Debates of May 26th, 2009

Commissioner of Official Languages

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act, I have the honour to table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the period from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Government Response to Petitions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.

Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Health

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.

The committee examined the main estimates and has decided to report the same.

I wish to thank all members of the committee for their hard work and co-operation.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of committees in the House.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 14th report later this day.

Internment of Persons of Croatian Origin Recognition Act

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-394, An Act to acknowledge that persons of Croatian origin were interned in Canada during the First World War and to provide for recognition of this event.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill, the internment of persons of Croatian origin recognition act.

The purpose of the bill is to acknowledge and commemorate a tragic episode in our nation's history when persons of Croatian origin were rounded up, interned and used as forced labour in a number of internment camps in Canada.

With the outbreak of World War I, prejudice and racism was fanned into xenophobia, culminating in the implementation of the War Measures Act as a result of an order in council by the Canadian government.

Five thousand, nine hundred and fifty-four so-called enemy aliens, of whom more than four hundred and fifty were of Croatian origin who had immigrated to Canada from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were interned.

While some would prefer to sweep this tragic episode of history of the internment operations of 1914 to 1920 into the dustbin of history, the Croatian Canadian community remembers and, through public acknowledgement by the government, seeks to bring closure to a painful episode in our common history.

By enacting this legislation and recognizing this tragedy, it is my hope that a better public understanding of what happened will reinforce and promote our shared values of multiculturalism, inclusion and, above all, mutual respect.

It is my sincere hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will embrace and support this worthy and long overdue initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Employment Insurance Act

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute).

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative government refuses to make the changes to employment insurance that are needed to help thousands of unemployed workers, the Bloc Québécois understands that urgent action is needed, and is proposing a major overhaul of employment insurance in order to improve the system and enhance accessibility.

Accordingly, I am proud to rise in this House to introduce a bill to make people who have lost their jobs as a result of a labour dispute, whether a lock-out or strike, eligible for employment insurance. This is an important bill, because it addresses a gap that currently exists in the Employment Insurance Act. Indeed, in the past, when people lost their jobs as a result of a long labour dispute, which prevented them from accumulating the required hours in the 52 preceding weeks, they were not eligible for employment insurance.

Now, with this bill, their benefits will be calculated based on the weeks worked before the labour dispute began, regardless of how long the dispute lasts. I therefore invite all members of this House to vote in favour of this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier today, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Elgin--Middlesex--London have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

Unparliamentary Language--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the points of order concerning unparliamentary language raised on May 14, 2009 by the government House leader with regard to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and by the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord concerning remarks made by the Minister of State for Science and Technology.

I would like to thank the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord for raising these matters. I also thank the hon. members for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and Joliette as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for their interventions.

In raising his point of order, the government House leader stated that the leader of the Bloc Québécois used derogatory and unparliamentary language and accused ministers of the Crown of lying. He pointed out that the use of such language was unacceptable and asked the Speaker to take disciplinary action.

In his reply, the leader of the Bloc Québécois stated that he had used the same language as that used by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services the previous day during question period.

In his intervention, the member for Joliette reiterated the remarks of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, particularly the plea for equitable treatment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs contended that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services had not aimed his comments at any particular member, unlike the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

I would like to remind the members that on a number of occasions I have quoted page 526 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.

I have now reviewed the Debates of May 13 and 14. On May 13, at the end of his reply to a question posed by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services had stated: “To say that we are hindering Quebec is an untruth. What we are doing is giving it a boost.” (p. 3446 in the Debates). It is possible in a purely technical sense to argue, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has done, that the transcript shows that these remarks are not directed to any specific individual and therefore are not out of order. A review of the video of the exchange in question has given me a better understanding of the context and suggests to me that quite a different impression may well have been left by the minister when he used the word complained of. This has led me to conclude that the minister should withdraw the word.

In his comments on the point of order, the leader of the Bloc Québécois had stated: “Mr. Speaker, when I say the government is telling lies, I am not addressing the specific individual, but an institution.” (Debates, p. 3529). However, having reviewed the beginning of the preamble to his question on May 14, this is not entirely the case. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has made the point that this part of his preamble was of a general nature, similar to that of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. However, he then added that the Prime Minister’s responses were also full of lies and this is where his remarks became clearly unparliamentary. And as the House is aware, I did advise the member at that time that the remark was unparliamentary and asked him to withdraw it.

After a full review of the remarks made on May 14, I must conclude that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie did indeed use unparliamentary language in reference to the Prime Minister and therefore that he should withdraw the words complained of.

I wish now to address the second point of order, namely the one raised by the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord on May 14.

In his submission, the member pointed out that the Minister of State for Science and Technology had used the word “dishonest” in his reply to a question posed by the member for Shefford. The whip of the Bloc Québécois asked the Speaker to determine if such a term was acceptable to the House and, if he found it unparliamentary, to ask the minister to withdraw the word.

