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 6 of 11.
“They frame it as modest fiscal restraint, but decades of health policy research demonstrates that even small user fees deter access to health care, especially for low-income and medically vulnerable populations. The population covered under the interim federal health program is among the most vulnerable in Canada: refugees and refugee claimants who often arrive after suffering war, persecution, torture and prolonged displacement. Many arrive with trauma, and many arrive with chronic conditions that have gone untreated for years. They have extremely limited financial means. For some living in deep poverty, a prescription charge is not symbolic. A 30% copayment for mental health counselling is not modest. A copayment for mobility aids, dental care or vision care is not a small inconvenience; it is prohibitive.”
“Denying early access to medications, mental health supports, dental treatment and assistive devices does not eliminate the need for care; it delays it until conditions become acute and far more expensive to treat. We have seen this before. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, supplementary coverage under the interim federal health policy was restricted. The result was confusion, suffering and documented harm. Courts found the cuts to be cruel and unusual. After 2015, those restrictions were reversed because they were harmful and counterproductive. Canada learned that lesson once; we should not repeat it. Nonetheless, taking a page from the Conservatives, the Liberals have now introduced copayments under the interim federal health program in budget 2025.”
“Their previous changes to the interim health program were struck down by the courts because they were deemed unconstitutional in 2014 under the Harper government. This is the same playbook, same narrative and same fearmongering. The Conservative leader keeps saying that he turned over a new leaf, but he is back to the same old games of politicizing social issues for political gain, whereas deeper nuance and compassion are necessary. It is disappointing watching the Conservatives walk the same path over and over again into a dead end. The evidence is unequivocal: When governments adopt an emergency-only model of care, health outcomes deteriorate and long-term costs increase. Preventative and primary care are the most cost-effective interventions in any health care system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin . I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the Conservative motion targeting the interim federal health program, and this is after the Liberals have already rolled it back. Let us be clear about what the motion does. It scapegoats newcomers and refugees. It suggests that denying preventative care, prescription medication, dental treatment and mental health services would somehow produce savings. It would not. It would simply shift costs from preventative care to emergency rooms, from primary care to acute care, and from federal responsibility to provincial systems, where treatment is far more expensive and outcomes are far worse. The Conservatives and the Liberals are approaching this challenge in the wrong way, and they should know better.”
“My question to my colleague is this: Would he also join the NDP to collectively demand that the Liberal government do what is right and honour our international obligations to refugees, and also support provinces and territories, including Quebec, in getting the necessary resources to do the work that is required?”
“Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct, in that part of the issue around escalating the cost of the system is the Liberal government's inadequacy in providing the necessary resources to get the applications processed. In the case of the IRB, for example, it needs the actual resources and the capacity to be able to process the applications so applicants are not just jammed up in the system. Equally important would be for Quebec and the other provinces to receive the additional funding that is required in the delivery of health care. That is absolutely paramount.”
“Madam Speaker, with respect to the comments the parliamentary secretary made earlier, he is absolutely correct that the Conservative approach is divisive and penalizes the people who are most vulnerable in our community. To the point on interim federal health policy, the Liberal government brought forward a copayment system in the budget. For those who are suffering mental health challenges with trauma, people who have escaped persecution, violence, gender-based violence and so on, access to mental health and access to medication would be critical. A $4 fee could be prohibitive for them. A 30% increase in copayment fees could be prohibitive for them. Would the member agree that the government should not go down that track because it is edging right into the trap that the Conservatives are setting?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition in support of Bill C-233 , which would close the arms loophole. It is signed by residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario, and gathered by Palestinian Solidarity Thunder Bay. The group says that they requested to meet with the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North , hoping that she would table the petition, but could not get a meeting. Therefore, they have asked that I table their community's call for the House of Commons to enact legislation to close existing loopholes in Canada's arms export laws, including removing exemptions for the United States, strengthening oversight and reassuring that Canadian arms are never used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses.”
“Mr. Speaker, when my colleague, the member for Nunavut , was asking her question, a page actually walked across the aisle in front of her. I just want to bring that to your attention and ask whether we could have the member repeat her question.”
