Debates of June 5th, 2007

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

He did not say no. Is there a motion?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleague was that if I were to ask the House for unanimous consent that the minister deals and grants citizenship to Joe Taylor and all the cases that are held in abeyance, would he be willing to entertain it?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, today we rise to debate the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Bill C-57. I thank my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, for tackling this very important issue. Canada's immigration system, historically, is something that we are all very proud of.

We are all immigrants to this country. My father was an immigrant. We have to ask, why do people come to Canada? Why do they choose Canada over so many other choices in the world? What do they expect when they come to Canada? Is it hope? Is it a new life? Is it a safe place to live? Is it a future? Is it an opportunity? I would say yes. However, do they expect to be exploited and abused? I definitely say no.

Today we are talking about Canada's reputation. I am proud of Canada and I am proud of Canada's role in the world, but I am very concerned because Canada's reputation is being harmed. Canada is being seen as becoming a haven, a country now linked to an industry of abuse and exploitation. It is unacceptable to allow situations of exploitation, which used to exist under the Liberal government, to continue.

The previous Liberal government did nothing to stop human trafficking. It allowed foreign strippers, foreign nationals, into the country, regardless of whether they could be potential victims of abuse or exploitation. The Liberal strippergate scandal must never be allowed to repeat itself.

It is not acceptable for a government to knowingly authorize vulnerable foreign workers, such as strippers, to enter our country, enter potentially abusive situations and potential criminal activity. The proposed amendments before us address the contradictions and help prevent vulnerable people from being abused.

Human trafficking is a global problem and it requires a global response. Canada has to do its part. The UN has put forth recommendations. There is a UN protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children. It provides an international framework to address human trafficking. Canada has ratified the protocol and we encourage other countries to do so. Countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have take action on this very important issue.

We have international standards. We have multi-pronged approach, a response to human trafficking, what they called the three Ps: first, prevention of trafficking; second the protection of victims; and third the prosecution of offenders.

Canada's new government is taking its international obligations seriously. We are working to combat human trafficking. We are strengthening criminal law to repress and stop human trafficking. We are looking at the RCMP's human trafficking national coordination centre, which provides a focal point for facilitating human trafficking investigations and helping to protect victims.

The government has enhanced training for law enforcement, for border officials and NGOs, on victim identification. We have released new guidelines for immigration officers in May 2006, unique to the needs to help victims.

Canada works with its partners internationally. For example, Canada works with the United States in a binational assessment of trafficking in persons. We are there to help increase awareness of this problem. Internationally, Canada is providing leadership, including prevention and awareness raising efforts for all countries, but particularly source countries. We are taking action.

However, I am very concerned at the stance of some of the members in some of the speeches that I have heard here today.

I listened to the NDP speeches today. The NDP, with its extremely radical left-wing agenda, claims to be in favour of women's rights. Yet it is against more money for women in need. Instead those members are in favour of increased money for advocacy groups, not the people who really need it.

We also noticed the languages of the NDP members in their speeches. They keep repeating “sex trade workers”. It almost sounds like they would like to unionize these unfortunate, disadvantaged women. I have never heard anyone say that “when I grow up I want to be a sex trade worker”. These women and children are victims. It is up to the Government of Canada to take a stance and do what we can do to help these victims, who find themselves in these incredibly unfortunate situations.

I listened to the member for Burnaby—Douglas who said that this was a minor attempt at improving the issue on human trafficking. It is a positive step forward. Why will the NDP not support this very important step forward? By members not stepping forward, they are actually leaping backward. They are against women's rights. They are against the disenfranchised. They are against those who are outright abused in the sex trades.

NDP members are being intellectually dishonest with their philosophical basis. This issue is about people being sexually exploited and about human trafficking. No matter how one wants to pervert the argument, distort the facts, the legislation is about closing loopholes on human trafficking, about human exploitation.

I implore the NDP and the other members of the House to change their position.

We see on the record that there has been some flipping and some flopping and some changes. I will to read into the record what the member for Winnipeg Centre from the NDP had to say about the previous government's record. On October 30, 2005, he said:

The door is still wide open for the type of wholesale exploitation that existed with the Eastern European dancers, and in reality the minister of immigration is still pimping for the underworld.

He went on to say:

Five successive ministers of immigration have been pimping for the underworld by providing an endless stream of fodder for the underworld of pornography and prostitution under the guise of legitimate dancing.

