Jinny Sims

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, in Australia the appeal process was overruled. If this bill passes as is, I expect that it will be overturned here as well.

As Canadians, we respect international law and have signed many United Nations conventions. Therefore, it makes no sense to attempt to put legislation in place that we know will be overturned. It would be akin to giving oneself a black eye, which makes no sense.

I question the purpose of the bill and why it comes under public safety. This is an immigration and citizenship issue. However, the government is putting it forward as a public safety issue. Let us look at it for what it is rather than tarnish our reputation in the eyes of the international community.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, what is key is the existing legislation. Rather than looking for a new kind of photo op and public safety issue where there is none, let us look at the existing law and enforce it. We have heard in the past that the enforcement agencies do not have enough staffing. Therefore, let us put additional resources in place to target those who are engaged in human smuggling instead of victims.

I absolutely believe that those who are engaged in these illegal activities need to be brought to justice by way of our judicial system. It is a good system with appropriate laws in place. The maximum sentence for human smuggling is life imprisonment, the highest punishment conferred in Canada. In that context, let us concentrate on enforcement by targeting where smugglers live and how they operate. To detain refugees once they arrive in Canada is draconian.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I will certainly be examining those figures more closely. This legislation is not about how many refugees will come to this country. Rather, it is about how we will treat those who land on our soil. Once again I want to focus on who we are as Canadians and how we wish to treat those people who have suffered through war, persecution and very difficult environments. We can all use numbers to confuse, but as parliamentarians we have a responsibility to ask ourselves from a humanitarian point of view what the bill is attempting to address.

Smugglers do not live on the boats or planes that transport refugees here. They are probably living very comfortable lives. This bill would not reduce the amount of money they charge people for transportation. Rather, it would lead to further persecution of victims. Let us enforce the excellent legislation and laws presently in place to target smugglers. We do not need this law against smugglers.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, as Canadians we pride ourselves on fair, open and transparent processes. However, this legislation would establish a process whereby those who are designated would not have access to the appeal process. That is absolutely wrong. It goes against the very fabric of who we are as Canadians. It violates some international conventions on the rights of refugees. To detain refugees for a year as they await designation without access to an appeal process is disturbing and very un-Canadian. Is the first lesson we want to teach those who arrive here from volatile and dangerous conditions or war-torn countries that a world-respected country like Canada will not offer them an appeal process?

The fundamental problem with this legislation which purports to address human smuggling is that it does not address human smuggling. Human smuggling will continue. The only way to stop it is not by punishing the victims who have already suffered enough, but by providing funding and additional resources to enforcement agencies to allow enforcement officers to do their job.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to continue with the points I was making yesterday. Once again I want to express my concern that this piece of legislation is being presented under public safety when the bill actually deals with immigration and citizenship. This is a real issue. Since when have we as Canadians seen the arrival of immigrants in this country as a public safety issue? I urge the government to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration as it goes through its committee stage.

Yesterday I mentioned very briefly the impact this legislation would have on families. We as Canadians pride ourselves on being compassionate and caring. The world looks to Canada to be compassionate and caring. People across the world choose to make Canada their home. I am a first generation immigrant. I came from England. I chose Canada to be my home. One of the reasons I chose Canada is its inclusivity and acceptance of people from around the world.

This legislation is going in the wrong direction. The legislation sends the wrong message to refugees. There are people who have spent years in war-torn territories running for their lives, separated from their families, not knowing where they will get their next meal. Some people do not even know where they are going to sleep the next night, whether they will wake up in the morning, or how many of their loved ones they will lose.

The legislation tells refugees that when they arrive in Canada it will take up to a year to examine their designations. During that time they will be in isolation and given a special designation for which the criteria are not clear at all. A lot of power seems to be vested in the minister and there seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors in that we do not know the criteria. Once they have been designated they will not get to apply for permanent residence for five or six years.

This means the individuals who arrive here, who have already been torn from their families and have suffered enough, would not get travel documents. They would be able to work, but they would not have any rights. They would not have permanent residence. We would throw their lives into further turmoil and uncertainty for five or six years. They would not know if the families they left behind would ever be able to join them. They would not have the needed mental relief in knowing they have arrived in a safe haven. We must think about what that must feel like.

