Ed Komarnicki

[Government Policies, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, what a refreshing change it is from a previous government that was full of talk and no action to a government that gets things done. We are a government that speaks and takes action, and that promises, then delivers.

Let us have a look at what the government has accomplished and what it has delivered. We have reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%.

We have reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn before paying income tax to $9,600.

We have delivered $100 per month to parents for each and every child under six years of age.

We have reduced the national debt by $37 billion, with interest savings used to further reduce taxes.

When it comes to protecting our streets, the government has delivered by introducing sweeping reforms on the justice front.

After having listed a number of initiatives that will put more dollars than ever before in the pockets of all Canadians, I would like to wish all members of the House, and indeed all Canadians, a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sponsorship of relative).

This private member's bill would grant every Canadian citizen or permanent resident the opportunity to sponsor once in his or her lifetime one foreign national who is a relative but not a member of the existing family class. The existing family class is a spouse, a common law or conjugal partner, a child under 22, a parent, or a grandparent. In that sense, there is an opportunity to sponsor family.

All of us appreciate the importance of strengthening families. Family reunification has been a cornerstone of Canadian immigration for decades, and this government is committed to ensuring that families represent a vibrant component of our immigration program in the years ahead. Indeed, that is what Canadians expect. Canadians expect a government that is firmly committed to families and to strengthening the ways that families can be reunited with their loved ones from overseas should they choose to make Canada their new home.

The issue raised by Bill C-394 is not new. There is a considerable history to it. The bill was previously introduced on two occasions and was defeated by significant margins at second reading. Bill C-272 was previously defeated on March 23, 2005 by a margin of 167 to 76. Bill C-436 was defeated on April 18, 2004 by a margin of 149 to 40. It is worth noting that both our party and the then Liberal government were clearly opposed to the previous incarnations of this bill.

The bill defines a relative as a brother or a sister of the sponsor, an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, first cousin, or a child who is under 22 and not dependent on the sponsor.

The management and implementation of a provision for once in a lifetime sponsorship of a family member is problematic for a number of reasons, all of which apply to the private member's bill before the House today. Such a wide open expansion of the family class category would place an unsupportable burden on existing resources.

It is interesting that the member did not answer the question about the uptake, or how many people this might bring into the system. If, as she said, the targets were not going to be changed, where would those numbers come from, where would they be taken away from?

There is no doubt that it would increase inventories exponentially and likely result in substantial delays for processing other applications, including those from immediate family members or applicants from other family class categories. This clearly is not in the best interests of Canadians.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park knows there are extensive family reunification provisions in the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the regulations and guidelines thereunder. These regulations, passed in 2002, significantly enhance the family reunification program and more closely reflect today's social and cultural realities.

It is easier today for Canadians and permanent residents to sponsor their loved ones from abroad in a well-managed and sustainable way.

These changes, for example, provide for equal treatment under the law for common law and conjugal partners. They expand the definition of dependent child to better reflect the new realities of children being reliant on their parents for longer periods of time. They lower the age at which Canadian citizens or permanent residents are eligible to sponsor from 19 years of age to 18 years of age.

Under the immigration and refugee protection regulations, Canadians and permanent residents can also sponsor any other relative, regardless of age or relationship, if the sponsor does not have a more immediate living family member.

These enhancements to the family class facilitate family reunification while ensuring an appropriate balance between economic and non-economic immigrants. In the absence of a significant increase in admissions and resources, the adoption of this bill would have significant impacts on the balance and on the overall inventory and processing.

While the previous Liberal government allowed the backlog to balloon to over 800,000, the ever-increasing number of applicants wishing to make Canada their home continues to put additional pressures on the immigration system which many say is already too cumbersome and slow. These pressures would be compounded exponentially by the implementation of Bill C-394.

Simply put, implementing this legislation would impede CIC's ability to ensure the program is balanced and responsive to government priorities, including the ability to meet labour market demands.

The proposed amendments would also have potential impacts on matters of provincial and territorial concern. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has consulted with other levels of government, partners and stakeholders to find a way to work on immigration issues in a more coordinated and cooperative way.

For example, under provincial and territorial immigration agreements, the government has removed the limit on the number of immigrants provinces can nominate each year, allowing the provinces a better opportunity to meet their unique economic, social and labour market needs.

We have also committed to find ways to help temporary foreign workers and students settle in the provinces. In recent years most have gone to Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver because large, established ethnic communities in those cities have made them attractive to newcomers. This has been a major challenge for the immigration system. Therefore, we have aligned our system to make it more responsive to labour market and regional needs.

As all members know, part of the government's plan for the coming year involves introducing a new avenue to immigration, a new economic class that will help attract and retain certain skilled temporary workers and international students with Canadian degrees and work experience.

We must ensure that the immigration program continues to meet the needs of all Canadians in the future. It is how the government will move forward in the future.

