDP will stick with it too and we will do everything we can to get it through the House.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for their input in this debate, especially my colleague from Vancouver East, who has been a trailblazer when it comes to immigration policy. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Bloc who have spoken in support. Colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative parties have expressed opposition to this bill and I guess I am little baffled by that.

Of course, there is no one perfect solution to an immigration system. However, as we look around the world and we see insecurity and hardship, we appreciate what we have built here in Canada. We know that there are others who want to come to Canada. We know there are many newcomers who come here as refugees who are separated against their will. However, we know that one of the best predictors of newcomer success in settlement is the support of family members, and that is why family reunification is so important. The enormous advantage newcomers have when they can count on the economic, social and psychological support of family members is readily apparent. We need to assist families to reunite as quickly as possible.

The sponsorship requirements on families are enormous. To take responsibility for another person for 10 years is a huge commitment and responsibility. Ten years is a long time. Things can change. But the sponsor is still on the hook, which is quite a significant responsibility. People do not take sponsorship lightly, as some in the Conservative and Liberal parties suggest. There is not going to be an opening of the floodgates here because of the very onerous requirements of the sponsorship responsibilities.

Members of the government expressed concern that the bill would open the floodgates and increase the backlog, but clearly, the unacceptable delays in the immigration system today are caused by inadequate resources. Families did not create this backlog. It is clearly the factor of a lack of resources by this government and the previous government. Certainly there would be some additional applicants under this bill, which is why I am proposing it, but let us look at the facts.

As Canada positions itself early on in the 21st century, we face some steep challenges. We have an aging population. There is a demographic shift in the workplace as baby boomers retire, which means a greater burden on our social programs, especially medicare. New growth in Canada's future workforce will come from immigration. We will be competing with countries around the world for the best and brightest newcomers. One factor newcomers look at is the ability to be joined by their family members, their closest relatives, in the new country of their choice. Others come to Canada as a safe haven. They come as refugees and they are desperate to have their family members join them here.

Why would we place additional barriers in front of newcomers? There are other options.

I sit on the industry committee and I hear corporate executives come to the industry committee calling for a rapid expansion of the temporary workers program, but I do not think that is the way to go. People who come here temporarily are often unskilled, are paid very low wages, may not speak either official language and are extremely vulnerable to exploitation. We have seen this already with some high-profile problems across our country.

The better way to address a labour shortage is to increase the acceptance of working age adults as immigrants so that they start off when they come to Canada with full rights and full participation in all aspects of Canadian society. My family reunification bill would do just that.

Let us also recognize that Canada falls far behind many other countries in looking after some of our most vulnerable members. When family members come here and reunite with newcomer families, they can provide child care, elder care and care for people with disabilities. That is how they help family members settle. They will save Canada resources in doing so.

We will have the opportunity to demonstrate whether or not we support the idea of family reunification. We do not have to agree on all the details. However, if we support the goal, let us vote in favour of this bill, take it to committee and there we can answer questions and make any amendments that need to be made.

I thank my hon. colleagues for their support on this important initiative. And for those members who have spoken against it, I urge them to reconsider, support newcomers and support this bill for family reunification.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Is the House ready for the question?

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 1:56 p.m. the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:56 p.m.)