Jenny Kwan
Vancouver East, British Columbia · NDP · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table three petitions today. The first petition is signed by electors of Vancouver Fraserview–South Burnaby and Vancouver Quadra, who brought their petitions to their local MPs but had to ask for my assistance to table this in the House.”
“Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules.”
“They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries.”
“Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes.”
“In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indig…”
“It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province.”
The complete record
Every one of 508 lines we hold for Jenny Kwan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 11.
“That is not balance; it is a political choice, and one that looks increasingly conservative by the day. The spring economic update saw health care spending cut as Canadians continue to struggle to find a doctor. The provinces and territories that did not sign on to the pharmacare deal that the NDP forced the Liberals to move forward on before the last election will likely not get an agreement. Meanwhile, mental health funding will not be renewed. The chronic underfunding for mental health and addictions continues. The highly touted dedicated funding for transit has been axed. Support for many critical services, including the Right Fit program for people with disabilities, will sunset. Canadians are worried about their future and are facing an everyday emergency to keep costs down.”
“It has pursued international trade and so-called nation-building legislation with Conservative support while sidelining indigenous rights and environmental standards. It has cut or constrained programs in areas like science, foreign aid, community support and public services, all while expanding military commitments and giving big corporations significant tax incentives and benefits as they continue to make record excessive profits. Day by day, it is becoming clearer that this is not progressive governance, but the consolidation of power, decision-making and priorities that tilt toward the market, megaprojects and militarization over people. It is a government that asks its working people to tighten their belts while opening the fiscal floodgates for defence and corporate-led growth.”
“Her article opens with this, “If one thing is clear from [the Prime Minister’s] economic update this week, it’s that he’s taking progressive voters for granted.” Indeed the months since the fall 2025 budget have confirmed a hard truth. The Prime Minister is governing like a centralizing conservative. The warning signs were already in the budget itself: public service cuts, reduced immigration targets and a growing emphasis on sovereignty spending including defence. The NDP flagged it as an austerity-leaning framework at a time when Canadians were struggling with unaffordability, unemployment and rising costs. Since then, the direction has only hardened. This government has overridden labour action, forcing striking workers back on the job, drawing fierce backlash from unions.”
““The Liberal convention in Montreal confirmed the direction...security, defence, and major project....” Election reform was rejected. “Small-l liberals...are running out of political space. Their values haven't disappeared. The party that used to carry them is just moving on.” Those are the comments of the Hon. Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister. I think he is reflecting the views of many progressives in Canada. After the tabling of the spring economic update, the headline of Althia Raj's opinion piece in the Toronto Star, which names the Prime Minister , reads, “[He] has forgotten who helped get him elected”.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières . Let me start with a quote that says, for all my life, I have been a Liberal who believed in rights, equity and an independent foreign policy. Since 1982, the charter gave us something that transcended party...courts that could check governments, refugee protection as obligation, reconciliation as shared responsibility. “The story is being re-written. The language hasn't changed. Ministers still invoke the Charter, the 'rules-based order'.... But...what's actually happening....” Asylum seekers are cut off before they reach a hearing, immigration detention is relocated into a federal prison, climate architecture is quietly dismantled, indigenous funding is eroded by inflation and international law is treated as optional when inconvenient.”
“The petitioners call on the House for a number of measures to ensure accountability and transparency, so that people will know what is going on with their file. They want the reporting of data and for an independent immigration ombudsperson to investigate chronic delays and provide a formal escalation channel.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by over 13,000 people about prolonged security screening delays for PR applicants. Internal IRCC projections reveal that PR applications referred for comprehensive security screening are projected to take nearly 65 months, which is over five years, to complete. I have so many constituents who are faced with this problem. The petitioners point out that the applicants from certain countries of origin face indefinite, non-transparent delays, that these delays cause severe harm, including prolonged family separation, mental health crises and significant financial burdens, and that the applicants lack meaningful recourse or transparent case information.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians, “we don’t want to hear what people are against; we want to hear what they’re for”. He has abandoned the environment. He is gaslighting environmental groups that have been calling for renewable energy for decades. No wonder the former environment minister resigned and Liberal MPs feel they can raise their concerns only anonymously. This is an authoritarian approach, not democracy. Will the Prime Minister stop his bullying tactics, the sidelining of indigenous leaders who dare to disagree with him, or do they need to do what Danielle Smith is doing: threaten to hold a referendum to separate from Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the spring economic update on surveillance pricing. There is nothing on excessive tax profits, as oil companies are set to make some $90 billion in excess profits. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the $140 billion for housing is actually for developers in lost revenues. The government does not, in the economic budget, have the wherewithal to ensure that the Right Fit program for people with disabilities will be funded. Only $500,000 is needed to keep the program going for people with disabilities to find a home. Why did the government not support people with disabilities?”
