Debates of May 26th, 2009

Citizenship and Immigration

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I would remind the House that the immigration policy has changed and as a result of the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the burden of proof often lies with the claimant. The system is designed in such a way that it is easy to refuse someone. As I was explaining earlier, when someone is refused, the decision is somewhat arbitrary and they are not always entitled to appeal; they do not always have the right to be heard. Some situations I have had to deal with in my riding fall into this category, and the only available means is to invoke section 25 of the act, that is, appeal to the discretion of the minister.

As for removals, I have seen many situations in which the people were removed not because their file was incomplete, but because of administrative technicalities. For example, when they were defended in court by the lawyer assigned to them, that individual did not do his or her job properly. Unfortunately, the claimants suffered the consequences of that and had no means of recourse. Furthermore, in many situations, the fact that wait times are long—and the government refuses to honestly and openly address questions related to why it takes so long to reach decisions in these cases—causes hardship. When it comes to refusals and removals, much greater sensitivity is needed in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the issue of the waiting period. Originally the promise was that if one sponsors their spouse in Canada it would probably take no more than six months to process an application. Then the couple could get on with their lives, start a new family and perhaps have children.

Right now, instead of processing an application in six months, we have seen situations where it takes over a year, two years or sometimes even three years. This is partially caused by the lack of resources in the immigration department, security clearance, people needed to do the interviews and application forms that are done by paper and not electronic format. All in all, it is not the most efficient system.

I know my hon. colleague has a lot of experience on the immigration file. Has she noticed an extended waiting period in the last few years that she has been involved in immigration policies?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I mentioned how immigration offices differ in the amount of time they take to process applications in this class. Administrative memos OP0248 and IP0211 of July 2002 reiterate the government's commitment to process 80% of sponsorship applications within six months. The government is not meeting this commitment.

In 2003, the immigration minister announced improvements in the form of a new kit for spouses that made it possible to consider the results of medical exams with the sponsorship application. A number of announcements have been made as well since the Conservatives took office. Yet the statistics show that two of the busiest offices, where we know false documents have been submitted and information is unreliable, are able to process spousal applications within three to four months. This is an example of the disparity among the immigration offices, and it concerns me. Most offices that issue visas do not seem to be meeting the six-month standard.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

The motion we are debating today has two parts: allowing applicants who have filed their first in Canada spousal or common-law sponsorship application temporary work permits and entitling them to an automatic stay of removal until a decision is rendered on their applications. I do not support the motion. It is unnecessary and potentially harmful to our immigration system.

With regard to the first point, work permits are already issued to those who have been determined to be in a bona fide relationship. Regarding the second part of the motion, we already provide a 60-day deferral of removal for many applicants who do not have status in Canada if removal action is initiated. This is an adequate amount of time in the majority of cases to determine whether the application will be accepted. In addition, a regulatory stay of removal is granted automatically once the applicant has been determined to be in a bona fide relationship meeting eligibility requirements.

What I would like to discuss are the dangers inherent in adopting the motion. While the government is fully committed to family reunification, it is imperative that we guard the integrity of Canada's immigration program.

Allowing automatic stays of removal and automatic access to work permits will lead to an increase in applications from people wanting to remain in Canada by any means, legal or otherwise. Our immigration system is already generous and fair. The proposed automatic stay and automatic open work permits are two significant elements that will make it even more attractive to those who want to circumvent the process. An already busy system may overload, leading to delays and a greater possibility of abuse.

There is presently a rigorous process in place to verify the legitimacy of each application. Under this process, each claim is examined carefully to ensure that relationships are bona fide. When immigrants apply to remain in Canada as part of the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class, immigration officials may check an applicant's background, may perform in-person interviews and examine other evidence in order to assess the relationship. Applicants who are assessed to be living in Canada in a legitimate relationship with an approved sponsor receive a first stage approval, or approval in principle, pending the outcome of medical, criminal and security checks.

Once this approval in principle is granted, applicants can then apply for open work permits and those with removal orders receive a regulatory stay of removal until a final decision is made on their application. However, I have already stated that our present system is generous and fair. It is also flexible. For spouses and common-law partners who are in Canada but do not have legal immigration status, there is a policy in place that allows these individuals to apply and be processed in the in Canada class.

