House of Commons Hansard #74 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was citizenship.
(Bill S-1001. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)
June 10, 2016—Second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill S-1001, An Act to authorize La Capitale Financial Security Insurance Company to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Quebec—Mr. Joël Lightbound.
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That Bill S-1001, An Act to authorize La Capitale Financial Security Insurance Company to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Quebec, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
La Capitale Financial Security Insurance CompanyPrivate Members' Business
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
La Capitale Financial Security Insurance CompanyPrivate Members' Business
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
(Motion agreed to, bill read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, considered in committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)
The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, be read the third time and passed.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.
At the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration, I had the opportunity to hear witnesses from across Canada and they offered their expertise on how we could make Canada's immigration laws better.
As a result of those important testimonies, I tabled 25 amendments to Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act. Significant amendments were required because Bill C-6 failed to remedy many of the problems created by the Conservatives' Bill C-24.
One gaping hole in Bill C-6 is that it failed to address the lack of procedural fairness and safeguards for individuals facing citizenship revocation. This is because Bill C-24 eliminated the right for an independent and impartial hearing. Furthermore, Bill C-24 also eliminated consideration of equitable factors or compassionate and humanitarian factors that could prevent a legal but unjust outcome.
The system we have defies common sense. How could it be that individuals fighting a parking ticket are afforded more procedural fairness than the person having their citizenship revoked? Yet this is the case.
On June 9, 2014, the minister, while in opposition, stated, “We object in principle to the arbitrary removal of citizenship from individuals for reasons that are highly questionable and to the very limited opportunity for the individual to appeal to the courts against that removal of citizenship.”
Fast-forward to today, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has further reconfirmed that the lack of judicial appeal and review rights for those in the citizenship process still needs to be addressed, yet this concern was not corrected by the government in Bill C-6. Because Bill C-6 failed to address this, I tabled substantive amendments to ensure individuals who face citizenship revocation have the right to a fair and independent hearing and an appeal process.
If passed, the amendments would have created a system modelled after the current process being applied to permanent residents who are subject to deportation on the grounds of misrepresentation. This system, which uses the immigration appeal division, would not only have provided the rights to an independent appeal process, but is also considered more cost effective and efficient than the old system.
Despite broad support to achieve this goal from experts that appeared at the committee such as the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Legal Aid Ontario, and others, the narrow scope of Bill C-6 resulted in these important amendments being ruled inadmissible.
I have asked the minister to adopt my amendments in a government bill in the fall and I hope that happens.
In the meantime however, the unfortunate reality is that some individuals currently in the citizenship system faced with revocation will still lack the judicial fairness provided to people in Canada fighting a parking ticket.
On the issue of procedural fairness, Bill C-6 also failed to address the minister's ability to indefinitely suspend citizenship proceedings. The former Conservative government under Bill C-24 added section 13.1 to the Citizenship Act, which permits the minister to suspend citizenship applications and other proceedings indefinitely while additional information or evidence is gathered.
Under this process, someone could literary die before a decision is made about their citizenship application. I know that recent Federal Court decisions demonstrate the need for a statutory time frame for making decisions to avoid inordinate and unexplained delays. Again, I had attempted to resolve this issue through amendment at committee, and again, the narrow scope of Bill C-6 prevented me from doing so, and the amendment was deemed inadmissible.
Another misstep of Bill C-24 was to place all justice systems around the world on equal footing. This was done by barring individuals from citizenship if they have been charged with or convicted with offences equivalent to indictable offences in Canada.
While this might sound reasonable, it is incredibly important to remember that not all justice systems in the world are equal. Most importantly, some countries deal with corruption at various or even multiple levels of the justice and political system, from local police to lawyers and judges to national leaders. This can, and does lead to unjust charges and convictions. In my view, these situations should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
In its submission to the committee, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic wrote:
Implementing additional immigration and citizenship penalties for individuals being charged or with convictions is inherently dangerous in that it leads effectively to situations of double jeopardy—that the individual will be punished once by the criminal justice system and then a second time through the immigration and citizenship system.
There are many countries around the world where rule of law is underdeveloped or completely inadequate, or where individuals are charged and convicted for purely political reasons.
