Arif Virani

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, November 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her advocacy and passion on this issue. We look forward to seeing that private member's bill and debating it when the time comes, as appropriate.

I appreciate her concerns relating to citizenship revocation. The due process protections are as I outlined earlier. There are concerns about the cessation provisions, particularly the amendments that were made by the previous government to make these retroactive and to strip people of not only their refugee status but also their permanent residency. These are things that we are committed to studying and improving. We look forward to working with the member opposite in this regard.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, November 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for her question.

As the member is aware, our government is already moving forward with its commitments to repeal certain provisions of Bill C-24, including provisions relating to the revocation of citizenship on national interest grounds.

That said, while we want to ensure that citizenship requirements are fair and flexible, Canadians also want to protect the program from abuse. I understand the member's comments related to both citizenship revocation and cessation provisions, and I will address both of those.

On the citizenship revocation, that is available under four grounds: misrepresentation, fraud, knowingly concealing material circumstances, or where national interest grounds are at stake. As part of Bill C-6, which has been voted on and passed third reading in this House, provisions relating to citizenship revocation under national interest grounds are being repealed, which is a step in the right direction I think we would all agree.

With respect to the other grounds related to misrepresentation, fraud, and knowingly concealing material circumstances, the most serious cases are prioritized, such as those involving serious criminality or organized fraud. There have been several large-scale fraud investigations across Canada, which have led to the increase in citizenship revocations.

Canadians are proud of their citizenship, and our government is committed to upholding the integrity of that citizenship. The ability to revoke based on fraud has been in place since the inception of the act in 1947, and will continue to do so.

This tool is very important in ensuring that the program remains effective, as the Auditor General indicated in his report.

As things stand now, the minister has the authority to revoke citizenship in basic fraud cases, such as residence fraud, identity fraud, and criminality. The Federal Court has the authority to decide on more complex cases where the misrepresentation is in relation to concealing facts relating to inadmissibility for security violations, human or international rights violations, or organized crime.

With respect to the revocation process, which has been underlined here by the member opposite, under the authority of the minister, once individuals receive a notice of intent advising them that their citizenship may be revoked, along with the evidence that the notice is based on, they are given the opportunity to provide submissions and evidence relating to the case to the decision-maker, which can be taken into consideration.

These are some of the due process components that have to be emphasized to the member opposite. While we are open to suggestions on how to improve the due process protections, certain protections exist at present. In certain circumstances, for example, an oral hearing may be held. Personal circumstances of the individual, including any hardship that may be caused, can be taken into account by a decision-maker.

With respect to the cessation provisions, I know the member opposite has spoken about this. She is an advocate for this provision. We are looking at the cessation provisions, because certain aspects of those cessation provisions, including the retroactivity component and including the ability to revoke not just the refugee status but also the permanent residency of an individual, are aspects that are concerning to this government. We will, indeed, be analyzing those very provisions that have been raised by the member opposite.

I want to underscore, once again, there are due process protections in place for revocation of citizenship, including what I have outlined, but also the fact that a judicial review can be sought with leave to the Federal Court of Canada.

The minister has said publicly many times in this House, and in the Senate where Bill C-6 is currently, that we are open to considering enhancements to the current process for revocation for citizenship fraud, and that is exactly what we will do should those suggestions be made.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, November 29th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we appreciate the efforts and advocacy by the member opposite. However, fiscal prudence and sound management of Canadian public finances is something that the party of the member opposite stands for. It is something that this government is working towards and is trying to implement with this decision. We are expected to make responsible decisions on government spending involving taxpayer dollars and to ensure that those taxpayer dollars are spent on quality services that address current challenges and future needs.

The facts supplied by the member opposite are speculative. Actually, the facts are that 42% of the current staff are reaching retirement age in the next five years. Between October 2015 and September 2016, 17% of the staff in Vegreville left the workforce. This is not speculative, but accurate. There have also been 200 tenant service calls to fix the heating, cooling, sanitary, and plumbing issues in the building since 2013. These are issues that the former government chose not to address, but that we will be addressing.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, November 29th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for her important advocacy on this issue on behalf of her constituents in Vegreville.

To respond to the increased demand in various business lines, and to expand the operations of the IRCC, the department has made the difficult but necessary decision to relocate the Vegreville case processing centre to Edmonton. Canadians expect any government, including this government, to make responsible decisions on government spending that will ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent on quality services that address current challenges and future needs.

The member opposite has raised the issue of whether there is a business case. My comments are indeed directed at addressing that very concern. In fact, the Minister of Immigration has stated that the department intends to expand its operations in Alberta in the coming years, creating in aggregate more jobs for Albertans. That is my first point.

With 42% of the current staff at Vegreville reaching retirement age in the next five years, the move to Edmonton will make it easier to recruit and retain qualified bilingual employees to meet the growing current and future needs. To date, the recruitment efforts to replace staff have been unsuccessful. This was the case even under the former government. Needless to say, the inability to recruit new staff, combined with the reduction in the workforce due to retirement, is a serious challenge. With fewer employees, service to clients will certainly be impacted. That, again, buttresses the business case.

Between October 2015 and September 2016, 17% of the staff in Vegreville left the workforce. As the member opposite well knows, the letter she received from the Minister of Immigration on November 17 stipulated that there were ongoing tenant issues at the current location in Vegreville, with almost 200 service calls made since 2013 to fix the heating, cooling, sanitary, and plumbing issues, again during the tenure of the previous government.

