May 18th
- MP
ndpFri 11:00 am | British Columbia, VictoriaAll those opposed will please say nay.
- MPndpFri 10:45 am | British Columbia, Victoria
I thank the hon. member for his comments. According to the information I have, there is an appeal period. The question is whether there will be an appeal. We cannot answer that question here today. This should lay the matter to rest for now, until we have more information. We will revisit the matter as needed.
The hon. member for Montcalm.
- MP
ndpFri 10:15 am | British Columbia, Vancouver KingswayMadam Speaker, we have asked the Conservative government to make an apology in the House of Commons. It refused.
When the NDP forms the government in 2015, what would an NDP government do with respect to this issue, if and when it is in power?
- MPndpFri 10:15 am | British Columbia, Victoria
Is that agreed?
- MP
Fri 9:15 am | Ontario, Beaches—East YorkMadam Speaker, it is my privilege as the member of Parliament for Mississauga South to present a petition on behalf of my constituents.
My constituents are petitioning Parliament to amend section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada to recognize every human being as human in law and to reflect the findings of 21st century medical knowledge.
- MPndpFri 9:15 am | British Columbia, Vancouver Kingsway
Madam Speaker, I have a second petition. It is from the Fijian community, which is 100,000 strong. The petitioners are calling yet again for the establishment of a high commission in the Republic of the Fiji Islands.
The United States, China, Australia and New Zealand all have embassies or high commissions in Fiji. Many Canadians of Fijian descent who travel extensively to Fiji are left without adequate consular services in that part of the world. They do a lot of business in Fiji. They own property in Fiji. They point out that Fiji is a Commonwealth country and we should be making sure that Canadians have that necessary service in that part of the world.
- MPndpFri 9:10 am | British Columbia, Vancouver Kingsway
Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition that is the result of the tireless efforts of youth in Vancouver. Ethan Trinh, Kaitlyn Fung, Nick Nguygen, Angela Ho, Lucas Chan, Chris Ly and Amy Bui formed a group called Youth For Climate Justice Now. Together they gathered over 10,000 signatures for the environment.
The petition draws our attention to the serious threat of climate change and calls on the government to support the Save the Fraser Declaration, halt development of the proposed Enbridge pipeline, and support a ban on crude oil tankers off the coast of British Columbia.
These students have also expressed to me a deep concern over the government's recent comments equating environmental activists with eco-terrorists. They want Canadians to know that the biggest threat to their future is not environmental activists, but rather the Conservative government, which puts the interests of large corporations ahead of the interests of environmental sustainability.
We should listen to our youth.
- MP
ndpFri 9:05 am | Ontario, Thunder Bay—Superior NorthMr. Speaker, two years ago the Conservative member for Kenora crowed about the importance of new dollars for the Experimental Lakes Area. He said, “The Experimental Lakes Area is known world-wide as Canada’s most innovative freshwater research centre. ...we are investing in projects like this one--helping to establish Canada as a leader in knowledge creation...”
Will the member for Kenora fight for the research centre that he bragged about recently or just allow his party to toss those investments and his credibility into the Experimental Lakes?
- MP
ndpFri 9:00 am | Ontario, DavenportMr. Speaker, the greater Toronto area has some of the highest wait times for social housing in Canada. Families in need are waiting up to 15 years to get the housing they can afford.
This House just passed an NDP motion calling for greater federal support for affordable housing. When will the government take action?
- MP
ndpFri 8:55 am | Ontario, Ottawa CentreMr. Speaker, I can smell the flip-flop coming.
The Prime Minister will be facing additional challenges at the G8—
- MPndpFri 8:45 am | British Columbia, Vancouver Kingsway
Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap. Just two weeks ago, a damning report slammed the government's lack of mental health treatment for Afghan veterans. It called the situation a crisis.
Currently, the 6,000-member base in Petawawa has no psychologists and just one working psychiatrist.
These brave soldiers who risked their lives deserve to have their health care needs met. Why is the government not investing more into the health of our men and women returning from combat? It is time to back up words with action.
- MPndpFri 8:40 am | British Columbia, Vancouver Kingsway
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister said several times that operating costs for the F-35 would be the same as the CF-18 operating costs. Now, the former parliamentary secretary is admitting that the F-35 will be much more expensive to fly than our CF-18s, roughly $12,000 more per hour.
Here is another contradiction. He now admits that the delivery of the planes will be pushed back by several years due to delays in rising costs.
Is the parliamentary secretary making up numbers or is this a sign of an impending cabinet shuffle?
- MP
Fri 8:25 am | Ontario, WellandMr. Speaker, the government's jobs plan actually increased the unemployment rate in the last two months, so I am not too sure it is a great plan.
The government keeps pretending that employment insurance belongs to it but we all know that it does not. EI belongs to the workers. It belongs to the people who have put in the time and the sweat, and it is their money that goes into this program, not the Minister of HRSD's who has some distorted view of being unemployed.
The Conservatives seem to think that being unemployed is an all-inclusive vacation. Seasonal workers are, from coast to coast to coast, the backbones of many communities, so why the attacks? When will the government realize that EI does not belong to it, it belongs to the workers who paid for it.
- MP
ndpFri 8:15 am | British Columbia, Skeena—Bulkley ValleyMr. Speaker, for months now Conservatives have refused to come clean about their plans to cut old age security. The finance minister claimed that the only projections he has seen have come from the media. Now we learn that the finance minister has been sitting on a report about the future costs of OAS for nearly five years, but refuses to share it with Canadians. Two elections, four budgets, one big cover-up.
Why are Canadians only now learning the truth?
