Lee Richardson

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, in respect of the new system that you are operating under here tonight, I will give notice that I intend to devote the first five minutes or so of my time to outline some of the problems with the current immigration system and what my party proposes to do about it. I will follow that with questions for the minister and I would expect to receive responses proportionate to the length of time of the questions asked.

It is pretty clear already from the discussion here tonight that we have an unfortunate situation in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It is in a mess. The system has serious problems. There is a perception problem as well in the country and internationally with regard to Canada and our immigration system. There is a sense that there is a partisan influence that is ill-effecting the department and that the employees are demoralized as a result of this effect. There is this perception of partisan motivation, changing the system, and people jumping queues. It has created a massive backlog. It takes up to four weeks to process a simple passport application, 22 weeks to receive a permanent resident card and 8 to 9 months for a citizenship card.

This reflects badly on our country as well as the anticipation and eagerness of people wanting to come to our country and to welcome family members to join them here. Policy is being made on the fly. We saw this in the case of the unfortunate tsunami victims who were mentioned by my hon. colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill earlier.

A program was cobbled together very quickly to say we were going to step up to the plate and help these people without the assets or resources to do that. The department had to take people from other embassies and consulates around the world into these areas. What happened to the people waiting in line at the time? Well, they were just pushed farther back in line and had to wait a little longer.

It was political posturing causing those people to be stuck longer in queues waiting for their loved ones, having paid their money and having sent in an application. There is this whole notion of the Liberals tackling immigration policy by politically advantageous announcements and reacting in a piecemeal fashion to crisis, scandals and mismanagement rather than a real effort to fix a broken system. This is not something we take lightly on this side of the House because it affects us all greatly.

Members' staffs of all parties find they are spending up to 70% or 80% of their time, while others wait to deal with immigration matters because the department is so overloaded and overworked that it cannot deal with the demand of Canadians to access the system. This of course increases as the inefficiencies increase, and the workloads and the backlogs increase.

Unfortunately, as we have heard tonight, the department is not a priority for the Liberals. They cut Citizenship and Immigration Canada funding in the early 1990s. Face to face processing was eliminated. Offices were closed and 35% of the officers abroad were cut. Interviews that were waived added to an increased reliance on local staff, the offloading of immigration problems, as I have mentioned, to offices of members of Parliament. There is a lax removal policy where we have people who should not be in the country just lost within our system.

As was mentioned by my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill, we are grateful for the work and the extra effort that has been extended over the years by front line workers in the department, but we find there is a morale problem. Employees are stressed and overworked. There is a lack of resources to keep up. The minister admitted this when he first came into this portfolio. As late as March 9, I read in the Montreal Gazette that the minister said: “But that is the same Parliament that never put an additional penny forward for immigration in the last five years”. Even he admitted that his department was not a priority with the government.

Here is what we might do to rectify this problem. As my colleague has mentioned, the Conservative Party and the member of Parliament for Calgary--Nose Hill in particular have worked tirelessly to develop a sensible, mainstream set of policies and reforms.

At a policy convention held by the Conservative Party in Montreal recently, we passed a number of strongly supported motions outlining a welcoming and well managed immigration system, with a plan to reorganize the application process so that applicants are getting accurate information as to what to expect when they apply, so they are ready and able to obtain information on the status of their files and so they are given service in a considerate and professional manner.

We have also conducted a series of round table consultations on immigration, meetings we held coast to coast to seek advice, ideas, concerns and suggestions from people directly involved in the system. We got a number of consistent replies from people who were heartbroken with the length of time processing took. We are also working on proposing solutions to growing problems.

What we heard over and over is that the system reeks of political favouritism. This is sullying the department and the perception of Canada as being a fair and just country. There is a lack of resources to deal with even the most pressing concerns. These problems need to be addressed. We look for answers to these questions, hopefully in the very near future with a new minister of immigration and a new government.

I would like now to ask two questions. I will try to limit the length of the questions and hope that for a change we can have the minister limit his replies to a proportionate time.

On April 18, 2005, the government announced it would increase the number of sponsored parents and grandparents that are admitted. What the minister has not told the public is that the backlog of these applications for sponsorship approval is now estimated to be over 110,000. Many of these applications include multiple applicants; it is only after stage one, sponsorship approval, that the application is sent to the appropriate embassy for the real work of medical exams, criminal security interviews, et cetera, and this can take years.

Even worse, those 110,000 applications currently backlogged for parent and grandparent sponsorship approval do not even cover the applications waiting at embassies around the world. There is no excuse for the minister not to inform prospective applicants as to how long they can reasonably expect to wait.

I ask the minister this. What is the estimated number of outstanding applications at embassies and consulates? What is the estimated timeline and year that applications will be looked at?