Today we hear that the NDP will not be supporting what the government is moving forward.

With respect to the government's allowance of a visa for exotic dancers, the member for Winnipeg Centre also said:

I condemn the government for allowing this program to exist. I cannot believe how callous and uncaring it must be.

Even the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, on the so-called exotic dancer program, said on December 2, 2004, in the Edmonton Journal and the Globe and Mail:

Now the government might not any longer be pimping for the sex industry and that is a good thing and it never should have been doing that in the first place.

I hope the leader of the NDP and the NDP caucus will vote in favour of Bill C-57, recognizing that our government is taking a real and necessary action to deal with this important issue, something the previous government failed to do.

I am very proud of members of the House and the work they are doing on human trafficking.

I need to continue my speech by acknowledging my colleague, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, for all the good work on this issue. I note she has been an advocate for victims, for people who have been exploited coming into our country. I know she has travelled extensively and has identified the problem of human trafficking in virtually every community in which she has been. She has worked tirelessly and she has spoken, and more important, listened to the victims of the sex trade industry. They have told her that we need to change our system of closing our eyes and looking the other way.

Bill C-57 has been well received by groups working to eliminate human trafficking. I will read into the record some of the things that have been said about Bill C-57.

Irena Soltys, co-chair of the Stop the Trafficking Coalition said:

Stop the Trafficking Coalition supports [Minister of Citizenship and Immigration] announcement regarding changes to the IRPA to protect vulnerable workers. Included in this are women that may have been exploited as exotic dancers and forced to work as sex slaves....Canada, as an international human rights leader, owes them the protection that they are entitled to.

John Muise, director of public safety for the Canadian Centre of Abuse Awareness, said that Bill C-57 “is part of the response that needs to occur in terms of protecting women and children in this country”.

Sabrina Sullivan of the Future Group said:

[The] Immigration Minister...has taken an important step to protect women from sexual exploitation and end a program that made Canada complicit in human trafficking.

It is clear that [the Prime Minister's] government is serious about combating human trafficking.

Even those in the adult entertainment industry are acknowledging the need for Bill C-57. Dale Pidluzny, a booking agent for Independent Artists, stated in the Calgary Herald on May 18:

If there's girls being taken advantage of out east because of that, then yes, they should shut that door on it.

Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said on The Verdict on CTV Newsnet:

The idea is to prevent any degrading, humiliating treatment, including sexual exploitation. There is nothing in the proposed law about abandoning exotic dancers or strippers....

--for the first time in immigration policy we're going to see a debate where it belongs, in Parliament.

Here is what I am asking of all members in the House, particularly the NDP. It is the NDP that claims to stand up for women's rights, the NDP that claims to stand up for victims and the NDP that claims to stand up and look out for the disenfranchised and those who fall through the cracks, yet due to some NDP members' radical left-wing agenda, today they say they will not be supporting this bill. They will not be supporting this positive step forward.

This issue is about closing the loophole in trafficking in human beings. Canada's international and domestic reputation depends on this action. This is about the protection of innocent women and children. I ask all members to stand with us and support this bill.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of comments that I think we should also put on the record. I would refer the member to a couple of articles.

On Wednesday, May 16, canada.com in Ottawa stated that “the number who applied for temporary work permits in 2005 dropped by 82%“. That was for strippers. On CTV we heard, “Keeping foreign exotic dancers out of Canada will not address the issue of exploitation”. Annie Temple, who runs NakedTruth.ca, told the Canadian Press that. She said:

If the Conservative government is truly concerned about exploitation of exotic dancers, they should focus on ensuring health and safety standards exist in stripper clubs.

I could go on, but the one thing that really sticks in my mind is the article in the Globe and Mail on May 17, which stated that people “accused the Conservatives of pandering to their morally traditional voter base by making much fanfare about a relatively redundant bill”.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would acknowledge the fact that this is such a skimpy bill and that the government is using this bill in order to divert the focus from important things, such as lost Canadians, undocumented workers, and other bills that need to be addressed, and that what the minister is doing is grandstanding. She is presenting this in a bill and it certainly does not even need to be in a bill because it can be worked on administratively in the department.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member does not seem to understand is that this is about Canada's reputation. This is about how Canada is seen in the world. Yes, this is only one part of what Canada's new government is doing. We are trying to pass laws domestically, and of course we all know how the Liberals are trying to slow every single bill that we put through, but we are going to continue to move forward because we believe that Canada's reputation is very important.