The generous provisions of our immigration program make it a very attractive one and therefore, I might add, extremely busy. Immigration officers are trained to be vigilant in watching for inconsistencies that may indicate a relationship is not bona fide, thus ensuring that only genuine applicants are granted approval in principle. However, even with the due diligence exercised by Citizenship and Immigration officials, so-called relationships of convenience are already a concern. There is a very real possibility that instances of fraudulent claims such as these will increase if this motion is adopted.

The policy that is currently in place facilitates the reunification of families and guards against abuse. It protects the integrity of our current immigration program. The hon. member's motion, on the other hand, calls for actions that are not only unnecessary, but would open the system to fraud and misuse. I urge my colleagues in the House to vote against this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend carefully. I know he is a new member so I am going to be kind to him.

The system that we have right now does not work. The system that we have right now is broken.

The member across the way has children of his own or has family that has children. Should somebody be visiting from another country and his child or the child of someone in his family happen to fall in love and get married, they would put the application in at Vegreville, the case processing centre, and for whatever reason, maybe because an i was not dotted or a t was not crossed, that particular application would then be sent to the local office. There is no 60-day referral that my colleague spoke about, no God's will will get the application there within that 60 days. They will probably have to wait for four years before their application is dealt with.

Therefore, my question for the hon. member is this. Should the son of someone in his family find a wife and get married, and that individual is in limbo for four years, and if she were to become pregnant, would the son be eligible, available and willing, even afford, to pay the $15,000 that it takes for the delivery?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the important things that we have to consider here is that when it comes to family reunification, we have to recognize that our government has been supportive of measures that increase the possibility that if there are marriages of convenience, they are dealt with and dealt with properly. Really, what we are talking about right now is the increase in immigration fraud and concerns that we have in that regard.

We do look at these overseas spouses and partners and try to make sure that they are processed on a priority basis. The example of which he speaks, of four years, I believe is a bit of a stretch. Specifically, there are measures under existing provisions that allow applicants to remain in Canada. Spouses and partners can seek and maintain their temporary residence status while their applications for permanent residence are being processed.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear here. We are talking about applications within Canada. We are talking about Canadian couples who are already in Canada. Let us not get the issue confused because what I am hearing is some of the Conservative members talking about people who are overseas.

We are not talking about bringing someone from other parts of the world into Canada. We are talking about people who are already in Canada, who are going to school or working together, who fall in love and get married. We are talking about cases of people living in Canada.

If I am understanding the Conservative government's logic, it is saying that any application to sponsor a spouse who is in Canada is going to be fraudulent anyway and that is why it is going to deport the spouse while it makes a decision on whether it is a genuine application or not.

Why not take action after the decision is made on whether the case is genuine? Why take action before a decision is made? That is not fair. It is not logical.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, spouses and common-law partners already living in Canada may also apply for permanent residence in the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class. Further, applicants in the spouse or common-law partner class can stay here and apply for open work permits once they have received approval in principle, so if we look at the types of things that are taking place, we will find that there is the protection that is required.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Red Deer the same question that he avoided last time.

We are talking about family class applications and people who have fallen through the grid who are waiting to be processed because, for whatever reason, officials feel their applications are not genuine but are starting families. A young man, let us say the member's son, marries a lady who has fallen through the cracks and is pregnant. It is a simple question, yes or no. Does the member think it is fair for his son to pay $15,000 because his government did not stand shoulder to shoulder with his son in that marriage, yes or no?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to family class applications, one of the things the hon. member mentioned earlier was that there could be some i's not dotted and t's not crossed and this is the reason why these particular concerns could last as long as four years. As I mentioned, I do not believe that is the case. I know that if situations took place similar to that, people would be getting support through those who are in the system.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not here when I spoke at around 10:30 a.m. this morning. I actually named cases, applications that had gone in on November 27, 2007. In the case of Mr. Wu, he sponsored his wife, Chen. That case has taken two years and there is still no decision. It will probably be another six or nine months before one is made. That is close to three years for a Canadian to sponsor his spouse. In this situation there was a child involved and a second one on the way. The wife is pregnant.

