44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 1, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a great point there. When I suggested one person could stay for five months every year for 10 years, that person could also stay for a year or two. Imagine the economic benefit to people who have their parents here with them when they have their first child. They could be here for the first year to offer not only emotional support, but also economic support and a reduction in day care costs, as well as the opportunity to continue to work.
The backlogs in the parent and grandparent family reunification process have gotten massively out of control under the current Liberal government. This bill will actually help ease some of that strain because more parents and grandparents would qualify under this bill, and they would be able to stay longer. It would also take some of the pressure off the terrible backlogs we have right now.
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment quickly on what this bill might do for reducing the wait times our immigration system faces and relieving some of the pressure it sees.
33 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, super visas generally get processed faster than other types of applications, so having the super visa expanded to more Canadians is absolutely going to get people reunited with their families faster than any other immigration stream. I think it would contribute immensely to that.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an issue I am fairly passionate about. When I was on the opposition benches, I was actually the critic for immigration. I have a lot of memories from when Stephen Harper was prime minister.
I sure wish the member had shared his concerns back then. In opposition, I remember when Stephen Harper actually shut down the program to sponsor parents and grandparents. Imagine, that was put in an absolute total freeze, so people could not even sponsor a parent or grandparent. That actually took place. Then, a couple of years later, it was opened up again, and the former government said we could have 5,000 parents and grandparents come to Canada on an annual basis.
The good news is that government was replaced with a more progressive government. This Liberal government we recognizes just how important parents and grandparents are. Within the first couple of years, we more than doubled the number of parents and grandparents who were able to be sponsored. The types of numbers we are hitting today are well over 20,000. We can contrast that to the previous government's, and look at the processing times.
When I was critic, we were talking six, seven or more years to get parents and grandparents to Canada. The member was talking about seniors. I will go further, and I will say that seniors, especially those who are coming as permanent residents or as visitors, contribute in a very positive way, not only to the families but also to the economy, either directly or indirectly. This is the type of thing we need to recognize, right up front.
Just because one is 70 years old or 75 years old does not mean they cannot contribute in a very positive way. I am 60, and approaching 70 awfully quick. People have a lot to offer. This is one of the reasons we, in the Liberal caucus, have made seniors a priority. I say that knowing that the Minister of Seniors is listening to this debate, because she knows full well just how important our seniors are, those who are living in Canada, as well as those coming to visit Canada.
We want to encourage that. We want people to be able to invite their moms and dads and grandparents to come to Canada. We also have to take into consideration what provinces have to say. We need to realize that one of the things about the 70-plus age group, generally speaking, is there is often more of a need for health care requirements. When we talk about the super visa, which I am a big fan of, I believe it is responsible to ensure there is some form of insurance for individuals coming over in certain situations.
I am glad we have those super visas. Prior to that, typically parents would come to visit their child, a fully grown adult, and would be here for a year. Three months prior to that visa expiring, they would put in an application for an extension. That would happen year after year. Parents who came under the one-year visa would actually be in Canada, and would be here for six, seven, eight years through extensions, never having left Canada.
It only stands to reason, as the demand continues to grow, that we try to put in policies that will in fact help facilitate parents and grandparents being able to meet with their children, young and old, here in Canada.
We talk about the important role they play in society, and it goes far beyond what I have heard today. I wanted to contribute to the debate because I think of it in terms of their being the rock of the family, when there is a grandparent who shares their stories and wisdom, their personal heritage and how they grew up. They often contribute to the child's well-being. A person may have a parent coming from India, the Philippines or any other place around the world, and what often happens, because of their love for their grandchild, is that they end up watching over that child so that mom and dad can go do grocery shopping or do some visiting. They build up a very healthy relationship, and quite often they provide stability in the family by being here.
I have seen many families who have had a parent come over, and the parent is actually assisting them, directly or indirectly, in their business. A very dear friend of mine, Geurtin Jamoli, has a wonderful restaurant, and I got to know some of the individuals because of Canada's policy of getting and encouraging parents and grandparents to come over.
The thoughts I have are shared virtually universally within the Liberal caucus. We understand it. We encourage it. Members can see that in the actions we have taken to date, where we continue to see the numbers grow. My colleagues and I, and I suspect even members of the opposition, will write letters of support so that we can encourage immigration officials from other countries to approve visiting visas, and at times that can be a challenge in itself.