Imagine, for example, a young woman with two children who arrives here but her husband and two other kids are still back in Somalia. For six or seven years she cannot apply for permanent residence or for her family to join her. What are we saying to her? We are saying that we are going to provide her with this vacuum for five or six years, but she does not have any of the rights. She cannot apply for permanent residence. By the way, permanent residence does not take place the day someone applies for it. It takes time as well. Imagine the amount of time she will have to wait until the rest of her family can join her. It could take 10 to 15 years, depending on how we do the math.

Surely that is not the kind of image of Canada that we want to project to the world. We want the rest of the world to see us as compassionate and caring.

By creating two levels of refugees and denying appeals in that first year we are saying that we are prepared to break conventions governing the rights of refugees and the rights of children. That concerns me as a Canadian. I know Canadians right across this country will be concerned about that.

We pride ourselves on our family values. We pride ourselves on being a welcoming nation. I urge this House not to support this bill because we would be sending a message to the world that we are becoming a much colder, less caring nation when we see legislation such as this bill going through.

Let us see who is opposed to this legislation. There is the Canadian Council for Refugees. I talked to some of my constituents. When I phoned them they said, “This is ridiculous. It is not a problem.” If we are worrying about smugglers, we already have a life sentence for smugglers. In Canada that is the highest penalty that can be given.

This is actually more punishment for people who have already suffered atrocities and difficulties that most of us in this chamber cannot even imagine.

As a counsellor I had the privilege of working with children who arrived here as refugees after spending years in detention camps or in very unsafe and volatile living conditions. Dealing with those children is extremely challenging. Now we are leaving those same children in a vacuum for five, six or seven years, maybe even longer.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is opposed to this legislation, as is Amnesty International. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has taken a position, as have the Canadian Bar Association and the Centre for Refugee Studies. What keeps coming up over and over again is that this bill is a draconian piece of legislation.

I urge all members to look at what it is we are trying to address. If we are trying to address the smugglers, let us focus on enforcement, provide extra resources and go after the smugglers. Let us not punish people who have already been victimized.

Let us all put ourselves in the position of a refugee. Let us imagine how we would feel reaching a safe haven called Canada and then being faced with detention and uncertainty.

I ask members to please defeat this bill.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House, but I wish I did not have to speak on this issue.

I look back to what we did recently in Parliament. We passed a piece of legislation that addressed refugee issues in a very comprehensive way.

It really puzzles me that the bill before us came under public safety. Since when have we started to look at immigration and citizenship issues as issues of public safety? The legislation refers most of the time to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I believe that the wrong minister has presented this bill. It needs to be addressed under immigration.

My colleagues have made some wonderful points about the five years that a person would have to wait to get any papers before being able to travel. A person could wait up to a year to see what kind of designation he or she was going to get. That is a long time. After that it could be another five years. If the person does not report on the right date, it could actually be lengthened to six years. We would be looking at seven years before the person could apply for residency.

I want us to look at the human element. We all value our families and our safety and security. I want us to look at what we are proposing for families who are going to be moving here under refugee status from very difficult circumstances. We are saying that it will be not one, five or six years, but possibly seven years before they could apply for permanent residence. It means many years of having no travel documents and no status.

It also brings to my mind a young woman with whom I have been dealing. She is a refugee from Somalia. She moved to Canada about four and a half years ago. She brought three of her children with her. She left one of her children behind with her mother because the child was still a toddler, two years old. When she got to Canada she wanted to be able to work and she did not know who would look after the two year old. The mother is elderly and she has applied for the child to join her. The child is eight years old. She left that child behind at the age of two.

Under the new proposal, people cannot even apply for five, six or seven years, depending on their luck or the arbitrary decision of someone. Then when applying after that many years, they could wait another three, four, five, six, seven or eight years. That same two year old could be 14 or 15 years old.

Surely when the United Nations came up with a convention regarding people seeking asylum under the refugee status, it did not have in mind that families would be separated for that length of time. I want members to imagine the impact on that mother who lives in my community, even under our current rules. She comes to my office two or three times a week looking for some magic to speed things up.