- MPndpFri 8:10 am | British Columbia, Vancouver Kingsway
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to share the outstanding achievement of two teams of students at Gladstone Secondary School in Vancouver Kingsway who won first and second prize at the VEX Robotics High School World Championship in Anaheim, California.
Under the guidance of dedicated teachers, Todd Ablett and Paul Wallace, the students combined hundreds of hours of extra work, creativity and a competitive spirit to become the first Canadian team in history to bring home the top prize.
This achievement underscores the importance of a strong public education system in our country. It also demonstrates the critical need to support science and technology in our economy.
Given the opportunity, resources and support, our youth can outshine any team in the world. The bright ideas of our youth today will be the transformative innovations that build the Canada of tomorrow.
I congratulate Gladstone Secondary School and all who participated in this competition on their brilliant success. They have done us all proud.
- MPFri 8:05 am | Ontario, Welland
Mr. Speaker, this coming June, the city of Welland will host its 51st annual Rose Festival.
Every year, Welland, aptly named the rose city of Canada, hosts this festival to encourage community spirit, involvement and pride through many free events and activities.
I wish to recognize this event as it is important to the citizens who live throughout the entire Niagara area. I encourage all members of the community to take part in the wide range of events, including the popular run for the roses and the rose parade.
I also wish to recognize the organizers and coordinators who help to make this event possible, including the president, Jeff Ward; the parade chair, Larry LaRose; the coronation chair, Diane Freeman; and the art show chair, Sam Adams. These outstanding individuals are unpaid volunteers who truly make the festival an existing and worthwhile experience for all. Their level of devotion to preserving cultural heritage and natural beauty is appreciated by all members of the Welland community.
I invite all members of this House to join me in recognizing the hundreds of community festivals happening right across the country and all of the hard-working volunteers who make them happen.
May 17th
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 3:55 pm | British Columbia, Victoria
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:59 p.m.)
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 3:45 pm | British Columbia, Victoria
I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but her time has run out.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 3:25 pm | British Columbia, Victoria
All those opposed will please say nay.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 3:20 pm | British Columbia, Victoria
The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I would ask that she keep her comments to five minutes.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 2:30 pm | British Columbia, Victoria
The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments when this bill returns to the House.
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 2:20 pm | British Columbia, Vancouver Kingsway
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, a bill that dramatically changes the refugee system in Canada and, in my respectful view, does so for the worst.
I was our party's immigration critic when the bill was introduced some three short months ago. Following the introduction of the bill, I was inundated by ordinary Canadians and stakeholders alike who were worried and shocked about what the government was proposing.
It is no exaggeration to say that the bill is opposed by every major stakeholder group in the country. Churches, doctors, immigration lawyers, settlement service organizations, academics, refugee groups, cultural organizations and refugees themselves.
Rarely has a bill been so roundly condemned by so many. Why? Because it is readily apparent to anybody who studies this omnibus legislation that the bill is unconstitutional, punitive to refugees and will be completely ineffective in deterring human trafficking.
I am extremely disappointed to be back here at report stage after the Standing Committee on Immigration and Canadians heard many hours of very trenchant and damning testimony. I am disappointed to see that the government has ignored the recommendations of over 40 witnesses representing the full spectrum of the immigration community, who warned about the damaging and misguided effects of the bill.
I am referring to witnesses such as the Canadian Pediatric Society and psychologists who warned of the effect that mandatory detention would have on refugees who had been traumatized by persecution, violence, torture or other atrocities.
The government has ignored this testimony and is moving forward with this backward approach. Most telling, those same groups testified about the particularly damaging effect that detention had on children, whom the bill would also see in detention.
I think of the testimony of Peter Showler, Lorne Waldman and other members of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, probably the most knowledgeable group of people in the country on refugee law. Peter Showler used to be the head of the Immigration and Refugee Board. They testified that the accelerated timelines to make refugee claims would be impossible to meet in an adequate manner. In their testimony and their experience hearing cases, this would lead to mistakes and decisions not to grant asylum to bona fide refugees.
I want to pause to say this. Rarely is a mistaken decision more damaging and dangerous than a mistaken decision in a refugee determination case. To be refugees, they have to show that they have a well-founded fear of persecution. This often means they are fearing for their lives. Therefore, a wrong decision could lead to a deportation of someone back to a country where that person might face torture, persecution and death.
That has happened. In the past year there have been cases. There was a case recently of a Mexican refugee claimant denied here, sent back to Mexico, who then was murdered by her ex-husband, a police officer, whom she claimed persecuted her.
Those lawyers also spoke of the provisions for mandatory detention, arbitrary designation of irregular arrivals, denial of appeal to certain classes of refugees and ignoring the best interests of children, all of which went against our Constitution and international conventions alike. The government, unfortunately, ignored that expert testimony.
I think of the testimony of Gina Csayni from the Roma Community Centre in Toronto, who spoke of the real human rights violations and systemic discrimination in Europe. She spoke about how Roma refugees would be negatively affected by having EU countries designated as safe. She spoke about how disheartening and insulting it was to hear our Minister of Citizenship refer to them as bogus and she explained why he was wrong.
I want to pause there and say that we are all very intimately familiar with the persecution, the genocide, against the Jewish people in World War II. What is less commented upon is the fact that Roma, along with the disabled, were also targeted for their ethnicity, rounded up, tortured, medically experimented upon, detained in concentration camps and murdered simply because they were Roma.
This is not just any ethnic group. It is an ethnic group with a history of being the victims of genocide in Europe. There is absolute rock-solid evidence that Romas still face persecution, and states are unable to protect them even today.
The government ignored that testimony. In fact, it doubled down and continued to use inflammatory language referring to Roma refugees as bogus.