However, there is no doubt that, in terms of the cost, insurance is an issue. I have not sat on the immigration committee for a while and do not know if its members have raised this issue. I would be open to some ideas and thoughts on that. I would encourage the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and those who might be following this debate to listen and see if there are some viable options out there.
I can tell members that we have a very aggressive, progressive Minister of Immigration. We have all sorts of things on the agenda, such as refugees whether from Syria or now Ukraine. All members or at least most, definitely all from within the Liberal caucus, are encouraging the government to look at ways we can do more for Ukraine on the immigration file, and even though that is such an important file, we still make time for parents and grandparents.
I would welcome and invite members of the public or anyone to take a look at what we have been able to accomplish in the last six or seven years on this important file. However, that does not mean that there is no room for improvement. We are constantly looking for ways to improve, because we recognize the many contributions parents and grandparents make to our society. If we recognize that in a holisitic way, it enables us to have bigger and better immigration programs in general.
I appreciate, as I always do, the opportunity to talk about immigration inside the House of Commons. I appreciate what the member is suggesting. I would recommend that he bring the issue to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in the hope that we could actually look at what alternatives might be out there.
1167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-242, because not only was I a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, as the member for Winnipeg North mentioned, but, as a lawyer in my previous practice, I worked with families who wanted to bring their parents and grandparents to Canada.
In working with these families, I saw to what extent the logistics, red tape and delays were an onerous administrative burden. What these families often wanted was to sponsor their parents or grandparents and bring them here permanently.
In that context, not only does the super visa provide the opportunity to have one's parents here while the sponsorship and permanent residence application is being processed, but it is another option for those not picked in the lottery. The lottery system is very restrictive, and few people manage to get chosen to submit a sponsorship application for parents and grandparents. The super visa is therefore a useful option.
Given the administrative burden of immigration procedures, I am very much in favour of the opportunity to make them less onerous. What is a super visa? What do we want to change?
The super visa is valid for 10 years. It does not permit the holder to work during their stay. It allows multiple entries over a period of up to two years. It requires the applicant to have medical insurance from a Canadian company that is valid for at least one year from the time of entry. Lastly, it requires the applicant to prove that the child or grandchild who will be hosting them here has the financial capacity to support them. This means that there is a minimum income threshold that must be proven by the child or grandchild in order for the parent or grandparent to be issued the visa.
The member for Dufferin—Caledon’s bill addresses the last three points that I mentioned. Before I get into the details of the bill, I want to say at the outset that my Bloc colleagues and I will be supporting the bill.
The bill has a relatively limited and minor impact on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It does not put a burden on the government, because we are talking about temporary status. There is no service or financial aspect to making this application for parents or grandparents. It accounts for a very small number of the temporary residence permits that are issued. Year in and year out, of the 1.6 million or 1.9 million applications, about 20,000 are for a super visa. This represents about 1% to 2% of applications. The impact on Canada is relatively small, but the positive effects on families are major. In light of this, it is important to support the bill.
One of the legislative amendments proposed in the bill would allow individuals to purchase health insurance from insurance companies outside Canada. The length of stay allowed would be increased from two years to five years. The bill also requires that the minister conduct a new review of the minimum income requirement to obtain a visa for a parent or grandparent.
Existing legislation requires that individuals have valid insurance coverage for at least one year from the date of entry. This insurance must cover at least $100,000 and be obtained from a Canadian provider. This is set out in the legislation. Some basic research shows that this type of insurance is very expensive. For someone relatively young, in their 40s, without any pre-existing health conditions, it would cost around $1,000 to $1,500. For someone who is a little older or who has some pre-existing health conditions, that kind of coverage can cost up to $6,000 to $7,000 a year. For a couple, that is $12,000 a year, on top of the other fees associated with immigration.
By opening things up to competition, we take away Canadian companies' monopoly on this type of insurance coverage. We also hope it will reduce the cost of coverage. It will also allow some foreign nationals to combine this insurance coverage with a policy they already have for their home or auto. People might be able to save money.
This bill also ensures that there will be no problem harmonizing insurance coverage and claims for hospitals, for example, because the insurance companies will have to be pre-approved by the minister. We can expect a study on the possibility of submitting claims to these approved insurance companies.
The second point the bill covers is extending the stay from two years to five years. This would limit the number of return trips parents and grandparents have to make between Canada and their home country for the duration of the super visa. Those plane tickets cost money. This measure alone will significantly reduce costs.
