Paulina Ayala

[Coptic Christians in Egypt, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, I agree with my dear colleague. We must stand united to defend freedom of expression and to build a country where everyone has the right to participate. We can think differently, but we must tolerate all ideals, no matter what they are. What we must not tolerate is violence. I completely agree that everything must be done peacefully. There must be discussions, dialogues, to build democracy and to help countries that are emerging democracies. Canada has experience, expertise and the means to do so. We must be there, but we must absolutely not use this violence to impose a violent decision or our own ideals. I agree with my colleague.

[Coptic Christians in Egypt, October 27th, 2011]

Mr. Chair, a wave of anti-Christian violence has once again hit Coptic Christians in Egypt. About 100 radicals stormed a Coptic neighbourhood. Approximately 10 people died and about 100 were injured in clashes between Christians and Islamic assailants. Despite being alerted repeatedly, law enforcement allegedly did not try to disarm or truly oppose the crowds of assailants led by religious leaders. The Christians were allegedly left to defend themselves.

For years, to justify their hatred for and attacks against Egyptian Christians, Islamists have been spreading a rumour that Coptic Christians were responsible for the kidnapping of two Muslims. Al-Qaeda picked up the story in October 2010 and announced that this justified the killing of any Christians in Islamic lands.

Regardless of the causes, we can take a stand and state that nothing justifies the aggression and attacks that are committed against Coptic Christians and other minorities in Egypt on a regular basis. These attacks are the latest in a long history of persecution and vicious attacks, often committed with total impunity and sometimes even with the passive complicity of the army and police.

Another attack, which resulted in 13 deaths, occurred in March 2011, just after the departure of President Mubarak. There too, radicals stormed a Coptic church and then set it afire.

Never in Egypt's history has inter-religious violence been so intense and threatening. Muslims and secularists are also victims of this climate of hatred. Even worse, far from imparting values of tolerance and citizenship, Egyptian textbooks and public television make a commonplace of xenophobic propaganda that stigmatizes religious minorities. It is therefore likely that the situation will only get worse. Although the Egyptians are being offered the chance to turn the page on past repression, they risk being taken hostage by fanaticism.

That is why it is so important that the dialogue between Egyptians and the self-examination of their own society, which led to the uprising and mobilization of all Egyptian classes and communities, should continue in order to lead the country to a democracy that represents all citizens.

It is important to understand that fanatical movements take power in a climate of political repression and often do so by coups d'état. Such was the case in Egypt, where one family or clan was leading the country according to its own whims for decades. This type of takeover relies on secret preparations with reliable partners. The key solidarity networks—the extended family, the village, the ethno-religious group—provide a sure and effective means of political mobilization.

Until now, Egypt's political and social system was based on a strong, centralist state, controlled by a discriminating minority. These days, we have to do everything we can to support the great transformation the Egyptians are expecting. Canada has to stand up with the Egyptians now when it matters most.

We have to speak out loud and clear on behalf of all minorities in Egypt who now are entitled to a say in the governance of their country. Canada has to support the Egyptian people during the transformation of the systems of government before they are taken hostage again by the empire of fear.

There is a chance now, an opportunity to see an example of the strength of democracy and dialogue at work. However, there is also a risk that violent movements will prevent free expression of the Egyptians' hopes and ambitions. There is a risk that fear will once again take hold of the communities that have been excluded from power for so long.

Do you know the real source of the suffering? It is silence. The silence that is imposed by brutality, the silence of those who lose their voice under the reign of terror, but most of all the silence of those who watch without condemning, and without allowing their humanity to take over. Those who remain silent about others' misfortune are part of the problem.

One thing is for certain: no Canadian wants to see any harm done to the Egyptians. We have a duty—we, as members of Parliament from all parties—to unite our voices in denunciation.

That is why, to counter this devastating silence, we must impose a dialogue. As Canadians, with our imperfect but aspirational democracy, we must continue this dialogue with the Egyptians to let them see what we see, let them see the wealth of their nation and the importance of their actions for the future of the world.

We can never use force. It is unnecessary and unjustified. Above all, it is unthinkable and unacceptable to even consider it. From a distance, there are no identifiable targets in this cultural conflict. Only ignorance, intolerance and silence are at fault. Therefore, military violence cannot help the Egyptian minorities.

We cannot impose an embargo. It would be cruel and of no use to the people who are already being held hostage. It would only feed the discourse of hatred that is already so destructive. However, we can use our voice not only to continue the dialogue with the Egyptians, but also to force all the social, ethnic and religious factions in Egypt to continue the dialogue amongst themselves. It is a prerequisite for democracy.