We heard from Chris Morrissey and Sharalyn Jordan from the Rainbow Refugee Committee and others who spoke about how the so-called safe country determination process threatened LGBTQ refugees specifically. Over 100 countries of this world have some form of legislative discrimination against the LGBTQ community, including death in some countries.
Again, the government plows forward as though these stakeholders never spoke.
Experts from Australia, a country the government likes to selectively quote from when its adopting policies it likes, testified that the draconian rules that the government was imposing to try to deter human smuggling—that is, rules that direct punitive elements at refugees—had no deterrent effect at all. Australia has adopted the same procedure that this bill would, and there has been no diminution of refugee claimants coming to the shores of Australia since it adopted those rules years ago. The government ignored that evidence.
The government did make two important changes, and it is important to point that out because it shows what an effective official opposition can do and it shows when parliamentary committees work.
Witnesses and opposition members warned about the impact of clauses 18 and 19. These clauses would allow the minister, through the IRB, to strip permanent residence status from people who had been living in Canada for many years on the basis that conditions had improved in the countries they fled.
The minister said repeatedly that this was not his intention. Actually he went much further than that. He said that the bill categorically did not have this effect. He vociferously and arrogantly derided members of Parliament and stakeholders who brought up the subject. In the end, however, he realized and acknowledged that he was wrong, that he did not understand the effect of the bill that he wrote. He has still not apologized for the vitriol and derision with which he so wrongly defended these clauses.
The other change that the government agreed to was to require a review for the mandatory detention at 14 days and at six months. This came after witnesses, including witnesses sympathetic to the government, had a consensus that this provision was blatantly unconstitutional, as the New Democrats pointed out for months.
This means that the government put forward a bill and could not find one expert in the whole country who deemed it to be charter compliant. This is shocking.
I would also point out the intransigence of the minister who insisted throughout that this bill was constitutional, repeatedly, only in the end to find out, just like the official opposition said and the stakeholders said and the legal community testified, it was not constitutional.
This change notwithstanding, experts still believe other provisions make this bill unconstitutional and we may be tied up in the courts for years figuring that out.
I want go back to the beginning and ask this question. Why this bill? Why does the government insist on going forward with the bill when many of the problems the government claimed to address were already dealt with in the previous Parliament in Bill C-11? We dealt with them when all parties, the Conservatives included, came together and passed the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. We all recognized that the refugee determination system was slow and we put forward reasonable solutions to this problem.
The minister stood in this very House and praised Bill C-11. He said that the amendments that were worked out by all parties in the House made the system faster and fairer and he called that legislation “a monumental achievement”.
When I asked the minister whether he was wrong then or wrong now, he said that he was wrong then. Well, that may be honest, but it does not inspire confidence and it raises serious questions about the real motive behind this bill.
Why would the Conservatives throw a bill in the trash can, a bill that the minister praised, and reintroduce a bill that in previously unamended form was inferior? Even the Minister of Immigration said that.
One part that still puzzles me is the minister's insistence to give himself the power to unilaterally declare a country to be safe. Under Bill C-11, designated persons still have the right of appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division. Under this legislation they do not. Under the previous legislation the minister had to consult with a panel of experts before determining a country to be safe. Under this bill he does not.
On television the minister said that he had run simulations that showed the system under the previous bill would not work. However, when I have asked for the data from these simulations, even under access to information, the minister cannot produce that information.
There is no need for this bill. Canadians know it. The official opposition knows it. The immigration community knows it. The government should withdraw the bill now before serious damage is done to refugees and Canada's reputation as a compassionate country.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 2:15 pm | British Columbia, Vancouver Kingsway
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised the concept of designated safe countries, where the minister can select a country and designate it as safe. The result of that is refugee claimants from that country would have certain rights denied them, like the right to appeal to the refugee appeal division.
In Bill C-11, which preceded this bill, the minister agreed to the concept of having an independent commission made up of a couple of human rights experts who would also have to agree on the minister's decision. The minister himself said that this made the process more transparent and accountable, yet in Bill C-31 the minister has taken that out.
Could the member explain why the Minister of Immigration does not want to have an independent panel as a protection to ensure that a designated safe country is proper instead of leaving that decision solely to a minister of the crown with no independent oversight? Why is that?
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 2:05 pm | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North. It is somewhat ironic that there are occasions in this country when we apologize for the very things that we are going to do in the near future or have done in the recent past. We do not seem to learn by our mistakes.
However, I have to remind everyone that irony is often lost on the members opposite.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 2:00 pm | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear we are going to be able to vote on this bill in pieces, because I will support that piece of the legislation. We have praised that piece of the legislation, which would increase the penalties and the risk to the smugglers themselves. We have said, yes, it is a good thing to increase the penalties for the smugglers.
Our problem is the fact that we would be penalizing the victims. The people who are the victims of crime, the refugees who come into this country, are the ones who would be imprisoned by the government. That we disagree with.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 1:50 pm | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the good residents of York South—Weston, my constituents, to try to make some sense out of what is happening but I am afraid I am not able to make sense of it.
A bill has already been passed by Parliament to do what the Conservatives have been saying these past many months, since Bill C-4 and now Bill C-31 have come before us. Bill C-11 will take effect. For whatever reason, its implementation was delayed until June of this year, but it will take effect and it will solve the problem of 95% of refugee claimants from some European countries actually abandoning their claims because the provisions in Bill C-11 do precisely what the government says Bill C-31 would do. Therefore, what is the purpose of Bill C-31? It is really to put more control in the hands of the minister by making the minister solely responsible for determining which countries are safe and which are not.