“Mr. Speaker, at a time when gas prices are skyrocketing, the Liberals are quietly slashing $5 billion from promised transit funding to local governments, all part of the Prime Minister 's cuts, funding that cities rely on to keep people moving and to fight climate change. That means fewer buses, delayed projects and higher costs for commuters. Why is the government abandoning working people and municipalities when they need support the most? Will the Prime Minister reverse these reckless cuts in the spring economic update and reinstate the promised stable long-term transit funding, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the high cost of living is fuelled by greedflation, and the Liberals know it. The top 1% now holds nearly a quarter of all wealth, while the bottom 40% scrape by with just over 3%. Oil companies are on track to make $90 billion in windfall profits from Trump's illegal war. Half measures, like a temporary federal gas tax suspension, will not stop this growth inequality. Will the Prime Minister bring in a windfall profit tax and price caps on gas to stop oil companies from price gouging Canadians, yes or no?”
“Children aging out of care already face too many extraordinary barriers. Parliamentarians should use their powers to protect the rights of some of the most vulnerable children. I urge the government to adopt this bill and see to its swift passage. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)”
“They deserve the best of care. When the system fails in its responsibilities to these children, they are exposed to harm. It is the responsibility of the government to apply for citizenship for children in care who came to Canada as minors, but the government routinely fails to do so. It leaves these young children vulnerable to the cruelty of deportation to a country that they left long ago as minors or that they have no connection to at all. Refugees and protected people face even more severe harms. There is a temporary policy in place to address the citizenship of children who are the legal responsibility of the child protection system, but it will expire January 7, 2027. This bill would enshrine a clear path to citizenship for children in care who came to Canada as minors.”
“Bill C-274. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-274, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an act that would amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for seconding the bill. In the previous Parliament, now retired senator Mobina Jaffer brought a bill on this issue, Bill S-235 , through the Senate at all its stages. I would like to thank Senator Jaffer and the Our System, Our Children, Our Responsibility coalition for putting a light on this urgent gap in child protection. Every day an estimated 61,000 children are in and out of care homes in Canada. Like all children, they deserve to have the rights of the child fully respected.”
“Mr. Speaker, on the issue around surveillance, indigenous people bear the brunt of it. We just recently learned that there was secret surveillance of indigenous leaders and indigenous community members. This is happening right now, and we are just learning about it. As we talk about expanding surveillance activities and capabilities, we absolutely need to make sure all the checks and balances are in place and that our basic rights enshrined in the charter are protected.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course I am very concerned that there could be overreach. That is an alarm bell that civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates have actually rung, saying that this is an overreach. They are very worried that instead of targeting a specific act or a specific investigation, this applies to all Canadians across the board as a generalized collection of metadata, of retention and of it being kept in place for a year, with no specific ties to a potential criminal activity. Those are real concerns. The government needs to make sure the balance is right, and hence the requirement, in my view, to ensure the Privacy Commissioner's views and recommendations are incorporated into Bill C-22 .”
“Mr. Speaker, to that point, if the government was so sure that it got the balance right, why did it not ensure the Privacy Commissioner could provide their views and recommendations on Bill C-22 ? The government was sent packing on Bill C-2 because of overreach, because of the omnibus bill and because Canadian public civil society organizations, civil liberties organizations and privacy advocates all said that the bill was wrong and it was an overreach. The government went back to the drawing board and came back with Bill C-22 on lawful access, but it missed a huge step, making sure the independent officer is incorporated into that consultation process. Why did the government exclude that step?”
