Olivia Chow

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to support this private member's bill. It is long overdue that Canada have a refugee appeal division. Parliament has debated this issue several times, as has the Senate. Parliament has approved and said several times that we must implement a refugee appeal division, yet no action has been taken.

Let me tell members why we should not have refugees' lives determined by one single person. A refugee board member could send someone back to face persecution, torture or even death. We used to have board members, and the panel would make decisions. In the 1980s, it was three members. Then it was narrowed down to two members. In 2002, it became one member.

When the decision was made in 2002 that it would be one member, there was a promise that there would be an appeal process, but the former Liberal government never actually made that a reality.

The problem with having one person decide the fate of refugees is that some people have biases. Even just recently the minister appointed people, it seems to me, based on their Conservative membership, whether they were active in the party or not. We had failed candidates known to have homophobic points of view appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We had an appointee with a shady past in terms of that person's ties to a government that has been known to have human rights violations. Yet these are the group of people from whom one person would make the decision on the life and death of refugees.

The Canadian Council for Refugees has documented different examples of how decisions are made in a very inconsistent manner. In one case, there were two Palestinian brothers who had the same basis for their refugee claim, yet one was accepted and the other one was refused. The refused brother was deported. They were identical cases.

In another example, a person came from Iran. She had been arrested and detained for two months in Iran. Canada's refugee board concluded that this person, called Ms. Q, was not credible because of inconsistencies and gaps in her evidence.

Ms. Q told the board that she had scars on her body from the torture. Her testimony was rejected because she had not provided a medical report.

The psychologist who saw her said she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, which is why her submission was not as consistent as it could be. The doctor discovered that she had a depression in her skull consistent with a blow from a blunt instrument, and the psychologist found that she had been tortured and that if she were deported to Iran she would be in serious trouble. Even though there is expert evidence that she was severely tortured, this woman is facing imminent risk of removal from Canada.

There are two other examples. One is a gay man from Nicaragua who was deemed not to be gay enough and was turned down. Another woman, a lesbian from Ghana, even though she was tied to a pole, humiliated and spat upon, was also denied.

A refugee from Mexico came here. His mother and sister had been raped. Soldiers then tortured his father. He himself had his hands tied behind his back and was hit in the stomach. A hood was put over his head. He was questioned about where his uncle was hiding. They stripped him and cut him near his genitals with a knife. They then tied his testicles and yanked them while they continued to torture and question him. Lastly, they dipped his head in a tub filled with excrement in an attempt to obtain information they wanted.

These are the kinds of people we deny, because some members turn down 80% of the refugee claimants in front of them. Another member would approve 80%. As has been reported recently in the news, 80% of refugee claims that came before one board member were approved. So where is the consistency in terms of this board?

Remember, this board is made up of political appointees, and people have personal biases. When there is no appeal process, what one sees is real inconsistency in decision-making, yet we are talking about people's life and death.

Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that fails to give refugee claimants an appeal on their merits. UNHCR, which is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Canadian Bar Association have all said that Canada must have a refugee appeal division. Yet, over and over again, that has not taken place.

Ministers have repeatedly said that one could apply to a court to get leave. However, going to Federal Court is extremely expensive. It is expensive for the applicants and for the Canadian taxpayers. One must first receive leave or permission from the court. Nine out of 10 applications for leave are refused by the court and there is really no reason given. If we had an appeal division, most of these cases would not land in the Federal Court, which means that taxpayers would in fact save money. The Federal Court is really not set up to specialize in refugees cases anyway.

Refugee claimants may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, but this is not a mechanism for correcting errors in the initial refugee determination. Pre-removal risk assessment applicants can only raise new evidence, not argue that the initial decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board was wrong. As a result, only 3% of those applications have been approved. Those who apply for humanitarian and compassionate grounds get deported anyway while their applications are being considered, so that is really not a route to go.

For all those reasons, it is quite unfortunate that Canada, even though condemned by many international organizations, continues to ignore the rights of refugees and continues to waste taxpayers' money with a lot of cases stuck in Federal Court. We continue to have a huge backlog and continue to make mistakes and occasionally send refugees back to their home countries where they face torture, persecution, much suffering, and sometimes even death. There is certainly documentation of that.

