Debates of Feb. 22nd, 2007

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and Immigration

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

He talked about getting things done and I would be interested in how that is part of the two things you talked about today in your statement, which were how this government is accountable and, second, how it is getting things accomplished.

I think a lot of Canadians today are interested in the views, not just of the frontbench, but also the views of the backbench, about members of the Conservative caucus. Whether the comments were above the belt, below the belt or permissible, I am just interested in knowing how that particular member feels about what his leader had to say.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, I will caution the hon. member for Halton that in making reference to other members, we refer to the other members by the third person, not by the second person.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member has just tuned in to this debate or not, but this is a debate on immigration. It is clear that he has not been paying attention.

It is hard to imagine but I am going to be celebrating 10 years in this place very shortly. I am proud to have been able to serve Canadians in that capacity.

With respect to what took place in question period yesterday, whether people agree or disagree with what is said in this place, the level of decorum in this place is something that has concerned me, especially since the Liberals have become the official opposition. Yesterday, as we saw, when the Prime Minister did try to quote a story that was out there for public consumption--and if people want to argue the facts of that story they have the right to do so--I could not believe my ears and my eyes at what took place in this chamber, especially from the opposition side.

The hon. member should point the finger inward and ask himself how he can belong to a caucus that obviously has no respect for decorum in this place. Whether he agrees or disagrees that what someone has said is relevant or not, the fact is the Liberals' demonstration and their outburst yesterday was an embarrassment to all Canadians. In the 10 years I have been here, it was probably one of the worst displays that I have ever seen.

With that being said, our government's record in just over a year speaks for itself. We have achieved a lot more in 13 months than the previous government achieved in 13 years. Especially in immigration which is an issue that is so close to my heart and so important to me and my family and many new Canadians who have come here, we have done more to enhance and to help on that file. Future announcements are coming very shortly, we have heard from the Prime Minister, especially on foreign credentials recognition. We have done a lot for the immigrant community. I am proud to be associated with a government that has done so much in so little time.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has been here 10 years but I have been here a lot longer and it was that member's party, then called the Reform Party, that really took the decorum in this House in a different direction. Let us call a spade a spade.

On immigration, which is what we are debating today, the Liberal government in its last budget, before it was knocked off prematurely, which was unwarranted, had allocated $75 million to go toward recognition of credentials of new immigrants, et cetera. That was wiped out. We now know that the Conservative government that has done so much has allocated $18 million toward this program.

I ask the member, does he think $75 million is more than $18 million or less? Who has done more?

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member paid attention to my full speech, but I would just remind him that in our past budget we allocated $307 million for settlement funding. That has been called a welcome change by a number of settlement groups that do the bulk of the work in helping Canadians get integrated into this country, onside of the $18 million that he spoke of. We have invested already in a short period of time a lot more on the ground than the previous government did.

Let us be frank. It is one thing to make commitments. We saw the Liberal government in its tenure make tons of commitments. What did it carry through with? Very little.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is one which fails to acknowledge the facts. The facts are that over 13 long years the former Liberal government paid much lip service to immigrants. However, the reality is that the Liberals, in the words of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, just “didn't get it done” on immigration.

The Liberal legacy regarding citizenship and immigration is shameful. The Liberal member for Etobicoke Centre had this to say about the Liberal government's record on immigration:

--I believe that our whole immigration system has become dysfunctional. That in fact it's at the point of being broken--

When Liberals say that they failed immigration, the Conservative government agrees. What exactly was the Liberal record on immigration? Let me summarize it for those who are unaware.

The Liberals imposed a $975 tax on immigrants. They promised to cut it but they did not. They allowed the application backlog to grow by 750,000. They froze settlement funding for over a decade and voted against providing $307 million in new settlement funding for immigrants. They had 13 years, six ministers, four mandates and three majority governments to modernize the Citizenship Act and did nothing.

We will not take lectures from the Liberal Party on how immigrants should be treated or respected. Let us remember that it was the Liberal member for Richmond who implied that some races of immigrants are somehow better than others when he said:

The Chinese community is very different from the Indo-Canadian community....The Chinese community are much more objective. No one can force them, or lure them, or cheat them into signing a membership form.

