Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As I mentioned earlier, we did a pre-study. It was not a real study of the bill. This is a lack of respect for standard procedures. In fact, they put a time limit on debate. We were denied the opportunity to hear more witnesses, very credible witnesses such as Amnesty International or UNICEF, for example.These organizations could not appear before the committee because, again, of the insufficient time provided by the Conservatives.

What is even more frustrating is that the government did not even listen to the witnesses that we were able to hear during the very limited time allowed by the government. It is one thing to invite witnesses and ask them to speak, but it is too easy to then wash one's hands of whole thing and say there was consultation. Was that consultation serious? We heard witnesses, but did we really listen to them? Did we take them seriously?

They all had important recommendations to make to improve the bill. They were concerned about human rights and the constitutionality of the bill. However, the Conservatives did not even listen to them, and that is very frustrating.

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of what my colleague just said. The Conservatives have allowed citizenship application processing times to increase substantially. Processing times have more than doubled in the past few years. If the Conservatives truly wanted to resolve this problem, they would have put measures in place much sooner instead of giving us Bill C-24, which will supposedly resolve the problems with the application processing times, and with a time allocation motion to boot.

This is one of the major problems with our citizenship system right now, and Bill C-24 contains no solutions. The Conservatives would have us believe that this bill will address the problem with the times. In fact, they are actually preventing many people who were prepared to apply for citizenship from doing so. The Conservatives are asking them to apply in a year or two because the rules have just changed.

The only thing that will do is temporarily reduce citizenship applications for a year. This will help the Conservatives get good statistics in time for the election, but there is nothing in Bill C-24 that will truly fix the problem in the long term. This shows a complete lack of respect for people who would have and should have the right to citizenship.

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 6th, 2014]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-24 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-24 at report stage. This bill was introduced at first reading on February 6 and was debated for the first hour on February 27.

According to the minister, the bill is very important, but it sort of got forgotten after February 27. We read about it in newspapers, but it was not debated again until May 29. The government did not put Bill C-24 back on the House's agenda for many months, and we have no idea why.

Another irregularity is the fact that the committee began studying the bill before the end of second reading. This is a citizenship reform bill that has been needed for nearly 30 years. This 50-page bill, which was touted and heralded, did not even go through normal House procedures. We debated it for one hour, then it was shelved and then, all of a sudden, we were forced to study it at committee before second reading had even finished.

For those who are not familiar with parliamentary process, this means that experts and civil society are unable to react to or contribute to the bill by appearing before committee. Many people have asked me what is happening with Bill C-24 and how they can contribute by sharing their expertise in committee. I had to tell them that it was too late because the usual procedures were not followed. Experts and civil society did not hear much about the bill because committee rushed to study it and because it was not debated in the House as it should have been. Moreover, the committee stage was too short. The NDP asked to hear from more witnesses, but that idea was rejected.

After all that, it came back to the House for debate, and here we are less than a week later at report stage. The committee rushed its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-24. It did not do a thorough study following the usual procedures, and as a result, we have before us a bill that was not amended at all by the committee.

The NDP wants several clauses removed from the bill because both experts and lay people have raised a number of concerns and because the government rejected all of the amendments proposed not only by the experts who appeared before the committee, but also by the opposition.

Bill C-24 was much anticipated, and the NDP supports many aspects of it. We are not against the bill overall. Many parts of it are good and are actually things the NDP has been urging the government to do for a long time. One of these is addressing the issue of the lost Canadians, Canadians who lost their citizenship. Many people are affected by a range of unjust situations related to that issue. This bill does not solve all of those problems, but it is a step in the right direction.

In addition, the NDP is happy to support a number of measures, including harsher penalties in cases of citizenship fraud, clarification of the rules governing the number of days needed to get citizenship and acceleration of the citizenship process for permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Forces.

Unfortunately this 50-page bill with 46 clauses has not been amended in any way despite the fact that experts unanimously agreed that it needed major changes. Therefore, the NDP has no choice but to ask that certain clauses be removed from this bill. For example, clause 3 of Bill C-24 deals with a large number of things. The NDP agrees with many of them, but we still must ask that this clause be removed because it contains some basic elements that are very worrisome.

For example, the declaration of intent to reside in Canada is a problem that I will talk about briefly.

A large number of experts are concerned about this declaration of intent to reside in Canada, which consists of asking people to declare that they intend to live here after obtaining their citizenship. They have to make this declaration as part of the citizenship process.

We know that someone who is convicted of making false declarations or committing fraud to obtain citizenship can have that citizenship revoked in the future. That worries the experts who are saying that this is a dangerous door that is being opened.

A person might have to leave Canada after obtaining their citizenship because they cannot find a job here, for example. They may have to accept a job abroad or a job that will require them to live outside Canada for a year or two. They may also have to leave the country to take care of a sick parent. They could not foresee these circumstances when they made the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. In short, that creates a lot of concerns for new citizens.

Could the government take away the citizenship of people who leave the country after they have declared their intent to reside here? Legal experts say that it can, but the minister is saying that, no, he does not intend to do that and that he does not want to use the intent to reside to take away people's right to citizenship. Good for him. The minister has good intentions. However, we cannot rely solely on his intentions. We also have to rely on the wording of the bill. Legal experts are saying that the way the bill is worded poses a risk for new Canadians who want to temporarily leave the country as a result of unforeseen circumstances.