That leads one to speculate wildly about what possible reason it could have for putting such control in the hands of the minister. We could speculate that it might have to do with the Department of Foreign Affairs or with giving favoured nation status in return for trade agreements. I have no idea. The problem is that we are rushing ahead with a bill that does the same thing as another bill already does. When we examine the difference, it is that the minister would have the power. It does not make sense. The portion of the bill that is new is the part that supposedly deals with human smuggling.
I was listening today to the U.S. ambassador, Luis CdeBaca, who is the head of the U.S. task force on human trafficking. So as we do not get confused, human trafficking and human smuggling are two different things. Human trafficking is engaging in slavery practices in other countries in the world and in countries close to home. What he said made me realize that had the kinds of things the Conservatives are proposing here been in place years ago, they would have prevented the praise that the U.S. ambassador gave us this afternoon.
He said that he was proud of the fact that Canada was one of the very first countries to abolish slavery. In fact, Canada accepted refugees from none other than the United States. Those refugees came to my former hometown of Windsor through the underground railroad. If this law had been in place, who knows what would have happened to those individuals who are now the ancestors of many prosperous and well-deserving families of this country, some in my riding? Those individuals could possibly have been detained in jails for up to a year and prevented from supporting or sponsoring their families. It beggars belief to imagine a regimen similar to what is being proposed by the government to deal with a supposed irregular arrival problem by detaining refugees.
We have heard the government say over and over again that it is on the side of the victims. This is making victims pay. These individuals are the victims of a crime. That crime is perpetrated by the smugglers and yet the government's reaction is to punish the victims. They are the only people it can get its hands on, because the smugglers have long gone, so it punishes them.
I have heard the Minister of Justice suggest that once people know that Canada's laws are such that it is not welcoming and victims will be punished, it will dry up the supply. It is a supply side economics argument, which we have heard a lot from the government, that it will dry up the supply of potential victims of crime.
The problem with that is that there are not a lot of Canadians who read the Criminal Code before they commit a crime, and I doubt very much that there are a lot of people in Somalia, Sri Lanka, or wherever these people come from, who have an opportunity to read Canada's immigration legislation to determine that they will go to jail if they pay someone $10,000 to bring their family over to Canada. That is just not going to happen. We do not publish our legislation in all the languages that might be spoken in these countries either. It is just strange.
In addition to those victims being punished, the minister is suggesting that we will not have to worry because the government will deal with refugee claimants from countries that he has designated as safe countries—he or she, depending on who the minister might be. The minister will determine which countries are safe, and people from those countries will be booted out of this country really fast if they are not true refugees. How do we determine whether they are true refugees? We do that by giving them a chance to plead their case within 14 days. They then have no access to appeal and no access to the refugee appeal division.
There are in fact two classes of refugees. There is a class of refugees who come from countries that the minister has not designated, and we do not know which countries those are yet, and there is a class of refugees who are legitimate refugees in every sense of the word, but who come from countries that the minister designates as safe. They, therefore, would have only one kick to get their suggestion that they are refugees before a tribunal and they have no access to the refugee appeal division. The minister has stated on several occasions that they could file an application in Federal Court. The trouble is that they will be deported long before an application in the Federal Court goes anywhere.
The other thing that bothers me about the attitude of the government toward the whole refugee system is that the minister has suggested on several occasions that he is upset that refugees skip over other countries before they come to Canada, that they should go somewhere else, that they should not come to Canada. I am proud of the fact that they want to come to Canada. We all should be proud that we have such a welcoming and such a wonderful mélange of all the countries of the world that people feel comfortable in coming to Canada. We should not force refugees to go somewhere else simply because they happen to pass by another country on the way. That smacks of a being reluctant to take refugees in the first place, although I know that possibly is not what the minister meant.
The minister also talked about jumping the queue. He does not want refugee claimants to be in a position to jump the queue ahead of legitimate immigrant applicants. He has now created the biggest immigrant queue-jump in the history of this country by eliminating what might be 300,000, and I am not sure of the exact number, legitimate applications for immigration to this country with the stroke of a pen and putting everyone else ahead of those people. Every other applicant to this country would now jump the queue if they applied post-2008, or whatever the year was that it was changed. Those individuals have jumped the queue and the rest must start again. That is so wrong, yet the minister says that he does not like queue-jumpers. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The other issue that covers this whole immigration thing is the issue of temporary foreign workers. It is another example of the doublespeak we get from the government about how it wants to welcome refugees and welcome new Canadians, but we will now have a situation where temporary foreign workers are being allowed into this country and will be paid 15% less than everybody else. That will drive down wages. The minister says that it is only for those jobs where we have a shortage. We know there are jobs out there. Airline pilots are being brought in as temporary foreign workers. There is no shortage of airline pilots in this country, but we have companies bringing airline pilots to this country as temporary foreign workers, and now they can pay them 15% less. That is just going to drive down wages in this country.
Those are the kinds of immigration policies that we do not agree with, including this bill.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 1:30 pm | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said by the government, in particular about this problem of 95% of the refugee claimants from European countries not bothering to come for their hearings. That is what Bill C-11, in the previous Parliament, was supposed to fix, and will fix as of June of this year.
With the exception of giving the minister the power to determine which countries are safe, why are we in a rush to do what will actually be fixed if we just let the law we passed some time ago take place? What is so urgent, when we have a law coming into place to do exactly what the government says this bill was supposed to do?
- MP
ndpMay 17, 2012 12:50 pm | Ontario, Parkdale—High ParkMr. Speaker, I do not want to speculate as to the government's motivation for bringing in this change. However, I do share his concern that children, for example, could be detained under this legislation. I do not think that is right or appropriate.
