Jinny Sims

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me make it very clear that at no time has the NDP, either in committee or anywhere else, said we support terrorists or other people coming into our country who will place our country in jeopardy.

As a matter of fact, when it came to the biometrics section we supported the use of biometrics as long as it is used for identification and for checking backgrounds to make sure people are not threats to our national security. We have concerns about what else that data could be used for, how long the data would be kept and about its usage by other agencies with which we may share that data.

My question for my colleague across the way is very simple. We know those who are designated as irregular arrivals will have to go to detention centres, or in most of the country they will go to prisons. The minister has said that only children over 16 will be designated as adults and therefore they could go into prison.

Would my colleague share with all of us what would happen to those children who should happen to be on a boat or come by plane because the parents have managed to grab their child—

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it was very pleasant working with my colleague on the committee, even though he did make a mistake and did not vote for any of the amendments I proposed.

I want to set the record straight about people within the European Union. People within the European Union do have mobility. They can go into another state and look for a job. However, my understanding from the witnesses we heard is that they have 90 days within which to find work or they have to move on. However, under the agreement reached by the EU, they cannot, while they are there, claim asylum on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. That was the information that was shared with us by the representative from the EU.

If there is not the potential for, let us say, a Roma to leave Czechoslovakia and go to France and be able to claim asylum, why would we keep using that argument over and over again?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as we have stated earlier, this piece of legislation actually creates in Canada, for the first time, two tiers of refugees and asylum seekers. One of the areas that still puzzles me, which is something New Democrats asked for in committee and were told it would be in regulations, is that when we vote on this legislation there are no criteria used to stipulate how an irregular arrival would be designated. That is the first part of my question.

The second part of the question is on the fact that this bill would actually deprive those who are labelled irregular arrivals from applying for permanent residence and, therefore, reunification with their families for five years. That includes children. Why is the government, time and time again, blocking family reunification?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there were a few amendments that we did support at the committee stage. We also made it very clear at committee that we could not support the clause. However, we supported those amendments because they would mitigate the harm that would be there for the refugees. They absolutely did not go far enough when it came to the review for those people in detention. Fourteen days is too long for people to wait.

However, I want to ask a question along a different tack.

The current act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, actually allows the government to detain new arrivals until it has confirmed their identity and done a criminal check and a security check. That actually exists right now. I think we need to very clear about that.

However, the new bill, Bill C-31, says that there will be mandatory imprisonment for up to a year for irregular arrivals and that there will be no automatic release once they have their identification, security checks and criminal record checks have cleared. That is a big concern for us.

The question for my colleague is on how they will --

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was at the committee stage when we went over many of these issues. He has a good understanding of the legislation before us.

Creating a two-tiered system for refugees, I would argue, goes against the way we have built our country. We have built our country on immigrants and refugees coming from different parts of the world, and we have had a nation-building scheme. Now, with this legislation, the government is going to decide, not based on the merits of a person's claim, but by how they arrive in our country or by the numbers they arrive in, and it is going to designate them irregular. Not only then does it have the potential to keep them in detention, jail, for a year, but after that, for five years, they will not be given any kind of a status that would allow them to have their family members join them. We know that once one applies, it can take anything up to six or seven years after that, so families will be separated. This is from a government that says its base is about building strong families. For whom?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, May 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we were pleased at the committee stage when the government moved an amendment to correct what the minister saw was an unintended consequence. However, we took significant amendments to the committee stage that we thought were absolutely necessary and that the government flat out ignored, as my colleague just pointed out.

We took those amendments there in good conscience to try to work on this legislation, so that it would be fair to asylum seekers and refugees arriving in this country. The government side absolutely refused to consider any of those recommendations, and the tiny moves that were made by the government side did not address our major concerns. That is why we are moving clause-by-clause amendments that would remove the bill.

We have a bill in place. It is called the Balanced Refugee Protection Act. We do not need a bill that is called “the punishing refugees act” at this stage.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, May 17th, 2012]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 77.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that it is indeed a sad day that we find ourselves here debating this draconian legislation that witness after witness told us is unconstitutional, violates Canada's international obligations, concentrates too much power in the hands of the minister and will end up costing the provinces more in detention costs.

Bill C-31 has many troubling provisions, including giving the minister the power to hand-pick which countries he thinks are safe; measures to deny some refugees access to the new Refugee Appeal Division based on how they arrived; a five-year mandatory wait for bona fide refugees to become permanent residents and reunite with their families, again based on how they arrived in the country; and treating 16-year-old refugee claimants as adults, including detaining them.

After months of pressure from New Democrats, stakeholder groups and refugees themselves, the minister finally admitted there were major flaws in his legislation, unintended consequences, and made some modest amendments. However, let me be clear. They do not go far enough to win our support for a bill that is so fundamentally flawed and mean-spirited.

In an open editorial to Postmedia News on April 25, a group of prominent immigration, legal and constitutional experts said this:

The Bill protects no one and threatens many. It treats asylum seekers as criminals rather than people who need our protection. It is discriminatory, conflicts with Canadians' sense of fairness, and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to all people by the Canadian Charter of Rights....

It goes on to say:

In particular, bill C-31 would give the minister of...Immigration...the power to "designate" a group of refugees - including women and youths - who can be jailed for up to 12 months....

On this point, I want to be very clear. The minister wants to create two tiers of refugees. He would concentrate more arbitrary power in his own hands to treat refugees differently depending on how they come to Canada. I would ask the House this. What happened to equality under the law?

Witness after witness told us at committee stage that Bill C-31 would have the effect of punishing legitimate refugees and would do nothing to address the problems of human smuggling.

