Niki Ashton

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, during my statement earlier today there was an incredible amount of commotion. As a result, even members sitting directly next to me and around me could not hear what I had to say.

My right to be heard by Canadians and members of the House were abridged. I would hope that, in the future, members' ability to be heard, not only in the House but by Canadians, will be respected and ensured.

[Canada Excellence Research Chairs, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in so many ways, women face inequality in our country today. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent awarding of the 19 Canada Excellence Research Chairs, a new and prestigious honour given to 19 men and not one woman.

While the minister stated that he was shocked, and certain questions were asked, the answers have been inadequate and the action plan to do better non-existent.

The failure to recognize women as Canada Excellence Research Chairs is the end result of an ideology put forward by the Conservative government to interfere in and sideline broader research. It is also a result of the government's damaging view that gender equality is not important. The glass ceiling is as strong as ever and the government is a fan of the old boys' club.

We need leadership and an innovative agenda when it comes to post-secondary education and the funding for research. A guiding principle for us in the NDP is that both women and men ought to be not just equal participants, but leaders too.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about a clause in Bill C-9, one that is completely unrelated to anything budgetary. It is the clause that moves to privatize Canada Post, specifically the removal of Canada Post's legal monopoly on outgoing international letters or the remailer program.

My colleague from Elmwood—Transcona and I come from the same province. Both of us, as well as our other colleagues in the NDP, are concerned about other ways in which Canada Post is being privatized, for example, the closure of one of the four national call centres in Winnipeg, leading to the loss of dozens of jobs. The government has refused to do anything about it. We are clearly seeing a move by the government to chip away at an institution that we are so proud of as Canadians, an institution that provides a vital service, which is that of connecting us, of sharing communication.

Could I hear my colleague's thoughts on the injustice, and that is the privatization of Canada Post?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today we have an important opportunity in this Parliament to discuss a bill that seeks to provide benefits to those who make great sacrifices for our country.

As my colleague stated, we are proud of the amendment proposed by our NDP colleague to include members of the RCMP.

How quickly will the government lend its support to this bill and what priority will it assign to it?

[Youth Strategy, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's young people are facing a stark reality, record high unemployment.

Last week's OECD report indicated that youth unemployment is reaching historically high levels around the world, and it is a trend of prolonged unemployment with long-term impacts on the next generation's finances and health.

That reality demands action, action from the government that is supposed to be looking ahead at the future and looking to support the next generation.

We need a job strategy that looks beyond summer jobs to year-round solutions, working with young people and employers in the public, not for profit and private sectors who are seeking to work with young people.

We need to look at education. For far too long successive federal governments have failed to take a leadership role in making post-secondary education affordable and accessible to young Canadians. Thanks to the NDP amendment to the 2005 budget, northern Manitoba, our region, will see a new campus and significant investments in the University College of the North.

We need leadership, broad leadership, from the government in order to stop the trend where our generation might not be as well off as those before us, and instead—

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hard work done by my Bloc Québécois colleague with respect to the admission of refugees and immigrants to Canada. I want to acknowledge the way he and hon. members from the opposition parties are trying to propose amendments. They are truly trying to come up with solutions and measures that will improve this type of bill.

Whether we are talking about safe countries or improving the system in terms of staffing, I hope that these fine amendments will be accepted by the minister and the Government of Canada.

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and speak to Bill C-11, known as the refugee reform bill.

I echo the message of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and other colleagues in the House, who call for the bill to be returned to committee. Amendments need to be made to the bill to truly deal with the issue at hand. The NDP hopes that the legislation will create a fair and fast process when it comes to admitting refugees to our country and when it comes to upholding Canada's tradition of being known as a country of refuge for people who suffer a great deal in many parts of the world.

This is an important issue for me to discuss. I am the daughter of immigrants. My dad came from Britain and my mom came from Greece. They came to Canada, like so many others, for a better future for their children.

We recognize that the experience of people who come to Canada as refugees is one of even greater intensity in the sense that they have had to leave their home country, many of them in a hurry, to escape strife, whether due to war, famine, persecution, or whatever it might have been.

I grew up in Thompson, Manitoba, which was built by first nations as well as newcomers to Canada. Many of those newcomers came as refugees from countries around the world in order to help build my community and to build the diverse communities of which Canadians are so proud.

I would also like to note that this issue is of particular importance to me, given the upfront work that I did as part of Welcome Place. Years ago, while I was going to university, I had the chance to work with a very innovative organization in Winnipeg, Manitoba that provided services for refugees. It also facilitated bringing refugees over from the countries in which they were suffering. This organization connected them with their families and with faith groups that were willing to sponsor them. It truly provided that link.

I cannot tell members how many emotionally charged discussions I have had with family members and with people who had come over to Canada as refugees just recently. I had an upfront look at the challenges these individuals faced when they entered the system. I also saw the hope that they brought to Canada, a country that they know as being welcoming and open to diversity and aware of the role they can play in our country.

