Bill Siksay

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 17th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-449, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table another private member's bill this morning which will amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow a Canadian citizen or permanent resident to sponsor one relative from outside the current definition of family in the act once in their lifetime.

This bill, which we in this corner of the House call the once in a lifetime bill, is intended to recognize that family membership is understood very broadly by many Canadians and that many immediate and close family relationships are not currently recognized in our immigration law.

This change represents a longstanding commitment of the New Democratic Party. As New Democrats, we believe family reunification must be a reality in Canadian immigration law, not merely something to which we give lip service.

Families are crucial to Canada and I believe this bill would help ensure that Canadian families can be together here in Canada doing what they do best: caring for, supporting, encouraging and loving each other.

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

[Pacific Gateway Act, November 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I very much support the member's concerns for rail separation and grade separations in his community of Langley. We know what a serious issue that is in that part of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and how important that is to any workable solution for some of the transportation problems experienced by the Lower Mainland.

Another issue related to rail transport in the Lower Mainland is the New Westminster rail bridge across the Fraser River. The single track bridge is 102 years old and is owned by the federal government. It has to be raised to allow for the passage of river traffic. It is in the up position five hours a day, which causes a major bottleneck for rail transportation in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

I wonder if the member could comment on the need for a better rail crossing over the Fraser River.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion this evening and I really appreciate the comments of my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He has raised a number of the things that I have heard about from my constituents with regard to Canada's participation in Afghanistan.

In particular, I have heard from constituents about what happens to prisoners who are taken by Canadian Forces members in Afghanistan and that whole concern about whether they are eventually being turned over to Americans in the context of the secret prisons that we have recently heard about, but also in the context of the kind of behaviour the Americans undertook in Abu Ghraib and at Guantanamo Bay. That is of major concern to the people in Burnaby--Douglas who contacted me about this.

I was a little disconcerted, as was my colleague, to hear the minister's response to that concern. It seems to me that there is something that is good, that there are negotiations under way and it is good that some of these issues may be addressed, but in the meantime, what happens concerning the whole point about whether Afghanistan is indeed turning these folks over to a third country or to the United States?

I would like to ask the member for Elmwood--Transcona about his comment concerning the militarization of development work. I think he made a very important point. I wonder if he might speak a little more about the kinds of concerns that NGOs have had around that, as I think this is another departure from the kind of work that Canadians expect of Canadian organizations and the Canadian Forces and really is part of the whole departure from our traditional peacekeeping role that he was talking about in his remarks.

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration boldly announced that he was above the law of the land. He announced that he would not uphold the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and would not implement the refugee appeal division that is a key part of that law. This was Liberal legislation. It was debated in the House and in committee. It was passed by Parliament. The refugee appeal division is supported by every immigrant and refugee-serving organization in Canada and some internationally.

Why does the minister believe that he is above the law? What entitles the minister to refuse to abide by Canadian law?

[Veterans Affairs, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, recently sod was turned for the Korean war memorial in a prominent place in Burnaby's Central Park. The memorial will commemorate the legacy of over 500 Canadian soldiers, 36 from B.C., who gave their lives in the Korean war.

This memorial will only be the second specific Korean war memorial in Canada. It will be a reminder of the contribution of over 30,000 Canadians who served in Korea. It will also be a bridge, a bridge between Canadian and Korean culture, a bridge between the generations that experienced the horrors of this war and those who only know the story, and a bridge between those memories and our hopes for a peaceful future.

This project is led by the Korean Veterans Association Western Canada Chapter and the Canadian Korean Veterans Association Pacific Region, and is supported by many others. The city of Burnaby and its Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission are key partners.

In this Year of the Veteran as we approach Remembrance Day, we pay tribute to the brave men and women who defended freedom and democracy. Their sacrifice shall not be forgotten.

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 31st, 2005]

But not their promises, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration says that he is increasing the immigration target for next year by 10,000 people. This represents a whopping 4% increase. There is a 700,000 person backlog in the system, meaning families are waiting for loved ones and employers cannot get the skilled workers they need. There is lots of fancy talk surrounding a very minimal announcement.

How exactly does a paltry 4% increase in the target for next year get rid of the backlog, reunite families and allow for the recruitment of skilled workers?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago the Liberals promised to increase the annual immigration level to 1% of population. Given the hopes of families reunification and our economy's need for skilled workers, this promise was taken to heart by many. Year after year the government has missed the target. It will fail families, employers and immigrants again in 2005. Even with the apparent increase for next year, the new target falls far short of what was promised.

Why does the Prime Minister still refuse to keep the Liberals' 1% promise and put an end to this record of failure?

[Pay Equity, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, starting in 1991 flight attendants working for Air Canada and Canadian Airlines filed pay equity complaints with the Human Rights Commission. Years later they are still waiting for justice. These claims are now with the Supreme Court. Imagine having to go to our highest court for what the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour continually call a fundamental human right.

Thousands of women, entitled to pay equity, wait for years while employers keep claims in the courts. The situation is so serious that a UN committee has called on the federal government to act and implement equal pay for work of equal value.

The government's own report from the pay equity task force set out a clear plan for pay equity legislation. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has asked for the legislation. Still the Liberals delay. Our sisters are tired of waiting.

The NDP calls upon the Liberal government to stop forcing women to fight for decades for economic equality and introduce proactive pay equity legislation now. Where is the legislation?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, does the member think Canadians think it is a whacky idea to show the Americans that we are ready to do more than just talk endlessly about this problem. A majority of people in his own constituency would probably support doing some tangible action rather than just more talk. They would support doing something tangible as opposed to just appointing another envoy to go on another gabfest in the United States knowing that George Bush, whether people like him or not, is somebody who understands taking action and who knows that when faced with somebody who is only going to talk, he does not have to worry about them.

Is it a whacky idea to say that we need to do something tangible and that Canadians believe we need to do something tangible? I do not think so. I think it reflects badly on his understanding of what people in his own constituency think needs to be done around this important issue.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it certainly gives a mixed message. It is not exactly establishing a very strong bargaining position when we cannot even agree on the amount of the money that is owed in reparations for the decision.

We are getting mixed messages. On the one hand the government says to the United States that it has to abide by the agreement it signed with us and it tries to be very serious about that. At the same time, the Liberals are negotiating new agreements with the United States for further integration around air safety, food safety and security. It does not make sense to be in the middle of this kind of dispute with the United States and to continue on those and further negotiations and to develop new plans for further treaties with people who do not respect the ones that are on the plate now.

I am very concerned about the Arctic wildlife refuge and the porcupine caribou herd. Another agreement is on the table which is crucial to that caribou herd and to that important part of our heritage in our country. The Americans are not even living up to that agreement at this crucial time. That is appalling.

We should show the Americans that we are serious. We need to take actions, actions that I and the NDP have outlined before, to show the Americans that we want to hold them accountable for the agreements that they signed with us in good faith after good negotiations.