I also share his concern that just a year ago, all parties agreed on changes to the immigration and refugee legislation. There was a balanced approach, and while no one felt it was perfect, there was compromise. There has not even been time for that legislation to be fully implemented and for us to see the outcome of that legislation, and now the minister wants to sweep aside that compromise and bring in these changes, which is troubling to many of those who are directly affected.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 12:45 pm | Ontario, Parkdale—High Park
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the minister this: why is it that a year ago more than 100 Roma refugees from Hungary or from the Czech Republic would have been be accepted here as refugees, and now, under this legislation, if these countries are designated as safe countries, these refugees would not be accepted? A year ago they would have been refugees, but under this safe country designation, they would no longer be refugees. What has changed?
From what I hear from the Roma community, conditions are worse, not better. Therefore, why would we allow them to be put at risk?
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 12:35 pm | Ontario, Parkdale—High Park
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this bill really on behalf of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, an urban riding in the west end of Toronto and home to communities that have come together from many different countries. There are people who came, like my grandparents, from the U.K. There are people who have come from Asia, from Africa, from the U.S., from Europe, from all over, in waves of different immigrants.
Some, like my family, came with not much more than their ability to work hard and their desire to make a better life for themselves and their families. People who were able to immigrate to this great country have seen their families go on to make a contribution that was beyond their imagination at that time.
We see others who have come under real duress, people who have come as refugees generations ago and more recently. For example, in my riding of Parkdale—High Park we have the largest Tibetan community in Canada. These are people who sought refuge, sometimes decades ago, from the Tibetan region of China and who had been living in the refugee areas in Nepal or India. We have people who came from Africa and from all parts of the world.
Some of the stories they tell are harrowing. The stories are of people who are trying to escape from extreme conditions, from a lack of political or religious rights and sometimes from very harrowing physical conditions.
My community also happens to be home to many new refugees from the Roma community. We have a large Roma community in our area. I have met many members of the community. I have heard many stories, and I want to express the great concern that not just that community but others in our city and across the country have expressed about these changes that are being proposed and brought before the House.
Certainly there is concern that the bill takes an approach of punishing refugees rather than of looking to assist them and help them in their hour of greatest need and that the issue of human smuggling can already be adequately dealt with under existing legislation.
We have heard from many who have said that this same party, while in a minority government, just passed a balanced refugee reform bill last year. It has just been passed, it has not even been fully implemented, and now the compromise that was worked out with all parties and passed by the House is going to be thrown out in favour of the provisions in this legislation. Once again the government, as it is wont to do now that it has a majority, is ramming this legislation through in a way that is especially troubling for those who perhaps do not share the perspective of the government and really want to have a very full airing of the provisions in the bill.
I have also heard great concern about the fact that the bill would concentrate power in the hands of the minister in terms of being able to treat refugees differently based on how they come to Canada. There is concern about what that means in terms of equality before the law.
The minister and I have attended many different community events together in our area, and I know that he tries to get to know newcomer communities well. They appreciate that, but I do not know how well he knows the Roma community. I have heard him say a lot about it, but I will read a letter from one member of the community who is now a landed immigrant in Canada.
He says:
My name is Robi Botos. I'm a Roma musician and composer. I came to Canada in 1998 from Budapest, Hungary. I saw the growing persecution and racism in the 90s. With the support of the Canadian music scene, fans and friends I was able to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Hungary did not become a safer country since I left. In fact, it became much worse. Today, if you are a Roma living in Hungary, your life is clearly in danger from the growing fascist movement. There are many evidences of that. All you need to do is, just go on the internet and see for yourself.
I have done more than that. I have talked to many community members in our area.
He goes on:
I fell in love with Canada, because I saw that people don't discriminate against me, and they support me for who I am.
I won two of the biggest piano competitions in the world as a Canadian Roma artist. I got many awards as a Canadian Roma musician, including the National Jazz Award, and recent Juno nominations. They announce me as a Canadian national treasure. I shared the stage with my biggest hero, the great Canadian legend Oscar Peterson.
I say this, because just a few years back, I was at the edge of being deported, and if Bill C-31 would have been in effect, and I had to go back to Hungary, my son could've been the boy who they shot 18 times because he was a Roma.
I did not come to Canada to take advantage of the Canadian Welfare system, or be a criminal! Like most Roma refugees I sold everything I ever had to be able to buy air plane tickets, knowing I'll lose it all if I have to go back. I came here with no English skills, and no guarantees.
I'm deeply disappointed about the Canadian Immigration discriminating against Roma refugees, by referring to them as “bogus refugees” and that they're even considering calling Hungary a safe country for the Roma people. That's not the Canadian way. They should at least research first!
I dream, that the Canadian Immigration will act Canadian by protecting Roma refugees and not threaten them, by sending them back where their life is in great danger.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of my people.
I am concerned first of all that here in Canada there have been comments made about the Roma community that impugn their reputation. I have met many people face to face, know them, hear their stories and know of the contribution they make to our community. I know about the insecurity and fear they feel about losing the opportunity to be here in safety and going back to persecution.
I am concerned that our government made changes to the immigration and refugee legislation just a year ago and today is throwing those changes out and introducing changes that would create two tiers of refugees and deny people who are seeking safety here the opportunity to remain in Canada.
I have done a lot of work with organizations such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, which is calling for this bill to be completely scrapped. The Canadian Bar Association is concerned that it violates charter protections against arbitrary detention. The Civil Liberties Association has also been very critical and is calling the measures contemplated “draconian”.