Once again, these are issues that the previous government was unable to resolve. This move will save taxpayers money because the new office will be located on premises owned by the Government of Canada.

Although the move from Vegreville to Edmonton makes business sense based on current and future needs, the member needs to understand that it was not a decision made without great consideration of the impact it would have on employees, as well as her constituents in the community of Vegreville. Employees were advised well in advance of this relocation, and efforts are under way to ensure that the impacts on staff are minimized.

I have great concern for the issues the member has outlined with respect to families. We are concerned and sensitive to the needs and problems that families are facing with the challenges they are undergoing in every facet of our economy, particularly in Vegreville, in the member's constituency. The management of IRCC will continue to work closely with staff throughout this transition period.

The positions in the relocated office will have the same work descriptions they have now, and so the current indeterminate employees will be able to retain their jobs. Business will continue as usual throughout the transition.

As I have said, Canadians expect their government to manage taxpayer dollars well, even if that means making difficult decisions, and this is the decision that we had to take.

I would also note that the Minister of Immigration has reached out to the member for Lakeland to meet with respect to Vegreville and to address her concerns and questions. The minister's office has yet to hear from the member.

We will continue to show leadership and continue to deliver for Albertans.

[Leader of Tibet, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Tibetan leader, Dr. Lobsang Sangay. His Holiness the Dalai Lama relinquished political leadership of the Tibetan community in 2011, and Dr. Sangay was the first person ever elected to the post of Sikyong, or government leader, that same year. Born in a Tibetan refugee settlement in India, Dr. Sangay is a Fulbright scholar and the first Tibetan to ever receive an S.J.D. degree from Harvard.

Thousands of Tibetans in my riding of Parkdale-High Park and around the world see Dr. Sangay as a strong advocate for the “middle way” approach. The middle way seeks nothing more than greater autonomy for Tibet within China. It is an approach that would peacefully resolve the issue of Tibet and bring about stability and co-existence based on the concepts of equality and mutual co-operation.

I salute Dr. Sangay, as well as Mr. Penpa Tsering, the official representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, for their important work in promoting awareness about the middle way approach.

For their vital efforts, I say Tashi Delek.

[Business of Supply, November 15th, 2016]

I will try to be three times lucky, Mr. Speaker.

I was in my seat during the course of voting. I apologize for having inadvertently left my seat after the act of voting. In the spirit of consent that seems to be permeating the House today in terms of what we allowed for the NDP, I would ask that my vote count today.

[Business of Supply, November 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the voting I was in my place when I voted. However, after concluding the vote, I made the mistake of inadvertently getting up and going to sit next to Minister McCallum to discuss an issue with him—

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, November 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Vegreville is not one of job loss, but of job maintenance, and in fact job creation. The individuals in Vegreville will have their positions secured in Edmonton. In addition, in moving the processing centre to Edmonton we will increase efficiencies, reduce processing times, and make that centre more able to employ more Albertans.

What we are doing for the people of Vegreville is reaching out to the member opposite and the mayor the town to facilitate that transition, and we continue to look forward to executing that in the coming days and months ahead.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, October 26th, 2016]

In answer to his question, I can tell my colleague opposite that, once the security, health and testing criteria have been met, there is still another step involving the country itself. For example, if the person is in Lebanon, Jordan, or Turkey, the country has to issue that individual an exit permit or visa. These additional requirements sometimes cause longer delays. That being said, we are here to help members from every party and their constituents.

We thank Canadians and my colleague's constituents for their generosity. We are going to try to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, October 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his question and his support for this truly national plan.

As the hon. member said, there has been non-stop processing of files of government-sponsored and privately sponsored Syrian refugees. The refugees began arriving in early March and others are due to arrive in the weeks and months to come.

Once an application is fully approved, in other words, the applicant has cleared a medical exam and a security check, a visa is issued and the government-sponsored or privately sponsored refugee can come to Canada. That is how it works.

Last spring, the minister promised that every effort would be made to process by year end or early next year all the applications for privately sponsored refugees that were filed on or before March 21, 2016. The government has made every effort to keep that promise.

Throughout most of May and June, extra staff joined employees and partner organizations that are already working in the Middle East to process applications of privately sponsored Syrian refugees.

After this blitz period, mission staff in the Middle East continued to process private sponsorship applications and finalize cases.

Again, every effort is being made to finalize the processing of privately sponsored Syrian refugee applications filed on or before March 31, by the end of 2016 or early 2017. This also applies to my colleague's riding.

To meet this commitment, and in light of the Syrian crisis, privately sponsored Syrian refugee applications were processed first. There are other refugee populations that the respondents would like to help and those applications need to be processed as well.

The processing can also depend on a number of factors, including the volume of applications, the security situation in the region, and the rate at which requirements such as security and medical screening can be met.

I imagine that the hon. members across the way know full well that these requirements are very important and need to be met.

The public response to the Syrian refugee crisis has been extremely generous. My colleague talked about that. Between November 4, 2015, and September 25, 2016, 11, 695 privately sponsored refugees were resettled in Canada. The government has not seen such massive support since the Indochinese refugee resettlement at the end of the 1970s.

With so many people joining refugee sponsorship groups or helping to welcome government-sponsored refugees, it was a truly national effort.

I would like to thank my colleague opposite for supporting this national effort. Once again, I thank the member for his question.