Can the member tell me why the immigration department would take so long in making a decision, two or three years, and how can he justify deporting the pregnant wife and the 10-month-old child during this lengthy period? It makes no sense. What kind of family values are we talking about? It is splitting up families and it is cruel.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know all of the details about the specific case. She mentioned what she discussed earlier in the day. I cannot really speak to what occurred, but I know that everything that can be done in these situations is being done. If there are situations that people need to be aware of, I am sure things will work through the system in due course.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member why he thinks it is appropriate to engage the deportation process when there are still possibilities of processing spousal or permanent residence applications. Deportation is a very serious matter. Should there be a legitimate family connection, it makes it more complicated for a person to return to Canada because he or she has to get over the hurdle of the deportation that has taken place.

Why go to deportation when there are still possibilities of processing legitimate applications in Canada?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to deportation and situations that are that serious, there are immigration officers who are trained to be vigilant in watching for inconsistencies that may indicate that a relationship is not bona fide. We have to ensure genuine applicants are granted these approvals in principle.

I want to reiterate what I mentioned before. Citizenship and Immigration officials are looking at many of these relationships of convenience and there is concern. If that possibility exists, the instances of fraudulent claims such as these will increase if this motion is adopted.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate today to this concurrence motion in the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I want to thank the member for Trinity—Spadina for giving us this opportunity to talk about this important issue today.

The key part of the committee's report is a recommendation that the government allow any applicant, unless he or she has serious criminality, who has filed his or her first in Canada spousal or common-law sponsorship application, accompanied by a permanent residency application, to be entitled to a temporary work permit and an automatic stay of removal until a decision is rendered on his or her application. It is a very straightforward recommendation that tries to address a very difficult situation that all too often arises in dealing with immigration policy here in Canada.

I want to go over some of the key parts of this. The committee clearly understood that criminality was an issue that had to be taken into consideration in these circumstances, which is something we want to take very seriously. The committee said that serious criminality still must be considered in these circumstances and that there was often a reason to proceed to deportation and removal when there was an issue of criminality. The committee has been careful. It has not said that we excuse criminality if we are going to change and make this policy clear.

The committee also made it clear that this deals with first in Canada spousal or common-law sponsorship applications. Therefore, we are not talking about attempts to drag out the process or delay the imminent decision on a file by successive applications and appeals. We are talking about the first application for a spousal or common-law sponsorship application. This is not down the chain somewhere. This is at the very beginning of that process. The committee was very wise to include that and has been very careful to include that language in its recommendation in the report.

The committee report also talks about an in Canada spousal or common-law sponsorship application accompanied by a permanent residency application. In effect, we are getting the whole thing at once. We are not doing a separate spousal application and a later application for permanent residency. It was very prudent of the committee to ensure that it was saying that everything had to be in order about the application, that it had to be a serious application and that all aspects of the application needed to be complete and part of what was being considered by the department.

It was very wise of the committee to do that because we want to ensure the system has integrity and we want to ensure that people engaging this new policy are very serious about that engagement and very serious about their situation.

The committee was also wise to talk about entitlement to a temporary work permit until the decision has been reached on the application. I think everyone in the country knows the importance of work and how many families have struggled with the requirement that both spouses work to maintain a reasonable standard of living in this country.

I think that was a very wise inclusion. We know the financial stress that many families who are going through the immigration process are under and especially those who have gone through a difficult immigration process often face that. It was very wise of the committee to include the entitlement to a temporary work permit until a decision is rendered on the application.

The automatic stay of removal is also very important. We know that removal is a serious issue that involves the need for legal representation and a new level of engagement with the law in Canada. To get to that point, it is always very difficult to stop that process once it has begun. The seriousness of deportation has ongoing ramifications. It will ultimately take the direct intervention of the minister, I believe, to allow someone to return to Canada after the person has been removed and deported. It is a serious level of engagement of our immigration laws to consider removal and deportation. The committee was wise to say that should not be needed until a decision is made on the application.

This is a very prudent recommendation, a conservative recommendation in the small “c” sense. The fact that it gained a majority support at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is an indication of how carefully crafted it was to deal with very serious situations. Some of the most difficult situations that any member of Parliament can face is dealing with a family that is about to be separated because of some aspect of our immigration law. The committee was wise to be very careful in how it crafted this recommendation. I would hope the government would take it more seriously than it seems to be doing this morning.

What we also must remember, when we look at this situation, is that we are talking about but a Canadian sponsoring his or her spouse or partner. We are not talking about people who are trying to come into Canada who have no connection to Canada. We are talking about someone who is related to a Canadian in the most direct way as his or her spouse or partner. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about Canadians who want their spouse to be with them here in Canada and that is a crucial piece of this recommendation from the committee.