I am speaking out on behalf of people I have seen face to face, families who come here with very little and who have had terrible experiences of discrimination and, in some cases, violence. They see Canada as a refuge. I would hate to think that with our reputation for human rights and for respecting international agreements around the world, we would somehow turn our backs on people in their hour of need.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 12:15 pm | British Columbia, Skeena—Bulkley Valley
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government.
We have now seen the government shut down debate in this House 20 times. Secretive committees in the legislature are becoming the norm. A 425 page omnibus Trojan Horse bill gutting the environment, taking $12,000 out of the pockets of seniors and fundamentally changing how employment insurance works in this country without any consultation or mandate from Canadians is just the most recent and egregious example of their undermining of our democratic values and institution.
In addition to the schedule for the week following the constituency week, my request for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is this. Do the government members have any concerns whatsoever about how their constant and steady erosion of democratic values in this place undermines all our work, both theirs and ours?
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 12:10 pm | British Columbia, Skeena—Bulkley Valley
Mr. Speaker, it is not my practice to raise these particular points. Today seems to be a particularly difficult day in the House, as you observed.
On two occasions members of Parliament, from the Conservatives and the Liberals, accused other members of being stupid and ignorant. Clearly, in our orders around this place, in order to have some sort of civility in approach to debate, using such terms to refer to another hon. member of the House, whichever direction it is guided toward, is beneath contempt for a member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, you heard the comments clearly. It is in your guidance to suggest that members do not use this language when referring to another member of the House. It is very difficult, near impossible, to imagine the situation improving when members accuse others of being stupid and ignorant. I hope that you will rule on this.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 12:05 pm | British Columbia, Skeena—Bulkley Valley
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall in question period when our member for Alfred-Pellan asked a question of the government. The member for Vancouver South heckled our member and our side a number of times in a most improper and unparliamentary way. Mr. Speaker, you may have thought that this had come from a protester in the galleries. That is understandable because the type of incendiary language used in the attack on the member of Parliament for Alfred—Pellan was inexcusable.
The Conservatives, on many occasions when there have been protests in galleries, have described themselves as feeling afraid, persecuted and unable to sit in their seats and do their work as members of Parliament. I would hope that the Conservatives would apply this same standard when a member of Parliament from their side attacks one of ours in asking a decent and reasonable question.
I can understand that the member is a certain distance from your chair, but if we tolerate this type of behaviour by members of Parliament towards other members of Parliament, there is no possibility of decorum and there is no possibility of civility in this place.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you demand from this member an apology to the House.
- MP
ndpMay 17, 2012 12:00 pm | Nova Scotia, Sackville—Eastern ShoreMr. Speaker, when Canadian military personnel serve their country, they do not get to make up their minds. They follow orders. Unfortunately, many of them become disabled. Over 6,500 disabled veterans and their leader Dennis Manuge are asking the government to stop the appeal of Justice Barnes' decision to end the SISIP clawback.
These are the heroes of our country. Unfortunately, they served their country and became disabled. Two different judges have ruled to stop the SISIP clawback. Will the government now serve these disabled people by stopping the legal proceedings, meet with Dennis Manuge's legal team and pay out the money they so rightfully deserve?
- MP
May 17, 2012 11:45 am | Newfoundland, St. John's EastMr. Speaker, speaking of accountability, yet another source of assistance for Canadian Forces members in need of help has been found wanting.
Complaints of a poisonous work environment, 50% staff turnover and delays of up to five years to resolve issues of support for mental health needs, while soldiers returning from Afghanistan are more than ever seeking fair and just treatment from the government.
How can Canadian Forces members and their families have confidence that the government cares about their needs?
What will the minister and the government do to ensure that the office of the ombudsman does the job that it was set up to do?
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 11:40 am | Ontario, Ottawa Centre
Mr. Speaker, as an open and active member of the United Nations, Canada has a long-standing invitation for all UN human rights officials to visit our country. However, when the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food took up this invitation, he was welcomed by the government with insults to his education and attacks on his mandate. Worse yet, when a government member attacked him in a statement, theMinister of Foreign Affairs applauded.
Is this the way a government of a G8 country is supposed to treat visitors from the UN? Is this a new policy of the government?
- MP
May 17, 2012 11:35 am | British Columbia, Nanaimo—CowichanMr. Speaker, the government's own numbers talk about this lack of access to food.
In 2008, Health Canada reported that aboriginal households are three times less likely than non-aboriginal households to have access to safe and secure food.
Is the government now going to attack Health Canada? Why does the government think it is acceptable for children living in this country to wake up hungry, to go to school hungry, and to go to bed hungry? Instead of attacking, will the government now act to solve this very real problem?
- MP
ndpMay 17, 2012 11:35 am | Manitoba, ChurchillMr. Speaker, yesterday, the government launched a shameful attack on the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, including saying that he had not visited the north.
The government is wrong. He visited Gods River in northern Manitoba and went to northern Alberta. What he found out was that many Canadians, especially aboriginal Canadians, have inadequate diets because they live in poverty.
Will the government apologize for this shameful attack and finally face the facts that aboriginal--
- MPMay 17, 2012 11:30 am | British Columbia, Nanaimo—Cowichan
Mr. Speaker, it was shocking to hear the Minister of Health attack the UN food rapporteur for bringing attention to the issue of food insecurity amongst first nations, Inuit and Métis, especially because the head of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Mary Simon, supports his findings. Seventy percent of Inuit households with young children do not have access to safe and secure food.
The government is ignoring the facts. The first step is admitting there is a problem. Will the minister at least do that?
- MP
ndpMay 17, 2012 11:30 am | British Columbia, Vancouver EastMr. Speaker, employees pay into EI in good faith, but under the Conservatives fewer than 40% even qualify, and they want to restrict the rules even more.
