Ed Komarnicki

[February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I can say again that until a new process is determined for appointing new judges, the minster and the cabinet have full authority to appoint citizenship judges. We must fill current vacancies in boards and agencies or they will not be able to function.

The bottom line is that all appointees are qualified and competent people. They are well able and well-equipped to do their job, as confirmed by senior citizenship Judge Simard, and as shown in evidence in the committee that I am a part of.

We have heard these members. They were examined extensively in these recent appointments. It was obvious that they would do an admirable job, that they are all excellent additions to the commission and are well qualified. The system works well. They can relate to the immigration process and in combination with their extensive qualifications, they are all an invaluable addition to the commission.

[February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the process regarding the appointments of citizenship judges.

The process suggested for screening citizenship judges was originally created three years ago and intended to be a temporary one only until a new appointment process could be developed.

It was a system where one person was responsible for the entire process, where one person screened the applications, and where one person graded all the tests. This one person himself was an appointee of the former Liberal government. The question is: Where is the accountability? Surely this is not an approach providing for openness and transparency.

As I stated, that process was established in 2004 as a temporary one. To reflect our new government's commitments under the Federal Accountability Act, we are reviewing the appointment process entirely for all boards and all tribunals in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

This review, when completed, would create a more open and transparent system for appointments as there is currently no legislated policy in place for the appointment of citizenship judges.

The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has made it clear that she is committed to establishing a new appointment process. She has asked the senior citizenship judge, Judge Michel Simard, to provide his input in the development of a new process that is more open and transparent.

While the process is taking place, interim appointments need to be made and need to continue to be made. It is quite clear that this government is committed to transparency and accountability, unlike the previous Liberal government.

Certainly, it is interesting to see the members of the Bloc attempting to give advice on ethics and accountability in government. If they believe so strongly in government ethics and accountability, maybe they can tell us why they opposed our plan to create a public appointments commission and why they stonewalled and opposed the Federal Accountability Act.

There is no question, and we find it interesting, that while the Liberals were in power they thought only Liberals were the most qualified for appointments. Now they are out of power and they continue to feel the only qualified people are Liberals.

Contrary to the Liberal Party, we believe that government appointments should not be limited to members or supporters of a particular political party but, rather, should be made on the basis of their qualifications and abilities.

With regard to the qualifications of citizenship judge appointments that have been made, as was mentioned in the committee on citizenship and immigration, the Liberal member for Scarborough—Agincourt said:

--certainly the résumés are great. Your remarks were fantastic and I do appreciate the fact that some of you, or all of you, are qualified. Some of you are even overqualified.

When asked if our citizenship judge appointees were qualified to do this job, senior citizenship Judge Simard said, “Yes, they are. They have been trained, and they passed the training successfully”. We want to ensure that those who occupy the positions are not only qualified and competent but are great additions to the system.

I can tell members from listening to the hearings at committee, all of the appointees have a significant contribution that they can make, they are well attached to what is happening in the immigration scene, and they are certainly welcome additions to the commission.

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the member makes an emotional plea, and there is no question that citizenship is an emotional issue and there is great attachment to it, but I would like to remind her that the anomalies that exist in the act existed in 1947 and in 1977. In fact, the Senate bill that was brought before the House and promoted by the member from the Sunshine Coast dealt with this precise issue. She calls it a simple amendment, but it is interesting and remarkable to note that she was in a government that knew of this situation, that knew of the anomalies in the act, but took no action and did not provide an amendment, and of course there was ample opportunity to do that.

I might indicate that this minister, upon becoming aware of the specifics of the case, opened a hotline that could be called by any of those who were concerned. People were assured that they would not lose their benefits, their rights, their social security and their health and medical benefits and so on. She assigned additional staff to look at case by case situations. If someone was concerned, her staff would deal with that and assure those who had a potential connection to Canada that they would not be asked to leave. They were assured their cases would be worked on. The minister appeared before committee and asked the members if they would be non-partisan and look at amending whatever needed amending to ensure these situations were addressed.

It may not be as simple as that member is suggesting. For instance, she was talking about children who were born abroad to Canadian children who were born abroad. There was a committee report, and I do not know if it was in the 35th Parliament or not, that said children who were born outside the country to children who were born outside the country might have to establish some connection. Those kinds of issues need to be looked at.

The committee has been invited to look at the various anomalies and areas and come back to the minister to see if she could do something more than just a band-aid approach and actually look at legislative changes.

Is that member prepared to agree that the actions taken in the short term are reasonable and objectively acceptable? In the long term, the committee has been invited to give input into this very significant issue for Canadians. Is she prepared to consider that an appropriate step? She herself is appearing before the committee, I understand, in due course.

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has vast experience in this area and I thank him for his various suggestions about being non-partisan. I know he has laboured hard and has seen many years go by during which the Citizenship Act never did go through for a variety of reasons. RAD, which was to have been implemented in 2002, also has not been done. He has pointed out that there were some anomalies in the Citizenship Act that originated as a result of an act in 1947 and one in 1977, anomalies that have been festering and posing some problems, and that have come to light perhaps to a greater degree more recently.

I would like him to indicate whether he is in agreement with the fact that, at least on an interim basis, the minister has added additional staff to the case processing centre. She has implemented a direct referral line to the call centre for anyone who may have any questions. She has assured that there would be no benefits lost in the interim. She has increased coordination between the departments.