Overall, it is a very prudent, important and carefully constructed recommendation from the standing committee.

I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Trinity—Spadina. Like me, she was a constituency assistant to a member of Parliament for many years. She has had, like I, the experience of sitting with constituents who find themselves in these kinds of difficulties and has sat with them as they faced the possibility of their family being split and a family member, a spouse, being removed from Canada. I am sure members can imagine that there is not a more difficult situation than to sit with people and try to advocate for them when they find themselves in that circumstance.

My constituency staff and my case workers, Ayesha Haider, Caren Yu and Jane Ireland, have had the same experience in recent months of having to sit with constituents who are on the verge of their family being split up and have sat with them through that experience of seeing a spouse removed from Canada. It is one of the most difficult situations that they can deal with. I want to thank them for taking that responsibility and working with those folks to try to find every avenue that would make it possible for that family to stay together.

I believe families need to be the key principle behind our immigration laws and policy. Family reunification must be a fundamental principle of Canada's immigration law and for many years it was always seen as the key aspect. Keeping families together and reuniting families here in Canada was crucial to a successful immigration policy. I think it is one of the reasons why Canada, around the world, is seen as having a very successful immigration policy. If we were to look at the history of immigrants to Canada, the ones who have been most successful have been those who have had family here in Canada and have been reunited with them because it gives them a built-in support committee or a built-in settlement committee that allows them to adapt more quickly and more happily to life in Canada. We are loath to forget that family reunification has been the most successful part of our immigration program, which is good cause for continuing a bias in favour of families when it comes to our immigration policies, For me, that is a no-brainer. When we look at the immigration program, we will see that success. Most of us know from our own families that family reunification was an important aspect of immigration for many of our families. Successful immigrants come out of family reunification and we need to maintain that.

We heard concerns this morning that the Conservatives may be moving away from that emphasis in our immigration policy.

Mr. Speaker, you and I were on the immigration committee in the last Parliament when the then minister of citizenship and immigration, Mr. Monte Solberg, made his first visit to that committee and made his presentation entitled, “Minister's Vision for Citizenship and Immigration”. I remember being quite shocked listening to the minister's statement to the committee when he talked about the principles behind Canada's immigration program, the needs of the Canadian economy, the protection of vulnerable people and the refugee program. He did not talk about family reunification.

For years, Canada has had sort of a mantra. When we talk about the goals and principles of the immigration program, we talk about family reunification, the needs of the Canadian economy, the protection of vulnerable people and nation building.

The former minister, Mr. Solberg, however, left out nation building and family reunification. I thought those were very serious omissions. When it came to my time to question the minister, I said that he had listed the important principles behind immigration but that for the first time, I suspect, in many years, a minister has left out family reunification and I asked him why he did that. The minister replied that he was trying to keep his remarks short so he had not included everything but that he did see it as important.

I think the first time the immigration minister in a new government visits the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration his statement is very carefully drawn out. It is not something that is done carelessly. The words are chosen very carefully.

As it turns out, that was our first indication that for the Conservative government family reunification had literally dropped off the list of key principles around immigration. We have seen that with the emphasis on temporary foreign workers. We have seen that with the emphasizing of economic immigration over family reunification that has come with the Conservative government.

That is a very sad situation because family reunification and family immigration has been the strongest part of our immigration program and it is what has built this nation. To turn our backs on that success story is a serious problem indeed.

When I hear a Conservative standing today to criticize this recommendation from the standing committee, I worry that this is another example of the Conservatives failing to support families in Canada and failing to support Canadians as they build their families. I want to ensure we have a clear debate and that the government is forced to take a very clear position on this because it is something that I think is very important.

In my own constituency in recent months we have had a number of serious cases where families have suffered through this kind of situation where a spouse has been removed from Canada. I must say that these are very traumatic situations. One of them involved a spouse who was here in Canada on a visitor's visa. She had overextended her visitor's visa, forgot to renew it and, unfortunately, that left her out of status. She and her spouse realized the mistake but it did not change the fact that she was married to a Canadian and that she was pregnant with their first child. Unfortunately, we could not convince the government to cut them any slack to ensure this family would not be separated, especially at such a crucial time in their life when they were expecting the arrival of their first child.

