Parliament In Review: June 21, 2011

Issue of the Day

Much of the day's debate was taken up with the final debate on the Cons' budget legislation, with the NDP particularly highlighting provisions to subsidize private mortgage insurance - while the Cons responded at times by insisting that there's somehow a need for competition against the CMHC, and others by suggesting we should be willing to trade off a stable mortgage insurance system for promises of transparency.

Once it was time to vote, there was only one slight surprise. It was never a secret that the Bloc planned to vote for the Cons' budget based on the inclusion of HST money for Quebec - but I'm rather curious as to how the Bloc can also justify voting against all of the NDP's proposed amendments as well.

All In Order

Is it a violation of parliamentary procedure to describe Tony Clement as "hiding under his desk"? For some reason, the Cons seemed to want to debate the point. Which led to Charlie Angus' reply:

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the record because I do think it is very important. I take my choice of words very seriously. When I said “the missing member for Muskoka” I was not implying that he was missing from the House. I said that he was missing from doing his job.

Fighting Back

The Cons sought unanimous consent to ram through anti-refugee legislation. But instead, Olivia Chow instead delivered a blistering attack on the Cons' disdain for refugees:

the bill would not punish smugglers. Under our present legislation, a smuggler would be jailed for life. We have the most severe punishment for people convicted of smuggling. What could be more severe than putting them away for life? We cannot get more severe. The bill is not really about the smugglers. It is about the refugees.

This legislation would require the mandatory detention of all people arriving in Canada, including women and children, whether they arrive by foot, by boat or by air. A mom and a two year old child, a five year old child, or a baby, would be jailed a minimum of 12 months. After they serve that 12 months they might receive some consideration. They would also be denied permanent residence or family reunification for at least five years.

Let me use as an example a dad who leaves a troubled country and his wife and children are left behind in a refugee camp. He arrives in Canada by himself and gets designated by the minister. The minister could not even explain a few minutes ago what criteria he is going to use. He mentioned those individuals who do not have documentation. Most refugees who come to Canada do not have documentation. How can we expect people who live through an earthquake or arrive from a war-torn country to have identification? A lot of refugees arrive at our shores without identification. They could be designated. More than two refugees who arrive on our shores could be designated as a group.

Let me revert to my example of the dad who arrived in Canada after fleeing from a war-torn country. Under this rule he would be sent to jail for at least a year. Let us say that he goes through the process and is determined to be a genuine refugee. For five years he would not be able to sponsor his wife and children from a refugee camp. What does that mean? It means that he will be separated from his family for at least seven years. These refugees will have to determine whether or not they want to leave their loved ones behind because they will not see them for at least seven years. Do they want to come to this country alone or do they want to make a dangerous journey together? That is why I say the bill is cruel.

In Brief

Let's start with a few noteworthy points on the Canada Post debate which made for the other major theme of the day. First, Pat Martin pointed out that the root of all of Canada Post's problems which were supposed to justify back-to-work legislation lay in money extracted from it and its pension plan. The NDP also nicely highlighted the "orphan clauses" designed to ensure that future Canada Post workers don't enjoy the pay and benefit levels of current employees. And following his much-ballyhooed speech, Yvon Godin had the definitive answer to a question about a six-year-old waiting for her glasses through the mail:

Madam Speaker, I would tell this little six-year-old girl that the Conservative government has refused to tell Canada Post to get back to the table with its collective agreement and negotiate in good faith. I would tell the little girl that when she gets older, I hope it is not a Conservative government in power that would hit on her the way they are doing today. I would tell that little girl that if she wants to buy glasses, I hope she has a decent job with good pay that the Conservative Party will not take away from her. I would make sure that the little girl never voted for the Conservative Party her whole life.

And in other news...

Chris Charlton stood up for the principle that Parliament needs time to review and debate legislation, rather than having it forced through in artificially short time frames. Jim Flaherty answered Terek Brahmi's question about the well-being of families trapped by record debt levels by saying that the corporate sector is doing just fine. Peter Stoffer introduced a bill to establish a right to housing.