Ed Komarnicki

[Government Response to Petitions, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to state to the member that of course the minister's instructions would be only those that would support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada. They will not be individual or case to case decisions.

Those instructions will be open and transparent. They will be published in the Canada Gazette, reported in the annual report to Parliament, and published on the CIC website.

Obviously, they will need to be charter compliant. The instructions will be debated in this House. They will be debated in committee. They will come back to this House for further debate. The opportunity will be there for members to stand up and vote for or against this.

I would like to ask for the member's comments on what the state of immigration is now after 13 years of the Liberal Party in office. The backlog of 50,000 cases has now increased to 800,000. I wonder if the member can comment on what the acceptability of that might be to her and her party, and whether or not the immigration system is in need of some drastic reform and change.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member loses himself in statistics. I wonder how he explains that last year we had the highest number of newcomers in our history, 429,649. We actually did have that number.

I can say that with the two ministers we have had we have passed legislation that will get thousands of lost Canadians back into the fold. With the new minister, we are amending the act to ensure we can bring more people in quicker and faster. I would encourage him to support that legislation.

One of his own people, the member for Etobicoke Centre, said:

I'm almost reaching the point where I believe that our whole immigration system has become dysfunctional. That in fact it's at the point of being broken.

That was said in September 2004, after 13 years of a Liberal government, six ministers, four terms in office, some of them with majorities, and absolutely nothing to reform the act.

An editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press stated:

What the Conservatives propose is common sense--cut back on accepting new applications until progress is made in cleaning out the backlog.

This is good policy...For the Liberals to exploit this, however, not only ignores the national need for the party's own political advantage, but also ignores the ugly truth that it was the Liberals who created this problem. In the years 1993-2006, the immigration backlog grew from 50,000 to 800,000. Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

Will the member do the honourable thing and stand up, in accordance with the instructions of his leader, to vote in favour of this legislation when it comes up for a vote?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how the hon. member comes to say that we are governing by stealth. This is an opportunity for her and members opposite to speak in the House and in committee. When the bill is passed, it will give the opportunity for the minister to issue an instruction that will be broad and in accordance with the goals set out by the Government of Canada. She will not be involved in individual decision making. That will be left to the department.

The instructions will be open, transparent and published in the Canada Gazette. The annual report will come back to Parliament and, ultimately, it will be this House that decides, with responsibility to the Canadian people, whether or not the legislation passes.

Once again, the government is doing something about a backlog that increased under that member's government from 50,000 to over 800,000. To be 800,001 does not help if people want to come into this country to reunite with their family or be a skilled worker.

Will the member stand up in the House and oppose this legislation, given her democratic right and representation that she has to her constituents and to those across the country who want to see reform and want to see it go in the fashion we are proposing?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the member. I am not sure how he indicates that this is not receiving appropriate attention and is coming in the back door somehow. Obviously it is up for debate in this House, as it should be, in public and in the open where we can do that. It will go to committee. Not only will it be in committee to have further witnesses called and material presented, but it will come back to the House again for debate and, eventually, a vote.

The big question is how the member will be voting when the bill comes before the House. Will he be opposing it if he believes that it is inappropriate, given the fact that it was under 13 years of his government, six ministers and four terms in office that nothing was done to reform the system in all those years? Numbers grew from 50,000 to 800,000. Surely being 800,000 plus one coming into the system will not make it faster or easier.

What does he have against a system that will be more efficient and faster and which will encourage family reunification on a quick basis and bring skilled people to the trades that so desperately need them to build our country?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member is opposed to the fact that we are going to increase the numbers and make the process quicker.

Last year Canada welcomed the highest number of newcomers in our history, 429,000-plus, surpassing the previous high in 1911.

Although the New Democrats object to the Liberals not voting, the NDP members vote consistently against everything because they know that it will not make a difference. They voted against the $1.3 billion in new settlement funding for newcomers in Canada. They voted against the Foreign Credentials Referral Office, something that was necessary, in the budget. They voted against cutting the $975 immigrant head tax. They will be voting against reducing immigration wait times.

Although they castigate the Liberals and say that they do not vote because they are afraid to, the NDP members know that they will not form government and they vote against everything. How can he justify voting against streamlining the system, bringing more people in quicker, faster and more efficiently?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for her comments with respect to some of the statements that were made by the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. He said that when it comes to immigration, his party did not get it done. The Liberals had 13 years in government with six immigration ministers. The member herself was a minister.

The member for Etobicoke Centre said on September 14, 2004, during a CBC interview:

I'm almost reaching the point where I believe that our whole immigration system has become dysfunctional. That in fact it's at the point of being broken.

The member herself indicated that it does not make sense for us to be continually taking names when the reality is that we need to change the system, make it more flexible, more responsible.

Does she not agree that change is necessary because the system was not working the way it had been structured under the previous 13 years? Does she not agree that it requires a legislative change? This bill will go to committee and she can add her thoughts to it then. The total portion of the amendment is about two pages and is not difficult to understand.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is wondering why everyone is picking on the Liberal Party, and why Canadians are picking on the Liberal Party, it is because we have a backlog of 800,000 in the immigration system. The wait times are long. They are up to six years. The Liberals voted against our $1.3 billion in new settlement funding. They voted against the foreign credentials referral office. They voted against cutting the immigration head tax of $975. Those are some reasons why everyone is picking on the Liberal Party.

Let me ask if the member knows who said the following:

The world looks to Canada like we have this great immigration system...but you're not doing the system justice by taking applications that aren't going to get processed for years and years and years.

It doesn't make any sense to us to be continually taking these [applications]...the reality is we need to change the system....

We need an immigration system that is in this regard more flexible and responds to employers, the provinces and our cities.

Who said that? It was said by the member for York West, the former Liberal immigration minister. I wonder if the member would agree with what the former Liberal minister said about what needs to be done in our system.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it will stand the test of time.

Thirteen years, six Liberal ministers, four majority Liberal governments and the Liberals did nothing for the system except continue it with a backlog of 800,000 people and growing. That is not governing.

We are taking decisive steps to ensure this country can be built. Thirteen years of inaction is not the answer. It is time to do something and we are doing it now.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, far from it being a back door approach, it is using a front door approach where we can speak to it, discuss it and it will go to committee.

What it does do, and it is the Canadian way, is it will make all politicians, including the hon. member's cousins across the way, the official opposition, stand up and be counted, whether they are for it or against it. It will be a confidence motion that will test them to see who is right or wrong and to see if they are prepared to go to the Canadians.

This is the Canadian way. Ultimately Canadians will decide. We are giving the Liberals that opportunity to stand or not to stand, but Canadians want this done and we are doing it.