Canada can speak up and influence its many partners to do so also. The Prime Minister of Canada has the moral authority to unite the political voices throughout the world.

The Prime Minister will surely decide to take advantage of the Commonwealth heads of government meeting, being held in Australia, to unite the voices of allies, and to appeal to the Egyptians and convince them to bear witness to hope and tolerance, not hate, violence and intolerance. As with many of today's problems, education will bring about solutions. These cultural conflicts motivated by prejudice and intolerance feed on systemic disinformation.

We have seen how the Egyptians, through the Internet and social media among other means, were able to develop a vision and see through the local propaganda. We need to do everything we can, as parliamentarians and Canadians, to determine how Canada can support the development of new and independent media and continued dialogue between Egypt and the rest of the world.

Our message must be strong and unequivocal: democracy and the respect of democratic countries cannot be attained without including minorities, or without recognizing the richness of the people, diversity and dialogue.

I add my voice to all those who wish to build democracy and respect human rights because a strong voice is what is needed for the minorities in Egypt. Last Tuesday at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, we had the opportunity to hear from three Egyptian citizens. They made some suggestions. First, they suggested creating a task force, within the Department of Foreign Affairs, on cultural minorities in the Middle East. They then suggested directly expressing Canada's deep concerns to the head of the supreme council of the armed forces, in person.

The issue of protecting minorities in emerging democracies in the Middle East needs to remain on the agenda of the G8 and other international groups. We need to work with other western countries in reacting to the daily persecution of minorities in Egypt and elsewhere. Finally, we need to apply a strategy that includes dialogue with the Egyptians and support for civil society.

Violence is used to legitimize the seizing of power by minority groups. Egyptians are opposed to violence and oppression, and they are motivated by hope. The recent uprising by a group of Egyptians that expelled terror from their social reality cannot be vilified by the actions of an extremist minority. Force against the Egyptian people is an unacceptable option. It would be unacceptable to make them suffer the consequences of the actions of a few anarchists. Anything other than dialogue and support for civil society would be unforgiveable.

In order to quash ignorance, in order to derail prejudice, in order to silence the calls to violence, in order to denounce those who use fear to promote an ideology and to rise to power, Canada must continue to emphasize the importance of education, inclusion and dialogue among the Egyptian people so that the multitude will come forth. They are the true source of wealth for that wonderful country.

[Copyright Modernization Act, October 21st, 2011]

Madam Speaker, no one is against the modernization of the act, which has not been updated since 1988 and is considered obsolete because of the advent of the Internet and digital technologies. Many Quebec and Canadian creators have been waiting a long time for the legislation to be overhauled. Their expectations have been shattered and now they realize that the government has responded to institutional and, above all, corporate needs, and definitely not to the basic need of supporting creation.

If there is to be no creation, no support for the creative instinct that inspires any material that could be subject to the principles of copyright, why are we wasting our time setting copyright guidelines? This bill has drawn a great deal of criticism from all stakeholders affected by Bill C-11, be they academics, whom the bill is trying to please, or artists, who provide a revenue stream on which the government has always counted. There are also the members of the general public, who will be criminalized for the personal use of artistic material that they purchase. Pierre-Paul Noreau, of the newspaper Le Soleil had this to say:

What is astounding about the government's approach is that Bill C-11 is the exact replica of Bill C-32, which died on the order paper when the federal election was called.

But there was a long series of consultations between the two bills. Experts, artists and spokespeople from groups concerned with copyright testified during 20 meetings of a hard-working legislative committee. But since the government had already made up its mind, nothing that was said changed the original bill. The government did not even listen to constructive criticism of its approach. Cabinet reacts to such criticism by saying that amendments are still possible.

In its current form, Bill C-11 is a catastrophe for authors, since it directly undermines copyright, which is how authors earn their meagre incomes. The proposal reduces the potential to earn real dollars and does not offer any alternatives. For example, the education system will now have much more freedom to use works in class, whereas it currently pays tens of millions of dollars to authors every year. Similarly, the logical principle of a levy on blank cassettes and CDs that had existed until now, but that has been bringing in less and less money, will not apply to digital audio recorders such as iPods, which have replaced these formats for storing copied music and images. This means that artists will see their revenue sources dry up in the interest of more freedom for users.