The woman was placed on an airplane at the Vancouver airport. It was very difficult and traumatic getting her to that point of being on the plane. On the plane, she took ill before it took off. The flight had to be delayed and she had to be taken to the hospital where I believe she remained for about a week just because of the stress of what was happening to her at that point.

I think we can all agree that this is not a good situation for a pregnant woman. Needless to say, she and her husband were most distraught with what was going on. The husband was often denied visits with her during her hospitalization. Later, when she recovered from that immediate episode, she was removed from Canada. Here we have a family separated from their means of support, a father separated from the imminent birth of his child and a family separated by thousands and thousands of miles.

The father had to take an unpaid leave of absence from his job to be with his wife when their child was born. Having to take that time inflicted significant financial difficulties on the family. It affected his ability to maintain his position where he worked as well. This was all totally unnecessary.

This was a bona fide relationship. The spouse was pregnant. Yet, somehow we could not find it in our immigration process or in our hearts as Canadians to make sure this family stayed united in Canada.

We felt very strongly that the government failed this family at an important time for them. It will take some time to rebuild their confidence in this country. All of us who had anything to do with this particular case were very shaken because we could not get any minister to intervene directly in this case. This is one example of an issue that my constituency staff and constituents has experienced recently.

There are other complicated ones, and I do not deny that there are complications in all of these situations.

Recently, another constituent of mine was deported. He came here as a 10 year old. He did not know that his family had not made the appropriate arrangements to have him granted status in Canada. He had a wife and a child in Canada. He also had a criminality issue, but that was taken care of. He did his time in Canada, and he was released. As a result of that criminal conviction it came to light that he did not have status in Canada, and the government moved to remove him.

I take criminal issues very seriously, but this individual had been in Canada for over 20 years, I believe. He did his time, so I think that was resolved. But at that point he was our criminal, because he was a Canadian, by all intents and purposes, if not by direct legal definition, who had been raised in this country.

To say that he should have to leave this country and not be able to support his family and not see his child grow is a serious issue. Again, we failed another Canadian family by not having a more generous and clear policy around this kind of situation.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the situation of the Lennikov family in Burnaby. They live in the riding of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. This family is about to be separated, within the coming week, I believe.

Mikhail Lennikov, his wife Irina, and Dmitri, his son, came to Canada 11 years ago. They made refugee claims and they were found to be refugees, although Mr. Lennikov's claim was complicated by the fact that he had worked for the KGB in Russia. He was forced to work for the KGB. He quit the KGB after five years, and then he came to Canada. He did not hide that information when he made his refugee claim. We were not able to accept that someone could be forced to do that kind of work, turn their back on that work and be a legitimate refugee.

Dmitri Lennikov, the son, is graduating from high school this week. Mr. Lennikov has been granted a temporary stay of his deportation so he can attend his son's graduation.

What will the situation be after that? There will be another separated Canadian family, because Irina and Dmitri have been accepted to stay in Canada but Mikhail will be forced to leave. Another family will be in terrible distress.

This family has huge community support. Four thousand people went on their Facebook site, and letters and petitions have come from Dmitri's school and from the community in support of them.

This is a very simple matter. We need to support families. We need to make sure they have a successful life in Canada. We need to be careful before we engage in a removal process when it involves the spouse of a Canadian.

This recommendation from the standing committee is very carefully constructed to deal with the important situations that families face. It merits the full support of the House.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been a passionate spokesman on the need to have a coherent immigration policy in this country, one that is not erratic, one where a person does not have to know the minister or somebody who will protect them.

Canadians who marry people who come to Canada and start to raise families, who are legitimate applicants and committed to building a life in Canada, should not be subjected to mean-spirited bureaucracy. Yet, we have seen the response this morning from the Conservatives, the sense of suspicion of the outsider, the hisses about how we have to track down spies and how people come here to rip off average Canadians. There is an old saying that “Tory times are always hard times”, and we certainly see that with this government.

However, the way the Conservatives are using it against Canadian families, against people who are building lives here, we see a sense of deep mistrust with that party. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he senses this growing sense of power that the Conservatives can use against families who are relying on a system that is failing them.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is necessary to build walls around Canada to protect us from people who would flock here to somehow take advantage of us. When I hear about the need to protect the integrity of our immigration system, it somehow feels that it is the situation that is envisioned.