The two-year permit has to get renewed. The person has to have another medical exam to get the insurance premium. It is therefore possible that during the 10-year period there is a change in health status, and consequently an increase in the premium, which potentially makes it harder for some parents and grandparents to get their coverage.
I did not mention that the visa also came with the requirement to submit to a medical exam. If it has to be renewed every two years, the person is a little more vulnerable. There is less predictability with respect to eligibility.
Finally, with respect to the low-income cut-off, the evidence of being on fairly solid financial ground to welcome one's parents or grandparents, the bill does not propose lowering or eliminating it. It proposes that the minister conduct a study on the need to keep the cut-off at the same level or just maintain it, full stop. That being said, many people are talking about repealing it outright. In the event that the minister, within a period of two years, wishes to keep the low-income cut-off where it is, he will have to explain why.
This is not a very compelling bill for parliamentarians in that regard. It seeks a review of the relevance of a legislative measure, something that it seems to me is always seen in a positive light.
I would like to mention that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration already looked into something similar and made a recommendation regarding the sponsorship of parents and grandparents. The committee stated, and I quote:
That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada allow the income requirements for the parent and grandparent sponsorship program to be the minimum necessary income equal to the low-income cut-off established by Statistics Canada for the years impacted by the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, conducting a yearly review to determine whether to extend allowing the minimum necessary income to be equivalent to the low-income cut-off, all while respecting Quebec’s jurisdiction.
That raises another issue. In some cases, in a recession year, for example, people may find that they are no longer eligible for a visa simply for reasons that are beyond their control. It would be a good idea to look into that.
In passing, I want to mention that, when it comes to spousal sponsorships, Quebec does not even assess the spouses' financial capacity, and it works very well.
The study on this aspect could help determine whether this threshold is appropriate in different places across Canada. The cost of living is not the same everywhere, as we know. Could there be different sponsors depending on where the individuals will be living? That would be a positive and would also acknowledge the fact that many families see a positive financial impact when parents and grandparents come, since it allows them to rejoin the job market.
For all of these good reasons, we suggest that the bill be supported.
1322 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the NDP has always seen family reunification as a pivotal component of Canada's immigration system. All families want to do is be reunited with their loved ones, and they should not have to go through such hardship to be with their parents or grandparents, who are every bit a part of the family unit as what we have come to call immediate family.
In western culture, the nuclear family of two parents and their children has come to be seen as the basic unit to be protected. While this is the norm in many western countries, it is not so for different parts of the world. For them, extended family members are often viewed as immediate family members. Research has shown that when a family network includes parents and grandparents, it makes the settlement and integration process much easier on newcomers. It also confirms the essential role parents and grandparents play in supporting the healthy development of youth. Families are particularly important in the maintenance of the well-being of racialized communities, members of the disability community and women.
Prior to 2011, the parents and grandparents sponsorship program had the same process as spousal and dependent sponsorship streams of immigration. The application went through the system until it was ultimately approved or rejected. Unfortunately, successive Liberal and Conservative governments continually failed to provide sufficient immigration levels and staffing resources to process the applications in a timely manner. Consequently, too many families waited nearly a decade to be reunited with their loved ones. Instead of increasing resources to address the growing backlog, both the Liberals and the Conservatives chose to put a cap on the parents and grandparents sponsorship applications. The Harper administration even had a moratorium on new applications for two years. It was well known that the application cap would always be hit mere hours into the IRCC accepting them, leaving tens of thousands of Canadians unable to even apply.
The Liberals then went on to an arbitrary lottery system, which was a fiasco from the get-go. It is the only immigration stream that is based on the luck of the draw. This ill-conceived system fell flat on its face with multiple problems, and 500 of the 10,000 applications were lost to families in 2017. Forced to admit failure, the Liberals scrapped the lottery system and went back to the breakneck race to beat the application cap approach. In that instance, within seven minutes the application process was shut down because of the cap having reached its limit. This process also did not take into consideration the inherent disparities within the system, such as the lack of access to high-speed Internet in some communities and those with disabilities or impairments.
The media revealed that a number of individuals who were not able to submit an application to reunite with their loved ones under the parents and grandparents reunification process filed a lawsuit against the government. The government then quietly settled with the litigants by offering them 70 coveted spots in the parents and grandparents sponsorship program.
All of this is to say that the handling of the parents and grandparents sponsorship program has been disastrous. Too many families remain separated for years. That is why the NDP has been calling for the lifting of the quota, with increased staffing resources and increased levels numbers to address this ongoing issue. We are also calling for reasonable service standards to be set in the processing of the applications.