While those appearing at committee used the example of Canadian citizen Mohamed Fahmy as an example of how not all justice systems reach the same verdicts as ours, I would also like to draw to the attention of this House that, in 2001, the House voted almost unanimously in favour of awarding Nelson Mandela honorary Canadian citizenship. Under the current laws, if someone like Mr. Mandela immigrated to Canada, he would have been automatically barred from applying for citizenship to Canada through the regular channels.
At the committee, the issue of minors coming to Canada without parents or legal guardians was highlighted to members as an area of significant concern. Unless applying for citizenship as part of the application with parents or guardians, individuals must be 18 years of age or older to become Canadian citizens. While the government argued that there is already a remedy in place to address this, at issue, as explained by Justice for Children and Youth, is as follows:
Section 5...allows for an applicant to make a request to the Minister on humanitarian grounds for a waiver of the age requirement. ...this humanitarian exemption poses a generally insurmountable barrier for children wishing to access citizenship and is not a reasonable limitation or a satisfactory solution to issues raised by the age requirement provision.... The provision in effect restricts access to Canadian citizenship for children—solely on the basis of age—who otherwise meet all the requirements. It restricts access to citizenship for the most marginalized children, i.e. unaccompanied minors, children without parents or lawful guardians, and children with parents who do not have the capacity to meet the citizenship requirements or do not wish to apply.
My proposed amendment would have provided a pathway to citizenship for youth under 18 years of age without a parent or guardian who is, or is in the process of becoming, a Canadian citizen. Addressing this issue was supported by organizations such as Justice for Children and Youth, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and UNICEF Canada, among others. Unfortunately, the amendment was not adopted by the Liberal members on the committee.
While we are on the subject of minors in the citizenship process, in a brief submitted by Justice for Children and Youth, it was noted that the citizenship process fails to adhere to the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It states:
Youth criminal justice records and ongoing proceedings before the youth criminal justice court cannot and should not be considered for the purpose of citizenship applications because to do so is contrary to the Youth Criminal Justice Act..., specifically violates the privacy protections afforded to minors by the YCJA, and is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the YCJA.
Once again, the narrow scope of Bill C-6 deemed this amendment inadmissible.
On the theme of pathways to citizenship, another issue that was brought in when Bill C-24 was tabled and was not rectified by Bill C-6 is the issue of double-testing in language. There is no doubt that acquiring skills in one of Canada's official languages is an important aspect of building a successful life here. However, under changes made by the Conservatives, the knowledge test of Canada required to obtain citizenship now amounts to a double-testing of language skills.
Prior to the Conservatives' changes, individuals had the ability to take the knowledge test with the aid of an interpreter. Due to the changes, the interpreter is no longer provided, and this amounts not only to second language testing, but to a language test that, as we heard from experts who appeared at committee, is arguably more difficult than the actual level of English or French someone must have to pass the actual language test.
My amendment to address this problem and go back to the old system, which would have been the case had the Liberals followed through on their election promise to repeal Bill C-24, was rejected by the committee. I do think this is most unfortunate, as the current rules only serve to maintain the barriers for the pathway to citizenship.
I am pleased that I was successful in advancing and passing two amendments to Bill C-6, which will now enshrine in the law the duty for reasonable accommodation, ensuring that the citizenship process adheres to the principles of the Canadian Human Rights Act for those with disabilities. This will make disability accommodation a right, not something provided out of mercy or on the basis of compassion, as it formerly was.
My amendment clarifies the requirement of the duty to accommodate those with disabilities as they navigate through the citizenship process. Currently, vague words of required “proof” and discretion around accommodation can lead to individuals, who would otherwise be able to become Canadian citizens, being denied due to a lack of disability accommodation.
There is much more to—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please. The time has expired.
Before we begin questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by seven minutes.
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver East for her contribution at committee and to this debate on Bill C-6, which I think is an incredibly important part of the commitment we made in the last election to roll back what we thought were many of the oppressive elements of Bill C-24 that had been passed in the 41st Parliament.
I would like to ask, given the contributions that my friend from Vancouver East made at the immigration committee with respect to some of those amendments—and I noted that some of her amendments were not accepted by the government—whether the member will still be supporting the overall intent of Bill C-6, including some of the amendments she had proposed that were carried at committee.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, yes, I still intend to support the bill, although it could have been made a lot better had the government been thoughtful about it and incorporated some of those essential amendments that I had tabled at committee.
