House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parliamentarians.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member especially for her ministry's commitment around concurrent implementation of the 1,200 outstanding recommendations around murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. We do not have to wait for the end of the inquiry in order to act, so I am grateful for your commitment.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I really do need to know the answer to my question. Do you think that the two new—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
This is just a reminder again to address not “you” but the Speaker.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to know whether the ministry for the Status of Women believes that two new shelters for every province for domestic violence is adequate. Does it think that five new shelters on reserve across Canada over the next three years is adequate to meet demand, Is the ministry committed to providing the operational funding that these organizations need to service victims of domestic violence and prevent violence against women?
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Status of Women has begun working on the development of a comprehensive federal strategy against gender-based violence, and we have been travelling across the country to meet with front-line workers, survivors, academics, those people who have committed themselves to this cause.
It is essential that we consult with Canadians so that the strategy takes into account the experiences, needs, and problems of those who are most directly affected by gender-based violence. There is a wide range of federal initiatives to help victims of gender-based violence.
Our strategy will strengthen those initiatives and introduce new support measures. It will also change the approach for coordinating and tracking federal funding in this area.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, supposedly we have a feminist Prime Minister and a government that thinks work-life balance is a priority. However, people in Laurier—Sainte-Marie and all across Canada do not see it that way. What they see is a government that does not even follow its own policies.
A large number of federal public servants work in the Guy-Favreau complex in Montreal. A child care centre was set up there 30 years ago. Even back then, it was clear that it is essential to offer that sort of service in the workplace.
As one would expect, this child care centre has been receiving a rent subsidy for years. That is not only as expected, it is in keeping with the policy on day care centres in Government of Canada workplaces. That is the official policy.
It comes as no surprise that the Conservatives gutted that policy by refusing to subsidize day cares and early childhood centres, and some day cares have had to close as a result.
Now that the Liberals are in power, they are staying the Conservative course. The day care centre at the Guy-Favreau complex is in jeopardy because the government wants to take away its subsidy, which would increase its costs dramatically. There are 70 children in the day care, 95% of whom are children of federal employees, as well as about 20 employees.
According to day care director Simon Piotte:
...the centre will no longer be able to afford rent downtown without the subsidy. Proximity to the workplace is vital to ensuring work-life balance for hundreds of federal employees in the coming years...
I asked questions about this in the House, and I wrote to the minister, but nothing is happening. I will soon be presenting a petition signed by more than 700 people. This is unbelievable. The government has no problem carrying on with Conservative policies.
I completely agree with Marie-Elizabeth Desourdy, chair of the board of directors and the parent of a child who attends the day care, who said:
...I cannot fathom why parents have to fight to get a government that calls itself egalitarian to honour one of its own work-life balance policies and keep their early childhood centre open...
The government's inaction on this matter is rather discouraging. Not only has it failed to create any child care or day care spaces, but spaces are actually being cut. Is that what progress means? Is that what 2016 means? No, it is appalling.
Leona Alleslev LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement
Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this evening's debate.
Our government was elected on the promise of helping to boost the middle class and those working hard to join it, and on the issue of day care centres in federal government workplaces, we have done just that.
Our government recognizes that Canadian families need support and that all Canadian children are entitled to an equal opportunity to succeed. Within the federal public service, the Treasury Board policy on workplace day care centres aims to assist employees who are parents and who need day care in order to pursue careers in the public service.
The policy states that the decision to subsidize day care centres resides with government departments who have employees within the same building. When departments no longer wish to subsidize a day care centre, day care operators are informed of the change and are required to pay market value if they wish to keep operating in the same location.
Public Services and Procurement Canada's role is to support the department in acquiring and setting up facilities intended to be used for child care, as well as reaching licensing agreements with the day care operators.
If called to intervene, Public Services and Procurement Canada works with the day care operators to come up with ways to facilitate the transition towards paying rent at market prices. This could include extending rent subsidies while the day care centre works with parents and develops a new business model that takes the cost of rent into account.
