Debates of May 26th, 2009

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, I used to work for a member of Parliament, Dan Heap, who was the immigration critic in the early 1980s. We started a campaign then to say that spousal sponsorship can be done in Canada. I know the history of this file.

In the early 1980s, after that campaign, the spouse could in fact apply in Canada. The Liberals changed that later on.

I know the history very, very well. For 13 years, they did not quite get it done. They did not get it done properly. Perhaps they tried, but right now the Conservative government is in front of us and whatever did not get done still needs to be fixed. It does not matter what the history is anymore. I could go on for a half hour to tell the House the sorry history of spousal sponsorship in Canada and outside Canada.

However, today we have a motion from the immigration committee, which is approved by the majority of the members, that says we should not deport spouses while their applications are being processed in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for moving this concurrence motion, because this is a significant issue.

In my office in Hamilton, we regularly have cases of people with serious immigration problems and this specific problem. We think about the damage that is done to a family when they are split up.

I commend the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism very readily, because he has worked with my office on a number of files.

However, the reality is that if a regulation is out of place it should be fixed. The committee has looked at it and it has reached that determination.

One of the things that troubles me is that at the start of this debate the member was reading the story of a couple and somebody from the government side said, “What if they're spies?”

It is not black and white. It is a reality of good, honest, hard-working people who marry Canadians who are in this country legally and then all of a sudden through this quirk they are moved off.

I ask the member what her reaction is to that backbencher's statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is one government. Someone has to take the responsibility. The Canada Border Services Agency has to work with the immigration department. The buck has to stop in one place. Right now, they are pointing at each other. The immigration department says to talk to the border agency because it is doing the deportation, and the border agency says to talk to the immigration department because it is taking a long time to approve the application.

Someone has to take charge. We cannot have the right hand pointing and the left hand saying it is sorry. They are blaming each other. At the end of the day, who pays? The families pay. The taxpayers pay. It gives the Canadian government a bad reputation and it does not make sense. There is no common sense to it.

Where are Canadian family values? I have heard so much from the Conservative government about family values. If we truly believe in family values, we should not split up families.

It is bureaucratic. It is Kafkaesque. That is why it is time that we fixed it. If we keep going like this, the minister will be running from case to case trying to fix these cases. At the end of the day it is the policy that needs fixing.

We should not believe that these spouses who are being sponsored are cheaters, liars and spies, because--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to actually speak against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has voted on a motion that would entitle any applicant to an automatic stay of removal and a work permit until a decision was rendered on their first in Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application.

We believe our current policies strike an appropriate balance between family reunification and maintaining program integrity. The hon. member's motion is unnecessary and potentially damaging.

Let me explain a bit about how our system works.

Family reunification is a key element of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Keeping families together helps people integrate into Canadian society and contributes to their well-being and long-term success.

As members of the House are aware, all immigration applications are carefully examined to ensure they are bona fide. For spouse or common law partner applications in Canada, processes are in place to ensure that the relationship that forms the basis of the application is genuine and the application is legitimate.

According to the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, spouses and common law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are already living in Canada may apply for permanent residence from within our country. In these instances, there are two types of cases: those who are in status and those who are out of status.

Spouses and common law partners who are already in Canada and who are in status may apply for permanent residence in the spouse or common law partner in Canada class. In order to be eligible under this class, applicants must have a bona fide relationship, live with their sponsoring spouse or common law partner in Canada and have legal temporary status in our country.

While their applications are being processed, spouses and common law partners can apply to maintain their temporary resident status. Applicants at this point undergo an initial eligibility assessment, also known as approval in principle. Once applicants have received an approval in principle they can remain in Canada and apply for open work permits.

This initial eligibility assessment plays an important role in preserving the integrity of Canada's immigration program. It ensures that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has determined that an applicant's relationship is genuine before he or she is eligible to apply for a work permit.

These are the measures already in place for people who are in status to stay in Canada while their application is in process. However, Canada's immigration system is even more generous than that. We have measures in place for individuals who are out of status to stay here permanently as well.

For spouses and common law partners who are in Canada without legal immigration status, a public policy was introduced in 2005 to allow these individuals, including failed refugee claimants, to apply and be processed in the in Canada class.

This policy was implemented to facilitate family reunification in cases where spouses and common law partners are already living in our country with a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident but who may have certain inadmissibilities that resulted in a lack of status. These inadmissibilities include, for example, having overstayed their temporary status, working or studying without being authorized to do so, or entering Canada without a valid passport, the required visa or other documentation. Like those who are already in status, these applicants will be allowed to apply for a work permit once they have obtained approval in principle.

