Kevin Lamoureux

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of her speech, the member said that she would like to leave it on a positive note and she talked about the reunification of a couple. I would like her to comment on one aspect of Bill C-31. The Minister of Immigration is putting into place a situation where refugees, after a year of detention, will need to wait an additional four or five years before being eligible to sponsor a spouse left in a country that they left because of fear for their life. Under this bill, they will wait years before being reunited with their family.

I would ask the member if she could provide comment on that aspect of the bill that would prevent people from being reunited in a more timely fashion.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share something with the member. Maybe he has had the opportunity to read the press release that was issued by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers in its response to Bill C-31.

In the second point, it states that “the draconian measures of C-4 are rolled into this new bill“, obviously referring to Bill C-31 and that “C-4's proposed mandatory, unreviewable, warrantless, year-long detention is patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada decided this issue in the clearest of terms.”

The second point being, “family separation for at least 5, and up to 8 or more years, will have a disastrous consequence for refugees.”

This is in fact what Bill C-31 is proposing to do.

This is not the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party saying this. These are individuals who have represented refugees for many years. This is a professional organization. Would the member comment on that statement by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-31 there are three areas we need to explore and discuss and I look forward to doing that in committee.

The old bill, Bill C-4 will die because Bill C-31 replaces it. There were significant challenges brought forward by lawyers across Canada who said that Bill C-4 had some serious legal aspects. They challenged its worthiness to even pass in a court of law in Canada and said that it was unfair to refugees. That is one component of the bill.

A second component of the bill deals with legislation which this House passed but the government is trying to amend so as to no longer have an advisory committee. The minister wants to have the power to designate countries as safe countries. Rather than having an advisory board, the minister wants that power.

I would like the member to comment on the third component, which deals with biometrics. Does the NDP have a position on the use of biometrics in regard to visas?

[Petitions, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues from Newfoundland and Markham have said, people from across Canada are signing petitions in regard to old age security. In opposition, Canadians are sending a very clear message and they are signing petitions like the one I am tabling today. The message is that the Conservative government is wrong to increase the age from 65 to 67. If the government were wise at all, it would look seriously at reversing that decision. Maybe then we would see a bit more calm in regard to the very real uproar, as seniors sign petitions across this country.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that it is because things have changed. I would ask the member what specifically changed that caused the government to change its opinion and say that the minister will now be responsible for the decision on safe country designations as opposed to an advisory committee.

At the time when all four political parties in the House supported the idea of having the safe country designation list, that list was supposed to be assigned by an advisory group, not the Minister of Immigration . What specifically changed to cause the government to make that decision and give the minister that authority?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. I want to follow up with regard to the safe country list.

I understand and appreciate that the minister has made a decision that would ultimately give him and his ministry more power to determine which country would be deemed as a safe country. However, the legislation passed a couple of years ago allowed for the safe country designation to be determined by an advisory committee made up of experts, for example, individuals who dealt with human rights issues and so forth.

Does the NDP still support, and would it support, an amendment that would allow us to have an advisory committee make recommendations to the minister with regard to what would be a safe country designate?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could say whether or not she perceives this to be fair. Imagine legitimate refugees who come from a country where their lives have been in danger. They come to Canada and, according to this Minister of Immigration, are deemed irregular refugees. That means these refugees are going to be held in detention for a year. After getting out of detention these refugees are going to have to wait four years before they are able to sponsor someone, such as a son, a daughter, or a spouse. Once they have sponsored that individual, there is another three to five years before the dependant comes to Canada.

Would the member acknowledge that is not fair? To keep the family apart for that period of time is just wrong. Would she not agree with me on that point?

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has a number of concerns and in fact suggests that there are serious issues with this bill and that it is somewhat fundamentally flawed, which results in a need to bring forward amendments that we hope the government will be sympathetic to.

One of the amendments is in recognition of how important the issue of a safe country list is. At one time the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism acknowledged that in order to have a country put on the safe country list, it would be important to have an advisory committee to recommend it. For whatever reason—and many would suggest that is it is because there is now a majority Conservative government—the government has decided that the minister no longer needs the advisory committee in order to assign a country to the safe country list.

I am wondering if the member can explain to the House why the government has changed its opinion on having an advisory board made up of professional people who understand human rights to recommend which countries should be on or off the safe country list.

[Petitions, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the House is aware of the thousands of workers, who used to work for Air Canada and then went to Aveos, who are now unemployed.

This petition deals with the issue of article 6.1(d), which reads, “provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community and the City of Mississauga“.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister to hold Air Canada accountable under the law.

[Safer Railways Act, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, someone who has a caring heart for our environment. I appreciate the concerns she has expressed.

The member is quite right when she says we could ultimately pass this legislation, maybe even bring in some amendments to make it healthier and better legislation. However at the end of the day if it is not enforced, if there is not compliance to the rules we are passing, whether in the form of legislation or regulation, then we are going nowhere.

It is one thing to talk the line that we want safer rail lines. However, given everything that is on the rail lines nowadays, it is critical that there be a very strong compliance element to it. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, we are doing more of a disservice when we talk about doing something and try to give the impression that we are doing something, but we are not enforcing any sort of compliance to what it is we are actually talking about doing. I appreciate the question.