Arif Virani

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-22. The bill would create a committee of parliamentarians to oversee Canada's security agencies. For the first time in history, a multi-party group of members of Parliament and senators would hold Canada's security apparatus to account.

Bill C-22 represents a Liberal initiative that dates back to 2005 in fulfillment of a key part of our campaign commitment to Canadians to reverse the legacy of the old Bill C-51. I am proud to stand in support of it and the important idea that Canadian security must never come at the expense of our rights and freedoms.

I will start by turning back the clock to early 2015 and the previous government's introduction of Bill C-51.

In my riding of Parkdale—High Park last year, I heard about Bill C-51 over and over again at the doors. Residents in my community in Toronto are smart. They are engaged, and when they sense injustice, they speak out. They told me that they expect better from their government, that ensuring public safety is the preeminent responsibility of any government, but that it is not acceptable to pursue security at any cost. My constituents, and indeed all Canadians, want a government that respects Canadians' rights and one that will put in place mechanisms to protect those rights.

As a human rights and constitutional lawyer, I listened to those residents as a candidate in the past election. I communicated those very valid concerns to my party, and the party responded. In 2015, we committed on the campaign trail that if we were fortunate enough to earn the respect of Canadians and to form government, we would significantly amend that flawed bill and put in place the mechanisms that Canadians want to protect their rights while simultaneously keeping them safe. That is what Bill C-22 would start to do.

However, we cannot take all the credit. The idea of ensuring that parliamentary representatives oversee security agencies, like the RCMP, CSIS, and CSE, did not come to us as some sort of epiphany. It is exactly what our allies have been doing for many years. Every single member of the Five Eyes alliance but Canada has some oversight mechanism in place. Those are Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and the United States.

The Auditor General identified the need for parliamentary oversight in a seminal report in 2003. Our party initiated this in 2005 when then public safety minister Anne McLellan introduced Bill C-81. That bill died on the Order Paper when the opposition parties voted down the minority government of then prime minister Paul Martin, triggering the election that brought us Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

A similar oversight committee was attempted no less than four more times in private members' bills, as introduced by Liberal Derek Lee on two occasions, in 2007 and 2009; by the member for Malpeque in 2013; and by the member of Parliament who sits right next to me, the member for Vancouver Quadra, Joyce Murray. On each of those occasions, the private members' bills were not passed in the House.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for raising the point about the litigation. However, I believe she would be aware and members of the House should be informed that the litigation was actually placed on hold pending our government's commitment to reform Bill C-24 by Bill C-6, and we have done exactly that. In its most glaring constitutional violation, Bill C-24 jeopardized people's citizenship based on their places of origin in terms of the ability to revoke, based on national security grounds, the citizenship only of people who were not born here. That change has been made and the litigation has been put into abeyance.

The submissions made by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other members who attended at committee have been heard. We have received those documents, we are reviewing them, and we look forward to enabling better and more constructive due process provisions going forward in respect of citizenship revocation when it arises in the case of misrepresentation.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the question on the Order Paper of the member for Vancouver East actually dealt with a substantially different issue, so I will address both in my comments.

The question on the Order Paper related to a matter that relates to funding for language instruction classes for newcomers and settlement services. She received a response from the minister at the time, which I can reiterate and add to. The government takes very seriously the issue of the settlement of all newcomers, particularly in the case of Syrian refugees. On top of the $600 million in funding that was provided in 2016-17 to settlement agencies, an additional pocket of $37 million has been dedicated just for Syrian refugees and their resettlement. We take very seriously the issue of people not only being housed but also being linguistically trained so that they can access the workforce.

In respect of the comments of the member for Vancouver East regarding Bill C-24, I obviously have a very different description of what has transpired with respect to our tabling of legislation, Bill C-6, the significance of that tabling, what it has done, and what it will continue to do for Canadians.