Canada's new government believes in respecting immigrants and making them feel at home in Canada, because since Confederation, Canada has welcomed newcomers from every part of the world. Newcomers work hard to build their lives in Canada. Their hard work has led to building strong communities and has made Canada what it is today, an extraordinary country, an endless opportunity available to those who seek it.

As we continue to welcome more newcomers to Canada, Canadian citizenship remains the link that holds us all together. It reminds us that we all share a common bond. That common bond of citizenship implies a sense of belonging, a sense of attachment and a sense of commitment.

Citizenship is about sharing values. It is about acknowledging and believing in rights and responsibilities.

It took 80 years for Canada to officially pass a Citizenship Act. The first Citizenship Act came into force in 1947. Thirty years later, a new Citizenship Act came into force which reflected the growth of Canada as a young country. Another 30 years have passed and new citizenship issues are emerging, and yet as the world continues to change, there is still a sense of wishing to belong, belonging to a specific group, belonging to a specific country. This will to belong is at the root of some of the concern that has been raised about so-called lost citizens.

A few situations have arisen where individuals thought they were Canadian citizens and found out that they were not. The reasons for this are complex and are often the result of antiquated legislation. It is easy to sympathize with people who find themselves in this situation, where they have spent most of their lives thinking that they belong to a specific group and country, and then find out that it is not the case. It is understandably troubling and shocking.

Our immediate aim is to rectify the most obvious cases of citizenship anomalies and that in the longer run we will try to modify the system to align it with current realities. Our government is taking every action possible to ensure that those who are in citizenship anomaly situations and who are entitled to Canadian citizenship get it without delay.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already outlined the actions she has taken personally and the initiatives currently under way at citizenship and immigration to rectify those cases where there is a legitimate claim for citizenship.

CIC is also helping Canadians who have simply lost their proof of citizenship. Some Canadians are now discovering that they do not have the proof they require to be issued government documents, such as passports. This is important because that piece of paper represents a person's membership card to Canada. It is not something to be taken lightly.

At the same time, we have to ensure that our Canadian credentials, citizenship papers, passports, et cetera, are not used fraudulently. Almost every day we hear of people falsely using the goodwill of this country for nefarious purposes. This need for integrity also carries over to our immigration and refugee system.

Yes, Canada needs immigrants. Yes, Canada wishes to extend a hand to the world's refugees. Our job is to continue to manage an open, efficient and transparent system that allows people to come to Canada to begin new lives.

The motion before the House talks about immigrants to Canada and persons seeking Canadian citizenship being poorly served. There is a real difference between processing people quickly and processing people effectively. We have rules for a reason because there are certain standards that we want respected, such as the rule of law, and fairness and equity. If we do not meet these basic standards, then it is the people of Canada who are poorly served.

For example, we acknowledge that certain problems have come to light around the Citizenship Act.

In the short term, we have made some informed decisions on obvious cases of injustice. That is what good ministers do and that is what good governments do. These decisions have been made once all the facts were known and the standards of equity and fairness have been met.

In the longer term, the minister has indicated her openness with regard to amending the Citizenship Act. The minister expressed her willingness to entertain new ideas when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Monday, February 19, 2007.

To sum up, while the Liberals stood idly by for 13 long years, we are taking real action to address the needs of immigrants. We have cut the Liberal immigrant head tax in half, from $975 to $490. We are providing $307 million in additional settlement funding to new immigrants. We have granted over 11,000 off campus work permits to international students. We have set the highest targets for immigration in 12 years. This government is processing a record number of temporary foreign worker applicants. Canada's new government truly respects immigrants and is getting things done on citizenship and immigration.

As an immigrant to this country, I am proud to be part of a government that truly respects and is getting things done for immigrants.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also was an immigrant. I am not an immigrant anymore because I am now a Canadian citizen, and I am very proud of it.

The member said that we had not done enough for immigration, and I agree that we have not done enough for immigration. I agree there is a lot more to be done.

