Mylène Freeman

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-43. Since I am a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I was there to hear for myself what the witnesses and experts had to say about the problems inherent in this bill.

Some of the measures in this bill are at odds with Canada's international obligations. These measures favour what could be described as the exile of criminals who have permanent resident status, rather than opting for a responsible position towards criminals for the safety of all citizens. Furthermore, certain measures in this bill attack the very foundation of our justice system, which includes a fair trial and the right to appeal. Other measures cast such a wide net that this bill will undoubtedly cover situations that will penalize innocent people, just so the Conservative government can create the illusion of security.

The Conservatives' rhetoric and the measures they are proposing do not promote the principles of justice, prevention and rehabilitation—all important Canadian values that truly guarantee stable and lasting security.

This bill was unfortunately not designed to improve the immigration system, but instead was designed as a smokescreen. All of the Conservatives' material outlining why this bill is needed, including the information on the department's website, is based on five exceptions. The five reasons on the Citizenship and Immigration website for taking away the right to appeal in the removal of foreign criminals are all individual cases. These reasons are not based on sound research and statistics.

Public policy should not be based on a few examples. In the House we pass legislation that is supposed to benefit all Canadians, as well as all people living in Canada.

In addition, in the cases raised by the Conservatives, the act was not the problem: no legislative amendments were needed. The problem was in how the act was enforced and in particular the lack of resources. The real problem is that the government insists on amending legislation without ensuring that peace officers and public servants have the tools to enforce it.

The Conservatives claim that they want to change things with this bill. They should be in contact with the different departments to ensure that the changes will be effective in practice, and they should provide the departments with the proper resources. The Conservatives are trying to ignore all that with this amendment to the act, which is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

The Conservatives' cuts and underfunding of public safety are affecting our country's security. I will give two examples of recent cuts. By 2015, huge cuts will have been made to public safety, to the tune of $687.9 million. The Canada Border Services Agency, the Correctional Service of Canada and the RCMP will bear the brunt of those cuts.

Furthermore, there is no money to meet the needs of front-line police officers. The federal government is refusing to renew funding for the Police Officers Recruitment Fund, which was created in 2008. The government supported the fund with $400 million over five years so that the provinces could recruit more front-line police officers. This is having a direct impact on our country's security.

Here is an example of the strange and unfortunate decisions that the minister is making: one of the changes proposed in this bill gives the minister the discretionary power to deny access to foreign nationals for public policy considerations.

This seems a bit political to me and, unfortunately, it is no way to govern for everyone. Even without these exceptional powers, the minister is abusing his authority for partisan reasons. In 2009, for example, even without the powers that the minister is seeking in the bill, the minister denied a British MP for inappropriate reasons.

The Federal Court recognized that the minister made this decision for political reasons. Is it reasonable for him to now ask us to grant him even more power to make such decisions?

The committee proposed nine reasonable amendments. One of them was to include guidelines for ministerial decisions in the bill. It is not surprising that the Conservatives voted against this amendment to include guidelines in the bill. What is really surprising is that the witness who suggested these guidelines to the committee was the minister himself. That is a complete turnaround. It means that this change could potentially occur without Parliament having the right to consider public interest guidelines. One has to wonder about such a situation.

In committee, the minister recognized that the powers granted to him by this bill were excessive unless meaningful criteria were put in place to keep those powers in check. That is why he presented these criteria. Of course, they were reasonable. However, it is not every day that changes are made to determining criteria, such as the risk that a group represents. This is a point that Parliament could have examined but that the minister did not want to include in the bill.

I would like to remind members of a great quote by Benjamin Parker: “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Conservatives do not seem to understand this conventional wisdom, whether we are talking about orange juice, helicopter rides, the use of ministerial websites to announce partisan business or even the introduction of good public policies, which rarely happens these days. The Conservatives are not governing in a way that includes everyone.

When even a Conservative minister's suggestion is rejected solely because it was proposed by the NDP, we see that we are truly dealing with a government that is wilfully blind. It is very strange. The Conservatives are not serious politicians who are truly seeking to improve the bill. As parliamentarians, it is very disappointing for us to be unable to work with them.

The amendments we proposed were well thought out, considered and pertinent. They were based on the evidence given by experts who appeared before the committee. We tried to amend the bill to ensure that it could be implemented effectively, in keeping with the goal of enhancing security and with Canadian law and our values of justice. That seems to have been forgotten in this bill.

In response to an unacceptable amendment of the law, we proposed, for example, an amendment so that people of good faith who make a minor mistake in their application are not treated like dangerous criminals or barred from entering Canada for five years just because of a simple typo in their name or because they failed to list a job they held for a month at the age of 18. Those are the kinds of mistakes that can be made and that will prevent the person from entering Canada for five years. The Conservatives also rejected this amendment without any justification.

