Bill C-50 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget

Part 1 enacts a number of income tax measures proposed in the February 26, 2008 Budget. In particular, it
(a) introduces the new Tax-Free Savings Account, effective for the 2009 and subsequent taxation years;
(b) extends by 10 years the maximum number of years during which a Registered Education Savings Plan may be open and accept contributions and provides a six-month grace period for making educational assistance payments, generally effective for the 2008 and subsequent taxation years;
(c) increases the amount of the Northern Residents Deduction, effective for the 2008 and subsequent taxation years;
(d) extends the application of the Medical Expense Tax Credit to certain devices and expenses and better targets the requirement that eligible medications must require a prescription by an eligible medical practitioner, generally effective for the 2008 and subsequent taxation years;
(e) amends the provisions relating to Registered Disability Savings Plans so that the rule forcing the mandatory collapse of a plan be invoked only where the beneficiary’s condition has factually improved to the extent that the beneficiary no longer qualifies for the disability tax credit, effective for the 2008 and subsequent taxation years;
(f) extends by one year the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit;
(g) extends the capital gains tax exemption for certain gifts of listed securities to also apply in respect of certain exchangeable shares and partnership interests, effective for gifts made on or after February 26, 2008;
(h) adjusts the rate of the Dividend Tax Credit to reflect corporate income tax rate reductions, beginning in 2010;
(i) increases the benefits available under the Scientific Research and Experimental Development Program, generally effective for taxation years that end on or after February 26, 2008;
(j) amends the penalty for failures to remit source deductions when due in order to better reflect the degree to which the remittances are late, and excuses early remittances from the mandatory financial institution remittance rules, effective for remittances due on or after February 26, 2008;
(k) reduces the paper burden associated with dispositions by non-residents of certain treaty-protected property, effective for dispositions that occur after 2008;
(l) ensures that the enhanced tax incentive for Donations of Medicines is properly targeted, effective for gifts made after June, 2008; and
(m) modifies the provincial component of the SIFT tax to better reflect actual provincial tax rates, effective for the 2009 and subsequent taxation years.
Part 1 also implements income tax measures to preserve the fiscal plan as set out in the February 26, 2008 Budget.
Part 2 amends the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Customs Tariff to implement measures aimed at improving tobacco tax enforcement and compliance, adjusting excise duties on tobacco sticks and on tobacco for duty-free markets and equalizing the excise treatment of imitation spirits and other spirits.
Part 3 implements goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed or referenced in the February 26, 2008 Budget. It amends the Excise Tax Act to expand the list of zero-rated medical and assistive devices and to ensure that all supplies of drugs sold to final consumers under prescription are zero-rated. It also amends that Act to exempt all nursing services rendered within a nurse-patient relationship, prescribed health care services ordered by an authorized registered nurse and, if certain conditions are met, a service of training that is specially designed to assist individuals in coping with the effects of their disorder or disability. It further amends that Act to ensure that a variety of professional health services maintain their GST/HST exempt status if those services are rendered by a health professional through a corporation. Additional amendments to that Act clarify the GST/HST treatment of long-term residential care facilities. Those amendments are intended to ensure that the GST New Residential Rental Property Rebate is available, and the GST/HST exempt treatment for residential leases and sales of used residential rental buildings applies, to long-term residential care facilities on a prospective basis and on past transactions if certain circumstances exist. This Part also makes amendments to relieve the GST/HST on most lease payments for land on which wind or solar power equipment used to generate electricity is situated.
Part 4 dissolves the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, provides for the Foundation to fulfill certain obligations and deposit its remaining assets in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and repeals Part 1 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1998. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 5 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act to implement measures concerning financial assistance for students, including the following:
(a) authorizing the establishment and operation, by regulation, of electronic systems to allow on-line services to be offered to students;
(b) providing for the establishment and operation, by regulation, of a program to provide for the repayment of student loans for classes of borrowers who are encountering financial difficulties;
(c) allowing part-time students to defer their student loan payments for as long as they continue to be students, and providing, by regulation, for other circumstances in which student loan payments may be deferred; and
(d) allowing the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to take remedial action if any error is made in the administration of the two Acts and in certain cases, to waive requirements imposed on students to avoid undue hardship to them.
Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give instructions with respect to the processing of certain applications and requests in order to support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada.
Part 7 enacts the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act. The mandate of the Board is to set the Employment Insurance premium rate and to manage a financial reserve. That Part also amends the Employment Insurance Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 8 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the recruitment of front line police officers, capital investment in public transit infrastructure and carbon capture and storage. It also authorizes Canada Social Transfer transition protection payments.
Part 9 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to Genome Canada, the Mental Health Commission of Canada, The Gairdner Foundation and the University of Calgary.
Part 10 amends various Acts.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to lead off this second reading debate and speak on behalf of our Conservative government on Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

Bill C-50 reflects the responsible leadership provided by our Conservative government at home and abroad, leadership that gives Canadians good reason to be confident about the future, despite the economic uncertainty beyond our borders. In fact, we have the strongest fiscal position of any G-7 country.

That position has allowed the government to take important action in support of our long term economic plan entitled, Advantage Canada, a plan that was introduced in 2006 that benefits Canadians today and for the years ahead.

For example, the fall 2007 economic statement took important steps to jump-start the plan by providing broad based tax relief for individuals and business, vitally important measures totalling $60 billion, prudent measures taken at the request of the finance minister and our Prime Minister in anticipation of impending global economic turbulence.

It is important to recognize the actions taken in the economic statement that have been recognized by a wide range of observers as extremely important in the maintenance of Canada's solid economic fundamentals. Observers, like BMO's economist, Doug Porter, who said:

It was brilliantly timed. Just as the economy was running into serious heavy weather we had some serious fiscal stimulus.

The Conference Board of Canada noted that:

The Canadian economy will weather the storm of uncertainty....

...recent changes, such as tax reductions announced by the federal government...will maintain the momentum.

A recent Calgary Herald editorial praised the Conservative government for using the economic statement and stated:

...to strengthen consumer demand, notably the one per cent GST reduction....

...for once a government seems to have been ahead of the curve.

Additionally, we took further action through the $1 billion community development trust, a program that assists workers and communities experiencing difficulty due to international economic volatility.

Budget 2008 directly builds on that important action. It confirms our commitment to strong fiscal management by reducing the federal debt by $10.2 billion in 2007-08. It reduces taxes to the lowest level measured as a share of the economy since the Diefenbaker government. It invests in the future of Canada.

Budget 2008 will support Canada's economy with a plan that is real and one that is committed to responsible spending. Unlike the reckless Liberal opposition that would plunge Canada into a massive $70 billion deficit, our Conservative government is committed to a balanced budget.

We have also made a commitment to Canadians to reduce taxes and we are proud to say that we are keeping that commitment. We are reducing taxes for all Canadians and we are proud of that.

To date, our Conservative government has taken actions that will provide nearly $200 billion in broad based tax relief and $140 billion of that relief will benefit individuals directly. These are permanent reductions that hard-working Canadians will see each and every time they file their income taxes. Taxes will continue to decline thanks to our government's tax-back guarantee. This represents our commitment to dedicate the effective interest savings from federal debt reduction each year to permanent and sustainable personal income tax reductions.

Moreover, I am privileged to be part of a Conservative government that introduced one of the single most important personal savings vehicles ever introduced, one which the C.D. Howe Institute described as a “tax policy gem”: the tax-free savings account. This groundbreaking, flexible and general purpose account will allow Canadians to watch their savings grow tax free. It is an historical first for Canadians and here is how it works.

First, Canadians can contribute up to $5,000 every year to a registered tax-free savings account, plus carry forward any unused portions to future years.

Second, the investment income, including capital gains earned in the plan, will be exempt from income tax, even when withdrawn.

Third, Canadians can withdraw from the account at any time without restriction. Better yet, there are no restrictions on what they can save for.

Finally, the full amount of withdrawals may be recontributed to their tax-free savings account in the future to ensure no loss in a person's total savings room.

The new tax-free savings account will help Canadians save for whatever is important to them. I would encourage Canadians to visit www.fin.gc.ca to find out more about this innovative new program. There is an on-line calculator that will help them deal with this. This will demonstrate just how Canadians can save by investing in this tax-free savings account.

Let me share with my colleagues that the savings can be substantial. For example, assuming a modest 5.5% rate of return, a person contributing $200 a month to one of these new accounts for 20 years could enjoy a tax savings of $11,045 compared to saving in an unregistered account.

Of course, not everyone is able to save each and every year. Those who cannot contribute $5,000 in a given year will be able to carry forward their unused contribution room to future years.

Saving can be difficult, especially for some low and modest income earners, which is why an important component of this proposed legislation is that there will be no clawbacks. This means that neither the income nor the capital gains earned in a tax-free savings account, nor the withdrawals from it, will affect eligibility for federal income tested benefits. As a result, the tax-free savings account will be of tremendous benefit to all Canadians.

The praise for this initiative has been almost universal. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said:

This is an excellent policy proposal. Canada needs to reward people that save because their investments fuel economic growth and job creation.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business added that “it was an inspired measure”.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce heralded the measure, saying it will “encourage savings, a measure which the Chamber has sought for many years” .

Bill C-50 has an important measure to benefit Canada's seniors, measures that build on earlier actions we have taken. Many seniors in Canada are living on a fixed income. This can sometimes make it difficult to make ends meet.

To help those Canadians, our Conservative government has taken action that provides about $5 billion in tax relief each year for seniors and pensioners, including doubling of the pension income amount of $2,000 and increasing the age credit amount by $1,000.

We have also increased the age limit for maturing RPPs and RRSPs and, for the first time ever in Canada, introduced pension income splitting for seniors and pensioners.

We are continuing on that path to supporting seniors in Bill C-50 by increasing the guaranteed income supplement exemption to $3,500 from the current maximum of $500. This means that seniors can earn up to $3,500 before having any GIC benefits reduced. This measure will benefit low and modest income seniors who chose to continue working.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons commends our Conservative government for “listening to many of its recommendations over the years and taking steps in the right direction”.

The Conservative government is also committed to making Canada an even greater place to create and expand a business.

Last fall we set out a long term plan to reduce the federal corporate income tax rate to 15% by 2012. This initiative will give Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G-7 by 2010 and the lowest statutory tax rate in the G-7 by 2012.

As the Canadian Council of Chief Executives declared, and I quote again, “The federal government clearly has done everything it can to reduce tax rates within the boundaries of prudent fiscal management”.

We are also taking targeted action to assist Canada's manufacturers as they face challenging economic circumstances. For instance, in budget 2007 we brought in a temporary accelerated capital cost allowance. This measure is helping Canadian manufacturers make the investments needed to build modern facilities here at home to take on the world.

Budget 2008 proposes to extend temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for three additional years. This extension will provide the manufacturing and processing sector with an additional $1 billion in tax relief by 2012-13.

Bill C-50 contains proposed measures that will provide additional benefits to businesses in Canada. For example, small businesses can face challenges in accessing capital to finance research and development investments.

That is why an enhanced scientific research and experimental development, or SR&ED, with the investment tax credit of 35% will be available to small Canadian controlled private corporations on their first $2 million of qualified expenditures.

During the prebudget consultations many stakeholders noted that access to the enhanced SR&ED investment tax credit is phased out quickly once the taxable capital threshold of $10 million is reached. They suggested that medium-sized businesses should have access to some enhanced benefit. In addition, many suggested that the expenditure limit has not kept pace with technological innovations that have made startup research and development investment more costly.

In response to these concerns, Bill C-50 proposes to increase the expenditure limit from $2 million to $3 million and to increase the upper limit for the taxable capital phase-out range from $15 million to $50 million. The upper limit of the taxable income phase-out range will also be increased from $600,000 to $700,000. Increasing these limits will encourage small and medium-sized Canadian controlled private corporations to grow.

Canadians spoke and this government listened.

Budget 2008 includes new measures to strengthen and ensure the effective implementation of our government's plan to ensure a cleaner, healthier environment for all Canadians.

To that end, Bill C-50 proposes to commit $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects. This will allow for harmful emissions to be stored underground rather than released into the atmosphere.

Public transit is one of the keys to achieving a cleaner and healthier environment. That is why our government, under the leadership of this excellent environment minister who is here with us today, has made significant investments in public transit infrastructure.

Bill C-50 goes even further by proposing an additional $500 million to make further investments in public transit capital infrastructure. These are measures to encourage Canadians to leave their cars at home and assist Canada's municipalities.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association called this support, “a major boost to future access and mobility in Canadian communities”. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities called it, “good news for cities and communities”.

Canadians want a clean environment in which to live. They also want healthy and safe communities. To help ensure that safety, Bill C-50 proposes to build safer communities and put criminals out of business.

Speaking of putting some out of business, I want to take a moment to mention how damaging yesterday's NDP motion would have been had it passed. It would have put legitimate Canadians out of business. We do thank the Liberals for supporting and recognizing that it would have put Canadians out of work, and we do appreciate that support.

Most of all we do appreciate the fact that the Liberals did come and vote last night, but most of all, to support us. I look forward to seeing them in their place when it comes time to vote in favour of Bill C-50 as well.

The bill proposes to provide $400 million to hire 2,500 new front line police officers over the next five years. Support recognized an important step in helping “address the much needed resources for tackling crime”. That was said by the Canadian Police Association, who added that they were also very happy with the commitment that was in budget 2008.

Mr. Speaker, as you are no doubt starting to notice, this is a very comprehensive bill. Time does not permit me to describe all of the details of the measures in Bill C-50, but I would be remiss if I did not mention certain initiatives in it that would help Canada prepare for the future, our youth.

First, in recognition of the importance of education in our future, the bill proposes a new consolidated Canada student grant program to take effect in the fall of 2009. All federal grants will be integrated into one program, a program which will provide more effective support to more students for more years of study. In doing so, this will assist Canadian families who struggle with the cost of higher education.

Bill C-50 proposes an investment of $350 million in 2009-10, rising to $430 million in 2012-13. Additionally, Canadian students and their families also need simple, effective, financial assistance programs. That is why budget 2008 commits $123 million to streamline and modernize the Canada student loans program.

Measures will be put in place to improve service for students in a number of ways, such as: a new service delivery vision that will expand online services; more equitable supports for part time and married students; a new in-study, interest free period for reservists; and an enhanced flexibility for those students experiencing difficulty in debt repayment as well as including those with disabilities.

Canada's students responded enthusiastically to budget 2008. Groups like the College Student Alliance said, “It showed that the federal government is keeping an eye to the future and our future leaders of tomorrow”, or the Canadian Federation of Students who thanked the government for responding to “a longstanding call by students and their families”, probably a call that has been out there for 13 long years.

In order to ensure a strong and secure future for Canada, our immigration policies need to be closely aligned with our labour market needs. That is why our government is also making important new innovations in immigration, including changing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In doing so, we will improve and speed up the application process.

Summing up, this Conservative government has taken care to strengthen Canada's economic fundamentals. The bill is prudent, focused and responsible in order to ensure Canada is well positioned to weather the uncertainty of today's global economy.

The Liberal Party of Canada's continued support for our Conservative government is a clear indication that we are getting the job done. We are on the right track for all Canadians, and on behalf of the government, I thank our Liberal friends for their consistent support of our initiatives, redefining the official opposition, and we congratulate them for that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech he said that time did not permit him to go through all the details of the Budget Implementation Act. He is quite right. There are a broad range of matters that are covered in this bill.

In fact, they are so broad that it does beg the question of where are we going with this? What is the vision? There really is no vision here.

As a matter of fact, if we look at the member's statement, one of the things we will find is that it has not laid out an assessment of where we are today, what emerging forces are facing Canada over the coming periods, and what security, prudence and contingency have been provided to ensure the continuity of providing the services and the care and protection for all Canadians on a consistent basis.

That is the purpose of debate here I believe. The purpose is not to see how much time can be filled up by listing a bunch of individual items without showing how they knit together and how they integrate into a vision.

Maybe the member would like to comment on one aspect of a vision and that would be the aspect of perhaps fiscal responsibility. I would say that in the government's own projections it is looking now in the second year of the forecast of being within one SARS event of going into deficit. That is of concern to Canadians.

We do not want to ever go back into deficit. Now, with the high level of petroleum prices, with the U.S. recession, and with the high value of Canadian dollar, all of these factors are putting great pressures on our economy. Many of those have been experienced in certain provinces versus others, such as Ontario in its manufacturing sector. Maybe the member could help advance this debate by telling--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to advance the debate, especially with such an inviting opening line referring to fiscal responsibility.

It was only weeks ago that our Conservative government started to realize the exact numbers of pre-election promises where the Liberals would spend money. Out of a concern that we wanted to share with Canadians, we added up those numbers. These were hollow promises from the opposition if they ever were, heaven forbid, to form government again.

I can say what that number of promises added up to. It was $70 billion of uncosted promises. If the Liberals were returned to government, that is what they would hoist on to Canadian taxpayers: uncosted, unsubstantiated, rather scattered promises to get them back into power. As we have heard in the last few days, the only reason for the existence of the Liberals is to get back into power.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while listening attentively to my colleague's presentation, I got the impression that I was listening to the captain of the Titanic mere hours before the boat hit the iceberg. He says that all is well. The budget has been presented as if there are clear skies ahead.

However, this morning, the American Federal Reserve confirmed the current recession in the United States. As well, the International Monetary Fund announced growth of 0.5% over the next three years in the United States. Given that we know how much the entire Canadian economy depends on the American market, since we export many products to the United States, it is rather surprising that the federal government is not acting.

Hence my question for my colleague about the budget for the year that finished on March 31. How could they have decided to put $10 billion towards the debt and not in any way have offered tools that could help our businesses become more competitive in the manufacturing and forestry industries? They could have announced refundable tax credits or funding to make our products more attractive to Americans. Now, by lowering the GST, they have only encouraged people to purchase more Chinese products.

I may be playing it up somewhat, but I would like to know if my colleague feels a little like the captain of the Titanic. Will he be changing course?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a prairie boy. I have never had much to do with a ship the size of the Titanic. However, I am part of a team that has a firm direction of where it will go. Through the economic fall statement, we proved the government knew where it was headed. We knew there were concerns.

My hon. colleague is correct. The United States is having some difficult economic times. We saw that coming. This is leadership. This is being at the wheel. This is knowing that could very seriously impact Canada. This is why we took the position in the fall to cut taxes, to stimulate industry.

We see the economic fundamentals in the country today because we have strong leadership. We are not only dependent on the U.S. economy. We have diversified our economy. We have supported those struggling industries. A $1 billion community development trust—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I was also disappointed with the lack of vision for ordinary working families.

Canfor, in my community of Westminster, British Columbia, shut down last week. Many more across the country have closed. Good paying, family supporting jobs are disappearing, and it is a very serious situation.

He also has said that Canadians want a clean environment, and I agree with him. However, there is nothing in the budget to deal with climate change, another missed opportunity by the Conservative government, carrying on, sadly, in the tradition of the previous Liberal budget.

The budget has $500 million going into a trust for transit. When the New Democrats had an opportunity in 2005 to amend the Liberal government's budget, they managed to get $900 million for transit. In this budget it is a paltry amount.

When the government found almost $1 billion for transit in Toronto in the last budget year, why is there so little for transit and infrastructure, which is very much needed to clean our environment, in this budget?

The Evergreen Line is in my community. What was provided for the Evergreen Line, the actual cost of which is $1.4 billion, was about $64 million, enough to fund half a kilometre of that line only. This is all that has been provided by the Conservative government for the city of Port Moody and the tricities in British Columbia. Why so little? Why half a kilometre of transit for British Columbia when it has funded, in the last year, almost $1 billion for the city of Toronto?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I reiterate that I am proud of the environmental record of the government. We recognize that the environment does not stop at any borders. We support environmental programs from coast to coast to coast, including in British Columbia. It is in partnerships with the provinces that take initiatives of their own to protect the environment where the federal government steps up.

Through a $33 billion investment in infrastructure across the country, an unprecedented amount of infrastructure investment by the federal government, the largest since the second world war, we are stimulating not only the economy and the jobs that it will provide, but the required replacement and rebuilding of the weak infrastructure we have seen depleted and reduced over years and years of Liberal misconduct. Liberals did not support the infrastructure. They did not recognize that we needed to keep infrastructure up on a day by day and year by year basis. We have put in $33 billion in partnership with the provinces to keep that infrastructure up.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few words on Bill C-50 , and I will frame my remarks in three sections.

First, I have a few comments to make on part of my hon. colleague's speech across, which he covered off in one sentence at the end of his presentation. Obviously the government is somewhat embarrassed about how it has tried to bring in crowbar changes to the immigration act.

Second, I asked a number of Canadians if they would like to participate with me in this talk this morning. I have a few comments from people across the country, which I am very happy to read into the record.

Third, I have a few comments as well on the financial implications of the budget and Bill C-50 and where the government and the sad excuse for a finance minister seems to be taking us today.

I stand in the House to speak on behalf of all Canadians on the issue of immigration. Canada is a great nation. We have a reputation around the world for openness and compassion. People want to live here, and I do not blame them. I have a constituency that is literally teeming with new Canadians. They are so welcome in our community all the time.

The Conservative government wants to change the attitude that Canadians have had toward immigration for a long period of time. I do not think the government really wants people to come here, at least in the quantities they have been. I believe Conservatives want to roll the clock back to a sad time of what I would call Reform Party isolationism. They want to change our immigration policy, not make it more efficient, and that is clear, not fund it properly and reform it to make it less effective.

I think the Conservatives want to limit the number of immigrants who are accepted into our country and slam the door on the rest. Shame on them. It is slamming the door on families that wish to be reunited. It is shutting the door on people seeking a better life for themselves and for their children. It is shutting the door on people who love our country and legitimately want to be part of it. Canada is a beacon that is held up to people around the world.

Canada has a proud history of immigration. Our country was built on it. Perhaps we all saw the report on television last night that more than 5 million Canadians are now visible minorities. That has doubled the number in the last decade or so.

Conservatives now want to wipe out this proud tradition. Not only that, they are trying to force the bill through, placing these measures in a budget bill. That makes it a matter of confidence. It is a bunch of bullies across the way saying that they want us to make their day once again, that they are going to roll everything into a bill and make the opposition members roll the dice. To the Conservatives, it is all or nothing. We cannot debate this or have a proper discussion on it.

That is typical, it is sad and its shameful. These immigration reforms should be removed from Bill C-50, taken out, stripped away, brought into the light of day where we can examine them, as we are supposed to in this place, go through the proper channels so they can get the appropriate amount of due diligence needed to ensure that the interests of all Canadians current and those who look to come here and be Canadians will be met.

We on this side of the House have made it clear. There is nothing in the budget which is even worth defeating. Right now we do not think this is the issue on which Canadians really want to be pushed into an election. There are many, but the budget is not it. It is so tepid, so worthless and so inconsequential that it is not worth it.

However, the immigration issue is something of more substance. It was brought in at the last minute, and that concerns us a lot. Should these reforms remain in the bill, it really is incumbent upon Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance to review the measures within the budget implementation bill, hear from Canadians, have hearings, call witnesses and understand it in more detail and explain to Canadians why this is bad legislation.

The Liberal Party has always promoted a progressive immigration policy. We see Canada as a country that welcomes immigrants of all backgrounds and abilities. It is a cornerstone of our party's policy and I believe it represents the feelings of most Canadians. As such, any review of this will have to be looked at in detail and in perspective. We need to ensure that any change to immigration reflects our collective Canadian values and not just those of the governing Conservative Party.

One of the reforms would put unprecedented power into the hands of a single minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. She would be able to pick and choose immigrants she would deem worthy of being accepted, according to the current beliefs of the Conservative Party. The minister would be given the right to establish categories of applicants and then use these categories or other means to play with the order in which applications would be processed. Does that not strike members as being dangerous? It certainly strikes me and my colleagues that way.

I see my hon. colleague across the way agrees. This is a dangerous precedent. We no longer give people the protection of our laws of Canada. This effectively gives the minister free reign to decide which applications will get processed and even which ones can be returned without even having been processed. Of particular concern to Canadians should be the ability of these reforms to adversely affect categories such as family class and permanent resident status that are made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

I said a minute ago, I have a riding that teems with new Canadians. Many constituents in my riding and ridings across the country have families abroad, families that hope one day they will be united with their loved ones. However, the Conservatives do not think reuniting families is good for Canada. They believe these classes do not contribute to our economic growth. If we listen to the pronouncements of the Conservative Party, it is clear it plans to focus resources on the economic class of immigration to the expense of other classes and at the expense of families and those that need our help and our compassion.

This should be of great concern to us in the House and to all Canadians. I, for one, do not trust the Conservatives to use these new powers without a little of their ideological Reform Party ideals.

My colleague says it is the Reform Party isolationism and anti-immigration bias, which we all have seen and we know is there, Fifteen years ago I was a Progressive Conservative. In the 1993 I campaigned hard against exactly the kind of principles that sadly are now instilled in the new Conservative Reform Party.

These will effectively destroy the right of every applicant to be given a fair review and to be considered regardless of background, country, ethnicity, origin, skill-set. The amendments put no limit on these discretionary powers and make them consistent with existing federal-provincial immigration agreements. In fact, it might be a big problem in the province of Quebec, considering its unique jurisdictional authority over immigrant selection.

The Conservatives are saying that these measures with help with the backlog of applications. However, I noted the parliamentary secretary did not even try to justify anything about the inclusion of these changes in the budgetary bill. I think he is probably pretty ashamed at the fact they tried to shoehorn these things in at the last minute, hoping Canadians would not notice. However, they have, they will and they will speak out against them.

The reforms reduce any incentive the government has to do what it should do, which is to increase the immigration department's capacity to process the number of applications it receives each year. The Conservatives say that they are not trying to decrease the number of immigrants into Canada, but the record tells a different story. They throw around numbers in their press releases, media releases, scrums and in those horrible 10 percenters that they flood the country with, which are completely illegally and break every rule we have in this place, and they should be ashamed that. In those messages they say that they have increased the number of immigrants, but that is not the case.

Last year and the year before the Conservatives issued approximately 251,000 permanent resident visas. Of those issued in 2007, only 236,000 visa holders had arrived by year's end. In comparison, more than 262,000 permanent residents were actively admitted to Canada by the previous Liberal government in 2005.

Canada obviously needs more immigrants, not fewer. We are already facing critical labour shortages that will rise to an alarming rate unless we find new people to help us, people who will put their shoulders to the wheel to build this country. We have an aging population. We have a demographic time bomb in our midst. We need immigrants. We need people who want to be in Canada to build this place.

I said a moment ago that I think my hon. colleague opposite and his fellow Conservatives want this to go through without people noticing. It is not going to happen. I would like to read into the record a couple of comments from some of the people from across the country who overnight last night asked me to read some of their comments into the record. I said I would.

David Bakody from Nova Scotia said:

This is the prime example of “Do as we say not as we do”. It was just a week ago or so [the Minister of Finance] stood [and] stated to the media that the RESP [the passage of it by Parliament] was an American style tactic. (untrue) It was as have many before and will be “A Budget Amendment” fully open to debate. This Immigration Bill is a long time Reform idea hatched by [the Reform Party] and now about to be forced down the throats of Canadians that is truly a classic case of...Republican Style in your face plans to remove all rights that democracy has achieved in lives of brave soldiers and peoples in two world wars.... Even all those ungrateful Reformers now hidden in Conservative uniforms who sit and plot behind closed doors. Shame--

I asked him to make his remarks addressed to you, Mr. Speaker. He has great respect for your position. David from Nova Scotia said:

Shame Mr. Speaker, please ask each and every MP to look to the right, look to the left, look across the aisle and ask yourself what did mine and your family bring to Canada a couple of hundred or so years ago? Most will say hope? Hope for a better future for our children, and now that hope is about to be removed.

I asked another commenter, a fellow from Toronto, what I should say when I stand to speak to the bill in the House of Commons. He suggested:

I would [use] this quote from an April 2, 2008...article with respect to its latest polls that demonstrates a waning momentum for the Conservatives and by contrast, a building for the Liberals, as more and more citizens are awakening to the deceptive methodology that seems [to] underlie every single movement taken by this [Conservative] government, with questionable “ends-justifies-the-means” ethics employed right back to the birth of that party.

He said:

I would draw a parallel to the unprecedented powers that Republicans gave their President to overrule Congress and [the] long history of habeas corpus in the accumulated foundation of the Common Law, and how this new Conservative law too would short-circuit existing checks and balances [that we have in our government]. Then identify where such subversion of the checks and balances has been a general theme of this government through such things as dismantling of [the] Court Challenges Program, this being a further progression of that theme.

He recommended that I should conclude this speech by saying:

...that when the momentum has built for the Liberals to return to leading government, contrary to the Conservative government where words and action with respect to accountability and ethics do not jive--word will be [the] bond--they will rescind the subversive travesty against honest and proper procedure. Along with the rescinding of tactics will be a rescinding of the unprecedented ministerial power that is so open to abuse.

K. Murphy of Alberta said:

I recall a comment made by Stephen Harper sometime prior to the 2006--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member should know that he cannot do indirectly what he is not supposed to do directly. I am sure he could have substituted some other word.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, excuse me.

In this particular correspondence the writer recalls a comment made by the prime minister to be in the 2006 federal election.

To paraphrase, One will not recognize Canada by the time I am finished with it. I have not recognized it for some time now.

This person said:

Counting Tuesday's vote on...the private member's bill [regarding lowering the] Peace Tower flag, [which we passed], and the government's decision to NOT honour a vote in the [House of Commons]; to cherry-pick who can and cannot come into this country based on a criterion that is not open to discussion [by Parliament or all of us] smacks of a policy that should truly frighten all of us.

The citizens understand. The citizens get it. The taxpayers of Canada are watching and listening.

The parliamentary secretary can brush over this change in one sentence of his speech introducing this legislation to this House. He thinks people do not understand. He thinks Canadians are not paying attention. He thinks we are all stupid and asleep at the switch. We are not. Canadians understand clearly when something goes through this House and is not presented to the representatives of the people for proper scrutiny and debate. People see that. They remember it, and they will take action on it.

I have a message here from Judy Birch of Clifford, Ontario. She wrote her member of Parliament, who actually is a Conservative member of Parliament. I believe his riding is Wellington—Halton Hills. She said:

Sir, Please explain to me why you are including a drastic change in immigration policy to a budget bill?

Whose decision was this? How much input did you have in this new policy?

Were you consulted about the ramifications of two-tier immigration policies?

Were you consulted about the effects of non reunification of families?

She asked her member, the Conservative member for Wellington—Halton Hills:

Were you given a comprehensive outline of the criteria that would be used in the selection of so-called “superior” applicants?

I do not understand the need to hide our immigration rules in a budget bill.

Excellent questions, indeed.

Martin Mulligan from Newfoundland wrote to me overnight:

While I do not necessarily want to give you words for your speech, I do want to let you know that I oppose the inclusion of the immigration matter in the budget implementation bill. ...I would prefer to see C-50 amended and split into two bills: the budget implementation bill and an immigration bill. This should be done as a matter of principle if for no other reason. Once you permit an unrelated bill to pass as part of a money bill, the cat will be out of the bag and this will become a recurring practice. A practice that is abhorrent to good parliamentary democracy.

The people understand this. They see what is going on. They understand that this government cannot attach things to a bill just to get them through, then roll the dice and make it a confidence issue, stand over there like a bunch of bullies and say, “All right, bring it on. Bring us down. Let us see what you are made of.”

Those is the kind of schoolyard tactics I do not think Canadians appreciate, and I do not think they want. They expect us to come to this place and stand up for the values in our community, in our country and in the towns and cities that we represent. This is what Canadians sent us here for, to debate these issues. If we are going to change the face of immigration in this country, if we are going to make it harder and more difficult for classes of people to come here, we have to give them a reason. That is what Canada stands for.

Why do people want to come to this country? Because we have a representative democracy where the voice of the people matters, at least in principle, at least on paper. Until we get to this place and we see laws brought in, changes brought in which will fundamentally change the nature of our country and call into question the compassion that we all feel for values and for the people who come and without even be able to debate it.

The government is wrong. It was wrong to do this. It was wrong to add on a measure to kill the RESP tax deductibility provision that this Parliament passed. That was wrong. That was wrong. It was wrong for it to add on budget bill provisions that will change the face of immigration in this country.

This is not what we are here for. You know that. My colleagues across the way, you know that. You know that is not why you were sent here.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I remind the hon. member that he was lapsing into the second person again. We try not to do that, don't we?

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peterborough.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 I was nominated a candidate for the Conservative Party. I did not have the opportunity to sit in this House when the decision was made by this party that a Liberal government that had stolen from its people, as evidenced by the Gomery inquiry, was not fit to govern. From that point on our Conservative members made the decision that they would take every possible opportunity to bring that government down, because they did not believe that it was fit to govern. They did not care what the polls of the day said; they believed that the people would support them.