We agree with the concept of making it easier for families to reunite with their loved ones. We agree with the idea of strengthening families in general. But, the government has also a duty to properly manage the immigration program and ensure the principles of integrity and balance are upheld.

It is worth noting that the previous Liberal government was vehemently opposed to this legislation when it was introduced in previous sessions. On November 3, 2003, a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship and immigration said:

Such a wide open approach would significantly increase processing delays and the size of existing backlogs for every immigrant category. it would place an unsupportable burden on existing resources, and it would help to undermine the integrity of the entire immigration program by increasing the opportunities for fraud.

This position was echoed by another former Liberal parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship and immigration, the current member for Vancouver Centre, who, on February 12, 2004 said that the actual effect of the legislation would be:

--anyone could sponsor nearly anyone else as a member of the undefined relative class without any thought to fiscal support or employability. The new person could then repeat the exercise, as could their sponsored applicant, and so on, creating a multiplier effect. The result would be an almost limitless chain of family class immigration based simply on loose associations.

If this proposal is adopted, not only will we need significant resources to deal with a larger number of cases, but we will also need proportionally more resources to deal with the family class applications, simply to maintain the existing ratio between family and economic class immigration.

Moreover, this could result in new frauds and it could undermine the integrity of the economic class immigration, since a significant number of economic class immigrants have distant relatives in Canada who could sponsor them.

The changes proposed...runs counter...to the principles of fairness, balance and consultation, and so we cannot support it.

That is what that member said. Those are not our words.

Implementing Bill C-394 would have far-reaching negative implications on the integrity of the current immigration system. Its specific proposals to expand the family class are both unsustainable and unmanageable. We therefore cannot support Bill C-394 and urge all hon. members to do the same.

[December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that a full inquiry has been held into the actions relating to Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar. There has been a significant number of recommendations. The government has accepted and adopted all 23 recommendations in Justice O'Connor's report. Work on implementing them is largely complete. I think those are significant steps. Significant actions have been taken by the government.

In January 2007, the Prime Minister apologized to Mr. Arar and his family and compensated him. We have expressed and are continuing to express our opinion that Mr. Arar should not be on any United States watch list.

This government has taken many steps. There have been many recommendations. There has been a hearing and inquiry on this. I am not sure what the member is after, but there have been a good number of recommendations. Those recommendations have been taken to heart and have been implemented to ensure that something like this will not happen again.

[December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the questions put to the House by the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley regarding ongoing investigations into Canadian involvement in Mr. Arar's imprisonment.

I respect the member's views and appreciate his concern with respect to this particular case. As hon. members know, the government took immediate action to begin implementing the 23 recommendations outlined in Justice O'Connor's report.

As a result of Justice O'Connor's recommendations, we have put in place new protocols and signed a new memorandum of understanding to establish guidelines on information sharing between the RCMP and CSIS, and also between Canada and our allies.

Our goal is to move forward and continue to make the changes that are needed to prevent what happened to Mr. Arar from happening again.

The Government of Canada, following the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, apologized to Mr. Arar last January. Furthermore, it was this government that negotiated compensation for Mr. Arar and his family.

The government accepted all of the recommendations made by Justice O'Connor in his “Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar” and is implementing each and every one of them. This includes the recommendation that the Government of Canada register a formal objection with the Government of the United States concerning its treatment of Mr. Arar and Canadian officials involved with this case.

Immediately following receipt of Justice O'Connor's report, the Minister of Public Safety wrote to the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, on September 21, 2006, asking for his support in ensuring that United States agencies were aware of the commission's findings and that appropriate steps would be taken to amend U.S. records accordingly.

In addition, the Prime Minister spoke to President Bush and the former minister of foreign affairs wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State to register Canada's objections to the actions of the U.S. government in the Arar case.

More recently, on October 24 before the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted some deficiencies in the handling of Maher Arar's case.

While the government is encouraged by the comments made by the secretary of state regarding Mr. Arar's case, further action has been taken in the hopes that the United States government will continue to take action in order to fully address this matter. Immediately following Secretary Rice's appearance before the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety wrote another letter to Secretary Chertoff, encouraging the United States government to take appropriate steps to ensure that Mr. Arar's name is removed from all relevant lookout lists.

This government has taken a significant number of steps to ensure this does not happen again. It has implemented a number of recommendations that were made. This member needs to look forward and not backward.

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I have previously mentioned, the decision has just been rendered. The agreement continues to remain in effect. That decision is being reviewed and after the review, appropriate steps will be taken.

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, a decision was rendered yesterday. That decision is being reviewed and after review, appropriate steps will be taken. In the meantime, as I understand it, the safe third agreement continues to remain in effect.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

First and foremost, be assured that there is a review, Mr. Speaker, of any detentions every six months and on an ongoing basis.

