An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative)

This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in September 2008.

Sponsor

Peggy Nash  NDP

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Defeated, as of March 5, 2008
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill.

This enactment allows a Canadian citizen or permanent resident to sponsor, once in their lifetime, a relative who is not a member of the family class.

Similar bills

C-394 (39th Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative)
C-272 (38th Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative)
C-436 (37th Parliament, 3rd session) An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative)
C-436 (37th Parliament, 2nd session) An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative)

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-394s:

C-394 (2024) Stronger Sentences for Safer Streets Act
C-394 (2018) Supporting New Parents Act
C-394 (2013) Law An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment)
C-394 (2012) An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment)
C-394 (2010) Internment of Persons of Croatian Origin Recognition Act
C-394 (2009) Internment of Persons of Croatian Origin Recognition Act

Votes

March 5, 2008 Failed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:40 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to support Bill C-394, put forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park.

This is a terrific bill. All members of the NDP have given very strong support to this idea. It is one simple thing we can do to fix our terrible immigration system. We support the idea of allowing families in Canada to sponsor, once in a lifetime, a relative who would not otherwise qualify under the existing family clause.

Originally I sponsored the bill and I am delighted now that the member for Parkdale—High Park has it. I know she has been a passionate advocate for family reunification, as have all of us in the NDP.

I want to remind the House, because members have probably forgotten, especially the Liberals, that the idea of being able to sponsor a family member once in a lifetime came from a former Liberal citizenship and immigration minister. We know the Liberals like to turn their backs on all the things in which they once believed, and this is another example of that.

The minister, Elinor Caplan, suggested this program. She came to Vancouver and talked about it publicly. It got a huge reception in the community and people thought it was a great idea. She came back to Ottawa and the bureaucrats got hold of her, I think, and maybe other members of her caucus, and that was the end of it. I thought this was a good opportunity, and as a result of that, we developed this bill, and we have not let go of it since. We believe it is a very sound idea.

It is interesting to hear the debate today. It is interesting to hear the Conservative members say that the bill will be unsustainable and unmanageable and that it will create a huge backlog. Is that not the party that claimed it would fix the immigration system? Is that not the party that went out and campaigned on this? Yet we still have a system in which people get completely clogged. It takes years and years to get a family member here, to reunite with a loved one, to come here as an independent. The Conservatives did nothing, as the Liberals before them.

Therefore, I find it ironic that the folks who said they would clean up the immigration system and allow people to come to Canada now deny this very straightforward simple proposal, which would allow families here at least some relief, some way of reuniting with a family member.

As well, it strikes me ironic that in Canada, for example, we have the province of Manitoba, which has the most successful provincial nominee program in Canada. The Premier of Manitoba just came back from the Philippines with agreements and proposals to increase immigration from the Philippines. I know that Manitoba, over the last year, has seen something like 10,000 new immigrants come to that province along with their family members. It is using its provincial nominee program because it is so fed up with the fact that the federal program does not work any more. This is an indication of something that actually works. We should give credit to the Government of Manitoba for recognizing the importance of immigration in its community.

I know in my own community of Vancouver East, we would not exist in Vancouver. The history of immigration has built our city, the people who work in our city, the people who provide businesses, who provide services and cultural contributions. Vancouver would not exist as a modern day city if it were not for immigration.

I, like all my colleagues in the NDP, and I am sure other members of the House, have people coming to my office every day with the most heartfelt stories of being unable to be reunited with family members. We deal with hundreds of cases every year. Some of them just make us want to cry when we hear the stories that unfold of how people have to deal with this system and the heartbreak they go through, when all they want to do is to have a reunification of their families.

The studies and the evidence of what the net benefits are to Canada from immigration are huge. I do not think anybody here would dispute that. Therefore, the question that remains is this. Why today, when we have an opportunity to vote on the bill, would we have the Conservatives and the Liberals speaking against it? Why would we not take this opportunity to do something straightforward and simple, something that will not affect the system overall, but will make a huge difference in the lives of tens of thousands of families in our country to have the opportunity to bring forward a son or a daughter over the age of 22 who is not a dependant, or maybe an aunt or an uncle, a brother or sister or a first cousin? It might be someone who is very close to them in their family relations, but under existing provisions would be prohibited and prevented from doing so.

The bill has always been a complete win-win situation. It speaks to our deep values and the history of supporting and encouraging immigration and seeing the incredible positive benefits coming from it. We know the system overall doe not work, but we have the opportunity now to at least do this one thing that would allow some people to come here and be reunited with their family.

It is disappointing today to hear Conservative members dish this and say that it will not work. It is disappointing to hear Liberal members say that they do not care about this any more and that they will not allow it to happen.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Where is Elinor when you need her?

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 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

February 29th, 2008 / 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

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

Is the House ready for the question?

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker 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

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

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

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

February 29th, 2008 / 1:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker 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.)

The House resumed from February 29, 2008, consideration of the motion that Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

March 5th, 2008 / 6:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-394, under private members' business.