He talks about being moralistic, but does the hon. member believe in the rule of law, in the rights of and the protection of the vulnerable? Is it not a government's responsibility to look out for and protect those who cannot protect themselves?

This is a step forward. There will be other steps forward. I ask the hon. member for his support in moving forward on this very important bill.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's excellent speech.

Albeit this may be about a smallish part of the overall problem, I read a book a couple of years ago called The Natashas, by Victor Malarek, and I commend it to my colleagues in the House. It addresses the topic of exploitation, slavery and so on in developed countries like Canada, the United States and the European countries.

I wonder if my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has any information on the gross numbers we are talking about, not just of strippers but of people overall who are being affected by the slave trade, the sex trade and the exploitation of young women in particular.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. My colleague brings forward a very important problem with this entire issue. It is almost impossible to get numbers on how much of this is occurring in this country because it is an underground trade.

We do not know how bad it is, but as I said earlier, my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul has been working tirelessly on this. She has travelled across this country and internationally. Everywhere she goes she has the opportunity to listen to people who are affected by this very important issue of exploitation through the sex trade. It is everywhere. She has spoken to young people and also to old people who have been in this country a very long time and who have been victims.

The member brought up a very important point. We do not know how bad it is, but we know that it exists, that it is rampant, and that certain trades lead are more likely to lead people into becoming victimized.

This is the government's step forward. As I say, I am encouraging all members to support us on this very important bill, Bill C-57.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question. I have worked in committee with the member a number of times and I know that he really does care about Canada.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is asking a fundamental question about this. Why is such work available in Canada if it humiliates and degrades workers? That is a key issue.

While the government is doing a lot of things that are not unimportant, what I am having a significant problem with is that it appears that some of what the government has tried to do is for political gain rather than addressing the root question of where we are going wrong as Canadians in allowing this sort of work.

I would ask the hon. member to tell me and all Canadians exactly what the government of the day is doing to address that. It is very important, much more important than the Conservatives calling themselves the new government or trying to brand themselves as something different. I think Canadians want to know what the government is going to do to help us in this matter and to make a better Canada. That is what is important. That is what is at stake.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member in committee and I know that her heart is in the right place too. The difficulty is that some of these jobs are legal in this country. What we want to do is take steps forward to improving this for all workers. I look forward to her support in the future with other things the government brings forward.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister brought forward Bill C-57 in order to distract attention from other problems the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is facing.

I am going to continue from where I left off when I asked my question of the parliamentary secretary. I am going to read a paragraph from an article from May 17 saying that people accused “the Conservatives of pandering to their morally traditional voter base by making much fanfare about a relatively redundant bill”.

This is a clearly a move by a Conservative government that wants to keep calling itself the new Government of Canada. If one buys a suit today, it is new, and after a week it is a bit older, but after a year and a half it is old. Those members can only brand themselves as being a Conservative government.

On May 24 an article in the Toronto Star said:

Talk to the skilled professionals driving cabs, the doctors working as orderlies and the lawyers making telemarketing calls. They need Finley's attention too....

Wouldn't it make more sense to focus our energy on the vulnerable people who need Canada's protection, rather than devising ways to keep people out?

Bill C-57 is a skimpy bill for a skimpy issue. I am sure that if the department looked carefully at this, it could administratively bring forth an issue that could certainly prevent strippers from coming to Canada.

The minister is bringing forward this bill in an effort to camouflage other difficulties the department is facing under the Tories, such as the length of time it takes to process a spousal sponsorship. For example, a Canadian meets someone who is visiting Canada, they fall in love, they get married, and the Canadian decides to sponsor his or her spouse inside Canada. Under the Liberal government, the process was finished in six or nine months. Under the Conservatives, proven by documents given to the minister, it is taking up to two years. This prevents a young couple from starting their lives.

Lo and behold, if it is the wife who is sponsored and she gets pregnant, it is going to cost that couple anywhere between $10,000 to $15,000 for that child to be born, because that young lady would have absolutely no health coverage. This is going on while the Conservative government is dickering around with Bill C-57. Imagine that. I am talking about a Canadian citizen, an individual born in this country, and his or her father would have to pay $10,000 to $15,000. The Conservative government is putting people at risk by not working fast enough on spousal sponsorships.