I urge this House to quickly approve this private member's bill, have it fast-tracked—

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, vulnerable migrants are being ripped off because the immigration system is dysfunctional.

In a pathetic attempt to address the problem, the Minister Immigration had to launch a PR campaign to combat fraud, but it does not address the real problem of unregulated immigration consultants. The minister is ignoring crimes committed by fake consultants who take advantage of innocent people wanting to make Canada their new home.

When will the government implement the immigration committee's comprehensive recommendations to control immigration consultants?

[Petitions, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, top officials of the Obama administration met Monday to discuss how to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year. Among the detainees is Canadian Omar Khadr.

I am submitting hundreds of petitions from law students across Toronto asking the government to bring Khadr back to Canada. They are concerned that Omar Khadr, as a child soldier, has been denied his rights to a fair trial and humane treatment.

With Guantanamo Bay finally closing, it is time to immediately secure the repatriation of Omar Khadr.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, seven out of ten unemployed women would not qualify for employment insurance. The average benefit that women on employment insurance receive is less than $300 a week. Also, those who do qualify do not qualify for too many weeks and as a result, soon end up on the welfare rolls. The City of Toronto, for example, ends up having to add an extra $38 million in municipal property taxes because it anticipates that there will be at least 20,000 more people on welfare, bringing the total number of people on welfare this year close to 100,000, and that is the optimistic figure.

What could the member possibly say to an unemployed woman who is getting less than $300 a week? How could anyone survive on such a low income? What does he say to the seven out of ten unemployed women who have contributed to the program all their working lives and will not be able to get any of that money back?

[Federal Gas Tax, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, have you ever waited for a street car on the windy, cold, icy winter street corners of Toronto? Well, the wait will soon be a lot shorter.

Toronto is buying 204 new street cars. My constituents who ride the TTC on Queens Quay, Spadina, King, Queen, Dundas, College and Bathurst will all benefit from this purchase. Shorter waits means fewer people will drive.

Not only is riding the red rocket the better way, building new street cars creates 300 jobs over 10 years.

The federal government should send its $450 million to Toronto so the TTC street car contract can be signed by April 27. The Conservatives, however, refuse to adopt a gas tax formula that reflects Toronto's priorities. As a result funds have been mired in red tape for years.

When will Torontonians finally see some of their tax money back in town?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is probably correct. After all we have a leader in the Liberal Party that believes the expansion of the oil sands will contribute to national unity. He seems to have nothing critical to say about some of the problems, like the greenhouse gas emissions being creating by the oil sands.

Perhaps I should not be surprised that the Liberals are not at all worried about the amendment on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Even though it contains no consultation, no transparency, not one single Canadian has been asked—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand this. The budget was presented and, fair enough, the Liberals want to support the budget. However, what does destroying the pristine rivers or taking pay equity out of the Canadian Human Rights Commission have to do with stimulating the economy? I just do not understand it.

Could the Liberals not have even tried at the committee level to split up the bill, to take out clause 7 in this case? They did not even bother trying. Have they tried negotiating? No.

Have the Conservatives or the Prime Minister said that they would not do it? I have not heard it.

The Liberals are so afraid. I do not understand it. They say that perhaps there will be an election. No, not necessarily. The Constitution experts have said that if the government falls, we may not have an election. We may have a different kind of government.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is blessed with pristine wild rivers and lakes. I have canoed in many of them for many years, whether it is the Dumoine River, the Spanish River, the French River, the Missinaibi River, the Madawaska River, the Nahanni River or Alsek River. Canada has beautiful rivers that make us proud. It is almost a part of the Canadian identity.

The public's right to navigate these rivers predates Confederation. It is part of our history and heritage. It also needs to be part of our future. Why am I here talking about rivers in the middle of a serious economic downturn when today the Toronto stock exchange index fell more than 5.5%? It is because part seven of this budget implementation bill makes an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It has absolutely nothing to do with economic stimulation. If one reads the entire 360 page budget that was presented in the House, not the implementation act, it says nothing about changing navigable water protection because it cannot justify it.