“Mr. Speaker, as I have noted before, the government keeps saying that it got the balance right. If it is so certain about that, why did the government not ensure that the Privacy Commissioner is incorporated in the consultation process with the development of Bill C-22 ? Why did the government deliberately exclude an independent officer who would give Canadians the assurance that it has got the balance right? Perhaps the government could actually bring in an amendment to ensure that this takes place and that this bill does not become law until that happens.”
“Those are questions this House must examine carefully because effective policing intelligence work can and should operate within robust legal frameworks that preserve judicial oversight and limit data collection to what is strictly necessary. Getting this wrong would not just impact investigations, but it would reshape the relationship between Canadians and the state in the digital age. Advocates for civil liberties and privacy have very real civil liberties concerns that the bill represents one of the most serious proposed threats to privacy rights in Canada in the past two decades. That is not something we should take lightly because our civil liberties are the cornerstone of our democracy.”
“If that balance is not right, the consequences are not just legal, but democratic. Privacy is not an abstract concept. It is what allows people to speak freely, organize and participate in public life without fear of constant monitoring. When surveillance becomes more expansive and less constrained, it has a chilling effect. That is well documented. Therefore, the question before us is not whether we act, but how we act. Bill C-22 reflects an attempt to respond to real and evolving threats. It includes improvements over what came before, but it also raises serious, unresolved questions, particularly around the scope of data retention, the role of executive authority, the risks of cybersecurity and the adequacy of oversight.”
“More targeted alternatives, such as quick-freeze models, have been explored, preserving data tied to specific investigations rather than requiring ongoing generalized collection. Again, the issue is not whether tools are needed. In fast-moving cases, whether it is locating a trafficking victim or identifying a coordinated foreign interference network, timely access to data can make a real difference. The issue is whether this bill strikes the right balance between effectiveness and rights. Does it provide law enforcement with the tools it needs without overreaching? Does it maintain robust judicial oversight? Does it avoid creating systemic cybersecurity risks? Does it respect the charter principles of necessity and proportionality? More importantly, will it withstand constitutional scrutiny?”
“It also makes clear that any framework must be grounded in necessity, proportionality and legitimacy. It found no support for requiring back doors to encryption. It highlighted a lack of clarity in the government's overall approach. It raised concerns about the absence of a coherent, transparent strategy. That raises another important question. Why was there no more meaningful consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the independent officer tasked with safeguarding the rights of Canadians? At a time when trust in digital governance is already fragile, that omission matters. We should also look internationally. Broad data retention regimes have faced legal challenges in other jurisdictions.”
“It can review deeply personal information, patterns of movement, associations and behaviours. Mandating its large-scale retention also creates cybersecurity risks. Concentrating secret, sensitive data makes systems more vulnerable to breaches, misuse and exploitation by malicious actors. We should be cautious about requiring companies to build surveillance capabilities into their systems. Even where the intention is lawful access, these kinds of systemic access points can introduce vulnerabilities. Experts have repeatedly warned that there is no such thing as a perfectly secure back door that only works for one purpose. It exists for everyone. The committee report on lawful access is instructive here. It acknowledges the operational challenges, gaps in data availability, coordination issues and the need for lawful intercept capability.”
“They would not be subject to public scrutiny and in, many cases, they may never be disclosed. Instead, they would be approved through an administrative process involving the intelligence commissioner. Now, while that office plays an important role in oversight, it is not equivalent to independent judicial authorization in open court. (1345) We are told this is necessary to ensure that data exists when investigators need it to reconstruct networks, identify victims or attribute foreign interference. Those are legitimate objectives. The question is not whether those objectives matter, but whether the approach is proportionate. Bulk indiscriminate data retention risks treating every Canadian as a potential suspect rather than focusing on targeted investigations. Metadata is not benign.”