More important, there was a suggestion that there needed to be something in the nature of a special advocate. This bill provides for a special advocate who is security cleared and will have some experience in matters like this, who is able to probe the evidence, who is able to look at the material to see whether it should be confidential or not, or whether there are issues about bringing it in the public or not. The special advocate would be allowed to cross-examine witnesses, to probe the evidence that the minister has put forth. This bill underscores the idea of protecting the person's interest as much as is possible with regard to the fact that the security of the nation and the security of Canadians is paramount.

It sets out the parameters of how this might work. Then it adds a particular clause which states that the special advocate may exercise with the judge's authorization any other powers that are necessary to protect the interest of the permanent resident or foreign national.

It certainly indicates very specifically what can be done. It also says that in a challenge of the minister's claim that disclosure of information or other evidence would be injurious to national security, the special advocate can challenge the relevance, the reliability, the sufficiency of information or other evidence and the weight to be given to it. He or she may make oral or written submissions with respect to the information and other evidence that is provided and may participate in and cross-examine the witnesses who testified during any part of the proceeding that is being held.

That sounds very much like what we have in an ordinary courtroom in a criminal proceeding. It is the type of thing that is meant to protect the person's interest to the degree that it can be protected, given the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there was a two part question. I answered the first part but not the second part. I would like to answer the second part of the question raised by the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo. I believe the second part was his concern that a foreign national may be held indefinitely under a security certificate indefinitely whereas someone charged under the Criminal Code for a Criminal Code offence would serve a time specific.

It points out the very essence of the distinction between the two. In the matter of the Criminal Code, the charge is for a criminal act that has been committed and the sentence is proportional to the type of act committed and the length of time that is appropriate to be served for that crime. It is unlike the issue we are dealing with here, which is national security and the admissibility of a person into Canada. A foreign national is not admitted to Canada if there is a security risk, if the person is part of organized crime or a terrorist, or there is evidence to believe that.

The foreign national, although not allowed into the country, can leave at any time. The only reason for detention is to protect the safety and security of the public. It is not a punitive measure. It is not something that is definite in time. Having said that, the bill provides for the person to be brought before a Federal Court judge within 48 hours and if there is a detention order because of a public safety and security issue, that is reviewed every six months and for as long as the person is in detention, but the person is free to leave at any time.

That is a very significant distinction. If there is another way to protect the safety and security of the country, the judge is able to release those on certain conditions, as has happened in many cases. They are restrictive. They need to be restrictive because the first and paramount interest is the safety and security of Canadians. That is the difference, that is the distinction and that is why the bill must pass.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, precisely. We talked about the Hungarians in the dark moments in history. When the Ukrainian-Canadians were interned, this procedure was not in place and they were not subject to it. Had they been subject to this procedure, that would not have happened.

First, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety has a look at the information and the evidence to be sure the case should go forward.

Second, we have a federal court judge who looks at the matters to ensure they are not superfluous, not whimsical. They have to be substantial and they have to be with respect to the safety of our country, with respect to someone endangering the safety of our national security. This is not done at a whim. If we had this kind of process in place, that would not have happened.

This process allows the council to intercede on behalf of the individual to make a case for that individual to ensure there is a perfect balance in the end so the individual is protected. There are measures there where the judge can allow a fairly significant type of procedure to take place for the special advocate, including the kinds of things we would do in a criminal trial, like cross-examination of a witness, testing the evidence and dealing with the weight and the sufficiency of the evidence, the kinds of things that would ensure this is proved, that it is real.

In terms of the distinction between criminal proceedings and these proceedings, I thought I adequately addressed that in my initial speech, but there is a difference.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, again, the member is attempting to confuse a criminal proceeding with an immigration proceeding. In an immigration proceeding, it is to protect the country from individuals coming to the country who pose a threat to the country.

In a criminal proceeding, what we have is someone who is charged, or intended to be charged, with committing a crime, committing a specific act against the legislature. Those do not have the security interests that are exhibited in a case of foreign nationals wanting to coming to Canada. They are entitled, in fact, to leave at any time they want to. They are just not entitled to come here if there is serious criminality involved, and if there is a threat to security, or terrorism in that area.

However, having said that, the special advocate would balance the rights of the individual to have information regarding his or her case and the ability to address it. That special advocate can test the evidence, can weigh the evidence, can cross-examine witnesses, can argue before the court as to whether or not that information should be kept confidential or not. I would presume that counsel, the ministers of the government of the day and a federal court judge, would have a better sense of coming to the conclusion that that must be kept out of the public eye more so than the individual himself or herself who obviously is the subject that proposes the threat to the country.

It is a balance, and I appreciate that, but it is a balance that allows, with a unique strategem, the individual to know the case that is put forth, to examine and test it within the confines of that limit, and to protect personal interests but without trumping national security.