In the case of Garderie Tunney's Daycare, its rent subsidy ended in 2014. The day care then entered into a five-year commercial lease agreement with Public Services and Procurement Canada. For the first 18 months of the lease, Public Services and Procurement Canada significantly reduced the rent compared to fair market rates. This transition period was meant to allow the day care to develop a viable business model, taking into account rental costs.
When the day care advised Public Services and Procurement Canada that it would have difficulty meeting its rent obligations, even after the 18 month transition period that ended on April 1, PSPC worked with the day care and the departments located at Tunney's Pasture to find a solution. Public Services and Procurement Canada helped facilitate a solution to allow Garderie Tunney's Daycare to continue to operate out of Tunney's Pasture for years to come.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite says that the Liberals know that families need support and that is what the Liberals are giving them.
I would like her to come take a tour of Montreal and meet the officials who work at the Guy-Favreau complex because the truth of the matter, as illustrated by the response that I got, is that the government is washing its hands of this.
People are being told to pay market prices for child care and day care centres. Does the hon. member have any idea what market prices are like in downtown Montreal? The Liberals are washing their hands of this and telling people to figure it out on their own.
Speaking of market prices, some day cares have already shut their doors, rental spaces sitting empty. What did the government gain from this? Everyone is losing out. This is not progress. We are not progressing, we are regressing.
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Madam Speaker, in the case of the day care at the Guy-Favreau Complex, Public Services and Procurement Canada continues to work with the departments located at Guy-Favreau to find a suitable solution for all parties, as we did with Garderie Tunney's Daycare.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise today to further debate the issues related to our immigration policies. At different junctures, different administrations have adopted different approaches and values to Canada's immigration policies. Irrespective of the actions of different administrations, Canada is a democratic country based on some very fundamental principles. Canadians value our constitutional rights.
Under the Harper Conservatives, in June 2015, Bill C-24, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act passed and became law. The law created two classes of citizens, those who could have their citizenship revoked and those who could not. Under Bill C-24, some Canadians are more Canadian than others, because some Canadians are afforded more rights than others simply because of where they were born.
On June 9, 2014, the Minister of Immigration while in opposition stated:
We object in principle to the arbitrary removal of citizenship from individuals for reasons that are highly questionable and to the very limited opportunity for the individual to appeal to the courts against that removal of citizenship.
When the Liberal government was elected the Prime Minister stated very clearly that there would be real change. Real change should have meant that the government kept its promise to repeal Bill C-24. That did not happen. Real change should have meant that at minimum Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, introduced by the minister on February 25, 2016, fixed the major problems under Bill C-24, especially the sections that violated our constitutional rights. That did not happen either.
There is a gaping hole in Bill C-6. It failed to fix the lack of procedural fairness and safeguards for individuals facing citizenship revocation due to misrepresentation or fraud, whether or not the misrepresentation was the result of an honest mistake. Even if a child's parent presented misinformation on the application for whatever reason, the child's citizenship could still be revoked and the case could not be argued based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Simply put, they have no right to a hearing. This is because the Harper government, under Bill C-24, eliminated the right for an independent and impartial hearing. It also eliminated consideration of equitable factors, or compassionate and humanitarian factors, that could prevent a legal but unjust outcome.
At committee, I tabled substantive amendments to ensure that individuals who face citizenship revocation have the right to a fair and independent hearing and an appeal process. These had broad support, included from the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Legal Aid Ontario, and many others. As long as the rules established under Bill C-24 remain, the Prime Minister's declaration that a Canadian is a Canadian remains elusive. The unfortunate reality is that individuals currently in the citizenship system facing revocation due to misrepresentation still lack the fundamental right to judicial process. It is not a joke that people fighting a jaywalking ticket have more rights than those at risk of losing their citizenship.
Even though the Minister of Immigration acknowledges this is wrong, the Liberal government is aggressively pursuing citizenship revocation of up to 60 Canadians each month under the unfair and unconstitutional process established by Bill C-24. This needs to change.
Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings
Parkdale—High Park Ontario
Liberal
Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration
Madam Speaker, the question on the Order Paper of the member for Vancouver East actually dealt with a substantially different issue, so I will address both in my comments.