Until then, some families turn to the super visa program as an alternative. However, the program has numerous shortcomings. The super visa applicant is required to purchase a medical insurance plan with $100,000 in emergency medical coverage from a Canadian insurance company. This is prohibitively expensive.
This bill aims to partially address these issues, and while I support the bill, it must be recognized that it is only a stopgap measure.
In addition to the points that I have already made, it is essential that we bring back the appeals process for the parents and grandparents stream. I met a family that was rejected for the program in their third year of meeting the onerous financial requirements because they went on maternity leave for one month. As a result of that, the family's income dipped and their dream of reuniting with their parents vanished. This is wrong, and an appeals process with some ability to provide flexibility would have accommodated that temporary change in circumstances.
On the call around the onerous financial burden, it would be important to reduce the financial undertakings required of families to be eligible to ensure a system that genuinely recognizes the value of familial unity over financial interests. If we truly value parents and grandparents in our society, we must disabuse ourselves of the notion that these so-called extended family members are somehow a burden on our society. It is often forgotten that many are able to work full time or part time, volunteer in our communities or provide child care to their families. It is time the government updated its views of the contributions of parents and grandparents in more than just words but actions through Canada’s immigration system.
The proposed bill aims to address these issues, and the NDP supports the bill going to committee so that we can invite witnesses to examine the bill and put forward amendments. Equally important is having the government look at the financial requirements and the onerous requirements put on the family sponsorship application process for parents and grandparents.
In fact, at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration we studied this issue and invited witnesses and experts to come forward. The vast majority, if not all of them, said that this needs to change, that the financial requirements are far too burdensome. Many called for the government to lift the cap to ensure more families are able to reunite with their loved ones. I know this is not part of this bill, but it is something the NDP supports wholeheartedly.
I heard over and over again in the last number of years sitting in this place all parties talk about how much they value the contributions of family members, yet repeatedly when given the chance, whether when Conservatives were in government or now that the Liberals are in government, they do not truly address the issue. They come in with stopgap measures and then we find ourselves here again. As a result, what is left is that too many families have their loved ones separated.
I want to take a moment to also talk about extended families. In this instance, we are talking about parents and grandparents, but I know a lot of communities view extended family such as adult siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins as part of their immediate family. We have seen that with the Syrian refugee initiative. Many of them want to be able to sponsor their extended family members to come to Canada, but they have been experiencing extreme difficulties as the immigration measures do not allow for that. We need to update our view of what immediate family is to be consistent with many of the newcomers who have come to Canada and made Canada their home.
I hope this bill will make it through second stage and be referred to committee so that we can look at how we can enhance the bill even further, for example, by bringing forward the appeal process.
I want to thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for bringing this bill forward and highlighting the issues of parents and grandparents and the need for parliamentarians to put their minds to making the process better for Canadians to reunite with their loved ones.
Finally, on the piece around extending the period from two years to five years, that is a welcome change. Ultimately, I would like to see long-term change so that people can reunite with their loved ones permanently in Canada. In the meantime, these are the measures I can certainly support.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue today.
1361 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill C-242. I want to thank my hon. colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for bringing forward this bill and addressing a very important issue for many families and ethnic communities all across Canada.
This is a very practical and compassionate bill that many have talked about and many people have emailed and called about. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for bringing this bill forward.
The previous Conservative government brought in the super visa to offer parents and grandparents the opportunity to visit their family on an extended basis. It was a way for families to reunite faster than going through the bureaucratic process of family sponsorship. This is a challenge that many Canadians with family abroad unfortunately face today. As the Liberal-made backlog continues to grow, family sponsorship is less of an option.
Family is very important to all of us. I especially feel that in my own community. That is why I am happy to see that these proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to expand access to super visas for families looking to finally come to Canada and see their loved ones.
Family reunification is a concern I hear a lot about in my office, but unfortunately, as the Liberal-made backlog continues to grow, family sponsorship is taking forever. As a result, many grandparents and parents miss out on the milestone moments in their grandchildren's and children's lives. There are missed births, graduations, weddings, first steps. Many milestones get missed, all because of the Liberal-made backlog in immigration.
In my riding, many permanent residents and new Canadians have been waiting, even before the pandemic, to see their families come to Canada. Their family sponsorship cases are caught up in the backlog and they have not received any idea as to when their family members will finally get a decision for their applications.