I would like to have his response to a couple of quotes from a gentleman called Stephen Harper who wrote for Report Newsmagazine--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles has a lot of experience in this House. She knows that we never refer to members by their first or last name. We refer to them by their title or riding.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville may now respond.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that my colleague across the way acknowledged that the Liberals did not do enough and that they should have done more. I really do appreciate that. I appreciate the member's work in the past on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the immigration work she has done. She did contribute. She also said that ideas came from them. I compliment my colleague. At the same time, ideas might have come forward in 1997, but they were not implemented. They are being implemented now.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville said that Liberals voted against the $300 million and some in the budget, but if I recall, and I want clarification, the member was on the Liberal side at that time and also voted against it. I wanted to clarify that because I believe that was the case.

If I recall, he also voted in favour of the $75 million for credential and certificate clarification when the Liberals brought that in and the government he sits with today voted against it. He says the Liberal government did nothing. Today a rear admiral before committee said that during the Liberal regime the government built 12 frigates for our navy. That is only part of what we did, 12 frigates.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that when I take a taxi from the airport to go to my riding or my home, the most educated taxi driver is driving the cab. He is either an engineer, a doctor or a scientist. Those people are still driving taxis. Those people are still not settled. Credential recognition is a mess.

It is time to acknowledge the shortcomings of the party opposite. It is not about finger pointing. It is about recognizing that things needed to be done and it did not get it done. This government is getting it done and will continue to get it done.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has been the most amazing debate to follow in the House in the last few minutes. I imagine the millions of viewers who watch us everyday wish they had a playbook in their hands.

First, the former Conservative member for Halton who crossed the floor and now sits as a Liberal intervened to criticize the party that he defended just over a year ago in the last election. Then the former Liberal member for Mississauga—Streetsville who crossed the floor and now sits as a Conservative gets up to criticize the party that he defended in the last election.

Since both of the members now have intimate knowledge of two of the political parties represented here, why do we not just agree that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have done right for new Canadians?

I would ask the member this question. Would immigrants in Canada not be better served if we just adopted the very substantive motion that the member for Burnaby—Douglas tried to move in the House earlier today?

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I am on this side of the House is because of those disappointments. The Liberal Party has moved away from people like myself. The Liberal Party has done nothing for immigrants for the longest time. The Liberal Party has done absolutely nothing for credential recognition. There has been nothing but rhetoric and it continues in the same vein.

I was hoping Liberals would have learned something. At least one of the hon. members recognizes that the Liberal Party had some ideas but they were not implemented. At the same time, the rest of the members on the opposite side continue to defend the indefensible. It is time that we move the agenda forward. It is time that we get the job done.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today Canada continues to face many challenges with regard to this issue of immigration and those who wish to become citizens of this country.

Each year, over 200,000 new immigrants choose to make Canada their new home and their numbers are expected to increase. Immigration is one of the most significant issues at the federal level and we need to acknowledge that there are serious flaws with the current immigration system. These flaws negatively affect not only new immigrants or potential immigrants, but all Canadians as well.

The need to change our immigration system is reflected directly on how this system actually operates. Whether it is demonstrated in the clear inadequacies of the point system or the arbitrary and unfair deportation of undocumented workers, it is clear that things need to change.

Every time parents of Canadian-born children are deported, we are hurting Canadians. Every time family reunifications are endlessly delayed, we are hurting Canadians. Every time legitimate refugees are unjustly turned away, Canada's integrity and the spirit of our nation is diminished.

These realities must also be taken within the context of Canada's population dynamics. The current population trends in Canada clearly identify a serious shortage in terms of the future labour needs of this nation. Simply put, Canadians living here are having fewer children and the so-called baby boomers are beginning to retire en masse. As a result, there will not be enough workers in Canada's labour market to maintain the required level of workers.

Every time we delay the entry of qualified new immigrants to Canada, we are hurting the Canadian economy. The government needs to listen to the calls for change, if not for reasons of compassion, then for reasons of logic and common sense. There are very real economic implications that face our country if we do not address the flaws in our immigration system.

Frankly, there are extensive lists of immigration and citizenship issues that are in desperate need of attention and redress. Time will permit me to comment upon only a few of them.

The issue of undocumented workers is one that is very close to the hearts of my constituents of Davenport. It is an issue of vital importance and one that requires reason, logic, as well as compassion.

