House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was benefits.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Souris—Moose Mountain (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 74% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committees of the House May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that many of those who find themselves in this category are in an awkward and difficult position. Obviously, we need to find some means of dealing with that not only for the present but on a go-forward basis.

However, her government for 13 long years did not address the situation nor did it come up with any solutions. Maybe the member could indicate to me how it is that all of a sudden she feels that the solution should happen right now.

I agree with her that a solution is necessary. In fact, we have commissioned a committee study where this issue will be look at broadly with solutions in mind. The member and her party opposed the hearing of witnesses when the first report was filed and without hearing any witnesses had the report filed. However, during the 13 years of her government, deportations were happening, I would suggest if I were to look, at a higher rate than they are now.

The Liberals did nothing for 13 years and all of a sudden today are saying that we have a problem. There is a problem and we will find a solution to the problem but the member hardly has the place to say that it should be happening immediately.

Committees of the House May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, one can hardly respond adequately in 50 seconds except to say that there are no massive deportations taking place, but there are processes under way to legitimately address areas of employment needs that can be met in a legitimate way and where wages, working conditions and so on can be monitored appropriately.

The member needs to understand that when a process is developed, that process needs to be followed. It is a matter of the rule of law. To have a report such as this one by the opposition, of which he is a member, filed in this House without hearing a shred of evidence is unconscionable. It is to make a decision without taking any consequences into account.

Committees of the House May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, we do have a compassionate system in place. We have a process for considering humanitarian, compassionate applications in those unique circumstances.

However, we have designed programs and are continuing to have programs to address the very issue the member raises, with programs such as the temporary foreign workers program, the provincial nominee program and a program known as CREWS, for example, the construction recruitment external workers services. CREWS was created with stakeholders in the construction industry to manage, control and allow for the efficient processing by HRSDC and CIC of applications for the entry of temporary foreign construction workers. Certainly those are processes are in place to meet the needs of the booming construction industry.

However, we also have a backlog that was created when the member's party was in government. It has grown to 700,000 or 800,000 people who are applying legitimately through the system. If she is saying we should now process someone in addition to or ahead of them, what is she going to do with those who are in the queue?

Certainly one can design programs, have an intake of applications and have someone coming in the other way, but there needs to be some integrity in the system. In that integrity of the system, we have to design something that works for the stakeholders and for those who are involved in the industry, and they must work through that process.

Manitoba has used the provincial nominee program to a significant degree, more than any others have, and it has done a good job with that. The province of Saskatchewan has taken that initiative and has opened up offices in Saskatoon and I believe in Regina to deal with that. Similarly, the province of Ontario is being encouraged to do that. The province of Alberta has undertaken those types of processes that will allow it to meet those needs.

I would encourage us to use those legitimate types of vehicles for addressing the situation and proceed with humanitarian and compassionate grounds when we are looking at issues relating to deportation or those who are here. However, at the same time, we must do it in a measured way and with respect to the fact that we must allow due process to take place.

Committees of the House May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it. A process needs to be made available to those who choose to fill, in a legitimate way, positions that need to be filled. The problem comes in if we design a system to react to the demands the country has, and then on the other hand say to those who wish not to go through the process, but want to come in some other way, that they can do that, and we will simply regularize them in the course of time. It would certainly have a great pull for people who would say that they do not necessarily need to come in through the process but will come here in some other way.

I think it is important to say this. We must have a process that is fair and equitable, a process that has an equal application for all those who wish to fill a particular position. They all should be allowed to go through that process as a group and then be selected from that process. We should not have systems designed that go outside or around that, or else why have a process in the first place?

I can appreciate what the member has said in that there are some compassionate reasons and grounds to consider for those who may be in that position, but this is an opportunity for the member and others who would like to propose solutions or put their options forward to the committee. The committee will be studying this issue comprehensively to see if there is a manageable way to deal not only with this situation but with what might happen on a going forward basis.