The other amendment that the government did adopt at committee was the recommendation to address, in part, the issue of statelessness. Therefore, those who are found to be stateless would actually have some means for a pathway to citizenship on a case-by-case basis. Much work still needs to be done in that area. For example, those who are born second generation to Canadians in some instances will still be deemed to be stateless. That needs to be rectified. Therefore, I am really hoping that the minister, in his oversight in bringing forward those important amendments in Bill C-6, will actually bring forward a new bill in the fall so that we can rectify the many problems that were created under Bill C-24.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Vancouver East for not only an excellent speech but obviously a reflection of the work that she has put into this. I always wondered who would succeed Libby Davies, and kind of felt sorry for that person, given the fantastic parliamentarian that she was. However, the people of Vancouver East have managed to find someone who can actually fill those shoes. She brings a great depth of experience here, particularly as a senior provincial cabinet minister.
My question to the member is in regard to something she commented on earlier, which really jumped out at me. If I am correct, it was with respect to permanent residents, although I am not sure of the subject. However, I do remember the comment, which was that, because the bill was unamended as my colleague tried to amend it, in her opinion we have a bill that gives less judicial fairness to applicants than would be given in a parking ticket situation. Therefore, I was wondering if my colleague would expand on that issue because it sounded very jarring.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague for those very kind comments. That is very encouraging.
Indeed, Bill C-6 failed to bring forward proper due process for those who face losing their citizenship. In a normal set of circumstances, people who are given a parking ticket or a speeding ticket could appeal that process by going to court. Under this system, with the Bill C-24 changes by the Conservative government and the failure of Bill C-6 to rectify them, those who lose their citizenship would not have the opportunity to appeal this process. That is simply wrong. The Canadian Bar Association and many organizations came forward at committee to say that this needed to be changed. In fact, when Bill C-24 was debated in this House, the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship also said that was wrong.
Therefore, it is a mystery to me how the government neglected to include that important change in Bill C-6. However, that is exactly what happened. I tried to advance a series of amendments related to that. Unfortunately, they were deemed to be out of the scope of Bill C-6, and therefore not before us. However, I did get a commitment from the minister that the government would rectify this, and I look forward to it bringing forward a government bill in the fall to adopt those amendments I tabled at committee.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague for all of her hard work and dedication. It is a wonderful thing to work with people who are so dedicated to making a difference and looking after these issues that are so important to the people we serve.
I am glad to rise in the House and speak on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.
As a former executive director of an immigrant-serving agency in my riding, I want to convey to members here the sense of betrayal that the former Bill C-24 had on our sector and on the people we served.
In my role as executive director, I spoke at many citizenship ceremonies and worked with people as they prepared for their citizenship here in Canada. I was constantly overwhelmed by the immense sense of pride and dedication people felt as they prepared and finally became Canadian. It was events like this that really made me the proudest to be a Canadian citizen.
However, Bill C-24 created a second class of citizen. In fact, it institutionalized systemic discrimination. It was a bill that was so unconstitutional that it had no place in our democratic foundation.
Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all Canadians are equal. It will be good to see this idea begin to be reflected in our legislation again. As our leader said in the 2015 campaign, “...a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”.
During the last election, the NDP promised to repeal Bill C-24, and I thank so much again my colleague from Vancouver East who worked so hard to really make that happen. I was very sad when all of those amendments were not heard.
Bill C-6 in its current form aims to rectify these missteps, but the bill does not do it entirely. After reflection, I am mindful that the bill is not ideal but it will repeal some of the harmful and unconstitutional changes to citizenship made by the previous government. Therefore, I will support its passing in the third reading.
While this is a step in the right direction, there are also many challenges that remain for immigrants. We call on the government to take urgent action on lengthy wait times and huge backlogs, on family reunification, and on the barriers to citizenship that still remain in place.
In the last session of Parliament, the NDP firmly opposed Bill C-24. We called on the Conservatives to withdraw it from the very beginning, but the Conservatives refused to listen.
While some of the changes implemented by the former bill were, in some cases, overdue and addressed some of the deficiencies in the system, others were so draconian that Bill C-24 was widely opposed by respected academics and experts in the field of law, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and UNICEF.
