Debates of May 11th, 2016

Foreign Affairs

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to build on the work that the previous government did in support of Ukraine. There is no question about that.

We are following the developments in the case of Ms. Savchenko closely and have seized every opportunity to call upon Russia to release Ms. Savchenko and return her to Ukraine. Members have seen that demonstrated by our further sanctions.

It is interesting that we are being asked to talk to Russia. That aligns with our foreign policy view of engagement which we feel we are in a stronger position on than the previous government.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am calling on the Liberal government t repeal the cessation provisions of Bill C-31, Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.

Bill C-31 came into force on December 15, 2012, and it is retroactive. Cessation applications are being brought against permanent residents because it is alleged that refugees have re-availed themselves of protection by temporarily travelling back to their country of origin. No matter that the conditions of the country of origin have changed, no matter that they are going back to see a dying relative for one last time, no matter that the law did not exist at the time of travel, people are at risk of losing their permanent resident status.

This law effectively created a two-tier system for permanent residents: those who could travel back to their countries of origin without repercussions and those who could not. This is to say that refugees who gained their permanent resident status legitimately could lose their PR status for returning to their country of origin for a visit. No other permanent residents face this risk. These permanent residents are fully integrated and settled into Canadian society, gainfully employed, have Canadian-born children, and are contributing to Canada. To be clear, cessation cases do not involve fraud or misrepresentation.

Let me share with members the story of the Esfand family. Mrs. Bahareh Esfand and her first daughter were classified as refugees under the principle of family unity. They originally came to Canada under the government's sponsor refugee resettlement program because her husband was found to be at risk in Iran. Since their arrival in Canada, Mrs. Esfand gave birth to her second daughter in Canada. The Esfand family is now a well-established, self-supporting family of four, who have called Canada home for the last 10 years.

When Mrs. Esfand applied for her citizenship, it triggered the cessation process, and the government is trying to revoke her status here. It is alleged that because she returned to Iran to see her family, she should cease to be a refugee, lose her permanent resident status, and be ineligible for citizenship.

Even though Mrs. Esfand's husband and her two children are Canadian citizens, CIC has frozen her 2011 citizenship application and is trying to revoke all her status in Canada. If it is successful, she will be removed from Canada, away from her children and husband, and deemed as a foreign national with no status in Canada. She has been fighting against this and is now defending the third court case filed against her by CIC. She has also been forced to file her own case to lift the freeze on her citizenship application.

Surely, any reasonable person can see the absurdity of this. By the way, Mrs. Esfand was not a refugee at risk in the first place, only her husband was, and she came under family unity.

Her case is just one among many. Through FOI, an internal document show that an annual target of a minimum of 875 vacation or cessation cases has been set for CBSA to execute. As a result, refugees are being investigated, their PR status ceased, and cases are ending up in court. This even applies to those who come from countries where there is a moratorium on removals and those who are still at risk if returned. This just makes no sense.

As we know, in real life, people travel to visit a sick or dying family member or for other legitimate reasons. To top it all off, the investigations for some of these families are triggered when they apply for citizenship. Now we are hearing reports that people are afraid to apply for citizenship. How much of taxpayer money is being wasted on cessation cases? How many officials are working on cessation cases instead of processing the backlogs of family reunification cases? How many cases has the government targeted? How many people have been deported? These are the questions that people are asking.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for raising this important issue in the House and for her continued advocacy on the part of immigration issues as the opposition critic.

This is an important debate on cessation issues in the former Bill C-31 enacted by the previous government, and the impact it has on permanent residents.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has asked a very important question, and has raised this previously with our government. In fact, the government is in absolute agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver East on the need to review this very important piece of legislation and its impact since it was enacted under the former Bill C-31.

We have, in this country, a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those in need. We have one of the fairest and most generous immigration and asylum systems in the world. Our immigration laws are applied impartially, they are based on facts, and they are meant to accord with due process.

The authority of the independent and quasi-judicial IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, to determine whether an individual's refugee protection has ceased is not itself a new provision. It actually predates the 2012 asylum system reforms. As well, it is important to specify that the authority to revoke permanent resident status, including the permanent resident status of a refugee, also existed before Bill C-31.