The member stands in the House today and makes the argument that this is a democracy. Bills are decided on in this House by people who will stand in their place and be counted, who will vote.

I say to the member who spent the other day at finance committee, by the way, autographing copies of his autobiography,Greater Fool, rather than paying attention to what was going on in committee, if he believes in anything that he said, will he stand in his place and be counted? Even more than that, will the members of his party stand in their places and be counted, or will they simply go on and on, with more hot air, more wind and more apparent disagreement with the government, without actually standing and being counted?

I ask the Halton hawk, will he stand and be counted?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite could defend the points that I made in my speech, he would have done so.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech very carefully. I agree with a number of the concerns that he raised, particularly with respect to the impact of Bill C-50 on matters related to immigration.

I and my caucus had hoped that those matters would be brought before this House in a separate bill so that we could debate them fully, that we could have deputations on that matter, and that we could deal with it and hopefully dispose of that bill in a separate manner.

As the member rightfully points out, the bill gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to impose quotas, dispose and discard immigration applications and facilitate queue jumping. I think there are thousands of people who are watching the proceedings today who would be disgusted that that item has found its way into the budget bill.

Similarly, that part of the bill limits the ability of ordinary Canadians to be united based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Those cases come into my community office all the time. The same is true for visa applications.

I have to say that when the member then says that what really matters is that we are here to give voice to the concerns of newcomers to this country so that their voices are heard in this chamber, I would suggest to him that it is even more important not that just their voices be heard, but that they be actually fully represented. The best opportunity for that representation is during votes in this House.

I and my colleagues will be voting against Bill C-50, in large part because of the immigration measures that are part of Bill C-50. I would like to ask the member whether he too will be standing in his place to oppose Bill C-50, to stand up for newcomers to Canada, to stand up for those who are hoping to come to Canada, or will he simply give voice and thereby play immigrants for fools?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will get an opportunity to see what our strategy is when it in fact happens.

We have our eyes on what we believe is the ultimate goal that Canadians want, and that is the replacement of the Conservatives as the governing party of this country. That is what we are most focused on. We will take every strategic action we feel necessary to achieve that, and she will be very happy with the results.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Halton for his hard work and his passion in serving his constituents and all Canadians. He was also in my riding talking to seniors about income trusts, so I thank him.

My question is about these sweeping changes to immigration that are in the budget bill. I would like to thank the member for bringing out that the government is misleading Canadians, and that it has brought in 36,000 fewer immigrants to this country during its tenure and the backlog has grown by 100,000 people. That is the truth and it is good that he brought that truth forward.

I would ask the hon. member about hiding these changes in the budget bill. Does the hon. member for Halton agree that these reforms remove equality from Canada's immigration system and does it give the minister the ability to close the doors to those she does not want?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what I find most dangerous about this proposed change. I think my party and my colleagues feel very passionate about it as well.

Everyone goes into politics, presumably, for honourable reasons and they do try to do responsible things. However, we find it dangerous when there is no system of checks and balances that are put around ministerial control.

Our system of government has far fewer checks and balances built into it than does, say, the American system. We have ministers and a Prime Minister who are extremely powerful in this country. Therefore, when we give sweeping powers to a minister, particularly the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who would have power over virtually the life and future happiness of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people from around the world who want to join us in this great country, a land of opportunity, we find that to be an extremely dangerous situation.

It is certainly, at the minimum, worthy of debate and examination and the bright light of day being put on these changes. At the minimum, the bill needs to be split into two so that we can debate it, hear witnesses, call hearings and determine the proper course of action.

The government's actions right now are reprehensible, shameful and they are being watched.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the member added the last three points. They really do not have anything to do with the issue we are dealing with today.

I have a couple of things on which I want to ask for the member's comments and ask him to interpret a couple of things that will show the error of the Liberal Party's ways.

First, when $22 million is to be spent on working through an 800,000 persons problem, created by the previous government, over the next two years, leading to $37 million the year following, it is entirely appropriate for that decision to be made within the framework and the context of a budget.

What is as fundamentally important is the fact that we have an immigration policy that is being supported by Canadians across this country. The Winnipeg Free Press editorial states:

For the Liberals to exploit this, however, not only ignores the national need for the party's own political advantage, but also ignores the ugly truth that it was the Liberals who created this problem. In the years 1993-2006, the immigration backlog grew from 50,000 to 800,000.

Those are people who want to move and live in this country and become Canadian citizens.

The article goes on to state:

Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

Is it the right thing or is it the wrong thing to tell immigrants who want to become Canadian citizens to have their names and their files put on a list and simply wait?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I believe the amount of money the hon. member referenced, the $22 million, is less than 1% of the current budget of the immigration department. Therefore, to link that with getting a waiting list of 800,000 people down into management territory is simply fallacious. It is not enough money to do that, sadly. It is more a public relations exercise than anything else.

Second, the hon. member is a very partisan guy but do I agree with some of what he said. One of those statement is that what is wrong with this place is that we are black on one side and white on the other and every Canadian knows it is grey. It is sad when we need to play such partisan politics with an issue that will determine the life, the hope and the future of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

I just wish we could take these changes, put them into a bill, sit around and discuss it and determine what is best for all of those people instead of trying to ram it through. That is all. I do not think that is a hugely partisan point. I think it is one that the House reasonably should accept.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-50, the budget implementation act. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill because it voted against the budget. Since then, the government has given us no reason to believe that it is even aware of the significant economic downturn or that it should be using the tools that would enable our economy to cope with these new realities.

Last fall, the Bloc Québécois held consultations throughout Quebec. A number of important facts emerged, and at the time, we told the Conservative government that it should change its stance on economic intervention. The Conservative government makes its decisions based on the premise that the market will sort everything out and decide how things should work. If plants close and economic disaster hits communities, the communities and the companies will just have to cope and regroup. According to that philosophy, we, the state, do not have a role to play.

This approach was inherited from the American right, which has been trying to impose its point of view for the past 25, 30 or 40 years. The American right has been pretty successful in the United States, and is trying to achieve success in Canada through a minority government, but Quebeckers and Canadians will not fall for it. Right now, if there is one thing they do not want, it is a majority Conservative government, because we have seen just what it can do as a minority government. Imagine what it might do if it had a majority. That much is clear.

The analogy I used earlier with respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is apt. The Conservative government is behaving just like the captain of the Titanic. Worse yet, the Minister of Finance wants to go sailing in waters where he was not elected. Let me go back to the Titanic analogy. The Titanic was supposed to be an extraordinary ship, just like Canada's economy. It was supposed to be able to sail through any storm. Unfortunately, its builders were a bit too arrogant, a bit too proud, and we know what happens to people like that.

I am afraid that if the Government of Canada does not make some adjustments, Canada will suffer the same fate as the Titanic. This morning, the U.S. federal reserve confirmed that the United States is in a recession. The International Monetary Fund has forecast growth of approximately 0.5% in the United States over the next three years. This is very bad news for the Canadian economy and especially for the economies of Quebec and Ontario. When the Americans have less purchasing power, as they do currently, consumer spending goes down. Companies in my riding are having difficulty selling their products in the United States, and this is true throughout Quebec and across Canada.

The Conservative government has taken the stand that it cannot intervene. That is the rule of market forces, which is a little like the divine rule. But we know that there have been other serious economic crises in the past. We know—and people are starting to say—that during the great depression in the 1930s, when the Republicans in the U.S. were saying that the government should not intervene, it took the Democrats under Mr. Roosevelt to do something and make a difference.

What we are saying is that when the economy slows down, the government must invest to boost the economy. The Conservative government does not want to take that route. It is stubbornly insisting on keeping its rose-coloured glasses on, even though since last fall, and even since last year, there have been very clear signs—such as the increase in the value of the dollar and the bank paper crisis in the United States and its impact on consumers—that the government needs to be much more aggressive.

Here is the worst example of the Conservatives' inaction: they used the $10 billion surplus as of March 31 to pay down the debt, even though Canada has the best debt to GDP ratio. Canada is already in good shape on this front. The government did not use this money to help the manufacturing, forestry and tourism industries acquire the tools they need to offer competitive products.

I am not talking about subsidies. Businesspeople in my riding are in serious trouble, but they are not asking for subsidies. Workers are not asking for subsidies for the companies where they work. They are asking the government to put in place a fiscal framework so that these companies can be productive and competitive.

For example, let us talk about the money from the latest cut to the GST. Instead of lowering the tax, the government could have kept that margin to award refundable tax credits to businesses that are not generating much profit, as is unfortunately the case for businesses in the manufacturing and forestry industries in various regions throughout Quebec. The same thing is going on in Ontario and the rest of Canada.

The government should have implemented a suitable support and assistance program for businesses. It should have reinvested in the Technology Partnerships Canada program, which made it possible to develop new products with the help of new technologies. This is the type of attitude the government needed to move forward. But we have not seen it in the budget or in this bill. The government still seems to be headed in the same direction.

The government thinks it is improving the overall economy by systematically cutting taxes for large corporations, which means that oil companies pay lower taxes. But now there is a domino effect: the bank credit crisis has spilled over into the consumer sector, and the last sector affected will be natural resources.

The parts of Canada that think they are immune to this slowdown are mistaken, because American consumption will decrease in all sectors, and there will be consequences. This is not a preordained situation where we cannot do anything. The government can get involved, but it is not. That is why we would have expected the government to take constructive measures and implement an action plan for our communities, for our citizens and for the workers in our regions.

But the opposite is happening. For example, in terms of regional development, this bill would decrease the budget of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—talk about unbelievable—by $107 million for the current fiscal year, a year when we will more likely need even more money to help businesses.

The minister now feels obliged to justify his actions. He says the government no longer really has the means to fund businesses that were receiving financial support to back the overall economy of a region and that their funding should be withdrawn in order to be able to allocate enough assistance to businesses. What we needed, however, was both. We have the means to help businesses and to develop new products. Any business that has the tools to do research and development will use that to create new products, thereby becoming more competitive and selling products elsewhere. It is not about accepting subsidies to offset lost productivity. It is about ensuring the competitiveness of those businesses.

Furthermore, we would have expected this government to eagerly seize such an opportunity for sustainable development. In the current economic climate, the most important tool would be to make the most of the opportunities provided by the creation of new products for sustainable development.

Consider the carbon exchange, for example. In my riding, a company had developed a product and was waiting for the carbon exchange to be implemented, since revenues from the sale of credits on the carbon exchange would have been assured its profitability. However, because of the government's delay and its decision to not establish absolute targets, the carbon exchange is not yet up and running and this is delaying the development of these products, which would be beneficial not only for the environment, but also for economic development, new product development and, therefore, sustainable development.

One could say that the government has neglected its responsibility to create prosperity, as though creating prosperity were the responsibility of the private sector alone. Its method for distributing prosperity is even borrowed from that of the private sector. Indeed, they are trying their best to avoid distributing wealth. Thus, the government is still following the American right-wing model. A perfect example of this is the creation of an employment insurance board.

The Bloc Québécois and I, as the human resources critic, have been waging a battle over this issue for several years. I have seen the contribution made by seasonal workers go towards deficit reduction without them ever obtaining a return on their investment.

This year, the Conservatives decided to follow through on the idea of establishing an independent employment insurance board and that is a good thing. However, it is unacceptable that, having paid $54 billion towards the deficit, the workers and employers will not get any return on their investment.

The screws have been tightened. Workers need more hours of employment to qualify for employment insurance and, in the end, they receive fewer weeks of benefits. This system was place for 10 years. Once the government's economic and financial situation stabilized, all the efforts made were forgotten. It was as though it had never existed.

However, major corporations have had their taxes cut. That is also the case for the middle class, but it is fair that there should be a return on investment on that side.

What is unfair is that those who pay into the employment insurance program and need this program do not have access to it. In our regions, not all workers have employment year round; some are seasonal workers.

Over the years, a special system has been set up for seasonal workers through pilot projects, but without amending the legislation. There has been some improvement. We would have liked the government to show some common sense and give this new independent fund a portion of the surplus it used to finance the deficit reduction and current government operations. However, that is not the case.

With regard to the manufacturing and forestry sectors, the message was sent to the House this week. A motion by a Bloc member, the whip, in fact, was adopted by this House. According to this motion, the government should have a forestry strategy. It does not have one and the consequences have been devastating.

In my riding, there are some companies that are very solid financially and very solid insofar as the quality of their forestry management is concerned. Nowadays, though, the heads of these companies are coming to see us and saying that they have reached the end of their rope and will have to shut down for three months. In one of the companies, an approach has been developed for which employees should be congratulated: wages are tied to the price of wood. This helps save jobs. Employees have been paid less for a while, but they hope to weather the crisis in fairly good shape.

These employees and employers would have liked to see a program to help older workers. When someone has put everything he has into finding a job or loses his job in a sawmill at 56 years of age, he cannot become a computer technician overnight, even though he has been one of the best at grading lumber for 30 years.

We try to find him another job, but it is not easy. From the standpoint of employers, hiring an older worker means that their health benefit and occupational safety costs might increase. In their eyes, an older worker is riskier and they are reluctant to hire him. So when the older worker’s employment insurance runs out, he is left with nothing. He worked full time for a company for 25 or 30 years and never drew employment insurance, but once his 45 weeks are up, the next stop is social assistance.

This is a social measure but it could also be seen as an economic plan in connection with a very necessary industrial strategy. It is always good to have a program that gives people some income support until they qualify for their old age pensions. At the same time, this plan would make it possible to keep younger workers in the forestry sector. Forestry will not be in decline for the rest of time. There will be an economic recovery and an upswing in construction. We are going to need workers, but the youngest will have been lost because they are most affected by layoffs. They will find work elsewhere, and when the recovery comes, they will no longer be available.

We would have expected the government to drop the kind of approach it took in the budget and adjust instead to what people were telling it. It is the first time in my 15 years as a member that I have seen such a thing. During the week following the tabling of the budget, the Standing Committee on Finance agreed, with the support of some Conservative members, to reconsider the entire section on manufacturing and forestry. It adopted a motion telling the Minister of Finance to get back to work because the government had not done enough for this sector. But the government is still refusing to bend.

The Minister of Finance is hiding behind general tax reductions for the people who make lots of money; but he has used just one part of the strategy that is available to him. It is as though he had a pair of crutches and only used one. He had the means to implement a much broader initiative. It is good to reduce taxes by a few points, but we must also have targeted approaches to support research and development, to provide assistance through tax credits that lead to the development of new products, and to provide help to older workers. There is none of that in this budget and there is nothing in the program now before us. It is no longer a matter of productivity, but a matter of fairness.

In Quebec and in Canada, for about 15 years, the guaranteed income supplement has been paid to a few of the older people who were entitled to receive it. A person had to apply in order to receive it. There was no automatic enrolment, and each year it was necessary to apply again. This scandal came to light about seven or eight years ago. At the time, a Bloc member, Marcel Gagnon, worked very hard to find those people, to enable them to apply for the guaranteed income supplement. We found thousands of them. We also recognized that there was a terrible unfairness in the law.

Let us look at the example of a 78-year-old woman whose husband has died. Her children review her financial situation with her. They suddenly realize that she has not been receiving the guaranteed income supplement. They submit an application and learn that she can only claim up to 11 months in arrears. Even though this woman was entitled to receive it from the age of 65, she cannot claim any more than 11 months.

Compare that with the behaviour of the government when someone owes income tax. In that case, it can go back as far as it wants. It can claim as many years as it wants. However, the older person cannot claim more than 11 months in arrears. No member in this House can contradict that. Older people have been entitled to amounts going back two, three, five or seven years, and the government had the means of paying such claims with no difficulty. In any case, about 95% of that money is quickly returned to the economy. People do not get rich on old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. They only provide a minimum to make ends meet every month.

I am particularly sensitive to this because in my region, in eastern Quebec, 52% of seniors living in the regional county municipality with the highest income are receiving the guaranteed income supplement. That means that for every two seniors you meet, at least one of them is receiving the supplement. In the poorest regional county municipality, we are talking about 79%, three people out of four, and in many of the villages the rate is 100%, four people out of four. For a long time, our seniors worked for employers that did not provide pension plans. Today, in a society that calls itself one of the richest in the world, we are unable to provide these people with a minimum income that would let them live out their days with dignity.

This is blatantly unfair. When we measure the effectiveness of a society like ours, we have to take these things into account. Creating wealth is all very well, but we have to see how we are creating it and how we are distributing it. These two main points are how a government can be measured when it comes to finances.

In the present situation, our government is withdrawing from the entire field of economic development, and saying that the private sector should look after that; it will not create the conditions that must be present in order to continue developing products; it will eliminate programs like Technology Partnerships Canada because there may have been a few excesses when it came to a few companies, minimal as that was; the regions are now going to have to fend for themselves. And for next year, it will be eliminating $107 million in investments in Quebec. This is the kind of thing the Conservatives are doing when it comes to creating wealth in Canada; they have decided they are not responsible for it anymore.

And then, when it comes to distributing the wealth, they always give as little as possible, and they do not recognize the contribution that people make to our society.

There is one thing in the budget that I consider to be terrible. That is the provision for a senior to be able to receive $3,500 in non-taxable income. Do you know what that means? It means we are encouraging people who are 68 or 70 or 72 years old to go knock on the door at Dunkin' Donuts or Wal-Mart or some other employer, to earn a few pennies. Do you not think that our seniors deserve a better fate than that, and that in our society we might have the resources to provide them with what they deserve?

It has been calculated that we would need to add about $100 a month to the guaranteed income supplement to give people an income that comes up to the minimum threshold for them to be able to get along, to meet their basic needs. They could have addressed part of that out of last year’s budget surplus, and included it in the budget for this year. It could have been done. They did not do it.

So we can see that there are many reasons to vote against this budget and the budget implementation bill. The Conservative budget is fundamentally at odds with the needs expressed by Quebeckers during prebudget consultations. We submitted these needs to the minister, and we are waiting for his cooperation.

If there had not been problems with the official opposition, we would be in an election now and the Conservative government would be severely judged for the choices it has made. I hope that the result could be more in line with what citizens want, especially those in Quebec. This government gives the impression that it is open to the province; but in practice, when it comes time to take concrete action, it pulls back and does nothing. We saw it again yesterday with the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

I hope that the government is taking note of this message, because if there is no change within a few months in terms of economic policy, the public will pass an even more severe judgment about the fiscal issue.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and there are so many points to address, but I will only do a couple.

While my hon. colleague over there can wallow in delusions of relevancy, however, he fails to make the connection between wealth creation and social programs as does the class warfare party across the chamber from him.

I will give him a couple of points to chew on. He slags helping business to make profits. I point out that 16% of manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario are directly linked to the oil patch in Alberta. I am not sure what the number is for Quebec but it is a significant number as well. Forty per cent of the contracts in the oil patch come to the province of Ontario, and another significant percentage to the province of Quebec.

How many jobs does that create? How much income tax does that generate? How much money to fund social programs does that generate in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and the rest of Canada? It is very significant.

When Quebec pension funds are invested or teachers' pension funds are invested or union pension funds are invested, where are they invested? I think the member should check to see where they are. I think he will find that a very significant portion of those pension funds are invested in things like the oil patch in Alberta.

Therefore, when the member slags those kinds of things, I think he is really slagging his own province and he should probably wake up and smell the coffee in Canada, and see who is really supporting it. It is not just Alberta. It is all of Canada. It is all benefiting Quebec as it is benefiting the rest of Canada.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the economy is doing well out west. I would have wanted the government, though, to create conditions that would help our manufacturers develop products that enable them to win a lot more contracts in western Canada.

All that the government has decided so far is to give major tax breaks to companies that are making a lot of profit, while the people struggling to develop products in our small and medium-sized companies do not have refundable tax credits. The Conservatives will not go there.

The government could also have done more in western Canada by adopting a sustainable development policy. Surely they got the message from the American government. The oil companies are going to have to adapt now because of the American energy act. Oil from the tar sands no longer meets the American standards. The companies did not make adjustments for environmental reasons, but maybe the government will do so for economic reasons.

The approach taken, not just by the Conservatives but by the Liberals too, is ultimately unsustainable. We are on the verge of an international environmental catastrophe. If we fail to take significant action and implement Kyoto plus, our children and people who are now 10, 15 or 20 years old will suffer a catastrophe. Even the oil companies realize this. They are investing in other sectors now, such as renewable energies, and doing it as much as possible.

No one in Canada believes more in free trade than Quebeckers. Without them, there never would have been a free trade agreement with the Americans. The Quebec sovereignists, including Jacques Parizeau, wanted free trade, as did Mr. Bourassa who was the federalist premier at the time. We all wanted free trade. We are ready to compete with the world. We have no problem with that. However, governments have to make appropriate choices.

The day after the federal budget was tabled, the Quebec finance minister said it was bad for Quebec. That was not a separatist speaking but a Liberal minister of the Quebec government. She said it did not do enough for the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

What was most insulting was when they wanted to create a billion-dollar trust fund to diversify the regional economy and the Prime Minister made it dependent on the passage of the budget. The House forced him to back down. That is why we keep fighting in the hope that the Conservative government will open its eyes some day, shake off its ideological blinkers, and take a pragmatic path that will really help create prosperity.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member opposite about the manufacturing sector and particularly his analysis of how inadequate the government's “targeted action” for manufacturing really was.

I come from Hamilton and I certainly appreciate that we have lost not only plants through plant closures but we have lost thousands of jobs because of restructuring and reorganization. I certainly had hoped as he did that there would be some significant help for the manufacturing sector.

I wonder if the member could comment whether he agrees that when we talk about the manufacturing sector what we are really talking about is workers. This budget did precious little to support workers who have been affected by the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs, up to the tune of 300 a day now across this country.

One of the things that I think in this budget is worth noting in that regard is the really profound changes to the employment insurance system in this country. I look at this budget and what I see is a legalized theft of about $57 billion. We had that surplus in the EI system. What the government is proposing to do instead is to create a reserve fund of a mere $2 billion. What happened to the rest of that money?

The member talked about forestry as well as manufacturing and right across this country people are losing jobs. At the very time when they need the EI system, it is not there for them. The changes in this budget do absolutely nothing to ensure that Canadians have access to benefits or that the quality of those benefits will actually improve for them as they need them.

In fact, it would be my contention that what the government is doing is a complete evasion of its responsibilities to workers in our country.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I would point out that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology adopted a unanimous report on the manufacturing sector about a year and a half ago. My colleague from Windsor and I were members of the committee at the time.

During our tour, it was in Windsor, Ontario, that the most terrifying fact came to light: what was happening in Windsor was a sign of things to come over the next year and a half to two years for the rest of Quebec and Ontario. We have not yet overcome this crisis; we are still in the thick of it. This situation is a difficult one, and even the Conservative members of the committee at the time agreed, because the report was unanimous.

Afterward, the Standing Committee on Finance supported the fiscal measures in the report, and that created expectations among workers. My colleague is right. Jobs are one thing, but we need to understand what this situation means for workers: jobs lost, families falling apart, and lack of respect for older workers who have spent years of their lives supporting their families and their communities. Now, these workers are being treated like broken parts. That kind of attitude is totally unacceptable. We were hoping the government would take that message to heart and adjust its attitude accordingly.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is not afraid of voting against this bill and against the budget. The measures they are proposing are not satisfactory and will hinder the development of our communities and the well-being of the workers and families in those communities.

We had the means to do more, to do better—we still do. That is the message we want to send to the government by voting against this bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government members think that this debate is all about how many throwaway lines can be given to dismiss the concerns raised by hon. members in this place.

The budget that we had was a mishmash of gimmicky items. They were not interconnected in any way whatsoever. I very much doubt if the government could come up with some sort of a theme that would identify the vision that the budget has for Canada and that addresses our country's needs. It does not address climate change, infrastructure, and the needs of the poor working families.

One of the things I have noticed is that the other members in this place from the opposition parties have identified the risks that we are facing and the challenges that are emerging, and the impact this budget will have on families, on jobs and on industry sectors which provide the good paying jobs for those families.

We have experienced in Ontario and Quebec significant losses in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. We are going to need programs for training, retraining and investment. We have to make sure that these people who cannot look forward to get back into their same job are given an opportunity to quickly get back into--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member ought to take that as a comment because time for a question ran out.

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many colleagues will perhaps be unhappy, but these arguments from members show exactly what should be done.

I am nevertheless very disappointed. In order to get the government to take action, the official opposition would have had to follow us or show leadership on some issues and vote against the government on the budget, so that the people of Quebec and Canada can decide whether they want this type of action or another type of government action.

The message currently being sent to Canadians is that we have a government that does not do what we want, and an official opposition that puts up with it and keeps the government alive. It is clear in Quebec that this has led to policies that do not correspond to what Quebec wants. I think that the Canadian system will never let Quebec truly have enough control over its own development. Quebec will have to be sovereign in order to have the necessary opportunities to develop. As long as we are part of Canada, it is very important—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Outremont.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by asking for the consent of this House to share my time with the member for Trinity—Spadina.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The House has heard the request of the hon. member to split his time with the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues have said they would indeed like to hear from her, and rightfully so, because the budget implementation bill before us today contains very important provisions that would drastically change Canada's immigration system. And my colleague, the opposition critic for immigration, will have some very important things to say on this.

Let us look at the budget situation. The budget is a rather complex document that includes all kinds of explanations, tables and graphs, and the same is true of the budget implementation bill. But if people really want to understand at a glance, through just one example, exactly where the Conservatives are going with this budget, I invite them to look at table 5.4 in the budget, and this can be consulted on-line.

We are currently at the beginning of April, which corresponds to the beginning of what we here in the House call a fiscal year or financial year. The government's budget ends on March 31, so we just began a new year, in budget terms.

For the current fiscal year, 2008-09, as well as for 2009-10, that is, over a two year period, the Conservatives plan to reduce corporate contributions by 14%. In other words, corporate taxes will drop by 14%. That same table shows that, at the same time, during the same two year period, the Conservatives plan to increase personal taxes by 12%. Thus, there will be a 14% reduction for businesses and a 12% increase for each of my colleagues, myself and everyone at home listening to this debate.

This is part of the budget package that the public has the right to know about and understand. As my colleague just said, this is an ideological choice the Conservatives made. But what makes me sad is to see the so-called official opposition stand up to ask questions and make comments, creating the illusion for Quebeckers and Canadians that they are against the budget, when in fact they are not. They are supporting the budget because they are voting for it. They are supporting the Conservatives' budget choices.

That is what happens when you have no convictions and you do not believe in anything. The public can really see the Liberals for who they are, based on one of the things they said recently. They said that their own well-being as a political party was the only reason for their behaviour. They are not thinking about the economy, the segments of society that need help, the fate of social programs or the crisis in Canada's manufacturing and forestry industries. The only thing that matters to the Liberal Party of Canada is the Liberal Party of Canada.

We in the NDP at least have a vision we uphold. We are not afraid of facing voters in an election. We are convinced that by meeting people and explaining the choices we are making and the actions we are taking to create a more just society and eliminate inequalities, we will win more public support for the New Democratic Party. That is what is happening in Quebec, as people realize the benefits of our platform and what we stand for.

Although I do not agree with the Conservative government and I do not approve of its budget choices or its vision of society, at least the Conservative position exists and is clear. I can quote the Conservatives' proposal to reduce corporate taxes by 14% and increase personal income tax by 12%. The public can make up their own minds.

However, it cannot be said that the Liberal Party of Canada has a clear position, because the sad fact is that it does not believe in anything.

I was listening to a question earlier. It was interesting to note the Conservatives' attitude. As you know, Canada is a very big country and, since World War II, the second largest in terms of land mass. Many generations worked very hard to build a balanced economy and they succeeded. We had a primary sector based primarily on natural resources—mining and forestry. And we had a processing sector—the plants and factories—for the most part concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, but also found across Canada, as they should be in a modern economy and within such a vast country as ours.

Naturally, in the past generation, the financial services sector has emerged. These services represent an increasingly important component of our economy. That makes for a balanced economy. We had a little bit of everything, including one of the highest levels of prosperity in the world.

The Conservatives are now in their third year in power. And what is happening under this Conservative government? Despite claiming to be a good manager, it is making some serious mistakes in managing our economy, a little like our neighbours to the south. It is interesting because they are both right-wing governments and they both claim to be competent administrators and to understand the realities. Earlier, we heard the insults. It is interesting that the Americans are in a recession—as their own government has admitted—and very soon we may be headed in that direction. Has the government made plans? Not at all. Does the budget do anything but exacerbate the problems? Unfortunately, it does not.

The Minister of Finance is talking about last fall's tax cuts as proof that he is doing something for business. However, a forestry or manufacturing company that did not make any profits certainly can not benefit from tax cuts: no profits, no tax. Where did that $14 billion go? It went to sectors that are overheating right now, including the oil sector in western Canada.

This is pushing our loonie to unprecedented heights. A high Canadian dollar makes it increasingly difficult to export what we manufacture here in Canada. A vicious circle is starting to take hold. Rather than act like prudent administrators and consider the possible outcome, they are doing the opposite. They are taking money from individuals and giving it to the richest companies. The NDP does not accept that. Our vision is entirely different.

I will share the rest of my time with the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. Earlier, and yesterday and the day before yesterday during question period, I heard the Liberals lamenting the misdeed the Conservatives are about to commit in immigration, in other words, throw out a fair system where the rules are clear for everyone and replace it with a purely random and discriminatory system that focuses strictly on the arbitrary. It is true that the Liberals' chronic mismanagement has put 900,000 people on the waiting list. It is a tragedy resulting from scandalously bad management, but that is the Liberal trademark. However, it is no excuse for the Conservatives to replace the existing system with a system based on ideological choices that can result in the exclusion of some people because of their country of origin.

I will now leave the rest of my time to my colleague from Trinity—Spadina.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's comments. If I may quote him, to begin with he said that “the Liberal Party believes in nothing”. That is what the member for Outremont said. It seemed to me that he was Liberal bashing more than he was actually talking about the budget.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the member of what the Liberal Party believes in.

First, the Liberal Party believed in the Romanow report. Not only did the Liberals meet the Romanow report in support of our health system, but according to Mr. Romanow the Liberals exceeded what the report requested.

The Liberals believed in the Kelowna accord.

The Liberals believed in the Atlantic accord.

The Liberals believed in supporting our cities with billions of dollars of transfers.

The Liberals also believed in the lumber industry. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster was there when I chaired the committee that the Liberal government was supporting, so I do not know what the member is referring to.

We also believed in the NDP--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to have to cut off the hon. member there and give the hon. member for Outremont just 30 seconds to respond, please.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can inform my colleague that of the examples he gave us, the Kelowna accord, for example, was an idea that was 13 years late. The Liberals were there for 13 years. They did nothing. On the eve of an election, they said they were going to do something.

Let us look at what they did on climate change. The Liberals had the worst record in the world, with a 35% increase in greenhouse gas production in Canada for 13 years. As one of their five leaders said, they “didn't get the job done”.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the member for Outremont. He did not talk about the great environmental benefits of the budget on massive carbon capture and storage and dirty coal-fired electricity.

The federal government has to act to reduce greenhouse gases and smog and pollution, because in my province of Ontario Dalton McGuinty is just not getting it done. We are going to bring in regulations requiring him to clean up his act. I am surprised that the hon. member, a former minister of the environment, did not mention the biggest corporate polluter in Canada. Do members know who heads that up? His name is Dalton McGuinty. He promised to close that down by last year and did not. Young children with asthma are suffering more because of that. Frail elderly seniors in Trinity—Spadina or Ottawa West—Nepean have to stay in their homes more often during smog days.

I wonder why the member did not mention more about the environment, because he was right in his last response when he said that greenhouse gas emissions did go up dramatically. Thank goodness we have a Prime Minister who is committed to getting the job done.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Louis-Gilles Francoeur of Le Devoir summarized it best with an article entitled “La déviance canadienne”, or in English, “The Canadian deviance”. The environment minister's picture went with the article. Mr. Francoeur explained exactly what is wrong with the Conservative approach. There is no way we are going to meet our international obligations.

When I asked the minister what he was going to do about the billions of dollars this could cost Canada, he said he was going to send the bill to the Liberals. That is a cute quip in question period, but it does not answer a very serious question.

No, the Conservatives have shown that they do not understand the basic principles of sustainable development. If they did, they would be internalizing the costs.

For example, in Quebec the $3 it costs to recycle a tire in Quebec is added to the price of the tire. It is not fair for someone who takes the metro or the bus to work to pay for somebody else to recycle their tires, right? That is a basic principle: user pay, polluter pay, internalize the cost, and do the life cycle analysis of the product. The Conservatives do not do that.