Mental health is also hit by family separation. All of us experienced the pressure that COVID put on our mental well-being. So many families were stuck waiting for their parents and grandparents as IRCC made excuses about why they could not process those cases. As suicide and addiction rates continue to rise, the effects of family separation and backlogs need to be addressed.
Over the past couple of years, we have all felt the impact of the pandemic and being cut off from travel with our loved ones. As provinces begin to open up and international travel gets easier, reconnecting with family will be very important, especially for Canadians and permanent residents who have parents and grandparents abroad.
The super visa pathway is an opportunity to get past the Liberal-made backlog, help people get to a better place mentally and not miss the important moments in life. That is why the amount of time that a person's super visa is valid should be extended to five years.
Extending the length of time a family can spend together with a super visa has become important for another reason: affordability. This remains a problem for everyone in Canada. As inflation rises, it becomes more challenging to travel to Canada, to visit and to stay here.
My office hears about the cost of health insurance for people on temporary visas and super visas. As the law stands now, temporary residents can only purchase Canadian health insurance, and super visa applicants are required to have it before entering Canada. Unfortunately, this insurance is not always accessible or affordable for people who live abroad. In today's era of technology and high-speed communication, allowing for affordable foreign options for health insurance makes sense for parents and grandparents coming to visit their loved ones in Canada.
Another point I want to raise on the issue of affordability is that super visas are important for providing child care. We all know that grandparents and parents are the best babysitters, and no day care can beat that. Canadians and permanent residents who do not have family here can benefit from having their parents and grandparents close to them. Super visas are a great way to bring family from abroad to support working parents. Giving families that flexibility is also good for economic growth in Canada. It allows parents to work and contribute to the economy.
With this historic backlog at IRCC, one stream that has taken a hit is the caregiver program. Constituents and people across the country are contacting my office, upset with the lack of access to newcomers coming through the caregiver program and how long it takes for anyone to have their application processed. The backlog for this immigration stream, as of February 1, was 16,085 people. That is up from 12,539 people in December.
These are not just applications or numbers. These are families, families that are hurt by this backlog, that need to be reunited to help their mental health as well.
By extending the super visa to five years and making it more accessible, parents and grandparents abroad can come and help fill the demand for at-home child caregivers by supporting their own families.
Bill C-242 also asks the minister to study the minimum income levels currently required for applicants to come to Canada under the super visa. The reality is that we know parents and grandparents living with their family are not a burden on our economy or our country. They help grow it, as families spend more on groceries and family activities, and working parents can go to work knowing their kids are in good hands.
The minimum income levels are an issue today, as inflation and supply chain issues affect the cost of groceries and other essentials such as gas and electricity. While “Justinflation” is hitting people's pocketbooks hard, now is an excellent time to show compassion and review the minimum income requirement. It was often those workers here in Canada who were in health care, transportation and processing plants who were hit the hardest when it came to COVID. It would have been a great tool for them to have their parents or grandparents here to support them at home, mentally, with their kids or whenever they were going through a tough time. This new bill is very practical, and it would help Canadians in all facets.
The super visa can also be a pathway for those people fleeing the violence caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Looking at the special immigration measures the IRCC has for Ukraine, I see an approach that could leave many people in limbo. The unprovoked attack by Russia has left over a million Ukrainian people displaced. The United Nations estimates roughly 500,000 people have gone to neighbouring countries for safety. Canada cannot let the chaos and lack of communication that led to the failure of the Afghanistan evacuation be repeated in Ukraine.
As our European and NATO allies take in Ukrainians, many people want to come here. Our country has a strong and long-standing connection with the people of Ukraine. Over a million Canadians are of Ukrainian heritage and thousands still have family there. By making the super visa more accessible and affordable for parents and grandparents fleeing the violence, Canada could do its part to get friends and family out of harm's way.
This bill shows how needed reforms are for Canada's immigration system. In the 21st century, our system needs to be smart, compassionate and efficient. Newcomers and their families deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, not as a number that can be left in the backlog the Liberal government created. I hope that all of my colleagues here in the House can see the importance of making these changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
This is an opportunity to provide a more accessible and affordable pathway for parents and grandparents looking to reunite with their loved ones here in Canada. Again, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the member for Dufferin—Caledon, for bringing this bill forward. I urge all members to support Bill C-242.
1372 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member for Calgary Forest Lawn used a term the Conservatives came up with a while ago referencing inflation. Although I know they have been using the term repeatedly, and we thought they were going to stop using it, they continue to do so.