During the time of canvassing across my riding, and in the work I did previously, I met many members of the communities I served. I heard stories of people who were choosing to not venture toward becoming citizens, because they were very hurt about this second class of citizenship, and many parents were very concerned for their children.
One parent told me that his children had dual citizenship. He was choosing not to get Canadian citizenship, but he had married a Canadian woman and they had children who had both the citizenship of his first country and hers. Now he is worried about how much their Canadian citizenship actually means. He said to me that his children live here, that they will be raised here, and that this will be the only country they will ever know as home. What if they do something and Canada decides to take away their citizenship? Where will they go?
Other people said to me that it felt as if the government did not want them to become a citizen. They felt that they were a potential risk simply because they were born in another country.
These stories illustrate the real fear that people are feeling and the total disregard for their dedication to this country of Canada.
Bill C-6 begins to make some of those changes, but it still leaves that hesitancy. It still has so many barriers to citizenship. It still provides too many things that create fear for members.
I hope the government will listen and make the amendments in the fall that my hon. colleague suggested. Let us move forward in a positive way in this country.
I am glad that these provisions will no longer be law. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that Bill C-6 does not go far enough. It would still allow the minister to revoke someone's citizenship without the right to a judicial hearing. No matter how good their intentions, ministers simply should not have secret discretionary powers.
Prior to Bill C-24, individuals who were accused of fraud and risked having their citizenship revoked could request a hearing before a Federal Court judge. A final decision would be made by the Governor in Council. Bill C-24 allowed the minister to make a decision based on a review of paperwork, with no right to a judicial hearing. The Liberals' failure to address this feature in Bill C-6 means that there may still be a constitutional challenge to the Citizenship Act.
The NDP believe that a citizen facing revocation should always have the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker as part of a process that considers humanitarian and compassionate factors.
I remember that the Prime Minister, during the campaign, talked about decentralizing the powers purposely accumulated in the PM's Office. The last government concentrated power in its different omnibus legislation. What happened to the right to a hearing and to due process?
In my last job, I served many newcomers to Canada. Some of the stories I heard were sad, and the commitment to becoming Canadian, in a country seen as free and inclusive, was tangible. The fact that the minister had the power to give or take away citizenship was a level of power that many people came to Canada to escape. Having a fair, transparent process is absolutely imperative.
When the bill was studied at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, New Democrats proposed a total of 25 amendments. Only two of them were eventually passed, and I am so grateful that they were: the duty to accommodate for individuals with disabilities, and adding statelessness as a factor to be considered when granting citizenship based on exceptional circumstances. The remaining amendments were voted down and the Liberals did not give a reasonable rationale for opposing them.
The Liberals need to do more. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has repeatedly acknowledged the considerable shortcomings of his ministry. He promised to take action on the long wait times, but we have still not seen a concrete plan.
Now that this legislation is at third reading, let us start to have this discussion in terms of how to reform it correctly.
The minister should disclose the reasoning for and the frequency of discretionary grants of citizenship. There must be action on cleaning up the mess at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, including speeding up family reunification, putting an end to lengthy backlogs, removing the cap on parent and grandparent sponsorship, and speeding up processing times for immigration and citizen applications, especially in light of the high fees paid by applicants who receive very poor service in return. The challenges I faced in my last job would have tested the patience of any normal human being.
The narrow scope of Bill C-6 prevented many amendments recommended by expert witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association, from being admissible at committee stage. The minister has acknowledged this and suggests that the Liberals will need to introduce another immigration bill in the fall to address these shortcomings. I certainly hope to see it.
I would like to conclude today by urging the minister to work with us to table a truly comprehensive bill that will improve the Canadian citizenship process. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen soon.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I know that a good number of members in my own caucus aggressively pursue issues such as processing times, backlogs, and restrictions. In fact, one of the first actions by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship was to speed up processing times for spouses and to double the number of parents and grandparents being accepted. We have seen huge processing time reductions for citizenship, and I think there will be a lot more to come.
In terms of the Syrian refugees, there were tens of thousand of individuals through that one category. I think the current minister has done an admirable job, a fantastic job, of getting things done in a relatively short time.
When this legislation went to committee, we saw that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship actually looked for consensus, and we actually had amendments accepted. Maybe the member could comment on what she felt with respect to the amendments that passed that came from the opposition.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always good to see change, but this is the reality: actions speak much louder than words. It is very good to say kind things, and it is good to have good intentions, but until the action takes place, we have to watch for it.