“Metadata may not include the content of communications, but it reveals patterns of behaviour, who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we are and how often we interact and for how long. In the digital era, metadata is often more revealing than content. It is the skeleton of a person's private life. Under this bill, that data could be retained, not because it is needed for a specific investigation but because it might become useful in the future. This would be a profound invasion of privacy law. It would replace targeted suspicion with generalized collection. In addition, the Minister of Public Safety would be granted authority to issue secret orders requiring providers to modify their systems to facilitate access to user information. These orders would not require judicial authorization.”
“The requirement of judicial authorization for further access would remain, which is essential. Therefore, yes, there has been some movement. However, we should also be clear about what this legislation would do. This is not simply a modest update. It is a significant restructuring of how the state, private companies and individuals would interact in the digital space. There are serious concerns, particularly in part 2 of this bill. Part 2 would require electronic service providers to build and maintain interception capacities within their systems, and would introduce the possibility of mandatory metadata retention, potentially requiring the storage of location data, device identifiers and communication metadata on all users for extended periods. It would allow the government to require companies to retain metadata for up to one year.”
“We have seen what happens when the balance is lost. The government's previous attempt under Bill C-2 , the so-called safe borders act, an omnibus bill, was widely rejected by over 300 organizations and tens of thousands of Canadians because it would have been an attack on civil liberties, on privacy rights, on due process and on the rights of asylum seekers. Bill C-2 has now come back in different parts. The attack for asylum seekers lives on under Bill C-12 , which the NDP vehemently opposed. The part about lawful access continues in Bill C-22 , and I would say it does include some improvements. The removal of blanket warrantless “information demand” powers matters. Replacing that with a more limited “confirmation of service” tool based on reasonable grounds and restricted to a yes or no response would be a step in the right direction.”
“In both cases, the central challenge is attribution, identifying who is behind an account or activity, quickly enough to act. Parliamentary findings have confirmed that agencies like the RCMP and CSIS face real difficulties accessing communications data and that, without some form of data retention, information sought under warrant may no longer exist, so the problem is real and the need for tools is real. New Democrats recognize that law enforcement officers must have the ability to investigate serious crimes and protect public safety, whether that is child exploitation, human trafficking, terrorist threats or foreign interference. However, those powers must always be balanced with strong protections for privacy, civil liberties, cybersecurity and meaningful consultation. That is the test before us.”
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 , the so-called lawful access act, is being presented as a necessary modernization of investigative powers in the digital age. To be clear, there is some truth in that framing. We do need to modernize. Law enforcement and national security agencies are operating in a rapidly evolving technology-driven environment. Serious crimes, from human trafficking to foreign interference, are increasingly digitally distributed and difficult to detect. Human trafficking networks now rely on encrypted messaging, anonymous accounts and constantly shifting online identities. Foreign interference operations depend on coordinated digital campaigns, pseudonymous actors and infrastructure that crosses borders in seconds.”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member that the government screwed up the tabling of Bill C-2 in trying to force through an omnibus bill that was resoundingly, as a result, rejected by the Canadian public. Here we are now with Bill C-22 . The government says it has consulted widely and has learned from its lesson, yet it has deliberately excluded the privacy commissioner in that consultation. Does the member think the government should have included the privacy commissioner on the development of Bill C-22 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that the modernization of investigative powers in the digital age is required. The question is about getting the right balance. In the interests of getting the right balance and protecting privacy and civil rights, why did the government not consult with the Privacy Commissioner or ensure that their input was incorporated in the drafting of Bill C-22 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government omitted to properly consult the Privacy Commissioner. It is a curious thing, why they did that. Would the member support an amendment to the bill to, prior to it receiving full authority, have the bill brought before the Privacy Commissioner for consultation and recommendations?”
“We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can pass the legislation while continuing to fight for deeper structural reforms. This comes down to a simple question: Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of grocery executives and shareholders, who have enriched themselves during a cost of living crisis, or are we on the side of the single mother comparing prices at 10 p.m. after her shift, the pensioner stretched thin on a fixed income and the family choosing between groceries and rent? Canadians deserve to know that the price on the tag is the price that everyone pays, not a number quietly adjusted based on their personal data. Bill C-226 is a vote for transparency, a vote for fairness and a vote for Canadian families. New Democrats will be supporting the bill, and we urge all members of the House to do the same.”