We know one procedural rule is that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly, and it is very clear that, when they use that term to reference inflation, they are invoking the Prime Minister's first name. As such, I would encourage you to take the opportunity, perhaps, to go back, reflect and come back with a ruling on whether using a term like that does indeed violate the procedural rules we have.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the member for the information he has provided in his point of order. We will certainly take it under consideration and come back to the House, if need be.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-242. The process of introducing private members' legislation in the House is very important. It is an opportunity for individual members to bring forward ideas and concepts that they feel are important to put before the 338 members of Parliament, and I applaud the member for bringing forward something he is quite passionate about.
I will say right off the bat that I take great exception to some of what I heard, especially in the last speech by the Conservative member. I recognize that the member who introduced this bill was around during the Stephen Harper government and is fully aware of what was going on at the time. I respect the fact that he tried to stray from referring too much to those days, but the member for Calgary Forest Lawn made a number of outrageous claims, in my opinion, one of which was about a Liberal-made backlog. This is coming from the Conservative Party that previously said the family reunification application system was a six-year wait. Why was that? It was—
189 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:20:38 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind members that there are no questions and comments and there should be no heckling. I would ask them to listen to what the hon. member says in case some of their colleagues want to speak on this and maybe talk in their speeches about some of what they have heard.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Indeed, Madam Speaker, I have been listening very attentively to what they have said, and that is why my comments today are a reflection of what I heard, not something I had written before I came into the chamber, because that is an important part of the debate process.
The member for Calgary Forest Lawn said it was a Liberal-made backlog. This is coming from a member who sits with the party of a former Conservative government that literally had a six-year backlog as it related to family reunification. Why was there such a huge backlog? It was very clear to Canadians at the time that the Stephen Harper government was more interested in immigration applications from people who were bringing what Conservatives perceived to be economic potential into the country. There was a much shorter time period to wait for immigration applications for those coming here to work versus those coming here for the purposes of family reunification.
Although I am very pleased to see members of the Conservative Party now talking about the importance of family reunification, because it is indeed a very important part of the immigration process, I do not agree with the member's comments that this was a Liberal-made backlog, particularly in today's context. Earlier we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say that back in the Stephen Harper days, 5,000 applicants were allowed to apply for family reunification in Canada per year, and now we are in the neighbourhood of around 25,000 or 30,000 per year. It is disingenuous to suggest that this government has not been doing its job.
I also found it very interesting when the member for Calgary Forest Lawn said that Conservatives see seniors and children as being a positive to our economic potential. That clearly did not come through in the previous programs that previous Conservative governments had. They took a position, as I mentioned, to move away from family reunification and more in the direction of those who had jobs lined up in Canada and were coming here for economic purposes. Again I am very pleased to see this new position that is being taken by Conservatives. I think it is great and I think it is the right thing; I just do not think that they can stand on firm ground when they talk about this government somehow failing.
409 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:24:08 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member will have five and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:25:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on December 9, 2021, I posed a question to the government seeking clarification as to what support Canada was providing our democratic ally Taiwan, in the face of escalating tension in the Taiwan Strait and increased aggression on the part of the Chinese Communist regime. Disappointingly, the response from the minister was wanting. While it is understandable that in the last several days much attention has shifted to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the provocative actions of the Chinese Communist regime must not be ignored. They pose a real threat, not only to democratic Taiwan but to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as the international rules-based order.
Since June of 2020, Chinese military planes, including fighter jets and bombers, have entered Taiwan's air defence identification zone on an almost daily basis. Last October, we saw an unprecedented 150 Chinese military planes enter the air defence identification zone within the span of four days. Those incursions continue to this day. They are part of a broader grey zone assault by the Chinese Communist regime against Taiwan that consists of infiltration, cyber-attacks, the spreading of disinformation and military intimidation.
In the face of this aggression, several of our democratic allies have signalled their strong support for Taiwan. For example, late last year, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken said that any attempt by China to invade Taiwan would be met with serious consequences. Just yesterday, a high-level U.S. delegation consisting of security and defence officials arrived in Taipei to reaffirm the U.S.'s steadfast support for Taiwan and Taiwan's security.
Last February, a month ago, the U.K. House of Commons passed a unanimous motion that, among other things, called for a deepening of security co-operation between Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Our allies, Australia and Japan, have also been clear in their support for Taiwan. By contrast, the government's response has been largely one of silence. It is as if the government refuses to acknowledge the increased Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait.
