Paulina Ayala

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague has a lot of experience concerning the armed forces; I, myself, do not have much.

I would like to know what improvements she would make to this bill. I know—and we hope—that it will be referred to committee for amendment. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, October 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is something that worries me. I remember, in the past, in my experiences in Chile—those were difficult years—that someone could be imprisoned just because he was suspected of something. And that is how the story started.

Here, if I understand correctly, someone can be arrested because he is suspected of something. There is a danger here for the country. There is no proper trial. There is not really any evidence behind it all, and the person is only suspected of something.

Moreover, a judge may think that someone should enter into an agreement. If the person does not agree and does not comply with the agreement, he or she can be put in jail. This brings back bad memories of things that happened in my life.

There is a lack of respect for fundamental rights. I would appreciate it if my colleague would go a little deeper into this issue.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when young people become offenders here, it is society's responsibility to take care of them. We cannot deport people who have become criminals here. Our Canadian society is responsible for people who were not able to integrate their families or to detect illness in their adolescent children. They need special assistance. We cannot tell people that they became offenders even though they came here at a very young age. It is our responsibility. They grew up and were educated here. We accept them and reintegrate them properly into society.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, laws provide for sentences for people who commit a crime. But these people must not be punished forever. We want to return them to society. There is a reason why Canada is a country of immigrants. We need people.

Consider the example of the person I mentioned earlier. He suffered. Yes, he made a big mistake. He was sentenced for that, but he has the right to rejoin society. We have to be able to reintegrate people into society. People of faith know that this is fundamental. The person misjudged, made a mistake and is forgiven. Is that not what we believe?

According to the premise of this bill, we would tell this citizen that he is bad and we do not want him. We want perfect immigrants. At that point, we will define who is good and who is bad.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to share my concerns regarding the faster removal of foreign nationals.

Since the founding of this country, Canada has been a land of immigrants.

I, myself, am an immigrant, and I understand the many challenges that new Canadians face in integrating harmoniously into their new country, particularly those who arrive as refugees and who leave their countries in distress. Refugees often experience severe cultural shock. This distress is even more painful when they arrive with their children. Often, they have to learn to speak a new language. They have to find a place to live and a job, and the list goes on.

Immigrants who arrive as permanent residents start out differently because they emigrated by choice. However, once they arrive, they have the same difficulties as refugees in finding a place to live, getting a job and having their foreign credentials recognized. They sometimes end up unemployed and living in the most marginalized neighbourhoods through no fault of their own.

For an immigrant, finding housing is not an easy thing. I know from experience. With a family, it is even worse. Parents do not have their extended family to help them. Often both parents have to work and the children go to school.

The shock is even greater when a young person becomes a delinquent. Under Bill C-43, on reaching adulthood, he becomes an undesirable immigrant who has to leave his adopted country.

I am talking here about young immigrants who arrived in Canada at the age of one, three, four or eight, who grew up here and who went to school here. I am not talking about an immigrant who arrived in Canada at the age of 30 with suspicious thoughts in mind. I am talking about young people who became delinquents here in Canada. They went to school here. They should serve their sentence here. They should reintegrate into society as good citizens here in Canada. They are our responsibility as a society because they grew up here, not elsewhere.

We are talking here about a local problem, not an untraditional export. We are sending these delinquents to their parents' country of origin, a country that they are not necessarily familiar with.

We are talking here about people whom we educated and trained and who became delinquents in Canada.

Most newcomers to Canada are people who will obey the law and never commit a crime. That we know.

The Conservatives should put more effort into ensuring that these people are treated fairly and that they can be reunited with their family members. This would really help these families to integrate harmoniously into their new country and to take care of their children when both parents have to work.

I think about my students from the inner city. How many of them do not have a grandmother? It can really help to have a grandmother taking care of the kids after school, because their parents get home late in the evening. The child comes home with a key, opens the door and is home alone. It is easy to get caught up in the wrong crowd on the way home.

The Canadian justice system has a good reputation throughout the world, and I am concerned that we are sending the wrong signal by hastily deporting criminals without proper grounds.

Will we create more injustice by accelerating the process? Do we risk doubly penalizing people who made a mistake—I am not saying that these are all innocent people—but who paid their debt to society?

I would like to talk about two families in my riding. In both cases, Canadian children are being penalized when their parents are deported for a crime they committed at some point in their lives. In many cases it is a double penalty.

For example, a Colombian-Canadian family was forced to take their young Canadian children—this was in the papers—to a country our government was discouraging people from visiting on our travel warnings site. Another case highlights the importance of being reasonable and carefully studying this bill.

Last week a new case came across my desk. A Canadian citizen is concerned about the situation of one of her employees. This employee is at risk of being deported to Vietnam. This man arrived in Canada as a child. He was 8 years old. His parents died on the ship on the way to Canada. He grew up without his parents. He and his brother outlived them. He is now 40 years old and has six children born in Quebec. He is married to a Canadian.