The Conservatives claim they have no plans to force Canadians to choose between EI eligibility and relocating to other parts of the country. We know now the idea was not only being discussed, it was also focus-grouped.
Canadians deserve to know the truth. Will the minister table all of the planned changes to EI in this House?
- MP
ndpMay 17, 2012 11:20 am | Quebec, OutremontMr. Speaker, it is no wonder the Conservatives received the Canadian award for most secretive government in history a couple of weeks ago from our journalists, but this is not run-of-the-mill Conservative secrecy. It is vindictive, it is vicious and it is illegal. One government department went so far as to check the home address of Globe and Mail reporter Daniel Leblanc.
Why? Why is the public service being enlisted to run a witch hunt on journalists?
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 11:15 am | Quebec, Outremont
Mr. Speaker, laws on government secrecy exists to protect real national secrets, not embarrassments to the Prime Minister. The article in the Globe and Mail said the government “...is refusing to open up the $16-billion purchase of 65 new fighter jets to a competition because of the potential negative reaction in the United States...”.
The Prime Minister might take issue with the truth, but it does not justify calling the cops, it does not justify intimidating reporters and it certainly does not justify attacking freedom of the press.
Is this the point we have reached in this country—having police investigate journalists who are only doing their jobs?
- MP
ndpMay 17, 2012 11:15 am | Ontario, Hamilton CentreMr. Speaker, the government's continued attacks on employment insurance are disingenuous, disrespectful and downright disgraceful.
First the changes to the EI system were hidden in the government's massive Trojan Horse omnibus bill. Then the minister said she would provide details only after the bill is passed. Now it seems that no one across the aisle understands what it is like to struggle to make ends meet after losing a job.
According to the human resources minister, EI makes it “lucrative” for Canadians to stay home and get paid for it.
The Prime Minister once said that people who are unemployed “...don't feel bad about it themselves as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance”.
As well, of course, there is the Minister of Finance, who thinks refereeing hockey games while building a future at law school is the same as a lifetime of back-breaking work in a mine shaft.
It is time the government stopped being part of the unemployment problem and started being part of the solution.
- MPMay 17, 2012 11:00 am | Ontario, Beaches—East York
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP and the Kids' Internet Safety Alliance estimate there are more than 2 million pornographic pictures and movies, involving 50,000 different children worldwide, that can be found on the Internet. The vast majority of this vile material involves young children, some as young as two or three years old. Only 2,500 of these children have been identified and rescued.
As many as 200,000 men in Canada are regularly trading, selling and producing child pornography. One out of three men who possess child pornography are child abusers.
This is a community safety issue of the highest priority. Sadly, Canadian police were only able to arrest 513 people in 2010 for child pornography offences. Why? Because they hide behind the Internet and make themselves anonymous.
It is the duty of the House to ensure that law enforcement has the legal tools it needs to find and prosecute these offenders, to make the Internet a safer place and to protect our children.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 9:25 am | Ontario, Thunder Bay—Superior North
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River introduced private member's legislation that was excellent and would put pension plans first ahead of other creditors. I hope he will reintroduce that legislation in this House and I hope all members of Parliament will support it. Just as paycheques should come before creditors, so should their pension plans, which are really paycheques held in arrears.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 9:15 am | Ontario, Thunder Bay—Superior North
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to the government's bill. It is what I call the proposed private, for profit, pooled pensions plan. That leaves me speechless.
More seriously, few things are more important to Canadians than their retirement security. For decades they work hard to build a good life for themselves and their families. Every paycheque deduction includes a little something tucked away in their pension plan.
When it comes time to retire, people rightfly expect to be able to live in dignity and with some financial security. However, as too many Canadians have found out in recent years, their retirement may not be as secure as they were led to believe and were hoping. RRSPs have taken a beating, and many of those who had been counting on a company pension plan have had a rude shock.
Many found out their plans were underfunded, or they lost everything when their company went bankrupt and took workers' pensions with them. This has been a particular problem in Thunder Bay—Superior North, where a host of creditors, often including the actual owners of the failed subsidiary company, have claims that take precedence over those of pensioners. In a modern industrialized democracy, that just should not be allowed to happen, and my friend representing Thunder Bay—Rainy River has tried to introduce a private member's bill to put pensioners first.
One thing that has been rock-steady throughout turbulent times is the Canada pension plan, to which 93% of Canadians subscribe. Companies come and go and iInvestment vehicles like income trusts may arise and then be snatched back the next year by fickle governments, but people can count on the CPP.
It is the most secure retirement vehicle we have. The CPP remains the single most effective solution to ensure retirement security. It is portable, it is sustainable, and it spreads the risk to minimize risk. It is publicly and cheaply administered at a fraction of the administrative costs of private plans. It is far more sustainable than private plans and it pays predictable benefits that do not fall if markets collapse.
The one drawback is that it is not high enough. The maximum benefit currently is only $986 a month, and the average is only $528 a month. That, as we know, is not adequate to live on.
People are expecting to make up the shortfall by investing in private investment vehicles such as the pooled pension plan the government is advancing, but private savings vehicles cost many times more than saving in public pension plans.
The administration cost of the CPP is about one-quarter of 1%, while the cost of RRSPs and mutual funds ranges from 2.5% to 4% or even more. Private plans are great for brokers and bankers in Bimmers, but not so great for real, sustainable growth in pensioners' hard-earned investments, and there is little indication of any cap on fees for those pooled plans.