I want us to always remember that when we sit in this very august House and pass legislation, it has a real impact on families and it will have an impact on those families and individuals moving to this country. What message are we sending around the world?

There was a time in my youth when I travelled around Europe and people used to want to wear the Canadian flag. Americans travelled wearing the Canadian flag. I asked them why they carried a Canadian flag when they were American. I had not moved to Canada at that time and I was interested. They said that it was because Canada was held in such high esteem. If we start taking these kinds of steps in which we create two levels of refugee status and we are seen as separating families for 5, 10, 12 years, very soon Canada's image internationally will be tarnished.

We see ourselves as and we are a compassionate and caring nation. We give a great deal of attention and forethought to humanitarian needs. I would say that the essence of this bill is not humanitarian. It has very little compassion built into it.

This morning I heard my colleague from across the aisle speak very eloquently to the need to punish smugglers. I absolutely agree but I believe we have legislation that exists now that gives the highest sentence possible that any Canadian court can give, which is a life sentence. We do not have punishment beyond a life sentence in Canada, which I am happy about. For me, that punishment already exists.

At this time, we should not punish people who are already victims, because that is what refugees are. They have already been victimized. They have had to leave their homes. They are running away. They have left their belongings behind and some have left their family members behind. They find asylum across the border and eventually hope to get into countries like Canada. When they come here, they make contributions and become wonderful members of society.

Let us not make further victims of those refugees now by making them go through all these unnecessary hoops, which are not going to deter the smugglers or agents who might be involved in wrongdoing. If we are worried about smugglers using the refugee status to bring people into this country illegally, then let Parliament and the government provide funding to the RCMP and other enforcement agencies. Let there be more oversight over the laws that we already have.

As I said previously, we already have a law in place that gives human smugglers the highest possible punishment. Now it is about enforcing that legislation and finding the smugglers. We will not find the smugglers sitting on a boat that is bringing refugees to Canada. I always say that, for all we know, they are wearing Armani suits and sitting in a New York or Toronto cafe drinking cappuccinos. If we are really after the people who are breaking our laws and abusing the refugee laws we have right now, let us dedicate resources and tackle that issue so that we are actually tackling the issue, instead of now, with this legislation, making things more difficult for a very victimized group already.

I have to be honest. I stayed up to go through some of this legislation and kept asking what the purpose of this was. What are we are hoping to achieve? We are a nation of immigrants. We have refugees who come here from all over the world and I would say that we have not had any more than a handful who have been anything but legitimate.

If that is the case, why are we doing this? Why are we instilling some kind of fear in everyday Canadians that there is a gargantuan problem out there and that this is the magic pill. This is not a magic formula to address those who break our laws. All this does is divide families for a longer period and humiliate, and I use that word deliberately, people who have suffered.

I have had the privilege of working with refugee families as a volunteer in the evenings and on weekends while I was a teacher , and I have had the privilege of teaching young people who have come from refugee camps. I remember a young man I reached out to and what his reaction was. He came from a very violent background and what he needed was security and assistance. Those are the kinds of families that may be in limbo for up to 12 months and then, if they are designated into this category, it could be another five or six years.

Let us, as Canadians, remember our humanity and our compassion.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

First of all, it would be very easy to stop all of this today. It could stop in the next 30 seconds. Open the doors.

Secondly, I will say this to my colleague over on the far side: immigrants understand. They know they are being inconvenienced, but I can tell you they will understand once we explain to them. These new Canadians will understand that this is about fighting for rights. They understand that.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, here we are in the second day of our debate. What comes to my mind today is this is not about this particular dispute. It is not about postal workers being locked out. It is not about union bosses not giving union members the vote. Those are all red herrings. This dispute and the legislation are about the kind of Canada we want.

We must look at this debate in that context. Each and every one of us in this room, as well as those who are sleeping or sitting in the lobbies, should take the time to reflect on that. It is not just the kind of Canada we want for ourselves, as my colleague mentioned, but it is the kind of Canada we want for our children, grandchildren, neighbours and people right across the country.

It is about a living wage. I am not talking about a minimum wage. I am talking about a living wage, the amount of money it takes to support a family, to enable a family to pay the rent, to buy food, to pay for transportation and clothing, and to have a bit of money left over so the family can take the occasional vacation. I am not talking about going to Hawaii or Timbuktu; most families would be grateful just to go camping.