“Petitioners also note that Bill C-2 would undermine Canada's obligations under international human rights instruments, particularly in relation to privacy rights and the fair treatment of migrants and refugees. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House to immediately withdraw Bill C-2 in its entirety; reaffirm Canada's commitment to privacy, civil liberties and international human rights standards; reject any legislative or policy initiatives that would enable foreign states, including the United States, to gain undue access to Canadians' personal information; and, finally, ensure that legislation related to national security and the border upholds the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is subject to meaningful judicial oversight.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by over 4,600 Canadians who are deeply concerned that Bill C-2 , the strong borders act, contains provisions that would threaten fundamental rights and freedoms protected under Canadian and international law; that the bill would grant law enforcement and national security agencies warrantless access to Canadians' historical associations with organizations and businesses; that it would allow authorities to compel the disclosure of sensitive personal information, including geolocation data and contact details, based merely on suspicion of relevance to the investigation of offences under acts of Parliament, regardless of individual involvement; and that the bill is designed to facilitate Canada's alignment with the United States CLOUD Act and the United Nations cybercrime convention, raising serious concerns about foreign access to Canadians' private data, including by regimes with poor human rights records.”
“Across party lines, Kirsty was known for her seriousness of purpose, her respect for colleagues and her belief that public office carries an obligation to do better for those who have been excluded, harmed or ignored. Even when we disagreed, she engaged with integrity and care. Kirsty Duncan leaves behind a legacy that spans academia, public policy and advocacy, a legacy rooted in evidence, empathy and courage. Canada is better because of her work. She will be remembered not only for the offices she held but for the principles she lived by. Kirsty truly was one of the good ones, and we, all of us in the House, mourn her loss. I know my colleague Richard Cannings particularly mourns her loss and will send his love to her family and friends, for they were both scientists at heart, and that bonded them in an unbelievable way. Rest in peace.”
“She made ending abuse and harassment in sport a national priority, convening governments across jurisdictions and pressing institutions to confront systemic misconduct. This was not abstract policy work; it was deeply personal, and it mattered. Her insistence on accountability, safe reporting mechanisms and enforceable standards changed the national conversation on sport safety. (1230) Kirsty was also a champion for women and girls in science. Her later work, including The Exclusion Effect , challenged institutions to confront how systemic barriers continue to push women out of scientific fields. She was unafraid to name uncomfortable truths, and she always paired critique with practical solutions.”
“That lived experience profoundly shaped her later work and gave her advocacy a depth that was impossible to ignore. As minister of sport, she brought a depth and embodied understanding to the work that supports Canadian athletes. As a parliamentarian representing Etobicoke North for 17 years, Kirsty brought her scholarly rigour into the House of Commons. As the minister of science, she played a central role in restoring respect for evidence-based decision-making in federal policy and re-establishing the position of chief science officer. She understood that democracy is weakened when science is sidelined, and she worked deliberately to rebuild trust between researchers, government and the public. Her tenure as minister of sport and persons with disabilities was marked by courage and compassion.”
“As a medical geographer with a deep sense of moral responsibility, she devoted her academic career to understanding the links between environment, health and human well-being. Her pioneering work on trying to understand the origins of the 1918 Spanish flu, culminating in an ambitious and ethically grounded expedition internationally, reflected both intellectual courage and an unwavering belief that science exists to serve humanity. Even when the expedition did not yield the outcomes she had hoped for, she was transparent about the process and generous in sharing its lessons, exemplifying scientific integrity at its best. Kirsty also spoke with rare honesty about the abuse she endured as a young athlete and the lifelong consequences it had on her health.”
“Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, I rise to pay tribute to the late Hon. Kirsty Duncan, whose life was defined by an extraordinary commitment to science, justice and public service. Regardless of the partisan antics that happen in the House, we all collectively know, admire and are touched by the incredible strength of Kirsty Duncan. Today, I want to recognize a great Canadian who gave so much to public life in this country no matter what sphere she was working in, from sport to science to community to academic research to a life in politics. Kirsty Duncan was exemplary in all these areas. She has been taken from us far too young. Our thoughts and condolences go to her family, her husband, her friends and colleagues. Before entering public life, Kirsty was already a distinguished scholar.”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants to build Canada up, yet he is slashing over 30,000 PSAC workers who deliver core public services like EI, tax credits, food inspection and more. Admin funding for friendship centres across the country will come to an end this fiscal year. The Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre Society is also being forced to fight for the survival of its gender-based violence prevention programs and its urban programming for indigenous people. Will the Prime Minister stop the cuts and protect the well-being of our communities with ongoing, stable, permanent funding for friendship centres and their programs, yes or no?”
“Madam Speaker, I agree. I think there needs to be restrictions put in place on the Senate. I cited some examples and there are many more. Randall Garrison's bill on transgender rights was another one that was stalled in the Senate. That should not be allowed.”
“Madam Speaker, I raised the issue of the points the different parties have raised, which are valid points for consideration. I think they should be given the time to be thoughtfully considered at PROC. It should invite the members of Parliament with different points of view to come forward so they can advance those perspectives and we can come back with standing orders that are effective, fair, just and equitable.”
“Madam Speaker, those are valid questions to be considered, as are all the issues the members of the different parties have brought up. The purpose of this debate is to raise these issues and to have them examined thoroughly by PROC, so it can come back with a system that is fair and just. I urge the government members to consider the points I have raised, particularly around triggering a vote, but all the other points as well. The way that the Senate is filibustering or stalling on private members' bills is just wrong. It has happened to the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc. It is supposed to provide a sober second thought, but deliberately stalling to obstruct is not sober second thought.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear. What I am raising is the issue of a member of Parliament being able to trigger a recorded vote. That should be afforded to every single member here irrespective of their party standing or what party they belong to. It is our fundamental right to be treated equally, to have that right and to have our voice be counted and recorded. I am not sure how this was advanced, as I did not sit at that table, but I do not think it is right. We have an opportunity to revisit it right now to correct that wrong.”
“At a minimum, every member of Parliament should have the right to trigger a recorded vote on their own private member's bill. Anything less undermines the credibility of our procedures and the legitimacy of members to participate in a fair, democratic and transparent manner, no matter what political party they belong to.”
“Whatever concerns may have existed during the early stages of the pandemic no longer apply. What remains is a rule that centralizes power in party structures and diminishes the voice and role of individual members. That should be a concern for all members of Parliament, particularly at a time when democracy is being undermined in so many places around the world. PROC has a responsibility to ensure that standing orders do not erode the equality of members over time, particularly through incremental or convenience-based changes. In this case, the effect is clear: Some members are being denied the ability to force a vote and force the House to decide. If PROC is serious about protecting Private Members' Business, about fairness and procedure, and about the equal standing of all elected members, then this standing order must be revisited.”
“To deny a member the ability to trigger a vote after clearing all of those hurdles is not merely inefficient; it is inequitable. It creates a hierarchy among members that is not grounded in parliamentary principle. PROC should be particularly concerned about this because the ability to trigger a recorded vote is not a courtesy. It is a core accountability mechanism. Recorded votes are how members place themselves on the record. They are how constituents assess their representation. They are how Parliament signals collective decisions. There is no democratic rationale for restricting that right to members of recognized parties only, nor is there compelling operational justification. The House has now demonstrated over several years that recorded votes can be conducted efficiently in a hybrid environment.”
“It was bundled into a broader package of hybrid reforms, many of which were necessary, but their long-term implications deserve more granular scrutiny. The practical effect of the current rule is stark. For example, an MP without recognized party status can introduce a private member's bill. They can win a spot in the Private Members' Business lottery, a process that is already governed by chance and scarcity, but when the House reaches the moment of decision, an MP without recognized party status cannot compel a recorded vote on their own bill. From a procedural perspective, this is indefensible. Private Members' Business is already one of the most constrained elements of House business. The lottery system means that members may wait years for an opportunity to have a bill debated.”