I will say to the member that it has actually been shocking for me.
There has been some good stuff. After about five years of working hard with a local member in our community, we finally received some of her family members from Syria. That was a very positive move in the right direction. I am glad to see that.
I might also add that most of the 25,000 refugees we have graciously welcomed, and I am so glad that they are here, came from the private sponsorship stream, not the GAR stream, the government assisted refugees, which is what I was hoping to see more of.
We also saw a huge cut in services to settlement agencies. It was about 6.5% in the area I serve. It was shocking to see that happening at a time when we need to serve these people.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my colleague would support this amendment, which failed at the committee because it was deemed to be inadmissible. It relates to people who are deemed to be second generation born.
Effective April 17, 2009, in Bill C-37, second generation children born abroad were restricted from obtaining Canadian citizenship. By denying citizenship to the second generation born abroad, Canada is in fact creating a second set of lost Canadians and is making some children born to Canadians stateless.
I wonder whether the member would support an amendment to address this issue, because it is an ongoing problem. It makes no sense that if an individual is second generation born abroad, he or she is actually at risk of being deemed stateless.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support the amendment.
As I said in my speech, during the campaign, our leader said, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”. Regardless of where people live, if they are Canadian and they are having children, they need to have some consciousness that they will have children with a state. To leave children without one does not make sense.
Our job is to look after Canadians and work with Canadians in a positive way and to not create different classes of citizenship.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today at third reading would make amendments to two acts, the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which are two pieces of legislation that have a substantive impact on our immigration policy here in Canada. I started to get at this in my first speech on this topic.
My major concern is that the content of the bill is deemed to be the government's first priority in terms of addressing immigration concerns in Canada. My speech today will be in that context, because I feel that there are other more pressing concerns than the content of the bill that would positively impact our immigration system in Canada.
I will broadly frame my comments in two broad strokes. First is the prioritization of refugees coming to Canada and the criteria involved, and second is the supports provided for refugees coming to Canada.
Since the bill was first tabled, the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship has had the opportunity to hear from many witness groups from across the country with regard to how the government's Syrian refugee initiative is playing out. Certainly I think I would be united in a non-partisan way with people on all sides and of all political stripes in this House in saying that Canada wants to help, has a duty to help, with the humanitarian and refugee crisis unfolding in the Middle East. The question really becomes how.
During the campaign, the now governing party I think really engaged in what was a series of one-upmanships in terms of the number of refugees who were coming to Canada. I think that was fairly shameful.
We certainly want to ensure that we have refugees coming to Canada, but we also have a duty to protect them. I think that is what the government should have been focusing on, as opposed to the content of the bill.
When we talk about refugee supports, one of the first things we have heard about over and over again is language training. The government has brought tens of thousands of refugees to Canada in a very short period of time. What we are hearing from settlement services groups, as well as from the refugees themselves, is that they are not able to access language training services. This has a material impact on their ability to integrate into Canadian society and to have a full and positive experience here as Canadians.
We heard from one man, a new refugee who I believe was in the Surrey area. He was talking about how he had been waiting for months to receive language training services and was not able to obtain them. What really struck me at my heart was that he also said that his wife, who is at home with their children, did not have the opportunity to receive language training services.
What is interesting is that when we tie this back to this bill, the bill actually makes significant changes to the language requirements for the attainment of citizenship. It actually reduces the age at which someone has to be proficient in one of our official languages to achieve citizenship.
What we are hearing in the context of support for Syrian refugees around language training services, is that language is a unifier. It allows refugees and newcomers to Canada to obtain employment, to ensure that they are not isolated, and to fully participate in the rich fabric of our country. What we have heard over and over again is that the government, so far, is failing to provide support for the high number of refugees it brought into the country.
To have this bill in front of us while this is rolling out really sends a message that we are not valuing language as a unifier in Canada. I really think that the government, rather than lowering the age, should be looking at how it can provide better language training services. We certainly heard this at committee in the review of this bill. This has actually been a theme of this entire parliamentary sitting in committee.
Moreover, we are also hearing from school boards across the country saying that the Liberals did not consult with them on how they were going to absorb the rapid influx of refugees in a very short period of time. Representatives of the Calgary Board of Education provided some very powerful testimony at committee last week. They talked about how they had absorbed the equivalent of a new elementary school in a very short period of time and had not received any additional funds from the province.
