Olivia Chow

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Within the law now, there are already means to fast track them. The key thing is to catch the smugglers, punish them, fine them, throw them in jail. The problem is with deporting the victims, because some of these people are victimized by their smugglers. They are told a pack of lies. They are told to come to Canada and get whatever they want. They pay a lot of money, their life savings, to the smugglers and the smugglers send them here.

Some of them are not refugees, we know that. However, the key thing is to go after the smugglers. The problem is, with deporting these people so quickly, we are not giving them the time to go to court to use them as witnesses to go after the smugglers and we can never catch the smugglers and try them.

What happens right now is in the last 10 years hardly any smugglers have been punished severely. It is very difficult to find them, catch them and convict them because their victims get deported before the court has a chance to go after them. That is why we need to go after the smugglers and not punish the refugees.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if there are bogus refugees, by all means deport them, but what we should not do is draft a law based purely on fear. That is what this is. This fear is going to drive us to build more detention centres so we can detain these refugee claimants, rather than allowing them to work, to make a living so that they can start paying taxes, because some of them are genuine refugees. By all means, if they are bogus, we should send them back. When we set a law, we should not be driven by paranoia and fear.

The other thing is that in the bill, because it prevents family reunification, it is denying genuine refugees the power to bring their families together, and that is cruel.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this punish refugees and give a break to smugglers bill. Why do I say that? Even though this bill is supposed to go after smugglers, the people who would be hurt are the genuine refugees.

Two weekends ago we celebrated St. Patrick's Day. I was thinking about the Irish refugees who came to the shores of Toronto. At the turn of the century, over 50,000 Irish refugees arrived on the shores of what was the city of York, before it was called Toronto. At that time, the city of York had only 30,000 residents.

How did the Irish refugees arrive? By irregular means, by boats. Did they have any identification with them? Most likely not. Should they have been locked up? Under this law, if passed, I suppose they would have been locked up for at least a year.

Members can imagine refugees coming to the shores of a big country, to a city that does not have a lot of people, and being locked up for a year. A lot of them were sick. Who would have been able to help them? At the time, the medical officer of health risked his life to serve the Irish immigrants. In fact, a doctor lost his life due to a fever. What was shown to the Irish refugees was compassion and support. As a result, they built Toronto. They helped build Canada. Some of their descendants might even be in the House of Commons.

Had they been locked up, they would not have been able to work or support their families. Under the law that is in front of us, they would not have been able to sponsor their family members to bring them here. They would have been separated from their families for at least 10 years. Because they would have been locked up, they would not have been able to work. After they were released, assuming they were genuine refugees, they still would not have been able to become permanent residents for a long period of time. They would have been prevented from sponsoring their family members. Even after they had become permanent residents, their status could still have been revoked. What kind of stability would their lives have had? None whatsoever.

At the time, if Ireland had been seen as a safe country, many of those refugees would have been sent home.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' recommendation indicates that some countries are safer than others, but we have to determine each refugee's claim based on the person's circumstances. Some countries are considered safe countries, so to speak, but not for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. They could be gay bashed or killed.

How does one declare a country as safe? The previous law said that there would be an advisory committee made up of a team of experts who would advise the minister. This bill just got rid of that. The minister does not need any expert advice. He can just declare a country as safe and the people from that country would be fast-tracked for deportation in no time, without right of appeal to the Federal Court, and no humanitarian or compassionate consideration. They could attempt an appeal, but it would not stop them from being deported. That means individual refugees would not be treated equally under the law.

In Canada we have a fundamental belief that each case must be considered equally under the law. The bill would completely change that. It would treat refugee A completely differently from refugee B depending upon the person's country of origin. However, let us assume it is a gay man from a country such as Ghana or Jamaica. One could say that Jamaica is a safe country, yet people can be killed because of their sexual orientation.

The bill has a lot of flaws. I do not understand why the bill is necessary. Less than a year ago, all parties in the House of Commons worked with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and came up with a package called the balanced refugee reform act. At that time, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that he was very proud of the bill because it had all-party support, was balanced and fair.

What has changed in the last eight or nine months? Nothing. Why is a bill that was balanced and fair all of a sudden no longer balanced and fair? Nothing has changed.

In fact, with regard to that bill, Bill C-11, the balanced refugee reform act, the immigration minister came to the committee and said, “This is such a fine bill. It will take us at a least a year to implement the bill. Give us one year and we will make the system perfect.” That is what was promised last June. It is not June 2012 yet. A year has not passed and the bill has not been implemented. The minister obviously has not had the time to implement the bill, and yet this so-called fast, balanced and fair bill all of a sudden became a big problem, and here we are debating another bill.

Think of the amount of money and time that has been wasted. A huge number of witnesses came to committee. There were forums in cities across the country. The immigration committee listened to all types of expert advice. All of that is gone. It is completely changed. The bill in front of us looks completely different. It is quite astounding. I cannot see what has changed in one year. The previous bill has not even been implemented and yet we are here wasting time and money debating a new bill.