Committees of the House May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I am please to have the opportunity to participate in the debate and to speak with respect to a moratorium on removals for undocumented workers, as proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

To frame the debate, I believe it is important to underline two principles the government has continually expressed in explaining its position from the outset, and that is fairness and respect for the rule of law. Fairness and the rule of law are two things Canadians expect to see in our immigration system. So fundamental are these two principles, that they have been enshrined in the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, sometimes referred to as IRPA.

The motion passed the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration without the opposition calling a single witness. Indeed, the process was flawed and was contrary to the rules of the House and committee rules. No evidence was given to explain why the government should overlook the limits of the IRPA, the act which governs immigration, which is not contained in provisions allowing for a moratorium. In fact, we will be studying this issue in a comprehensive, broad basis where there will be ample opportunity for all stakeholders, all those interested in this issue, construction workers, those who feel that there should be a new system, those who want to talk about the point system, to come forward.

What the member and the opposition party have done by proceeding with this motion, without the calling of a shred of evidence, is simply to try to make political gains, political hay out of a situation that requires our compassion and our direction. It is something that we should take into account in a sober and thoughtful way.

The committee did not hear from anyone, so it did not consider the evidence of how moratoriums have failed Canada in the past. It did not call anyone, so it has not listen to those who are concerned about the consequences a moratorium would have on applicants who have legitimately applied to come to our country following due process. It did not hear that legitimate applicants would have to wait longer to free up the resources needed to allow those who come here illegally to move to the front of the line.

The committee passed this motion, without thinking about its consequences and whether it was fair, simply and purely to try to take advantage of a situation to its advantage.

Earlier I referred to a principle that I believe Canadians and Canada's new government share. It is upholding and respecting the rule of law. For the record, there is no provision in the law that allows for a moratorium. To implement a moratorium without anything to enable it would be arbitrary. This is no way to apply the law or act as a government.

There is no question that the matter of undocumented foreign workers in Canada is a serious one to which we need to direct our minds and attention. As I mentioned, we will be doing so in a broader and more extensive way.

I can assure the House that our new government is well aware of the serious skills and labour shortages affecting the productivity and growth in a number of regions and sectors of our economy. One only needs to spend some time talking to employers across the country to hear first-hand the difficulties they are experiencing in finding people with the skills and experience they need to maintain their competitive edge. In fact, they go a long way out of their normal offerings to ensure they can attract people to positions. They provide training and so on to ensure they can stay open and do what is required of them.

That is why our government is working with all interested parties, provincial and territorial agencies, labour and industry organizations and community groups, to find ways to address our labour and skills shortage through legal means, through a process that is fair and open to everyone. True, we may need new electricians, but if we have a process for electricians to come forward, then we do not need to have somebody come in some other way to try to fill that position.

Part of the solution is to put Canadians in these jobs. One way of helping to create these jobs is through training and education. In budgets 2006 and 2007 and through our “Advantage Canada” plan, our government committed to increasing participation in the workforce.

To accomplish this, our government has made several commitments. These include reviewing systematically and eliminating barriers to labour force participation for underrepresented groups and improving labour market programming so it helps Canadians to develop the skills they need and the skills employers want.

That should be our first target, to try to get people trained in skills that already exist and encourage them to enter into the trades and skills which are much required in the building of our country.

We have committed to making improvements to the temporary foreign worker program to respond to employer needs and examining ways to make it easier for Canadian educated foreign students and temporary foreign workers to stay in Canada and become Canadian citizens. We have committed to supporting the removal of barriers to labour mobility across the country, ensuring people can cross interprovincial territories so they can go to work where the work is. We have committed to enhancing labour market information available to Canadians so they can make optimum choices for themselves, reducing taxes and creating a business environment conducive to business investing in training. We have done that in our budget. We encourage employers to have people trained to fill those positions that are much required.

Our economy and our country are growing. There is no question we will need more people to fill the positions that will be available as a consequence of this. We work with the provinces and the territories and the private sector to make training and skills development more widely available to Canadian workers and better aligned with the needs of the economy. While government plays an important role, business also have a role to play in helping and training workers for the current and future needs.