The province told the board to track its costs. When I asked the board representatives if they thought they had been told to track their costs so the province could send a bill to the federal government, they said yes. We asked department officials at committee if there were any plans for the government to provide additional funding, support, or address the concerns of the schools boards, and the answer was no, that this was not under consideration.
We have heard over and over again from the minister that education is a provincial concern, that he is going to wipe his hands of that, and that he is not going to talk about it. However, these are human beings, not numbers on a score card. The minister has more of a commitment than just standing in the House of Commons talking about how many people he has brought here, like it is some sort of tally sheet of which he can be proud.
Yes, we need to help people and, yes, we need to ensure they come to Canada. However, we also have to provide for them when they are here. The fact is that the government has not costed this out. It has not costed out the provision of language training services. Its campaign promise said that $250 million would be dedicated to the entire Syrian refugee initiative. Yet when departmental officials appeared at committee to talk about these costs, they could not even tell members of Parliament, in a meeting to look at supplementary budget estimates, what the entire cost across government was for these programs.
From what we have heard so far, it is kind of in the neighbourhood of $1 billion, maybe. However, what was even more concerning was when I asked officials if they had calculated the downstream costs to municipalities, for example, with school boards, or provinces, for example, of the health care system and whatnot. They could not answer that either. They had not made those calculations.
Going back to the bill, the government has fundamentally changed the pace at which refugees are brought into Canada, which is its decision. However, it also has an obligation to fundamentally change how we support refugees and then be transparent to Canadians on that costing. It sold Canadians a bill of goods by putting in its platform that $250 million would be the total cost of this initiative, saying it was a fully costed initiative. Then it was unable to tell the committee what the costs actually were.
I spent some time in management consulting, in which people are trained to ask what services they are providing, why they are providing them, and then look at the resourcing afterward. The fact that we are not even having this conversation here tells me that the government has significantly failed in its refugee initiative. It is not just me saying this as an opposition member. These are non-partisan service groups that have come to committee, I think somewhat reluctantly, because there has been so much fanfare.
The minister got very hot under the collar when I made fun of his photo ops. I remember being at Pearson airport, watching that very glossy photo op take place. These were privately sponsored families. Why were dozens of ministers in attendance and taking photos when the focus should be on transitioning them and providing more support?
These agencies appeared at committee. They said they had their funding cut and they had to cut hundreds of spots for language training. One of the school boards said that it had to increase class sizes and delay maintenance on some of its buildings. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons made a comment in one of his questions to my NDP colleague, saying that the government was doing a wonderful job on the refugee initiative. We all want to help. We want to bring refugees to Canada, but the government is doing a disservice to these refugees by sort of pushing this under the rug.
This is why I think this bill has misplaced its priorities. There is going to be a significant impact on affordable housing. I know my colleague from Vancouver East said that there were several groups from the greater Vancouver area at committee talking about the lack of availability of affordable housing in that area and how the current stock that might be available did not necessarily meet the needs of large, multi-generational refugee families. One refugee said something to the effect that there were bugs in his family's apartment, that they used spray and sometimes it did not work. Is this really the life that we want for refugees when they come to Canada?
There is another silo that the government could have looked at in terms of its legislative or management priorities with respect to this bill, and that is the privately sponsored refugee silo. These groups of people fundraise within their community to bring refugees to Canada, to support them and integrate them into the community. They are the heroes of the refugee initiative. I hope no one would disagree with me on that. I believe the refugees that the Prime Minister took his big photo op with at Pearson airport were not government sponsored refugees but privately sponsored refugees who had been fundraised for by the community. I wish those sponsors had been in that photo op, but they were not.
Some of these groups have actually fundraised tens of thousands of dollars to bring refugee families to Canada. They were told by the government that their refugee families would arrive within a very short period of time, days or weeks. They obtained apartments, contracts for cellphone services, child care, and whatnot. We have heard numerous cases in question period. I have had dozens of requests come into my office, asking why the refugee families have not arrive. These groups have had to release the apartments and waste donor money and their efforts of goodwill.