In addition, should removal action be initiated against an applicant prior to an approval in principle decision, removals may be deferred for 60 days. This period facilitates the processing of their application to the approval in principle stage. In the majority of cases, this is more than enough time to process the application.

In some cases, individuals may not be eligible for this deferral. This applies to those who are ineligible for serious reasons, such as criminality, security, and violation of human rights, those who have previously avoided removal or those who apply to the spouse or common law partner in Canada class after they have been advised that they are ready to be removed.

In addition to this initial 60 day deferral or removal, once an applicant has obtained approval in principle, a stay of removal is invoked until a final decision is made on the application.

The current policy that facilitates family reunification applications and processing from within Canada is generous and flexible. In most cases, it allows people to stay in Canada while their applications are in process and once the bona fides of their application have been established it allows them to apply for an open work permit.

As I have outlined, the measures we already have in place make the hon. member's motion simply redundant, but it is more than that. Allowing automatic stays of removal together with automatic access to work permits to individuals applying for permanent residence through the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class could seriously undermine the integrity of Canada's immigration program.

Ours is an ethnically diverse and welcoming society and our immigration program is an attractive one, albeit one that is already working to its capacity. This motion would almost certainly lead to an increase in applications from individuals whose relationships might not be legitimate and who are seeking to remain in Canada through fraudulent means. Not only that, but we would also see an increase in individuals who want to delay their removal from Canada.

The government is diligent in ensuring that bona fide applications are processed in a timely fashion and maintaining Canada's commitment to family reunification. Moreover, the existing measures minimize the potential for abuse, and that is a critical point. They strike the appropriate balance between our family reunification goals and the need to maintain the integrity of our immigration system and program.

Based on the reasons outlined, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote against the motion by the member for Trinity—Spadina.

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is an abuse or a marriage of convenience, surely the department can make that decision and then deport the applicant. In terms of marriages of convenience, the percentage is quite low and many of them happen overseas, not within Canada. Therefore, how would continuing this policy encourage people to get married in order to remain in Canada? It sounds absurd. Marriage is very important. As some would say, if they are religious, that it is a sacred vow. How would that encourage people to take that vow just to abuse the system knowing full well that if they were found out at the end of the whole process they would get deported anyway? How would that encourage fraudulent behaviour? I do not quite understand that logic.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the member for Trinity—Spadina's point on this. On the one hand, she is suggesting that there are situations, even though the percentages are very low, where marriages of convenience have been determined but, on the other hand, she is asking why a couple would get married if they were not going to be committed to each other and that it was not a marriage of convenience.

What she is actually arguing is that our system currently works, that it does exactly what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to entrust within the ministry the opportunity to respond and investigate these cases in a very fair and forthright manner. All of us here in the House have had these issues to deal with and, for the most part, it has been determined that marriages that fall into this category are very legitimate and are approved. However, there are situations where this simply is not the case.

If the member for Trinity—Spadina is suggesting that we eliminate the investigation of this and simply trust couples to move in the right direction regarding marriage, it would be anything but a marriage of convenience. That is simply not possible because that would lead to further abuse of the system.

We have a system currently in place that is fair, equitable and probably the best system in the world, quite frankly, which is why it is filled to capacity and overcapacity. It is such a good system to work through. Why do we want to change something that actually has a fundamental way of properly doing an investigation that, at the end of the day, finds legitimacy in almost every aspect except for a limited number of cases?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member has come across a case like I have where a constituent came to me for help. This particular constituent was quite wealthy and sponsored a gentleman to come to Canada. She married him but he left her high and dry. He cleaned out her bank accounts and is long gone. This is quite a high profile case. She has now called our office and has asked if we could ensure he is found and deported.

What would the member tell my constituent? Are there many cases where people come in to take advantage not so much of the system but of the person?

As his last questioner said, commitment to marriage is one thing but then there is the commitment to take advantage of someone who is well-established in Canada. I have heard of several other cases where this has happened. I wonder if the member would like to comment.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have situations where folks come into our constituency office and have asked the legitimate question as to why a couple is being questioned on their commitment to each other and the fact that they have gotten married. There are obviously times when abuse has been determined and that these marriages are considered marriages of convenience.

The member makes a very important and significant addition to this discussion we are having this morning, which is that there are individuals within that bond of marriage who have been taken advantage of. They come into our constituency offices. I have had them in mine and I am sure members from all parties on both sides of the House have seen the same situations. Our system is also able to assist those individuals who were taken advantage of, who were not in a situation where the person they entered into a marriage with actually did so based on any fundamental relationship but did so simply because it gave the person the opportunity to set foot in our country.