I have spoken in Parliament more than 30 times since the last election on this most important issue. Since my first days as a member of Parliament, I have been working hard to press for a solution to the issue of undocumented workers. I have met with stakeholders, government officials, unions, the business community, and of course undocumented workers. My goal has always been the same: a reasonable and compassionate solution to their plight.

Today in Canada there are as many as 200,000 undocumented workers. These are people who have come to Canada to do the jobs that Canadians either cannot or will not do, and they are filling a labour shortage that is real and pressing.

For example, one only has to speak with the union and business leaders within the construction industry in Toronto or Vancouver to realize just how pressing this situation really is for their sector. If these workers were not employed in the jobs they have, the construction boom that is sustaining in Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver, as well as countless other Canadian towns and cities, would simply grind to a halt.

The undocumented workers of whom I speak have settled in Canada. They enjoy and participate in Canadian culture. They are raising Canadian-born children. They pay their taxes and they have become an integral part of the Canadian social fabric and the communities in which they reside.

These workers would like nothing more than to regularize their status in Canada, to go through the system, pay their dues, pass the test, and become full citizens in the country they have grown to love.

The reality is that in many cases when they attempt to actually regularize their status, they are often simply deported from Canada. They are stable, integrated immigrants who are contributing to Canadian society and who have all the qualifications required to become Canadian citizens, and conceivably the current system we have would rather just deport them, regardless of the labour needs of this country. If sanity is defined as soundness of mind, then this policy is anything but sound. Rather it is quite frankly an insane policy.

These undocumented workers are trying to do what is right. They want to raise their families, pay their taxes and be part of the normal life of this country and yet our laws are scaring them into hiding. It reminds me of the quote by the philosopher Voltaire: “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”.

During the last Parliament and after much study, I presented to my colleagues a plan that would see the regularization of undocumented workers and which would completely retain the integrity of our immigration system. The plan had just made its way through the ministerial approval process when the election was called and of course, that is where it stayed. The current policy with regard to undocumented workers highlights one of the major flaws in our immigration laws.

Another example of the flawed system is the current backlog under the points system. The backlog is absolutely unacceptable and as a result the current rules are not meeting the needs of the Canadian economy. The system, for example, is encouraging skilled workers to come to work in Canada only to find themselves in fields totally unrelated to their expertise.

For the sake of our nation's future prosperity, we need the government to act. This is not an issue of partisan politics, but rather it is a matter of respect, logic, humanity, economics and good governance.

The reality is that instead of real action to address the issue, we are seeing inaction and confusion on the part of the government. We on this side of the House are willing to work with the government and all other parties including the provinces to implement the changes that are so desperately needed.

The truth is that the issue of undocumented workers and backlogs are part of the greater problem within our immigration system. The list of problems is unfortunately quite long and there is much work to be done.

Another example of the impracticality of our current system is the issue of so-called moratorium countries. Due to the danger that exists in certain countries, Canada has banned the removal of persons to a number of countries called moratorium countries. These countries include: Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.

Those immigrants who are not regularized and who come from these countries are forced to spend their lives in limbo. Some of these immigrants have been in Canada for over a decade and yet they are unable to obtain permanent resident status. Again as before, these people have woven themselves into the fabric of our society. They have children who were born here and are therefore Canadian citizens. They want to give back to this country. Instead, we tell them to live their lives on hold.

At some point we must bring compassion and reason to this issue. We must implement a system to assist these immigrants to live full lives here in Canada. It is unfair and unreasonable to leave them in bureaucratic limbo indefinitely.

The issue of the Vietnamese boat people stuck in the Philippines is one in which Canada should demonstrate leadership. Members may know that there is a relatively small number of so-called Vietnamese boat people still stranded in the Philippines. They are forced out of society, not allowed to work, and compelled to struggle for mere subsistence.

In the past Canada has shown generosity of spirit and an openness that speaks to the great character of our nation. We have opened the door to those truly in need. Indeed in the years between 1978 and 1981, over a million Vietnamese fled their country in boats seeking refuge abroad. They were interned in camps across Asia, many of which were really nothing more than prisons.