The bill reinforces punitive measures without really improving the immigration system or the safety of Canadians, and at the same time attacks our rights and Canadian values. It is truly important to remember that the NDP would like to work with the other parties to ensure the safety of Canadians by taking swift and effective action when non-citizens commit serious crimes. Unfortunately, our offer to collaborate was refused, and I am very disappointed. Consequently, I will not be supporting the bill.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With regard to the proposed changes to the list of waterways protected by the Navigable Waters Protection Act as described in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012: (a) which organizations were consulted in the development of this list; (b) when and where were the consultations referred to in (a) held; (c) which provincial or municipal governments were consulted during the development of this list; (d) when and where were the consultations referred to in (c) held; and (e) what are the job titles of the public servants who prepared this list?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for her excellent speech. It was interesting that she spoke about the veterans in her riding. When we as MPs can come to the House and speak about those in our ridings who would be affected by the laws we are passing, it adds to the debate.

A lot of Canadians do not necessarily realize that what we are talking about in the House right now does affect our heroes, our military combatants, our veterans, nos anciens combattants. She really brought that into the speech. Therefore, I would ask her to expand a bit on how a casier judiciaire would affect those in her riding, given that a lot of the recommendations in the Lamer report were not implemented by the government.

How would that affect her veterans in her riding or the—

[Petitions, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is in support of my Motion No. 400, which calls upon the government to ensure rural equality for waste water management.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2012]

The second petition is in English so I will say it in English. It is about cycling safety. It calls upon the federal government to take up its responsibility to set standards.

[Petitions, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first concerns the fact that 1.5 million families have difficulty finding a place to live. The petitioners are asking the government to support the bill to adopt a national housing strategy introduced by my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Language Skills Act, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, among the values I hold dear are respect for both official languages and the promotion of those languages. I live that value every day as a bilingual person. I always try to speak to people in their own language, so that we understand each other well. I think the officers of Parliament ought to be able to do the same.

It is inconceivable that the officers of Parliament would not be able to perform their duties in both official languages. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has presented a bill covering the 10 officers of Parliament. These people occupy very senior positions in our system. Among them are the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner.

As well, there are the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the President of the Public Service Commission.

These are all people whose appointments require approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament. They can be considered officers of Parliament based on the fact that we appoint them despite whatever relationship they have with the Houses.

It is the NDP's opinion that bilingualism is one of the key qualifications for these positions. It is not just an asset, which is not a skill or something that should be considered apart from skills; it is an essential skill to fill these positions properly.

It has been customary to appoint bilingual individuals, because the ability to speak both official languages is obviously part of being able to do the job. Unfortunately, recent appointments show that we need to entrench the government's responsibility in the law.

I am very happy that the Conservative members are considering voting in favour of this bill. Since the Prime Minister himself has admitted it was a mistake to appoint a unilingual person to the job of Auditor General, it makes sense for the members opposite to support this bill in order to clarify the bilingualism requirements for these 10 officers of Parliament.

I grew up as a francophone outside of Quebec. That really opened my eyes to the importance of having access to the French language throughout the country. I have met francophones from across the country. However, I would also like to point out that there are anglophones in Quebec who often speak about access to English within the province. In my riding, this is something that is of great concern. These people understand that it is important to have access to certain documentation and colloquialisms in their own language.

Therefore, when we are talking about agents of Parliament, they need be able to understand all members of the House in their native language, in the language they are best able to communicate in. I think that is quite necessary if we are to properly go about democracy in this country.

As my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said so well, we want to make Canada a place where we live together side by side, respectfully, speaking either official language, and working together. If the officers of Parliament are not fully able to understand us in the House, it will be more difficult to build a good future for Canada.

It seems to me that this is a major double standard. We talk about a bilingual country, but our parliamentary officers are not operating in both languages. The Constitution provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada. French and English have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament. Parliamentarians may use either French or English in the debates and other work of Parliament, and they work closely with the officers of Parliament. Therefore, I appeal to members from all parties to vote in favour of the bill by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, which would clarify the bilingualism requirements for these 10 very important officers of Parliament.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me time to speak on this bill.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech, which clarified the NDP's position and explained the difference between the Canadian justice system and the military justice system.

Military personnel, like police officers, are authority figures in our society, as the parliamentary secretary said. Since we are talking about defending our country and our laws, these individuals need to have that authority in Canadians' eyes. That is why the NDP wants to make sure the bill is balanced.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on what is expected of this bill. I would also like her to try to explain why the amendments proposed during the previous Parliament were not included in Bill C-15. Lastly, I would like to know why the government seems to be ignoring the recommendations of the Lamer report.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think most Canadians would be surprised to learn that our heroes, those in the Canadian Forces who bravely serve our country, get a criminal record from a system lacking due process.

Given that our Canadian Forces members are required to follow extremely high standards of discipline, does my colleague not think they deserve a fair judicial system? Does she not also think that while the military knows best how to handle its own affairs, there should be civilians appointed to the grievance board?

[Petitions, December 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by my constituents from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. They are calling on the House to support my Motion No. 400, in the interests of protecting water and public health in rural communities.

In rural areas, a large number of septic systems in isolated homes are outdated and require significant, urgent and costly work to be brought up to standard. This situation poses a serious potential risk to our water quality. Furthermore, because of the high cost of this work, some individuals are delaying updating their systems.

My constituents and I are urging the House to support this petition and my motion.