As good as our system is, there are times when we have these situations to be true and they need to be addressed.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a system that deports people before any decision is made, whether or not the marriage is legitimate, as the parliamentary secretary was talking about.

It is being determined that all marriages are illegitimate, that they are all fraudulent and that is why we should deport them first and then decide whether they are legitimate. I would say that 95% to 100% of these cases are probably legitimate. I am sorry that they were already deported.

Yes, make the decision and then take action but in this case the person is considered guilty of fraudulent behaviour even before the immigration department makes a decision and the person is deported because it is presumed the person is guilty. For anyone falling in love and getting married to a person who has precarious status, it is considered that the marriage is probably illegitimate and that is why we are deporting the spouse right now without making a decision.

That is absurd. How can that be logical? You are taking action before a decision is made. How could that be justified?

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind the hon. member to address her remarks through the Chair and not directly to the members.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the passion and commitment the member for Trinity—Spadina has for this issue, she is deciding and determining to skip over the whole process that is involved.

Any individual who is under threat of deportation or is asked to return to his or her country of origin, that happens after a long period in which individuals have the opportunity to present their cases in a number of areas, as I outlined in my speech. Therefore, to conclude that an individual is sent home immediately after an investigation or a thorough review has been completed is not the case, and she knows it.

I guess it makes for some political hay to say that individuals are being treated in this manner but that is simply not the case. These processes are in place to ensure that fairness occurs for both those who have gotten married and for Canadians who have gone through this process before in a very legitimate fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the parliamentary secretary, but I will have an opportunity to bring it up in my speech.

We need to thoroughly examine what we are talking about. Therefore, for the benefit of Canadians who are tuning in, scratching their heads and asking themselves what the parliamentarians are talking about, let me give a rundown of exactly the things we are discussing.

We are talking about an individual who comes to Canada on a visitor visa seeking a better life. We are talking about an individual who is in Canada maybe without status or with status. This individual meets a landed immigrant and/or a Canadian citizen. Then two individuals fall in love and get married. When they get married, they have a choice of being sponsored outside Canada from their homeland or sponsored within Canada under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

In some instances, for individuals visiting Canada who do not require visitor visas to come to come to Canada, it is faster to be sponsored outside Canada. However, there are instances where individuals need visitor visas to enter Canada and it is a hardship for them to leave Canada, to be sponsored outside and then to be brought back into Canada by their spouses. Right now a spousal sponsorship outside Canada can take anywhere between six to eight months and other posts can take up to three years.

For example, Tamils coming from Sri Lanka face processing timelines of up to three and four years, which is three and four times as much as in other posts, and I have seen this happen. People who come from Sri Lanka as visitors, fall in love with Canadians and get married have two choices. They can go back to Sri Lanka and be sponsored by their spouses, which can take up to four years, or they can be sponsored inside Canada. If they are sponsored inside Canada and they are on status, then the sponsorship is done through the case processing centre in Vegreville. Vegreville then takes a look at the paperwork and if officials believe the bona fides of the marriage, they send it to the local Citizenship and Immigration centre office in order for them to land. If they have some serious doubts such as a person might be married before, there is a child, somebody is claiming refugee status, they send it to the local Citizenship and Immigration centre. That is where the problem arises.

In the local centre of Citizenship and Immigration waiting for an interview can take up to four years. Therefore, individuals sponsored by spouses, if they are in status in Canada and have a visitor visa, have to keep renewing their visitor visas for the next four years until they have an opportunity to go in front of immigration and present their cases. If for any reason they are not in status and claim refugee status, then they still have to linger in Canada for four years until their cases and interviews take place at the local Citizenship and Immigration centre.

This is where the problem starts, and it is twofold. First, if individuals are in status in Canada and for whatever reason Citizenship and Immigration decides it will not give an extension on their visitor visa, they become out of status. Second, if they have come to Canada, have claimed refugee status and get married in Canada, again they are not in status. On those two occasions, we have a spouse in Canada who could be removed from Canada and it does not allow the couple to set roots, to plan for their future, to have children and to carry on a life.

Let me examine a particular case I dealt with recently. A young lady came to Canada from China, from the province of Fujian, and claimed refugee status. That failed. She found a Canadian and they were married. However, CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, which is responsible for making the decision to remove people, decided that the woman needed to be removed. The decision to removed is no longer with Citizenship and Immigration, so it can say it is not responsible.

Let us look at the family. There is a three month old child. CBSA does not care that an applicant is waiting to have an interview. It is saying that the individual has to be removed. The mother is breastfeeding the child. When the mother is to be removed from Canada and sent to China, what will happen to little Kevin, who is three months old? CBSA has said the mother can take him with her. How in God's name can we send little Kevin, who is a Canadian citizen, to China? He has to get a visitor visa into China. If the mother is to be sponsored by the husband to come back, it could take a year and a half to two years. We will have a Canadian child in China, probably out of status over six or seven months, and we have separated the couple.

