Olivia Chow

[Petitions, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first petitioner is from a group of cyclists in my riding. They even ride bicycles in the winter. Right now, they are concerned that there are no side guards on trucks.

They call upon the Government of Canada to introduce a regulation under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act requiring side under run guards for large trucks and trailers to prevent cyclists and pedestrians from being pulled under the wheels of these vehicles. They note that in European countries this is already in place. They also note that, according to 1993 coroner reports on the death of cyclists, 37% of collisions resulting in cyclist fatalities involved large trucks. These side guards can save lives.

Therefore, they ask the federal government to take action.

[British Home Children, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, loneliness, betrayal, exploitation and loss of love was the plight of over 100,000 home children shipped from England to Canada between 1860 and 1939. Two-thirds of these children were under 14 years of age and two-thirds of them were abused. Some who came were as young as four years old.

Ada Allan, a British home child, said:

All those years, I didn't know what it was to be loved. In those times when they hired you, it was to work. I didn't sit at the table with them...I ate by myself. I was a servant. This grew on me. I felt very inferior even though I knew I was an honest person.

There was also documentation of sexual and physical mistreatment, as well as widespread flouting of regulations that required farmers to pay children's wages into trust accounts. Many of the children did not get any of that money. Then, as the leader of the Bloc said, there is the shame.

Another home child from the Ottawa Valley said:

I was one [a home child]...and a most unhappy and degrading period of my life it was. I don't even want to think about it and I haven't even told my children about it...Nothing except the Grace of God can dim the memory of that terrible period of my life.

The New Democratic Party of Canada supports the motion in front of us to name 2010 as the year of the British home child and the establishment of a commemorative stamp, but it is not enough.

As I said in my letter to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism two weeks ago, the 10,000 British home children and their descendants need a formal apology from Parliament. These home children are now in their nineties and Parliament must give them the honour and recognition they deserve. Canada willingly participated in taking in these children, using them as free child labour. We willingly exploited them and offered no services and no protection to them. More needs to be done.

John Hennessey, a former child migrant, described why Canada accepted 100,000 of these children. On arrival in Fremantle, he and the other children were greeted by a senior clergyman who said, “We need white stock. We need this country to be populated by white stock because we are terrified of the Asian hordes”.

We must remember that Canada's immigration policy was quite racist at that time. It inflicted a Chinese head tax, and later the Chinese Exclusion Act, on the Chinese who helped build the railroad. Their children were not able to come to Canada. They too were separated from their families, just as the British children were separated from their families in England.

Hennessey said:

There was no understanding back then of the inner life of a human being. The draconian trauma of being sent across the sea, the loneliness of being placed on isolated farms, the lack of parental understanding, the treatment and discrimination that they faced because of their cockney accents, all these made it a terrible burden.

There are two more lessons that we can learn from this. First, we should not let our immigration policy be influenced purely and solely by our labour needs and we should not look just for cheap labour in our immigration policy. Second, we must remember that every child is precious and needs his or her parents. Whatever policy we have, whether it is our present live-in caregiver or temporary foreign workers program, we should not separate families.

I am proud as a New Democrat to tell the House that one of the most vocal critics at that time was Major James Coldwell, an early leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the CCF, which eventually became the New Democratic Party. Major Coldwell was very much opposed to this policy.

Britain continued to ship kids abroad for decades. The home children program came to an end in 1939; however the last batch of home children came to Canada in 1948.

We should be proud of these young men and women, because the British home children helped build this country. An amazing 12% of Canada's population is descended from these British home children. That translates into nearly four million people, or to put it another way, one in every eight Canadians.

We thank all of the British home children for their contribution. They helped build our country. They helped define Canada. Through their perseverance and determination they contributed to Canada. We apologize for the treatment they received.

Let us dedicate ourselves to educate future generations of Canadians so that we understand the history. Let us work together on a formal apology to the 100,000 home children who came to Canada.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like perhaps the member has not listened to your ruling. I read every word in Motion No. 8, which on the order paper on page 36. There is nothing in here about the content about which the members talked. It talks about a number of hours and sitting days and how the public are not allowed to participate because there is no public hearing.