The answer is sad, yet clear. Since the government has said that it is open only to technical amendments, creators will have to cling to the hope of the mandatory review that will be conducted in five years, if they are able to hold out that long. This long-awaited update contains several well-targeted elements. Unfortunately, it has one major weakness. The reform fails to consider the minor creators. Some creators and participants in the cultural industry have criticized the government for failing to extend the royalties they receive on blank CDs to new technologies, such as the iPod, in order to compensate them for the reproduction of their works.

[Honoré-Mercier, October 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to commend a colleague from my riding of Honoré-Mercier, the mayor of Rivière-des-Prairies–Pointe-aux-Trembles, Chantal Rouleau. I want to acknowledge her courage in how she carries out her duties. She recently publicly condemned the collusion and corruption she has observed in the construction industry for years. In so doing, she has restored the confidence of people who had become disillusioned by politics, and I congratulate her for that.

I would also like to commend two organizations in my riding that work to improve people's lives and that just held their benefit gala on October 15: Génération Éducation, whose mission is to help elementary school students from disadvantaged neighbourhoods by providing financial and moral support tailored to the specific needs of each student, and the Quebec Latin-American Chamber of Commerce, an agency that showcases the contributions made by immigrant professionals and entrepreneurs.

Finally, I want to congratulate the people of Tunisia on their first free election since 1956.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying. We are talking about the suffering of people who will take very serious risks. They leave on a ship in conditions that none of us would be able to tolerate. They even bring their children because there is too much suffering.

Canada has signed certain international conventions on human rights and we have the ability to accept these people and to give them a chance in life. That is our role as a country. We are a model country and we should not tarnish our reputation. It is part of our history. We must protect and develop our reputation.

I do not believe that any thought has been put into this bill. I put myself in the place of someone who has faith. How can those who have faith support this type of bill when we are morally bound to accept those who suffer and to have compassion for others? It is a complete contradiction. It does not correspond to our views on life, love for our neighbours and so forth. That proves that we must attack this type of bill that lacks compassion.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we must continue on that course: we must be generous in welcoming those who suffer and not criminalize those who suffer even more. We must punish those who take advantage of the suffering of others. I therefore agree with my dear colleague who spoke earlier. We must be even more generous because people are suffering in other parts of the world, and when they come to live here they will contribute to our society and enrich it.

I am an immigrant, as are several of my colleagues in this House. What we are saying is that the seeds of prejudice are sown when there is a crisis that affects the country. Scapegoats are sought and, instead of the smugglers being punished, it is the people they have smuggled who are punished—the ones who were living in miserable conditions and left their country in distress.

This bill does not attack the real offenders.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, last summer, a small cargo ship entered Canadian waters off the coast of British Columbia, where it was intercepted by the RCMP. There were 492 Tamils crammed on board, including women and children. This is the particular case the government is talking about, since no other cases apply to its Bill C-4. The government claims to be concerned about the origin of the passengers seeking asylum when arriving by boat. It is worried that among these legitimate refugees are Tamil Tigers, members of a terrorist organization that has been banned in Canada.

The summer before that, a ship carrying 66 Tamils was intercepted on the shores of Vancouver. The government arrested them all and detained them for months, alleging that a third of them were Tamil Tigers sent to infiltrate Canada. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, their concerns were unfounded and they had to release the refugees. This is the example the government is using to justify its bill. This bill is based on unfounded concerns. Bill C-4 is based on a prejudice that has been refuted.

The public is not sympathetic to the reality facing refugees. Surveys show that 46% of Canadians believe that immigration has a negative effect on the country. When asked specifically about Tamils, closer to 50% of people want them deported back to Sri Lanka. The Conservative government knows these statistics. And this populist bill proves that the government is not afraid to divide the public on the basis of false perceptions. It also demonstrates that it prefers to increase fear among those who are afraid of the unknown instead of informing and educating the public and ensuring that Canadians live in harmony with one another.

This attitude is surprising for Canada. More than 20% of Canadians are immigrants. There are countless descendants of immigrants. Approximately 20,000 Sri Lankans have immigrated to Canada because of the devastation of a 25-year civil war and the 2004 tsunami. Last year, more than 280,000 immigrants received their permanent resident status in Canada. Bill C-4 is aimed at the 492 Tamils who arrived by boat, simply because the government believes that two of them had ties to a terrorist organization. We are talking about two people out of 280,000 immigrants that year. And the government thinks that justifies its ideological laws.