“Under the current standing order, specifically Standing Order 45(1), only members of recognized parties may request that the yeas and nays be entered into the record. Members without a recognized party status may ask that a motion be carried on division, but they cannot insist on a recorded vote. This is not a long-standing parliamentary practice. It is actually a relatively recent change. The restriction emerged during the House's transition to hybrid sittings in response to COVID-19. Similar language was adopted in 2021, extended in 2022, and made permanent in 2023, following PROC's recommendation that hybrid-related changes be entrenched. However, what is striking and concerning is that this restriction does not appear to have been fully examined as a stand-alone question to members' rights.”
“In an era of increasingly centralized messaging, this mechanism deserves strengthening, not contraction. This would allow us to probe questions more thoroughly and more deeply, heightening democratic accountability. (1045) Fifth, the rules governing committee of the whole require updating. Committee of the whole should always last four hours, and participation should rotate in a manner similar to question period. Too often, these proceedings are dominated by government members, despite the fact that committee of the whole is fundamentally an accountability mechanism. PROC should restore balance to this forum. I want to turn to the most pressing issue, which is the right of members to trigger a recorded vote.”
“We should actually empower the House of Commons and members of the committee to be able to move legislation forward. Third, opposition days should not be scheduled on Wednesdays or Fridays. These are already shortened sitting days. Scheduling opposition business on those days diminishes its effectiveness as an accountability mechanism. PROC should examine whether this practice aligns with the original intent of supply days. I note that the NDP, given where we are, does not actually have opposition motion days, but I raise this because it is important for democracy. Fourth, we should consider increasing the number of late shows or at least extending the period during which they can be scheduled. Late shows are one of the few procedural tools available to members to pursue answers when initial responses are inadequate.”
“Second, PROC should revisit the rules governing dissenting reports. At present, only the official opposition may table and present dissenting reports during Routine Proceedings. That limitation no longer reflects the composition of the House or the reality of the committee's work. All parties should have the ability to formally express dissent and table their dissenting report. Relatedly, committees should be empowered to table bills following the completion of substantive studies. Committees frequently identify clear legislative gaps or solutions. Allowing committees to initiate legislation in these circumstances would strengthen Parliament's policy capacity and better connect study to action. Too often, committees do a study and come forward with recommendations that, frankly, just sit on a shelf without much action.”
“We have also seen extended debate on Senate amendments to private members' bills, which occurred with the Bloc Québécois's supply management bill. Some of these issues, essentially and eventually, were resolved because they were brought back to the House, and some of them were adopted as government bills, but the Senate should never be allowed to stall a private member's bill in such a way that it dies on the Order Paper. That has happened to all parties. PROC should consider whether reasonable limits are required, both on the Senate's capacity to obstruct Private Members' Business and on how long the House debates Senate amendments to those bills. Private members' bills already operate under constrained time and opportunity. They should not face unlimited procedural delay in the red chamber.”
“First, on private members' bills more broadly, I believe that PROC should examine whether the balance between the House and the Senate remains appropriate. We have seen cases where the Senate's ability to delay or block private members' bills has effectively nullified decisions taken by elected members of Parliament. Romeo Saganash's Bill C-262 , an act respecting the UN Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is an example. Despite all odds, Romeo got it through the House of Commons, only to have it stalled by the Senate and to see it die on the Order Paper. Jack Layton's climate change accountability act met the same fate. Rona Ambrose's bill requiring federally appointed judges to receive mandatory training in sexual assault law was stalled for two years.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the need for the reform of the Standing Orders governing the House. What I want to raise today are not partisan concerns but rather structural ones, issues that go directly to fairness, accountability and the equal standing of members in the House. At a time when we see democratic backsliding around the world, Canadians are rightly asking that we demonstrate responsive parliamentary procedures that keep up with the times and stay abreast of the democratic innovations and best practices happening elsewhere. I will briefly touch on several Standing Orders that merit review, but I want to be clear at the outset that the most serious issue before us is the current restriction on who may trigger a recorded vote.”