“When grocery chains know their pricing practices will be scrutinized, when they know Canadians can see when and why prices change, they will think twice before padding their margins on the backs of struggling families. Would the bill single-handedly solve the affordability crisis? No, it would not. New Democrats have called for much bolder action: excess profit taxes on grocery giants, stronger competition enforcement, measures to break up corporate concentration in the food supply chain and a public option for groceries such as what Avi Lewis has long argued for. However, the bill is a beginning. It would give Canadians tools and information. It would establish the principle that transparency is non-negotiable in our grocery sector, especially as pricing practices become more complex and less visible.”
“In Canada we are already seeing leadership in Manitoba on this under Premier Wab Kinew, who has taken steps to ban surveillance pricing practices outright, recognizing the risks they pose to consumers. Innovation should serve people, not exploit them. It is about setting boundaries. The Liberals should bring in a national initiative to ban surveillance pricing from coast to coast to coast. Meanwhile, Bill C-226 would address part of the broader problem by requiring transparency on price increases, adjustments and fluctuations. This is not about the government's setting prices. It is about ensuring that Canadians have the information they need to make informed decisions and to hold corporations accountable.”
“The United Food and Commercial Workers Union has already raised concerns, noting that these systems are beginning to roll out in real time with little transparency and no accountability. We know who will be most affected: seniors on fixed income, working families, people in rural and underserved communities, and anyone an algorithm determines has fewer options. That is not a fair market. That is digital age price gouging. (1130) Surveillance pricing needs to be banned in Canada. Our leader, Avi Lewis, has called for clear guardrails to ensure that personal data is not used to squeeze more money out of the pockets of people who are already stretched thin.”
“Retailers are increasingly able to use personal data, such as person's postal code, their purchase history and even their online behaviour, to estimate what they might be willing to pay, and to adjust prices accordingly. This means that two people could buy exactly the same product at exactly the same store and pay different prices, not because of a sale and not because of cost differences but because an algorithm has decided that one of them can be charged more. This undermines a basic assumption Canadians have always relied on: that the price on the shelf is the price everyone pays. It also makes comparison shopping nearly impossible. If prices are being personalized behind the scenes, how can Canadians make informed choices? How can markets function fairly when the rules are hidden?”
“That means clear, consistent labelling that lets a working parent on a tight budget quickly identify the best value. It means accessibility for seniors, for people with disabilities and for anyone who deserves to shop with dignity and clarity. This is consumer protection 101, and frankly it is long overdue in Canada. Many European countries and Australian states have had mandatory unit pricing for years. We are playing catch-up. Food affordability is a national crisis that requires a national response, and the framework would create a structure for that collaboration. In addition to addressing pricing transparency, there is also a new and deeply troubling layer being added to this lack of transparency: surveillance pricing.”
“Right now, grocery pricing in Canada operates like a black box. Prices go up, and Canadians are told it is because of inflation, supply costs or global pressures, but when those input costs come down, do prices follow? They rarely do, and consumers have no way to verify what they are being told. Anyone who has tried to compare products at the grocery store knows the shell game that is being played. Is a 750-gram box a better deal than the 1.2‑kilogram bag? Is the sale price actually a saving, or has the package quietly shrunk? Shrinkflation is real. Canadians are paying the same or more for less product, and without clear unit pricing, it is nearly impossible to catch. The bill would establish national standards for unit pricing displays, making them accurate, usable and accessible.”