For future generations, the greenhouse gas costs are going to be in the billions of dollars. It has to be internalized. If we do not do that, we are going to wind up doing what the Conservatives are doing, which is giving out cheques to private companies. That does not work. The cost has to be internalized and passed along to the people who are using it. Polluter pay and user pay are basic principles of sustainable development.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak out against this budget bill because it is bad for immigrants, bad for our economy, and bad for Canada.

As an immigrant myself and as a member of this Parliament who represents one of Canada's most diverse communities, I am shocked that we are even debating such an amendment to Canada's immigration policy. I have heard from immigrant communities across Canada that are against the proposed sweeping changes in this budget implementation act.

I have heard reactions from communities across Canada that are very frustrated that these changes were made without consultations or studies. They are worried about the consequences this will have for families, and rightly so.

In Vancouver, I heard from communities that fear they will not be able to sponsor their relatives to join them from Vietnam, India, Pakistan and China. In Edmonton yesterday, I heard from Ukrainians, South Asians, Latin Americans and others who fear they will have an even harder time getting visitor visas than they already do. In Toronto, immigrant communities have joined together to fight these sweeping changes. No wonder.

Let us look at how this bill will affect these communities. It will introduce a quota system on immigration. It abrogates Parliament's responsibility to oversee Canada's immigration policy. It will facilitate queue jumping, with no accountability and no transparency. And it will support a fundamental shift in immigration policy, a shift to supporting industries that can best lobby for foreign workers and a shift away from family reunification and humanitarian causes.

The Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants says that with this bill Canada is moving away from its vision of immigrants as integral partners in the building of our country's future.

There are three amendments in the immigration portion of this budget bill that are fundamentally wrong. First, this gives the minister the right to discard applications, to pick and choose which types of immigrants and what type of work she wants them to do. If the minister thinks there are too many visible minorities or immigrants from particular groups in Canada already, she can pick a group of countries and discard applications from those countries. Or she can put the applicants from these countries at the bottom of the list and not process them for 10 years, if ever.

No wonder Mohamed Boudjenane of the Canadian Arab Federation called the changes “dangerous” and said that they could open the door to racial profiling.

No wonder Wayne Hanley, the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said that communities across Canada are profoundly disappointed, and he is opposed to allowing the minister the discretion not to process certain applications at all.

The minister said that Canada needs to bring in more workers and the profession she mentions most is that of doctor. However, the minister just deported a radiologist for no good reason and we need more radiologists.

This same minister and the Minister of Human Resources have failed to support a 42 year old doctor from the former U.S.S.R. who has been licensed in Canada but cannot find a residency to accept her because of her age. She is a rheumatologist and we need more rheumatologists. I know that because I hear from families in my community who are looking for this kind of doctor for their parents.

So really, this is not about skilled labour. It is about cheap labour. It is about what Karl Flecker of the Canada Labour Congress says is “creating a pool of disposable workers to do jobs at a wage that Canadians won't accept”.

If this bill passes, ordinary Canadians will not be united based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, with overseas family members left behind because of extraordinary circumstances.

As well, why is the government taking away the ability and the right of applicants for visitor visas to go to court if their applications are turned down?

I met Que Ton Hong in Vancouver two days ago. She is getting married in July, but she cannot bring in her family to attend her wedding. She cannot bring in the person who raised her, her mother, for this joyous occasion. This is a shameful way to treat any person, let alone a Canadian citizen. Today Ms. Hong can choose to take immigration officials to court to fight for her right to bring her mother to Canada to attend a wedding, but with the changes in this budget bill, she would not be able to do so.

The NDP believes a better way exists by having Canada follow the example of England and Australia, where applicants whose visitor visas are denied have a right to appeal to a tribunal without being charged extra costs. It will free up the court system and provide a no-cost alternative chance to appeal for people whose visas are denied.

Instead, the Conservative government is moving in the opposite direction, a wrong direction. No wonder Victor Wong of the Chinese Canadian National Council said that the council had a lot of concerns. He suggested that the government go back to the drawing board.

The NDP has a better solution to clear the backlog, to fix our immigration system, to expand the number of immigrants to Canada, to hire more staff in our overseas offices and here, and to change the point system to bring more families to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008, and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, since the principles of the bill relating to immigration fail to recognize that all immigration applicants should be treated fairly and transparently, and it also fails to recognize that family re-unification builds economically vibrant, inclusive and healthy communities and therefore should be an essential priority in all immigration matters.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The amendment is in order so the debate will resume on the amendment.

We will go to questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member speak in favour of her amendment. I am quite surprised that the NDP would take that position after opposing every favourable immigration step that we have taken along the way.

I, too, have travelled across the country with that hon. member and heard from Canadians. What Canadians are in fact saying is that the current immigration system and the chaos in it is not good for Canada and not good for newcomers or employers. They are frustrated and upset and they want us to do something.

I will quote from the Vancouver Province editorial. It states:

Reform of Canada's immigration laws is long overdue....

But it makes no sense—and is unfair to applicants—to go on adding names to a waiting list that just grows longer and longer.

Wait times are in the nature of six or eight years. We need to get people in here in months and weeks. They are going to other countries and not actually coming through the system. I would like to know what the member has against shortening wait times, getting families reunited more quickly and getting the skills that we need into our country sooner.

The editorial goes on to state:

Under the new legislative proposals, the immigration minister will be able to speed up immigration procedures, both in cases of family reunion and to get needed workers into the country.

What the Tories are proposing is to bring order to the current chaos, while allowing immigration patterns to match national priorities.

Surely that is to the benefit of all Canadians, immigrants and newcomers included.

What does the member say to the employers, the employees and the newcomers who are frustrated by the years and years it takes to get into this country? What does she have to say to--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that today the government had one speaker on the bill and no others. We will not be able to hear from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We will not be able to hear any Conservative members of Parliament speaking in favour of their budget bill.

If the Conservative government or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration are tremendously proud of the sweeping changes, why are these three elements, which are critically important and very negative for the communities, hidden and buried in a huge budget implementation bill of 136 pages, presented to the House of Commons on a Friday afternoon after question period, just before the Easter break?

It makes no sense. If this is so important it should be at the immigration committee for debate.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Trinity—Spadina and I am glad she touched upon the immigration issue.

I want to ask her a question to which, when I tried to look into the paperwork, I could not find an answer. When people make applications, which may be prolonged or put off, a certain administration fee is paid. Does she know or did she find out if these people are reimbursed for this expenditure if they are not successful applicants?

I was also saddened because there are other issues. The member failed to talk about housing, money for health care, money for students and money for the environment, all of which were not in the budget. I thought she would have touched upon those issues because they are as important as the immigration issue, which was done in a clandestine way, as she pointed out.

Could she tell us if she found it in the budget that these fees are reimbursed, or do people just lose them?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker, not a penny of the applicants' fees has been refunded.

There is not a penny in the budget bill for affordable housing, for child care or to hire extra nurses or doctors, which is why it frustrates me to no end that the Liberal Party of Canada has no courage of its convictions to stand and be counted and vote against this terrible bill which is bad for the community, bad for the economy and bad for Canada. The Liberals should have the courage of their convictions and stand up for the immigrant communities of Canada.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Trinity—Spadina has not only heard me ask her a question but I will address some of her concerns as I speak for the next little while. The minister has spoken in the House of course, and she will hear from not only me and the minister but from all Canadians if this matter is put to a test because Canadians want us to be doing what we are in fact doing for immigration.

It is not a matter that is hidden. There is absolutely no limit on debate. This matter can be debated here and it will go to committee where further representations can be made. It is a fine time and finally time to deal with this matter in a positive way.

I am happy to speak to the New Democratic Party's ill-conceived amendment that seeks to stifle debate on Bill C-50, the government's budget implementation act. I say this because the NDP allegations in this motion are baseless, misleading and completely unfounded. We would see more immigrants coming in, more quickly and in a more efficient fashion than we have seen in the past.

However, we should not be surprised with the NDP, or the Liberal tactics for that matter, when it comes to immigration. When they cannot win a debate based on facts, they resort to fearmongering, but that will not wash. It will not happen.

Let us call it what it is. The NDP is playing politics by tabling this motion today. It is doing it to embarrass the Liberals, plain and simple. It is, quite frankly, shameful. While the NDP plays its petty little games, it is holding up vital legislation that is necessary for the socio-economic well-being of our country.

Before I address the NDP amendment itself, this debate on immigration needs to be put into context. Last year, under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada welcomed the highest number of newcomers in our history, 429,649, surpassing the previous high set almost 100 years ago. There will be continuing increases in the numbers we bring in.

This record number of immigrants admitted to our country is a reflection of our government's unequivocal and strong commitment to immigrants and immigration. Our government recognizes that immigrants and immigration are critical contributors to the socio-economic well-being of our country. Our government wants newcomers and their families to succeed. We want more immigrants and newcomers to come to Canada. We also want newcomer families to be reunited faster and skilled workers to come here sooner.

That is our priority but it is becoming more and more difficult, thanks to the massive backlog in immigration applications inherited from the previous Liberal governments. Successive Liberal governments stood by and watched the backlog balloon and mushroom from 50,000 to more than 800,000, and growing. Liberal neglect of the immigration system has resulted in a situation where those applying to come to Canada are waiting, on average, four to six years just to have their application looked at. That is not acceptable.

Canada is losing out on talented immigrants who are choosing to go to other countries such as Australia where the wait time is six months, not six years. It is unconscionable. Canadians expect better. Canadians will get better in this new proposed budget bill that we are putting forward on immigration.

Canada is losing out on talented immigrants. In fact, it comes as no surprise that other countries can claim that their best marketing tool is to attract immigrants because of Canada's long wait times. Put simply, our amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would reduce the backlog created by the Liberal Party of Canada and result in shorter wait times for immigrants to come to Canada. By accusing us of shutting the door to immigrants, the Liberals and NDP are not only misleading Canadians and would-be immigrants, they are practising a low level shameful type of politics.

To mislead those who trust politicians and to prey on the fears of immigrant families is, simply put, not acceptable. Rhetoric and fearmongering aside, immigrants and Canadians deserve to know why the Liberals and the NDP want to keep families waiting for longer periods than they already are.

Canadian businesses deserve to know why the Liberals and NDP want to prevent them from getting the skilled and unskilled workers they so desperately need. As we travelled across the country, business people told us that they were frustrated. They are frustrated because they cannot meet the needs, they cannot progress and they cannot build and develop this country because they do not have the people resources they need so desperately. They are looking to us to do something positive and they say that finally something is being done.

On this side of the House, our position is clear. The minister has said on numerous occasions in this place, and it bears repeating, that our government is taking urgent measures to clean up the Liberal mess, so that more families can be reunited faster and more skilled workers can get here sooner.

The claims of the NDP and the Liberal Party that we are shutting the door on immigration is completely without basis and without fact. It was the Liberals who closed the door to immigration by letting the backlog balloon to unmanageable levels. Without our actions, wait times would rise to 10 years by the year 2012. This is completely and totally unacceptable. That would be an indication of a system totally in chaos and not functional.

One of the goals of this legislation is to respond to Canada's labour market needs, but let me be clear. These amendments will not apply to refugees and are not intended to affect family reunification at all. We want families to be reunited faster and we have made it a priority. Family reunification cases are now being done 20% to 40% faster than under the previous Liberal governments.

However, we want to do even better, and so in budget 2008 we have invested $22 million for two years, growing to $37 million per year. This funding will help us speed up the application process for those seeking to come to Canada.

These important steps are just some of the things we are doing to help newcomers. We have also cut in half the tax on immigrants that the Liberal Party implemented. We have invested $1.4 billion into settlement programs that help newcomers with language training and help finding a job after the previous Liberal government had effectively frozen funding for almost a decade. We cannot bring newcomers in without having the support bases and the infrastructure to ensure that they can become what they can be and that they can succeed when they come here.

While the NDP and the Liberal Party claim they represent the best interests of immigrants, their track record speaks for itself. Both parties have voted against virtually every initiative we have taken to help newcomers come to Canada.

They opposed us cutting the Liberal immigrant head tax in half. They opposed us providing $1.4 billion to help newcomers to Canada integrate and settle in our country. They opposed the establishment of the foreign credentials referral office, and the Liberals, while they were in government, allowed the backlog to balloon from 50,000 to over 800,000.

Now, incredibly, the Liberals and the NDP are opposing the very changes that would reduce wait times and allow more newcomers to come to Canada and reunite with their families. Canadians are not with them on this issue. Right across the whole spectrum of this country, people are not with them on this issue.

I have heard the NDP and Liberals suggest that we should simply devote more resources to processing applications. As I stated earlier, our government is indeed doing this, but money alone will not resolve the problem because the system itself has built-in inefficiencies. Foundational changes need to happen for it to be successful.

As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said yesterday, it is not enough just to throw money at it and put ourselves back into deficit, as the Liberals would have us do. We need to do better. We need to do it more efficiently. We need to do it smarter, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Under the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we are generally required to process applications in the order that we receive them, and each application must be processed to a final decision. This undermines our ability to adapt to changing economic and labour market conditions.

For example, Canada might need medical technicians, pipefitters, plumbers and many other trades, but under the current system we cannot ensure that they can reach our labour market in a timely fashion, that we can get the right people to the right place at the right time. The system is failing us. The system is failing Canadians. The system is failing newcomers. The system is failing and we need to give it attention.

This is not fair to immigrants who want to come to our country, to those who are waiting for loved ones to join them, and to employers who want to hire skilled and unskilled workers. It is not in Canada's interests. It limits our ability to select people the labour market needs the most and it discourages many newcomers from applying.

The skilled and unskilled workers that Canada needs will not wait. They will go elsewhere and they have gone elsewhere. We must change our attitude and our legislation to ensure that does not continue. Our amendments would help bring the backlog under control and restore public confidence in the immigration system. Canada's immigration system would become more competitive with those of other countries.

Another fearmongering tactic that the NDP and the Liberals have been using is to accuse us of having an agenda to discriminate against newcomers based on their race, religion or ethnicity.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The minister's instructions will be charter compliant as the charter applies to those who would apply through the process. The minister's instructions will also be consistent with the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, referred to as IRPA. IRPA's objectives include: supporting Canada's economy, reuniting families, and providing protection to those who need protection. Our proposed amendments will not change that.

To be clear, our approach to immigration will continue to be universal and non-discriminatory. There will be no discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity. Any assertions or allegations to the contrary are simply unfounded.

With respect to the criticism that too much power will be vested in the hands of the minister, let me be clear. The minister has said and she will consult with provinces and other key stakeholders prior to publishing instructions. The minister's instructions will be open and transparent. They will be published in the Canada Gazette. They will be reported in the annual report to Parliament and published on Citizenship and Immigration Canada's website.

Ultimately, at election time, the minister and this government will be held accountable to all Canadians for the decisions they take and I say that Canadians will be supporting these decisions.

If the Liberals are so opposed to improving our immigration system, they will have an opportunity to vote against the Budget Implementation Act and these provisions, but the fact is that no one takes the Liberal Party seriously because when it comes to backing up their own rhetoric by voting against our measures, they are either not found here or they do not vote.

They are interested primarily in self-interest, self-preservation and not the best interests of Canadians. If they truly believe their own criticism, they would do something about it because the reality is that the Liberals' prime objective is not to do what is right for the country but to obtain power. They will stop at nothing to avoid their responsibilities in order to preserve their best interests.

In this regard I would like to quote from the March 17 article by Angelo Persichilli in The Hill Times. In this article he states:

--however, what we don't need are lectures from the Liberals on this issue because, again, according to the numbers, not the demagoguery, they too badly mismanaged this issue for political reasons.

The difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is that the former are handling immigration by trying to get results; the latter to get votes.

Therefore, the NDPers and Liberals can fearmonger all they want. The fact of the matter is our plan is getting strong support right across the country from ordinary Canadians, from newcomers, from stakeholders, from business, and I would challenge them to test that.

Let me quote from a March 15, 2008, editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. It states:

What the Conservatives propose is common sense...This is good policy...For the Liberals to exploit this, however, not only ignores the national need for the party's own political advantage, but also ignores the ugly truth that it was the Liberals who created this problem...Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

A March 24 Vancouver Province editorial had this to say about our proposed amendments:

Reform of Canada's immigration laws is long overdue. [...] What the Tories are proposing is to bring order to the current chaos, while allowing immigration patterns to match national priorities. Surely, that's to the benefit of all Canadians, immigrants included.

A March 17 Globe and Mail editorial had this to say:

Now, the Conservatives are proposing a bolder reform...But it stands to benefit our economy. Immigration policy...should first and foremost fit Canada's needs... he Tories surely anticipated how their opponents would misrepresent their policies. That they are pressing on regardless shows a strong commitment to this country's interests.

Time will tell when we look back to say that this was a historic moment, with the changing of the immigration policy, that ended up serving the needs of all Canadians and building this country to what it can be.

James Bissett, the former director of the Canadian Immigration Services and a Canadian diplomat, had this to say: “I entirely agree with the minister. It is a long overdue and badly needed fix of a system that's needed fixing for a long time. You can't keep people waiting for up to six years to get a visa to come here after they've met the requirements and have paid the fees. It's unfair and the minister is absolutely right in trying to step in and correct the situation”.

Other immigrant stakeholders also expressed support for our plan. In an article in today's National Post, it states:

Wojciech Sniegowski, president of the Canada-Poland Chamber of Commerce in Toronto, said he's come to the conclusion there is no inherent danger in the proposals and that they are designed merely to give the minister flexibility to respond to labour shortages.

“The most important thing is that, if nothing is done, by 2012 the backlog will be such that people will be waiting 10 years for their applications to be heard. I'm glad to see the government doing something,” he said.

It stands to reason. The article goes on to state:

Tom Pang of the Chinese Canadian Community Alliance in Toronto said the bill is good legislation. “It has everything to do with skills and it will bring the right type of people into Canada. Unfortunately, some people in the community think it is designed to stop people of certain ethnic backgrounds from coming to Canada but that is not what it is about,” he said.

He is absolutely right on that point.

Contrary to what the Canadian Bar Association will have us believe, we are also getting support from various individuals in the legal community. An article dated March 31 in the Calgary Herald states:

Edmonton immigration lawyer Shirish Chotalia said it's the start of creating a fairer system, because the government will be more forthcoming about what types of immigrants the country needs instead of giving people false hopes. “They want to consult with employers and target special skill sets as we go along,” Chotalia said.

Another immigration lawyer, Warren Creates, told the CBC: “This is a very clever landmark change, I would call it, in overhauling the immigration program...it makes a minister accountable for explaining it and reporting to Parliament and therefore to the Canadian public”.

David Garson, an immigration lawyer with Guberman, Garson, Bush, said the following, with respect to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: “She's a tremendous individual and very pro-immigrant”.

With respect to the NDP motion at hand, I must reiterate that nothing in our proposed amendments will take away from our commitments to family reunification and refugees. Our government recognizes that immigration is more than just economics. That is because our government understands the importance of families and the aim of reuniting them as quickly as we can.

As I said earlier, we have reduced by between 20% and 40% the processing times for those immigrants in Canada who are seeking to bring their family members to Canada from other countries. In fact, 80% of the applicants from sponsored spouses are now finalized within eight months.

Our government continues to embrace Canada's proud history of providing protection to those in need. We are a model to other countries. We will continue to be the model to other countries because of our generosity and compassion.

That is why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently announced that we would double the number of Iraqi refugees we accept this year and, among other things, has also made commitments to bring in several thousand Karen refugees from Myanmar and refugees from Bhutan, two places that do not get a lot of media attention but where people are suffering nonetheless.

The changes we propose also would affect those in Canada seeking humanitarian and compassionate consideration of their applications to stay in this country. They can continue to make those applications and the legislation would not affect them.

Our proposed amendments would ensure that Canada's immigration program carefully balances its economic goals with its family reunification and refugee protection components.

Family reunification and refugee protection remain priorities for the Government of Canada and key components of our immigration program. Nothing in our proposed amendments will change that.

In closing, let me say that it is most unfortunate that the NDP are holding up desperately needed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, changes that would make the immigration system more fair and more transparent.

Ultimately, the NDP and the other opposition parties will have to be accountable to the Canadian public for their attempts at preventing vital changes to the immigration system.

This proposed change will stand the test of time. This proposed change will dramatically reform immigration and make it more efficient, more acceptable, and in line with the Canadian public's views.

I urge all members of this place to oppose the NDP's obstructionist tactics and vote against this amendment.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a certain amount of amusement to the hon. member's speech about the virtues of the Conservative Party. I have three questions for him.

First, if the government is being so transparent and if these directives will be so transparent, will the government commit to put in legislation that directives should be submitted for review simultaneously to a committee of the Senate and a committee of the House, even if it is time limited consultation to preserve the flexibility for the minister?

Second, if this approach of the government is so popular, why are so many groups representing immigrants opposed to it?

Third, if the government is being so transparent, why is the government log-rolling this bill into a budget bill the way it is common practice to do in the United States Congress? Why is it log-rolling an immigration bill into a budget bill? Next will it be log-rolling environmental bills into Canadian heritage bills? Perhaps the member could enlighten us.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is being debated in the House. It will be referred to committee and there will be the opportunity to call people to make representations. It is open and transparent.

I can say this in answer to the member's first and third questions, what this bill does is it makes it a confidence matter. It is a time to be tested. It is a time to find out whether the Liberals stand up for Canadians and want to be counted, to have an immigration system that is more efficient, an immigration system that will reduce wait times, one that will meet the economic needs of the country and build Canada. It will be a test.

The Liberals can stand up and oppose it, and if they do, we will go to the Canadian people and find out who is right and who is wrong. I say we have Canadians on our side. If the Liberals have the intestinal fortitude to do that, there will be that opportunity.

Is this popular? I have travelled across the country and I can say that employers are frustrated, newcomers are frustrated, Canadians are frustrated, because it takes too long to come to Canada. We are not competitive. We are not efficient. The majority of Canadians are saying it is time for some action. They want to see action. They are getting action.

This is the opportunity with Bill C-50 before the House. It is time for the Liberals to decide where they stand on this issue. Canadians will support us.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member talked about wait times and the backlog.

If it is only about the backlog, then why are there two more changes in this bill right now? Why are there changes as to who can be sponsored into Canada under humanitarian and compassionate grounds? Why is that clause in there? What does it have to do with the backlog?

Right now if a visitor meets all the criteria, a visa shall be given to the visitor. Another change in this bill says that the visitor may get the visa. It gives the minister and CIC enormous power and puts them above the law.

If it is only about the backlog, as the member said, then what do these two changes have anything to do with the close to 900,000 applications that are in the backlog? It does not make sense. Why make those two changes? They are not connected to anything with the application process.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the proposed amendment does allow applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to continue to be made in Canada as they always have been made. It will not allow people to take advantage of the system by making numerous applications from without or plugging up the system as they have and making countless applications.

The fact is that humanitarian and compassionate grounds will continue to be respected and will be a vital part. It will continue unaffected.

The second part, of course, is that the minister in giving any instructions will ultimately be responsible to this House. It will be with respect to the broad purpose of ensuring that the goals established by the Government of Canada are met. That will be a fact.

Simply increasing numbers by putting more numbers into the system does not help us. If we have 850,000 applications and growing and we continue to receive applications and those people get to the back of the line with no hope of coming to Canada, that is not a system of any value to those who want visas to enter Canada in any category. It is simply incredulous. It is not acceptable. It is not good and it needs to be changed. This will do that.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking specifically to part 6 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the proposed amendments, constituents in my riding have concerns and my colleagues have heard similar comments from across the country from communities which are looking at sustaining the growth and dealing with a skilled labour force. Our chamber of commerce, economical development commission, various business leaders in the community have approached me and asked that we make improvements.

Our colleagues throughout the different ministries, provincial ministers and the provincial nominee programs have helped with the expedited labour market opinions in bringing in labour forces as quickly as possible.

Could my hon. colleague elaborate on how these amendments will help our economy be sustainable and specifically ensure that we have the skilled labour force, whether they are medical professionals or tradespeople, throughout the community?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that I would agree with the member. We have listened to the various stakeholder groups, employers and newcomers. There is a great degree of frustration in that they are not able to get people in when they need them. The system has become such that they cannot grow.

As recently as yesterday I heard from some employers that are expanding. They want to grow in Saskatchewan. We heard the same thing from Alberta and British Columbia. They were not able to do that because they cannot get the people they need with the required skills. They are saying that there is something wrong with the system, that it is not working. They have talked to me face to face and said that we must do something because they are frustrated. They want to go forward and they cannot because the system is broken. It is broken. It is not working. We cannot have skilled workers waiting for six years to come into Canada. They will go somewhere else, and they are going somewhere else. Our people are saying we must do something.

The amendment will allow those workers to be processed far quicker, more efficiently to get them when we need them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

Why did my colleague not answer the question from the member for Trinity—Spadina? Are the Conservatives not in the process of copying the Americans, particularly the American right, by including a clause in a budget bill that significantly changes social choices?

Why did they not table a bill in this House that would truly define a different way of managing immigration, where everyone is informed and there is a full debate in this House, instead of trying to slip a change in through the back door that has nothing to do with the budget, but has to do with social choices and societal choices?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, far from it being a back door approach, it is using a front door approach where we can speak to it, discuss it and it will go to committee.

What it does do, and it is the Canadian way, is it will make all politicians, including the hon. member's cousins across the way, the official opposition, stand up and be counted, whether they are for it or against it. It will be a confidence motion that will test them to see who is right or wrong and to see if they are prepared to go to the Canadians.

This is the Canadian way. Ultimately Canadians will decide. We are giving the Liberals that opportunity to stand or not to stand, but Canadians want this done and we are doing it.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that the legislation will stand the test of time. If that is the case, why not let the legislation stand alone? What is the government afraid of?

The parliamentary secretary talked about labour forces and getting people in. I can speak first hand as a member of Parliament having addressed that issue, bringing in people, workers, skilled people with no problems. Maybe the Conservatives do not know how the system works or the department is not working properly. Is that the case?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it will stand the test of time.

Thirteen years, six Liberal ministers, four majority Liberal governments and the Liberals did nothing for the system except continue it with a backlog of 800,000 people and growing. That is not governing.

We are taking decisive steps to ensure this country can be built. Thirteen years of inaction is not the answer. It is time to do something and we are doing it now.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first speech in the House of Commons, before I do anything else, I would like to thank the people of Willowdale for electing me and for expressing their confidence in me. Becoming a member of Parliament is a tremendous honour and privilege, and I look forward to doing the best job I can for the people of Willowdale and for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Scarborough Centre.

It is fair to say that when the Conservatives came to power two years ago they inherited the strongest fiscal position and the strongest employment growth in the G-7. With all of its inherited surpluses and until recently a strong economy, the government had an opportunity to make smart investments and wise tax cuts that would have strengthened Canada's productivity and competitiveness and better prepared the country for the uncertain times that confront us today.

We Liberals offered some advice. Last fall, the Leader of the Opposition said he favours deeper corporate tax cuts. We need to create a new Canadian advantage now that we can no longer rely on a relatively low dollar and we believe that a competitively low corporate tax rate is just that advantage. Interestingly enough, a few short weeks after the Leader of the Opposition's speech, the Conservatives acted on this Liberal proposal. At least they took our good advice.

Liberals have long been in favour of getting value out of taxpayers' money and shifting resources from areas of lower priority to areas of higher priority. Instead, the Conservatives chose to focus on reduced transfers to some of the most vulnerable in Canadian society, including literacy programs, the court challenges program, and programs to enhance the status of women in this country.

For a succinct analysis of the economic record, let me quote from a recent editorial in the Globe and Mail:

Which party took a country that was drowning in debt and instituted tough, painful savings to lift the federal accounts back into surplus, where they have remained for more than a decade? That would be the Liberals.

And which party, by failing to heed the warning signs of an economic slowdown and by both cutting the GST and spending as if there were no tomorrow, set the country up for a budget...that could, if the Conservatives don't watch their step, tip Canada back into deficit spending? That would be the Conservatives.

At the provincial level, in 2003, the finance minister and his Conservative friends in Ontario ran an election on a balanced budget and then lost. When Dalton McGuinty called in the auditors he was told he had inherited a $5.6 billion deficit, and he had to clean up that mess.

At the federal level, here is a small history quiz. Before the current Prime Minister inherited large Liberal surpluses, who was the last Conservative prime minister to actually balance the books, even in one year? It was not Kim Campbell, Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, or John Diefenbaker. It was not even R. B. Bennett or Arthur Meighen. No, we have to go back all the way to Sir Robert Borden in 1912 to find a Tory government that balanced the books. This is a pattern of Conservatives who run big, fat deficits until voters call on Liberals to clean up the mess.

True to form we have now seen the largest spending over two budgets in a row. The finance minister has become the biggest spending finance minister in the history of Canada. He has brought us perilously close to deficit spending with no longer any contingency. Canada's government is now 14% bigger after the last two budgets.

What do we want to bequeath to our children and their children? Certainly a low national debt, and we Liberals reduced that debt from a peak of over 70% of GDP in 1994-95 to 35% in 2005-06.

We now have a massive infrastructure deficit: bridges that fall down, potholes, raw sewage dumped into oceans, and inadequate public transit.

For the benefit of both current and future generations we urged the government, rather than pay the full $10 billion allocated to debt paydown, to pay down that debt by $3 billion and to provide an immediate $7 billion injection into the infrastructure needs of the nation. This would have provided a significant down payment to address Canada's infrastructure deficit and would have been a much needed investment in our future. But no, this was good Liberal economic advice that the Conservative government did not heed.

I will stress that the Liberals understand the need to pay down the mortgage on the house. The Liberal government clearly did so when needed, but right now the walls are cracking and the roof is starting to leak. Our wonderful country has incredible potential, but we need investment in infrastructure critical for our future productivity and global competitiveness.

However, here is a separate concern. Including legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in the bill is wrong. It is a blatant Americanization of the process to bury a contentious issue in a bill that, in weighing the alternatives, we otherwise did not find enough to warrant forcing an election on the Canadian people.

This clause has nothing to do with the budget. It should not be in the bill in the first place and should be separated out. These provisions put completely inappropriate discretionary powers into the hands of the minister, a minister and a government already showing ideological biases. We cannot fix the immigration backlog by allowing the minister to cherry-pick some over others. Doing so does not increase the numbers.

We cannot fix the immigration backlog without funds, either. Note that the Quebec government announced $68 million in new funding for immigration. Ontario announced more funding, as did British Columbia. Contrast this to the relatively tiny amount the government has suggested will somehow miraculously do the work that is needed.

If the immigration provisions are not separated out of the bill, then the Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance will ensure that these added immigration provisions are subject to the full detailed and high scrutiny for all Canadians so they can fully understand what the government is trying to do with these back door tactics.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. I hope she will bring a new voting pattern to her colleagues.

She has spoken very forcefully about the immigration section of the budget. I choose to be in total disagreement with her, but I am will not discuss the content of that issue. However, because she feels so strongly, will she be on her feet to vote against the budget, because that provision is a part of the budget, or will she continue to follow the sheepish aspects of her colleagues, who have chosen to sit on their hands through these confidence motions?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his welcome.

I am not sure if it is procedure to ask a question in response to a question. When he says he disagrees completely with my position, he then denies me the ability to address any of his concerns because he simply refuses to discuss content.

I would ask the hon. member to ask a question on the content. If he supplies one, I might be able to answer.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will address some of the content of the member's speech.

This government has paid down record amounts of debt and reduced taxes. Since the member seems to feel that paying down debt and reducing taxes is not a good thing, what does she propose in a budget? Perhaps increasing the GST to 7% might be something she would recommend the Liberals do. Maybe she would like to reduce the amount of money we spend on Canada's military, or child care, two key areas where the government has invested money, which has increased the overall budget.

What might she propose to do about things? Will she recommend that Liberals increase the GST in their next platform?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I specifically indicated some of the things Liberals would have preferred to see in this budget, including repeated suggestions that of the $10 billion allocated to pay down the debt, we encourage the government to use $7 billion to invest in infrastructure. We specifically suggested that amount because we very strongly feel that at least $3 billion should be kept as a contingency. The government does not even believe in a contingency.

If the member has any other specific questions about the content of my speech, I would welcome them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, and the Conservatives, got the facts wrong again. He asked if she would vote against the budget because of all these serious immigration issues in it. However, those issues were not in the budget. They did not come out until the little administration bill, which puts the budget into place.

Canadians across the country are outraged at that and have written their members of Parliament. On budget day, when major changes are announced for the country, nothing was mentioned about immigration. Yet when minor administrative amendments came out, which will put the budget into effect and which is probably almost totally unconstitutional, they were shocked.