The question on the Order Paper related to a matter that relates to funding for language instruction classes for newcomers and settlement services. She received a response from the minister at the time, which I can reiterate and add to. The government takes very seriously the issue of the settlement of all newcomers, particularly in the case of Syrian refugees. On top of the $600 million in funding that was provided in 2016-17 to settlement agencies, an additional pocket of $37 million has been dedicated just for Syrian refugees and their resettlement. We take very seriously the issue of people not only being housed but also being linguistically trained so that they can access the workforce.
In respect of the comments of the member for Vancouver East regarding Bill C-24, I obviously have a very different description of what has transpired with respect to our tabling of legislation, Bill C-6, the significance of that tabling, what it has done, and what it will continue to do for Canadians.
The member made extensive submissions at committee with respect to one particular issue, and I will get to that issue in a moment, but by tabling Bill C-6, we have shortened the time frame for which people are eligible for citizenship. It has been reduced from four years to three years. We have rendered citizenship more accessible by restricting the citizenship testing requirements only to persons aged 18 to 55. It used to be required for anyone as young as 14 and anyone as old as 65. We have also given credit to individuals, such that time spent here prior to becoming a permanent resident can be attributed to one's citizenship eligibility on a factor of 50%, such as temporary foreign workers and international students.
Most importantly, we have also emphasized something that affects me and many members of the House, which I spoke about already in respect of Bill C-6, and that is that we have eliminated the part of the legislation brought in by the previous government which implemented a system whereby one's citizenship could be revoked based on grounds of national security, only for those people who were not born in this country. That is the point about making sure a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I am very proud of that legislation, and the minister and the department stand behind it.
With respect to issues about revocation of citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation, it is an important point highlighted by the member for Vancouver East. The issue of revoking citizenship for fraud has existed since 1947, since the Citizenship Act was created. Revoking for fraud maintains an important aspect of what we must do as a government. We revoke for fraud in certain instances, for example, if somebody hides the fact that they participated as a war criminal in some foreign conflict. If that is not presented to officials and is later discovered, we will intervene and revoke that citizenship. It is something Canadians expect us to do and something that this government will continue to do.
The important point raised by the member for Vancouver East, however, is the procedural protections and due process that are or are not available in such revocation contexts. I was at those committee meetings with the member opposite and we heard the submissions. They were important submissions and those changes are not taking place in this form of the bill at this juncture because of the structural and regulatory changes that would be required in terms of the overall apparatus and machinery of government.
Does that mean that they are off the table? It certainly does not. The minister answered a question on this just today in question period in respect of the possibility of looking at such changes going forward.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, the issue is about revocation of citizenship without providing due process.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers have been fighting the blatant violation of the constitutional rights of Canadians since the Harper Conservatives brought in Bill C-24. It has been almost a year since the Liberals were elected and they have failed to deliver in making the changes. There is no question that immediate action is needed, and what is more, it is possible. It is not too late to act.
As reported on CBC:
If [the Minister of Democratic Reform]'s birthplace was misrepresented on her citizenship application as well, that would be grounds for revocation of citizenship, regardless of whether it was an innocent mistake or the fault of her mother, said immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman.
And if the misrepresentation was on her permanent residence and refugee applications, she could even be deported....
This has to change for everyone and I would urge the government to take action now.
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver East for raising the point about the litigation. However, I believe she would be aware and members of the House should be informed that the litigation was actually placed on hold pending our government's commitment to reform Bill C-24 by Bill C-6, and we have done exactly that. In its most glaring constitutional violation, Bill C-24 jeopardized people's citizenship based on their places of origin in terms of the ability to revoke, based on national security grounds, the citizenship only of people who were not born here. That change has been made and the litigation has been put into abeyance.
The submissions made by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and other members who attended at committee have been heard. We have received those documents, we are reviewing them, and we look forward to enabling better and more constructive due process provisions going forward in respect of citizenship revocation when it arises in the case of misrepresentation.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
¾The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:09 p.m.)