We are debating the motion. We are not debating a bill that we have not seen. Yet the member, over and over again, keeps disobeying your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and that is not the way we should proceed.

Let us get out of the ditch, using your words, Mr. Speaker, and come back on the road and talk about the whole motion, the six clauses that are in front of us.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Trinity—Spadina.

The petitioners ask the Canadian government to conduct an independent, impartial human rights impact study to consider the effect the trade agreement between Canada and Colombia will have, particularly, on vulnerable sectors of the population, like women, subsistence farmers, trade unionists, indigenous people and Afro-descendant communities. They also want the study to look at any negative impacts identified so they will be adequately addressed before proceeding with this free trade agreement.

They ask that no trade agreement be advanced without legislated enforceable provisions on corporate social responsibility and reporting mechanisms to monitor the implementation of universal human rights standards by Canadian corporations or other entities investing in Colombia.

The petitioners are concerned that the free trade agreement with Colombia will proceed despite a report from the parliamentary Standing Committee on International Trade, which calls for an independent human rights impact assessment because the human rights violations, including those against trade unionists and communities living in areas of economic interest, are widespread and serious according to Amnesty International.

This is why many citizens in both countries are extremely worried that a free trade deal may make human rights situations in Colombia much worse.

[Petitions, November 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are asking for a judicial inquiry. They are concerned about the nine million sockeye salmon that have disappeared during this summer's migration to the Fraser River, the lowest return in 50 years.

They point out that this crisis is similar in magnitude to the collapse of the Atlantic cod stocks, which devastated the east coast. They also note that a factor in the Atlantic cod collapse was government suppression of the scientific facts.

Therefore, they are demanding immediate action. Yes, there has been an inquiry announced, but there needs to be a public report with binding solutions within six months. The time to act is now.

[Petitions, November 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.

The first petition calls on the Government of Canada to expand the annual number of permanent landed immigrants and to decrease the number of temporary workers coming into Canada. It also calls on the government to provide a path for temporary workers to become permanent residents and for it to crack down on those who make huge profits by illegally exploiting workers with precarious status.

The petitioners worry that over 200,000 temporary foreign workers came to Canada last year and that an approximately equal number of residents are here without status. The latter are employed mostly in jobs that are not temporary in nature, such as live-in caregivers and in hospitality work and skilled trades.

The petitioners also note that Parliament has voted in favour of an NDP motion to place a moratorium on the deportation of undocumented workers pending a full review of the immigration system.

[Petitions, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from a large number of people in my riding of Trinity—Spadina calling on the Government of Canada to support the NDP's Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act.

It also calls upon the Government of Canada to invoke a moratorium on the further expansion of tar sands development until carbon emissions are capped significantly, environmental and health impacts are addressed and protected areas are set aside.

The petitioners are concerned that the federal government is failing to enforce law that protects water and public health and regulates toxic pollution leakage. My constituents are concerned that over 4,800 square kilometres of wetlands and forests will be lost because of the expansion of the tar sands.

[Harmonized Sales Tax, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Laura Barr is getting married next summer, but the HST is putting a damper on a very special and happy occasion. Every item and service Laura and Jim purchase for their wedding will cost 8% more. They are being forced to add an HST line to their budget, but are getting absolutely nothing in return.

Allan Bowditch calls it a “stealth tax” that is setting back Canadian economic growth and creating incredible hardship among those who can least afford it, like pensioners and retired seniors.

People who live in condominiums will be especially hard hit with their condo fees going up. Every service from plumbing and electrical repairs to legal fees will be subject to the tax grab.

As a business owner, the HST will also cost Joseph Paget more. He sees it as an irresponsible and poor decision that will negatively impact the Canadian economy.

The people of Trinity—Spadina demand that the government stop this HST tax grab now.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the refugee system in Canada is in crisis. The just released 2009 annual Report on Citizenship and Immigration 2010 target levels of protected persons in Canada and dependants abroad range from a low of 9,000 to a high of 12,000 compared to a 2006 level of 22,500 to 28,000. Close to 17,000 refugees and their children will not find a permanent home in Canada. Many of the refugees are turned away and their children will face beatings, torture and even death. The government is working to ensure that Canada is no longer a land of hope and compassion.