Could the member comment on the totally anti-democratic actions taken by the government in the financial administration bill?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate a couple of key points I made in my speech. The inclusion of these immigration provisions in the budget, as the hon. member has said, is completely inappropriate. They were not in the original one. This is a blatant Americanization of the process, to include something that the government knew would be contentious into something that otherwise we were all prepared to allow to go forward. We will have to see what happens.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the budget implementation bill, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the member for Willowdale for her election. I am confident she will do a tremendous job, not only in serving her constituents but making our country a better country as well.

I have listened to the debate throughout the day. Instead of sometimes focusing on the points in the budget, people started talking about what the Liberals did, what the Liberals did not do. The NDP bashed the Liberals. The member for Peterborough bashed the Liberals. The Conservative Party bashed the Liberals. Everyone was bashing the Liberals. However, it is not our budget; it is the Conservative budget.

Members have used a lot of quotes so then let me use some.

Earlier the Minister of the Environment said that he was disappointed that nothing had been said about the environment. He starting quoting and talking about how important it was. At least the Liberals believe the environment is one of the most important issues, along with health care and our other social responsibilities.

I would like to use some quotes such as “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant”. Who said that? The current Prime Minister, and it is in Hansard, October 11, 2002.

Another quote is, “Carbon dioxide does not cause or contribute to smog, and the Kyoto treaty would do nothing to reduce or prevent smog”. Who said that? The current Prime Minister, as reported in the Toronto Star, on June 10, 2004.

Another quote is, “the Kyoto protocol does not deal with critical environmental issues”. Who said that? The current Prime Minister. That was in his address—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, we are discussing Bill C-50 and the amendment to Bill C-50 put forward by the NDP. I know there is some latitude usually given on second reading, but we are talking about the budget implementation bill. I ask the member to get on topic and on point and debate Bill C-50.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sure the hon. member for Scarborough Centre will try to keep his remarks relevant to the bill.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It is relevant, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of the Environment brought it up, so if the member cannot take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

The next quote is:

My party's position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.

Who said that? It was the current Prime Minister, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen, on November 22, 2002.

That is the end of my quotes on the environment.

On the environment, the Conservatives did do one thing. They passed out light bulbs. That was how they were going to address the environmental issue.

It is a budget, and we are talking about various aspects within the budget. The Minister of Finance proudly stood up and talked about having to reduce taxes, and I agree. What the Liberals did, as my colleague from Willowdale said, was approach it in a balanced way. We reduced taxes, we reduced the debt and we put money toward programs that Canadians asked us to invest in, like child care, health care, post-secondary education, our cities, et cetera.

In the previous budget, the Conservatives hummed and hawed about how to reduce taxes. A Canadian sent us his tax form. He asked why the Liberals had reduced his taxes to 15% and now he paid 15.25%. In this budget, they have reduced it back to 15%. By doing this, they say they have lowered taxes. I do not know what math the finance minister learned, but I know that one and one equals two and that one minus three equals two.

We know his record when he was the finance minister in Ontario. The member for Willowdale alluded to the debt with which he left Ontario, unbeknownst to the incoming government.

The finance minister also did one shameful act, which Canadians are still paying for today, and that was the income trust fiasco. When the Liberals looked at it, we knew we had to address it, but we never made any decisions because of an election. This cost Canadians. Why? Because of the NDP.

Today the NDP has the audacity to stand and ask where the money is for social housing, or for the environment or for post-secondary education. Under the former Liberal prime minister, there were $1.6 billion for affordable housing, $1.5 billion for education, $1 billion for the environment and half a billion dollars for foreign aid. I stood up in this honourable House and I supported those recommendations. We applauded them.

What did members of the NDP do? They betrayed not the Liberal Party; they betrayed their constituents, who today are asking what happened to that money.

My colleague earlier alluded to support for child care. This is not child care. This is handing somebody $100 a month, which is taxable.

The member for Peterborough talked earlier about the money which was stolen. It is unfortunate he uses that type of language. Judge Gomery brought everything out and the culprits who indeed took money from Canadians were put before the courts and were charged, convicted and imprisoned.

At least we respected Judge Gomery's results. However, that party used Judge Gomery. Before committee, Judge Gomery expressed his disappointment that all the recommendations he put forward were thrown out by the Conservatives. Part of their victory had to do with Judge Gomery's commission.

The party talks about supporting our military. I have said before, I am a son of a veteran as well. We have stood in the defence committee with the chair, for whom I have great respect. We have done everything we can to support our military. Yesterday we had a vote on a motion from the member for Kitchener—Waterloo about lowering the flag on the Peace Tower. What a shameful display from the Conservative Party.

When the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has to go to the polls the next time and visit his constituents, he will have to answer why he betrayed them. He ran on a policy saying he was going to do this and he was going to do that, and the next thing we knew he walked over to the government. We Canadians are still waiting to see the famous report he put together when he went over to Pakistan. We still want to see it. We want to know how much it cost Canadians.

Anyway, I do not want to move away from the budget speech. Here is what one gentleman said some time ago, and I was really impressed, I must say, so I will quote him. He said that there is no greater lie “than a promise not kept”. Do members know who said that?

[An hon. member]

The current Prime Minister.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

No, the current Progressive Conservatives of Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the Prime Minister, of course, because the Prime Minister went out and said to all Canadians that the Liberals wanted to tax Canadians' income trusts, that there was no way for seniors, for everybody; we swear, he said, and he signed it. What was the first thing he did? He went back on his word.

[An hon. member]

Absolutely.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

He went back on his word. It was similar to the Chuck Cadman matter. We look him in the face and he says trust us. It is on tape. It is not something we said. It is on tape, so we are not even making it up.

The list goes on, but let me tell members where the government has failed. When we ask Canadians today what is the most important issue for them, they say health care. The Conservative government has put zero into health care. As a matter of fact, let me tell members what the Minister of Health said about the last budget when he was asked the question. He said the Conservatives would continue the funding that the Liberals put in. That is what they are going to do.

As the Liberal team, we stand on our record. We took over a country that was unofficially bankrupt, we straightened out the books, and we had surpluses never before seen in the history of our country. It reminds me of what a presidential candidate said: that the Clintons took care of the mess, the Bushes destroyed it, and now it is going to take Clintons to correct it.

The terrible Tories--which they are not, they are Reformers--really did a number on this country, whereas we took a mess, as Premier McGuinty has done, and corrected it, and now the Conservatives are about to destroy it.

I have one little closing statement. It is embarrassing to have the finance minister, as a member from Ontario, bashing Ontario. Shame on him.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is wondering why everyone is picking on the Liberal Party, and why Canadians are picking on the Liberal Party, it is because we have a backlog of 800,000 in the immigration system. The wait times are long. They are up to six years. The Liberals voted against our $1.3 billion in new settlement funding. They voted against the foreign credentials referral office. They voted against cutting the immigration head tax of $975. Those are some reasons why everyone is picking on the Liberal Party.

Let me ask if the member knows who said the following:

The world looks to Canada like we have this great immigration system...but you're not doing the system justice by taking applications that aren't going to get processed for years and years and years.

It doesn't make any sense to us to be continually taking these [applications]...the reality is we need to change the system....

We need an immigration system that is in this regard more flexible and responds to employers, the provinces and our cities.

Who said that? It was said by the member for York West, the former Liberal immigration minister. I wonder if the member would agree with what the former Liberal minister said about what needs to be done in our system.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to what the then immigration minister, the member for York West, was saying, she simply was being honest, saying that every individual has the right to apply no matter what the circumstances, even if it is declined once.

At least we Liberals like to believe we live in a democracy, unlike the Conservative Party, where the members have to get permission before they go out to speak, and unlike its candidates, who most recently were not even allowed to speak to the media. The member for Willowdale knows that very well. I remember her commenting on television that she could not even get any debate. The media was going around to ask them questions and they did not pipe up; they were silenced.

The former immigration minister was correct. All these moneys the member is talking about, this government invested in labour--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to cut off the member there and go to the member for Yukon for a brief question and comment, and then I will try to get to the hon. member for Peterborough.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, is the member embarrassed that the parliamentary secretary is giving false information on immigration when he is the one person who should know? First the parliamentary secretary suggested that in Alberta and Saskatchewan skilled people had to wait six years and the government could not do anything about it, but as we know, there is a provincial program. Being the parliamentary secretary, he more than anyone should know that the provinces have programs through which they can accelerate those people.

Then he said that those for whom the federal government is responsible are waiting four to six years, but we know the government is going to slow it down and it will be even longer because it is fast tracking some people and that will take up more resources. As well, the Conservatives are adding a piddling amount, as the member for Willowdale just pointed out, of less than 1%, so all those other immigrants who are waiting four to six years are going to be waiting even longer. Is that not an embarrassment for the government?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

All I can add to that, Mr. Speaker, is that just the other day the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, clearly pointed out factually how the data the government is providing is completely inaccurate and false. He provided to the House the correct numbers and of course it was embarrassing to the government, which did not respond.

The Conservatives can say all they want to say in this hon. chamber, but the facts are the facts. The data is data and nobody can dispute it. Now I will wait to hear from the member for Peterborough. I look forward to it.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I left my office this morning and rode over to the House of Commons, but apparently it is actually Yuk Yuk's here today because I have heard a presentation that sounds more like stand-up comedy than a speech in the House.

I would like to address a couple of things. First of all, the member has a staunch defence of Dalton McGuinty. I suppose he would like to defend the $33 million slush fund. Perhaps he would like to defend the record tax increase by the McGuinty government in 2004 after its promise not to increase taxes. It then came back with the largest tax increase on record.

What I would really like to know from the member is this: does he really think CO₂ is an ingredient in smog? It is actually unburnt fuel. I would really like to know, because if that is his knowledge of the environment we know why the Liberals got nothing done on the environment.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not defending Dalton McGuinty. I am defending my proud province of Ontario. Unlike that member who cannot stand up and call a spade a spade, I am defending the cities in Ontario that need support and which the government has completely neglected. I am defending the children of Ontario that the member and his party are neglecting. I am defending the seniors in Ontario that the member and his party are neglecting. I am defending the veterans of Ontario. I am defending all of Canada, which the Conservatives are not.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let us hope we can bring some order to this House and quiet down the debate to some reasonable and realistic comments.

I rise to speak to the amendment put forward by the NDP to effectively and substantially delay second reading of a very important piece of government legislation.

First, I must express my dismay with the NDP for defending the enormous immigration backlog in this country. The NDP members stand in this House and say that they stand up for immigrants, but they actually are putting forward an amendment that will delay a process which will actually improve and speed up the immigration process.

The backlog, of course, is keeping families apart and is denying Canada the much needed talent and skills that we require to improve our competitiveness and ensure our long term economic prosperity. By extension, that backlog is threatening Canada's quality of life and the strength and the integrity of the social safety net that the NDP claims to champion.

The NDP members, along with their Liberal and Bloc friends, say they support a vibrant 21st century economy. They offer no solutions to address the serious labour force challenges that our country is facing. They fail to recognize that Canada is in fierce competition with other countries to attract the skilled immigrants who have the talent and the training to meet these challenges.

My hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, spoke at length on the need to proceed with these valuable and much needed reforms. I am going to speak to some of the other important measures that these political games are delaying. They are delaying benefits to Canadian families and businesses. We will make it loud and clear to all Canadians that it is the NDP members, along with their Liberal and Bloc allies, who are to blame for these delays.

Bill C-50, as with all our previous budget bills, is primarily about making a positive impact on the lives of Canadians, who for too long were overtaxed and poorly served by their federal government. We committed to changing that and we remain committed to delivering positive results for Canadians.

I know the NDP is never happy about Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money, but I can assure members that Canadians certainly are excited about the tax-free savings account or, as we call it, TFSA. With the tax-free savings account, budget 2008 provides Canadians with the most important savings vehicle since the introduction of the RRSP. This flexible, registered, general purpose account will allow Canadians to watch their savings grow tax free. The reaction has been almost overwhelmingly positive in support of this TFSA.

I ask members to listen to the words of Finn Poschmann, director of Research at the C.D. Howe Institute. He said:

This tax policy gem is very good news for Canadians, and [the finance minister] and his government deserve credit for a novel program.

Budget 2008 also provides for an increase in the northern residents deductions of 10%, effective for the 2008 tax year, a move with broad positive support, even from the NDP.

Let us listen to the words of NDP member for Western Arctic, who said that it is a positive first step. I note for that particular NDP member the disappointment that his constituents, in the form of a recent Yellowknifer editorial, have already indicated in regard to his first vote against the budget:

Considering the NDP won't form a government at any time soon, it would have been best had [the NDP member from Western Arctic] swallowed the pill and voted with the [Conservative] government.

Let us imagine how much more disappointed they will be in him once they hear that their member is now trying to delay this positive step.

I hear on a daily basis from the NDP that the government is not paying enough attention to the challenges faced by our students. Budget 2008 is a generous budget for students and goes a long way to address the neglect they suffered under the previous Liberal government.

Through Bill C-50, the government is committing $123 million over four years, starting in 2009-10, to streamline and modernize the Canada student loans program and expand online services for students, enabling them to manage their student loan accounts online.

It would provide further support for Canadian students with a $350 million investment in 2009-10, rising to $430 million in 2012-13, in a new consolidated Canada student grant program that would reach 245,000 college and undergraduate students per year when it takes effect in 2009. That is almost 100,000 more students than the previous program that we are replacing.

One can imagine students' disappointment once they hear of today's delays.

We recognize that small and medium businesses are the backbone of our economy and our government is committed to fostering an environment that enables them to thrive.

Budget 2008 would benefit small and medium-sized businesses by improving the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program and easing the tax compliance burden by reducing the record-keeping requirements for automobile expense deductions and taxable benefits.

We believe that Canadians share our desire to see more of our seniors maintain their independence for as long as possible. This government also recognizes that our seniors will have a valuable contribution to make to our economy, which is why we are investing $60 million per year to ensure that low income seniors who work can realize greater benefits from their earnings through an increase in the guaranteed income supplement exemption. This is one of the most innovative and promising initiatives put forward in budget 2008 and addresses, head on, a serious challenge faced by Canadian society.

Through Bill C-50, we will invest $110 million in the Mental Health Commission of Canada to support five innovative demonstration projects across the country to develop best practices to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

The protection of its citizens is one of the most important responsibilities of a government. We are committed to following through with the resources to show Canadians we take that responsibility very seriously.

To back up our commitment, Bill C-50 provides $400 million through a third party trust for provinces and territories to support their efforts in recruiting 2,500 new front line police officers.

This government believes we can never fully enjoy the benefits of our hard work and unique joys of being fortunate enough to live in a country like Canada if we do not protect our environment as well. Clean air, clean water and clean land are not only what Canadians deserve, they are the bedrock ingredients of our long term prosperity and success as a country. That is why our government has made, and will continue to make, substantial investments in protecting our environment.

Bill C-50 allocates $500 million in 2007-08, through a third party trust, on a provincial-territorial per capita basis, for public transit infrastructure and sets aside $250 million for a full scale, commercial demonstration carbon capture and storage in the coal-fired electrical sector.

As we can see, Bill C-50, the first budget implementation act for 2008, is filled with positive news for Canadians, news that I would have thought the NDP could support and should support. It contains targeted and timely funding to address many of the challenges that our country is facing while, at the same time, introducing the tax-free savings account, one of the most innovative and welcomed savings vehicles to come along since the RRSP.

I encourage the NDP and all opposition parties to put aside petty partisan wrangling and support Bill C-50. If they cannot see their way to doing that, they should at least get out of the way and stop delaying such important legislation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing the debate back to a reasonable level.

First I have a comment and then a technical question on the Bank of Canada.

The member pointed out one of the flaws in the budget related to the territories when he explained that the funding for public transport and police was on a per capita basis. As he knows, we do not have very many per capitas so that turns out to be roughly $180,000 for the territories which are somewhat bigger than every country in Europe. We get in the order of one police person and expenses, which is not significant and not sufficient.

Because the member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, my question is more of a technical question relating to the changes in Bill C-50 in relation to the Bank of Canada.

The bill provides more flexibility for the Bank of Canada in its investments or more modernization so it can use new tools. I would like the hon. member to explain to the public, which would always be worried if our finances could be invested more liberally, what protections these new changes would bring to the Bank of Canada to ensure these investments would still be safe.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Yukon, not only for his question but also for being one of four members of Parliament who actually showed up to a technical briefing to discuss Bill C-50. I applaud that. The member is obviously concerned for his constituents and wants to know the impact and benefits that will come from the budget implementation bill that we are presenting today.

It is actually a delight to get a technical question and if the hon. member will please forgive me, I will make sure that I am very concise on this.

It is because of the turbulence in our financial markets and in the markets of the United States that the Bank of Canada Act, we realized, needed some improvement, some flexibility. We have made sound improvements that would provide more liquidity and flexibility to the Bank of Canada to react in what may be continuing turbulent times.

We are very confident. These changes came from discussions with the Bank of Canada. They are positive and are well supported by the industry. I thank the member for raising that question.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to a number of comments the member made with regard to New Democrats. In particular, one of the responsibilities of each member of Parliament is to consider any piece of legislation that is before the House and to weigh both the pros and cons of that piece of legislation.

The member cherry-picked, as I will, from the budget implementation bill and a proposed amendment by the member for Trinity—Spadina around the impact on our constituents and other Canadians.

Over the last several months, my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has reeled from the number of closures in the forestry sector, whether it is logging or supporting companies. We recently had another company that manufactures equipment for logging companies go into receivership. As a result, we are seeing rising poverty in my riding.

I want to talk about housing. The member talked about the investment with the Mental Health Commission in pilot projects. Pilot projects simply will not house all the people who are without adequate, affordable or safe housing.

Recently, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities specifically called for a national program that would look at ending chronic homelessness, rehabilitating and preserving existing social housing stocks, building new affordable housing and reducing the backlog of people needing affordable housing. I know that other organizations have called for a national housing strategy.

I wonder if the member could comment on the inadequacies of the budget implementation bill in addressing what has been called a national housing crisis in this country.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I gave a speech earlier today about the connection that this budget brings to the issue that has never been addressed in this House before. The studies have shown us a direct link between mental illness and homelessness. This budget is the first time that this government has addressed that direct link.

We have pilot projects in place to further that work, to find if in fact there is a connection, and how to address that connection. That is groundbreaking work in this House and I applaud our finance minister for recognizing that.

Now that I have the floor and we are talking about NDP support or lack of, I might remind the House, if I can bring it back to the amendment, that we have tried on many occasions to improve the immigration system without opening the act.

We found that the NDP voted against cutting the $975 immigrant head tax. When we tried to increase the number of foreign credential referral offices, the NDP voted against that. It also voted against the $1.3 billion in new settlement funding for newcomers to Canada. It then brings forward an amendment to tell its supporters, in reduced numbers, of course, that it actually does care about immigration shortfalls in this country and that it does care about a backlog.

I find the NDP's arguments ring rather hollow when we see its voting record on immigration.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member, whom I worked with in the past on international trade. I am familiar with his economic policies and liberal economic values.

Three points particularly drew my attention and go against the values held by Quebeckers. He talked about the tax-free savings account. He praised the government for lowering the GST and lowering taxes. He also talked about older people who work and who are effectively entitled to receive more money from the guaranteed income supplement.

Let us begin with the first point, the tax-free savings account. Can the member tell me what the real intention is behind this new tax tool? After the budget was presented, most economists and analysts really questioned its relevance. It was even noted that the budget does nothing to encourage people to save over the long term. He referred to vehicle purchases, that is, short term purchases and the like.

First of all, can he tell me if the government's intention was not actually to create a diversion? He says it is the most important invention since the RRSP. It is simply to create a diversion. There are countless unused RRSPs, which people could start using at any time, and which would plunge the government into an enormous deficit. Thus, is it not rather to create a diversion?

Second, how is it that older people have to go to work in order to be entitled to a supplement—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is one minute left for the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I cannot qualify all of the answers in one minute. I might just very quickly point out that our budget did provide $90 million to extend the targeted initiative to older workers. I would remind my hon. colleague that mine are not Liberal values. Mine are Conservative values and I do value the time spent on committee with the hon. member.

If I could deviate a little bit, there was one false statement made today by the mover of this amendment, the member for Trinity—Spadina. She said that the funds would not be reimbursed to the applicants whose applications were not accepted. That is absolutely false and that needs to be put on the record. All applicants who are not accepted will be completely reimbursed, just to get that factually correct on the record.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on what I was saying the day after the budget was brought down, when we heard a number of Conservative MPs say that this budget was extraordinary and good for Canadians. Again, it may be good for Canadians, but it is not good for Quebeckers. We came to that conclusion after a rather careful analysis. There is practically nothing in the budget that corresponds to what the Bloc Québécois asked for before it was tabled by the Conservative government.

This Conservative government is showing us through its right-wing ideology that it is truly quite far removed from the interests and values of Quebec. With this budget we truly feel that the government did not meet the expectations expressed by the Bloc Québécois' with respect to its interests and values. Hon. members will recall that the day after the budget was tabled, the vast majority of the daily newspapers and media in Quebec gave their impression on this budget, and it was clearly unfavourable.

Mr. Dubuc's column in La Presse read:

This lack of vision can be explained by the conservative philosophy of the prime minister's government, which does not believe in the role of the state and avoids economic intervention like the plague. It is an outdated, dogmatic conservatism that is not found anywhere else in the west.

The Bloc Québécois made its requests a long time in advance and on many occasions. These requests focused on the manufacturing and forestry industries, which are currently dealing with an unprecedented crisis in Quebec. These requests have been completely swept aside and forgotten in this budget, as though they were not important.

This budget lacks vision. The Bloc Québécois will most certainly vote against the budget implementation bill we are currently discussing.

I come from a riding, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, where the problem in the forestry industry I was just talking about is extremely serious. Pulp and paper companies are closing one after the other. There is some doubt as to whether the ones that are still around will get through this crisis. The many sawmills in the north of the riding, in the La Tuque area, are closing one after the other, some temporarily, others permanently.

We had hoped that the Conservative government would truly hear and acknowledge the Bloc Québécois demands. It should provide much greater support to the manufacturing and forestry sectors to help them through the current crisis. But the only assistance to the manufacturing sector went to Ontario. That is truly deplorable. Quebec was quite obviously forgotten in this budget.

Earlier, I was speaking about the media. The members will recall that, the day after the budget was tabled, the Quebec Minister of Finance also said that the budget did not meet Quebec's expectations. She said:

I am disappointed because there was a $20 billion margin in the context of an economic slowdown. We were hoping the government would do more for older workers and for the manufacturing and forestry industries in Quebec.

Ms. Jérôme-Forget's comments were made the day after the budget was tabled. There was a surplus of $10.5 billion available. The government could have allocated a sizeable amount, as the Bloc Québécois has been recommending since last fall, to support businesses, plants and workers. It could have allocated $3 billion to debt repayment, which would have been reasonable in any case. But it has acted according to the Conservative ideology. The Conservatives did as they pleased and applied $10.5 billion to paying down the debt, which, in light of what is going on in Quebec, is unacceptable.

As I said earlier, considering these obvious facts and the positions taken in the budget that go against the interests of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois will certainly not vote in favour of implementing this budget. The 2008 budget does not meet any of the conditions set out by the Bloc Québécois. We stated our conditions for supporting the budget, but hardly any of them were met.

As I was saying before, this budget does not provide any direct and immediate assistance to the manufacturing and forestry industries, which are experiencing a major crisis, or to the workers and communities affected by this crisis. The biggest problem of the crisis is that individuals, the people in the cities, municipalities and regions, are the ones hardest hit by the crisis, in terms of their family, personal and community lives. They are the ones who have trouble making ends meet at the end of the month or who cannot pay back the bank drafts and loans they took out, often to purchase equipment in order to work. I am talking about self-employed forestry workers, for example, who must take on the cost of the required machinery themselves. The government has done nothing to help these people.

There is no assistance for workers and communities, except the $1 billion trust over three years, of which Quebec will see only a small part. We are talking about approximately 24%, which is not even representative of the size of the manufacturing and forestry industry relative to Canada. Quebec will have access to only a small amount, while the sectors that are not even affected by the manufacturing and forestry crisis—or barely—will receive a share of the $1 billion on a per capita basis. This is assistance they do not need because they already have an industrial structure to help them through such crises. This is not the case in Quebec.

There is another reason why the Bloc Québécois will not support this bill. It has to do with the whole issue of seniors. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party promised to give full retroactivity to people who had not received the guaranteed income supplement, which the Liberals clearly and deliberately kept quiet about. Thousands of seniors in Quebec do not receive the guaranteed income supplement. They were receiving their old age pension, but they did not know they were entitled to a supplement.

The Liberals did not tell them. The Conservatives, on the other hand, promised them full retroactivity. However, once in power, as soon as they formed the government, their memories failed them and now they forget. This situation once again penalizes our most vulnerable citizens, seniors. How could the Bloc Québécois support such a Conservative budget? We find it completely unacceptable.

There is another factor to consider and another reason why we will not support this budget: the environment. This budget continues to favour polluters in the regions that pollute the most. They are implementing systems that allow industries and businesses, particularly oil companies, to benefit from tax credits and continue to pollute even more. As we all know, since 1990, many communities and businesses in Quebec have taken steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Instead of being rewarded, these efforts by Quebec businesses are being penalized and more is being given to those who pollute the most.

This is absolutely unacceptable. Once again, it is part of what we call this right-wing ideology, which favours certain areas, such as natural resources, including the oil sector.

Another important element for the Bloc Québécois is culture. This budget does not contain any measures to promote cultural development in Quebec. The film industry is penalized, and funding has been cut once again. Yet the whole cultural, literary and artistic realm in Quebec is a flourishing industry. It needs substantial support from the federal government, which would give meaning to the whole question of the Quebec nation. Developing Quebec's culture would develop its distinctiveness, but the government is not interested.

Once again, a parallel can be drawn between a budget proposal such as this one and the recognition of the Quebec nation, which the government likes to boast about. Yet when the time comes to walk the talk, the government forgets all about it and does not take any real action. It just pays lip service to the idea.

There is another especially important element. I am talking about the government's will, as expressed in this budget. The Minister of Finance has announced that he intends to create a single securities commission, even though the whole financial community in Quebec is against this idea. This is absolutely unacceptable. Moreover, this issue has already been dealt with. This is one budget measure that is a huge stumbling block for us. It is a real source of conflict for us.

I could go back to all the elements in the budget. I was talking earlier about the manufacturing and forestry industries. Even after the vote on the budget had taken place, the Conservative members on the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to hear a series of people to really understand the extent of the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries.

What is happening in the manufacturing sector in Quebec and elsewhere, but particularly in Ontario and Quebec? The budget does not provide anything more for this sector, but right after the budget passed, the Conservatives and the other members on the Standing Committee on Finance approved a motion introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague, the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.

The committee agreed to hear witnesses. The motion read as follows:

That the Committee, in view of the serious challenges faced by the forestry and manufacturing sectors, engage in a study on direct assistance measures and fiscal environment consisting of no more than four consecutive meetings—

For four meetings, we heard from people who came to tell us what they thought the manufacturing and forestry sectors in Quebec, and Ontario too, needed to get through the crisis. There was consensus.

We heard from Jayson Myers, president of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters; Claudette Carbonneau, president of the CSN; Pierre Laliberté, political advisor to the FTQ for the manufacturing sector; Avrim Lazar, president and CEO, Forest Products Association of Canada; Phil Vinet, mayor of Red Lake; Jean Laneville, an economist with the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce; Ms. Peterson, mayor of Thunder Bay; and Guy Chevrette, of the Forest Industry Council.

These people were nearly unanimous—nearly because they did not use the same words, but they all meant the same thing—in their assertion that the forestry and manufacturing sectors are going through such a serious crisis that the government must change its policy and its budget accordingly.

They also said that the government had to use part of its $10.5 billion surplus to help a dying sector. The witnesses all told us that the Conservative government is clearly taking the wrong approach with its budget and its plan, which offer no direct assistance to the industries in these sectors, and that it must change its approach.

Until now, we have not heard anything to suggest that it plans to change anything. We think that the Conservative government put forward a budget that favours oil companies because it offers corporate tax cuts. As we have said before, tax cuts for companies that are not making a profit are not really tax cuts. But when companies are making profits in the millions or billions, they do benefit from tax cuts. This brand of economic liberalism is hurting Quebec businesses that, as we know, for the most part, did not make a profit in the past year.

What to do? We could try to further analyze this budget and find some justification for it, but there is none. There is nothing in the budget, whether it is for the status of women—which garners just one paragraph, six lines, to improve the status of women—or for employment insurance, where the demands of the Bloc Québécois have been completely ignored.

With regard to aboriginal peoples, they have significant needs in terms of social housing in particular. But there is nothing for them.

That can be said about any area. However, the government has envelopes for defence. When you are in favour of increasing military action and you join forces with the American government to continue the war in Afghanistan, you will definitely put more money in those envelopes. However, what is important to Quebec citizens right now is the injection of additional dollars. More money could have been allocated to regional development so that the Government of Quebec, which is familiar with the needs of each region, could have taken much more targeted action to foster greater investment in regional development.

The budget has an impact on many areas. Unfortunately, it does not contain what the Bloc Québécois wanted, that is major investments in the manufacturing sector, as I mentioned earlier. For these reasons, it is quite understandable that the Bloc Québécois will not support the implementation of this budget.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals had three important programs. One had to do with retrofitting houses for those who could not afford to do so. Another was the SCPI program with respect to homelessness. The other was a program to make houses more efficient in order to cut down on greenhouse gases. These were all popular programs but the Conservative government cut all of them. A couple were put back in a smaller way but they are harder to access. Unfortunately, some of these programs are expiring next year. People need these programs.

I hope the member will support us in our call to have the government increase the figures at least to where they were for retrofitting houses, for homelessness, and for more efficient housing. It is hoped that the government will extend these programs beyond 2009 so that people most in need in our country are not kept in limbo again.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. He asked me if he would have our support on certain measures that have been cancelled by the Conservatives.

I remind him that each time bills are put forward—bills about reinstating programs—we evaluate each one thoroughly, and we will continue to do so.

However, I remind him that we will continue to do so if we can see that there is something in it for Quebeckers. If we believe that these measures will allow Quebeckers to continue to access good services and that they can benefit from the measures he is talking to me about, eventually and with the right to change our mind, there is a strong possibility that we will support him. We have presented very important demands about social housing, the environment—greenhouse gas emissions—and about the justification for providing the homeless with better services.

In my opinion, that is what I believe to be the party line.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will be seven and a half minutes at the end of question period for any further questions and comments at that point.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, things have quietened down a bit now and I am happy to participate and offer my comments on Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

Imitation is often mentioned as the highest form of flattery, so Canadians are now experiencing a strange sense of déjà vu with the minority Conservative government's 2008 budget.

It seems that the Conservatives lack any ideas of their own and instead have decided to present a watered down version of our Liberal policies.

Perhaps if the finance minister was not so busy bashing his home province and my home province of Ontario, he would have had more time to come up with more original policies, some of his own policies, rather than recycling ours and trying to pass them off as new policies.

Some of the many excellent Liberal initiatives that the finance minister repackaged are: making the gas tax transfer permanent, as we had committed to in February 2007; providing direct support to the auto sector, as we called for in January 2008; creating jobs and improving public transit through additional investments in infrastructure, as we called for in February 2008; providing funding to hire more police, as we committed to in March 2007; reversing some of the Conservatives previous cuts to university granting councils and the indirect costs of research programs, which would have grown substantially under the Liberal economic update of 2005; replacing some of the funding from the Liberal 2005 update for student grants; and modernizing the Canada student loans program.

That is quite a list of Liberal accomplishments. I could go on further with more Liberal achievements and more of our exceptional policies, but I will go back to minority Conservative government's budget implementation bill.

I am glad the Conservatives really and truly appreciated those policies and those ideas that we had and went forward to implement them because they could see they were very good policies as well.

I certainly would have preferred it if the Conservatives had not already spent the cupboard bare with their previous budgets and fall economic and fiscal updates, leaving a razor thin surplus to protect Canada's economy should it continue to falter.

The next six months will be very important in Canada's economy and we can only hope that Canada will come through this without finding ourselves back in a deficit position again.

All the Conservatives are looking for is a boost in their poll numbers, continuing to demonstrate to Canadians what their priorities are. By focusing on the election that it is so desperate for, the government has again showed its incredible shortsightedness and total lack of ability to build our great nation.