[Calgary International Airport, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Calgary Airport Authority has set the standard for efficiency, convenience and consumer satisfaction. Travellers from around the globe praise the Calgary airport for its ingenuity and responsiveness to the needs of air travellers. It is an exciting, modern gateway to Calgary.

In just 13 years since its transfer from the bureaucratic rule of the federal government to a non-profit local authority, it has become the leading airport in Canada. No longer a drag on the federal treasury, the Calgary airport pays its way and contributes handsomely to the federal treasury.

The Liberal government has taken advantage of this success. In 2005 the airport will pay $25 million in excess rent to the federal government. This gouging is unfair to Calgary and to the air travelling public, reducing competitiveness and hindering growth.

When the previous Conservative government transferred the airport to a local authority, we never intended the airport to become a cash cow for the Liberal government. While the minister's announcement yesterday to avert an immediate crisis in federal airport rents is a positive first step, the ongoing punitive rents charged to the Calgary Airport Authority remain an unfair burden to the travelling public and a disincentive to further progress.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present to the House today which I am pleased to present on behalf of constituents of Calgary Centre. The petition relates to the same sex marriage bill.

The petitioners in Calgary are in favour of same sex marriage.

[Privilege, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege resulting from remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Yesterday, in the foyer of the House of Commons the minister said, referring to me and a fellow member of Parliament, “Am I calling these guys racists? They are recognizable, notwithstanding that they don't have their cowl and their cape, the Klan looks like it's very much alive”.

On March 22, 1983 on page 24027 of Hansard the Speaker ruled:

A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. Member is a matter of great concern to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the Members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit here.

I take pride in credibly representing the people of Calgary Centre in this House of Commons and I will not leave this slanderous comment against me unchallenged and unresolved.

On March 16, 1983 Mr. Mackasey raised a question of privilege in order to denounce accusations made in a series of articles appearing in the Montreal Gazette to the effect that he was a paid lobbyist. On March 22, 1983 again on page 24027 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled that he had a prima facie question of privilege. The reasons given by the Speaker are on page 29 of Selected Decisions of Speaker Jeanne Sauvé :

Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into “hatred, contempt or ridicule”. Moreover, authorities and precedents agree that even though a Member can “seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains”. Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the Member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, there is a reference to reflections on members. It says:

The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterances which do not meet that standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House is a breach of the privileges of Parliament...” and “libels upon members individually”--

I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a Speaker's ruling from October 29, 1980 at page 4213 of Hansard. The Speaker said:

--in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit.

Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the minister are nothing more than a political smear that is unbecoming of a minister of the crown or of any parliamentarian, comparing Conservatives to the Klan. He more than crossed the line. He has not insulted our party; he has insulted all African Canadians and all other minorities who have been targets of that racist and murderous organization.

This statement is not only untrue, it is purposely untrue and improper. I charge the minister with deliberately and maliciously making a statement that was politically motivated and was a deliberate attempt to deceitfully tarnish my reputation and the reputation of my party.

If you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. In that motion, I would have the minister suspended until he apologized for his remarks.

[Petitions, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of numerous constituents of Calgary Centre with regard to the defence of North America, the anti-American attitude, the intent of the Liberal Party and the damage caused to our country by the deteriorating relations with the United States.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to participate with the United States in ballistic missile defence.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I forgot to mention the cynicism in the country. I think it is particularly important at this time, with the scandals going on in the current government, that we proceed with this and that we get it. I would hope that the hon. member would be able to assure us that we could have passage of the motion today.

[Committees of the House, April 20th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief because I know the member will want to respond. I first have to address the previous question by the apologist from the Liberal Party on the other side.

This is a very serious matter. I give all the credit to the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright for bringing it to the House and pursuing this. We are talking about here is the basic scrutiny of the expenditure of taxpayer money. We are doing everything we can to bring this to light under constant muzzling from the Liberal Party, and hiding expenditures. This was an opportunity. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was created to bring greater scrutiny. It is being muzzled by the government, by apologists such as the member, preventing us from looking at the expenditure of people's money.

Through all the member's efforts, are we getting anywhere? We heard through the election campaign and through the Prime Minister's leadership campaign how he would reduce the democratic deficit. Is it working? Is anything really happening? Has there been any constructive effort on the part of the government?

[Petitions, April 13th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Calgary Centre. They are concerned about the delay in tabling in the House a plan to tell Canadians the full costs and benefits of implementing the Kyoto protocol. Although a plan was tabled by the Minister of the Environment today, the petition insists that we have a clearer understanding of the full costs and benefits of Kyoto to Canadians.

[Petitions, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to rise and present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Centre who believe that it is parents and not the government who is in the best position to determine which type of child care best suits their children and leaves more money in the pockets of parents to spend as they see fit rather than a government run day care system.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition on behalf of a significant number of Canadians, including many from my own riding of Calgary Centre on the subject of marriage.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House their prayer that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.