Most people, the vast majority, probably 99% of people who come to Canada, do so through the appropriate channels. We have to recognize that on a planet that has grown so small, where people move as freely as they do, often situations develop where relationships start and they do not necessarily conform to the kinds of bureaucratic arrangements or processes we have set in place. While we have that kind of freedom of movement around the planet, we have to deal with the situations that often present exceptions, or the need for an exception, to the strict application of our immigration law.

The committee has tried to say that those circumstances arise, they are completely legitimate, and here is a policy that will help us deal with them fairly and justly. The committee has been very careful to word the recommendation to do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, for this unfair, cruel and mean-spirited policy to continue, the Conservative government is really asking that when Canadians fall in love and decide to get married they should double-check to make sure the person is not of a precarious immigration status. If not, they will face many years of separation, hardship, financial difficulties, because the person would probably face deportation, even if they are married and the spouse is sponsoring them. That seems to be the message the Conservative government is pursuing.

With the kind of discussion we heard today, is that the message the Conservative government is sending, that if a person marries it is likely a marriage of convenience and the spouse should be deported, even though the application is proceeding, and there are really no grounds for compassion at all?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the situation of false marriages this morning in debate. I think that is a complete red herring. We are not talking about that with regard to this motion. In fact, this motion says that the application process will have to proceed. The common law or spousal sponsorship application has to proceed. The permanent residency application has to proceed. That is the appropriate place for those judgments to be made about whether it is a bona fide relationship or not. That is the place where those decisions will be made.

To raise this as though this is somehow going to allow a whole bunch of fraudulent marriages to be recognized by Canada and our immigration system is completely wrong. The reality is that we do not ask for somebody's landed immigrant papers when we begin a relationship with them or fall in love with them. That would be utterly inappropriate.

Years ago, in my own life, I began a relationship with someone from another country. It was when I was a young man. It was a time when gay relationships were not accepted by our immigration policy. My partner and I could not figure out how to get over that problem of the border in terms of our own relationship. I see other people faced with that same circumstance of the border and the necessity for having legal status in a country. When I see that interfering with their relationship and their ability to form that relationship, to flourish in it and find it a home in Canada, I feel it very personally.

I let that relationship go, because I could not see a way around that particular problem. No one should have to make that kind of decision. When a person is beginning or trying to continue a relationship, they should have the support of the government and the people of Canada and not have road blocks thrown in their way.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the first six months and then the first six years of a child's life are the most important for that person. That is when a child's brain is developing. That is when they are bonding with their parents. That is when the world is filled with wonder. The brain develops the most during the first six years of a child's life.

I want the House to think about this. If in the first few months or years of his or her life a child faced a situation where the mother or father is cruelly separated from them, what would happen to the child? Imagine a newly married couple having to decide if this young child should stay with the father or mother. One of them has to leave. I am talking about a Canadian-born child. Who should this child follow? Should he or she be deported with the mother or father or stay in Canada?

Imagine a couple having to make that decision of who the child should go with. Should he or she be deported or not? Imagine the trauma of this young baby, in the first few months or years of his or her life, being put a plane and taken away while the parents are totally distraught and financially ruined because of this ridiculous, inhumane policy in front of the House right now.

I want my colleague to comment on what would happen to this poor child. How would a couple make a decision as to whether the child should be deported to a place the child has never been or whether the child should stay with the mother or father? Is that a decision that any Canadian couple should face?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. A short answer, please.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could give a very short answer and just say no. No Canadian family should ever be put in that position. Perhaps that is the best answer. I do not think there is any “if this” or “but that”; I do not think any family should have to face that kind of decision.

That is exactly what the committee is saying with this policy change. It has been very conservative in how it has worded its recommendation to the government we are debating in the House this morning. The committee has looked at all the possible contingencies with regard to it. It has enumerated them in its motion and it has said this is an unacceptable situation for any Canadian family to face. Certainly, where there is a child involved, we know how important having a family is to the development of a child. I do not think there is any excuse for that.

The simple, clear and only answer to the member's question is no. It is absolutely inappropriate to put a family in that position.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this very important issue. It occurred to me as I listen to the debate that our country truly is built upon immigration. I think of my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River and immigration through the last century in particular, right up to and including the 1980s and 1990s. Like most ridings, Thunder Bay—Rainy River is a very diverse riding with many people having arrived as newcomers. Some are first, second or third generation.