Speaking of experts, I would like to list a few who believe that this aspect of the bill, as it now stands, is extremely problematic. The Canadian Council for Refugees submitted a written brief to the committee. There is also the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants; Ms. Macklin from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers; the Inter Clinic Immigration Working Group; and Parkdale Community Legal Services. I could go on for quite a while; I have a whole page full of names. It seems experts have a lot to say on this topic.

Another aspect of clause 3 that is really problematic is the time of residence. There has been a lot of backlash from foreign students over the fact that their time of residence in Canada will, unfortunately, no longer count toward their application for citizenship and permanent residence.

When they arrived, they were told that they would contribute to society as students, workers and taxpayers and that the time they spent in the country as foreign students could count toward their application for citizenship.

Today, this bill changes the rules right under their noses and throws a wrench into their life plans in a number of ways. They will have to wait one or two more years before they can apply for citizenship. That is not fair, and I want to point out the work of this group in particular, whose time in the country before they become permanent residents counts. They are smart, engaged, involved and well aware of the value of Canadian citizenship. This provision of the bill is basically a slap in the face to foreign students.

We also want to remove clause 8 of the bill on the revocation of citizenship, which did not exist before. Bill C-24 gives the minister the discretionary power to revoke people's citizenship without giving them the right to appeal. That is extremely worrisome.

Again, experts are unanimous on this. There are major problems with this aspect of the bill. Ms. Macklin, the representative of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and a professor at the University of Toronto, had this to say:

I would remove citizenship revocation. It's unconstitutional.

I think our criminal justice system is perfectly adequate to handle crimes, criminal offences, and it does so just fine.

I will close by saying that when the minister says that the Canadian Bar Association should be ashamed of itself for opposing Bill C-24, he is showing his true partisan colours and illustrating how completely out of touch he is. A great many people are concerned. This cannot go on.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just spoke to the issue of social housing.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities studied some aspects of this bill during a meeting. However, it was unable to hear from anyone other than people from the department.

Could my colleague talk about how beneficial it would have been to hear what people with varying expertise had to say about certain aspects of this bill?

[Petitions, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is signed by a lot of people. They are calling upon the Canadian government to condemn the abuse of human rights in Egypt. The people who signed this petition are concerned about the freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Egypt.

[Petitions, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, parishioners of St. Thomas à Becket in Pierrefonds are presenting this petition, which asks for the creation of a legislated ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining. This petition calls for the creation of a legislated extractive sector ombudsman mechanism in Canada that would have the capacity to receive and investigate complaints and assess compliance with corporate accountability standards that are based on international labour, environmental, and human rights norms; make public its findings; recommend remedial actions; and recommend sanctions to the Government of Canada.

[Supreme Court of Canada, May 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the fiasco surrounding the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court illustrates the Conservatives' contempt for Quebec.

The Prime Minister thinks that judges from Quebec would be too progressive or too soft on criminals to sit on the country's highest court.

By stubbornly appointing a federal judge and, moreover, one with little experience in civil law, the Prime Minister is telling us that he could not care less about Quebec's civil law tradition. We already suspected this, though, since the Prime Minister once appointed a judge who was not fluent in French, which is another one of Quebec's fundamental characteristics.

Yesterday Quebec's premier took the Conservative government to task. He does not like how Quebec is being treated. This morning, the Minister of Justice, looking pitiful, said that he would honour Quebec's wishes. He could have saved face if he had just listened to Quebec's advice from the beginning.

Quebec has three seats on the country's highest court to ensure that its fundamental character is represented there.

Every time the Prime Minister tries to get around his obligations to Quebec and wipe away our differences, the NDP will stand in his way.

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we still do not have the answers to our questions. We know that the minister has made some nice announcements in the media, but has he really delivered the results he promised?

Typhoon Haiyan caused major damage and left thousands of families grieving. The government cannot announce a fast-track visa program and then abandon the people who were promised help. Canada's Filipino community is worried and the government is not being transparent on this file.

Today I am asking the minister to give us the facts. When will the applications under this special program all be processed?

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague said that there had been consultations and that several groups supported Bill C-17. However, I think we must set the record straight.

It is true that several associations say that Bill C-17 is a step in the right direction. However, they have reservations and say that this bill does not go far enough.

If I am not mistaken, the Canadian Nurses Association, for one, says that it hopes that experts in the field will be consulted to ensure that stronger and more meaningful action is taken. It is good that the players in the field want to be consulted and taken into consideration.

Does my colleague also think that this should be given serious consideration in committee?

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I am sure she is very knowledgeable about many health-related issues.

As she probably knows, in his 2011 report, the Auditor General pointed to problems with Health Canada's timelines for informing people about problems with drugs. Up to two years can go by before Health Canada even finds out about problems.

The report was released in 2011, but it was not until December 2013 that the government introduced this bill, which is a step in the right direction. As my colleague said, Bill C-17 was a long time coming. However, I wonder why previous Liberal governments did not tackle this problem when they had the chance.

Were they not aware of the problem? Can my colleague enlighten me?