We recognize that immigration has a role to play as well. We are working with our partners in the provinces and territories and the private sector to enhance the capacity of our immigration program to respond to those needs.

We are taking other actions. While the Liberals froze settlement funding for over a decade and voted against providing $307 million in new settlement funding for immigrants, our government has committed over $300 million in new settlement funding over two years to ensure newcomers to Canada are equipped to enter the Canadian workforce as soon as possible.

While the Liberals stood idly by for 13 long years, we are taking real action to address the needs of immigrants. Budget 2007 announced the creation of a foreign credentials referral office. Its creation will fill a need clearly identified with the provinces, the territories, the stakeholders, while respecting provincial jurisdiction.

In this regard, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development have consulted with provinces and territories, as well as the full range of stakeholders involved in integrating immigrants into the labour market force and society. Stakeholders include regulatory bodies, provincial assessment agencies, post-secondary institutions, sector councils, employer associations and immigrants.

We will take a leadership role in helping perspective immigrants and internationally trained and educated individuals already in Canada find the information and access to services they need to put their skills to work. We want to ensure the people we work hard to attract to this country can put their skills to work for Canada as soon as possible after their arrival.

We are processing a record number of temporary foreign worker applications. Just last year, we took in over 100,000 temporary foreign workers. We have recently announced changes to the temporary foreign worker program to make it easier and faster for Canadian employers to meet their labour force needs. We have cut the red tape. We have ensured that the process goes quicker and smoother. We have ensured that we have the resources in place to help employers accept these workers and process them through so they can be a part of the workforce.

These changes will reduce the time that employers have to wait to get workers they need and to extend the time that workers can stay in Canada from one year to two years and, in fact, make application for permanent resident status. This will help bring more security and stability to workers and to employers.

We have also opened new temporary foreign worker units in Calgary and Vancouver to better serve these high demand areas. We have created regional lists of jobs where there are clearly identified worker shortages. We have made it faster and simpler for employers to hire a foreign worker for an occupation that is on one of these lists.

We are also making it easier for international students to stay in Canada and work off campus. In this regard, we have granted over 11,000 off campus work permits to international students. These students are young and motivated and they have a good feel for our country. Why not give them some Canadian work experience and do our best to have them stay, after their student visas have expired, to use their new skills knowledge in our country?

We will continue to explore other options in the future so as to ensure our immigration policies and our programs continue to make a contribution to Canada's prosperity.

To be perfectly clear, there is no doubt many undocumented workers are hard-working people. We recognize there are no easy answers. This is a serious issue, one involving families and children, but it is not fair to allow some to jump the queue while others who follow the rules have to wait in line. Those who are here illegally have violated the values of fairness and respect for the rule of law, which are not only the foundation of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but the values that are the very foundation of Canada.

To offer a moratorium would be patently unfair to the thousands of people who seek to come to Canada every year and are prepared to follow the rules. We have these rules for a reason and far from the least of these is the need to assure the safety and security of Canadians and our allies.

That is why everyone who applies to come to this country must pass through a security and criminality check. They should recognize that a moratorium on deportations would almost certainly encourage foreign nationals to come to Canada illegally, safe in the knowledge that if caught working in Canada without authorization, they would be entitled to remain in the country.

To be sure, we are compassionate when it comes to specific situations. We know there is a great diversity in the circumstances of undocumented workers, including the reasons that left them without legal status here in the first place.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act includes provisions to address the issue of foreign nationals without status. For instance, in exceptional circumstances, a foreign national living in Canada without legal status may apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

That is what we do in Canada. We respect and apply the rule of law so there is fairness, certainty and transparency in decisions allowing people to come, to live and to work in Canada. We do not pick and choose when the law should apply and when we should look the other way. That is not the way to run a country or an immigration system.