I put it to the government: When will the government step up, join our allies and unequivocally state our support for Taiwan in the face of Chinese Communist aggression?
378 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:28:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me begin by assuring the House, including the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, that Canada is deeply concerned about recent tensions in the Taiwan Strait. This issue is important to Canada and to Canadians, especially given the extensive economic, cultural and people-to-people ties that we have had since 1970 with Taiwan, even within the one China policy. Under this policy, Canada recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China, taking note of, and neither challenging nor endorsing, the Chinese government's position on Taiwan. This framework has, however, allowed Canada to advance unofficial but very valuable ties with Taiwan based on complementary interests and our shared values.
There are currently some 60,000 Canadians living in Taiwan, which makes it home to the fourth-largest Canadian diaspora community in the world. We have daily non-stop flights between Canada and Taipei and have had those since 2017. With two-way merchandise trade valued at some $7.4 billion in 2020, Taiwan is Canada's 15th-largest trading partner and a critical member of global supply chains, particularly for chip manufacturing and international shipping.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Taiwan was among the first to donate masks to Canada, a sign of our deep and enduring friendship. On issues ranging from global health to civil aviation, Canada has consistently supported Taiwan's meaningful participation in global discussions where it is useful and where Taiwan's absence would be detrimental to global interests. Despite international efforts to promote greater inclusion in international organizations, such as the World Health Assembly and the International Civil Aviation Organization, Taiwan remains shut out of important discussions where its presence would benefit all of us.
In recent years, we have observed increased incursions into Taiwan's self-declared air defence identification zone by the People's Liberation Army. Canada is very concerned about these actions and incidents that could result in further escalations across the Taiwan Strait. Canadian officials have communicated directly to Chinese authorities our concerns about destabilizing military actions across the strait. We are doing so practically as well by taking part in operations in the region, most recently through the involvement of Canada's frigate HMCS Winnipeg. We are there, we are communicating strongly and we want to ensure that Taiwan is secure in its region. That is very important to Canada. We will continue to monitor the cross-strait developments closely while reiterating our strong support for constructive efforts that contribute to peace, stability and dialogue in the region.
As a progressive democracy, Taiwan demonstrates that Confucian values and individual rights and freedoms, including for women, the LGBTQ community and indigenous peoples, can coexist. Canada has many other unique reasons to advance its ties with Taiwan without reference to the agenda of third parties. This long-standing approach has guided Canada's engagement with Taiwan for over five decades and will remain a cornerstone of our continued engagement in the future.
503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:32:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I share the hon. parliamentary secretary's sentiments and I concur with him that Taiwan is an important ally to Canada in terms of our trade, our people-to-people links and our shared values. That is why the government's inaction to strongly signal its support for Taiwan in the face of Chinese communist aggression has been so disappointing. In that regard, Canada has fallen short of our allies. There are meaningful things that Canada can be doing.
Canada could, for example, establish meaningful security co-operation with Taiwan. We could be a leader in encouraging Taiwan's participation in multilateral military exercises. Unlike the government, which did not signal its support, we should be signalling our support for Taiwan's inclusion in the CPTPP. Those are three practical measures that could be taken. It is time the government began to act.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:33:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would assert again to the House that Canada remains committed to advancing our interests and those of Taiwan within the framework of Canada's one China policy. Our engagement with Taiwan is multi-faceted and has on its own merits an important role to play in advancing Canadian interests. Those are as important as the very concerning things the member raised regarding the cross-strait security question.
As our sixth-largest trading partner in the Indo-Pacific, Taiwan and its economic stability matter to Canadians, to Canadian businesses and to Canadian exporters. For instance, recognizing Taiwan's crucial position in global supply chains, Canada recently launched exploratory discussions on a possible foreign investment promotion and protection arrangement with Taiwan. We will continue to advance Canadian interests and establish security in the region.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:34:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the adjournment proceedings tonight.
I will start with a candid comment that I have said to several constituents over the course of the last few weeks when we have debated the many issues facing the city of Ottawa specifically and our country: I cannot wait until we can come to the floor of the House of Commons and not talk about COVID or convoys. However, I want to follow up on the supplemental question I asked in question period a few weeks ago about a reopening plan from this government.
As I said before, this should be a happy time for our country. We are seeing a drop in severity with the latest COVID-19 variant, and we have seen the surge begin to eliminate itself. We have seen public health data and public health experts say that we are now in a phase of this pandemic, thankfully, where we do not have to live in fear and where we can learn to live with COVID and adjust our public health measures to do so.