There are other things that the Conservatives are trying to mask, such as the issue of lost Canadians. There are facts and fiction about lost Canadians. I would like to take that route.

There are thousands of Canadians who have lost their citizenship and are trying to get it back. There are thousands sitting in silence saying nothing, fearing that their family secret will be disclosed. Some just do not even know they are not Canadian citizens due to archaic and unjust legislation.

I have to admit that there are others more knowledgeable on the subject than I. However, I have become very familiar with this file. Some might say I have become too familiar with the effect this file has on Canadians.

Under section 8 of the 1977 Citizenship Act, unless children born abroad to Canadian parents reaffirms their citizenship by the time they are 28, they could lose their right to hold a Canadian passport and claim citizenship. They could end up being stateless and the Conservative government would not give a damn.

This was the case with my fourth daughter. She was born outside Canada. I quickly learned about the file of lost Canadians and of people like Joe Taylor, who has been fighting the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the last five years. Joe Taylor wants his right to citizenship. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has appealed a decision, thus holding in abeyance a few hundred cases. The number depends on who we ask. The minister says 250, but departmental officials say 400.

Fact: the minister does not know which end is up.

Fiction: people born in Canada are Canadian citizens.

In January I wrote a letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration asking that she take steps to resolve the matter of lost Canadians.

Fact: four steps were suggested to the minister, among them that the department advertise to advise Canadians that they might have lost their citizenship.

Fiction: when she appeared in January the minister and deputy minister advised the committee that they indeed had advertised. The deputy minister later advised members of the committee that this was not the case.

As the committee on citizenship and immigration began hearings on the issue of lost Canadians, the members heard stories that astounded Canadians as to how the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was screwing around with people's lives.

Canadians heard horror stories of people who had been misled and given half information, people who had lost their citizenship for a variety of reasons, or never had Canadian citizenship, and people who had lost jobs because they could not get a passport to travel abroad. Many people have lost everything.

Fact: a lost Canadian who has to apply for citizenship has to wait for a long time to get the matter resolved.

Fiction: according to the Citizenship and Immigration website, those cases deserve immediate attention and the minister is making these individual cases a priority.

The minister has attempted to disrupt the work of the committee. The last time her officials were testifying before the committee, they were even giving half facts. When the department officials were pressed for answers, the chair of the committee adjourned the meeting. This was followed up by letter to the chair of the committee from the minister telling committee members how to carry out their work.

Fact: “--I will ask my Deputy Minister indicate that, if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by the Committee members, they should not answer immediately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date”.

Fiction: Joe Taylor, a positive response from the minister is in the mail. What a shame.

In order for people to receive citizenship, whether they are lost Canadians or naturalized Canadians, they must undergo background checks by RCMP and CSIS.

Fact: it takes six to eight months and the standard answer from the RCMP inquiry states that the processing time is currently in excess of 120 days from receipt of the application. Note that processing times can vary due to incoming workloads. I will be tabling such a letter that I have received a little later on.

Fiction: the minister stated in committee that she has a verbal agreement with her counterpart minister, the Minister of Public Safety, in which the cases of lost Canadians will be handled in two weeks. The minister further stated that she had a proposal for new legislation which would take care of the problem. Again, she is disrupting the work of the committee in putting forth a real ill-conceived plan.

Fact: the new act proposes anyone born in Canada on or after January 1, 1947, will have citizenship even if they lost it under the provisions of the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act.

Fiction: this part of the proposed legislation looks after the war brides and war babies. According to the minister and the proposed legislation, World War II happened after 1947.

The minister goes further in the proposed legislation and states that on or after January 1, 1947, Canadian citizens will have their citizenships confirmed if they are first generation born abroad, but no further. This means that second generation Canadians born abroad are not recognized by Canada. They will be illegitimate Canadians. They will be stateless.

Fact: we brought back a few thousand people from Lebanon last summer and the Conservative-Reform-Alliance Party, or CRAP, the base of this new government, is screaming that people should not have dual citizenship.

Fiction: the minister stated, “Despite widespread media coverage...the number of cases of individuals in Canada whose citizenship status needs to be resolved is still limited”. The minister simply does not know the file.

Time and time again, she tried very hard to convey a message that she knows what she is talking about and that the department officials, on her instructions, are working for our interests, and advertising and looking for every opportunity to contact lost Canadians.