Those are the kinds of issues we are dealing with. When we look at the challenges being faced by the post office workers, that is the attack the government is making on their right to a living wage.

I have heard hon. members say that some of their constituents make $12 an hour and are very happy with that. Someone who had been unemployed and was able to get a job for $12 an hour would be very happy with that, but would that be enough to pay the rent, to pay for food, clothing and basic needs? I would answer no because I know many people who make that kind of money and they have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.

It is very easy for all us who sit in these hallowed halls. We make a decent income, I would say a more than comfortable income. It is very easy for us to say that $18 an hour is extravagant. We have to ask ourselves, would we be willing to take $18 an hour?

Canada Post is telling new workers that they can work for Canada Post but it is going to pay them even less than it used to pay. That does not make any economic sense and I will explain why. Workers who are happy, who are not depressed, who are not feeling persecuted or hard done by by the government or their employer, are far more productive.

What signal are we sending to our youth, to new workers? We are telling them that they are not worth as much, that they can work for much longer, that they are younger and they can do it.

I ask my colleagues across the aisle, are there special grocery stores for the young? Young people have to pay the bills and have to support theirs families just like the rest of us. We cannot, in our society, buy into differentiated salaries for the same work.

I absolutely believe in employment equity. Past governments, some that did not have a majority at the time but were supported by others, did away with the employment equity program. We saw the impact that had on the civil service, and we saw the greater impact it had on women.

When I look at what is coming for the postal workers, it is not only a differentiated salary, but now the government is exercising its majority and is being punitive. It is being a bully in trying to impose an agreement. It is setting the salary. It is imposing a salary on workers instead of giving them the freedom to negotiate. That is just wrong.

I also want to talk about benefits. What attracted me to Canada back in 1975 when I chose to make Canada my home was Canada's wonderful health care system. When I was hired as a teacher, I was really pleased with the benefits I had, just as I am sure the postal workers were very happy when they fought for and earned those benefits.

Now, the postal workers are being told that their sick leave benefits are going to be changed and are going to be taken away. That is just wrong. I cannot see how a corporation that is making a huge profit can take away more from the very people who helped it make that profit. Those two things do not coincide. Good corporations know that when they do well the first thing they should do is reward their employees.

A state corporation is under the control of the Conservative majority. Its employees are being told that while the corporation has this huge profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars, their wages are going to be lowered. They are not going to get as much as Canada Post wanted to give them. Also, their benefits, and for good luck, their pensions are going to be worse.

What kind of government does that? The kind of government that hid its real agenda from Canadians when it said it was going to be a kinder and gentler government that would not attack pensions, that would not attack working people. I heard those speeches over and over again, and like any bully, once it got a majority, the cloak came off. Here we are, hardly a couple of months into this new Parliament and the cloak has come off.

What is this really about? This is about the corporate agenda to privatize public services and public corporations, absolutely. Why else would a government make it impossible for workers to go back to work? The doors are locked and the government is not opening them.

There is no way the Prime Minister could persuade me, or any Canadian, that the government did not lock the doors. The government is responsible for close to 50,000 people not making a living right now. They are outside because they are locked out. Those people do not have health care benefits. There have been strikes even in the public sector that have gone on for months, but the employer did not cut off benefits.

In an email one of my constituents told me that when she went to get her drug prescription, she was told that she had to pay $111, because she did not have that benefit anymore—

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for her very passionate and well-thought-out presentation.

I have a question for my colleague, and it specifically relates to the legislation. The legislation the government has introduced would actually give postal workers a lower salary increase than was offered by Canada Post. I would like my colleague to comment on that and on what kind of impact that has on free collective bargaining.

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am getting tired of hearing about special interests whenever it refers to working people across this country.

This debate today is not about just unionized workers. This debate is about all workers. If we want to talk about special interests, we could talk about a government that instead of telling Canada Post to open the doors so workers can deliver the mail, it introduces legislation which introduces a lower salary than that offered by Canada Post. So talk about special interests. Members across the aisle have a special interest, and that special interest is attacking working people.

I would like to ask my colleague to make a comment.