Throughout our long history of immigration in Canada we have gone to extremes at various times. On occasion we have had a very open door policy on immigration. At times we have closed the door. This is a very different situation we are faced with today. The bottom line of what we are talking about is the devastating impact on families. We should be doing everything we possibly can to ensure that families stay together and raise their families here. Quite frankly, this is what Canadians have done for more than a century. We have opened our doors to people from around the world and it is only in our recent history we have said to people that they will have to leave the country in 30 to 60 days. For most of our history we have had an open door policy.

The communities in my riding would never have been built had it not been for Italian immigrants, Ukrainian immigrants and immigrants from other parts of eastern and western Europe. It behooves us to think very carefully about the impact of presuming that people are guilty when they arrive in our country, presuming that people are ne'er-do-wells, that people are here for fraudulent reasons. Granted, there may be an occasional case where that is true, but that is dealt with in the usual manner. What happens is that 99% of others are penalized. It is a question of fairness.

Imagine coming to this country looking for a better opportunity, looking to contribute to society and in the course of being here for six months, a year or two years, falling in love and starting to raise a family. Then the government says that one member of the family has to leave this country. In some cases a mother and children may get to stay in the country, but the husband has to leave. It is a very long and involved process to get back again.

I am not suggesting that the government should not remain vigilant against fraudulent immigration, but I am suggesting to the government that the instances are very, very few.

Canada has a strange policy in that it would deport one spouse. It is hard to believe that Canada will actually deport the person with the precarious status, even though that person is married to a Canadian. As my colleague from Trinity—Spadina said earlier today, the woman might be pregnant, or breastfeeding a baby or has other children. She could be deported, not her children. Sometimes it is the mom, sometimes it is the dad who is deported, but it breaks up the family.

In the last 10 to 15 years in this country everyone talks about the importance of the family and family values. Here is a situation where quite purposefully families are being split up.

It might take a year or two, sometimes a shorter period and sometimes a longer period, for the deported person to come back to Canada. For a couple that has just been married or has only been married for a year or two, to face separation for an extended period of time simply is not fair. Fairness is really what we are talking about today.

On top of that, the couple may have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees and so on. If the person comes from a part of the world that is very expensive to travel to, there are those expenses as well. It may be tens of thousands of dollars before the situation is resolved. Is that fair?

Not only is it hard on the couple, but it is hard on the Canadian public when we consider the government resources that are being used, the tax dollars that are being spent to make all of this happen, when it would be quite simple to say, “Until things are resolved, we are not going to do anything. Just continue to stay with your family. Stay with your spouse. Stay with your children”.

In my riding offices, I do not deal with a lot of immigration issues. However, when I do, I would like to say that the government has been very cooperative in terms of helping me sort out these problems for constituents. When I say that, it astounds me even more that we are even having this discussion today, because it seems to me that we use a whole lot of government resources to sort out things that should not have to be sorted out in the first place.

I would like to conclude by suggesting that this immigration policy has a devastating effect on many Canadians and their loved ones. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to express my dissatisfaction.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague's riding, my riding also was built mostly by immigrants. A lot of immigrants came to Nickel Belt in the 1940s and 1950s. They were community-minded people. They were very active in the community, not only in working but also in volunteering in the community.

I am working on an immigration case right now from Morocco. It is a very complicated case. The hold-up seems to be with CSIS. Apparently when one goes through CSIS, it could take a long time to get the problems resolved.

I would like to ask my colleague if there is something we could do in immigration to streamline the application system. When people have been deported unnecessarily, is there something we could do to speed up their return to Canada?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. My experience has been that some cases, complicated or not, take a long period of time and some take a shorter period of time to get resolved. A good example in my riding is a short-order cook from mainland China who was here on a work permit and needed that permit extended. Quite frankly, the immigration department acted very quickly to make that happen. There was no shortfall or period of time when he was unable to work in the country. Otherwise, he would have been sent home. We have those kinds of cases, but we also have other cases that are very complicated.

I would like to say in response that our public service is fabulous. Canada's public service employees work hard and as well as they can within the rules, but sometimes the rules are not proper and need to be changed.