This is what is being faced in reality. We have Canadians who are marrying folks who are in Canada. Maybe their status runs out or maybe they claim refugee status. They are trying to start a family or they have a family. Then they go in front of CBSA. In this case, the CBSA officer bluntly told the couple to get a passport for little Kevin in order for them to remove the mother and for Kevin to go with her to China. The rights of this three-month-old Canadian are tossed out the window by a CBSA officer, who pretty well has absolutely no heart or feelings. He does not give a hoot about a three month old.

That is what we are facing with these existing difficulties. These are the people we are talking about.

There is another case I would like to discuss. A young individual came to Canada and claimed refugee status. He found a wife and they got married. She was three months pregnant when CBSA told him he had to go. He would either be removed or he could remove himself voluntarily, so he removed himself voluntarily. That was two years ago.

He is on his way back in the next few days. However, in the meantime, the child had his first birthday and the father was not here. He was not here to enjoy his son's first words. The father was not here to enjoy being called “papa”. The father was not here to be present at the birth of his child. We went to Citizenship and Immigration and explained the situation. We asked if it could expedite the case, but we were told no. It does not care. This was after he voluntarily removed himself.

We are talking about a young individual who found a wife. He got married. She was pregnant with a child. Why was he removed? Why was the family separated? The department should have done exactly what this motion calls for. If it is the first time individuals are sponsoring their spouses, they do not get removed until they have had their interviews at CIC, the local Citizenship and Immigration centre, and they are given work permits.

In the case of the individual who was sent back to China when his wife was pregnant, that would have fit perfectly. He would have stayed in Canada. He would have been given a work permit. He would have had an interview. There is no doubt that it was a bona fide marriage. There was a child involved. How can we tell a people that they were married out of convenience when there are children involved? Certainly, convenience does not include that sort of arrangement.

In the case of this individual, remaining in Canada and establishing himself probably would have been less of a hardship for the wife. The child would have had his father with him. They probably would have bought a home and moved on. He probably would have continued at his business and the couple would have been successful. What did we do instead? We separated the family. His business went down the drain. Now, he coming back to Canada. He is going to see the child, who is now over a year old. He has his first birthday a couple of months ago. He has only ever seen his child in pictures. He has to realize that the only reason he is coming back to Canada is because of his child.

The onus is on us. The severity of the cases we are talking about, when we separate husbands and wives and they are apart for a couple of years after they are married because we have told them they have to go back, or when we go into places of work and remove the husband or the wife, who have a baby, or when we order a couple to get a passport for the child, a Canadian citizen, because we are about to deport the mother, I challenge anyone in the House to tell me our system works. The needed changes are well overdue. These changes must come in so we protect young Canadian families.

I hear the Conservative minister and the parliamentary secretary say that there are a number of bogus marriages. Yes, we will run across that, but at the end of the day, that will certainly take care of itself when they have their interviews, when the individuals go before an officer of immigration and try to dot their is and cross their ts that their marriages are bona fide, but they are not, then they will be removed. However, we need to address those overwhelming cases that we see day after day in the newspaper, where we have families being kicked out.

Let us look at what happens when a case is referred from a case processing centre in Vegreville to the local office. The local office will tell the individual not to send any representations and not to bother the office for the next 36 to 48 months. The couple is therefore at a standstill. The husband, if he is being sponsored by a Canadian wife, has absolutely no health care or work permit. It is the same with the wife if she is being sponsored by her husband. Not having any health care, if the couple decides to have a child in Canada, a little Canadian, the father has to cover the health cost of delivering the baby.

A delivery in Ontario, such as a delivery in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt in Toronto, can cost up to $15,000. A married couple submits its paperwork and then the husband and wife are told they cannot do anything, that have to wait for four years. When the immigration officer is told that the wife is pregnant, how can it be questioned whether it is a bona fide marriage? The immigration officer will say it will not be called anything and they couple will have to wait until the case is dealt with in four years. If the husband and wife want to have children, that is up to them.

I have five daughters and I know the cost of bringing up children. However, imagine the cost of also having to pay for the delivery of the children? Some of us share the fact that we have children one after the other for a number of years. If individuals wait for four years and have two or three children, it will cost $45,000.

I worked on a case in my riding where the mother had two children and was sponsored by the husband. The case was being at the Scarborough Citizenship and Immigration office. The mother was pregnant again and the couple did not want to move. It got a little more hairy when there was a knock at the door. It was CBSA with a removal order. There are two Canadians involved. The mother is pregnant again and CBSA is there to remove her. Where is the reality? Where is the common sense?