The proposal to suspend the removal of undocumented workers and their families who pass security and criminality checks is not the solution to the plight of undocumented workers in Canada. The answer will be found in the context of Canada's broad immigration policies, which are widely regarded to be responsible, logical, humane and democratic, not in quick fixes and knee-jerk reactions. We need to analyze the problem, look at the situation, address what is happening in our country and then approach it in a logical fashion. However, it must be fair, it must be compassionate and it must allow those who respect the process and choose to enter this country through that means not to be hard done by.

We must therefore do what we now have commenced to do. We are hearing from a broad perspective of individuals, stakeholders and those who are interested, including those who have specific representations on the ground. We want to see how this issue can be addressed, how we can resolve what has happened to this date. We want to have a system in place on a go-forward basis that is fair and appropriate for all those who want to take part in this great country of ours, all those who want to help us grow our economy in Canada. We want to ensure the boom experienced in construction and other areas continues to the prosperity of all Canadians and those who come here on temporary or other basis.

Committees of the House May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we have a provision in our system that deals with humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and that is always open and available. We need to be compassionate that is for sure. As the member indicates, we need to find a legitimate way to ensure that we can have skilled trades and labourers addressing our booming economy.

Let us assume that indeed we develop a system where people can legitimately come through the system to meet the economic needs and the skills shortages that we have throughout various parts of the country, in the eastern part of the country and the western part as well.

What would the member propose we do for those who then decide not to go through the temporary foreign worker program, the skilled worker program or the provincial nominee program or any other program and jump the queue that is designed for workers?

At some point would the member not say that we must expect that the process be followed. Although we use good judgment and compassionate grounds where obviously we do not go into schools and do those kinds of things, but at some point what do we do with those who decide they want to go past the queue in any event?

Committees of the House May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the hon. member.

Obviously, the report that came before the House was a report that went forward from the committee by the opposition without hearing a shred of evidence. I wonder if the member was aware of that. Indeed, there was an attempt made by the government to have a study conducted on this issue and to hear from all of the stakeholders involved in order that this problem and issue could be addressed. In fact, other agenda items were taken by the opposition, so that we will not be going into this comprehensive review until our next opportunity, which will be when we get back in the fall.

The second thing is the booming construction industry, of course, is taking place throughout the country. We have worked with the temporary foreign worker program and the provincial nominee program that provide a basis for skilled workers to attempt to fill the jobs that are available. As much as we are sympathetic with those who are here without going through those processes, what would the member say about the fact that we have a backlog of about 800,000 who are attempting to get in through a legitimate process?

What do we tell these people who are trying to go through the programs and avenues that already exist? Is there not some necessity to deal with the backlog, to provide a legitimate process through which people can come in, as we are doing now?

Immigration and Refugee Board May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the previous Liberal government appointed friends, family members and those who were not able to pass the test. What we will do is ensure that those who are actually appointed are qualified. Everyone will be required to write an exam and actually pass the exam before they are appointed.

Immigration and Refugee Board May 11th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the minister commissioned an independent report that has come through with a number of recommendations that the minister has accepted. Part of that is requiring a new process that is more efficient and transparent and that will get positions filled quicker.

One of the aspects of the report indicates that those who go to the position will need to write an exam and pass the exam to qualify. We will ensure that appropriate people are appointed in due course and expeditiously.

Canada Elections Act May 10th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, scarcely a year ago, the Liberal Party was led by a man who vowed to end the tyranny of “who do you know in the PMO”. In a way, that dream has come true for in the Liberal Party today it is no longer “who you know”, but “who you owe”.

Candidates for the recent Liberal leadership are in hock to the tune of $2.6 million, almost all of it owed to titans such as Rod Bryden, Stephen Bronfman and John Rae. That is five times what the entire Liberal Party raised in the first three months of this year.

However, relief is on the way, not for the indebted Liberals, but rather for future candidates. Canada's new government has introduced legislation that will end the practice of using loans to evade, yes, evade, contribution limits.

Never again will a party leader start his new job accompanied by a briefcase full of IOUs and his own personal collection agent. The accountability with respect to the loans bill will close this last loophole in our election financing laws, ushering in a modern era of clean politics.