The saddest part is that this is all it takes for the public to continue fearing all other immigrants. Because their government is so afraid of refugees that it locks them up, Canadians have every reason not to trust newcomers. Bill C-4 does not fix anything, but it is still important because it is a very powerful symbol. It widens the gap between Canadians and certain classes of immigrants. It contradicts the open-mindedness of the majority of Canadians by siding with their more radical compatriots. Those 492 refugees suffered through exile and a horrific voyage, and then they were imprisoned because two of them posed a threat. Because they were cheated by a smuggler, they were treated as criminals. And if that were not enough, the government is forcing dishonour upon more than 6 million Canadian immigrants by reinforcing this idea that it is reasonable to have doubts when it comes to immigrants.

An article published in The Walrus magazine, which we all received in our offices in June 2011, reminds the government that this anti-immigration trend is similar to other sad initiatives like the Chinese head tax during the construction of the railway and the internment of Germans, Turks, Bulgarians and Japanese Canadians during the two world wars in the 20th century. The government's new approach recalls two other particularly ugly moments in Canadian history. In 1914, a Japanese plane carrying 400 passengers from India landed in Vancouver, but the refugees were denied entry to Canada and were deported to India. Twenty of them were killed upon their return.

Twenty-five years later, a ship carrying over 900 Jews fleeing the Nazis was turned away, forcing the refugees back to Europe, where over a third of them would die in the Holocaust.

These communities, whether South Asian or Jewish, which are now considered pillars of Canadian society, have experienced their share of discrimination and stigmatization. It is inconceivable in 2011, when Canada is not at war or threatened by mass immigration, that the government would propose new measures that amount to profiling and discrimination. It is even less conceivable that these initiatives would be considered urgent, in contrast to Canada's values and commitments when it comes to respecting and promoting every individual's rights and freedoms.

Such abuses seem to come about every time Canadian society is threatened by a crisis. Immigrants become scapegoats. The popular belief, which is unfortunately confirmed by this government's unjustifiable actions, is that immigrants steal jobs and ruin the standard of living in our neighbourhoods.

Nearly half the population believes the common perception that immigration increases the crime rate. Although many Canadians realize that immigration is a powerful tool for developing our society, the government chooses to fuel fear and pit classes of people against one another. Instead of promoting openness and education, the government chooses to fuel division and isolation.

In fact, every known indicator paints an entirely different picture. In fact, the mass arrival of Europeans since the 1970s has been accompanied with a notable decline in the crime rate. In Toronto, immigrants make up more than half the population and the crime rate has dropped by 50% since 1991. The crime rates in that city are also lower than the national average. A study conducted by the University of Toronto over a period of more than 30 years found that with increased immigration comes a decrease in the crime rate. These observations were made in every immigrant group, regardless of where they came from.

But the Conservative government prefers to govern based on public opinion polls rather than on facts. It prefers to spread prejudice by discriminating against certain immigrant groups, in this case the Sri Lankans who arrived by boat, over championing truth and fairness among Canadian citizens.

The Conservative government is trying to present certain groups of immigrants as acceptable and others as a threat. Such is the nature of Bill C-4, legislation that makes misinformation the norm and stigmatization a rule.

Studies by Statistics Canada go even further. They show that in the Montreal and Toronto regions, the crime rates are inversely proportional to the immigration rates. In other words, immigration acts as a safety net against crime. Researchers have all been encouraged by these observations that refute old perceptions. However, these same researchers question the government's attempts to perpetuate these myths about immigration. Immigrants are motivated by a great determination to integrate into Canadian society and by their desire to understand their host society.

The Conservative government claims that it must take this action to denounce the abuses committed by these smugglers, the real criminals behind all this. It is not by putting the only witnesses behind bars and acting as a torturer that the government will ensure fairness in the immigration process and it is certainly no way to ensure the safety of Canadians.

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 19th, 2011]

In the summary, at letter (f), it says the following:

(f) provide for detention rules and a review procedure...

That means that more prisons will have to be built for these people and these families. Who will build them? Will it be the government, the private sector or a public-private partnership? Will there be classrooms for the children? Will special staff be hired to manage the review procedure in these detention centres? Will children be separated from their parents? What are we really talking about here? Is this not just a way of criminalizing these people?

[Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, September 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, foreigners accepted as refugees cannot become permanent residents for five years, so they are not able to study. Earlier, members were talking about the economy. If these refugees have to wait five years to receive recognition of their education equivalency or to have access to university for those who already have a degree, this means that we lose out. We cannot retrain these newcomers and they end up trapped in poverty or being economically dependent.

Does my colleague not think that there is a contradiction when we say that we must stand up for the Canadian economy, yet we are closing the door on these people for five years, not allowing them to retrain or to contribute their professional skills to Canadian society? Is that not a contradiction?

[Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act, June 25th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the other side has the answer. The question should be put to them.