There were many others who were forced to remain adrift on board the boats they had used to flee Vietnam. Canada heard the cry of the Vietnamese boat people and opened its doors to many of them. It is to Canada's everlasting credit that those boat people were fully integrated into Canadian society. They have since gone on to leadership roles in our country.

Canada should be proud of how this community has joined our multicultural mosaic for its success is indeed our success as well. That being said, a few thousand of the Vietnamese boat people remain trapped in intolerable conditions in the Philippines, for example.

The Canadian Vietnamese community has asked that Canada once again show the generosity of spirit for which we are known all over the world by opening our doors to the remaining boat people. This community has offered to sponsor the refugees to help guide them into our society and to take on some of the financial costs of their integration. The government certainly has the legal means to address this issue under the humanitarian and compassionate clauses of the current immigration laws.

Another potentially troubling issue is the possibility that the government might force dual citizens of Canada to choose between their heritage and their homes. This issue has been publicly discussed and it is clear that this is a policy the government is considering. I must believe that the government simply does not understand the profound personal nature of dual citizenship.

Canadians with dual citizenship have a profound loyalty to Canada. They are grateful for the opportunities they have been granted here and feel a deep connection to a multicultural society. It is precisely because they are not forced to choose between their heritage and their home that these people feel blessed to be Canadians. Their dedication to Canadian society and their resolve to protect this great country is one of the great success stories of our nation.

Canada has succeeded in building a society that has embraced diversity, celebrates differences and yet still is a cohesive, vibrant and unified country striving toward shared goals. Whether it was the first nations people who came to North America thousands of years ago, or the French and English settlers of the 1600s or the diverse groups that immigrated after them from Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and every other point on the globe, we have managed to build a strong nation that is a model to the world.

What successive waves of Canadian immigrants have built should not be torn down by any government. Canada has been founded on diversity and our laws should certainly reflect this reality.

As a child, I came to Canada with my parents and found a home here. I am proud to be Canada's first member of Parliament of Portuguese heritage. I am proud to serve my fellow Canadians and represent them in the House.

We are a great and vast nation that stretches from sea to sea to sea. There is room for all of us to grow to our fullest potential. The truth is that it does not matter from where we have come. What matters is where we are going together.

Generations to come will either muse upon our missed opportunities with regret or they will revel in our incomparable accomplishments. Reinventing our immigration system so it is more responsive is not an easy challenge, but as a country we have always managed to succeed where many have failed.

The dream of Canada has been a new frontier for countless new Canadians who stepped from ships in Halifax on pier 21 or from planes at Pearson airport in later years, but all with the same goal of building a new life for themselves and their families. Let us not take the dream that is Canada and close it off from those who can help us to create a better future for our country and for them as well.

Despite repeated calls to do so, the current government has not replaced the $700 million it removed, which was originally allocated to target the immigration backlog. I mentioned a little earlier in my remarks that a good first step would be the return of these funds to address the completely unacceptable backlog. The reality is that the previous Liberal government was prepared to act on the serious issues facing our immigration system.

As mentioned before, the former government was ready to take action on the issue of undocumented workers. It had reached a comprehensive agreement with the province of Ontario that would have seen $920 million over five years allocated to increase funding for settlement services, maximize the economic benefits of immigration and develop the first ever Ontario provincial nominee program, which would have allowed the province to more closely link immigration policy to labour market needs.

Indeed, in the Liberal fiscal update of 2005 the government had committed $3.5 billion over five years for new labour market partnership agreements with the provinces. This money would have gone to improving workplace skills development and labour market integration of new immigrants. The former Liberal government also took action to ease family reunification, including allowing most spouses and common law partners to remain in Canada while their applications were processed.

In short, the Liberal government was taking the action needed to address the challenges of Canada's immigration system and more was to be done.

Today, I call upon the government to follow the Liberal government's lead and take the action needed to make our immigration system more equitable, responsible and logical. The solutions are within our grasp and I am confident we can all work together to realize them in the near future if there is will on the part of the government.

Let us build an immigration system for Canada's tomorrow, not for times that have long since passed. Like everything that has shone before in our collective history, we work better when we work together.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on being the first Portuguese member of Parliament. Many of us commiserate with the issues he raised of the undocumented workers.