Everything is built on polls and more polls. There is no planning for next week because everything is being done on the fly. The Conservatives have wasted a major opportunity to address Canada's infrastructure deficit by not acting on the Liberal proposal to use $7 billion of this year's debt paydown to fund infrastructure projects across the country. The investment of that $7 billion in infrastructure across Canada could clearly have protected us against what many of us fear is a possible recession here in Canada.

Nevertheless, we did not vote against this budget as there was nothing in the budget that warrants an election that Canadians clearly do not want, particularly at such a difficult time for the Canadian economy.

People that I speak to tell us to be patient and give it more time and that they are watching what everybody is doing. Clearly the polls are showing that because frankly nobody is going up and nobody is going down.

However, now that the minority Conservative government has very sneakily slipped legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act into the budget implementation bill, it really gives us cause for concern.

These changes would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral authority to determine priorities for the processing of immigration application requests. These measures could potentially reduce the number of new immigration applications that the federal government accepts each year, particularly in the number of family class applications.

All of us need to be concerned about family reunification, as well as the whole issue of filling the needs through our skilled trades and economic requirements.

We have never seen any compassion from the government and I am certainly not expecting it to start now by exercising humanitarian and compassionate grounds on any application, but I am also appalled at the Conservative approach of shutting the door on immigrants by simply reducing the number of applications the federal government accepts.

Does it really think this is an appropriate way to address the immigration inventory? This bill puts far too much discretionary power into the hands of the minister to cherry-pick the type immigrants that the Conservative Party would like to enter Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada's mission is to build a stronger Canada. Let me read the mission statement for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It states:

Developing and implementing policies, programs and services that:

Facilitate the arrival of persons and their integration to Canada in a way that maximizes their contribution to the country while protecting the health, safety and security of Canadians;

Maintain Canada’s humanitarian tradition by protecting refugees and persons in need of protection; and

Enhance the values and promote the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

That is a very important mission statement and I am not sure the minister has had time to read that herself. Perhaps the immigration minister should take a few minutes to try to familiarize herself with that because the mission statement very much clarifies and illustrates exactly what Canada is all about.

Possibly she is too busy selecting what immigrant she is going to fast track as she moves forward or perhaps she shares the view of the Prime Minister when he wrote in the 1988 Reform Party platform that immigration should not “radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada”.

Using the budget implementation bill is an outrageous way to deliver promises made by the Reform Party 20 years ago. Immigration reforms should simply not be buried in a budget implementation bill.

If the government wants to table these changes, it should put them forward as a separate piece of legislation that can be studied by the appropriate House of Commons standing committee, as any other critical piece of legislation would be.

If Parliament is to work effectively for all Canadians, regardless of the fact that we are in a minority situation, we must have a full and honest debate on all critical issues, certainly including immigration reform.

I consider immigration to be critically important. It is a part of moving Canada forward. It is very important that we have an immigration system in Canada that will help to build our country in a positive way. I believe that requires all of us, not in a partisan approach, to sit down in a committee, maybe a special legislative committee if the government does not want to send it to the current citizenship and immigration committee. We need to have an opportunity to fully debate the reforms that the minister is talking about.

There are areas that I am sure we would all agree on to move forward and there are other areas that possibly we would not but on something as important as immigration in Canada, I do not believe we should be doing it while it is buried in a budget bill.

It has been suggested that we are having a debate today but it is not. We are dealing with a budget implementation bill. We need to spend many hours going over exactly what it is the minister wants to achieve. It should be done in a non-partisan manner at either a special legislative committee or in some other manner, where people with experience in dealing with immigration files could come forward. We could work together to bring forward some reforms to the immigration bill that would benefit all Canadians and not simply be done in a partisan manner in a budget implementation bill.

That is not the way we do things in Canada. I do not believe it is the way that we can build a country any more than I believe we should be pitting one province against another. I continue to see the politics of division happening across the way by the government. It is pitting communities against each other and provinces against each other. That is not the way to build a nation.

While the government is so busy throwing the “nation” word around, clearly that is not how to build a country. I call on the government to work much more cooperatively with us as we try to move our great country forward.

Many other issues were mentioned earlier, things that Liberals are concerned about. Picking and choosing who comes to Canada is not the Canadian way, nor is it the way that we should be moving things forward.

I want to thank the House for allowing me the opportunity to comment on Bill C-50. There are many issues in the legislation, but the immigration one concerns us on this side of the House a lot as we move forward to build a strong country together.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for her comments with respect to some of the statements that were made by the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. He said that when it comes to immigration, his party did not get it done. The Liberals had 13 years in government with six immigration ministers. The member herself was a minister.

The member for Etobicoke Centre said on September 14, 2004, during a CBC interview:

I'm almost reaching the point where I believe that our whole immigration system has become dysfunctional. That in fact it's at the point of being broken.

The member herself indicated that it does not make sense for us to be continually taking names when the reality is that we need to change the system, make it more flexible, more responsible.

Does she not agree that change is necessary because the system was not working the way it had been structured under the previous 13 years? Does she not agree that it requires a legislative change? This bill will go to committee and she can add her thoughts to it then. The total portion of the amendment is about two pages and is not difficult to understand.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my response by saying how important immigration is to Canada. To continually find ways to improve our legislation should be on the top of the list for all of us in the House.

The reason 800,000 people are on lists is because many of those people are no longer alive, or many of them no longer want to come to Canada for different reasons, or many of them were fleeing countries because of economic issues but some of those countries are now in a much better state.

It is not a question of our immigration system not working. Many people want to come to Canada. We need to look at how we are handling application forms. Our current system does not allow us to say no. We have to take all applications as they come in. There are a variety of things that could be done by regulation.

All of us have an interest in seeing our immigration system to be the best that it can be. That is a natural interest for all of us. If that is the case, then why are we trying to sneak reforms into our immigration system through a budget implementation bill? Why is the issue not going to a special legislative committee?

If we do not want Bill C-50 to go to the current citizenship and immigration committee, then we all have to agree to is to send it to a special committee where we could spend a month or six or seven weeks going over it to make sure that it is the best that it can be. Why would we be afraid to debate it?

We have lots of opportunity to work together on this bill, but we cannot do that by sending it as part of a budget bill to the finance committee. It is irresponsible to send it there and expect finance committee members to suddenly become experts on immigration issues. We all know the complexity of the issues in and around immigration. I remind the House how important it is for us to do this right.

If there are going to be reforms, then let us do the reforms. The bill should be sent to committee so we can all work on it together.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does that mean you are going to vote against the bill because all these issues are that important? We are proposing an amendment that would take all of that out, so are you going to vote with us and against the government's bill? Is that what the Liberals are going to do?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Outremont knows that the Speaker cannot vote. I cannot imagine that he was addressing his comment to me. I think he meant to address the hon. member for York West. The next time, of course, he will direct his remarks through the chair. I cannot vote.

The hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important issue and it is not one that we should be pushing politics and trying to play games with.

If the NDP members really cared about the country they would be working with everyone to try to make things change and make some improvements. All they are interested in is trying to do showcasing and trying to shame and push people around.

We on this side of the House will do what we need to do when the time is right and when it is in the best interest of Canada.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for York West for her extremely important and enlightening comments in her capacity as former minister of immigration and a very diligent member of Parliament on this file. She continues to remind us that it is extremely important for us to declare to Canadians why these changes are being made on the fly through a legislative piece that was brought back as a ways and means motion, a motion that I would suggest really is about covering the Conservative agenda with respect to important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that you be in the chair today because I am on my feet not only because of this bill but because of what the bill is attempting to do.

The will of the House of Commons was expressed very clearly on March 5 of this year. This was after a ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, made some two years ago, but which was obviously lost on Conservative members, including the Minister of Finance. He assumed that once a bill was votable that it might have an impact with respect to lessening of tax that he should not consider this, not just once but in two separate budgets. He completely and utterly ignored and threw away prudent fiscal understanding of the implications of various bills which should have been routine and instead worked with several other people to try to suggest that my bill, Bill C-253, which would give a chance for families to save in a very real way, to save for post-secondary education, by making RESPs income tax deductible and completely forgot the principle of the importance of a decision made by the House.

The bill is nowhere near dead. As we know, the bill is before the other House and is now at second reading there. I hope it is given the equal consideration and time it takes to have an important piece of legislation passed.

It seems to me that when we are talking about the future of this country we may have differences of opinions as to how this country ought to be led and how it ought to be managed but the one thing we cannot disagree with are some of the imperatives.

Students face an incredible amount of debt. Over 50% of students right now face incredible crippling debts as they leave post-secondary education, long before they are able to pay any type of debt down. It is difficult enough for them to try to find a job.

In 10 years from now we know that the average cost of education, with four years in residence, will be $100,000. Given the average income of families, I do not see how it will be possible under the current regime to have a situation where so many people will not have access to the skills that come with higher education and the training that the global economy demands in order for Canada to remain competitive. It is a reality that we all as members of Parliament agree with.

I have spoken to several members of the Conservative Party who over the years supported this bill. Dare I say that they probably voted against the bill at the final reading, although the will of the House was expressed in much greater numbers, because they were jealous? They knew this was a policy that was good for the future of this country.

I have letter after letter and members of the House on all sides received letters from their constituents asking them time and time again to not kill the bill.

I am pleased to report that those rumours of the death of my bill, which were pronounced in some of the media and greatly exaggerated in some editorials, were only rumours. The same editorials also suggested, and I am hoping some of those editorialists are listening to this, that the bill was passed by stealth, that it required a royal recommendation. I will not benefit the author of several stories in one particular paper, but it was someone who actually thought that what had been done here by parliamentarians was tantamount to what happened in 1840, which is why Lord Durham had to be brought in.

There was no revolution here. There was instead a recognition and understanding that in a minority Parliament, in a setting where Canadians expect more from their parliamentarians, members of Parliament, backbench members of Parliament of all parties worked deliberatively, not for a day, not for a week, not for a month and not through gamesmanship, but over two years to ensure that a piece of legislation on RESP deductibility would in fact be put forward.

I am speaking today to the fact that the bill, far from being killed, is the subject of Bill C-50, which I will refer to as the killer-hunter bill proposed by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance's own riding of Whitby—Oshawa is one that I represented and I know that the Minister of Finance will know that this is so popular an issue if this is in fact going to be an election issue, which it could very well be. I know full well that it is something that I am prepared to take to the door of his riding, a riding I once represented. I can tell the House that anyone who has families, anyone who has children, anyone who wants to live the dream of this country will know that this legislation is not only timely it is supportable.

A decision made by this House of Commons, by these members of Parliament in the majority, is simply thrown away because someone has suggested that somehow it will put the country into fiscal danger.

Who put us there?

The Minister of Finance has an obligation, quite apart from his pathetic critique of the bill on RESP deductibility, which many of his members support, to explain to Canadians how it is that he took a $13.2 billion surplus and blew it away overnight.

The member from British Columbia is looking this way.

What happens if we have another forest fire in that region of the country or floods in Quebec? What if we have a national disaster of some proportion that will cost us several hundred million dollars?

When we see that amount of money that could potentially put the country at risk, we have put ourselves in a very precarious financial situation and we have not planned for the future.

We know that south of the border the federal reserve chair, Mr. Bernanke, is suggesting that we are teetering on a recession. There is no doubt that there are implications for my province and for provinces across the country. This government did not plan. It had no plan. It is extinguishing the hopes and aspirations of young people to get access to a better job, to pay the kind of taxes, to grow the kind of country and to recognize that with an aging population we need to get this right and we need to get it right now.

This bill is not the be all end all. The bill that I proposed on the RESP, which this bill, Bill C-50, proposes to kill at some point down the road, is in fact decidedly a bill that is designed to use the issue of confidence before anything that the government disagrees with.

Yes, the hon. members will probably ask us whether we will be supporting this or not. That is still a few months off, perhaps even a few weeks off, but the one thing that is clear is the idea with respect to the RESP bill is something that we cannot ignore.

I am glad to hear the NDP members cat howling in the corner but they supported this bill. They have stood, and I applaud them for doing that, to support this bill because of its importance. The Bloc also supported this bill.

They know full well that it is very important for the future of our country that students have the opportunity to get an education regardless of cost. We also have an opportunity to help the provinces, which will give students more money to invest in their futures and to go on to universities, colleges or apprenticeships.

We must not fail the next generation. Universities that want to increase their capacity for investing in infrastructure, human and physical, will not need to go cap in hand to the provinces and say that they want to raise tuition fees. There is a greater certainty now that this vehicle addresses what ordinary average families have been looking for.

In one fell swoop, with this particular legislation, the Minister of Finance and the House leader crafted a bill to try to kill this. We can talk about the gamesmanship today, but what we have is an attempt at vandalizing and compromising the future of this nation.

We have a higher obligation to serve the interests of our constituents and to help somehow, in some way, to build a stronger nation, a stronger nation where people can get access to the kind of opportunities that this generation, many of us, have been blessed with.

Previous members who have come here have always tried to build a better House and to find ways in which we can come together to find more creative means to ensuring Canada can meet the challenges of tomorrow.

I am saying this because if we were to sit down and talk to grandparents, parents and people in our communities who are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet, we would hear that there is a real and effective understanding of what they are trying to do, which is to achieve a better future for their children.

I would implore the Conservative Party, which has quietly said that it loves this bill, to actually take the time to consider what it has done. It has actually tried to reverse a position taken only a month ago by this Parliament which is widely popular with Canadians.

There will be critics either way but I would ask the Conservative Party to reconsider what it has done because I think it is in everyone's interest, partisanship aside, to ensure that good legislation, whether it is passed by backbenchers or passed by the government, does in fact have the ability to proceed.

I call on all members to work together cooperatively. This is for our future, for our children and for our Canada.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that some of the people who have been listening to this debate might have a little bit of trouble following so I will try to put things in perspective.

The member who just spoke did back a bill on registered education savings plans. We in the NDP did indeed vote for it but it would not have been our first choice of a way of proceeding because we think it is important to help all families. I come from a family of 10 children. An education savings plan would not have helped a lot because there was nothing to put aside. There was no tax deduction to be had. Thanks to Quebec's excellent loans and bursaries program, I and almost all my brothers and sisters went through university.

However, the member is right. The Conservatives are undoing a bill adopted in the House. However, if the member really wants this bill to go through, he must vote with us against the Conservatives. The Liberals are the official opposition. It is very simple.

He said before that he was imploring the government. I would just say to my good friends in the Liberal Party that for the sake of their role as the official opposition, they must get off their knees. They do not need to implore anybody. They are here to vote and represent the people in their riding. They should have the guts to do it.

Your colleague just spoke before about--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I would remind hon. members not to lapse into the second person.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question but I do understand the member's passion. However, I want the member's passion to be focused in a way that is the best way to achieve a very good piece of legislation. I can appreciate the fact that he is trying to make a political point but I also understand the same member supported this bill. I agree with him. We do need to find a way to get this bill through. The tactics of today will not diminish the importance of this legislation.

I can tell the hon. member, having grown up in a family of 10 and having 5 children of my own, I know how difficult it is, having struggled to put myself through university when my parents were not capable of looking after my interests.

What is important is for all us as members of Parliament to recognize very clearly that in this legislation we can use some of the savings that is there to ensure that students whose parents do pay taxes or cannot pay taxes, that we improve the child learning account from the savings that would otherwise accrue from the existing system which no longer works.

The hon. member asked how I will vote and I think he knows how I will vote on this.

I am saying this because, beyond the cut and thrust of politics and beyond the cut and thrust of question period, Canadians will judge all of us as to how we were able to appropriate this bill, how we stood for what we believed in and, most important, I will have no difficulty, if the hon. member heard my speech, taking this battle to the Minister of Finance and to his colleagues. I need the hon. member's help to do that.

Appreciating that the member was not here in the last Parliament, but if he is concerned about how the Conservatives got elected, his party may want to ask why it ruined the Liberal Party in terms of its own background and in terms of the things that we put forward for Canadians.

I would ask the hon. member, in the spirit of goodwill and in the spirit of the future of this country, to stand up for his constituents.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen a political pretzel act unparalleled in this House. We have a member standing and actually working with his Liberal caucus to kill a bill that he was promoting a few weeks before and trying to explain that all on CPAC as people watch the deliberations in this House this afternoon. It is absolutely absurd what the Liberals are trying to do in the House. They are voting for the bill that kills what the member was promoting a few weeks ago.

Unabashedly, the Liberals are now standing, wrapped up like pretzels, trying to explain why they are killing a bill that a few weeks ago they supported and why they are supporting the government that is killing that bill. It is absolutely absurd.

I can only ask one question. When will the Liberals actually show some backbone and vote against the government on something?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is good about being a member of the New Democratic Party with 29 members is that they never need to worry about being responsible. They never need to worry about being government because we saw what happened in the province of Ontario when that did happen.

The member said that he was prepared to throw away everything about his vote, which was on CPAC, supporting this bill in favour of making a political statement. I think that is regrettable. However, if that is what the New Democrat member believes, that is fine.

However, despite the catcalls and the heckling, it is their responsibility to ensure in the first instance that this legislation continues. Unless he has a crystal ball, he cannot predict the future.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to catch my breath because we have just seen a political spectacle that is absolutely unbelievable, Liberals rising to kill their own legislation and trying to explain it. They are killing the legislation to save it. It is absolutely bizarre.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-50 which would kill what the Liberals were promoting a few weeks ago. I would like to comment on what the Conservative government is doing now that it has been given essentially a blank cheque by the leader of the Liberal Party to do whatever it wants to do in the House of Commons. We saw it with the SPP, the security prosperity partnership going on behind closed doors, allowed by the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I am splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North. She will be equally tender, I think, to members of the opposition who are being hypocritical.

We have seen with climate change the refusal to take any meaningful action on the environment supported by an appallingly weak Liberal leader. There is the tax cut agenda. Corporate tax cuts were just shovelled off the back of a truck, billions and billions of dollars, when there are crucial crying needs in Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast that are not being met, again supported by the Liberals.

Now we see with Bill C-50 that because the Conservatives have a functional majority, a blank cheque from the Liberal Party to do whatever they want, they have decided to tuck in to a budget bill substantial changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They are substantial changes that are going to have an impact on communities throughout the country. They are doing it because of the acquiescence of the Liberal Party.

Normally a bill of this nature would be brought to the House of Commons. It would be debated if members of Parliament agreed that it should continue on. Very clearly in this case because the legislation is so appallingly bad, members would say no. But if there were agreement in principle on the legislation, it would go to committee for close scrutiny clause by clause so that we could be absolutely certain that the legislation actually did an effective job. Then it would come back to the House.

However, because the Liberal leader is so appallingly weak, the Conservatives just threw in this legislation and they are expecting the leader of the Liberal Party and every single Liberal member of Parliament, who even though in oral questions they will raise questions, are refusing to vote against the bill. The Conservative government is expecting that the Liberals are going to adopt the legislation. There will be no scrutiny. There will be no parliamentary hearings. There will be no scrutiny of substantial changes that turn back the clock on our immigration process.

We have already seen over the past decade what Liberal and Conservative cuts have done to our immigration system. In fact, in the last two years alone, the waiting lists have grown from 700,000 to 900,000 because the immigration system frankly has broken down. It is like a hospital; if we do not adequately fund it or bring in nurses and doctors, the system is not going to work.

The immigration system, I can say from personal experience representing Burnaby—New Westminster, has broken down. The system is not working in the interests of Canadian families. It is not working for new Canadians. Everyone in Canada is paying the cost of that negligence.

I represent a community where over 100 languages are spoken. It is the most diverse part of Canada. Indeed, it may be the most diverse part of the entire planet. Over 100 languages are spoken. There are substantial centres of faith, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Baha'i and Hare Krishna. Throughout our community we have attracted people from all over the world. We have a substantial community of people of Chinese origin, from both mainland China and Taiwan and also Hong Kong, an Indo Canadian community from the Tamil south but also from the Punjab north of India.

Historically we have people from Scandinavia, England, France, Germany and eastern Europe as well. It is immigration, wave after wave, that has created our community. Issues about the immigration system and how those families abroad are treated are of fundamental importance to our community.

Now we have these amendments that have been thrown in by the Conservatives only because of Liberal acquiescence, only because of a lack of Liberal backbone that will mean profound changes and that the system will even get worse. What are the changes the Conservatives are proposing?

They are proposing changes that simply give new powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a system that is already dysfunctional, to simply make decisions on the minister's own around deciding, for example, the types of applications that are accepted and disposing of current immigration applications. That is important because the Conservatives have tried to pretend that they have dealt with the mess that was left by the previous Liberal government, but they have not.

As I mentioned earlier, the waiting lists have grown by 200,000 and only in two years. Now we see a political situation where the solution by the Conservatives will simply be to strike off those legitimate applications. They will simply do what they did with the softwood lumber sellout. The Conservatives killed the softwood industry in order to save it. We all remember the Minister of International Trade saying that essentially the softwood lumber agreement was going to save the softwood industry. What we have seen since is the death of thousands upon thousands of jobs and the closure of dozens upon dozens of mills across the country.

If that was the solution to the softwood lumber crisis, we can imagine what these Conservatives are going to do to the immigration system. They are simply going to erase applicants. These changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act permit them to do that.

They will also put in place queue jumping measures that simply are not in keeping with the impartial access system that we have, that allows the best of applicants from around the world to come to Canada.

There are also limits on humanitarian and compassionate categories. This is an extremely important element. This is perhaps the most egregious element of what the Conservatives are introducing with Liberal support. It is important to note that the Liberals and Conservatives are working together on this issue. They are simply giving the minister additional powers to deny visas to those who meet all the categories, the immigration criteria. This is no longer subject to legal appeal.

By putting in a budget bill a few lines on the immigration act what they are essentially doing is eliminating the legal avenue that people have when the immigration ministry screws up. It screws up enormously because of underfunding, because of Liberal cuts, because the Conservatives have simply not addressed fundamental management issues. They are not very good at management. They are only good at corporate tax cuts it seems. They have done nothing for the health care system, nothing for the lost manufacturing jobs. I could go on and on.

Essentially, the Conservative Prime Minister learned his administration from a book. He had never actually administered anything when he became the leader of the Conservative Party. As a result of that we can see how poorly they act in public administration.

If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the ministry are incapable of handling appropriately a legitimate file, there is no longer any legal appeal on it. This is of fundamental importance. What the government is doing is removing that legal avenue when it screws up. I can say that not only in this area, but in a whole host of other areas there have been screw ups. For example, in the case work that I deal with in my riding with the Canada Revenue Agency, that agency makes mistakes. There has to be a legal appeal.

When the ability for individuals to go through the legal system when the government screws up is taken away, we are eliminating one of the fundamental rights of democracy. That is exactly what the government is doing here. It is eliminating that legal appeal.

These are not small changes. It is a testament to Liberal hypocrisy that even though the Liberals are speaking in this House against this bill, they are prepared to vote for it. They are prepared to give the Conservative government a blank cheque when it comes to these fundamental changes in the immigration system.

This bill is not going to improve our immigration system. This is not the prudent and smart approach of rebuilding the administration that was gutted under the previous Liberal government. This is essentially giving political direction to the Conservative government to eliminate folks the Conservatives do not like, to eliminate lists they do not like, and to ensure that there is no legal avenue for those who are appealing bad decisions by the government.

We would not want to see this in immigration. We would not want to see this with Revenue Canada. We would not want to see this in any sector of public life, because the reality is when government screws up, we need to have those legal methods of appeal.

That is just one of the very many reasons why the NDP, in this corner of the House, is not just going to be talking about this bill, but we are actually going to stand up as members of Parliament and we are going to vote against this budget bill when the time comes to vote for or against it. That is our responsibility.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. friend that I think life would be pretty simple if we only had black and white film in our cameras, as clearly he is viewing many policies that come before this House.

I would dare say that we on the Liberal side feel that we are the party of immigrants. We are the party of the charter.

This issue could well be taken to committee, and I would encourage a vigorous debate so that Canadians can make their voices heard.

I do not think that anybody in this House would purport that we have a perfect immigration system. I happen to have an urban riding in Kitchener in the heart of the Waterloo region. It is one of the fastest growing, distinctly diverse communities in Canada. I deal with immigration cases all the time and I can say that the system is not perfect. I can say that the two per cent increase the government is suggesting, as it imbedded this important piece of legislation by stealth, yet again, in its budget bill, is very unacceptable.

However, to deny Canadians the ability to talk about how we could improve the system, whether the appeal system is appropriate and how we can deal with the backlog, I would agree with my hon. friend, I do not believe that this is the way to go. I do believe that we have a moment when we could have Canadians come to have a vigorous debate and we could improve this system.

Because he has black and white film in his camera, and it is either thumbs up or thumbs down, he is ready at this point just to say thumbs down, that he does not want to hear from Canadians, he does not want to take this opportunity to improve the immigration system. I would ask him what his party would purport to do to improve the waiting lists and the processing of immigrants to Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like the hon. member, I always have. She is trapped in this same disingenuous incapacity of the Liberal Party to stand for anything. I feel sorry for her, as I do for some of her colleagues who actually do believe in things, yet they are forced by their leader to acquiesce to anything the Conservative government presents. That is what we are debating here today.

Yes, we see it as an issue that we have to vote no on. That is why we have offered the amendment that simply removes that portion of the budget bill which the government, by stealth, inserted. If members from three corners of this House vote for the amendment, then that is simply removed from the budget bill. That is what the NDP has done. We have said, as has the Bloc, as has the Liberal Party, that this is bad. This is a bad initiative by the government, and so we have taken steps to stop that initiative.

What I do not understand is why the Liberal Party will be voting against our amendment and supporting the Conservatives so that they can bring into play something that the Liberals have said they do not want. This is the hypocrisy which undeniably is something that is difficult to explain to any Canadian.

If the Liberal Party is opposed to what the Conservatives are doing on immigration, then they should vote for the NDP amendment and they should stop that initiative.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member is opposed to the fact that we are going to increase the numbers and make the process quicker.

Last year Canada welcomed the highest number of newcomers in our history, 429,000-plus, surpassing the previous high in 1911.

Although the New Democrats object to the Liberals not voting, the NDP members vote consistently against everything because they know that it will not make a difference. They voted against the $1.3 billion in new settlement funding for newcomers in Canada. They voted against the Foreign Credentials Referral Office, something that was necessary, in the budget. They voted against cutting the $975 immigrant head tax. They will be voting against reducing immigration wait times.

Although they castigate the Liberals and say that they do not vote because they are afraid to, the NDP members know that they will not form government and they vote against everything. How can he justify voting against streamlining the system, bringing more people in quicker, faster and more efficiently?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, that is not what the Conservatives have done, and the member knows that full well. What we have actually seen is a bloated waiting list, from 700,000 to 900,000, over two years, as a result of Conservative inability to put in place public administration.

This is the problem. This is why the Conservative budget basically shovels tens of billions of dollars off the back of a truck to the wealthy corporate sector, which is the most profitable and has record profits. The only thing the Conservatives seem to be able to do is corporate tax cuts and—

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Create jobs.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

—create temporary part time jobs. As the member well knows, two-thirds of Canadians are earning less now than they were a number of years ago and people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

Conservatives are a one-note band. Corporate tax cuts is all they can do and that is the reality of their very poor public administration.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate, following my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, who has put on record a very eloquent speech on what is wrong with the budget implementation bill as well as what is so wrong with the Liberal positioning on the legislation and on the budget process.

You have taught us many things in the House, Mr. Speaker. You are the longest standing member in the House of Commons. You have always exemplified integrity, honesty and consistency. That is the example we all need to learn from today.

Today in the House, Mr. Speaker, you also mentioned the passing of a long-standing member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party, Mark Rose, who was also the chair of the NDP caucus. He was also a man of integrity. He is another example for the House, at a very critical time in the history of this nation when we are dealing with a government that is as meanspirited and cold-hearted as we could get and with an official opposition party that is so hypocritical, twisted and torn that it is making it impossible to provide any motive to Canadians for believing in the political process.

There is an old saying that we, as parents, have learned over the years, which is we have to say what we mean, mean what we say and do what we said we would do. I would ask the Liberals in the House today to find it within themselves—

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Who?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Every single one of them.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

—even though there are none here, and I know I cannot comment on that. However, in the absence of Liberals in the House, I hope they are listening out in the lobby. They know they are sending a terrible message to Canadians. It does not matter what they stand for, it does not matter what they believe in, if they believe in anything, because their principles go out the window the first chance political expediency matters, the first chance they have an option to stand up for something they believe or worry about their backsides and their political future.

This is a time, especially around a budget, where we have to stand for something. We have been through this.

I was a cabinet minister and then an MLA in Manitoba. It was at a time when there was lots of turbulence when we were suddenly defeated in March of 1988 on a budget vote. We stood for something and did not back off our position, even though we knew the opposition Conservatives were gunning for an election. We did it even though we knew we had a loose cannon in our midst, who was edging for a cabinet position and did not want to support an NDP government unless he got his way. We also knew that when it came to being an opposition party in a minority parliament in Manitoba, and we were not in any position to fight an election, we had to choose if we would support a Conservative government, with regret and with qualifications, or would we run and hide.

We did not run and hide. That is the worst thing we can do in politics and the last thing that should be done in terms of Canadian life today. It tells Canadians that everything that is near and dear to our democratic system does not matter because principles can go out the window at a whim.

What the Liberals are doing is a great disservice to democracy in our country. We are not talking, as the member for Kitchener Centre has said, about grey areas of certain issues. We are talking about good versus bad, right versus wrong, evil versus heavenly good, whatever we want to say. We are talking about diametrically opposing ideas and we have to choose. We are faced with a Conservative government today that is absolutely squandering of our fiscal capacity in a way that will hurt the majority of Canadians, not for a short term but for many years to come. The government is killing our future because it is not investing a penny to save our health care system. It is not doing a thing for education or housing.

On housing, when the budget came down, we asked if there was anything in the budget for it. It turns out there are $110 million for five pilot projects in centres across the country. That is it. It is designated for mental health issues. That is good, but it is a tiny piece of the puzzle when it comes to a huge problem in terms of housing and the problems facing people with mental illnesses.

The government just this week cut back funding for the Kali Shiva AIDS Services in Winnipeg. Why? Because it is an organization devoted to helping the homeless and other people who are in danger of harming others.

In Winnipeg we are trying to stop people from harming others and to help people to help themselves. What does the government do? It cuts back funding for the Kali Shiva AIDS Services because it is doing too much work on harm reduction. Can members believe that?

This follows the fact that the government will not invest in aboriginal housing. We just had a huge, devastating fire in Pukatawagan where three children died because of the terrible housing conditions on that reserve.

If the member for Kitchener Centre were still in the room, she would know that not too long ago hearings were held in her riding around pharmacare and access to drugs. She will know that adults in her city are crying because they have lost their jobs due to the cuts to the manufacturing sector. They have been left without any drug coverage.

This is not grey matter. This is not shades of wrong. This is wrong. This is evil. This is bad public policy. The Liberal Party should stand up and fight it just as we are, without regard for our political necks and our political future. We have to put our principles on the line.

When it comes to the whole immigration issue, people have to understand why we are so worried. We are worried because we have a government that says it will deal with a backlog to allow more economic immigrants in the country. In fact, the Conservatives have turned back people who have already been approved because they are needed to fill skills shortages and to meet the economic needs of our country. Why? Because they do not like something about the family. In the case to which I am referring, it is because a child in the family has a disability.

Is this the real intention of the government when it comes to changing the immigration policy? Is it in fact an ideological move on the part of Conservatives to shape the face of our country to exclude certain groups of people that they do not find acceptable, that they treat as second class citizens? What kind of message are we sending to people in our country, people who are living with disabilities? Are we are saying that they are not welcome if they have a disability, or that they are second class, that they do not matter and that they might as well be dead. When have we heard that before? That is what is so troubling about the government's agenda.

If the Conservatives were serious about opening our doors to people who have skills to bring then they would in fact ensure they would not turn their back on people who are approved under provincial nominee programs, as they have been in Manitoba. They would not turn those families back because their child has a disability. They would not turn them back because they come from the wrong part of the world. They would not turn them back because they have the energy and the fortitude to contribute something to our country. Then we would have a government willing to deal with the backlog that the Liberals created in a reasoned way. The problems we are dealing with now go back to a decade of Liberal neglect on a very important file.

About six years ago we dealt with major changes to the immigration bill. I was the NDP critic at the time. It was a flawed bill. As a result, we have flawed legislation before us today. We tried to amend it. The Liberals resisted every attempt to improve the bill. We presented, on our side alone, over 100 amendments to try to ensure that the economic class was improved so people could get here under a point system. We tried to document the backlog under Liberals and the waiting time of seven years or more for family sponsorships.

We tried to say that the government and this nation had no business denying people because they had a disability. We tried to suggest that there had to be due process and a refugee appeal process that made sense in this day and age. The Liberals refused each and every one of those amendments. Now, in fact, the Conservatives are doing exactly what they have every right to do, which is to take that legislation and apply it as the Liberals had intended.