“My question is, will the Prime Minister correct this fundamental flaw and commit to ensuring that Build Canada Homes is doing its job to ensure that core funding is in place to ensure affordability, and will the Liberals commit to contribute funding for housing charge subsidies, including for the residents at China Creek, so no one is pushed into homelessness because of inaction by the federal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, currently, operating agreements for approximately 300,000 units of existing social and co-op housing are slated to sunset. If the Liberals do not renew those operating agreements, their housing charge subsidies will end. That means there would be, potentially, a loss of 300,000 units of already built affordable homes to add to the acute housing crisis. That means that the Prime Minister is not only failing to build truly affordable homes at the scale that is needed but is also failing to protect existing ones, homes set up to ensure that coordinated affordability is at the centre of its operation so it can deliver deeply affordable housing at scale.”
“Without housing charge subsidies, many will be unable to afford their homes not only at China Creek but anywhere in Vancouver's rental market, and for that matter across the country, where rents routinely exceed the total monthly income of those most affected. The fear of imminent homelessness is real, and it is taking a profound emotional toll on people with nowhere else to go.”
“Earlier this year, the government announced an extension of the federal community housing initiative, creating the impression that affordability protection will continue, yet the most recent federal budget contains no provision for the continuation of these subsidies into the coming year. When the co-op contacted CMHC for clarification, it was told there is no information beyond what was presented in the budget: no timeline, no transition plan, no assurance that existing subsidy recipients will continue to receive support. CMHC has effectively told residents to contact their member of Parliament because it cannot provide answers. The residents affected include low-income seniors with serious health concerns, single parents with children, and indigenous and Métis families.”
“Of the sites announced so far, only six are expected to achieve affordability targets. Without clear targets written into the program, there is no guarantee that future projects will deliver homes that low- and moderate-income Canadians can afford. Budget 2025 indicates that CMHC, the federal agency formerly responsible for delivering housing programs, is facing cuts of $860 million per year. Canadians do not know which programs will be cut and which will be saved by Build Canada Homes. There is no transparency or accountability. Let me be clear about what this looks like on the ground. At the China Creek Housing Coop in Vancouver, residents are facing the possible loss of housing charge subsidies that keep their homes affordable.”
“Housing costs have soared, homelessness is rising, and deeply affordable homes are disappearing faster than they are being built. Despite the scale of this crisis, federal housing spending is projected to drop by 56% by 2028-29. At the same time, funding for existing affordability programs is set to expire in the coming years, with no clear replacement. This is not a serious plan as it is currently laid out. Build Canada Homes was presented during the election as something akin to a postwar level of federal investment in housing. Instead, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that it lacks the targets, funding and safeguards needed to deliver affordability at scale. Build Canada Homes includes no minimum requirements for affordability across its projects.”
“Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have relied on the private sector to attempt to deliver the housing Canadians need. The results are undeniable. Canada's non-market housing stock has dwindled to just 4.5% of total housing, well below the G7 average. To be clear, CMHC has indicated that Canada needs an additional 3.5 million affordable homes by 2030. The PBO's report on the Build Canada Homes plan found that the government will deliver only 26,000 new units of housing over five years. That is 5,200 units per year. At this rate, it would take 673 years to reach the goal CMHC has set out. Based on the life expectancy at birth for a Canadian born in 2023, that is eight and a half lifetimes.”
“Mr. Speaker, maintaining existing affordable and co-op housing stock is essential to address the housing crisis. China Creek Housing Coop in my riding was shocked to learn that there is no funding in the coming year in CMHC's budget to cover the housing charge subsidies. That means low-income families, seniors, single parents and people trying to get by will be made homeless. They are not alone; approximately 300,000 more homes across the country will be impacted. Will the Prime Minister tell these families they do not need to fear losing their home, and confirm today that ongoing funding will be in place for their housing charge subsidy?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in Davos, “there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along”. Well, the moment for Canada to show up is here. Canadian-made parts have been found in weapons killing civilians in Gaza, Sudan and Yemen. A Canadian-made armoured vehicle was seen in Minneapolis the day ICE shot and killed Alex Pretti. Will the Prime Minister live by his words “to stop pretending, to name reality,” and support Bill C-233 , the no more loopholes act, so that Canada is not complicit in these horrific acts against humanity?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is also just complete nonsense. If the Conservatives want to say Canada is now closing all doors to refugees, then they should have the courage to say so. Canada signed on to the 1951 convention and is supposedly abiding by international law that says we will not send individuals back to their country of origin to face danger. If you want to go down that road, then say so, do so and stop pretending otherwise. An hon. member: Oh, oh!”