I find it interesting that he indicated his party was always on the cusp of some idea or program that it might have implemented. It had 13 years to do it, 11 of which were majority governments, but never got it done. It is a lot of rhetoric.

Under the same tenure, the backlog was increased by 750,000, 100,000 undocumented workers were deported and a permanent residents fee of $975 per person was implemented. That was hardly progress. It seems that what was implemented was negative.

This government has taken steps with respect to the temporary foreign workers program to ease the process, to cut the red tape and to potentially allow them to become permanent residents. It has encouraged and proceeded with the provincial nominee program. Many provinces have taken up that program and have met much of their labour market needs. That includes trades, construction workers and skilled workers. In fact, the latitude is there for the provinces to make such categories available as they find they have need of, which would cover much of what the member states.

Would he not agree with me that there needs to be a legitimate way for people to come into the country, to come through the system we have, to meet the labour market needs? Does he not see the differences that is taking place in the initiatives even this far?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am sure the hon. member meant to refer to his colleague in the House as a Canadian. One cannot be a Portuguese member of Parliament, only a Canadian member of Parliament. However, I am of Portuguese heritage, and that probably needs to be corrected for the record so whoever is listening will know very clearly that everybody in the House is a Canadian citizen and that is the only way one can serve in the House.

There was a reference that my hon. colleague, the member for Laval—Les Îles made about herself, that we were immigrants, but now we are Canadian citizens and are blessed to be in the House serving all of Canada.

On the issue of undocumented workers, I have worked very hard on this file for many years, even before I was elected as a member of Parliament. The issue is obviously not an easy one, but when we speak to anybody in the industry, certainly in the large urban centres, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, they will attest to the fact that there is an incredible shortage of workers, specifically in the construction sector. Without these workers, many of whom come from Europe and Latin America, filling that demand, the construction sector would come to a halt.

We have people in the country already doing meaningful work. Many of them have children who have been born in this country. They have also bought homes. They have fully integrated as much as possible. Yet unfortunately the system is not working to help them stay. A lot of that has to do with the point system and a lot of it has to do with the fact that we are not processing these applications fast enough.

However, the moment I was elected in 2004, I raised this over and over again, with my government at that time and within my caucus. We did have an action plan that we started to put in place. There was a real sincerity from the minister of immigration at the time that we would address the issue.

Unfortunately, the former Conservative minister of immigration, to whom I had spoken about the issue, had very little time for it. I really do not know what the new minister's views are, but in less than a year there have been two ministers in that very critical file of immigration. There have been enough changes that it will make it impossible for some real concrete changes to take place; that is changes within the ministers' portfolios.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not many times in the House do I agree with the members opposite, but with the hard work that member has done, his reputation on this precedes him.

I have in my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek about 15,000 people who are Muslim and about 5,000 or 6,000 who are Punjabi. People come into my office day in and day out and they talk about the fact that the system has failed them. They talk about the fact that with the point system they were allowed to come to Canada. They were told that there would be good jobs for them. They were told a number of things.

When I hear members from the opposite of the House commenting on how badly broken the system is, I have to remind them that it was their system. They developed it and put it in place. They are the ones who put the landing tax in place. I find it ironic when I listen to them.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I point out, as well, that in 2005 we put in $263 million to launch an internationally trained workers initiative program to improve integration of immigration of internationally trained Canadian into the workforce. We had done a lot of work on family reunification.

I know the members opposite in the NDP Party, and I am not referring specifically to the member himself, like to do the big talk. In foreign credentials, for example, where are they with their NDP governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba to ensure that those credentials are in fact recognized? The credential recognition cannot be done alone by the federal government. It also requires input from the provincial governments. A lot of these different boards and different credential institutions are within provincial jurisdiction, not the federal government's jurisdiction.

I realize I am answering his question, but I would like to know what work his party is doing to ensure that those NDP governments, and the past NDP government in British Columbia, in fact address this issue. It cannot be done solely by the federal government.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of undocumented workers, I think we would all laud the temporary foreign workers program. My colleague also indicated other programs on which we were acting, but invariably it comes back to the fact that we cannot break the queue.

We have undocumented workers, and there is an absolute need there, good solid Canadians who are trying to provide for their children, their families. They make a great contribution. However, if we have a program that is going to deal with the backlog of undocumented workers, we are breaking the queue.