We hear the parliamentary secretary say that it works, that we have checks and balances in place and the system works. That is totally false. The system does not work. There is case after case in our offices where there are bona fide marriages with children involved, and where CBSA and CIC take their sweet time. With CIC, if it goes to the local office, it is four years. It does not care if there are children, or if there are circumstances or if the husband has to go to work because the Canadian wife who sponsored him has already one or two children and has to stay at home to take care of them while the husband provides.

There is a husband who is being sponsored staying at home and cannot go to work. How would members of the House feel if they could not provide for their family? How would they feel if they had one or two children, their wife had just come out of the hospital and there was absolutely no income coming into the house? That is the tragedy.

This is why we are saying we should allow them to have a work permit. This is why we are saying that we should also move forward quickly to make sure that the female spouse has the opportunity to deliver children in Canada and the bearing of children is not a burden on a Canadian family. These are Canadians who have been born in Canada. These are Canadians and the CBSA officer is saying to the mother, “Get a passport for the child because you are going to be deported and we are going to send the Canadian child with you to China”.

Who are we deporting? Are we deporting the mother or are we sending into exile a young Canadian? Who are we hindering and who are we kiboshing? I will tell the House who we are doing it to. We are doing it to a child who is four or five months old, little Kevin. Once his mother goes, Kevin will have to follow his mother to China.

When Kevin goes to China or another country, he will be there as a visitor. If Kevin is sick and needs to go to the doctor, the local medical facilities will not take care of Kevin because he is not from that country. We are putting in harm's way a Canadian citizen who should have health care and all the other benefits. We are kicking him out of the country.

Imagine if little Kevin follows his mother, lives in China and becomes severely sick and he has been out of Canada for six months. The father then goes to China to bring the child back. OHIP in Ontario would say, “I am sorry, but the child has been out of the country for more than three months or six months. Therefore, the child is not entitled to health care”. How can we face a family when we separate them? How do we go about telling them that we stuck it to them?

We did not care about little Kevin. We did not care about the young man whom we separated from his wife and she had a child in Canada who is a year and a half old. Frankly, we just do not care. Why? Because maybe they are new immigrants. Why? Because maybe they do not fit the mould of the rest of us. Why? Because maybe we are xenophobic. I do not like to think that is the case. I hope it is not.

In order to make sure that we have a society that looks after families and we have a society that cares about the young ones and the young families, it is about time we stepped up to the plate and helped these young Canadians who found somebody they want to marry. Maybe the person is not in Canada, or maybe the person does not have status, or maybe the person has run out of status, but we have to take the responsibility in order to help them establish a family.

This is why it is very important to note that it mentions first time applicants only. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this very important motion as we try to establish and build families and help young families grow with the rights and obligations that we have as Canadians and as the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention in this debate this morning. I know he is a very experienced member of Parliament. He has had a great deal of immigration work in his constituency because he has a large immigrant new Canadian community in his riding as I do in mine.

Like the member for Trinity—Spadina, I was a constituency assistant for many years and had to deal with many situations where families faced complications in their immigration status. The most difficult ones were where a family was being separated because of some immigration problem or there was the threat of that. For many years I was able to say that family reunification, keeping families together, was a key principle of Canada's immigration policy. That was the overriding concern of what our immigration policy was about. Yet we have this phenomenon, this particular aspect of the way immigration law is enforced that actually forces spouses of Canadians out of the country because of some problem with their immigration status.

Could the member comment on the importance of ensuring that keeping families together remains the key principle of our overall immigration policy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for giving me an opportunity to say that it is the only principle, not the key principle but the only principle that we have. It is the only principle that obliges us. It is the obligation of every one of us in this House. Whether we are members in government, in opposition or the third or fourth party, it is our obligation to make sure that we support, nurture and are shoulder to shoulder during the good times, the hard times and the times when young families are trying to stay together. It is probably the toughest decision that has to be made by a family.

I want to go back to the family that I was talking about. The decision was whether the mother would take little Kevin with her or leave him behind. There is absolutely nothing tougher for a mother to have to decide. There would be nothing easier than for a CBSA officer to say, “We will wait and we will not deport you until your case has been heard by citizenship and immigration”. There is nothing easier than the minister making sure we adopt this motion so that the separation of families does not continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member stressed the fact that the report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration talks about filing a first in Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application. This should go some way to addressing some of the concerns that somehow adopting this policy of preventing the deportation of a spouse would clog up the works in the immigration process and give people the opportunity to do end runs around appropriate processing.