However, what is very troubling about Bill C-31 is that under the 2012 reforms enacted by the previous government, cessation of protected person status was added as grounds for losing one's permanent resident status. That effectively meant it was double-barrelled. That meant that both protected person status and permanent resident status now end simultaneously once a refugee in Canada has demonstrated that they are no longer in need of protection.

The minister, himself, has said in the House that he agrees that the legislation, which has been identified by the member for Vancouver East, is part of a long legacy of matters inherited from the previous government that our government desperately wants to review, and will review.

As members know, we are not at liberty to discuss particulars of a specific case due to privacy considerations, but the minister has expressed public sympathy with the point the hon. member is raising. I can assure the House that the government is reviewing policies and legislation introduced in recent years with a view to developing proposals to improve them.

In a relatively short time, and I will demonstrate to the House a number of measures we have taken in short order to address the legislative initiatives of the previous government that were very problematic.

For example, in terms of the government's respect for the rulings of the Federal Court, the Federal Court had found in December 2011 that the policy requiring the removal of face coverings to take the oath of citizenship was unlawful. We agree with that decision; the previous government did not. We dropped the appeal of that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the case of Ishaq v. Canada.

Another example of us being more than willing retract and retrench on legislation by the previous government is rescinding the legislation that came in under Bill C-24. We have introduced amendments to the Citizenship Act that members of the House will be familiar with. Bill C-6 makes it easier for applicants to meet citizenship requirements and helps encourage their sense of belonging and connection to Canada. It also eliminates the two classes of citizenship that were perpetuated by the previous government, which we stood fundamentally against and campaigned against.

Another example of our government's review of existing procedures that help to promote greater openness and better processing is our response regarding Haitian and Zimbabwean nationals. On February 4 of this year, the Government of Canada announced that Haitian and Zimbabwean nationals in this country would be provided another six months to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have to resume. The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are laws that are fair and just, and there are laws that are not.

The cessation provisions contained in Bill C-31 is an example of an unjust and absurd law. This law discriminates against refugees by effectively setting up a two-tier system for permanent residents. The way the Conservatives decided to target refugees in this unreasonable and punitive manner is simply un-Canadian.

Canadians welcome refugees to our country. The time has come for Canada to start a new chapter on the world stage. It is time to repeal the cessation provisions of C-31. This was a law that the former Conservatives brought in. The NDP voted against Bill C-31, and so did the Liberals.

I have a private member's bill to repeal the cessation provisions, drafted and all ready to go. Nothing would make me happier than to have the government take my bill and turn it into a government bill.

I urge the government to take immediate action on this urgent situation.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government is very committed to addressing this issue. We are looking at that as part of an overall assessment of the immigration and refugee system in terms of amendments that need to be made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, speeding up processing time, producing more fairness within the system itself.

Cessation is a problem. Bill C-31 is a problem. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the member for Vancouver East. I look forward to seeing the content of her private member's bill.

International Trade

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know, especially in my community of London, Ontario, that we have experienced devastating losses as a result of globalization, corporate greed, and simple lack of will on the part of Liberal and Conservative governments to protect our manufacturing sector.

When factories move offshore with not so much as a “sorry to see you go” from government, the residual effects on our communities are devastating. Governments have the capacity to resist or at least mitigate these effects by making progressive choices, and by exercising sovereignty over our natural and human resources.

Without scrutiny, trade agreements such as the TPP have the potential to bargain away programs, services, products and even the values that we as Canadians hold. Our experience with NAFTA should be a lesson to all of us. According the CCPA, the impact of NAFTA has been devastating. It says:

The agreement has destroyed more jobs than it has created, depressed wages, [increased] poverty and inequality, eroded social programs, undermined democracy, [weakened] governments, and greatly increased the rights and power of corporations, investors, and property holders.

The study goes on to conclude that the promises of free trade to increase productivity, investment, employment and prosperity were either greatly exaggerated or remain unrealized.

Corporate Canada argued that social programs would need to be cut for Canada to remain competitive under NAFTA, the most stark example of which is what has happened to our employment insurance plan.

There is evidence that companies have attempted to use the threat of investor-state charges under NAFTA's chapter 11 clause to discourage governments from considering legislation in the best public interest. It is shameful. Lobbyists have more power than citizens with their own government.

Since signing NAFTA, Canada's ability to navigate international trade disputes has diminished. Remember softwood lumber? Although agricultural exports have almost tripled, net farm income has fallen by 24%. Social inequality has increased in Canada, not decreased, and while there are other contributing factors, NAFTA has contributed to this unacceptable reality.