We had a chance then and now we have another chance today to actually deal with this problem. The only way to seriously deal with this is for the House to support the NDP amendment to move this out of the budget bill. Let us make sure that we have, as the Liberals want, good debate and discussion at the committee around future immigration policy. Let us get on with the job at hand and reject the budget because it is bad news for Canada and for future generations.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I have always respected her as a parliamentarian from Winnipeg who brings great passion to her values and to her constituents. That is always a great thing to see in the House of Commons.

However, I would just ask her about this, in the fairness of debate. She actually said at one point in her comments that Conservatives are taking their position on this bill because their message to new Canadians might be that they may as well just be dead. That is a little extreme. In essence that is what she said: cold-hearted and extremist. It is good enough in a democracy, I think, with clear-headed people of principle, to just disagree on the merits of the bill. We do not have to go to the extent of the name calling that we heard. It was kind of unfortunate.

I do have a question for my colleague. As a politician, I do admire someone who has a strategic sense of things. We hear the Liberals in question period and in their speeches here in the House just raising the temperature. They are thoroughly angry. They really do not like this bill. They really think it needs to be shut down. They really want it stopped, almost to the point where they are going to vote against it, but it is not quite that bad.

I would invite my colleague from the NDP to comment on the Liberals and their false rhetoric on this issue, where they are so angry and they are so opposed, but they really are not quite prepared to actually stand up and walk their talk.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would address that question by suggesting that the Liberals do no service to this country when, instead of standing up, taking a side and choosing a position, they either walk out, sit on their bums, or engage in historical precedent-setting abstentions. We saw in this House, for the first time ever in this country, I think, a whipped abstention. I think I have said enough on that point. I think the record holds.

What I really want to do is respond to my Conservative colleague's comments about people living with disabilities. This is not a laughing matter. This is a serious matter that has to be named for what it is. He is part of a government that has chosen to turn back immigrants who have been approved under the economic class, under the Manitoba provincial nominee program, because one of the members in their families is living with a disability.

These are kids. These are kids who have a lot to contribute to our society today. If he wants, I will give him all kinds of documents so he can see that these are kids who play basketball, ride motorbikes, vote, talk, and give to their society. When a society like ours in Canada, in a wealthy country like ours, says they are not welcome because they have a disability, what message does that send? Is it not like saying they are second class? Is it not like saying they are better off dead?

I will quote from an article by an organization that has written about this issue. The Canadian Association for Community Living says the following:

It is important to emphasize not only that prospective immigrants are devalued and their dignity offended by the pejorative stereotyping that underpins the excessive demands provisions, but also that Canadians with disabilities are given the message that persons like them are not welcome in Canada. Canadians with disabilities see themselves identified by 'impairments' and branded as a burden on the public purse, with no value attached to their role in society. The disparate and adverse impact experienced by prospective immigrants with disabilities also undermines the value placed on Canada as a diverse nation. By implication, the message given to all Canadians is that persons with disabilities are to be screened out as inferior, second-class members of society.

That is what is so repugnant. That is what has to be changed.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I think of my own family. Quite a while ago, we were immigrants in this country. Some of my family came in 1638 as economic refugees of Normandy and areas of France where they could not find work. They came with zero education. They did not come to accept research chairs at some university or come here with great skills. They came to take the stumps out of swamps and build dikes.

The other side of my family arrived in 1820. One member was an escaped prisoner of war at the time of the Napoleonic wars. He escaped from a prisoner of war prison in Halifax while building the highway with a pickaxe. He hid out for some 20 years and later became a Canadian citizen and a member of the provincial legislature.

I think what this country needs is people, people who want to come to Canada, and more of them. To limit ourselves to only a certain set, to only the people who meet the desires, needs and aspirations of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will not build the country as we have built it, with the Irish, the Chinese, the Ukrainians and all the other races that make up this great country.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, very briefly.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I obviously agree on this point, so I have a question for my dear Liberal colleague. If he feels as passionately as we do about this issue, will he stand with us, support the amendment and defeat the budget? Because that, in the end, is the only message that will stop the government on its path of negligent and destructive behaviour, which in fact selects immigrants on the basis of their race.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

We are going to have to end it there.

Before I proceed to resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, National Defence; and the hon. member for Malpeque, Archer Daniels Midland.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in this House on behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, on the subject of Bill C-50, the Budget Implementation Act, 2008.

When a political party sets about analyzing a budget, it always does so responsibly. That is what the Bloc Québécois has always done in recent years, in considering the various budgets that have been introduced in this House. The position we take as our guide, and in fact what has always been our one and only position, is whether the budget presented in Ottawa is in the interests of Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois has no ambition other than to stand up for the interests of Quebeckers in this House, every day, and every time its members rise to speak. And Quebeckers have rewarded us well for that work, because since 1993 a majority of the representatives of Quebec here in the House have been Bloc Québécois members.

Once again, we have analyzed this budget and its history, because this most recent budget in fact has an extraordinary history. As far back as we can remember, the crisis in manufacturing and forestry that has hit Quebec, and also Ontario—Quebec is not alone—is one of the biggest crises that those industries have experienced in their entire histories.

It is huge. I recall that 150,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec in the last five years, 70,000 of them in the last two years, since the Conservatives came to power. Thus, when governments are investing or preparing a budget, they need to make an effort to tackle that crisis or problem.

In terms of the brief history of this budget, we have to remember the prebudget episode when the Conservative government decided not to deal with the forestry and manufacturing crises in the budget. In fact, that was clear in the prebudget consultations initiated by the Minister of Finance.

The political pressure brought to bear on the government by the Bloc Québécois, for one, but also by some other parties in this House, prompted the government to decide to create a trust fund even before the budget was introduced. The fund consists of $1 billion taken out of last year’s surplus, the surplus for 2007-08. That surplus was originally $11.2 billion, and now stands at $10.2 billion.

Unfortunately, this money is not allocated based on the percentage of job losses by province, but on a per capita basis. This was the introduction to the Conservative philosophy. In other words, while this crisis affects Quebec and Ontario, the money for solving this problem was not allocated as it was for the mad cow crisis at the time. In that case, the money was given to the provinces where farmers were affected, primarily in western Canada. But no, this time the government decided that the money would be allocated on a per capita basis. And thus, when we consider population numbers and the minimum amount to be paid to each province, Alberta received more money than Quebec.

When each province receives a minimum of $10 million, since Alberta has fewer people than Quebec, the per capita amount is higher. So more money per person was paid to Alberta than to Quebec or Ontario. Lastly, it has been shown that this crisis was not overestimated. Although the crisis was acknowledged, the government said that it was not just taking place in Quebec and Ontario, but that jobs were being lost elsewhere as well. So it tried to minimize the crisis by allocating the money this way.

And the terrible thing is not just how the money was allocated but that it was made conditional on the passage of the budget. The Conservatives took it one step further. And this is recent history; it happened in the last three months.

We saw that pressure from the Bloc Québécois made them back off. As it turned out, the condition for passing the budget was no longer a condition, except for the fact that it paved the way for the budget.

It should have come as no surprise that the budget did not include anything else for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, except for a few small adjustments to tax deductions that I will read out later on.

Among other things, the budget includes accelerated capital cost allowance for equipment purchases. When businesses are allowed to amortize a larger portion of their assets, they have less net income and therefore pay less income tax. That is how these measures end up being tax cuts. However, for a company to accelerate its capital cost allowance or to use these deductions, that company has to have made a profit. But the problem with the forestry and manufacturing sectors in Quebec is that nobody made a profit. So it turns out that the only thing the Conservative government put on the table was its $1 billion trust divided by the number of residents, which means that Quebec will receive $216 million—$71 million per year—to make up for the loss of 150,000 jobs in the past five years. That is nothing, nothing at all considering the size of the problem.

The Minister of Labour was talking about a piece of steak and how people had to be able to eat it. Watching him talk about it was quite something. Let us eat this piece of steak. Except that what he said he wanted to do with the money was diversify the economy. The Conservatives are quite a sight to behold when they get going.

Trees will keep on growing, but jobs will be created in industries other than forestry. That is more or less the message he was sending, the same message he sends us every day: the government wants to diversify the economy.

Municipalities are watching their mills close and their forestry and manufacturing businesses shut their doors. All of these people have acquired skills and experience over the years. Many of those who lost their jobs were 50 years old or older. It is not easy for people to retrain and get new jobs in a diversified economy. Often, these people are coping with difficult family situations in monoculture regions where the forest has always been there. I repeat, the trees will keep on growing.

Once again, what the Conservatives are proposing is that the entire segment of the economy called the forest disappear. They will do other things, and one day, it will reappear. There is no short-, medium-, or long-term strategy. Sorry, they do have a short-term strategy: they are trying to win an election. They want to become a big strong government, a majority government with a lot of power. Having that power but not being able to help our citizens facing problems accomplishes nothing.

I look at the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the member for Pontiac. Six plants have closed in his riding. But he has a lot of power; he is an important minister, a very important minister. They want to create all kinds of jobs, except that Pontiac is a bit like part of my community, where more than 45% of jobs are in the forestry sector. They will try to transform all of that. Into what, I am not sure. They will create call centres; they will transform the economy.

I said it earlier, the trees will keep on growing, and forestry should continue to be the economic mainstay of Pontiac. They should be able to modernize and adapt businesses, help them to become better in order to face international competition. The trees in Pontiac, like those in Papineau and many other regions such as Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Mauricie, the Eastern Townships, Bois-Francs, and all regions in Quebec, will keep on growing. They deserve to be managed responsibly and put on the market with added value. We should be able to sell our products worldwide.

But, that is not what the Conservative government wants to do. No. They are diversifying the economy. They are not trying to strengthen these businesses. With these employees who have all of this experience gained from generation to generation, they will change everything and they will try to diversify the economy. They will inject $71 million a year into Quebec, a total of $216 million, and that will solve all of the problems. How nice.

You will not be surprised to hear that we are voting against this budget. It is a budget that lacks vision for the medium and long terms and completely abandons the manufacturing and forestry industries. The government has not completely turned its back on the manufacturing industry. It is still generous to the manufacturing sector called the oil companies. It grants the oil companies accelerated capital cost allowance. It is in the budget. The government is helping those who are making exorbitant profits and does not care about the rest. It is terrible and not very subtle, but that is their way of doing things.

Right now, they do not care about anything. They are just trying to get support from those who make money. Currently the oil companies are making money every day to the detriment of taxpayers by selling fuel for more than it is worth. That is the reality. We have been fighting for years in this House to have a strong competition bureau to prevent this collusion, which, since the Conservatives have been in power, has made gas more expensive than ever. The oil companies have never made so much money and there is no end in sight.

Every time a budget is tabled—we see this in the environment—the Minister of the Environment wants to introduce measures to give the oil companies credits because they are going to make great efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is not the oil companies, but the taxpayers who should pay. Those poor companies do not have any money, they are going through tough times and if we want them to stay, we have to do something. Canada is the only country in the world that does not regulate its natural resources.

These oil companies are exploiting a resource that belongs to the public. The oil in the ground does not belong to them. It is public property that should belong to the state. However, once again, the Conservatives have decided to give the oil companies everything they want and allow them to exploit this natural resource. They can do what they want with it. They can even sell it to whomever they want. It is quite surprising to realize that out of everything that is produced in the west, absolutely nothing is sold to Quebec. Because of the Borden line, not a single gallon of gas or a single litre of oil from the west is sold in Quebec, which imports fuel from other countries. That is the reality.

Once again, Quebeckers pay 25% of all the tax credits granted to the big oil companies that exploit petroleum in the rest of Canada, and for which they receive no economic benefit because the oil is not sold here in Quebec.

That is the reality and that is the Conservative way of operating. Like us, some people are not surprised because that is the history. Obviously, the Conservatives have always been like that. They let free enterprise have its way; they let the markets take over and they say that things will right themselves. It is not important that segments of the economy are disappearing. Some day, these will come back. They do not know how. They, in particular, are the ones who want to know how it will work.

As far as the manufacturing and forestry sectors are concerned, it is very important to look at what was in the budget. For the manufacturing and forestry sectors, the first measure is an extension of accelerated depreciation for production equipment and rolling stock. That is what I said earlier. Depreciation is an expense that can be entered on a balance sheet; it is an accounting expense that is not necessarily money. Someone bought equipment, but the expense cannot be written off in the same year because the equipment will be used for a long time. It used to be depreciated over 10, 15 or 20 years, but now it can be depreciated more quickly.

Here, again, they add an expense that reduces income. This all very well when you are making a profit. One can increase expenses with write-offs, which will reduce income. However, that does absolutely no good when a company does not produce income, as is the case for most of the forestry companies and many manufacturing companies that we have seen close their doors. It does not help.

It would be rather difficult to make depreciation refundable since it is a company expense. However, if they were given a tax credit that could be refundable, that would be quite different. The company would then be entitled to a tax credit. If it had no income, it could not reduce its expenses and pay less tax; and if it was decided since they had not made a profit to issue them a cheque to refund that tax credit, that would be interesting.

That is not how the Conservatives do things. This is probably because they only deal with lobbyists who have lots of money, while those who do not are of little interest. That is the reality.

I want to turn now to the second measure in the budget. Some $250 million will be available over five years to subsidize investments in research and development, but only in the automobile industry. There has evidently been an economic downturn in Ontario. And so there is a measure to invest $250 million. I am not an Ontario member and so I will leave it to the Liberals who represent many of the Ontario ridings. Even if they wanted to try to challenge the budget, they would not have the strength to rise and vote against this. That is the reality and we will have to live with it. It is up to them to judge this $250 million for Ontario. One thing is clear though: there is nothing to help the manufacturing and forest sectors to modernize and do some research and development. It is specifically for the automotive sector.

The third minor change is a tax credit for research and development. Once again, the government is increasing the ceiling, but these famous tax credits are strictly for companies that are making a profit. The government is allowing an increase in the tax credits. This means that the more money a company makes, the less it pays in taxes and the more research and development it can do. There is a problem though: many forestry and manufacturing companies did not make a profit last year and therefore cannot benefit from tax credits. If a company does not make money, tax credits do not do it any good. If the tax credits were refundable—as the Bloc Québécois has always suggested—things would be different. Even if a company did not make money and did not have any profits, it would still be entitled and would get a cheque to allow it to invest in research and development. But once again, that is not how the Conservatives do things.

There is also $10 million over two years to promote Canada’s forestry sector as a model for innovation on international markets. This is the only direct assistance for the forestry sector in the budget, only $5 million a year. That is the reality.

The Conservatives wanted to get $250 million out of the budget for the automotive sector—$5 million a year—and $10 million for the forestry sector. The rest was in their famous $1 billion trust negotiated before the budget. It was conditional, though, on the budget being passed. That was their first threat: if we wanted to help people, we would have to pass the budget.

The Bloc brought the necessary pressure to bear and the government finally backed down. So what did Quebec get out of it? The money was divided up not by the number of jobs lost per province but by the number of inhabitants. Everybody knew it was Quebec and Ontario that were suffering. Their premiers said so over and over. Mr. Charest and Mr. McGuinty loudly proclaimed that they were most affected. But no. The Conservatives were squarely opposed and decided to distribute the money on a per capita basis, with a minimum amount for each province.

I will say it again because it bears repeating: As a result, Alberta received more money than Quebec because there was a minimum of $10 million per province plus so much per inhabitant. Given that Quebec's population is greater, Quebec was given less money per capita than Alberta.

That is strange. At the time of the mad cow crisis, money was distributed where the problem arose. The western provinces were affected and no one from the Bloc stood up to say that all the money was paid out west. That is not true. We asked that a portion be paid to Quebec because the crisis affected the sale of culled cows in Quebec. Therefore, we asked for some compensation. We did not protest because all the money was going out west. That is not true. There was a crisis and it had to be dealt with. We were always very fair.

However, when the Conservatives are making the decisions, it is not the same. When Quebec and Ontario are involved, things are never the same. They have to be able to give something to everyone. It is impossible for Quebec to receive more money and so forth.That is really something. When we try to ask the question, even of the Quebec ministers, they simply answer that Quebec has the equalization formula and that the fiscal imbalance has been resolved.

The fiscal imbalance and equalization apply to all provinces and not just Quebec. Equalization is entrenched in the Canadian constitution: wealthier provinces will support poorer provinces. The Conservatives have impoverished Quebec over the years by eliminating Quebec's automotive industry and concentrating it in Ontario. They are doing the same thing with the aerospace industry. When I first became an MP, 62% of the aerospace industry was in Quebec; that has now dropped to 51.5%.

The Conservatives are steadily transferring all the good jobs to other provinces with the result that Quebec will be perennially impoverished. That is the reality. After the fact, Quebec is criticized for having equalization. There should be no equalization. They should not get more. Let us leave and we will do just fine.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and would like to ask my friend a question. I know he is very passionate about issues such as this.

Indeed, as the member knows, I spent some time in a logging company some years ago in Alberta. I recently had a lumber company in northern Alberta close down as a result of obviously economic conditions that affect his province as well. That happened in High Prairie, Alberta, in my constituency, where I am going to be tomorrow and hopefully meet with some of those people who are affected by this.

As the member knows as well, Canada has one of the lowest gasoline prices in the world. It is probably because of the federal taxes that we do not apply that many countries do.

I wanted to let the member know as well that on my flight back here last weekend I had the opportunity to sit behind two full rows of people from Quebec. I flew here from Fort McMurray because that is my constituency. I had an opportunity to practice my French. There are many Quebeckers in my constituency and I am very proud of that. I represent them here today and I represent them in all the things I do.

Indeed, I wonder if the member is aware as well that of the 500,000 jobs in the oil sands that have been created in this country, 16% or 80,000 of those jobs are actually in Ontario and half of them are spread out across this country and contribute tremendously to our economy.

I am also curious as to my friend's comments in relation to the budget as far as it deals with immigration. The Winnipeg Free Press has said:

In the years 1993-2006, the immigration backlog grew from 50,000 to 800,000. Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

I wonder if the member is prepared to vote against such clear and decisive policy that is going to help Canadians, especially new Canadians and help our economy.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Athabasca is in my colleague's riding. That is where much of the oil sands development is located. I understand that he knows and can tell me where the workers in his region are from. He has told me in the past that 25,000 jobs still need to be filled in his riding. There is a shortage of the labour needed to develop the oil sands. The problem is that he is repeating what the Minister of Labour said to the citizens of his riding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, that is, that there are jobs to be had in western Canada. That is what he is doing and that is the Conservative way. He explains that jobs are being created elsewhere and, basically, he would not dare publicly say that perhaps people from Quebec should go there to work.

The goal is not to displace populations. That was already tried in previous centuries. We know that the forests will continue to grow and forest-based products will continue to sell around the world. What is important is to focus our efforts and to ensure that our businesses are modernized and able to compete on the market. This has been done in other countries, such as Ireland. This is achieved by helping businesses. The Conservative philosophy, however, as my colleague is trying to convey, is to tell people from other places to go work elsewhere in Canada. In his riding, some people come from Ontario and others from Quebec.

That is fine. All the better. But my goal in life is to ensure that the people who are in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean remain in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and earn a living there; that those who live in the Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel riding earn a living in that region; that those who live in the Pontiac riding earn a living there; that those from the Gaspé earn a living there. That is my goal in life and what I am working for here.

Every day, like all my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I am proud to rise here to defend the interests of Quebeckers and to try to ensure that wealth is distributed in a way that allows everyone to live comfortably in all areas of Quebec. My goal is not to rise here to tell people they should go work in my colleague's riding, in western Canada. That is not the objective.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and for the light he has shed on the measures that will be adopted and that are currently being debated.

Could he explain once again to this House how important it is for older workers to have access to a real assistance program after they have tried retraining measures? Could he talk about how important it is for them to receive government support so that they can retire with dignity and be compensated for their contribution to the economic development of Quebec?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to say that the program for older worker adjustment, also known as POWA, was created by the federal government. Everyone will remember that it was abolished by the Liberals in 1996, but it was a good idea. When it was created, the Bloc Québécois did not exist, but it was still a good idea.

The problem is that the federal government now seems to have the money to reinstate this program and to enable all these workers who were not able to find work with another company to remain at home in their own communities, and to have a decent retirement. That was the purpose of the program for older worker adjustment created by the federal government. It provided a decent income for workers 55 and up until they reached 65 and could receive a pension, if they were unable to find a new job or to be placed with another company.

The goal was to enable these workers to stay at home, in their region, in their community. Today, the Conservatives are saying that Canada is big and people can move if they want to continue to work. That is the message they are sending. The Bloc will continue to speak out against this, every day, as long as we are able to.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The budget includes, in my opinion, a slightly insidious measure, which would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration discretionary power. That is dangerous. That could lead to abuse because she could choose which immigrants are admitted into Canada and when.

Could my colleague explain what exactly the Bloc Québécois is worried about in this measure that we are unfortunately not able to debate more fully?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for that very pertinent question.

This has always been a dream of the Conservatives, and they are starting to try to make that dream a reality. I listened to what the Prime Minister said about immigrants when he was leader of the opposition and a member representing the Canadian Alliance. He said that the process would have to be controlled and that immigrants would have to be selected. Through the minister's office, he is trying to control who comes here, what they do and where they come from. He is trying to exert political control.

This control, the Conservatives' shameful way of wanting to control everything, is not surprising, coming from the Prime Minister. Even the members and the ministers are subject to this control. It should therefore come as no surprise that they want to control immigrants. The problem is that they cannot control everyone. In any case, they will not control the Bloc Québécois members, who will oppose these measures.

One thing that is surprising is that the Liberals seem very upset about this measure. I cannot wait to see how they vote. In theory, they should vote against this budget measure, but I have the feeling that they will once again find some way to remain seated, hide, lie down or do whatever. We shall see.

Once again, this is a roundabout way to get a measure adopted. This has been going on for several weeks. All the experts are saying that this clause should have been removed from this bill and placed in a separate bill that could have been analysed separately in committee, with witnesses and everything. The Conservatives chose to slip this measure into the budget. They knew the Liberals would let it through.

Once again, this is not good for the future or for Canada's image. It is certainly not the image Quebeckers would project if they had their own country, Quebec.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-50 the budget Implementation act, 2008. Specifically, I will be addressing the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained therein.

At the heart of Canadian immigration policy is the idea of family reunification. This concept is based on the belief that Canadians should have the opportunity to be close to their families, regardless of their country of origin. About half of the residents of my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton were born outside of this country. Immigrants are proud Canadians who made the decision to come to our great country to start a new life.

They have made their homes here and naturally want their families to share in their success. I am a proud immigrant, having come to Canada in 1975 as a member of the family class.

The amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained in Bill C-50 threaten to dismantle the immigration system that has made Canada the diverse and prosperous nation it is today. By giving the minister the unilateral ability to cherry-pick desirable applicants from the immigration queue, this bill rejects the principles of compassion, fairness and equality on which our immigration system and society as a whole is based.

The public knows that this government does not take seriously the challenges facing recent immigrants to Canada. The government is $100 million behind on its payments under the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement. It also scrapped its plan to create a Canadian agency for assessment and recognition of foreign credentials, instead establishing an office which does little more than refer new Canadians to provincial offices where the real work happens.

This legislation does nothing to address the needs of recent immigrants struggling to find work in their fields of expertise. What is the point of accepting more skilled immigrants if they are barred from finding work in their fields when they get here?

The minister claims these changes are necessary to reduce the existing application backlog, but immigration lawyers, rights advocates and ordinary Canadians are skeptical. Based on past statements from members of the government, they are right to be suspicious of the motives behind these amendments.

In 2007 the Prime Minister said:

You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society.

Even worse, in the Reform Party's 1988 election platform, the Prime Minister wrote that immigration should not “radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada”.

Finally, the Conservative member for Calgary Northeast has been quoted by the Canadian Press as saying, “Immigrants are choking welfare systems, contributing to high unemployment, and many cannot read”.

These are shocking and ignorant statements that shed light on the Conservative government's true beliefs about immigration. It would be unthinkable to give such extraordinary powers to an immigration minister who refuses to reject these views.

This bill pairs the government's lack of respect for immigrants with its rejection of Canada's democratic traditions. The government's attempt to pass these amendments in secret is just the latest in a series of anti-democratic tricks, including instructing committee chairs to walk out of meetings to block votes and proposing a seat redistribution formula that cheats Ontario out of half of the seats it should receive based on its population. The government clearly does not respect Canada's democratic norms and neither does this bill.

The changes proposed in this bill go against the core principles upon which Canadian immigration policy is based. Immigration policy must be predictable, compassionate and fair.

By amending section 11 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to say that an immigration official “may” issue a visa to an applicant if the applicant meets the stated requirements, instead of that the officer “shall” grant the visa, the door would be opened for the minister to issue directives to reject visas to applicants from certain groups, regardless of whether or not those applicants are indeed qualified to visit or immigrate to Canada.

Under the proposed changes to section 25 of the act, the minister would be given similar power relating to applications made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The right of applicants to have their applications processed would be removed and, as a result, so would the right to an appeal: if an application is not processed, then there is no decision to appeal. If the minister decides not to process applications for members of a certain group, they would have no right to appeal that decision even if they applied on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

However, the most worrying part of these proposals is the amendment to section 87, which establishes the concept of instructions. This amendment would grant the minister the ability to declare new rules for visa applicants and prospective immigrants without advance notice or public debate.

The minister would be able to create new categories of applications, which would then be given priority or rejected outright. The way in which these amendments have been presented to the House raises worries that instructions from the minister would be given in a similarly secretive fashion. There would be nothing to stop the minister from publishing sweeping changes in the Canada Gazette under the cover of darkness, with the government hoping no one notices until it is too late.

The amendments contained in Bill C-50 would severely damage Canada's immigration system and lay waste to our tradition of family reunification as a key part of immigration policy. These amendments would do nothing to improve the lives of new immigrants who are unable to find jobs in their fields despite having all the necessary skills and qualifications.

Finally, the way in which these changes have been brought forward and the unnecessary powers they would grant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration make a mockery of the idea of accountability and transparency in the government's decision making process. Rule by decree is not compatible with Canada's democratic tradition. Neither is the government's attempt to bury these changes in a budget bill instead of proposing them for debate as a separate immigration bill.

People from around the world want to live and work in Canada because of our reputation for tolerance and democracy. The government has shown that it does not respect Canada's democracy, and with this bill has proven that it does not respect immigrants either. Shame on the minister and shame on the government.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the member. I am not sure how he indicates that this is not receiving appropriate attention and is coming in the back door somehow. Obviously it is up for debate in this House, as it should be, in public and in the open where we can do that. It will go to committee. Not only will it be in committee to have further witnesses called and material presented, but it will come back to the House again for debate and, eventually, a vote.

The big question is how the member will be voting when the bill comes before the House. Will he be opposing it if he believes that it is inappropriate, given the fact that it was under 13 years of his government, six ministers and four terms in office that nothing was done to reform the system in all those years? Numbers grew from 50,000 to 800,000. Surely being 800,000 plus one coming into the system will not make it faster or easier.

What does he have against a system that will be more efficient and faster and which will encourage family reunification on a quick basis and bring skilled people to the trades that so desperately need them to build our country?

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association is quoted in today's Toronto Star as saying this about the amendments proposed in this bill:

We fail to see why these are necessary to achieve the government's aims....The system should be transparent. It shouldn't operate by ministerial fiat. And that's what we're talking about here, a kind of decree system.

Worryingly, the minister is out of ideas and is trying to centralize power in her own office, just like the Prime Minister has done with his cabinet. This is the wrong approach. It is in complete opposition to Canadian values.

One thing is clear. The Conservative approach of shutting the door on immigrants by simply reducing the number of applications the federal government accepts is the wrong way to address the immigration backlog. The minister wants to have the sole power to say who gets--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is very anxious to ask his question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually fascinated by the member's response, because he used the words “the need for fair and transparent”, yet that is in the NDP motion. We find that this backdoor attempt, as he talked about, to bring in this immigration bill under a budget is wrong. It is not how things are done. The NDP has put forward before the House a very clear issue to be debated. I was actually quite surprised earlier on when he accused the government of not having respect for democracy and immigrants and said shame on the government.

I do not know how he squares it with his constituents, but when I go back to my constituents, I tell them the reason that I get $150,000 a year, or whatever it is that we are being paid now, is so that I will stand up and vote on difficult issues. At certain times there will be issues that might not always be popular, but I will always be able to go back to my constituents. If my constituents believe strongly in an issue and want me to vote for or against something, I am here to represent them. I am not here to just sit in a seat and read whatever prepared text is handed to me by the Liberal backroom.

If the member has such problems with this, and if he says this is a shameful action, it does not respect democracy and it is not respectful of immigrants, then how can he sit there collecting a paycheque and support it? Does he not understand that being respectful of democracy is being respectful enough to stand up and vote against something if the member is opposed to it?

Will he support this motion--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton has one minute to respond.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you check my previous voting record from 1993 you will see I work for my constituents. When they send me emails--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

How will you vote?

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

I do that all the time. I do that all the time when I am sent the emails and when the issues come up.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

How will you vote?

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Have you checked my voting record? I am not like you. I do that all the time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member has just expressed his experience in the House and has sufficient experience to know that when referring to other members, it is in the third person, not the second person. The only person who is addressed in the second person is the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here because I take great exception to this particular piece of the finance bill. First and foremost, I call this governing by stealth. This is a substantive change to the way that the immigration act is going to work. It is a substantive change in the process. This piece of legislation should have gone to the right committee. The right committee, with the expertise and the experience, is the immigration committee.

The bill could have come in the way bills like this one should always come in. This should come in as an immigration amendment, as part of the immigration changes being made by the government. It should be spoken to in the House and then go to the appropriate committee, which would be the immigration committee. The immigration committee, with all of its expertise, should talk to people around the country and find out how they want to deal with it.

Putting the bill in the House right at this moment and sticking immigration reforms into a confidence bill on finance is really the kind of thing that we have come to expect from the Conservative government. The government is all about stealth in changing things and about getting its way.

True, there is a little bit of money involved in this bill, so I want to make a second point. The minister is putting $30 million into the bill and expects us to believe that this is going to change the backlog of applications that the minister says she needs to deal with.

The Liberal minister of immigration in the previous government put in $700 million, a process and a plan just before the election. The minister had gone through with contracting out the process for the purpose of decreasing the backlog.

I have no idea what happened to that plan. It had already started. Much of the contracting had been done. It was accepted by cabinet and by the department. What happened to it? What happened to the $700 million? Now we hear that the $700 million has been replaced by $30 million and the government has no plan.

Giving unprecedented power to a minister to make decisions that override the process, that break all the rules and that have no accountability, is an absolutely atrocious way to conduct government. It is undemocratic. It ignores Parliament and the parliamentary committees that have the expertise. It ignores information on the issue that might make it work if, as the minister says, her objective is to bring down the backlog. This bill does none of that.

This legislation removes the current process entirely. We do not know how the minister is going to choose people, and she does not have to tell us. She can make choices about who comes into the country and who does not come into the country, and she can do this with a sweep of a pen. She has no requirement to tell anybody her reasonings. This is kind of sad, which is the best word I can find.

By the year 2011 Canada will be dependent on immigration for 100% of its net labour force. Why? Because we are not having babies. Canada's birth rate is negative. Our aging population is well over 65 and no longer in the workforce. Canada can never be a productive and competitive nation if we do not have people available to work.

It is obvious that immigration is of seminal importance to the economy of this country and of seminal importance to the future of this country, its whole social infrastructure and the way that we have always set values in a country like ours. Canada was built on immigrants, other than the aboriginal people who were the first peoples of this nation and who opened the doors to immigration, against their better judgment.

We came from every country of the world, originally from Europe. Many people came here seeking a better life, seeking to fulfill their dreams of freedom. They wanted their children to grow up in a country of opportunity. They came from everywhere in the world and built a nation. We continue to build this nation on the backs of immigrants, which is an appropriate thing to do, because we are a new world nation, so to speak.

Many of the first wave of immigrants who came here from Europe should feel concerned about the bill. They will remember that they were denied entrance into this country on fairly basic reasons, like the region they came from, where they originally belonged and that their values were different from certain European values.

The Chinese will tell us that for 25 years they were a bachelor community because they were not allowed to bring over their wives and children. We heard a member of the House talk about the Komagata Maru. We heard another member speak to the St. Louis, which was turned away because the Jews from Europe tried to come here, seeking to flee Nazi Germany, and they were turned back on a whim, on an ideology.