We are talking about the first application. We are not talking about a second or third application, or other ways of prolonging someone's stay in Canada when there have been decisions made about the person's status or the bona fides of a marriage, for instance.

I wonder if the member could expand on that point. This is a very important phrase in the report from the standing committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the report addresses the first application. There are people who make a habit of getting involved in marriages that are not bona fide, doing end runs and putting their names out as a spouse a number of times. Those people are a very thin minority. I have spoken to some of them and said that they should not do it and it is going to hurt the rest of the people. That is why this report refers to the first application in a marriage.

If an applicant is, let us say, wife shopping or husband shopping and there are first, second and third marriages, then we know clearly that the individual is not part of a legitimate marriage, does not want to establish himself or herself in Canada and does not want to start a family. This is why it is very important that when we vote on this, members on all sides of the House, especially the government side, understand that this is about the first application and that they do not participate in separating families and putting young Canadian children in harm's way in countries where the medical system virtually does not exist.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by commending the member for his speech. It was well informed. He has a clear understanding of the situation. In this place there are members on the government side who just do not seem to understand what is going on. I spoke a few minutes ago about some of the commentary I overheard.

The reality is that we have some significant problems with our immigration system, the CBSA and the removal of people. To some extent, I believe that the approach people have taken to our system has been questionable in the past.

There used to be an expression used in my workplace. When I worked at Bell Canada changes were forever being made. We used to say that if someone digs a hole, somebody else will find a way of filling it. A lot of the so-called abuses fall into that category. There are people who are desperate to stay here with their families and have a tremendous fear of separation.

The member talked earlier about the separation of a mother and child. How can anyone even begin to imagine that? Even more important, how can anyone imagine a country that sees that as the proper thing to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not as they would say at Bell, if someone digs a hole, somebody else will find an opportunity to fill it. This is a situation where two people meet, one of whom might be in status, but the couple falls in love and wants to start a family. There is no hole here. There is no magic. It is two young people, or two older people for that matter, who want to be together near the end of their lives and live happily together. There is no hole. There is no magic. It is just two people who, if they are younger, want to start a family or, if they are older, want to find comfort and security with each other. It is just a family. It is the obligation of every member in this House to protect, to nurture and to support those families.

If somebody wants to talk about people who are trying to make end runs on a system and find ways of filling the holes, there is nothing like that in this situation. This is about a first application. The person is given the opportunity to have his or her day with a citizenship and immigration officer. If that officer decides that a person is not bona fide in Canada, then the officer proceeds to remove that person. Until that time, people should not be removed from Canada. People should be given the opportunity to establish themselves, to start a family and to work to support that family. There is nothing more important than for a spouse, a husband, to be able to work and provide for his wife and children. There is nothing more important than for a mother to know that she will not be separated from her three-month-old child and that the three-month-old child will not be forced to go to a country where the child is not going to be treated as a citizen of that country because in fact the child is not a citizen of that country. That child is a Canadian and we are putting the child in harm's way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about one other part of the report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that talks about the entitlement to a temporary work permit while the first in Canada spouse or common law sponsorship application or a permanent residency application is being processed.

In his speech, the member touched on the importance of having that income, the importance of a spouse being able to work in Canada. We know that most families need two incomes to support themselves here in Canada, to establish themselves well in Canada, especially if they are contemplating having a family or if they have a family.

I wonder if the member could say a bit more about why the committee saw that it was important to include entitlement to a temporary work permit.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important because people must feel some pride, must feel some equity, must feel that they belong and are doing something. People must be able to provide for their family. A work permit would allow a person to provide for his or her family, to feel important and that he or she is a contributing member of society, a responsible member of society and an individual who belongs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak again on an immigration matter, namely the motion by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, with whom I have had the pleasure to sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt for his speech just now on the specific issue of family reunification. I have also listened to the questions from the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. I was on the committee with him for several years too. So I am very pleased to speak on this matter.

Let us remind the hon. members that we are dealing this morning with a motion that the government allow any applicant (unless they have serious criminality) who has filed their 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 their application. This motion is a response to a real situation. It reflects the situation of citizens and permanent residents who come to our offices. At this time I also have applications being processed that relate to people who fall precisely into this category, for whom we have nothing more than discretionary recourse. The minister is the one with discretionary power to grant a permit.