That 2.5% to 4% or more every year eats away at people's retirement. It adds up. When it comes time to retire, Canadians will have many, many thousands less, so why not have it adding up and working for pensioners instead of for private investment companies? Allowing Canadians to opt for contributions up to an extra 2.5% to the CPP would double their benefits, and those are defined benefits, secure benefits. They are a retirement benefit that future seniors can actually count on.
The benefits of the CPP over private schemes do not stop there. Unlike public pensions, private savings are rarely indexed for inflation. That could mean a further lost savings of from 1% to 3% per year, a loss that alone cuts people's initial investment in half over a 30-year period.
As well, the CPP is highly portable for everyone throughout Canada. Pooled registered pension plans are much less so.
By far the biggest fault in this whole pooled pension plan scheme is that it fails to address the needs of Canadians who cannot afford to save for retirement. The vast majority of Canadians do not pay into plans like RRSPs because they simply cannot afford it. According to StatsCan, 60% of Canadians currently do not have any formal pension at all. There are already private retirement investments available out there; if Canadians could afford them, we would not have millions who do not have a pension.
Adding another voluntary and speculative investment plan they cannot afford will not significantly help the situation.
There is a lot we can do in this House to improve retirement security for Canadians. We should be seeking to insure Canadians' pensions, like we do their bank deposits. We should protect pensions when companies go bankrupt by putting pensioners first as creditors, ahead of banks, ahead of shell companies that skim the profits and dump the subsidiaries, as has happened in Thunder Bay—Superior North.
After all the ruined retirements these past few years due to corporate bankruptcies, including many in our forest sector in northwestern Ontario, it is absolutely incredible that the government has not taken action on that front. We should be taking action on all these fronts and allowing Canadians to choose to contribute more to the CPP as well.
There is no reason to continue preventing Canadians from saving more through the one vehicle open to all workers, including the self-employed, a vehicle that is low cost, universal and portable. It is inflation and risk-proof, with defined benefits, guaranteed by the Government of Canada, that is not yet another private investment scheme that most Canadians will not invest in. That is the CPP.
Instead, all we have is a proposal from the Conservative government to help line the pockets of banks and investment companies some more. It may help some well-off Canadians who can already afford to contribute to private investment vehicles, that may be true, but it will not help the people who need it most, the majority of Canadians. Now we have the added insult and injury of Canadians having to wait from 65 until 67 years old for their old age supplements.
The Conservative government does a great job of looking out for the interests of big banks, big oil companies and other global multi-nationals with little commitment to any country or workers or their families. This past spring the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences hosted international pension expert, Keith Ambachtsheer, for our big thinking lecture here on Parliament Hill. For the MPs who got up that early to attend, this pension expert made it very clear that the administrative fees on private pension plans usually eat up any pension fund growth. He made it clear that the best pathway to any truly safe and sustainable pension plan for Canadian families was retaining and expanding CPP.
I realize that this is an ideologically driven party and government that rarely wants its beliefs to be confused by facts, research, statistics, senseless data or science but, hopefully, on this absolutely crucial question of pensions, it will, it should, listen to experts like Mr. Ambachtsheer. Hopefully it will follow his expert and sage advice and build upon the excellent and sustainable Canada pension plan, a safe, predictable, cost-effective and sustainable model admired worldwide. It just needs expanding to meet modern costs of living.
Canadians know and trust the CPP. They do not want to gamble their pensions, their lives and their retirement futures on a lottery run by expensive bankers and investment brokers.
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 9:10 am | Ontario, Davenport
Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's questioning to me, she referred to the notion that the Canada pension plan is a tax or is hurtful to employers. However, we have discovered over the past 60 years of pension system history in Canada that if it is not mandatory for employers and employees to contribute, a large section of our populace does not, or cannot, save for retirement. Given that this plan is voluntary, what does she have to say about mandatory increases to the Canada pension plan?
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 9:10 am | Ontario, Thunder Bay—Superior North
Mr. Speaker, that was an impressive and thoughtful analysis. I learned a lot. It is quite clear that the hon. member does not really think much of Bill C-25. She thinks it is a poor substitute for enhancing our current CPP system.
Given the great job that my colleague has done in showing how the bill is not very good, I am wondering why the Liberals intend to vote for it at this time.
- MP
ndpMay 17, 2012 8:55 am | Ontario, Thunder Bay—Rainy RiverMadam Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate today because it is a very important one, not just for us now, but for future generations of Canadians.
It was an interesting question from my colleague in the Liberal Party. If she looks at CPP and doubling it perhaps over the next 10 years, 12 years or whatever the case might be, it is not a tax; it is an investment. That is where we need to come from.
However, my question is for my friend from Toronto. He talked about risk in a pooled retirement savings plan. We have a real life example? Many people who had RRSPs in 2008 found out they had lost 30%, 35% of the value of their RRSPs. We know they is risky. Would my friend like to make comment further on that?
- MPndpMay 17, 2012 8:55 am | Ontario, Davenport
Madam Speaker, there is a two-fold risk to having our money in a vehicle in which we must actually make the decisions about how to invest it and, at the end, about how to take it out of the plan.
We are at a situation right now in Canada where the stock market has not performed the way it did in the 1980s and 1990s. It has certainly not been the pillar that it ought to have been. People did wake up one day and discovered that their portfolios were worth sometimes as much as 50% less. Add to that the fact that interest rates are at historic lows in our country. When we take that money out, we get nothing in return. Now when people go to one of these friendly insurance companies to buy an annuity, they discover that they are lucky if they get $600 a month or $500 a month. Ten or fifteen years ago, when interest rates were at 5% and 6%, for $100,000 they could get $1,200 a month.
Those two things are combining together to make that kind of pension plan a disaster for persons who wish to retire.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 135 Next »