A few weeks ago in our opposition day motion, we simply asked for a plan. The motion was voted down down by the government and the NDP, not because of science but because of politics. It was reasonable at this point in the game, and it was not unrealistic. Several provinces, provincial premiers and leaders around the world in similar situations to what Canada has faced during this pandemic have given their citizens hope to say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, here is the plan, here are the metrics, here are the benchmarks to know that we are finally getting to the end of this pandemic, and here is when we can see some closure and some advancement on getting back to normal.
I had to laugh because the motion was voted down and two days later an NDP member stood up in question period and said, “We need a plan”. The NDP just voted against it three days before. Nevertheless, we are still here, unfortunately, in a situation where, yes, things have certainly been tense in our country over the past few weeks and months.
A lot of my constituents say, and rightly so, that there is a difference between the federal restrictions and measures that have been put in place and the provincial ones. A lot of provincial premiers and leaders have shown plans and timelines and made progress, but at the federal level we do not see that same leadership. We have asked the government numerous times to provide the science and data that shows the reason for mandates and some of the measures it is responsible for, but these things are still in place and we have gotten silence back.
However, others are speaking up in this country. I think of the many border communities in the province of Ontario, where home is to me, such as the city of Cornwall, the port of entry there and SD&G. Local mayors and tourism businesses are wanting to see the restrictive measures at land borders finally and rightfully lifted. There have been leaders as well. For example, I will quote an article where Mayor Drew Dilkens from the City of Windsor said this:
“So I think what we need to do is trust Canadians to make smart decisions. We've asked people to get vaccinated, that is the high water mark here of the pandemic. But having a requirement for a test is really an optical illusion for safety. It really is providing no real protection.”
Dilkens and his counterparts said the science doesn't support testing of this kind and it remains a barrier for those looking to cross land borders between the U.S. and Canada.
We also still have on the table from the government the idea of an interprovincial mandate for truck drivers, which would be extremely inappropriate considering the data, public health advice and the direction of provincial leaders and many countries around the world.
My supplemental question to the government is this: What are the metrics? What are the time frames? Where is the hope to get back to a semblance of normalcy and to get back to normal?
Canadians have been more than patient. They have done their part. There is no reason why at this point in the game they cannot have a detailed plan.
752 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:38:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member, although the question he asked me was not the question that I was given to respond to. Just before I do respond with the speech that I was given, I would just say that COVID is not listening to Parliament. COVID is not listening to politicians.
We talk about providing a plan. Two years ago, almost to the day, we were hit with a pandemic that none of us ever expected to see. I am very proud of how our government has responded. I was really proud, at the beginning of the pandemic, of how all the parties came together in March 2020. I remember a press conference in which all parties were saying that we needed to pull together. That changed over the months, unfortunately.
I wish that in March 2020, somebody could have said, “Okay, in two weeks time, this is what is going to happen,” but none of us knew. None of us expected it. The member said that the government needs to say what the plan is. We have never been able to say that, because we do not know what the virus is going to do.
I think we have acted responsibly. We have always had the health and safety of Canadians at the heart of every decision we have made. That is the most important thing that we can do. It is important that the opposition work with us. It is important that we work together. We are always open to hearing constructive ideas from the opposition, from all parties in the House and from all members of the House as to the best way forward.
I do not know how much time I have left, but I was of the understanding that the question was going to be about the implementation of the Emergencies Act. I would like to just touch on part of that, only because I think it is important to highlight the importance of our national unity and the leadership of the government. Canadians are looking for the country to come together. They are looking for all of us to listen to each other in a respectful way. Over the last few months, we seem to have lost the ability to disagree agreeably.
I do not say that about the hon. member, who in my experience has always had the ability to disagree agreeably, and I appreciate that. I know that our government appreciates those who come to these really difficult issues in ways that are constructive. Unfortunately, the rhetoric and the misinformation created, in our peaceful country, peaceful protests that turned into an occupation. That turned into convoys that were blocking trade in my community of Oakville North—Burlington. We saw Ford of Canada with layoffs.
We moved away from having those dialogues. The conversation is important, but it is unrealistic to say that we could present a plan for something that would not be listening to anything we said.
501 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 6:42:01 p.m.
- Watch
I am not sure which matter was being brought before the House, because I do not have that in front of me at this point. Someone may have gotten the notice wrong. I will allow the hon. member to have his last minute and the hon. parliamentary secretary will be able to respond.
The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
