Opposition slammed for stonewalling Atlantic immigration study

Atlantic MPs are accusing both opposition parties of changing their tune on a private member’s motion aimed at addressing population challenges in the region and hindering a study the motion triggered. Motion M-39 was put forward in September by Alaina Lockhart, New Brunswick Liberal MP for Fundy Royal and passed through the House in November with all-party support.

The motion proposed that the House immigration committee undertake a study on immigration to Atlantic Canada. It would look at population retention and immigration issues such as the challenges associated with an aging and diminishing population base, retention of current residents and the challenges of retaining new immigrants; how to increase immigration to the region; and an analysis of the Atlantic immigration pilot program which will see 2,000 more federal stream immigrants arrive in 2017.

The government has allocated 10 committee meetings to the study — with the first on May 29 and two since, with the most recent taking place Thursday.

The committee has until November to prepare a report.

In a press conference in Ottawa Thursday attended by all 32 Liberal Atlantic MPs, Lockhart accused the opposition of obstructing the study at every opportunity.

“Now that it’s time to take action, clearly there has been a complete about-face of the opposition members from both parties, and it seems that politics supersedes the needs of Atlantic Canadians, like it had for the 10 years of the Harper government,” Lockhart told media.

Lockhart said witnesses that travelled to Ottawa to provide context, evidence and advice have had their testimony repeatedly interrupted, disrespected and ignored. Witnesses have included representatives from municipalities, universities and provincial governments across Atlantic Canada as well as former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna and Nova Scotia’s Ray Ivany, who oversaw publication of the Ivany Report.

Central Nova MP Sean Fraser, who is not a committee member but has attended the hearings in place of his caucus colleagues, said whenever one of the three Conservative or one NDP members of the committee speak they raise an extraneous issue and stall discussion so no other members have the opportunity to speak or question witnesses.

“This has caused witnesses that have flown up to Ottawa from Atlantic Canada at the taxpayer’s cost to testify about the importance of these issues and make recommendations to be shut out from the hearing,” he said.

“The level of disrespect and indifference I have seen for Atlantic Canada from the Conservatives and the NDP over the course of this study is below what parliament should represent.”

Michelle Rempel, member of the immigration committee and Conservative MP for Calgary Nose Hill, said she was surprised the Liberals are framing the situation as an effort to shut down the study, and she accused the government of dodging discussion on more pressing issues.

“I don’t want to diminish the concerns of long-term immigration to Atlantic Canada. I want to be perfectly clear that is something we all voted in favour of having that study,” she said,

“That said, the government also has an obligation to address some of these other issues which I think most people would agree are fairly pressing.” Rempel said the main two functions of parliamentary committees are to study urgent issues as well as complete more long-term studies, like immigration in Atlantic Canada. She said on these issues of more immediate importance, such as the recent case of a woman who died of hypothermia while trying to cross the border into Canada from Minnesota, the minister — who is expected to appear in front of committees regularly — has been absent for months.