Also, when she appeared before the committee, she invited the committee members to, in a non-partisan way, have a review of the anomalies specifically. She was not talking about a major revamping of the Citizenship Act but specifically about whether we could even proceed in a non-partisan way in a small area dealing with the anomalies. She has invited the committee and that particular member to see if they could put forward some constructive suggestions.

I ask the member if he is prepared to proceed, to take her up on that suggestion and to deal in a non-partisan way with this particular area that we are talking about, the lost Canadians, as he refers to them.

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the present system includes leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Canada, which can review facts referred back to the main decision, and the pre-removal risk assessment of which he speaks, including compassionate and humanitarian grounds. This added layer of another appeal would extend the time. We have heard that some cases go five, six, seven or eight years.

Does he have any suggestion as to how we may streamline the system to ensure the length and degree of time is not taken up?

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on being the first Portuguese member of Parliament. Many of us commiserate with the issues he raised of the undocumented workers.

I find it interesting that he indicated his party was always on the cusp of some idea or program that it might have implemented. It had 13 years to do it, 11 of which were majority governments, but never got it done. It is a lot of rhetoric.

Under the same tenure, the backlog was increased by 750,000, 100,000 undocumented workers were deported and a permanent residents fee of $975 per person was implemented. That was hardly progress. It seems that what was implemented was negative.

This government has taken steps with respect to the temporary foreign workers program to ease the process, to cut the red tape and to potentially allow them to become permanent residents. It has encouraged and proceeded with the provincial nominee program. Many provinces have taken up that program and have met much of their labour market needs. That includes trades, construction workers and skilled workers. In fact, the latitude is there for the provinces to make such categories available as they find they have need of, which would cover much of what the member states.

Would he not agree with me that there needs to be a legitimate way for people to come into the country, to come through the system we have, to meet the labour market needs? Does he not see the differences that is taking place in the initiatives even this far?

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member for Laval—Les Îles is very passionate about what she said and I appreciate that.

She talked about the Citizenship and Immigration Act not being amended or brought forward. I would like to remind her that the act was in existence during many years when the Liberals were in government, 11 years in majority, and it never came forward. It is one thing to talk about what one is going to do, but actually doing something about it is perhaps more important.

I would also like to remind the member that the point system or the human capital model was in operation under the previous government, something that was utilized by it. I am sure the member will have heard that great strides have been taken in the provincial nominee program, as well as the foreign worker program, with the potential of immigrants eventually becoming permanent residents.

With the provincial nominee program, the provinces in particular have a greater degree of flexibility and latitude in terms of meeting the demands for skilled and lesser skilled labour, as well as the demands of the economy, by actually selecting them themselves. It is something we have been taking a great stand in promulgating and moving forward. Some provinces have taken that up. Does the member not think that direction and progress is in fact the right direction and right progress? It matches the needs of the provinces to the needs of the people who are coming in.

The foreign credentials program that she speaks of involves provincial bodies, professional associations, maybe 300 or 400 of them. These have certainly been in existence. We have allocated $18 million to have a clearing house that would help people before they came to Canada. When they land here they would actually have a clearing house of at least 300 or 400 different bodies to identify the shortcomings. We have put forward $307 million to ensure that people can be upgraded and better integrated. Would she not agree that is a new vision, a new direction and a whole lot better than we saw in the last 12 to 14 years?

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly a pleasure to hear some of the meaningful and helpful suggestions put forward by the member for Burnaby—Douglas. The comments regarding private sponsorship and how highly motivated the parties are behind it is something we should encourage and move forward on. It is a good suggestion, no doubt.

I have a question relating to the issue he raised with respect to the Refugee Appeal Division and, without getting into the matter, whether it should or should not be. Would the member agree with me that, in the current system we now have, it takes an inordinate length of time for a determination to be ultimately made and that just simply implementing an appeal division without dealing with the system in a more systemic and larger way would add an additional five or more months, in some cases perhaps even longer?

Given that we have the right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal on a number of grounds, that we have pre-removal risk assessments that take place independently from the IRB hearings, that we also have humanitarian and compassionate grounds that can be made at any point in time in the system which cumulatively has added perhaps years to the determination process, does the member have any suggestions on how the system, in a systemic and larger way beyond just the appeal provision itself, can be dealt with to have the process expedited and the matter of the time it takes to make a determination on all those issues handled in such a fashion that Canadians and the public would have it done in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost? I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that.

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, continuing on the line where I left off, the appointment of the ministers that have been made in last while have produced more results in matters of days and months than had been produced in years. In fact, those who have been at the helm have actually produced results when the former opposition government and its members did not.

In response to the member's question, part of the problem being experience now is the fact that over the years and under the previous government the backlog grew by 750,000 applicants. That clogged the system because the appropriate funding was not in place. If we look at the funding that has been put in, that is between the provinces and the settlement agreements that have been made, including the injection of $307 million as well as $18 million, it will address some of the concerns—

[Business of Supply, February 22nd, 2007]

Why did the member for Kitchener—Waterloo not do what should have been done, regardless of experience? Six ministers, Sergio Marchi, Elinor Caplan, Denis Coderre, Joe Volpe, Judy Sgro, Lucienne Robillard—