Therefore, when we look at the experience that some of our government sponsored refugees are having with respect to having to stay in hotels for months at a time, the lack of ability to find affordable housing, the concerns we are hearing about language training services and social inclusion, the fact that the government has not married those two silos, given the rapid influx, or put any effort into bridging those gaps, has done a real disservice to the groups of people that have raised all of these funds, as well as to the refugees themselves. I wish the government had spent some time thinking about that as opposed to tabling this legislation, which I do not think helps these refugees over a longer period of time, especially given the language concerns that have been raised.
The second component I want to raise with respect to priority is another theme that we have heard over and over again at the citizenship committee, as well as in the House of Commons. The government really has not been able to tell Canadians the criteria that it uses to prioritize refugees coming into the country. On multiple occasions, I have asked the minister and his parliamentary secretary about this.
I remember being on an interview panel with the parliamentary secretary. I asked how the government was prioritizing because there were refugees from other parts of the world as well. That is a very fair question. It is not a partisan one. When we have groups, especially these privately sponsored groups, saying that they do not understand why their applications for an Iraqi family have been rejected because the government is focusing on people from Syria or from other parts of the world, it is fair to ask what the criteria is.
However, the parliamentary secretary said that the government was treating Syrian refugees differently. What does that mean? What message are we sending Canadians? That is a very timely discussion and one that the government will have to deal with in a very short period of time. The committee has heard from refugee settlement and sponsorship groups. They are asking this question as well. I am not saying this as an attack on the government. Rather, we should not shy away from talking about this. It is important today because of the report that was issued by the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Again, while the government is focusing on this bill, something really significant is happening in the world. There is a growing international consensus that ISIS, the so-called Islamic state, is committing genocide on ethnic and religious minorities.
The report today focuses specifically on Yazidis. The report states point blank that ISIS has committed the crime of genocide, as well as multiple crimes against humanity and war crimes against Yazidis, thousands of whom are held captive in the Syrian Arab Republic, where they are subjected to the most unimaginable horrors.
We had committee testimony. There was this very strange back and forth with the department officials. My colleague from Markham—Unionville asked how many persecuted Yazidis had been guaranteed permanent resident status as part of the government's Syrian refugee program.
Ms. Dawn Edlund from the department said “... I believe it's nine cases at the moment”. This was quite shocking. The department officials said that they actually were not tracking refugees through this initiative based on their ethnicity or religious background.
Oftentimes when we talk about ethnicity or religion, it comes up in a xenophobic context. However, Canadians live in a very wonderful secular society where church and state are very much divided. We live in this wonderful pluralism. Sometimes we actually cannot comprehend that there is religious conflict in this world, that there are crimes committed against people simply because of how they worship.
In this case, today the UN said that the most horrific atrocities were happening to a group of people. These people are being systematically wiped off the face of the earth because of what they believe in. Therefore, it is a fair to ask the department officials, in determining who is the most vulnerable, the criteria by which refugees come to Canada. Why is the department not tracking these things? Why is there not a specific initiative set up to take the most persecuted?
We know ethnic and religious minorities cannot, and sometimes do not, present at refugee camps, which makes it impossible for the UN to register them as refugees. Therefore, when the governing party members use their talking points that they rely on the UN and its designation, sometimes we have to realize the system is not foolproof.
In this situation, I fully believe the UN criteria to bring refugees out of that area is not foolproof. We only had nine cases that the department was able to point to with respect to Yazidi refugees. That is out of tens of thousands of people who were brought to Canada. This tells me the government is not doing its job in bringing the most persecuted here to Canada.
Again, I would encourage the government not to shy away from this. The government has a lot of opportunity here and a lot of goodwill from Canadians to continue the refugee initiative. However, I would encourage it to ensure it stays effective and that Canada does its best to bring those most persecuted people here.
The UN put forward several recommendations today to the international community. Some of these could be very important priorities for the government. I hope it takes these to heart and acts on them quickly. Again, this is why I find it surprising that we are debating some of the form and substance of the bill today. These recommendations were to recognize ISIS' commission of the crime of genocide against the Yazidis of Sinjar. There are many recommendations in here, but the one that struck me the most was to accelerate the asylum applications of Yazidi victims of genocide.
There are ways that we can do that. Section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act includes a provision by which we can set up a special program to bring internally displaced persons to Canada in a very short, immediate period of time. We have asked the Prime Minister and the minister if they would consider doing that for this group. Their response has been to turn a blind eye to religion and just look at the UNHCR guidelines.