I listened to what our colleagues from the NDP have said about the fact that, in many situations, the right hand does not know what the left one is doing. In committee, numerous witnesses and organizations working with immigrants, including the bar association, came to speak in favour of measures similar to those contained in the motion presented in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

We have also heard from members of the government, including the parliamentary secretary, who have shown insensitivity toward the reality of immigrant families. Given the speeches we have heard this morning, I also believe that the government is insensitive toward the shortage of workers in this country. The people who fall into this category are often skilled workers. They also include people with unstable jobs and young families. Earlier, my colleague talked about children born to people who are in Canada temporarily. We have to remember whom we are talking about. There is also the whole tendency to support economic immigration. While it is no less important, the issue of family reunification is part of immigration policy and is the very cornerstone of that policy. We need to keep this in mind, because family reunification is a question of values, a question of our society and how we want to live together.

As I mentioned earlier, we need to consider the situation of young families and the impact of unjustified separation. This is not the first time this issue has been debated in Parliament. The Bloc Québécois supports the motion before us that the report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on family reunification be concurred in.

The Bloc Québécois believes that it is important to put a high value on the family. On February 12, we voted in favour of the committee's motion. I would also like to remind this House that the government members opposed the motion.

We know that the immigration process is long. It can take several months from the time an application for permanent residence is filed until a final decision is rendered. It makes sense to us to try to keep the couple and the family together during this process.

When things are not done this way and when the policy as currently written is maintained and upheld, thousands of families end up vulnerable and distressed.

The government has the moral duty to ensure that such families are treated with the greatest possible compassion. I think that all opposition members have stressed that now.

The motion strikes me as wholly reasonable. On the one hand, it does not apply to anyone who has committed a serious crime, that is, those who are inadmissible because of their involvement in organized crime.

On the other hand, there is a time limit. The spouse can have a temporary work permit and an automatic stay of removal. However, if the person's application were to be rejected, these advantages would be nullified and these privileges lost.

In the absence of regulations, I feel we need to ask the Canada Border Services Agency to revise its policy with respect to these cases in order to ensure that it properly respects the rules of equity and natural justice and allows these people to benefit from the immigration policy as it stands.

As I have just said, we also need to keep in mind the arbitrariness of an immigration policy that contradicts the objective of family reunification. Despite what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his departmental officials said in committee when the Immigration Act was being reviewed, there is no efficient process at this time for examining all of the circumstances of a file before someone is removed from the country. Nor is there any hearing process which would allow people to defend themselves and raise questions of law.

Permanent residents, Canadian citizens, are therefore deprived of the possibility of claiming their rights and drawing attention to one important element in the legislation, which is family reunification and the importance of the family to our values.

I would also encourage hon. members to keep in mind the shortage of Immigration and Refugee Board members. The shortage of IRB members has a serious negative impact on case processing times.

When the Conservatives came to power, there were five IRB vacancies. Their management of IRB appointments has been nothing short of disastrous. The government has deliberately slowed the process for appointing and reappointing board members. As a result, immigration claims processing was plagued with undue delays. During most of the Conservatives' mandate, the average vacancy rate for commissioners has been 36%.

In 2008, things were so bad that the IRB chair warned the Conservative government about its inaction and lack of initiative in appointing new board members. He emphasized the impact of the crisis. He told us all about the IRB's current crisis situation.

The situation is disastrous, and the chair of the IRB had to publicly chastise the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism for failing to carry out his duty to appoint commissioners.

As the official IRB report states, “The growing deficit of decision-makers has a direct impact on the IRB's ability to render fast and fair decisions”.

A number of organizations working with immigrants and refugees have testified about the impact on the immigration system of the lack of IRB members to hold hearings and render decisions. Since the ongoing shortage began, it has been impossible to find out when immigration claims involving family reunification cases were scheduled for hearing.

This motion addresses issues related to family reunification and, as such, we must remind the minister and those in charge at Citizenship and Immigration Canada of the pressing need to review our immigration policy and honour the role and importance of family values.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the cornerstone of the Canadian policy.

What we find unfortunate today is that the primary purpose of the immigration policy has changed. Canada's current immigration policy has led to a decrease in the family component of the immigrant pool over the past decade. Immigration by family members used to account in general for 60% of the annual flow. Now it is less than 20%. The policy favours economic immigrants more.

The changes made to the regulations before the Immigration Act was implemented eliminated the assisted relative class. I believe that some members mentioned this earlier. In addition, the Immigration Act changed family class applications, restricting discretionary authority during the selection process and bringing in unfair exclusion policies.

I would remind the House that under the law, families' right to immigrate and remain in Canada is subject to many exceptions and restrictions. Immigrating is therefore not as easy as all that, and it takes a long time to process immigration applications.

As a general rule, permanent residents and citizens can sponsor spouses, common-law and conjugal partners and their children. There are rare exceptions, as I mentioned earlier, where spouses are inadmissible. But I find the current situation completely unacceptable, and it is condemned in the motion.