Could the member respond to that? What would be a two-pronged strategy that would take into consideration what the queue is and how can we deal with those who want to come to Canada and at the same time deal with those who want to stay? What would the strategy be to come to grips with this issue, instead of pointing fingers back and forth about why these people are here, what will we do with them, they should be deported and so on, all of which are unsatisfactory responses?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to my hon. colleague that the big problem is this idea about a queue. There really is no queue. Under the present system, these people would never qualify to get into the country.

We are bringing 20,000 engineers to Canada, but we are not bringing 20,000 construction workers. While there is not a great demand for 20,000 engineers, there is great demand for 20,000 construction workers the Toronto district, for example.

The other thing is management and unions have recognized the fact that there is a huge labour shortage in our country. The average age of a construction worker or a truck driver is 55 years of age. If we do not address it now, we will damage our economy for future generations to come. Therefore, we have to deal with it right now, not in 10 years.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to discuss the Liberal motion before us, which states that immigrants to Canada and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are poorly served by this government.

The Bloc Québécois supports this motion. In fact, immigrants to this country and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are very poorly served by the current Conservative government. Unfortunately, I must also add that they were just as poorly served by the previous Liberal government. The crazy thing is that it is the Liberal Party that introduced this motion in the House today.

There is plenty of proof that immigrants and persons seeking Canadian citizenship have been and are being very poorly served by both the current and former governments.

For my part, I just want to discuss the issue concerning three sections of Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which came into force on June 28, 2002. In sections 110, 111 and 171, the act provides for a refugee appeal division. That division was never created.

Bill C-280 is quite straightforward. It simply aims to implement the refugee appeal division, commonly known as the RAD. Adopting this bill would mean that the three sections already included in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act concerning the refugee appeal division, or RAD, would simply be implemented.

This is a little strange, in fact it is nearly the height of absurdity, since the Bloc Québécois already introduced a bill to implement the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which was adopted in 2001 and which came into effect in June 2002, in its entirety. I am a new member of Parliament, but I did not know that a piece of legislation was needed to enact another piece of legislation.

A proper appeal process for refugee claimants ought to have been put in place as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act took effect, namely, in 2002. This is one of the significant changes required to ensure that all asylum seekers are treated fairly and equitably.

The creation of the refugee appeal division is a matter of justice. To persist in not making this change, as the two most recent governments have done, is to allow a situation that is unfair to asylum seekers to continue. When the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was drafted, the refugee appeal division was seen as a fair compromise in response to the desire to move from two board members responsible for examining asylum claims to just one.

Yet, now we have the worst of both worlds. There is only one board member, not two, to examine the files, and there is no refugee appeal division in effect. This results in terrible, irreparable harm to asylum seekers, who are all too often victims of an arbitrary and faulty decision made by a board member, whose competency can be, in certain cases, uncertain, and all this with no appeal process.

The federal government maintains that a safety net already exists by virtue of the opportunity to request a pre-removal risk assessment, through judicial review by the Federal Court and through a request for permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. But these two solutions do not offer any protection for refugees, because, as my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges pointed out this morning, the Federal Court conducts only judicial reviews, reviews of form, and does not review the facts of a case when someone applies for asylum.

In addition, there is a blatant lack of political will to establish the refugee appeal division, because this division is already enshrined in the legislation, in sections 110, 111 and 171. In June 2002, after their own legislation came into effect, the Liberals avoided establishing the RAD. Now that the Conservatives are in power, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration still has not established the RAD, despite the positions her party has taken in the past.

In 2004, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion calling on the Liberal government at the time to establish the refugee appeal division or rapidly come up with a solution. The government consistently refused to comply with the committee's motion.

Many groups in civil society in Quebec, across Canada and in the international community have called for establishment of the RAD. Among these are the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Committee against Torture, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, la Ligue des droits et libertés and the KAIROS group.

In a Canadian Council for Refugees report, Professor François Crépeau, who teaches international law at the Université de Montréal, gave four reasons why the refugee appeal division should be put in place. I will simply list them, because my colleague also spoke about them this morning. The four reasons are efficiency, uniformity in the law, justice and politics.