“Increasingly, it is also about a transparency problem, because new technologies are making pricing even more opaque and harder for Canadians to trust. Bill C-226 , the national framework for food price transparency act, is one step, a modest but necessary step, toward restoring fairness and transparency in our grocery sector. I want to acknowledge and thank the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing the bill forward in the current Parliament. I also want to thank my former colleague Alistair MacGregor, the former member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as Bill C-226 is a carbon copy of Bill C-406 , which was introduced by Alistair because the NDP wanted legislation to establish a national framework to improve food price transparency through standardized unit pricing and public awareness for consumers about shrinkflation practices.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is happening in this country right now. Canadian families are making impossible choices at grocery stores. Parents are skipping meals so their children can eat. Seniors on fixed income are choosing between food and medication. Food banks usage has reached historic highs, and people using them are not just unemployed Canadians. They are working people, people with jobs who still cannot afford to feed their family. Meanwhile, Canada's grocery giants have posted record profits. Billions of dollars are flowing to shareholders and executives, while ordinary Canadians struggle to put food on the table. This is not a supply chain problem anymore. This is a greed problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the NDP moved a unanimous consent motion in this House to ban surveillance pricing, and every party agreed except the Liberals, who blocked it. Meanwhile, Canadians are struggling with the cost of living and corporations are using algorithms to figure out how much more they can squeeze out of family budgets and seniors living on fixed incomes. Why did the government block this common-sense measure, and will the Prime Minister commit today to banning surveillance pricing in Canada, yes or no?”
“to building public systems that put people first, the NDP knows that when we act in the public interest, we can lower costs and improve lives. It is time to take back control from grocery giants and put—”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being squeezed at the checkout counter like never before. Families are cutting back on essentials, skipping meals and struggling to afford groceries, while a handful of grocery giants continue to post massive profits. This is not a free market working for people. It is a system tilted in favour of corporate power, where Canadians pay more and get less. The cost of groceries is not just a household issue; it is a national affordability crisis, and it demands bold action. Under the leadership of Avi Lewis, New Democrats are ready to take on grocery price gouging head-on. That means tackling surveillance pricing, building real public options in food distribution, strengthening local and regional supply chains and supporting Canadian producers. We have done this before. From protecting farmland in B.C.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is patting himself on the back about reaching NATO's 2% defence spending target. Budget 2025 saw the Liberals impose a 5% target, $81 billion, and now the government is promoting its defence procurement strategy as a way to turn Canada into a major arms exporter. This exposes Canada to further undermining international arms trade commitments through existing loopholes without scrutiny. Will the Prime Minister admit that this new direction demands accountability and commit to a full parliamentary review of Canada's arms export policy?”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, the Auditor General has come out with a report that highlights the government's inability to ensure that the immigration system is operating efficiently and fairly. There is no question that there are people who take advantage of international students, who are faced with exploitation and abuse, but the government has turned a blind eye to that. Instead of fixing the problem, it is blaming international students and coming in with a cap, as though somehow the victims are to be blamed. That is the false narrative the government is perpetuating in the broader public. It is, frankly, dangerous.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure which clause the member is talking about. If he is referring to the one-year bar issue, I have already cited the issues related to it. There are many other components within the bill that I and the New Democrats cannot stand behind, and we are not alone. The UN Committee has made comments about the bill and its measures that should be changed. Civil societies have raised these issues. Those who work with refugees and migrants have continually raised these issues. I wish that the members of Parliament would listen to them and to the stories of real people. Canada once upon a time had a great system, but it is being eroded bit by bit by the Liberal government and the Conservatives on an ongoing basis. Now it is a shadow of what it was.”
“The member seems to think this is okay. The New Democrats take a different point of view. We do not think it is okay. We think that this is a draconian piece of legislation and it should be withdrawn.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the member cited the United States because, believe it or not, the United States actually has a slightly better system, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Its one-year bar actually applies to the last date of entry. Canada has chosen to apply it retroactively. This is what the government is doing. It is racing to the bottom instead of respecting international law and basic human rights. On the issue around the pre-removal risk assessment, in my speech, I amply outlined the flaws within that system. The government is now depriving individuals who are not able to meet the arbitrary timeline. People who face trauma, who escape persecution, may not have the wherewithal to file the claim within one year for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a lack of access to legal supports.”
“We can build an immigration and refugee system that is both fair and efficient, that processes claims in a timely manner, that ensures access to legal supports, that upholds due process and that recognizes the humanity of those seeking protection. These are not competing goals. They are complementary. We must uphold the principles of fairness, accountability, human rights and due process. The legislation does not meet this standard. For those reasons, my colleagues in the NDP and I will oppose the Liberal motion and will also be opposing Bill C-12 .”