That is why I am so concerned about the bill before us.

We have talked a great deal over the years about the need to reform the refugee claimant system, the system by which they come to Canada. We are aware of the way the Liberal government hacked away at the system of supports, which contributed to the immense backlog of applicants.

We know more recently of the Conservative government's failure to appoint people to the Immigration and Refugee Board to deal with the backlog in a timely manner.

This legislation is an attempt to deal with a problem that is essentially built on the past neglect of the Liberal government. The NDP has many concerns about it.

One concern that has been made so clear is the reference to the judgment of safe countries, the idea that we would designate certain countries as being safer than others, looking at refugees on a group level rather than an individual level.

As has been raised in the House on many occasions by my colleagues, we need to recognize that kind of criteria overlooks some of the kinds of persecution some people seek to escape from around the world. Specifically, one example would be the gender based persecution. For example, a woman might come from a country that might overall be considered safe and we might overlook the fact that she has been a victim of tremendous gender based violence.

I go back to the idea that treating claimants differently based on their country of origin is essentially discriminatory. We have heard from many people, third parties, intricately involved in the refugee system. They say that the refugee determination process requires individual assessment of each case and not group judgments.

Another example of persecution that is overlooked as a result of these kinds of group judgments is persecution based on sexual orientation and the homophobia that exists in so many countries. We benefit from the laws and the rights that we fought for in our country. However, we know that while other countries around the world might adhere to certain human rights, in many cases there is great disrespect and in fact persecution of people based on their sexual identity. That would be overlooked in making these kind of group judgments.

A denial of these fair processes to claimants, looking at them on an individual basis, may lead to their forced return to persecution, which is in violation of human rights law. Not only would we be making these kinds of rules, but we would be returning people, who are seeking refuge in our country, to face the exact persecution that Canadians do not accept.

This area causes great concern for us. We would like to see amendments that would counteract these kinds of measures.

Another area in Bill C-11 that we feel is inadequate is it does little to address the problem of unscrupulous immigration consultants. Former Immigration and Refugee Board chair, Peter Showler, believes the expedited timelines will actually drive more refugees to these kinds of consultants.

Whether people are seeking immigration status or refugee status, which in many cases is the most urgent, some immigration consultants undertake the most unethical of jobs and prey on the vulnerability of those people who seek only to have a better life and seek only to come to Canada through the system. People are already frustrated with the existing timelines, but the bill does nothing to correct that. In fact, if anything, the timelines would be extended.

It is important to note that the bill has some merits in terms of establishing an appeal process for some refugee claimants, something for which we have been calling. We recognize that to be important.

We see more funding for the refugee board to clear the backlog. Much of the increased funding will be given to the CBSA to remove the failed claimants and to appoint judges. The NDP would prefer to see more funding given to hire permanent refugee protection officers to clear that backlog.

In my work with Immigration Canada, not in the refugee division but in more general immigration, it was clear the extent to which there was an increased burden on immigration officials. They were finding it difficult to deal with the demands made on the Canadian system. The solution is not to cut back. If anything, we do not need the quotas that we set for immigration. The solution is to look in part at hiring people who would do this kind of job to alleviate the work of those around them in the department and also to assist in this area more specifically.

New Democrats believe the refugee determination process again should be both fast and fair. We believe—

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, one of the recurring concerns that we in the NDP have been raising regarding this bill, and a concern that has been echoed by other opposition parties in the House, is the question of the safe country statement.

People who have been involved with not just refugee services but human rights in general know how dangerous it is to use that safe country statement when it comes to human rights abuses or the reasons why people seek to leave the abuse they are facing.

Much has been said about how women would be most at risk with this change in the legislation, women who are seeking refugee status on the basis of abuse, gender-based claims. But people who would like to make claims based on persecution based on sexual orientation or sexual identity would also be at risk. These kinds of abuses happen in countries that we might consider to be safe. We find that this legislation would pose a great danger for such people and would go against Canada's tradition of providing refuge for these people.

[Employment, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, young people deserve more than just summer jobs. They need jobs year-round. Not only that, young people are facing some of the highest costs of education. Nearly eight out of ten post-secondary students depend on work year-round to be able to pay for their education.

Will the government look out for the next generation and contribute to a high quality, accessible and affordable education? Will it work to create jobs and assist employers in offering jobs to young people, or will it contribute to ensuring that my generation is worse off than our parents and those who have come before them?

[Employment, April 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last year was marked by one of the highest unemployment rates for young Canadians. An OECD report indicates that the situation will worsen over the coming two years. This high unemployment rate has a hugely negative impact on the career, finances and health of young Canadians. It is not complicated: they need jobs to build a future.

Does the government intend to take action to improve youth employment rates or will they be letting my generation down?