Fact: the minister is playing to her Reform agenda that pits one Canadian against another. The real fiction is when the minister states:

My heart goes out to all those who have been affected by this issue due to outdated laws that have been on the books for many years. While the previous government chose not to act, we are taking action and moving forward to help those whose citizenship is in question.

I would say to the minister the following. Get on with the facts and drop the fiction. Canadians want the facts. Canadians deserve the facts.

There is also another topic which the minister is trying to circumvent and it deals with undocumented workers. Undocumented workers are people that have come to Canada and have for many years tried to settle and work in Canada, and raise their families.

The past Liberal government was on the verge of doing just that, regularizing these individuals. We were on the verge of streamlining policies and working with stakeholders to make sure that these people found a home in Canada.

It was but a few days after the last election that Canada's new government, this heartless Conservative government, showed its true colours and started deporting thousands of people.

These were people who were doing jobs and filling positions which were badly needed. Stakeholders, community groups and unions have come forward and asked the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to study this matter.

I am proud to have moved a motion that the citizenship and immigration committee study undocumented workers. In committee we went even farther and asked for a moratorium on the deportation of undocumented workers until the committee reports.

I sought unanimous consent last week on this matter to stop the deportation of undocumented workers. It was very unfortunate that the bastions of the worker class, the champagne socialists, the NDP, did not give consent. The NDP did that not because it does not believe in it, but because it wants to take political expediency.

We have seen very clearly that the government does not know fact from fiction. The fact is that it takes 120 days. The fact is that an individual who was born in Holland was granted--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. Twice now the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt has stated that the member for Trinity--Spadina objected to the bill.

I want to be very clear that I was not in my seat. I was not in the House at the time when this member was seeking whatever consent he was seeking without talking to anyone.

I wish this member would stop talking about something that is absolutely not true. He should check the record as to whether I was actually in my seat or not. The last time I checked, members have to be in their seat to say anything or to object to anything.

Mr. Speaker, I believe you know the rule and that is in fact the rule.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. I am sure all members appreciate her clarifying that. I will remind all members that we do not make specific references to the absence or presence of members in the House.

I will return to the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that is a debate for another time and another place.

I would like to refer to a letter that was given to a Canadian by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. It states:

Dear [Sir]: I refer to my letter dated December 10, 1997, regarding your entitlement to registration as an Indian pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Act. I have now received the required documentation.

I am pleased to confirm that you are now registered as an Indian in the Indian Register in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Indian Act under the name of ... born on ...

Your Registry Number is ...

Here we have a letter issued to a son of a veteran who was born in Holland, that recognizes him as an aboriginal Canadian, and yet the Department of Citizenship and Immigration does not have the fortitude, does not have the gall, and does not have anything between its head to say why it is not recognizing him as a Canadian?

Certainly and clearly, the bills that we should be debating in the House are far more important than the little skimpy Bill C-57.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, I wonder if he finds it passing strange that a Conservative government takes leadership from the United States? If the government had its way, Canada would be in the war in Iraq and whenever something is happening down there on the far right, the government will support it.

Does the member not find it passing strange that the United States, which is now going through a process of regularizing undocumented workers and giving them a chance to work toward citizenship, recognizing how important they are to the American economy, just as our undocumented workers are very important to the Canadian economy, does he not find it passing strange that for once the Conservatives are not following the American lead and that they should to regularize undocumented workers?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is very strange that the government is doing things on a whim and on the fly. I find it even stranger that when it comes to issues that we have to deal with in our every day life, issues that affect people such as the undocumented workers, that members of the Conservative Party and certainly members of the fourth party are not supportive of those workers.

They are not doing the best that they can in order to make sure that these workers are regularized in Canada and that these workers have their spot in the sun in this country as the rest of us do.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to set the record straight. We know that the member for Burnaby—Douglas spoke at length in the House about the need to take a very serious look at the temporary foreign worker program.

He talked about the fact that certainly we have workers who come into the country, and the terms of the bill talk about work conditions that are unsuitable, and argued quite strongly that if the conditions are unsuitable for temporary foreign workers that they are also unsuitable for Canadians.

The member for Burnaby—Douglas explained at length the very serious problems that currently exist in the temporary worker program.

Despite the allegations of the member for Scarborough—Agincourt that the fourth party in the House has not worked tirelessly to take a look at some of the examples of how fundamentally flawed some of these programs are, I spoke earlier about the fact that in my own riding we have had some very serious problems with the temporary caregiver program. For example, there has been exploitation of workers and it has taken an inordinate amount of time to deal with some of the issues that are facing some of these workers. They are being exploited by agencies that are charging huge amounts of money.