The member made extensive submissions at committee with respect to one particular issue, and I will get to that issue in a moment, but by tabling Bill C-6, we have shortened the time frame for which people are eligible for citizenship. It has been reduced from four years to three years. We have rendered citizenship more accessible by restricting the citizenship testing requirements only to persons aged 18 to 55. It used to be required for anyone as young as 14 and anyone as old as 65. We have also given credit to individuals, such that time spent here prior to becoming a permanent resident can be attributed to one's citizenship eligibility on a factor of 50%, such as temporary foreign workers and international students.

Most importantly, we have also emphasized something that affects me and many members of the House, which I spoke about already in respect of Bill C-6, and that is that we have eliminated the part of the legislation brought in by the previous government which implemented a system whereby one's citizenship could be revoked based on grounds of national security, only for those people who were not born in this country. That is the point about making sure a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I am very proud of that legislation, and the minister and the department stand behind it.

With respect to issues about revocation of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation, it is an important point highlighted by the member for Vancouver East. The issue of revoking citizenship for fraud has existed since 1947, since the Citizenship Act was created. Revoking for fraud maintains an important aspect of what we must do as a government. We revoke for fraud in certain instances, for example, if somebody hides the fact that they participated as a war criminal in some foreign conflict. If that is not presented to officials and is later discovered, we will intervene and revoke that citizenship. It is something Canadians expect us to do and something that this government will continue to do.

The important point raised by the member for Vancouver East, however, is the procedural protections and due process that are or are not available in such revocation contexts. I was at those committee meetings with the member opposite and we heard the submissions. They were important submissions and those changes are not taking place in this form of the bill at this juncture because of the structural and regulatory changes that would be required in terms of the overall apparatus and machinery of government.

Does that mean that they are off the table? It certainly does not. The minister answered a question on this just today in question period in respect of the possibility of looking at such changes going forward.

[Immigration to Atlantic Canada, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Today we are considering a motion that would instruct the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to undertake a study on immigration to Atlantic Canada.

First of all, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy Royal, for introducing this very important motion and for her dedicated service to the people of her riding and Atlantic Canada.

On behalf of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I would like to affirm what now sounds pretty much unanimous, which is the Government of Canada's full agreement with the hon. member's motion, and I encourage everyone in the House to join me in supporting Motion No. 39.

This motion proposes that a study on immigration to Atlantic Canada consider, among other things, “the challenges associated with an aging population and shrinking population base”. Atlantic Canada certainly faces a number of demographic challenges. A number of the speakers have already referred to this. It includes declining fertility rates and the long-standing trend of young residents leaving the region to settle and work elsewhere.

According to the latest figures from Statistics Canada, the Atlantic provinces have the highest proportion of residents aged 65 or older and are among the provinces with the lowest proportion of residents aged 14 and under.

The motion also proposes that the study consider “possible recommendations on how to increase immigration to the region”. Indeed, Atlantic Canada faces a number of challenges in both attracting, and importantly, retaining immigrants. This is a theme I am going to return to.

We have heard some of the statistics. In 2014, 6.7% of the population lived in Atlantic Canada, but the region only accepted 3.1% of new immigrants. As well, we had a recent government study that found that about 40% of all new immigrants who arrived in the region between 2006 and 2011 actually moved on to other regions. Given those kinds of demographic and statistical realities, it is entirely appropriate and timely that the standing committee thoroughly study this issue in order to make thoughtful recommendations that will benefit the economic and social development of Atlantic Canada.

We know from recent experience that people in the Maritimes have a keen interest in this issue. In Atlantic Canada, people are acutely aware that immigration plays an important role in economic growth, and they would like more immigrants to settle there.

During our recent national effort to bring thousands of Syrian refugees to Canada in the span of a few months, Atlantic Canadians were particularly enthusiastic in their support.

Specifically, back in March, at a meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers, Nova Scotia's immigration minister, who herself is the daughter of immigrants, proudly noted that her province is taking in almost five times the number of refugees it normally takes in a single year. Indeed, support for increased immigration has been expressed recently by all provincial governments in the context of the Syrian crisis.