For example, Rivka Augenfeld told the committee on Wednesday May 2:

I'd like to [just] add that this bill...[says that it wants] to control smugglers, and [in order] to control smugglers it is punishing refugees. It's punishing people because of the way they arrived. ...nothing to do with the content of their claim. The content of the claim becomes secondary to the method of arrival.

In the meantime, I would submit that the previous legislation, which is now in place, gives you all the tools you need to go after smugglers and big smugglers....

She goes on to say:

The victims may come, but the victims [who arrive] need [our] help. And we don't know—based on how a person [arrives in this country]...—what the content of their claim is.

It is sad that we find ourselves again having this debate because we just passed refugee reform last year. The Conservatives are going back on compromise they praised only months ago.

In 2010, the Minister of Immigration singled out my colleague, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, for her “remarkable diligence” working the government to amend Bill C-11 to limit the number of fraudulent applications and reduce the backlog in Canada's immigration system.

At the time, we believed we would finally get a refugee reform package that was fast, fair and consistent with Canadian values. Everyone was reasonably happy with that outcome. Even the minister found it to be a very reasonable “compromise”. He went on to say that it “is nothing short of a miracle”.

However, here we are again debating the piece of legislation that goes back on almost all of the compromises that were made in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, and now we have a punish refugee reform act before us even before those important reforms have been allowed to take place.

In addition to the many constitutional and moral problems we have with the bill, it is also fiscally irresponsible, and the Conservatives should understand this argument, and has the potential to saddle the provinces with huge increases in detention costs.

Chantal Tie, a representative from the Canadian Council for Refugees, said to the committee on May 3:

What does fiscal responsibility have to do with Bill C-31? We believe fiscal responsibility is about spending taxpayers' dollars wisely. The CCR is committed to an affordable refugee protection system.

Then she goes on to say:

Our current system is doing an individualized risk assessment, which works well to protect our society and ensure the integrity of the immigration system. The figure we used was 6% [from CBSA], which means that 94% of refugee claimants on average do not need to be detained. If this bill passes, we will be detaining 100% of designated arrivals for a year. The math is simple. Ninety-four percent of the people we will be detaining will not need to be detained, if past experiences serve us well.

Members can do the math.

Mary Crock, a professor from Australia who has studied that country's disastrous attempt to punish refugees, told our committee on May 2:

...these measures do not deter. They cost a fortune. Financially they cost a fortune and socially they cost a fortune....

It is important to note that the Australian legislation, which is similar to ours, has not proven to have had a deterrent effect on human smuggling.

Simply put, the bill is not in the interest of sound fiscal management and prudent use of taxpayer money at this time when budgets are stretched thin.

As I mentioned before, another key area of concern for us is that the minister is giving himself the power to hand-pick which countries he thinks are safe, without advice from independent experts. Members will remember that the addition of a panel of experts to determine a so-called safe country was a key compromise to the opposition under the yet-to-be-enacted Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

It is our view that any country is capable of producing a legitimate refugee. The most glaring examples come from the Roma in Hungary, women and children in abusive homes in places like Mexico and the LGBTQ community in many countries of the Caribbean, Africa and beyond. There are numerous cases of those who are persecuted for religious reasons in countries that might otherwise be deemed safe by our minister.

There is another problem with the designation of so-called safe countries that ties in with the meanspirited announcements last week that refugee claimants are about to have their health coverage slashed by the Conservatives.

Yesterday in a piece in the Embassy, reporter Kristen Shane pointed out that a potentially legitimate refugee from a so-called safe country delivering a baby or undergoing emergency surgery for a heart attack at a Canadian hospital would have to pay for it out of pocket because of changes to the government's refugee health insurance act, said to take effect in July. Shame. Knowing that potentially legitimate refugees from so-called safe countries could actually be denied basic emergency medical coverage for the delivery of a baby and even for a heart attack is unconscionable.

We believe the government needs to go back to the drawing board on Bill C-31, and therefore we will be opposing it. Because none of the NDP's substantive amendments were adopted by the government members at committee, and because MPs from all parties just passed a balanced refugee reform package last Parliament, I have moved to delete all clauses from this legislation.

If my hon. colleagues from the Conservative Party were really concerned about human smuggling, they would be less focused on photo ops and more focused on enforcing our already strict laws. They would give the RCMP the resources it needs to get the job done, instead of playing politics with the world's most vulnerable. I hope they will listen to reason, scrap this flawed legislation and return to the framework we all agreed to in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, sometimes it is hard to sit here and listen to the rhetoric. There is an implication here, in my hon. colleague's presentation, that seniors in this country do not pay taxes. I can tell members that many seniors, in my generation and others, are paying their share of taxes. Just because they retire does not mean they stop paying taxes, and we have to remember that whenever we start expounding numbers.

My question for my colleague is very straightforward. For families who are struggling to make ends meet, families who, because of the policies of the government, are now working two or three jobs at $10 to $12 an hour and each month their only intention is to get to the end of the month and put food on the table, how does the member think this plan is going to put pension security on the table?

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, many of my constituents would love to have a pension plan but they are struggling to make ends meet from week to week. How would this particular scheme help those who are struggling from week to week?

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is an area my colleague feels very passionately about. She brings that passion to her portfolio.

Recently, when I was in my riding, I had the pleasure of talking to some environmentalists, activists like Eliza, who have devoted a lot of their time, their lifetime I would say, fighting for environmental protection. They raised serious concerns about the degradation they see in this budget.

My question to my colleague is this. What would she say the government needs to do in order to have what I would call a full consultation not only in communities but a fulsome debate here?