What is the root problem? Why do we have such a backlog? Why does it take so long to determine a refugee claim?

Prior to 2006, the wait was one or two years. Things were going along and there were no huge problems. When the Conservatives came into power, they did not appoint any Immigration and Refugee Board members. As a result, for two or three years hardly any cases were being determined. A huge backlog was created because the Conservative minister did not appoint any IRB members.

It is the implementation of the law that is the problem. The law is not the problem.

On top of that, the CBSA said that it had difficulty deporting people because it does not have the right computer system. This is according to the Auditor General and admitted by the CBSA.

The real problem is the implementation of the law. There is no need to change the law. That is why members should not support this bill.

It is a very complex bill. I wish I had more time to address every element of it.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 26th, 2012]

With regard to air safety: (a) how many inspections were done each year from 2004 to 2011, broken down by (i) audits, (ii) traditional inspections, (iii) process validation inspections, (iv) companies; (b) how many employees are conducting such audits and what is their profession (e.g., pilots, mechanics, other technicians); (c) what is the number of companies found to be in violation of air safety regulations and the number of enforcement actions as a result, broken down by company; and (d) what is the number of enforcement actions from inspections abandoned following the introduction of the Safety Management System, broken down by company?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 26th, 2012]

With regard to Canadian bridges, since 2005: (a) how many incidents have there been of concrete, or other large debris, breaking and falling from bridges (i) nationally, (ii) broken down by municipality; (b) what are the details of each incident of concrete, or other large debris, breaking and falling from Canadian bridges, including (i) the size of the debris, (ii) the damages reported as a result of the falling debris, (iii) the injuries or fatalities reported, (iv) the date and location of the incident, (v) the economic impact caused by the resulting road closure; and (c) what plans does the government have to prevent future incidents of concrete falling from Canadian bridges?

[Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, New Democrats came together to elect the leader of the official opposition. It was a race between many respected and dynamic candidates. We can be proud to say that New Democrats across Canada elected a strong and experienced leader to lead Canada's New Democrats to form the next government in 2015.

I am proud to have a leader who worked alongside Jack Layton to unite Quebeckers and Canadians together, a leader who shares our values, a leader with experience and conviction and a leader who will hold the Conservatives to account and fight for everyday Canadians.

More than ever, we are strong and we are united. So today we continue Jack's legacy and rally behind our new leader, the leader of the official opposition. I could not be more proud.

Congratulations to our new leader.

[Antonio Silipo, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today we mourn the loss of Antonio Silipo.

First elected as a school trustee at the Toronto Board of Education, Tony Silipo embarked on his political career to ensure that all children, especially those from immigrant families, had equal opportunities to reach their highest academic performance. Tony Silipo continued that passion as the chair of the Toronto Board of Education, and then as the Ontario minister of education.

Tony sought to protect the most vulnerable during a severe economic downturn when he became the minister of community and social services in 1993.

We are immensely grateful that Tony, a life-long New Democrat, dedicated his life to public service. May his legacy continue through the scholarship in his name at the Toronto District School Board.

On behalf of Canada's New Democrats, we wish to extend our deepest condolences to Tony's wife, Anne Marie, his son, Adrian, and all members of his extended family.

[Leader of the Official Opposition, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let us work together.

Those are Jack Layton's now famous words embodied by my leader, the leader of the official opposition.

She has worked tirelessly to put Canadian families first.

And she has achieved results.

As Conservative policies saw jobs shipped down south, under her leadership, the NDP plan on jobs and the economy passed unanimously. She fought for aboriginal families and, under her leadership, the Shannen's Dream motion passed unanimously.

While other leaders argued about whose dirty tricks were worse, she unanimously passed a motion to give Elections Canada the tools to clean up this mess. Canadians sent us here to get results.

And my leader has done so.

She is the longest serving woman leader of the opposition, a committed Canadian and a shining example for all members of the House.

Thank you to my leader. Thank you, Nycole.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, travelling by rail is safe, comfortable, fast, reliable and environmentally sustainable. If we look at all different modes of transportation, rail is by far the best way to go. With modern technology it can be extremely fast.

It is tragic that we see the technology is there, but the government is unwilling to regulate it. For example, in Quebec there was a tragic derailment in 2010. The Transportation Safety Board recently reported that the positive train control system would have made a difference and slowed down the train. The train would not have derailed and people would not have been injured.

That is one of the ways to keep train travel even safer than it is now.

[Safer Railways Act, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. Canada has lost over 10,000 kilometres of active rail lines since the deregulation of railways in 1987. The money needed to improve our networks is mostly siphoned off by CN and CP. First a Conservative government and then a Liberal government privatized CNR in 1995. It was sold on the stock market. VIA Rail was left holding the bag. Unfortunately, until we change our policies and regulations, or are willing to invest some money into electric trains and repairing the tracks, I am afraid the slow decline is going to continue.