“Mr. Speaker, legal experts have actually expressed that opinion, so I encourage the member to read their opinions. In fact, better still, I encourage the member to speak with them directly because they are the people who can tell him exactly what is wrong. I absolutely support their point of view. I do believe that this bill will be challenged in the courts, and I think the government is heading in the wrong direction. This is a Trump-style approach to immigration law, not an approach that Canadians want to see.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is such nonsense. The NDP is not supporting criminals. We are supporting due process. We are supporting people having the opportunity to submit applications. Canada has a system that sets up the IRB, which is independent from government, as an independent process to assess claims. That is the issue. The member just cherry-picked an example that preys on fear and illustrates the scapegoating approach that the Liberals and Conservatives continue to embark on.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is just nonsense. Bill C-12 says to refugees that we will not listen to them, we will not hear them and we will not allow them to prove that their fear is real. It is cruelty dressed up as law, and this legislation has been cooked up in a haphazard way. Even at committee, critical experts like the Canadian Council for Refugees and women's organizations were not even invited. They were not witnesses at the committee who could share their concerns. How does the government justify this? It cannot.”
“It is an attempt to appease Donald Trump and import a Trump-style agenda into Canadian law. It trades in fear, division, scapegoating and misinformation. The remaining provisions of Bill C-12 that target refugees only compound the harm. The NDP proposed 13 amendments in total. None of them was accepted. This bill would not strengthen Canada's borders. It would not make our communities safer. It would not build homes. It would not address affordability. It would not shorten immigration processing times. What it would do is push refugees, migrant workers, students, families and survivors deeper into precarity. It would ensure our neighbours live with the constant fear that their lives can collapse overnight. It punishes people who are trying to survive, people who deserve safety and who contribute daily to this country.”
“The NDP proposed two amendments to impose parliamentary safeguards so that any such order would require scrutiny, committee review, a tabled framework and statutory oversight. We also proposed defining “public interest” in a way that aligns with public safety, public health and genuine security concerns. These amendments were rejected by the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc. Instead, the Liberals adopted a sweeping and overly broad definition of “public interest”. This bill reflects an immigration system where decisions can shift overnight and where people are denied hearings, appeals and due process, a system disturbingly reminiscent of the worst policies of Trump south of the border. The bill is not about system integrity. It is not about public safety.”
“The Canadian Bar Association expressed “grave concerns about the vague and undefined language throughout the Bill”, describing the power as “overreaching”, “undemocratic” and specifically insulated from normal regulatory scrutiny. It warned that, once granted, these powers “will be impossible to control.” Amnesty International reinforced this warning, noting that the bill opens the door to politically driven decisions capable of destabilizing lives, separating families and uprooting people who have built their entire future here. It cautions that this legislation risks violating international law, including the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure, the right not to be deported to danger and the prohibition on discrimination.”
“We proposed reducing the severity of the time limit, even though all arbitrary deadlines violate basic principles of refugee protection. Every one of our amendments was defeated. Bill C-12 does not stop here. It also grants the government sweeping unprecedented powers to cancel immigration applications, suspend processing and revoke people's status en masse. These powers can be applied to entire classes of people without individualized assessment, without due process and without clear constraints. Families who have lived and work here for years could wake up one morning to learn that their pathway to permanent residence has simply been erased, not because of anything they did but because the minister granted themselves the authority to do so.”
“At committee, the NDP proposed specific amendments to protect survivors of gender-based violence, unaccompanied minors and individuals from moratorium countries. The Liberals, Bloc members and Conservatives all voted against them. Bill C-12 also undermines due process, as it would deny individuals access to a full oral hearing before the refugee protection division. The Minister of Public Safety , a refugee himself, said to not worry and be happy because there are safeguards and guardrails in place. What are they? He cites the pre-removal risk assessment system, a process with one of the worst records in recognizing legitimate need for protection. The NDP proposed amendments to maintain access to hearings.”