All Atlantic premiers have voiced support for the resettlement of refugees in the region. I should underline here the importance the co-operation between this federal government and the four premiers in Atlantic Canada who have been participating, actively collaborating, and working on the Atlantic growth strategy with our government. The governments specifically of both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have indicated that they would welcome an even higher number of refugees.

However, refugees are only one part of the story. Our immigration system also has programs for reuniting families and recruiting and attracting economic immigrants.

Under one of our economic immigration programs, the provincial nominee program, participating provinces and territories develop economic immigration streams tailored to their regional needs and nominate candidates on the basis of their ability to contribute to their regional economies. This was raised directly by the Conservative member opposite, so I would point out to her and her colleagues that part of the pilot project we are announcing and have already promoted and will commence next year actually specifically deals with speed and space. What I mean by that is that this pilot program would provide provinces, including the Atlantic Canadian provinces, with a significant number of additional nominations outside the current provincial nominee program allocation. That addresses precisely what has been raised by the members opposite.

What is important to underline here is that we are trying to address the statistical reality. For example, in 2005, only 1.5% of new immigrants to Canada were destined for any of the Atlantic provinces. By 2014, thanks in part to the PNP, that percentage had doubled to more than 3.1%. Is there still room for more growth? Absolutely.

Since the introduction of express entry in 2015, the Atlantic provinces have been given the opportunity to bring in even more immigrants than ever before. As we know, Atlantic Canada has a lot to offer potential immigrants: diverse economies, welcoming communities, terrific parliamentary representatives, incredible geographic beauty, and a picturesque lifestyle that is the envy of many. I will add to that, by the by, that I know about this first-hand, having married a townie from the wonderful province of Newfoundland.

The region has also capitalized on its existing learning, research, and innovation advantages through its strong post-secondary institutions, some of which were mentioned by the member for Fundy Royal. That has helped to attract a growing number of international students.

Atlantic Canada's supportive business environment and entrepreneurial culture have also facilitated the arrival of many immigrant entrepreneurs, who have started small businesses and are providing a very necessary solution to business succession needs in the region.

However, in spite of the many positives, there are still issues that warrant further study, as recommended by this motion. For instance, of all the immigrants who landed in the Atlantic provinces between 2006 and 2011, only 60% were still resident in their original province of destination in 2011, compared with 90% who remain in western provinces and 93% who remain in Ontario.

What explains this phenomenon? As the minister has learned during extensive consultations in the region just this past summer, many newcomers leave Atlantic Canada for economic reasons, because the region has, unfortunately, a higher than average unemployment rate. Others leave for socio-cultural reasons, and are drawn to relatives or larger diaspora communities in bigger, more diverse urban centres, such as Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver.

Clearly, a study on immigration to Atlantic Canada must have a strong focus on fostering strategies to both successfully integrate and successfully retain immigrants in the region. That, again, goes to the point about retention.

The Government of Canada's support for this motion to study increased immigration to Atlantic Canada is consistent with our desire for an open, accepting, and generous immigration system. We would also suggest that for any study of this sort, the committee collaborate with other committees studying related areas, such as temporary foreign workers, as raised by the NDP member opposite.

We would encourage the committee to engage with the provincial governments that I mentioned, the provincial premiers, who have first-hand expertise. We would also suggest, and has been mentioned twice now in the House today, that the committee pay particular attention to the role of official languages in increasing immigration to Atlantic Canada.

The vast majority of francophone minority communities in Atlantic Canada are seeing a sharp decline in their population and would benefit greatly from an increase in francophone immigrants.

