House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 21% of the vote.
Business of Supply October 4th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech.
He spoke at length about the Mental Health Commission and want it is meant to do. The problem with suicide is related to mental health, but it is not always a mental health issue.
I would like my colleague to talk about how the government would be involved, in other words, the concrete measures the government intends to introduce to support a national suicide prevention strategy.
Business of Supply October 4th, 2011
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech because she expanded on the issue by also mentioning seniors and the homeless. I think she as the first to mention these groups. It is important to recognize that this is an overall problem. Yes, some groups suffer more than others, but it affects everyone, and that is important to note. I want to thank her for bringing it up.
Many people are affected by this. We often talk about mental health but sometimes it is just a moment of weakness in a person's life story. And it leads some to commit the irreparable.
Can my colleague tell me how she sees the federal government's involvement in this partnership—because I have difficulty talking about leadership—with the provinces and stakeholders to help tackle the problem?
Business of Supply September 29th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.
I am pleased that he recognizes the importance of investing in infrastructure but I would like him to stay with me a bit longer if he would.
One of the areas in which Canada is very weak is in investing in research and development and, finally, in innovation, the biggest driver of economic growth. We are currently investing little or nothing in these areas, despite the huge amount of cash that is currently flowing in these markets.
What does the hon. member think about our weakness in the area of innovation?
Business of Supply September 29th, 2011
Madam Speaker, I must come back to the issue of tax cuts for large corporations. I wonder if my colleague across the floor could comment on the fact that the liquid assets of large corporations seem to be increasing, yet investments are stagnating. Does this not illustrate just how ineffective tax cuts to large corporations are?
Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act September 20th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He made several references to our international obligations with respect to this problem. I would like my colleague to speak more about the measures that the House could adopt to deal with the problem of trafficking while meeting our international commitments.
Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act September 20th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for her touching, first-hand account of how some refugees who come here by boat can make very positive contributions to this country.
I would like to ask the hon. member the following question. In her speech, she made a distinction between traffickers, smugglers and those who help refugees. Perhaps she could tell us more about this distinction so that we can fully grasp what happens to those people.
Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act September 20th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
I do not believe that the legislation we have before us will allow us to take action against traffickers. All that is happening, and we have heard it from the other side of the House, is that we are moving the problem to another country. I think that we should be using international agreements to resolve this type of issue, but that is not what the government is currently doing.
Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act September 20th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, as it gets to the very heart of my speech—the resources given to the public administration to enforce the law. There is a supposed problem and instead of allocating resources to fix it, they are creating a new law. Why? Maybe because it makes for a good press conference or photo shoot. It is not as sexy to provide departments with the resources needed to implement measures. At this point in time, I think we need to start by providing the means to enforce existing laws.
Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act September 20th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, what I said during my speech is very simple. I said that we currently have an Immigration Act that I believe does the job and does not require amendments, such as the ones proposed in this bill. Simply put, we should enforce the existing legislation and give departmental officials the means and the resources to do so. We do not need to go further than that.
Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act September 20th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill that amends other legislation. At this point, one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is: do we really need this new legislation, and how does it improve things as compared to the existing law? We have to start by looking at the problem from that standpoint.
If we believe the title of the bill, its purpose is to prevent human smugglers from abusing the immigration system. However, when we look at the clauses of the bill and peel back its layers, we realize that there are a lot more clauses dealing with a new designation, a new category, referred to as “designated foreign national”, which comes with conditions and penalties that may be very harsh for the people concerned, than there are clauses dealing with human smugglers. So we may wonder what the real objective of the bill is.
I wonder about something else when it comes to how the bill is presented. It gives an impression—and impressions given to the public are important—of a presumption of guilt when people arrive by boat. It is as if all these people are presumed at the outset to be guilty, or presumed to have engaged in some criminal activity or other. Honestly, I am uncomfortable with this impression of matters.
Something else that bothers me a bit is that the minister is given a power that might be described as arbitrary, the power to decide whether a person is a designated foreign national. On what basis will that be done? What guarantee do we have of the integrity of the process, and that it is not just a matter of whim? There does have to be something to base this kind of decision on. If we examine the consequences that flow from this designation, it is a very important decision. We have to have assurances that a minister will be relying on very reasonable grounds to be in a position to apply this. We do not see this kind of guarantee in the bill. Similarly, the minister has no accountability for his decisions. The whole purpose of this House is precisely to hold the government accountable. I see nothing in this bill where the minister can be held accountable for this kind of decision, which has major consequences for people. It is important to remember this. We are not talking about inanimate objects; we are talking about human beings.
I am also concerned about the consequences of designation. Many other people will be speaking more eloquently than I about suspended rights, potential detention, the fact that children are going to be detained in some cases, temporary exclusions and all sorts of things. What strikes me is that people are being labelled, as if they were being indelibly tattooed. For years afterwards, their lives will be affected by decisions like this. I have a problem with this. I think we already have everything we need right now to deal with these cases.
Another thing that worries me a lot is retroactive designation. I do not understand the purpose of retroactive designation. Where are we going with this? Why have retroactive designation? I have not heard anyone on the government side explain the reason for this retroactive designation. Are they simply wanting another kick at the can for a bill that failed earlier, a few years ago?
I hope not. That being said, that is something that has no place here.
Are all these refugees fundamentally dishonest? Think about that for a minute. Do all these people want to slip through the cracks in the system and cut to the front of the line? I am not so sure about that.
People here in Canada have a hard time keeping their own laws straight, so just imagine what people from the other side of the world know about our immigration laws. They can be taken for a ride. I agree that we have to look at trafficking and address the traffickers, but I have a hard time with the trafficking victims being attacked. It is rather ironic to see that the victims are not being protected in this bill.
When it comes to victim protection, I would like to see something in the legislation that gives the authorities—our officials, our police, the coast guard—the means to enforce the law. It seems like there are fewer and fewer means to enforce the law and more and more constraints on the authorities who have deal with a larger volume of cases.
As far as I can tell in my riding, from talking to my constituents, processing times are increasing. So if other procedures are added again and resources are not provided to process those files, all we are going to accomplish is that more people will stay in detention, not necessarily because they deserve it, but because we do not have the means to process the files. But the government is not tackling that issue.
I have talked about a lot of things so far, but not much about smugglers. Why? Well, there is little about them in the bill. Basically, there are only two things: the scope of the definition of a smuggler is slightly broader so as to include those who incite people to use smugglers or traffickers; and there are additional penalties for aggravating circumstances. How many smugglers are going to be intercepted with this bill? How many traffickers are going to be stopped under this bill? I have a feeling that the number is close to zero because the real problem is not being addressed.
I feel that the issue has been blown out of proportion; an immigration issue that has to do with lack of resources when people arrive in large numbers has become a public safety issue, although it is not one at all. We must avoid anything arbitrary or decisions that appear arbitrary. It is important for the reputation of our country that our minister does not give the impression of making arbitrary decisions. It is important for our parliamentary system.
We have an immigration act. Why not give the department the means to enforce it properly, even when there are extra costs on occasion?
To conclude, the bill should definitely be split in order to tackle the issue of smugglers on its own. I believe that the government would then have the support of this side of the House.