We no longer live in that kind of country. We live in a country where there must be clear and transparent rules so people who wish to come to this country know those rules and know when they can and cannot come here. They need to know whether they fulfill the requirements, based on a hope that they can pass the security requirements, to come here. They did come and they have continued to come to build a nation.

It is true that many of our new immigrants come from Asia and Africa and they, too, are bringing with them expertise. Fifty-one per cent of our new immigrants have post-secondary education and a diploma. However, only 22% of Canadians who were born and live in Canada can boast about having a post-secondary degree or a diploma of any kind.

We are bringing in people who can contribute to this country because we need a workforce for our productivity and competitiveness. We need to remember that this country was built by immigrants who were seeking to contribute to it and to have a better life. They brought with them their families because families create stability. A nation is built when people put down roots and a nation continues to be built, not by temporary workers, but by people who come here with their families and who invest their hopes, their dreams, their hard work and their loyalty in Canada. Our great nation has become what it is today because of those people.

I do not understand how we can give the minister the unprecedented power to decide who will or will not come here without having to give any reasons. The minister is asking us to trust her because she will do the right thing.

We have seen time and time again that we cannot trust the government. I would say that most cynical Canadians would say that they cannot trust any particular government, but that is not the point. The point is that this is why we have bureaucracies, processes and clear ways of doing things.

At the same time, this would close the door to our newest immigrants, those who have come from Asia and Africa, on a whim, and it would close the door to their bringing in their families. Only letting people in for economic reasons seems, from the beginning of time, to be the Conservative ideology. Mr. Diefenbaker did that a long time ago and Mr. Mulroney wanted to change immigration so that it would only be economic migrants coming here.

To build a nation we need to bring a mix of people into this country to put down roots and to work, but they need to bring with them their families. If we decide to only bring people here because of the work they can do and ignore their families, we will be back to what the Chinese remembered.

We have heard the government apologize and give redress but when we apologize and give redress we are supposed to have learned a lesson and will not do it again. If we put in place all of the protocols that would make that happen again, then we have learned nothing and the redress and the apology become hollow.

I am suggesting that we need to debate the issue of changes in immigration in the appropriate bill and in the appropriate place, which is the immigration committee, and not to run it through under the radar screen as the government is trying to do. I call that governing by stealth.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine how the hon. member comes to say that we are governing by stealth. This is an opportunity for her and members opposite to speak in the House and in committee. When the bill is passed, it will give the opportunity for the minister to issue an instruction that will be broad and in accordance with the goals set out by the Government of Canada. She will not be involved in individual decision making. That will be left to the department.

The instructions will be open, transparent and published in the Canada Gazette. The annual report will come back to Parliament and, ultimately, it will be this House that decides, with responsibility to the Canadian people, whether or not the legislation passes.

Once again, the government is doing something about a backlog that increased under that member's government from 50,000 to over 800,000. To be 800,001 does not help if people want to come into this country to reunite with their family or be a skilled worker.

Will the member stand up in the House and oppose this legislation, given her democratic right and representation that she has to her constituents and to those across the country who want to see reform and want to see it go in the fashion we are proposing?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member just let his hidden agenda become not so hidden when he said “in the fashion in which we are proposing”. In other words, he wants it done in the way his government wants it to be done without any real debate. The government sticks it into a vehicle that makes it impossible for people to say “no” because it could bring the government down.

Parliament needs to be respected, and we respect Parliament not by trickery, but by having a real debate and real discussion and everyone can understand the results. Therefore, getting in the hon. member's way and the government opposite's way by stealth is not a democratic way to go nor an appropriate way to go. It does not do justice to good public policy.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Conservatives in one sense. Some of the problems we are dealing with today, like the huge backlog, are as a result of Liberal cutbacks. We go back to the mid-nineties when the government of the day made such sweeping changes and cuts we lost a whole decade of innovative changes and immigration was certainly front and centre.

However, I agree with the Liberals and I agree with the member when she said that this was outrageous, that it removes the process, that with the sweep of a pen the minister can change the face of this country, that she can deny families from coming in, that the government will be able to distort the mix of people coming in, that it will ruin the diversity of this nation, that it will wreck the history of this country, and on and on she went.

If it is that clear for them, which I believe it is, then they have a choice. They can either vote with the government, as they are intending to do, at least based on the statements to date, and they can support the government's agenda, which will destroy the face of this country and our open immigration process, or they can continue to twist and turn and refuse to participate in a process when they have an opportunity to make a difference.

If the member believes in process and in discussion by committee, will she join with us and support our amendment which will remove this section from the budget implementation bill and allow for full and open discussions on immigration policy?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has one minute to respond.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that we should just go ahead and vote and not sit on our hands. The point is that if we believe in process, we believe in appropriate process and this is not appropriate process. This is chicanery. This is trickery. This is the kind of stuff that we will not play a role in by acknowledging that it is so and therefore standing up and voting yea or nay against it. That is something that we refuse to do on this side of the House because it demeans Parliament and we will not play a role in demeaning Parliament with trickery.

The hon. member mentioned that the backlog came from the Liberals and that this was all because of cutting immigration in the beginning. It is so usual for the members in that party not to understand basic economics, that when there is a $43 billion deficit left by the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member but I had given her fair notice that it would be for one minute.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River has the floor for 20 minutes, of which there will only be 10 minutes today.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to engage in debate on this budget implementation bill.

Budget implementation bills are usually pretty complex and technical things at the best of times, and most Canadians will appreciate that this bill is of that nature. However, what has happened in this particular bill, for reasons that I do not think have been adequately explained in the House by the government, is that it has buried in the middle of this bill a provision dealing with the Immigration Act and it proposes changes to how the immigration flow is managed. I found that quite odd.

Someone here suggested that the proposals are secret. The government members have said that they are not secret, that they are right there in the bill that Parliament will have a chance to debate and pass.

The problem is that the provisions of the bill allow for the creation of what are called instructions that will be given by the minister. The perception is that it is those instructions, not the provisions of the bill, that will be “secret”; that the instructions will not be seen until they hit the street. They are supposed to be published in the Canada Gazette but we are not clear and even I as a member am not clear at this moment whether we are able to see all of the rules governing immigration.

I put a notice of motion for the production of papers on the order paper this week so I could see the Immigration Control Manual, a document that, unbelievably, has been revoked from the public. It is no longer available. I want to see this document but the Conservative government has pulled it from public access.

That is not transparent. That is operating by stealth. That is just a bit of a sidebar because the real issue here is what the government plans to do with these so-called instructions. This, by itself, is a departure.

It is true that under the Income Tax Act there is a provision that allows for the issuance of guidelines. However, I think taxpayers and most Canadians will appreciate that in the Income Tax Act there is a lot of complexity. A whole industry of tax lawyers is out there manoeuvring 25 hours a day to deal with the Income Tax Act in all its complexity. Therefore, we have accepted, in Parliament, that there can be guidelines issued by the minister.

However, in the Immigration Act, the government, quite a novel suggestion, has decided that it will create this category of instructions and they will simply be sent out.

The reason why, in rule of law, we object to that is that we never get a chance to see them, review them, verify them or validate them. If the government had chosen to make regulations containing these instructions, then we could see them as regulations. They would be pre-published for consultation in the Canada Gazette, be adopted in the usual way and then would stand referred to the Standing Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations where they would be reviewed for legality and constitutionality.

The government has not even done that in this case. It has simply said that it will create a category of instructions that will simply be logged out there to all the immigration officers around the world and they will operate based on those instructions.

Many of us here in Parliament are concerned that these instructions will be arbitrary and may get into an area which has been fought for centuries by the Westminster Parliament, a category of executive branch activity we call the pretended power of dispensation. What that means is that Parliament will pass a law and then the King says that he will make a regulation under the law. The King then purports to grant an exemption, a dispensation from the law, from the regulation. Parliament has always told the King that he cannot do that because there is no power of dispensation and no power of exemption. Parliament has said that when it writes a law, it is the law for everybody.

What if the government begins to build into these instructions dispensations? In other words, one instruction says that ABC shall prevail, but the minister may exempt or an immigration officer may exempt. What if some of these exemptions involve receipt of political favours or giving of political favours or money, God forbid? It is a whole area where we do not want to go. The government is apparently authorizing this in this bill.

In fairness to the government, it says it is trying to fix this problem of backlog under the immigration act. The backlog is a bit of an issue, but I suggest to the House that the 800,000 person backlog is not such a bad thing. It is actually an asset.

If we had no backlog in our immigration program, we would say our immigration program was a failure. We have to have an inventory of immigrants coming here. The backlog is on average only two and a half years worth of immigrants. As other colleagues have pointed out, we need a strong, vibrant immigration program. We like to have a lineup. It is not just one lineup. The immigration queue or the 800,000 person backlog is about six lineups.

There is a special lineup for family class-spousal. That lineup only takes six months to a year. Then the rest of the family class, including parents, in some countries can go up to seven years.

Then we have skilled workers. Some of those skilled workers can take up to seven years. If the person is a skilled worker, provincial nominee class, that person can be here within months. Then we have investors, refugee class, humanitarian class and the inland processing.

All of these are different lineups. There is not one 800,000 person lineup out there. There are half a dozen at least. The average inventory wait is two and a half years, but I do say that having a family member having to wait seven years is far too long.

The reason why that has happened, of course, is that we have decided the policy as a country, that we want the intake every year to be balanced between economic class and family class: 60% economic class and that is skilled workers, investors, et cetera, and 40% family class. That is why each of our offices has to stream these lines, so that the intake of immigrants to Canada is 60% economic each year and 40% family class.

I do think we have to fix this. We do not want to raise unrealistic expectations that we can get rid of the backlog of 800,000 persons overnight. If we did that we would not have any inventory. We would not have anyone in the lineup. There would be no one coming.

What we have to do is to find a way to manage the longer lineups to ensure that people in them know how long is involved and that they are not unduly extended way beyond times. Some parents I have seen go from being in good health at age 63 and in seven years they are up to 70 years of age, and they fall into bad health and their immigration application is prejudiced as a result.

This is a problem we simply must deal with. I am not sure that by criticizing the backlog day in and day out that we do service to the immigration program the way it is.

I want to also talk about the importance of viewing the immigration backlog as a symptom of a positive immigration program.

I have heard words in this House that say that under the Conservative government the number of immigrants has been increased to the highest level, if not ever, at least in recent memory. I think that is a bit disingenuous. It is fairly clear from the numbers that the number of visas issued for immigrants over the last couple of years has been about the same as it was under the previous government.

Every year the immigration department issues about 250,000 to 275,000 immigration visas of all the classes I mentioned earlier: the family class, the skilled worker class, the investor class and the humanitarian class.

What the government has done in this case is it has taken the student visas which are not immigrant visas, and it has taken work visas which are not immigrant visas and it has added them in to say, “Look, we have got 400,000 immigrants”. That is not a fair figure. That is not a fair way to do it. It is misleading. If we are going to get increases in our immigration intake, let us get a real intake.

Mr. Speaker, you are signaling that I am near the end of my 11 minutes. I look forward to finishing the balance of my remarks at a later date.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

When we next return to the study of Bill C-50, the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River will have 10 more minutes.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed nice to be the first one up on this Friday morning.

It is with a heavy heart that I am participating in this debate on Bill C-50. For years the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been struggling to keep up with the number of applications submitted from people who want to come to Canada. However, it would be worthwhile to take a historical look at this department over the last two decades. It has always had its difficulties; however, in the last two years it has been totally dysfunctional. Conservative minister after Conservative minister has tried to resolve the problems they are facing, yet they are finding themselves in more trouble.

I am not going to say that under the Liberals the department was perfect. It had its challenges. However, in the last two years, the department has become the challenge.

When the Liberals took office in 1993, we inherited a country that was in total chaos and almost bankrupt. The inflation rate was running amok. The deficit was $42 billion and we had a debt to the tune of $600 billion-plus dollars.

We had such a bad credit rating at that time that it drove international investors and creditors away in hordes. Not only did it drive creditors and investors away, it also deterred prospective immigrants from wanting to apply to come to Canada. In 1993, we had an inventory of almost 50,000 applications from people waiting to come to Canada.

However, over the years the situation in Canada changed and times became better. The annual deficit was no longer around. We started paying down the debt. For the first time in a few decades, Canada started having surpluses and the good times were here again under the Liberals. Our credit rating went up and investors started investing in Canada again.

As Canada started attracting investors and money from overseas, we also started attracting new immigrants and more applications, applications by the thousands. Canada became a destination of choice for most immigrants. Many immigrants could have chosen to emigrate to the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany or Australia, just to name a few. However, many of these people chose Canada.

The rest is history. Our inventory application levels increased. Waiting times started to become longer. People had to wait a few years in order to come to Canada and start their new lives. However, people waited patiently, and even to this day people are willing to wait a little longer in order to come to their first choice of destination.

Just recently, a few weeks ago, I travelled to India and met with many people: university students, professionals and business people. They expressed to me that their first choice of place to emigrate was Canada. Although it would still take a few years before they could emigrate to Canada, they told me it was still worth the wait.

Let us fast-forward to today and examine the department under the Conservatives, especially under their two ministers. Under the previous minister, we had a department that came under a lot of strain when the crisis in Lebanon occurred. The then minister of citizenship and immigration and his counterpart, the then minister of foreign affairs, totally botched the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon.

Then the Conservatives started fearmongering that we were evacuating people who had no business to be evacuated, and that these people, although claiming to have residency in Canada, returned to Lebanon as soon as things were good again. Reports were slipped to the media about thousands of people who returned to Lebanon, people, they said, who should not have been evacuated.

The real truth, however, was the fact that the protocols developed in the departments, under the Liberals, to look after Canadians and their loved ones abroad when a natural or a man-made disaster occurs were completely ignored and misplaced. The Conservative ministers were running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off and did not know what to do.

During the Liberal regime, there were protocols in place such that should there be a natural or a man-made disaster, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was ready to respond. Let us look at some examples. Under the Liberals, when the tsunami struck in South and Southeast Asia, family class applications were expedited and placed at the front of the line. Similarly, when the earthquake struck in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, these protocols were put in place, and again family class applications were expedited.

However, when the man-made disaster occurred in Lebanon, the Conservative ministers were slow to react and the tested protocols were shelved and ignored. The Prime Minister even went to Cyprus to pick up a few stranded Canadians. If someone were to ask me, this was an expensive photo op.

Then we had the disaster of the lost Canadians. The minister and her department's officials mismanaged that particular file.

They even went so as far as to mislead the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. When the minister and the deputy minister came in front of the committee, I asked them if they had advertised about Canadians who might have lost their citizenship. Both the minister and the deputy minister went on to mislead and outright distort the truth by saying that they had advertised in different media outlets on this matter. When a few days later they were pushed to reveal facts and figures, the minister and her deputy sent a letter of explanation to the committee admitting that they had given us false information about advertising.

The mockery of this department under the Conservatives continues even today. A few months ago, I asked under the access to information about the real figures in inventories and waiting times since the Conservatives took power. The real nightmare was then exposed. The question posed was:

With regard to Immigration Applications for each Canadian High Commission, Embassy and Consulate around the world, present and for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, in actual numbers:

(a) How many Spousal Sponsorships, Parental Sponsorships and Independent Applicant cases are or were in inventory;

(b) What is or was the length of time required to process these applications--Spousal Sponsorships, Parental Sponsorships and Independent Applicants?

The Conservative government had assured parliamentarians that processing times would decrease. Instead of seeing an overall decrease in processing timelines, what I discovered was an overall increase.

I was able to determine a decrease in processing times and the number of cases in the regions of Europe and South America, but a dramatic increase in processing times and the number of cases in the regions of the world such as the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia.

Close to 50% of our total inventory of applications comes from seven countries. To be exact, Beijing contributes 6.45% of our total applications; Colombo, 1.29%; Damascus, 5.27%; Hong Kong, 6.66%; Islamabad, 6.16%; New Delhi, 18.87%; and Manila 1.7%. Exactly, that is 46.51%.

During the last two years of the Conservative regime, the number of cases decreased by 1.93% and the time processing has increased by 20.79%.

Here are some of these nightmares. For Colombo, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 53.65%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 36.36%. While the processing timelines in Colombo have gone up overall by 20.83%, the amount of processed cases has dropped by 1.74%.

Beijing is the real nightmare. Skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 36.17%, spouses' and partners' processing timelines increased by 25%, and dependent children's timelines increased by 33.33%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 4.07%. Parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 54.54%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 29.68%. Overall, in Beijing the processing timelines increased by 40.78%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 48.05%.

For Damascus, skilled workers' processing timelines have increased by 20%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 11.76%.

For Hong Kong, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 25.45%, while applications dropped by 6%. Parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 28.57%. In Hong Kong, while the processing timelines went up by 10.28%, the processed cases dropped by 28%.

For Islamabad, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 43.18%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 8.1%.

For New Delhi, skilled workers' processing times increased by 38%, and spouses and partners' processing timelines increased by 66.66%, while the amount of cases processed has dropped by 10%. For dependent children, processing timelines increased by 66.67%, while parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 21.62%. Overall in New Delhi, processing timelines increased by 11.45%.

In Manila, parent's and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 51.85%. Overall, processing timelines increased by 5.88%.

Finally, the minister finally had a revelation. She noticed that the train had run away and that she needed to do something. What to do? What to do? Let us ask the bureaucrats, it was decided, and here comes the nightmare: some bright individual wanting to have a quick passage of the legislation placed it in the budget and called it a motion of confidence.

Let us examine what this piece of legislation, Bill C-50, will do specifically. I will be very brief, because other people before me have examined what is in store for us under this legislation.

This legislation has amendments that would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral authority to determine priorities for processing immigration applications and requests.

Bill C-50 puts too much power in the hands of the minister to cherry-pick the kinds of immigrants that the Conservative Party would find acceptable. It eliminates the right of every application to be given fair review and consideration, regardless of background, country of origin or skill set. The amendments put no limit on the minister's new discretionary powers to make them consistent with existing federal-provincial immigration regulations.

The minister would have wide-ranging new powers allowing him or her to give the following instructions with respect to the processing of application requests: establish categories of applications or requests; establish an order by category or otherwise for processing; set the number of applications or requests by category or otherwise to be processed in any year; and provide for the disposition of applications or requests, including those made subsequent to the first application or request.

In addition, immigration and refugee officers shall comply with ministerial instructions before processing or when processing applications or requests. Applications not processed may be returned, retained or disposed of in accordance with the instructions by the minister. This does not constitute a decision not to issue a visa or other document, or grant the status or exemption in relation to which the application or request is made. Instructions shall be published in the Canada Gazette. Nothing in this section limits in any way the power of the minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer this act.

These amendments essentially give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration carte blanche to decide which applications to process, which to hold, and which to return without even processing. Particular immigration categories will be adversely affected, such as the family class and permanent resident status made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, H and C grounds.

The amendments will reduce the incentive for the government to do what it should do: dedicate the necessary resources to increase departmental and human resource capacity to process the number of applications received each year.

However, the bright individual on the government side decided to go a little further. The bright individual decided that the government would take this piece of legislation out of its regular place and refer it to the finance committee.

The place that this bill should be debated is specifically the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where both the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the minister responsible for CBSA can be invited. Also, community groups, stakeholders, lawyers, immigration practitioners and others would have an opportunity to testify and give evidence on whether they would be in favour and/or against this ill thought out piece of legislation.

However, that will not be the case this time. The Conservatives have decided to circumvent all of this, put the bill in front of the House, declare it a motion of confidence, and get it passed in order for the minister to look after the backlog of immigration cases, so she says.

I have news for the minister. Whether she will open her ears and listen, however, is another story. This piece of legislation will be challenged in court and struck down. This piece of legislation is not charter compliant, although she claims it is.

I would like at this time to refer to a few famous Conservative quotes on citizenship and immigration. Maybe my colleagues across the way will open their ears and listen.

The first quote is as follows:

You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and who are not integrated into Western Canadian society.

Who said that? The present Prime Minister.

The second quote is as follows:

Well, I've always believed that we have to be a lot tougher with undocumented refugee claimants. Whether the best thing is to send them right out of the country or simply detain them until we get more information, we can look at either, this is a problem that does need to be fixed. Particularly post 9/11, we can't take these kinds of security risks.

Who said that? The current Prime Minister.

If members were to take a look at www.oneconservativevoice.ca., they would see another quote, “Another potential threat to domestic security is Canada's refugee determination”.

When the Prime Minister was the chief policy officer of the Reform Party, his party platform stated that “immigration should be essentially economic in nature” and should not “be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada”. This was stated in the Platform and Statement of Principles of the Reform Party of Canada dated August 14, 1988.

I have another quote: “Multiculturalism policy has been an abject failure...immigration continues to change the country's face more extensively than at any time since the turn of the century”. Who said that? The member for Kootenay—Columbia as reported in the Calgary Herald.

The Canadian people simply do not trust the Conservatives to deliver on immigration and, frankly, neither do I, so I will be voting against this misguided legislation.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member loses himself in statistics. I wonder how he explains that last year we had the highest number of newcomers in our history, 429,649. We actually did have that number.

I can say that with the two ministers we have had we have passed legislation that will get thousands of lost Canadians back into the fold. With the new minister, we are amending the act to ensure we can bring more people in quicker and faster. I would encourage him to support that legislation.

One of his own people, the member for Etobicoke Centre, said:

I'm almost reaching the point where I believe that our whole immigration system has become dysfunctional. That in fact it's at the point of being broken.

That was said in September 2004, after 13 years of a Liberal government, six ministers, four terms in office, some of them with majorities, and absolutely nothing to reform the act.

An editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press stated:

What the Conservatives propose is common sense--cut back on accepting new applications until progress is made in cleaning out the backlog.

This is good policy...For the Liberals to exploit this, however, not only ignores the national need for the party's own political advantage, but also ignores the ugly truth that it was the Liberals who created this problem. In the years 1993-2006, the immigration backlog grew from 50,000 to 800,000. Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

Will the member do the honourable thing and stand up, in accordance with the instructions of his leader, to vote in favour of this legislation when it comes up for a vote?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I listened to the parliamentary secretary. Half the time he seems to know what he is talking about and the other half he is out in left field.

This time the parliamentary secretary he is out in left field. He knows very well that the number he has quoted about people coming into Canada is fudged. He knows very well that the number that he has quoted is blown up and includes foreign workers, people on TRVs and I could go on. The real figure is that this year the government will let in less immigrants than in any other years.

The parliamentary secretary knows very well that the only place to discuss this is in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is the only place where we can have a fair discussion and call the minister there. She has not shown up time after time when the committee has invited her. The only place where we can have a fair discussion with stakeholders, community groups, refugee associations and even us as members of Parliament is in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Will the parliamentary secretary do the honourable thing and ask his minister to send this bill to that committee or are the Conservatives going to hide behind everything and send it to the finance committee? I would ask them to have the guts to do the right thing.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the issue of an immigration policy in Canada stirs much energy from my hon. colleague and from others around this place.

I think the question is about what the government is actually proposing and how it is that it is proposing to make these drastic changes. Some have called them the biggest changes in Canadian immigration law ever, if not in the last 40 years.

It seems to me that in previous administrations the rule and policy was “Who you know in the PMO”. This had great effect as to which groups and which particular cases were given attention. We saw incident after incident under the Liberals where connections were more important than the quality of the actual immigration application.

We are now switching over to a system in which, by fiat, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration under the current Conservative government, which is obviously at the Prime Minister's discretion, will pick the winners and losers. I think there is some interest for Canadians that the bill is being promoted by the finance minister and will go to the finance committee where suddenly immigration has become a purely financial and economic matter and nothing else. It is ironic in a country that prides itself on being a refuge and a place built on the energy and enthusiasm of the immigrants who have come here.

I think the reason we have so much passion in this place for this issue is that so many of us are, like myself, the sons or daughters of immigrants or immigrants ourselves. It brings forward great passion to think that families, like my own who came to this country, would no longer be accepted because they would not fit through this narrow financial consideration, which the Minister of Finance is somehow now in charge of immigration policy, an immigration policy that is made through budget measures. How ridiculous is that?

I am interested to know if my hon. colleague can give us some proper accounting. He indicated today that he would vote against this measure. I wonder if he actually will show up to vote and express his lack of confidence in the government as New Democrats have? Does he have any assessment or understanding of any other Liberals in this place who may also rise on their feet and express non-confidence in this immigration policy and in the government? Where does the Liberal Party stand?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back about a year ago today when the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was discussing at the time undocumented workers.

We were looking at the plight of individuals who have been here for a number of years, some for five, six or ten years, and were working underground and being exploited. They were trying to get themselves normalized in Canada. A motion that was in front of the committee was brought to the House. The motion stated that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration study the motion and that undocumented workers should not be deported from Canada until the committee had an opportunity to finally look at it.

I came to the House and asked for unanimous consent to move that motion. The Conservatives did not stand up and oppose it, nor did the Liberals and the Bloc. The only person who ran in huffing and puffing and said that she would not give unanimous consent to the motion was a member of the NDP. The NDP found faith by siding with the Conservatives in wanting to throw undocumented workers out of this country. The hon. member should take that up with his colleague from Trinity—Spadina because she was the only one who ran in here and opposed it.

How does the member and the NDP dare to stand up and give this side of the House lessons? They should look at themselves in the mirror and maybe when they get up in the morning it will crack.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue on which the member may be able to assist us, as he is a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It concerns the question as to whether the real issue is the backlog or the number of landed Canadians in a year. It would appear that there can be external forces which affect the backlog or the number of applicants. However, when it really gets down to it, what is the real record of landing Canadians since 2005?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was making my speech I stated that in the years under the Conservatives the application records have gone down, especially out of mainland China where we used to get tons of people applying to come to Canada. In my riding of Scarborough--Agincourt, a great number of people are applying from mainland China to come to Scarborough. Their applications dropped by about 50%. The real issue is, indeed, the backlog and we need to deal with that.

It is very simple. We should allocate resources where they are needed. We should expedite cases where we should. For example, a spousal case out of Colombo is taking two years, where in other places it takes six months. Although the issue is the backlog, it is also a matter of taking resources from different posts and putting them to posts where we need them to deal with the processing of applications.

Maybe the minister will do something about reallocating the resources instead of having SWAT teams. She has SWAT teams of retired immigration officers who are going from country to country to deal with the backlog. These people are not getting paid normal wages. These people get paid exorbitant wages and are put in fancy hotels, which costs the department an arm and a leg.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my committee chair for his encouragement, especially since we are from different parties.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak about implementing the budget. By implementing the budget, we will skirt several major issues for all Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois has been expressing specific demands since January. Those demands have been very clear, and we will see that not one of them has been met in this budget.

The budget implementation bill aims to put in place various measures that were announced when the federal budget was presented on February 26. This bill has 10 different sections that amend various Canadian laws. Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act in order to create tax-free savings accounts, increase the number of years an individual can contribute to a registered education savings plan, increase tax deductions for northern residents, increase the tax credit for medical expenses, modify the eligibility requirements for the registered disability savings plan (RDSP), extend the mineral exploration tax credit by one year, modify the rules surrounding tax credits for charitable donations, readjust the tax threshold for corporate dividends and put in place various legislative provisions to prevent implementation of the Liberal Bill C-253, which would allow RDSP contributions to be tax-free.

Parts 2 and 3 of the bill amend the excise tax legislation to adjust the tax on various tobacco products and make certain medical services GST-exempt. Part 4 dissolves the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Part 5 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act to modify the system and increase the number of students who are eligible for assistance. Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the minister to give priority to certain applications and refuse others without having to provide justification to the applicants.

Part 7 creates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. The board's mandate is to set the premium rate and manage a financial reserve. In other words, employment insurance will be managed independently and any surpluses will no longer be paid into the government's consolidated revenue account. Parts 8 and 9 authorize payments to be made out of the 2007-08 surplus to various organizations and programs. This part of the budget implementation bill includes the payments for carbon capture in Saskatchewan and the $400 million fund to recruit new police officers. Part 10 amends various acts.

I want to reiterate the Bloc's position. This may seem like a good budget, but it has next to nothing for Quebec and Quebeckers. Clearly, the Conservative members from Quebec have done nothing to defend Quebec's interests. Obviously, a member of a party that defends Alberta, cannot defend Quebec's interests at the same time. Members will see this as I go along, and I will come back to this point at the end.

Budget 2008 may seem like a good budget, but it does not comply with the demands the Bloc Québécois made public on January 23, 2008. First, it does not provide any direct, immediate assistance for the manufacturing and forestry industries, which are in crisis. Tens of thousands of jobs have now been lost in Quebec, and this government has done nothing and does not intend to do anything in this budget.

The budget does nothing to help the workers and communities hit by the crisis. It contains no measures to reimburse seniors who have been shortchanged by the guaranteed income supplement program. It continues to take a polluter-paid approach to the Alberta oil companies, rather than a polluter-pay approach, and it refuses to make a 180-degree turn on the environment. The budget makes no major investment in culture and does not undo the ideological cuts made by the Conservative government. It reiterates the government's intention of creating a single securities commission.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois is against this bill and will vote against it.

Let us talk about the problem with immigration. The minister is giving herself discretionary power. Bill C-50 offers far too much discretionary power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in determining who can and cannot enter Canada. The minister is arguing that we have to be able to clear the backlog as quickly as possible in order to give priority to those who could alleviate the labour shortage in Canada and Quebec. She will be able to determine which persons will have priority to enter Canada based on the individual's training or occupation. The Conservatives are saying that training and occupation can negatively affect a person's chance at entering Canada. If persons applying to enter Canada have the misfortune of not having the training or occupations in demand in Canada, they may have to wait much longer than other immigrants to obtain a visa to enter the country.

Although the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of reducing the backlog, it is opposed to replacing the existing transparent and objective immigration system. The government might say that we have to be fair. The goal of any good legislation is to prevent things from getting out of control. Bill C-50 gives far too much power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This can open the door to abuse because there is nothing to counterbalance the minister's discretionary powers.

The Bloc Québécois prefers an immigration system based on a system that is fair, transparent and equitable for everyone. By comparison, in order to accelerate the contract awarding process, would it be acceptable for a minister to have discretionary power to offer contracts and circumvent the call for tenders system for the simple reason that waiting times need to be shortened? The answer is self-evident.

The Bloc Québécois is also deeply concerned about the fact that the federal government would no longer be required to review applications for permanent residency, on humanitarian grounds, from foreign nationals applying from outside Canada. In the absence of a real refugee appeal division, the option of entering Canada on humanitarian grounds is often the only alternative available to refugees. This is proof that the Conservatives are insensitive to the suffering endured by some people in the world. We have a humanitarian obligation to at least consider their requests.

Rather than completely overhauling the system and getting rid of a transparent system, there are other ways for the government to speed up case processing. It could increase staffing in foreign countries, and it could speed up the appointment of commissioners to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Since coming to power, the Conservatives have slowed the commissioner appointment process down considerably. Delays in case processing in Canada are due primarily to staff shortages, to a shortage of commissioners. The Conservatives are partly to blame for this problem.

With Bill C-50, the Conservatives are trying to fix a problem that they themselves created. Since the Conservatives have formed the government, the selection committee has recommended some 60 qualified individuals to fill the vacant commissioner positions. When the Conservatives came to power, there were five vacancies at the IRB. Currently, there are just under 50 vacant commissioner positions out of 156.

There are two reasons for that gap. First, the Conservative government has been making fewer new appointments. Since coming to power in February 2006, the Conservatives have appointed just 27 commissioners. Moreover, they have renewed very few of the commissioners whose terms have expired. Since February 2006, only seven commissioners' appointments have been renewed.

I should explain that a commissioner's term lasts three years. What usually happens is that one-third of the commissioners are appointed every year to compensate for terms that expire that year. The problem is not a shortage of candidates. When the former chairperson of the commission, Jean-Guy Fleury, appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, he said that the minister had a list of 80 candidates when Mr. Fleury left his job on March 16, 2007. The government is taking its own sweet time appointing commissioners.

Because there are so many vacancies at the IRB, case processing is slowing down again. The waiting list is starting to get longer. At the end of 2006, there were 23,495 applications pending, an increase of 3,000 applications over the previous year at that time. In the past year, the average application processing time has increased from 11.7 months to 14.3 months. These delays have resulted in three major problems. The Government of Quebec has to pay for social services until refugee claimants get an answer.

Thus, the longer it takes to complete the process, the more it costs the Quebec government.

In the case of family reunification, it is the families that must pay while awaiting the decision. The family must meet the needs of its family members who are applying to stay in Canada. Thus, the longer it takes to complete the process, the more it costs the families.

Some refugee claimants are denied status based on a criminal record or shady past. Thus, the longer it takes to complete the process, the greater the risk of security problems.

Experts are accusing Stephen Harper's government of delaying the appointments because the candidates proposed so far do not share the Conservative Party ideology.