He spent nearly all of his childhood, teen and adult years here. Around the age of 18, he committed crimes and was punished by the Canadian system, which means that he was tried and he served time in prison for his crimes. He served his sentence.

Being in jail got him thinking and he is now back on the right path. Moreover, for the past number of years, he has been telling the story of his life to other young people, in order to help them also get back on the right path. In doing so, he has helped many young people, and several of them can attest to that. He applied for a pardon two years ago, but things are dragging on.

Recently, Citizenship and Immigration Canada revoked his Canadian citizenship, and a deportation date has already been set. His fate seems already sealed.

He works as the leader of a team specializing in above-ground work related to supply. He is the top-performing team leader in his area. He is a very responsible person and a born entrepreneur. He is resourceful because he can find solutions when conditions are not ideal. He is also very respectful of his employees. Needless to say, he is essential to the company for which he works.

Vietnam is no longer his country. He has been living here for 37 years. His country is Canada. He has six children. One of them has reached the age of majority, but the others are all minors. So this father will be separated from his children. This man will be separated from his wife. He will be separated from his country. This is basically saying that immigrants are second-class citizens.

This example clearly illustrates what we have to be careful about, because Bill C-43 takes away from the minister the responsibility to examine humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

Currently, the minister has the obligation, at the request of a foreign national or on his own initiative, to look at the humanitarian and compassionate considerations related to a foreign national who is deemed inadmissible on grounds related to security, human rights or international rights violations, or organized crime.

If the minister deems it justified, he may grant an exemption for humanitarian and compassionate considerations, taking into account the interests of a child directly affected. However, the new legislation removes that ministerial responsibility.

Why would the government want to divest the minister of the responsibility to take into consideration the children's best interests when a person faces deportation?

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Conservative member has to do with teachers. I am a high school teacher. A new teacher can spend long years being on call. This is what happens: you got a degree, you went to university, you took out loans and got bursaries, and then you end up being glued to the phone waiting for a call. Sometimes you get a call at 7:00 a.m. the day of, and you have 30 minutes to get to the school. Weeks can go by without a call.

In the meantime, you have to pay back your loans. You have to live with your family and you cannot work just anywhere. We are professionals and must work on our careers as teachers. What do we live off in the meantime? Employment insurance.

After six weeks, if the teacher has not received a call—it can sometimes take months—the teacher will go work elsewhere, and we lose a teacher. That is what is important. This is about our children's education. These are professionals who studied for years.

What does my Conservative colleague have to say to professionals like me, to teachers, who are sometimes in precarious situations?

[Financial Institutions, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the major banks are increasing their clients' service fees. On November 5, the National Bank will increase the cost of a bank transaction from $0.65 to $1, an increase of more than 50%. They are not satisfied with the record $7.8 billion profit they recorded in the last quarter. That is much higher than the rate of inflation.

Why are Conservatives not protecting families from the banks' greed? Why are they letting them pick their clients' pockets?

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking that, by changing the rules on political party financing, we are opening the door to private donations.

As everyone can see here today, the NDP has many women and many young people in its caucus. I myself would not have been able to get a loan. I was a substitute teacher. We will not have any diversity in Parliament if we create such strict requirements and favour certain groups. Thus, I see a link between the political party financing that was eliminated and campaign financing.

I wonder if my colleague could expand on that a little more.

[Political Loans Accountability Act, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I remember 2006. Back then, I was not yet a Canadian citizen. I had been in Canada for a few years, but I had not yet applied for citizenship. I was very attached to my Chilean citizenship. However, I was so shocked by the sponsorship scandal that I wondered how such things could happen here. So I became a citizen, and since I have always been involved in politics, I got involved again.

How does my colleague think this bill can be improved? What suggestions will the NDP be making to improve the bill and ensure that Canada and our democracy remain a model for other countries on this continent and for democracy in general?

[Helping Families In Need Act, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is another thing that worries me, because it is perfectly clear that two categories of parents have been established.

First of all, there are parents whose child disappeared or was killed, which is horrible. These parents will receive their benefits from general revenues and not from the employment insurance account. Parents who are self-employed are therefore protected.

Now let us take the case of parents whose child is ill, and an example comes to mind. This is the case of a lovely young girl I knew, who was my son’s classmate and who died of cancer when she was 13. I learned the sad news last year, on the day that I was elected as a member of Parliament, and it was a shock. Her parents had some financial problems and had to sell their house. That is why I said that there are two categories of parents, and I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks about this.

Parents who are self-employed are not eligible for employment insurance. Why limit access to those who are eligible for employment insurance? There should not be different categories of parents. My view is that parents are entitled to receive help. They should be paid benefits out of general revenues from the government’s budget.

What does my esteemed colleague think?