Therefore, I would like the member to talk about how he would like to see the temporary program fixed and what steps should be put into place immediately.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear from the bleachers in the House of Commons.

It is very simple. The only thing that the government has to do and the only thing that should have been done through unanimous consent was to stop reporting undocumented workers. If her party would have supported that motion, we would not even be talking about it right now. Unfortunately, it did not.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-57 there is no doubt and it is indisputable that there are some areas that need to be looked at, but there are so many other areas that are so very important as well. My hon. colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt talked about doctors working as cab drivers.

I know that this new government, as it wants to call itself, talked a lot about that in the last election campaign, how it would fix that up, and how it would help those people. I make that appeal to this new government which really is not very new any more. It really is quite old and it is getting a little tired.

People are telling me that they are still out there working as cab drivers. They still need the help and they are not getting that help from the government. I am glad that my colleague is continuing to push this issue because I know he has for a long time campaigned on this very thing.

The lost Canadians again is a very important issue which the government is not addressing. I think that it really needs to do so. I ask my hon. colleague who spoke about this what his thoughts are on it?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the election in 2005 when the NDP along with the Conservative Party, the unholy alliance, pulled the plug, there was a major conference that was supposed to be taking place in December 2005 in Toronto. We were bringing together over 600 stakeholders, all the provinces, all the associations and all the departments in order to deal with the issue of undocumented workers. I, along with my colleague from Vancouver and the two parliamentary secretaries under the Minister of HRSDC were working diligently to make sure that the voices that we were hearing were answered.

We are talking about undocumented workers. It is not an easy solution. We cannot say, “Here is $100 million. We are going to fix it”. It takes all the provinces and territories, all the associations, be it the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, B.C., or the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Ontario and their counterparts all over Canada to come together in order to find a solution on how to move forward.

The Conservatives call themselves the new government, but certainly it is a Tory Conservative government and is the same thing as the government of Brian Mulroney. We remember that book On The Take. Certainly the government does not deserve any credit for speaking on the issue of immigrants.

The Conservatives certainly demonstrated time and time again that they do not care. The only thing they demonstrated they want to do is pit one community against another community. They did that right after they were elected when there were floods in the Philippines. They did that when we were bringing people out of Lebanon. They did not act quickly. It was not until the voices from the opposition and after the pushing that we did that the minister finally woke up and said that we had to do something.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was told that this would not work. They botched it up. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was told that this would not work. They botched it up.

They have an opportunity to do the right thing right now with what is happening in Lebanon. There are people living beside an area that has been bombed. Tragedies are happening. What can the minister do? She could ask her officials in Damascus and in Beirut to expedite family class cases in Lebanon. Has the minister acted? Absolutely not. Is the minister asleep at the switch? You bet, Mr. Speaker. Is the government asleep at the switch? You bet even more, Mr. Speaker.

Canadians from all walks of life will see one thing: This is not a new Canadian government. This is an old Conservative Government of Canada that is leading Canada down the garden path.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member give his speech and I am somewhat troubled in the sense that there were things that really dragged the hon. member's party and the previous old government down. I want to clarify as well that the party in question, the opposition Liberals, were in power for 13 years. The Liberals certainly had copious opportunities to make these changes, so it is highly ironic that we, having been in office for 15 months, are being accused of being old somehow, when they had 13 years, certainly a much longer time, almost 12 times as long, really.

It comes down to this: One of the scandals that happened under the old government's watch was this whole question of women being brought over and exploited. I heard a Liberal minister previously defend in this place the practice of bringing over and exploiting these young women for lap dancing and various things. We are trying to fix that.

Does the hon. member want to address that at all?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, addressing that particular question is very simple. We just need a directive in the department. We do not need a whole brand new bill. We do not need to have a charade in the House. The only reason for the charade in the House is to divert attention from the real needs that the department is not addressing: lost Canadians, undocumented workers, and the list goes on and on.

If I were the hon. member, I would go to his minister and tell her to get on with the work of recognizing lost Canadians and to get on with the work of stopping deportation of undocumented workers.

That is what the hon. member should do versus stating that we need to cover things up. The only thing that needs to be covered up is the inefficiency of the department.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.