I understand what they are trying to do, but, again, from the bottom of my heart, we have a duty to these people. Their ethnicity and religion is why they are dying. Therefore, we cannot turn a blind eye to that. This is not xenophobic; it is stating fact.
In conclusion, I am disappointed in the bill. At the end of the day, when we look at citizenship, we want to ensure we benefit from those who come to Canada and their richness of experience. They in turn benefit from Canada with respect to their experience of having a full life that is free, with freedom of opportunity, free to love whom one wants, and free to pursue whatever opportunity. However, we need to empower them to do that, and a lot of the measures in the bill frankly do not do that.
We should be talking more about support. We should be talking more about how we support these people and the fact that the government has drastically altered the immigration levels of our country. This is where I see the bill falling short.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)
Mr. Speaker, I just listened to a presentation of the most revised history I think I have ever heard in this place. It was the government opposite 10 years ago that cut $56 million from settlement services in this country. The government opposite did that. The Conservative Party stood in the House and walked away from subsidizing affordable housing, but not only did that, did not build it. When the Conservatives took office, the wait list in Toronto was 76,000 persons, largely the result of a provincial Conservative government. When they left office, it was 97,000 households. If there is no affordable housing in this country, Conservatives ought to look in the mirror and explain to themselves what they did not do over the last 10 years.
The process of settling immigrants and refugees is something this party takes very seriously. We can see it in the infrastructure investments produced in the budget. We can see it in the investments to land 25,000 Syrian refugees in short order, a process the Conservatives opposed. They wanted fewer refugees and to bring them here much more slowly. The reason there was no housing and the reason there was not adequate immigrant support, in particular language studies, is because that party spent 10 years decimating the system to land people.
How does the member justify her comments when her party's record is exactly the issue that she is criticizing?
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am sure this summer the member opposite will hear from his constituents. Many of the groups who came to our committee to express disappointment with the government's support services were actually from the community in his riding, so I encourage him to reach out to them.
However, he raised the issue of revisionist history, so I have some more recent history I would like to bring up for him. Late last week in the House he said, “Mr. Speaker, the members opposite seem to think that if they say the word genocide three times, spin around in a circle, and click their heels, suddenly something stops.”
He is talking about revisionist history, but I think this comment was one of the most shameful and disgusting comments I have heard in the House of Commons in the last five years. I hope at some point if he has children, or if there are people looking at Hansard in years to come, that he stands and apologizes for that comment so that future generations of his or his constituents will not have to revise history for him.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, as a person who worked in immigrant services under the former government, let me say that it is a nice change to hear that the Conservatives are listening to the service providers.
I want to point out that in the year prior to the present government, the Conservative government cut settlement services across the board by 7%. I certainly from that perspective do not appreciate the further 6.5% cut, if we look at that very high percentage cut from settlement services. This is also the former government that had barbaric practices, implemented a two-tier system of citizenship, and created a sense in the services and the people that I served that this was not a friendly country anymore.
How has listening to service providers so very carefully made the member reflect on her previous government's actions?
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 2010, an expansion of the resettlement program was announced. The resettlement target was increased by 2,500, which means that 500 more government-assisted refugees and 2,000 privately sponsored refugees would have been resettled on an annual basis. That was done under our government.
More importantly, as opposed to what my colleague just said, funding for the resettlement assistance program, which offers income support and immediate essential services to resettle government-assisted refugees from overseas, was increased for the first time in 10 years by about $9 million a year. Someone else was in government at that time.
In terms of being welcoming to new Canadians, the record under our government was the fact that we had the highest levels of immigration in 70 years, significantly more than Canada accepted under the Trudeau, Chrétien, and Martin Liberal governments.
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech, but I think there are a couple of things she missed. To set the record straight, within six years of the previous government, Conservatives brought in only 23,000 Iraqi refugees and 2,000 Syrian refugees in 2013. Our government since November 4, 2015, brought in 27,000 Syrian refugees.
In the Waterloo region, immigrants have been welcomed and have been receiving language training. Some are working during the day and taking language training at night. The member also mentioned humans being not numbers on a scorecard and that we have to provide for them. What about the interim federal health program that the previous government cut for Syrian refugees, leaving the refugees vulnerable?