The definition of a refugee or an asylum seeker has long been established in international conventions. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted by the United Nations in 1951. More than 145 countries, including Canada, ratified the convention and its protocol.

According to this convention, Canada cannot directly or indirectly return refugees to a country where they will be persecuted. Refugees find themselves in very difficult situations and are very vulnerable.

We must never forget that when a person applies for refugee status, that person is always in a state of vulnerability and helplessness that we as citizens here, for the most part, have never known. This person leaves a difficult situation where their life was in danger for a number of religious, political or other reasons. This person arrives in the country and, in many cases, does not understand the language—neither French nor English. This person also arrives in a precarious economic situation, sometimes with just the shirt on their back. These are fragile, vulnerable and very poor people.

It is our moral duty to welcome these people with respect and compassion. To do so, Canada must do everything it can to ensure asylum seekers a fair process when they arrive in Canada, especially since a negative decision can have tragic consequences and very serious repercussions.

The Bloc Québécois is dismayed by the lack of justice toward refugees demonstrated by Citizenship and Immigration since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into effect in 2002. The worst part is that Bill C-11 in 2002 was intended to correct the former Immigration Act of 1976, which did not include a refugee appeal division. Furthermore, this lack of a refugee appeal division was compensated for, at the time, by the presence of two board members who reviewed the asylum claims. Only one of the two board members needed to rule in favour of the asylum claim for the person to be granted asylum.

Currently, now there is just one board member instead of two, the refugee appeal division, RAD, seems even more important. Without the RAD, the risk of error is even greater and asylum seekers have no recourse if they are victims of an arbitrary negative decision.

Establishing a refugee appeal division would ensure that justice is done. It would also address the inconsistencies in the determination process. Furthermore, the costs of implementing this measure would be minimal. According to Jean-Guy Fleury, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, operating the RAD would cost $8 million per year. When we consider that the financial resources of the IRB are estimated at $116 million for 2006-2007, the RAD annual operating costs would represent only 7% of the total budget. The resulting savings must be considered.

In closing, I would just like to say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the Liberal motion presented today. While it is true that immigrants to Canada and individuals who seek to obtain Canadian citizenship are poorly served by the government, I sincerely believe that by establishing this principle of fairness and justice for those asking for asylum, we could improve the condition of individuals seeking refugee status. The principles of fairness and justice must come from establishing the refugee appeal division.

Therefore Bill C-280 must be adopted to ensure that the three sections of the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which have not yet come into force, are implemented.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, an individual in my riding has been charged with crimes against humanity. Not only was he charged, but three levels of tribunals gave their opinions. Furthermore, it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The process began 12 years ago. Thus, for 12 years now, this refugee has been shuffled through the various levels of justice.

Now, 12 years later, he is still here in Canada. In the event that he is not returned to his country, the Canadian government will have to suffer the loss of another $2 million or so, to put him on trial again to determine whether he committed war crimes.

At what point does the system become unfair for immigrants?

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague opposite, I would say that, if there is no appeal process, how can there be a fair and equitable system for those applying for refugee status?

This effectively means that a ruling by one board member will decide what happens to the individual, and a board member can make mistakes. I believe that to err is human. Thus, there is no appeal process for the applicant.

I do not see the connection to the example given by my hon. colleague earlier. That has nothing to do with what I said earlier, nor does it have anything to do with the RAD.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. He is a new member on the committee and has a great depth of knowledge and sensitivity.

My question again goes back to the refugee appeal division. The facts are that this is in the act and that we went from a two member board to a one member board. The two person board meant that one of the two members had to agree with it and a person would get status. Now there is only one member and one member can reject that application for status.

If we had an appeal division, I believe that not only would we get better decisions from the refugee board and more justice for the refugees, but we would also speed up the system because the Federal Court would not have so many applications. It would also be cheaper. Would my friend agree with me?

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I believe that the process would be shorter if there were a refugee appeal division, because there would be less of a backlog. I believe that this has been proven.

In addition, it would mean faster decisions on refugee claims. I believe the process would be faster and cheaper. In my opinion, it would cost less. An appeal to the Federal Court adds to the cost.