Olivia Chow

[Citizenship Act, May 27th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (persons born abroad).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Citizenship Act for persons born abroad, which has been seconded by the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

The purpose of the bill is to restore equality for all Canadians. On April 17, some very young, internationally adopted children suddenly became lesser Canadians. On that same day some children born abroad will be stripped of their right to inherit their Canadian parents' citizenship.

It is not fair to create two levels of citizenship. It is not fair to strip away the right of parents to pass down their Canadian citizenship to their children.

We know that millions of Canadians work abroad. Some work for Canadian corporations, some teach in schools and universities and others work for the United Nations and humanitarian organizations, such as UNICEF and Doctors Without Borders.

By enacting this legislation, the government would treat citizenship in a manner that reflects and promotes Canadian economic, social, intellectual and humanitarian engagement with the world.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 26th, 2009]

Oh, they switched, pardon me.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the perception that after presenting petitions we would go to government bills, namely, Bill C-23. We have quite a few speakers. For example, I have not spoken on that issue. I thought we were on Bill C-23.

[Petitions, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions calling on the government to stop the Canada-Colombia trade deal. The petitioners point out that the violence against workers and members of civil society by paramilitaries in Colombia, who are very closely associated with the current government, has been ongoing with more than 2,200 trade unionists murdered since 1991. They point out that the side agreements, whether labour or the environment, are not effective and that the whole trade agreement is based on NAFTA which has not been effective in protecting labour or environmental rights. In Mexico, for example, over a million agricultural jobs have been lost since NAFTA was signed.

It also points out that the murder of labour and human rights activists has increased in 2008 in Colombia, and widespread and very serious human rights violations continue to be a daily reality. The labour protection clause in the trade deal includes a penalty for lethal violence against workers, however, this is a token fine to be paid by the offending government into a cooperative fund which makes a mockery of human rights. Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to reject the Canada-Colombia trade deal until an independent human rights impact assessment is carried out.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the first six months and then the first six years of a child's life are the most important for that person. That is when a child's brain is developing. That is when they are bonding with their parents. That is when the world is filled with wonder. The brain develops the most during the first six years of a child's life.

I want the House to think about this. If in the first few months or years of his or her life a child faced a situation where the mother or father is cruelly separated from them, what would happen to the child? Imagine a newly married couple having to decide if this young child should stay with the father or mother. One of them has to leave. I am talking about a Canadian-born child. Who should this child follow? Should he or she be deported with the mother or father or stay in Canada?

Imagine a couple having to make that decision of who the child should go with. Should he or she be deported or not? Imagine the trauma of this young baby, in the first few months or years of his or her life, being put a plane and taken away while the parents are totally distraught and financially ruined because of this ridiculous, inhumane policy in front of the House right now.

I want my colleague to comment on what would happen to this poor child. How would a couple make a decision as to whether the child should be deported to a place the child has never been or whether the child should stay with the mother or father? Is that a decision that any Canadian couple should face?

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for this unfair, cruel and mean-spirited policy to continue, the Conservative government is really asking that when Canadians fall in love and decide to get married they should double-check to make sure the person is not of a precarious immigration status. If not, they will face many years of separation, hardship, financial difficulties, because the person would probably face deportation, even if they are married and the spouse is sponsoring them. That seems to be the message the Conservative government is pursuing.

With the kind of discussion we heard today, is that the message the Conservative government is sending, that if a person marries it is likely a marriage of convenience and the spouse should be deported, even though the application is proceeding, and there are really no grounds for compassion at all?

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not here when I spoke at around 10:30 a.m. this morning. I actually named cases, applications that had gone in on November 27, 2007. In the case of Mr. Wu, he sponsored his wife, Chen. That case has taken two years and there is still no decision. It will probably be another six or nine months before one is made. That is close to three years for a Canadian to sponsor his spouse. In this situation there was a child involved and a second one on the way. The wife is pregnant.

Can the member tell me why the immigration department would take so long in making a decision, two or three years, and how can he justify deporting the pregnant wife and the 10-month-old child during this lengthy period? It makes no sense. What kind of family values are we talking about? It is splitting up families and it is cruel.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear here. We are talking about applications within Canada. We are talking about Canadian couples who are already in Canada. Let us not get the issue confused because what I am hearing is some of the Conservative members talking about people who are overseas.

We are not talking about bringing someone from other parts of the world into Canada. We are talking about people who are already in Canada, who are going to school or working together, who fall in love and get married. We are talking about cases of people living in Canada.

If I am understanding the Conservative government's logic, it is saying that any application to sponsor a spouse who is in Canada is going to be fraudulent anyway and that is why it is going to deport the spouse while it makes a decision on whether it is a genuine application or not.

Why not take action after the decision is made on whether the case is genuine? Why take action before a decision is made? That is not fair. It is not logical.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the issue of the waiting period. Originally the promise was that if one sponsors their spouse in Canada it would probably take no more than six months to process an application. Then the couple could get on with their lives, start a new family and perhaps have children.

Right now, instead of processing an application in six months, we have seen situations where it takes over a year, two years or sometimes even three years. This is partially caused by the lack of resources in the immigration department, security clearance, people needed to do the interviews and application forms that are done by paper and not electronic format. All in all, it is not the most efficient system.

I know my hon. colleague has a lot of experience on the immigration file. Has she noticed an extended waiting period in the last few years that she has been involved in immigration policies?

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have a system that deports people before any decision is made, whether or not the marriage is legitimate, as the parliamentary secretary was talking about.

It is being determined that all marriages are illegitimate, that they are all fraudulent and that is why we should deport them first and then decide whether they are legitimate. I would say that 95% to 100% of these cases are probably legitimate. I am sorry that they were already deported.

Yes, make the decision and then take action but in this case the person is considered guilty of fraudulent behaviour even before the immigration department makes a decision and the person is deported because it is presumed the person is guilty. For anyone falling in love and getting married to a person who has precarious status, it is considered that the marriage is probably illegitimate and that is why we are deporting the spouse right now without making a decision.

That is absurd. How can that be logical? You are taking action before a decision is made. How could that be justified?