We would be in favour of amending the immigration policy so that spouses who are already here can be given a work permit and allowed to stay in Canada with their family while their application is being processed.

I would also like to talk about issues such as the disparity in application processing times among visa offices. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has made a public commitment to adopt a service standard of six months for processing sponsorship applications for spouses, common law and conjugal partners and dependent children. Several announcements have been made.

My colleague said earlier that 80% of cases were finalized in three months in New Delhi. My figures may be somewhat out of date, but the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website gives time frames for processing family reunification applications.

I would also like to add that it is obvious from this website that there is a longer waiting period in certain countries. There is therefore a disparity in the way applications are processed and it seems not to bear any relation to the program's integrity.

I would therefore invite the minister to debate this and the committee to examine more specifically the disparities between one office and another in processing times. This will likely turn up cases that are purely political and that have influenced decision makers.

I also believe that sponsorship applications should be finalized, and at the very least there should be a commitment once the person is here that his or her application will be finalized within a reasonable length of time. That could be one year, since medical exams are usually valid for a year. That would spare sponsored persons the expense of a second medical.

I am also of the opinion that Citizenship and Immigration Canada is not coming clean about the processing times for sponsorship applications. Their website gives the impression that they are handled within a predictable length of time, regardless of where they come from, and that is not the case.

In the meantime, Canadian citizens and permanent residents continue to pay substantial application fees with the false hope that their files will be processed within a predictable period of time.

The sponsorship situation is linked to policy decisions. It is a matter of values. The government can decide that, by virtue of Canadian values, admission to Canada is not justified under current policies. Such a decision has major consequences.

We feel that the opposition members have taken a stand on what is important for them and have centred their actions on the values of family reunification. We cannot say the same for the government members.

One assumes this is a political decision. Family is a fundamental issue and as such deserves public debate. That is why we are debating this matter today.

If the government intends to assign a low priority to family reunification, it ought to come out and say so openly, so that future immigrants can make informed decisions about coming to Canada. The lengthy processing times outside Canada should be included in the factors for assessing sponsorship applications within Canada.

I will make that my conclusion. I have raised several important points and I have contributed certain points that are connected to our experiences as members of Parliament with respect to this important issue which touches our hearts and engenders compassion. Immigrants are important and we must enact open policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's intervention makes me long for our days on committee together. Her appreciation and understanding in this area was significant and helpful to committee and to me on many occasions.

The member has raised questions about the Conservatives' commitment to family reunification.

I want to remind her of the first time that a Conservative minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Former member Monte Solberg came before committee, as the minister, early in the term of the new Conservative government to present his vision for immigration. The minister talked about the principles governing immigration in Canada.

For many years, Canadians had a mantra about family reunification, about the needs of the Canadian economy, about the need to protect the vulnerable and people whose lives were in danger and about the need to build the nation. This mantra was repeated all the time.

When the first Conservative minister came to committee he left out family reunification. When I asked him about it afterward he said he was trying to keep his remarks short. It seemed significant to me that the minister would drop it on his first appearance before committee when we have a longstanding commitment to family reunification as a key principle of immigration. I put it to the minister that this had to be carefully considered.

I wonder if the hon. member could talk a bit more about her perception of the Conservative government's commitment to family reunification.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember well the first presentation made by the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I was also surprised that he did not speak about family reunification at the committee. Family reunification is the cornerstone of Canadian immigration policy. It is one of the objectives of the act. We cannot ignore the act. In a number of situations, which we are well aware of, the government has decided to not implement sections of the act. The refugee appeal division is one example.

If I understand correctly, the member for Burnaby—Douglas wishes to point out that family reunification is not important for the government as demonstrated by the lack of concrete action and the failure to accelerate processing of sponsorship applications.

I would like to add that we are not talking about parents or grandparents, but about spouses. It is a serious situation for spouses and partners but even more serious for parents and grandparents. If we look at immigration overall, it makes no sense that we are not promoting the importance of family reunification.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the issue of individual families who have been broken up and deported. We deal with these situations at every one of our offices. We get to know the family, their situation and how they are actively involved in the communities they are living in. Yet, the response so far from the Conservative government on this motion has been to cast aspersions. We had the heckling about catching and deporting spies. One member spoke about people who come to this country to rip off innocent Canadians. There is a sense of suspicion about families.

My hon. colleague must have considerable experience as a member of Parliament dealing and working with families who are being broken up by this arbitrary and erratic system. Does she feel the Conservative government has a fundamental belief that all immigrant people who want to build a life in Canada are somehow guilty and have to prove their innocence by being deported? How do we work with the families, assess the situation and ensure that innocent people are not unfairly and arbitrarily deported from their families?