Having examined the debates, it appears to me that the remark of the minister of state casts doubt on the honesty of the member who posed the question and, as such, is unparliamentary. I would, therefore, request the Minister of State for Science and Technology to withdraw this remark.

The two cases just considered highlight an increasingly common difficulty the Chair has faced of late and, as members know, they enjoy practically unfettered freedom of speech in the chamber. It is in this context that the Speaker is obliged by Standing Order 10 to, “...preserve order and decorum...”, while Standing Order 18 obliges members not to, “...use offensive words against either House or against any member thereof”.

I want to reiterate that certain words, while not always aimed specifically at individuals and, therefore, arguably technically not out of order, can still cause disruption, can still be felt by those on the receiving end as offensive and therefore can and do lead to disorder in the House.

It is that kind of language that I, as Speaker, am bound by our rules not only to discourage but to disallow. That is why I am appealing to all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words and thus avoid creating the kind of disorder that so disrupts our proceedings and so deeply dismays the many citizens who observe our proceedings.

It is in that spirit of cooperation that I now call upon the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology to withdraw the remarks that gave rise to this ruling.

The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of what you have said. It seems that the Chair may be under the impression that my remarks could have been construed to be offensive. I assure you that it was not my intention to offend anyone here. For the debates we engage in here to be civilized, productive and meaningful, there must be mutual respect. If the Chair believes that my words were offensive, I shall withdraw them without hesitation.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to your ruling, I withdraw my comments. I wish to point out that I would never have used such words had those used by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services the day before been disallowed. Now that he has been asked to retract his remarks, I shall retract mine as well.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to thank the two hon. members for helping the Chair with this matter.

The hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois on a point of order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that, under the Standing Orders, mentioning the absence of particular members is proscribed, but given that you said the Minister of State for Science and Technology should also withdraw his statement, and that he did not do so, will you invite him to do so today after question period?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure he has received the invitation. The problem is that he is not here. When the minister of state returns, I am sure that we will hear from him.

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, presented on Wednesday, February 25, be concurred in.

I am speaking to a motion that had been approved by the immigration committee not just at the beginning of this session, but also last session.

Canada's immigration policy has a devastating impact on many Canadians and their loved ones.

A situation that happens quite regularly is that thousands of Canadians fall in love with their classmates, co-workers or friends whom they meet at university, in the workplace, or at a park. After a few months or years the couple decide to get married, start a life together and sometimes have children. If the spouse that the Canadian meets happens to be a foreign student, a temporary worker, someone who has declared refugee status or has precarious immigration status in Canada, the Canadian will have to sponsor his or her spouse. That is no problem. The person can stay in Canada while the sponsorship takes place.

The sponsorship process in Canada can take six months, one year, two years, sometimes even three years. One would think that while the sponsorship application forms and paperwork are being processed, the wife or husband would be allowed to stay in Canada. After all, he or she has married and has possibly started a family. There may be children involved. The couple may have been together for 5 years, 10 years in some cases.

Canada has a very strange policy. Canada will deport the spouse. That is hard to believe. Canada will actually deport the person with precarious status even though the person is married to a Canadian. Even though a woman could be pregnant, breastfeeding a baby or has a one-year-old child, she could be deported. Sometimes it is the mom who is deported and sometimes it is the dad. It completely breaks up the family.

This policy is absurd. It does not make sense. Why? Because we are cruelly separating members of a family. It causes human suffering. The breadwinner in the family could be the one who is deported. When that person stops working, the family may become destitute. If the mom who just had a baby is deported, the baby would probably be deported also, even though the baby was born in Canada. The baby and the mom would be deported back to wherever the mom came from while the husband is desperate in Canada.

Once the person is deported, he or she will have to wait maybe a year or two years, sometimes a shorter period, sometimes longer, to come back to Canada. Imagine a couple who has just gotten married or has been married for a few years and has to face this kind of separation for several years. That is grossly unfair.

On top of that, the couple may have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars on lawyer fees and flights. For example, if the person is from China, the couple will have to pay for the flight to China for the mom and the baby and then for their return to Canada. The couple could be looking at spending $10,000 before the whole situation is finished and they get back together.

Not only is it hard for the couple, but it is hard for the Canadian public. Why? Because the case has to first be processed through the Canada Border Services Agency. Then the person is deported, which consists of court documentation. Then, the application that started in Canada has to start all over again. All of that is swept away. The applicants have to put in the application overseas and the sponsors sponsoring it here in Canada. Then the immigration department here in Canada and the embassy overseas, let us say it is in Beijing, have to start the application all over again. Think about the staffing costs, the paperwork and how much taxpayer money is wasted on this absurd policy. I am not just talking in abstraction. I will mention three situations that have hit the media.