In the last election campaign, the Liberals promised full scrutiny before signing the trans-Pacific partnership. They have done a complete about-face on that promise; imagine promising full scrutiny after the agreement was signed. It sounds like a case of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

I am aware that the Standing Committee on International Trade has launched a public consultation process on the TPP, but my question is this. How effective is the voice of Canadians who bring their concerns about this deal to committee when the deal is already signed, sealed and delivered? This consultation amounts to nothing more than lip service

The New Democrats and progressive Canadians are concerned that the TPP will have negative impacts on the auto industry, the dairy industry, on supply management, on our ability to provide affordable pharmacare, and on intellectual property rights.

Mayors of 20 Ontario communities oppose the deal. It is outrageous that this government did not analyze the impacts of the TPP before signing on the dotted line, especially when we know the deal could have serious consequences for Canadians: tens of thousands of jobs lost, higher drug costs, stifled innovation, and rising inequality.

Where is the scrutiny? Where is the transparent and open review of the TPP that the government promised?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, as the Minister of International Trade and I have said before, because of the way in which the agreement was negotiated, in secret, and the way in which it was thrown upon us during the election campaign, we signed the agreement precisely to give us the time to study the agreement, and we are doing precisely that.

As the Minister of International Trade has said before, the government is currently assessing impacts and conducting an economic study of the TPP. More important, the minister took the engagement to make all assessments and studies public once completed. The government is also reviewing economic analyses of think tanks, academics, and other organizations to help inform the government's view of the TPP. Yes, we have signed it, but ratification is the final stage and we have not made a final decision to ratify.

As the hon. member knows, the TPP was negotiated in secret by the previous government. Our government is therefore focused on consulting with Canadians, a key commitment of the government, and we will analyze the full potential impacts of the TPP. In this context, comments regarding ISDS and IP and other critiques that have been raised are being given serious consideration.

Since November, the Government of Canada has held over 250 consultations in different formats, such as round tables and town halls, with over 400 different domestic stakeholders. This has included all provinces and territories, businesses and industry associations, civil society, think tanks, academics, and labour unions. In parallel, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade is currently studying the TPP and holding its own consultations with Canadians across the country. Those who have views to share are also encouraged to submit written comments to the committee for their consideration.

In our consultations, we have heard varying views of the TPP from different sectors. This is precisely the point of consulting Canadians. For instance, over the past nine months, the government has heard from a range of stakeholders with interests in different areas of intellectual property who have expressed views on the TPP intellectual property outcomes. As a knowledge-based economy, Canadians employ innovative ideas and creative thinking that become the products, technologies, and services that change the way we live. Intellectual property framework is an important element of any knowledge-based economy, and Canada's long-standing approach with respect to intellectual property has been to strike a balance between creators and users.

When it comes to the TPP, the government has also heard views about the potential impact on health care costs in connection with patents for pharmaceutical products. The Minister of International Trade will continue with consultations in line with her mandate letter and work with her colleagues on that question. The Government of Canada is committed to follow through on these commitments.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, with this government it is a matter of taking contracts, signing them, and then reading them. Smoke and mirrors disguised as sunny ways will not change the fact that the TPP would not serve Canadians. It is not in the best interests of anyone but the richest and the most powerful. I believe we are capable of better. I believe that we all thrive in an equitable society where everyone has equal access to nutritious food, a safe home, education, decent work and a fair wage, clean air, fresh water, health care, child care, pharmacare, and a secure retirement.

New Democrats believe it is possible to create a Canada whose economy is sustainable, just, and fair, while remaining competitive on the world stage. Our trade agreements should reflect those values. In the inspirational words of Arundhati Roy, “Another world is not only possible...”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member because that is a great book.

As a trading nation, Canada's economic growth is directly linked to international trade. This government supports free trade as a way to open markets to Canadian goods and services, grow Canadian businesses, and create well-paying middle-class jobs, the kind of jobs that exist or should exist in London—Fanshawe.

The government has committed to bring forward the TPP to a debate and a discussion here in this House to hear from all members of Parliament representing the people of Canada. The fact is we have committed to open consultations. It is a promise we made during the election campaign and one that we are seeing through.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:02 p.m.)