SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 243 - Oct/31/23

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Oct/31/23 2:54:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked the Minister of Immigration if he would expedite existing immigration applications to help get families out of Gaza. He said he had instructed his officials to be as flexible as possible, yet Global Affairs is telling people outright that only immediate family members are eligible and that parents and siblings are excluded. Clearly, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Will the Minister of Immigration officially commit to expediting existing immigration applications and including extended family members?

88 words

Context: House Hansard - 243 - Oct/31/23

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Oct/31/23 4:07:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, over the last 15 years, through our work in Vancouver Kingsway, my staff and I have seen that the family class is one of the most successful streams of immigration in this country. This is no surprise, because families provide support for newcomers to come here. We have always noticed that the definition of family in our immigration system is very narrow. People can sponsor only their parents, their spouse or their children. We have often and long thought this should be expanded to include siblings and perhaps even aunts and uncles, because that is how the entire world views their family. If we expand the definition of family, Canadians could sponsor their sisters or brothers, or perhaps even aunts and uncles as part of their family class, if they so wish, to unite their families. Does my hon. colleague agree that it is time to do this?

150 words

Context: House Hansard - 243 - Oct/31/23

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Oct/31/23 5:39:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on immigration. At the outset, I want to make one thing clear. It makes me very emotional and happy to say that I am in a conflict of interest, because I am the son of immigrants. That just goes to show that when immigration is successful, this is what comes of it. I am joking around, but I would say that my parents were successful immigrants. They arrived here at 4 a.m. on August 22, 1958. They disembarked from the Arosa Star, which had crossed the Atlantic, and met the first Canadians who allowed them to settle here and live in harmony for more than 60 years in this beautiful country, which welcomed them and which they chose. Let us never forget that immigration is a choice. We choose a country and the country chooses us. Three children, five grandchildren and three great-grandchildren later, we can say that the family has had a successful immigration and we are very happy. This is what we are talking about today: successful immigration. Immigration is one of Canada's great strengths and assets, but it must be successful. My parents succeeded, but not everyone does, unfortunately. That is why the government must be flexible and wise, not dogmatic, when it comes to immigration, to ensure that it is successful. There are currently more than 2.2 million cases sitting at immigration, not being properly processed. That is a lot of people living with major worries and concerns, always wondering whether they will be able to stay or will have to leave. That is the reality of unsuccessful immigration. These people have to wait for years. It is a three-year wait for a refugee to find out whether they can stay here. That is not a good situation. That is not what we want for people who want to live in our country and make it grow, as all immigrants do. That is why we need to get tough and, above all, act wisely when it comes to welcoming these people. Integration capacities must be appropriate and consistent with our commitment. That is why it goes without saying that Canada must consult the provinces and assess integration capacity in terms of housing, health care, education, French language learning and the infrastructure needed to welcome these people. It is 100% the federal government's responsibility to work hand in hand with the provinces to assess integration capacity. Otherwise, the result is these unfortunate situations. The first victims of poorly planned, dogmatic immigration policies are the immigrants themselves. This morning, when I asked a colleague a question, I said that I am very proud to be able to count on Isabelle Turcotte‑Genest, who manages the immigration files in my riding office. I sincerely thank her. I am sure that all of the other 337 members know people who manage immigration files in their riding offices. We get new immigration files by the dozens in our riding offices. Not a weekend goes by without someone thanking me because of the work that my colleague Isabelle Turcotte‑Genest does in carefully managing the immigration files. Honestly, if we want a immigration system that is good for immigrants and for the country, then we need to set dogmatism aside and find a responsible solution, a responsible approach. We have heard many different opinions in this debate, of course. The member for Calgary Shepard, who is our shadow minister for immigration, said that he agreed with the motion. During question period, we also heard the Prime Minister say that he and his team will vote in favour of this motion, and that is good. Despite all that, the Bloc Québécois continues to forcefully question the Prime Minister. That makes sense. After eight years of this government, unfortunately, we are not seeing results in terms of immigration and an integration capacity that works for everyone. I would not call an immigration system with 2.2 million people waiting on overdue files a system that works. Mr. Speaker, I believe my allotted time is up, so I will stop there.

703 words