Because the Conservatives saw how weak the Liberal Party was, they snuck in these pay equity changes and changes that punish students and public servants. They snuck in changes just like they did in the 2008 budget. Some members will remember the immigration changes. They had nothing to do with the 2008 budget but the Conservatives saw how weak the Liberals were and snuck the changes in. At the time, the Liberals said that they did not want an election and that they would support the budget, including the immigration changes even though they did not believe in them.

Last June, the Conservatives tried to change this protection act but they were caught. A lot of the environmentalists saw it and wanted to know why they were not being consulted and how the government could that, The change did not pass. Then, of course, we had an election. Many of my constituents wrote to me and said that we needed to protect public access to waterways in Canada. When we do that, we are protecting the natural environment of these waterways. Navigation is entirely under federal jurisdiction. There are no laws or regulations in place, other than the federal act, to protect the public right of navigation in Canada. The provinces have no jurisdiction over navigation and no ability to protect the waters.

Millions of Canadians access our waterways for recreation. Outdoor tourism around waterways generates many millions of dollars every year. In many parts of the country, the outdoor tourism industry is a critical part of local and regional economies.

My constituents said that the proposed amendments to the act must be withdrawn from C-10 and that there needs to be meaningful public consultation because they have the historic public right to navigate our waterways. We need to protect our natural environment. We need to ensure there is access to waterways for recreation and commercial tourism. I received a letter from another constituent who said that he was a canoeing enthusiast and that he was worried that the changes would threaten Canada's natural waterways that he so loves. He said that in order for Canada to remain clean and natural for all Canadians to enjoy, the Navigable Waters Protection Act amendment must be struck out.

Another constituent wrote to say that he was very concerned that the Government of Canada was poised to deregulate the protection of waterways in Canada which could impact on the rights of all Canadians to navigate and enjoy free access to Canada's waterways under the guise of putting people to work. He said that they were doing so without consulting Canadians in an open and transparent manner.

My constituent also mentioned that the legislation had nothing to do with putting people to work, considering that most, if not all of the economic stimulus initiatives proposed by the government, were for municipal infrastructure and not governed by federal environmental laws. He did not see any connection with what we are talking about here with stimulating the economy and putting people to work.

Another constituent wrote to ask us not to mix these changes.

The letters go on and on. People are extremely concerned and yet we have a Liberal opposition that is so afraid of its own shadow that it is not negotiating any amendments or changes. The Liberals are assuming that any amendment will be a confidence vote. They have not even tried. It is really unfortunate that the budget makes changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, pay equity and students, which has nothing to do with the budget and stimulating the economy.

We would be making a serious mistake here if we were to pass this section of the bill. I just wish the Liberals would actually stand up for what they say they believe in and split out this section and vote against it. They would then be able to tell their constituents that they tried and that they did their best and allow their constituents to judge. If they do not to that, then it has all been empty words. They say one thing here in the House but they act totally different when the vote comes. That is not what we call leadership.

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from hundreds of law students across Canada asking the government to respect the human and legal rights of Omar Khadr and bring him home. They are deeply concerned that the government believes the war on terror can be fought outside the law. As Canadians, they are concerned that our country's credibility as one committed to human rights and the rule of law has been severely undermined.

They also note that Canada's deep commitment to international human rights require ensuring Omar's right to a fair trial and humane treatment. For six years, Omar has been denied these rights. Canada's complicity in that denial implicates our country in gross violations of international law and undermines our value as Canadians. They want the government to bring Omar Khadr home.

[Points of Order, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today when the member for Timmins—James Bay got up to ask a question at around 2:58 p.m., there was a lot of heckling from members, including the member for Crowfoot, who said, “You're a low life”. Yesterday, February 25, at around 3:00 p.m., the same member heckled the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. Earlier on, he heckled the member for Toronto—Danforth. This has been a pattern. I can give you the whole long list, Mr. Speaker. On February 2, at around 2:30 p.m., the same member said, “Apologize to all Canadians” while he was heckling the member for Toronto—Danforth, et cetera.

This area of the House is a bit further away from you, Mr. Speaker, and there is a tremendous amount of heckling in this area. I want to bring this to your attention because I hope that when language such as “low life” is being used, you would ask those members, who are repeat offenders, to stop the heckling.