On May 21 on ctv.ca, I saw the story of a Dutch woman in Halifax who is facing deportation. She said that her ex-husband will kill her and her children if she is sent back to the Netherlands. Lillian Ralph said that Canadian officials want to deport her family next week, even though a decision on her application for permanent residency is expected soon. She is married to a Canadian. She came to Canada in 2000. She has been in Canada for nine years. She married a Canadian. She said her ex-husband has put a number on their heads. She said:

“Literally, he has threatened to kill us many, many times... He has explained how he would do it, where he would put our bodies... he will definitely go after us.”

She is 39 years old. According to her, her ex-husband smuggled weapons. This woman said that her two young children are having nightmares about being sent back to the Netherlands.

We are not just sending back one person. We are sending back three. Think of the cost. Her Canadian spouse would have to bring them back to Canada, if she survives. Apparently, her permanent residency application is supposed to be decided within 90 days. The right hand, which would be the Canada Border Services Agency, is not talking to the left hand, which would be the Canadian immigration department. The process at the immigration department is slow. It is taking 90 days. In the meantime, the Canada Border Services Agency will deport the person. That is hard to believe. It is absurd. It is a bit Kafkaesque.

Another situation occurred in December 2008. In this case, I know the family really well. This occurred on December 23, just before Christmas, a time for families to celebrate. The family is Catholic. They go to a church in my riding near St. Patrick and Dundas. This young woman has been in Canada for quite a few years. She is married to a Canadian. Her spouse, Mr. Wu, is a factory worker. His wife is expecting a baby. Not only is she pregnant, but she and Mr. Wu have a 10-month-old son.

Imagine telling a pregnant woman with a 10-month-old son just before Christmas that they will be deported in the new year. Imagine getting news like that. Mr. Wu, who is the factory worker, put in the application years ago to sponsor this woman. They have been married not just for a few months; they have been married for quite a while. They have a kid and are expecting a second one. Mr. Wu is very sad because his family will be broken apart. He said that if his wife could stay, it would be very good.

Chen, who is 28 and three months pregnant, is being deported by the Canada Border Services Agency. Her application to allow her to say in Canada is being processed. It is being reviewed. Even though it is being reviewed, that does not stop the deportation. She does not know how long it will take for this application to be processed, even though she was told that perhaps the application would be approved in a matter of a few months. It is absurd that she would be deported while her application may be approved.

They filed their application in November 2007. This was two months after they were married, before the first baby was born and before she became pregnant with the second baby. In November 2007, they were told it would be six months or a year. In November 2009, the application still had not been approved. It took two years plus several months for the approval. To sponsor a spouse within Canada, in this case, it took two and a half years. I have heard of situations which have taken even longer.

Imagine putting a family in this kind of heartbreaking limbo. They do not know what to do with their lives. They face deportation. After waiting for more than two years, instead of an answer, this family received a letter from the Canada Border Services Agency that ordered Chen to buy a one-way ticket, not a two-way ticket, to China. She was told she could leave her son, the 10-month old baby she was breastfeeding, in Canada if she wanted to. The baby did not have to be deported. Imagine a mother leaving the baby she is breastfeeding behind. This is completely cruel and absurd.

On top of that, they have to book a non-refundable flight, and the husband is to start a spousal sponsorship process which could take two to three years. Imagine this, they have already waited for two years, they are being deported and then have to wait for two years. So this family is looking at more than four years of uncertainty. That is not the Canadian way. That is not how we should treat Canadians who happen to fall in love and marry a foreign student, worker, or someone in that kind of situation.

At the end of the day, in this case, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism did the right thing and allowed the family to stay. They are very appreciative. I think the minister understands that to send a pregnant mom with a 10-month old baby overseas makes no sense. I am glad that did not happen.

It should not be a case-by-case situation. We need to change the policy. It is not as if it was determined to be a marriage of convenience. Be my guest, if the immigration department found there were marriages of convenience, deport those people. That is fine.

This is before the decision is made. These cases I am talking about were not determined to be marriages of convenience. What kind of marriage of convenience would we be talking about when they have two kids? We are not talking about that very small percentage that may be cheating. Deport them after it is decided they are cheating, but do not leave these Canadians in limbo.

There are several things that need to be fixed. First, it should not take two or three years to have a sponsorship application approved. Second, we need to change the policy, so that while the immigration department is taking its time to make these decisions, these people are not deported.

I have one more situation. When I first started this little campaign of mine to change this policy, I came into contact with Mr. Chen. Mr. Chen came to Canada in 1995. He began a relationship with a woman who is now his wife. They worked together. After a two-year courtship, they got married. He was the main person who was working. Not only was he working, he was a very successful businessman. He managed and owned a food store, which opened in 2001, and he was a part shareholder of this company. The gross revenue was $13 million last year. This was a very successful businessman. He was married to a Canadian spouse. The spouse started the sponsorship application after they were married and two years later, he faced deportation.