Before I move for overall support for the motion, I will move a friendly amendment to the motion by the member for Fundy Royal, that the motion be amended by replacing all of the words after (ii) with the following:

retention of current residents and the challenges of retaining new immigrants, (iii) possible recommendations on how to increase immigration to the region, (iv) analysis of the Atlantic Immigration Pilot initiatives associated with the Atlantic growth strategy; and that the committee report its findings to the House within one year of the adoption of this motion.

On that basis, I strongly support Motion No. 39 that we are debating today, as does the government. I encourage all members who are not present and have not heard this debate yet to join all of us in supporting this motion.

[Petitions, September 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House to table election petition e-308 on behalf of the residents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park.

When the former Conservative government enacted Bill C-51 in 2015, the outcry across this country was loud and strong. Canadians understand the need to combat terrorism, but they will never allow this fight to trump our fundamental rights and freedoms.

There must be a balance. That is exactly what this petition seeks. Residents in my riding and across the country want a comprehensive review of Bill C-51. They want their privacy protected, and they want Canadian security agencies to always operate within the confines of the Charter of Rights.

This petition gathered 2,607 signatures. None of that would have been possible without the hard work of an important advocate in my riding, Mr. Matt Currie from Stop C-51.

I will continue to work with advocates like Mr. Currie to strengthen the constitutional rights and protections of all Canadians.

[Ukraine, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the 25th anniversary of Ukraine's independence. On August 24, Ukraine celebrated this important milestone, and thousands of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park celebrated with it.

Throughout its history, Ukraine has struggled against external threats. In 1991 it was the Soviet Union. Today it is Putin's Russia. I am proud as an MP and the vice-chair of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group to stand resolutely in support of Ukraine, its territorial integrity, and its sovereignty. I am also proud to stand against the illegal occupation of Crimea and the illegal invasion of the Donbass.

In Canada, we do not just defend Ukraine, we celebrate it. We celebrate the food, the music, and the culture at events like the Bloor West village Ukrainian festival in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. We also celebrate the tremendous contributions of Ukrainian-Canadians to Canada, a history that dates back 125 years to 1891.

For these contributions, I say Duže diakuju, and to Ukrainians everywhere I say Slava Ukrayini.

[Petitions, September 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to table electronic petition 103 on behalf of the residents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park. The issue of rail safety is a critical one in my riding and is front of mind for all Canadians. No one will forget the tragic derailment in Lac-Mégantic in 2013. I have met with many groups and individuals in Parkdale—High Park who want improved rules and regulations for rail safety so that Lac-Mégantic never happens again. This petition calls for just that. It seeks better safety technology, improved volatility standards, and stronger guidelines surrounding the transportation of goods.

None of this would have been possible without the determination of two important advocates in my riding, Helen Vassilakos and Patricia Lai, whose leadership and vision helped gather 627 signatures for this petition. They are leaders on the issue of rail safety in my riding. I look forward to continue working with them in the future.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, it is a tremendous day to be a Canadian.

Over the past two days, our government and our leader have been celebrated and welcomed by the UN and by the president for our refugee resettlement efforts.

Thousands of Canadians got involved and actively participated in integrating Syrian refugee families. Now, 13 other countries want to learn from Canada's experience. Today, we are proud to launch the global private sponsorship partnership with the UN and George Soros.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of food security is an important one for all Canadians, newcomers and people who have been here for several generations. Have there been some issues with refugees using food banks? Indeed, there has. Are we working hard on those issues? Indeed, we are. We have secured housing for refugees. We are working on securing jobs for them.

I put it to my friend opposite, if we had no plan, then I am wondering why the UN is studying our position at the refugee summit on this very day.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Romania, as well as Bulgaria, because the two go part and parcel in terms of dealing with the EU, we take our commitment to the EU and our relationship with the EU very seriously. The steps we are taking are that we are engaging in dialogue with both Romanian and Bulgarian officials. The minister has met with such individuals, as have I. In fact, the Romanian delegation is here today.

We are taking this situation very seriously in terms of expanding a dialogue to address the visa issue so we can move forward with a productive relationship.