The Conservative government is deliberately creating a crisis in the refugee system. The crisis is being used as an excuse to bring in draconian measures to close the door to the most needy and vulnerable.

How does the Conservative government create a crisis in the refugees field? It is a six point plan.

The crisis is created first by refusing to appoint refugee board members for two years, thus creating a backlog of cases.

Second, it is cutting $4 million from the department and diminishing its resources.

Third, it is allowing for refugee board appointments not based on merit. An audit performed by the Public Service Commission of Canada on appointment practices at the Immigration and Refugee Board found out of 54 senior appointments, 33 were either not based on merit or the guideline principles of fairness, transparency, access and representatives were not met.

Fourth, it is bringing in 200,000 temporary foreign workers and telling them that most have no hope in staying in Canada. Then it watches some of them get abused and exploited and claims that it is all a provincial responsibility. We should not be surprised that some of these temporary foreign workers get conned by unscrupulous immigration consultants and end up declaring refugee status in Canada in hopes that they can stay here permanently.

Then to top it off, the crisis became complete when the minister announced a few Fridays ago, at 5 p.m., a plan to drop the targets of refugees allowed to be claimed in Canada by more than half.

The human cost of having a refugee system in crisis and without a real appeal system is exemplified by what happened to a young Mexican woman name Grise.

Grise was deported back to Mexico, where she was murdered execution style. Her body was found with a bullet in her forehead. She was carrying a child before she was murdered. When they found the body of young Grise, it showed signs of trauma and she had a caesarian. Where is her baby now? We do not know.

Grise and her family attempted not once but twice to seek asylum in Canada. Had there been a refugees appeal division, they would have had an opportunity to appeal their case. Perhaps young Grise would be alive and maybe the baby would be with her today. Her baby would be safe and sound, not missing somewhere in the world. Imagine the sadness this family must feel right now.

The minister indicated in the media that he planned to introduce a two-tiered refugees determination system like the one in U.K.

This is how the refugees system in the U.K. works. Border officials decide who is likely to be a refugee and who is not likely, depending on which country they come from. If people come from, say Mexico, a country deemed to be safe, the claim will be put in a bogus pile.

In the U.K. the two-tiered system would automatically reject refugees claimants from certain countries, and this system has been proven to be a failure. Forty-five per cent of cases determined by border guards to be bogus have been proven to be legitimate claims after they were appealed.

If the minister has his way, Canadian border officers would be allowed to put families, such as the family of the young Mexican woman, in the bogus pile just because they came from an allegedly safe country.

A two-tiered system that would use a safe third country list is unacceptable. Canada must remain impartial in its refugee determination process. The implementation of a safe third country list would expose our country to undue influence.

To really fix the refugee system, we need an effective, fair, consistent and rapid refugees determination process. We need to: first, implement the refugee appeal division with the power to open, re-open and review cases; second, remove the unscrupulous consultants; third, hire more permanent refugee protection officers and give them power to grant approval status to obvious cases via the chair of the Refugee Board guidelines and directives; fourth, remove political patronage from the appointments on the Refugee Board; and fifth, restore the funding cuts and add some resources to the refugee appeal division and the entire refugee determination process.

Most of these recommendations come from the Davis Waldman Quality of Mercy report quite a few years ago, not implemented to this date, and from Raoul Boulakia, a lawyer who deals with a lot of refugee cases.

If the refugee appeal division is not being implemented, the mean-spirited anti-refugee ideology of the old Reform Party will be showing its face. Because of that, this coming year, 17,000 refugees will suffer because they will be turned down in a way that is most tragic, and some of them will face torture, beating and even death.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we know that implementing the refugee appeal division would save time and energy in the federal court. We also know that if it is implemented, we probably will not need the pre-removal assessment process.

Would the member agree that it would save taxpayer money in the federal court because there would be fewer appeals there and then the PRA, the pre-removal assessment, process would not likely have to occur?