Imagine deporting a business owner. In the last situation I talked about, it was a factory worker. This man was a businessman who owned two businesses and managed one of them. He was the head of the household, the main bread earner for his wife and child, and he faced deportation which meant that his wife and child, who are Canadians, would have no means of supporting themselves. They would probably eventually have to go on welfare while this father was deported back to his home country to await sponsorship to return to Canada. That is just absurd. There is no criminal case. They are ordinary, hard-working people. And yet, in this Canada, we have this absurd policy.

If we were to ask any Canadian, “Do you know that if you married, let's say, a foreign student, you would have to wait for several years to get it approved?”. They would say, “My gosh, how could that be possible?” Then, we would add, “And by the way, that person will face deportation”. They would say, “That is even hard to believe”. And if we were to say, “And then if that person is deported, it can take two or three years to return to Canada”. No one would believe that.

In fact, I am often stopped at Tim Hortons, and my colleagues like to tell me that I can collect all types of stories at Timmy's. Just a few weeks ago at Tim Hortons, I came across a young woman. She has a master's degree. She is working full-time. She fell in love, in the park, Christie Pits Park, with her husband to be. They got married. But he got deported. They decided not to fight it. He left to go back to, I think it was either Cuba or Mexico. I do not remember which Latin American country.

She has been desperately trying to bring him back to Canada because they have been together for quite a few years and have been separated now for two years. He is still waiting in Latin America to return and join his wife. He is a professional. She is a professional. She is spending a huge amount of money to hire lawyers. He is spending money to hire lawyers so that he can return to Canada. Imagine the hardship that is being created by these cruel regulations. This is a young couple. She wants to start a family with him. She travels to Latin America every three or four months to continue their relationship. She told me about the phone bills, the flights costs, and the legal costs that she is incurring because she is separated from her husband because of the deportation.

When her husband was first deported she was told, “Oh, don't worry, he will be back in six months”. No, many years later they are still separated, so--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians would be absolutely shocked to hear the kind of evidence that my hon. colleague from Trinity—Spadina has brought before us because in Canada we believe we have a system that is fair, a system that treats people with respect and recognizes the need to have a coherent immigration policy. Yet, all too often when we are dealing with situations like spouses, like families who are being broken up, families who are being deported, the rules seem arbitrary, erratic and for the families who are caught up in this situation very Kafkaesque.

I heard my colleague say, in the situation of one of the families who were going to be broken up and deported, that we had the minister intervene, but it seems that in the absence of a just, coherent system, someone has to deal with their local MP who then has to deal with the minister. At the end of the day, such a situation remains arbitrary and hence unjust.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, given the experience she has had in the immigration cases she has dealt with over the years, could she give us a sense of how we can move forward so that we do not destroy family lives, we do not penalize families who are trying to make a life as good Canadian citizens? How do we restore confidence so that the immigrant families who come to Canada, who put roots in Canada, who are the people who have helped build Canada, that they can be assured they are doing this in a country that respects them, that respects a sense of law, and respects the integrity of family which I am sure all members in the House would agree is the foundation of our society?

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

Mr. Speaker, for families who happen to know who their member of Parliament is and feel they can come forward with their stories, occasionally they get a reprieve and end up being able to stay in Canada. Some families are so desperate to not be split apart that they go underground and disappear. That is not a good solution. Others, if they get deported, face separation for many years.

Let me give a bit of history. Under the former Liberal government, spouses had to apply outside of Canada for spousal sponsorship. Some members may remember the case where the former minister of immigration gave a minister's permit to a former stripper and then it became a big brouhaha in the House. Then there was a new Liberal minister of immigration who decided to change the policy and allowed people to stay in Canada and apply in Canada; however, the deportation rules still continue. The immigration minister tried to fix it in a very superficial way, but did not get it done, did not get the matter resolved because deportations continued to be allowed--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I am going to have to stop the hon. member to allow a couple more questions.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot jump into this debate without noticing that my colleague from the NDP always wants to take political sides. She said that this did not exist and it was the Liberals fault and so on. It is very unfortunate that my colleague was not here at the time. While she was enjoying the political sunshine at Toronto city hall, things here were continuing.

It is not true that this mess started under the Liberals. This has been ongoing for years. It was here even under the Conservatives, in 1988 to 1993. We have not had a chance to fix it. Time and time again there were attempts to fix it and it is just lately that it has gone rogue. It has taken so many years in Alberta and so many years at the local office that we are finding this difficulty.

I would like to give my colleague a chance to say that this problem has been in existence for a long time and to stop pointing fingers at different parties.