[An hon. member]

She named the Prime Minister.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I meant to say the Conservative government. I am sorry.

In the agriculture file, the Bloc Québécois called for the implementation of an action plan to address the crisis in the livestock industry—pork and beef, in particular—as well as improvements to the income support programs. In this Conservative budget, farmers will have to make do with an additional $72 million over two years for agricultural programs, while forestry workers will not see any new money at all.

The government says it intends to change how emergency advances are given through the advance payments program, by allocating $22.1 million to that adjustment in 2008-09. That measure was introduced in Bill C-44.

The government says it will create a cull breeding swine program. The federal government will invest $50 million in 2007-08 in this program, which will be administered by the Canadian Pork Council. Ottawa thereby hopes to reduce the Canadian breeding swine inventory by 10%. The government hopes this will facilitate the transition for any producers who wish to get out of the pork industry. Payments would be based on the number of animals and on reimbursement costs for humane slaughter and carcass disposal.

As we can see, the Harper government has ignored the appeals—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

The Conservative government, I mean, has ignored the appeals for assistance from farmers and forestry workers who have been the victims of an unprecedented income crisis.

Another one of the Bloc's demands that comes up often has to do with employment insurance. The Bloc Québécois was calling for the creation of an independent employment insurance fund and for significant improvements to the plan. In particular, we were calling on the government to implement a minimum eligibility threshold of 360 hours for all regions and all claimants. Under this minimum eligibility threshold, however, claimants would be eligible for a varying number of weeks of benefits, based on the unemployment rate in their region. We also called on the government to lengthen the benefit period by five weeks for all regions, regardless of the number of hours required to qualify. The maximum number of weeks of benefits would go from 45 to 50 weeks. Furthermore, we wanted the rate of benefits to be increased from 55% to 60%.

What do we have in the Conservative budget? The budget provides for a new crown corporation, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, which will report to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

This board will be responsible for managing a separate bank account. Each year, any employment insurance fund surplus will be saved and invested until it is needed to cover the program costs.

Moreover, as of 2009, a new rate-setting mechanism will be put in place. It will take into account any surpluses or deficits so that income and expenses balance out over the years. The rates set by the board cannot fluctuate more than 15% in a given year, in order to ensure a stable rate.

In addition, the government plans on maintaining a balance of $2 billion in the bank account of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

As we can see, the Conservatives have finally bowed to one Bloc demand and will stop pillaging the employment insurance fund. The Bloc Québécois believes that instead of creating a new crown corporation, the mandate of the employment insurance commission could have been amended. The Bloc Québécois believes that creating an independent fund should improve the plan and not just reduce contributions.

In addition, the Conservative government is ignoring the $54 billion debt to those who contributed to the plan and to all Quebeckers. It is paradoxical that the Conservatives say they hope to “ensure that EI premiums are dedicated exclusively to the EI program” but that in a few weeks time they will take the 2007-08 surplus and pay down the debt.

They seem to be going against their own philosophy. The Bloc Québécois asked that a $1.5 billion fund be established to ensure that this year's surplus be used strictly for the employment insurance fund. The Conservative budget fails to enhance in any way the employment insurance fund and, once again, there is a lack of consideration by this government for the unemployed. Nevertheless, we must consider the creation of this fund to be an immense victory for the Bloc Québécois.

With regard to aboriginal peoples, the Bloc Québécois had demanded that the federal government respect the agreements between the former government and aboriginal peoples and make provision for the required funding. The Bloc Québécois also expects the federal government to meet the urgent need for housing on reserves.

The 2008 budget sets aside an additional $660 million over two years for economic development and the improvement of academic performance, health, and the well-being of children and families, as well as the improvement of water quality and management. Unfortunately, although the $660 million investment may seem to be a large amount at first glance, the funds come primarily from monies set aside in the 2006 budget.

The budget does not meet the needs of aboriginal Canadians, since the money should have been announced in 2006. This funding comes too late and is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the defunct Kelowna accord. Expectations were high when the Kelowna accord was signed, and now there is major disappointment. No significant money was provided for social housing on reserves. Despite the need for more than 10,000 homes in Quebec alone, there is not enough allocated to improving the socio-economic conditions in first nations communities. Although there was a surplus in the last fiscal year, no money was set aside to fight poverty among aboriginals.

I would now like to talk about the Bloc's demand concerning the status of women. The Bloc Québécois wanted a series of measures to foster equality between men and women, in particular, the reinstatement of the court challenges program, the reinstatement of funding for Status of Women Canada and the improvement of the employment insurance plan, which is currently not advantageous for women. The Conservative budget does nothing for women. In fact, the word appears only six times in the budget, including the note in the French text regarding the use of the masculine gender to cover both men and women.

The budget includes the following paragraph entitled, “Advancing Equality of Women”. It reads, “Budget 2007 increased the women's program budget to $20 million. Over the next year, the government will build on this achievement through the development of an action plan that will advance the equality of women across Canada through the improvement of their economic and social conditions and their participation in democratic life.”

Members will recall that women's rights groups saw their funding disappear, since they were excluded from the new women's program, and will also recall that the women's program was funded through cuts to Status of Women.

The Conservative budget ignores women's concerns such as pay equity and the fight for equality. The Bloc Québécois is eagerly awaiting the Conservative action plan, but is expecting the same reactionary and backward-looking vision we are used to on this issue. And I will not even begin to speak about Bill C-484, introduced by a Conservative member, which is an embarrassment to all women.

The Bloc Québécois had even more expectations in terms of international cooperation, including achieving the goal of 0.7% of the GDP by 2015, as set out by the UN. We could reach that by increasing ODA budgets by 12% per year over the next three years and then by 15% per year until 2015.

In the 2008 budget, the government is committing to double international aid based on 2001-02 numbers, to bring it up to $5 billion by 2010-11. The budget also includes an additional $100 million for the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, which would bring the projected value of Canada's aid program in Afghanistan up to $280 million in 2008-09. As well, aid to Africa would be doubled by 2008-09.

There is $450 million, for the next three years, for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. As well there is $50 million over two years for an innovation fund. However, the federal budget still does not present a credible plan for achieving the goal of 0.7% of the GDP by 2015 so that Canada can reach the UN's millennium goals.

All of the Bloc's demands were ignored. There is nothing for workers. There is no POWA, no regional development, no reinvestment in culture and nothing for social housing. It is equally bleak for women. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to state to the member that of course the minister's instructions would be only those that would support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada. They will not be individual or case to case decisions.

Those instructions will be open and transparent. They will be published in the Canada Gazette, reported in the annual report to Parliament, and published on the CIC website.

Obviously, they will need to be charter compliant. The instructions will be debated in this House. They will be debated in committee. They will come back to this House for further debate. The opportunity will be there for members to stand up and vote for or against this.

I would like to ask for the member's comments on what the state of immigration is now after 13 years of the Liberal Party in office. The backlog of 50,000 cases has now increased to 800,000. I wonder if the member can comment on what the acceptability of that might be to her and her party, and whether or not the immigration system is in need of some drastic reform and change.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I must say, first of all, since this government has been in power for over two years now, it is time he stop talking about the 13 years of Liberal government and blaming everything on the Liberals.

That being said, Bill C-50 poses a problem: it gives far too much discretionary power to the minister. It is a bad solution to a real problem. This real problem is the backlog of applications. The secretary said that 850 applications were delayed. According to the information I have, 24,000 applications have not yet been processed.

The problem is not that the minister does not make decisions quickly because she lacks sufficient power to make them. The problem is that there is a shortage of commissioners at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This government has not appointed the necessary commissioners. As I said earlier, there are 156 vacant positions. More correctly, there are currently a little less than 50 vacant commissioner positions out of 156.

Two reasons account for this gap. First, the government has slowed the pace of appointments. Since coming to power, it has appointed only 27 commissioners. Furthermore, it has renewed almost none of the terms of commissioners whose terms have expired. Since February 2006, the mandates of only seven commissioners have been renewed. That is the real problem.

The government should perhaps begin by appointing all the commissioners that should be appointed. Then, if that solution does not work, it could perhaps give greater discretionary power to the minister or come up with other solutions—because giving greater discretionary power is not necessarily a solution.

Some people believe that the Conservative government does not want to appoint new commissioners because it cannot find enough people who share the Conservative ideology on immigration.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the presentation by my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. I was glad she mentioned how badly women have been neglected in this budget.

I would like her to give me her opinion about the fact that, in its platform, the Conservative government says that it will come up with a plan to help women achieve equality, yet all the plans it has put forward to date lack vision. As a result, we have quite frequently voted against these plans.

Could she also comment on the fact that, in its budget, the Conservative government has allocated only $20 million for the status of women, which represents $1.21 per woman for the whole year? What does she think of this position?

In addition, what does she think about the fact that defence spending has risen by 69% in the past 10 years, whereas social spending has increased by only 0.6%, as the lack of social housing will attest?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am unhappy with this question. In fact, the status of women has always been of great importance to me.

I had the pleasure of contributing to the founding of the Fédération des femmes du Québec a few years ago. I hardly dare say that it was 35 years ago, but I was quite young; I was very precocious.

On a more serious note, this government's attitude towards women and gender equality is quite disturbing. It is very worrisome for all manner of reasons, including the cuts to Status of Women Canada. Its core funding was slashed. It was an organization that performed very well and promoted gender equality. The reasons given by the government are ridiculous pretexts.

I am somewhat concerned about the plan that the Conservatives wish to present. I speak for myself but I also know, from speaking to many other women, that there is a great deal of concern about the actions of this government.

We know that it pays a great deal of attention and is more responsive to the lobbying group, REAL Women, which promotes the interests of women who stay at home. That is not a choice for me. We all have the choice of working or staying at home. But when a government implements measures that are of greater benefit to women at home under the pretext of supporting families, that is worrisome.

It is also troubling when this government supports one of its members who promotes in this House a bill which, under the pretext of protecting pregnant women, represents a first attack against the right to abortion. It is very disturbing. Hence, not—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wishes to rise on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to participating in this debate. It is a debate that is extremely important for many reasons.

I would like to give the debate a bit of context as it relates to the immigration component of Bill C-50.

As Canadians know quite well, Canada today has an aging population and a declining birth rate. We are also faced with a skills shortage, of which people on both sides of the House, I am sure, are quite aware. We also live in a world that is extremely competitive when it comes to globalization and competing for economic well-being and raising the standard of living and quality of life of the people we represent.

Given that context, we have to wonder why the Conservative government, during an era when Canada needs people from all over the world, would reduce the number of landed immigrants allowed to come to Canada. In the first two years the Conservatives have reduced the number by 36,000. From an economic, social and cultural perspective, that type of measure simply does not make any sense.

When I heard the government would introduce a section on immigration through Bill C-50, which is a budget implementation bill, I thought perhaps it would come up with something that would speak to great financial commitments to immigration.

I was really surprised to find out that the budget bill only has a 1% increase in overall departmental funding. What is really odd about this is the fact that we are faced with a backlog of 900,000 cases, yet there is such a meagre increase in departmental investment when it comes to immigration. That is of concern to me as an individual who appreciates the great contribution newcomers have made to Canada.

It is quite puzzling to see the government trying to sneak this through a budget implementation bill. It is also puzzling that it will be reducing the number of landed immigrants in Canada by 36,000 and is not seeing immigration as an important pillar to Canada's future success.

There is a history here. We can go back to Diefenbaker, who attempted something very similar to what the present Minister of Immigration has attempted to do to deal with the present backlog. This attempt by Diefenbaker's government was pushed back by communities and members of the House of Commons, who felt that it simply was not fair.

The government's response to the global challenges we face and all the issues we have to deal with is found basically in three things that I will highlight, and I draw this from the budget bill.

The first change to consider is that of clause 11. Currently, the act requires that an immigration officer shall issue a visa to any person who meets the requirements set out in the act. If passed, these amendments would grant the minister the power to arbitrarily decide that a person no longer meets the requirements they once did. That person's application may no longer be processed and a visa may no longer be granted.

Individuals who fulfill all the requirements and who have been waiting patiently for years to have their applications reviewed may all of a sudden be advised that their applications category is now being denied. That can be done in a very arbitrary way, just because. That is unfair.

It is simply not justice that, at any point in time, one individual's whose application category may have in fact been accepted is now not accepted any longer because the minister decides that is what she wants to do today. Tomorrow she can change her mind and change categories and requirements and do as she pleases without really debating the issue. Everything becomes effective immediately when she wants it to become effective. That is unfair. It is not following due process.

The claim is that all this is to deal with a backlog. When we do a bit of research, what happens? We discover that does not make sense either. When we go to the departmental website, we find this quote:

Once passed, the new measures will apply to applications received on or after February 27, 2008. Those who applied prior to February 27, 2008, will not be subject to the new measures and will be dealt with fairly under the existing rules.

If these rules are not applied to the backlog, then how will they help the backlog? Exactly what does “will be dealt with fairly under the existing rules” mean? Am I being told that the new rules are unfair? Is that what the minister is telling Canadians? Is she saying that anybody prior to February 27, 2008 will be dealt with fairly, but after that they will not be dealt with fairly?

These are quotes that concern me a great deal. I am sure these quotes concern the hon. member for Beaches—East York, with whom I am sharing my time, and she will also elaborate on all of these points.

This is unfair legislation. It speaks to a total disregard by the Conservative government to the immigration community, to immigrants who have helped build our country. It is time the Conservatives come clean with their agenda. They need to explain to Canadians why, in their first two years in government, they have reduced landed immigrant landings by 36,000. There have been 36,000 fewer immigrants allowed into Canada. Why is this happening? Why is the Conservative government shutting its doors on immigrants?

The Conservatives can fudge the numbers. The government can talk about over 400,000 people who have been allowed into Canada. They are not talking about landed immigrants. They are talking about student visas and other permits that are given.

Then we look at clause 87. There is a new concept called “Instructions” that does not exist in current legislation. This allows the minister to cap immigration applications, set categories of applications to be considered, deny the processing of certain application categories. The danger is that these instructions can be issued at any time and take effect immediately. They will not be required to be pre-published or debated. This process, if passed, would lack fundamental transparency and ensure accountability.

In this day and age, when Canada requires the help of immigrants from across the globe, the people who have helped build this country, we cannot stand still in the House of Commons and accept from the Conservative government an agenda that shuts the door on immigrants in a very arbitrary way simply because the government feels like it.

The government also tries to fool Canadians by saying that it is serious about reducing the backlog of 900,000 applicants. What did the government do? It increased the departmental budget by a mere 1%. The parliamentary secretary knows the job will not be done with $22 million.

When the minister says she is going to eliminate the backlog, she knows she is misleading Canadians. She knows she will be unable to deliver. She knows she will not get her job done.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment.

I think this member should, first, stand and apologize for what the Liberal Party did to the immigration system over 13 years. Six ministers and four terms in office, most of them majorities, and they did not do anything. Shamefully, they increased the backlog from 50,000 to 800,000. This member should stand and say, “I'm sorry. We're ashamed for what we've done to immigration.” That is what he should do. He should not fearmonger.

I will just quote what Susan Riley said in the Ottawa Citizen:

But while some concerns about the changes are valid, some amount to fear-mongering--which isn't limited to the Liberals.

Let me further quote from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press. It stated:

What the Conservatives propose is common sense...For the Liberals to exploit this, however, not only ignores the national need for the party's own political advantage, but also ignores the ugly truth that it was the Liberals who created this problem. In the years 1993-2006, the immigration backlog grew from 50,000 to 800,000.

The 429,000 newcomers admitted include those who were skilled workers and temporary foreign workers and those students who needed work to meet our economy and the demands of our economy. They are in those numbers. Those are true and correct. The trend is upward, more newcomers, more immigrants, faster and more efficiently. That is what we are proposing to do.

He should stand and apologize for the past record.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must be kidding that I have to apologize. Come on.

The Conservative government stated that you would eliminate the backlog. Since you have been in office, the backlog has actually increased. Now, you can fudge your numbers. You can talk about 400,000--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Vaughan is an experienced member of this House. He is a privy councillor. He knows not to address other members in the second person but in the third person.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

The reality is that, as the hon. member well knows, I know that he knows these facts because I speak to him regularly, the Conservative government, in its first two years, has actually reduced the number of landed immigrants coming into Canada by 36,000.

Now, the Conservatives claim of course that they understand the demographic pressures that Canada is facing. They claim that they understand that with emerging markets like China and India there is greater competition for skilled labour. They claim to understand all these, but their actions speak to a different reality.

When they shut the door on 36,000 people, when I look at their history leading back to the years of Diefenbaker, and when I look at their roots as the Reform Party when they actually called for the reduction of landed immigrants by 100,000, these are in documents that are part and parcel of your genetic makeup in understanding--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. The hon. chief government whip.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I could go on for quite some time about this, but I know time is short, so I will limit my comments.

I would ask the hon. member to think about a prospective immigrant, a person who would apply, and certainly I have met those people. I have had the great privilege of travelling quite extensively in my role as a parliamentarian over the past almost 15 years that I have been honoured to be the representative for Prince George—Peace River in this House.

When we are in foreign countries, we can see the enthusiasm of especially young people who want to immigrate to Canada. Let us put ourselves in the position of some young people, for example, say, in China. They are 19 or 20 years of age. They are finishing their university education and they apply to come to Canada. They want to immigrate to our great country. Then they are told, over a series of interviews, that the backlog is six to seven years. Imagine the disappointment of those young people and imagine how much could change.

I ask the member to reflect back on his life. Between the ages of 19 and, say, 25 or 26 a lot can happen. People meet future spouses, they fall in love, sometimes they start families, they start a career, and six or seven years later the Canadian authorities get a hold of these individuals after putting their applications for immigration through the process and they say, “Okay, we've accepted you”. Their whole situation has changed.

That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to change this backlog that was created by the previous government.

I ask the hon. member, in all sincerity, to reflect upon that and to say, is there not some way that we can bring forward change as we are trying to do, so that we do not have to disappoint thousands upon thousands of prospective immigrations whose situation changes dramatically?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have to put myself in the shoes of an immigrant because I am an immigrant myself to this country. I appreciate all the experiences I have had to deal with the changes that occur to the life of an immigrant, so the member can rest assured I am very sensitive to those concerns.

The reality is, even if we were to apply those changes, the changes the hon. member is advocating, which I do not support, they do not apply to the backlog. That is something the hon. member, I am sure, understands quite well. That is one of the reasons why this piece of legislation is deeply flawed.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know, and government members know, that there is nothing in the current legislation that limits the power of the minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer the act. She has that kind of power. There is all the power that the minister could possibly have, except that it is transparent.

Maybe we need to have a little definition about what we mean by immigrant. I was one. I came here in 1957 as a child. I was very much involved with immigrant communities in the city of Toronto as a volunteer. Let us see, these are people who apply to come to Canada as permanent residents. Once they are approved, they arrive here. They have a residency card. After three years they are eligible to apply for citizenship. Then they become full participants in our social, economic, cultural and political life, and the infrastructure of Canada. They become an inherent part of our nation and participate in the future building of our country.

That is pretty clear, I would think. Nonetheless, the government insists on saying, or as the minister just corrected a few minutes ago, that we have allowed in the country 429,649 new Canadians. In my view, in all of my 30 years of volunteerism in the community, new immigrants means new Canadians. They are still immigrants who come to settle here.

However, that figure is not really true because in 2007, only 236,689 were actually given landed status visas, and the previous year it was 262,000, so actually 36,000 less came.

The number is being inflated we know now by foreign students, foreign workers and all kinds of visitors visas, et cetera. Some of these people are coming here to assist with work and some are coming here to study. They are not immigrants, people who are fighting to come to this country. The government is purposely misleading Canadians, purposely fudging the numbers, intentionally to confuse and complicate the whole thing.

I am quite insulted by all of that. Having worked with immigrant communities for decades in the city of Toronto, I find this totally offensive and so will many people.

Let me tell the hon. members opposite how reform of immigration is actually done. When the former minister of immigration, the hon. Lucienne Robillard, decided that we needed to upgrade the Canada Immigration Act and the Refugee Act, she actually commissioned a study. Then the minister, the bureaucrats and other members of the House travelled across this country of ours and consulted with Canadians to determine what kind of Canada they wanted to see, the kinds of rules they thought were needed, and the kinds of changes that should be made to the Immigration Act.

Open and transparent legislation was placed in the House of Commons. It was debated at committee. The rules and regulations were gazetted for a period of, I believe, 90 days, so that again we could have feedback from Canadians as to whether those rules would have unintended consequences or cause problems. It was a transparent and open process administered by a minister who was open and worked with Canadians. That is how we change the situation.

The present government, unfortunately, is doing something altogether different. First, it has not tabled a proper bill in the House. It has tacked it after the fact to the budget bill, which is totally insulting to not only the House but Canadians of different backgrounds and all citizens in this country.

The government is trying to excuse itself by saying that we have 900,000 people backlogged in the system and that is why we have to do this.

First of all, the powers for the minister to decide at the last minute to change categories, changing which category comes in, more or less, whether it is the family class or not, the minister may decide to reduce these numbers and nobody would know.

To do all of these changes, none of those things will affect the backlog. She can cherry-pick a few people or change the categories, but it will not change the backlog. What would change that is if the government had followed through on $700 million of monies that had been allocated to address the problem of human resources at the immigration department.

I have said for many years that one of the problems of the immigration department was that it did not have enough human resources to deal with the applicants and deal with the work that it had.

But no, the government chose to cut that back and now it is trying to say it is dealing with a backlog to which it has been a partner in increasing for the last while and that is supposed to resolve the problem. The minister in private quarters, somewhere invisible, unobserved and unchecked by anyone, is going to change things and decide when, where and who gets to come to this country.

There is right now, for instance, a point system. If the minister really and truly decides that we need to have more skilled labour, that is fewer university graduates and more skilled labour because that is where the shortage is, she is free to change the point system.

She is free to publish that in the Canada Gazette openly and for people to comment. The minister has all the powers under the current legislation to act and adjust if she needs to. She does not have to totally eliminate that part and have the government give her the kinds of powers where she can do as she pleases behind closed doors.

I remember a time, which was before my time, but I do remember history, when southern Europeans were not allowed into this country. There were very few Italian Canadians or southern Europeans who came and only worked on the railway in the northern part of the country. They were not necessarily allowed to bring their spouses.

We know what happened to the members of the Chinese community with the Chinese head tax. We also know what happened to Italian Canadians during the last world war when they were put in military camps and declared enemies of the state. We know what happens when there is too much power and it is not transparent.

We live in a modern democracy. We are not a backward third world country and Canada's history is not unblemished. Obviously, in the past, with the kind of policy that existed, my family and I would never have been able to come here because we are from the Mediterranean part of Europe.

Therefore, these changes scare me. I find them offensive. I think they are extremely destructive and anti-democratic. I believe that the government needs to review its reasons for doing what it wants to do. The numbers are clear. I think it is time that the government stop purposely misinforming the public and the House with its numbers.

When the minister proudly stands up and says 429,000 new Canadians, they are not new Canadians. They are not here to stay. A student is here to study and will most likely leave unless in a year he or she applies. Some individuals with work permits come here on a temporary basis unless they apply.

Immigrants are people who have decided to make their life in this country on a permanent basis, to commit for the rest of their life to this country. That is a new Canadian and they are not visitors either.

This is highly unacceptable, highly insulting, and I would hope that the government members will review their conscience and get out of the gutter that they have been in with respect to their former Reform situation because that is where they were.

When I listened to some of the members from the Reform Party when I was in the House and the racial slurs that they used to throw across the floor at that time, it made me worry about the kinds of policies that they would bring forward.

I think today I have seen it. I have seen what they can do and this is exactly what it is: secrecy, behind closed doors policy, no transparency, no democracy.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member runs out of facts, she tries to fearmonger and throw out various innuendoes, but the fact of the matter is that the process is open. The member is allowed to speak in this House. All members are allowed to speak to the bill. It will go to committee. There will be an opportunity for witnesses to be called, for this issue to be directed, and it will be brought back to this House for further debate. It is an open process. The instructions will be published in the Canada Gazette. It will be in the annual report to Parliament. It will be charter compliant.

The member remarked that we should take some lessons from the past government in terms of how to reform the system, but the past government actually caused the backlog to balloon from 50,000 to 800,000 so it is not something I would say we should take into account.

The hon. member's party has voted against $1.3 billion in new settlement funding for newcomers to Canada. The Liberals voted against a foreign credential referral office to help newcomers. They voted against our cutting the $975 immigrant head tax.

I am asking the member, will she support this particular reform that will actually allow more people to come in faster and become landed Canadian immigrants, or will she oppose it? Will she follow her leader's orders or not?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member's contention that this is a transparent process is a joke. If the Conservatives wanted to have a debate on immigration in this country, which I think we ought to have, then this should never have been attached to the budget after the fact. This suggests to me that they have no intention of making it a real discussion.

Further, if they wanted it to be a transparent situation, they would not have put forward a bill that gives extensive powers to the minister. It is obvious those kinds of powers are not transparent. Quite frankly, the hon. member when he is talking about backlogs yet again, the powers the minister is being given have nothing whatever to do with eliminating the backlogs. They could do that in many other ways. I ask the hon. member to do the right thing.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns. I believe this bill is riddled with all sorts of poison pills. They go against the spirit of progressive legislation and progressive direction. They are contrary to what I think are solid Canadian values, values which most Canadians support, to have a fair and transparent system.

It is indicative of the government to play a bit of a shell game when it comes to policy, as the member mentioned, by tacking this on to the budget bill and the Minister of Finance becoming proprietary of it because of that.

I was heartened to hear one of her colleagues in his speech today say that he would be voting against the bill. We on this side of the House have been clear that we will stand together and vote against the bill, unless the whole thing can be changed, and I do not see that happening. However, we will fight the good fight on it.

At the end of the day I accept the member's analysis. I think the bill is the wrong way to go. I am wondering if she will join her colleague and vote against this bill.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make that decision when I see whether or not the government decides to separate the bill. This issue needs to be debated across this country. It needs to be separated from the budget bill because it has nothing to do with budget per se at this point.

If the government chooses at some point to show some respect for immigrants in our country and for all Canadians and for the development of public policy, this belongs at the immigration committee where the expertise lies for a proper debate on this issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am about to recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan on resuming debate, but I would like to advise the House that I have given her notice that on Bill C-50 we have now had five hours of debate, so from now on, speeches rather than being 20 minutes will be 10 minutes. She has the floor.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak in opposition to the budget implementation act, Bill C-50. New Democrats have been very clear that we feel the Conservative agenda fails working and middle class families, that this budget is taking Canada in the wrong direction and, in fact, will actually cause some grief for many Canadian working and middle class families.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in its alternative federal budget, clearly outlined some of the concerns. I want to quote briefly from its paper. It says that budgets are all about making choices. That is certainly true of this budget and previous budgets. It indicates:

The legacy of this minority government is one of neglect: the Conservative government has failed to address some of the most pressing issues of our time. Climate change is the most pressing planetary issue in terms of its potentially catastrophic environmental, human and economic consequences, yet the [Conservative] government's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been widely condemned as ineffectual.

It went on to say:

Canadians are working harder but are struggling to afford the basics: housing, child care, post-secondary education. There has been nothing in the previous two Conservative budgets to address these issues. Canadians have not been able to count on the government to get them through shaky financial times.

That is a very good summary of why New Democrats have been so strong in opposing implementation of the budget. I want to thank the member for Trinity—Spadina for introducing an amendment that would allow us to put a halt to this absolutely wrong-headed initiative.

My own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has been working very hard over the last several years to diversify its economy, but it is still heavily reliant on the forestry sector. Despite the $1 billion community development trust that was announced prior to the budget, this budget implementation bill and the economic statement before it, although it acknowledged the difficulties in both manufacturing and forestry, that $1 billion disadvantages B.C. in that it does not recognize the percentage of GDP that is reliant on forestry. The New Democrats have consistently called for a national forestry and manufacturing strategy. We do not see the kind of movement to make sure that those important sectors have the kind of support that is needed to keep them healthy.

On one hand, people talk about corporate tax cuts, but if a company is going into receivership, corporate tax cuts do not mean a darn thing. In my riding, just in the last two weeks, another company that makes products for the forestry sector has gone into receivership. That follows on two other forestry companies over the last couple of months that have closed their doors. This represents hundreds and hundreds of jobs in my riding. Yet the government is indifferent to the plight of working families in my riding and other ridings across this country.

I want to talk about housing for a moment. The budget failed dismally on the housing front. In a recent meeting of provincial housing ministers, the government once again failed to talk about a national housing strategy. In fact, the minister who attended for a brief period of time would not commit to extend some of those very important funding programs, and I will address that in one moment.

I want to mention a couple of numbers relative to my riding, from CMHC's statistics. This is a credible organization. It talks about trends. In Nanaimo apartment rents are rising and the vacancy rate is dropping. Many people on fixed and low incomes rely on rental accommodation for their living space. As rents rise, as vacancy rates drop and as no new units are being built, people are being squeezed out of their homes. For people who have lived in the same place all of their lives, it is unfair to tell them that they have to move now because they simply cannot afford or cannot find accommodation.

In the south end of the riding, in Cowichan, there was a study done on inadequate shelter in the Cowichan Valley from the fall of 2006. It reported:

No new rental units have been built in the Cowichan region during the last twenty years, therefore,the supply is scarce. Vacancy rates in private rental buildings in the City of Duncan and in North Cowichan have declined in recent years from 8.4% in October 2002 to 1.6% in October 2005.

In 2001 more than 6% of households in the CVRD, the Cowichan Valley Regional District, had incomes of less than $10,000 and an additional 14% had incomes of between $10,000 and $19,000.

Those kinds of numbers show that a significant proportion of households in my riding are paying far more than 30% of their income for housing. Housing is one of the social determinants of health. When people cannot access affordable accommodation, it impacts on every other aspect of their lives. In a country as rich as ours, we should not be asking people to pay more than 30% of their income for their housing. They should have access to safe, affordable, clean housing.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been highly critical of the government. It talked about the fact that there needs to be a national housing strategy. In its plan, Recommendations for a National Action Plan on Housing and Homelessness, it says:

Housing is a basic and fundamental issue affecting individuals and communities and an important determinant of health and well-being.

The federation went on to talk about the fact that it is not only a social issue, that it is an economic issue. If workers are not well housed, it is very difficult for them to go to work each and every day and be productive. In fact, people who are forced out on the street often lose their employment because they have no place to shower, no place to get adequate sleep, no place to store their work clothes.

Housing is a fundamental human right. We should not be having this conversation in this day and age in Canada.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has laid out a very concrete action plan. It has a five year target and specific things around ending chronic homelessness, expanding the stock of affordable non-market housing, reducing the backlog in core housing needs, preserving and modifying Canada's existing social housing stock, and extending and revising the residential rehabilitation assistance program to improve conditions in existing private stock and to rehabilitate 10,000 homes annually. That is some of the funding we are going to see disappear over the next couple of years. That funding has been absolutely critical for the economic and social health and well-being of our communities.

I want to briefly talk about transit. In my riding we have what we think is a jewel in a rail corridor with some functioning rolling stock. Although there was money announced in the budget around transit, there was no money targeted for Vancouver Island. Vancouver Island is growing by leaps and bounds.

The organization Our Corridor talks about the importance of investing in rail in our community. It can lead to sustainable economic development, reduce greenhouse gases, and support the efforts in terms of greening our transit systems. What it needs is some very specific federal attention.

This is an opportunity for the federal, provincial and municipal governments to come together in a very strong partnership to invest in rail on Vancouver Island. This initiative has been driven by municipalities and a number of businesses and first nations on Vancouver Island. I would urge the government to look at this very important investment.

In the time remaining I want to speak about first nations education. Consistently the Conservative government has talked about education as being a way out of poverty, yet the Conservative government has consistently underfunded education for aboriginal people. To put this in context, article 13 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.

States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected--

Article 14 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages--

These set a context that although Canada did not support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, countries all over the world have supported this declaration. Canada must agree that education is not only an economic driver and an important way of culture, but it is also a fundamental right in terms of ensuring that first nations and Inuit people across this country have access to education.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague across the floor with respect to housing and affordability.

One of the issues in my riding, which is equally very needy, is an issue that I come up against day after day. It is the issue of foreign credentials and having those foreign credentials brought into the mainstream of acceptance within Canada's workforce.

It appears that the government is attempting to expand the list of people who could come to this country and deal with the waiting list. The government said that it would establish an agency that would deal with the issue of foreign credentials. However, we have 300 referral offices across the country and we still have no resolution to this issue, much to the frustration of thousands of immigrants who are here and cannot practice their trade or profession.

I wonder if the member would address that as I think it is a concern and it is not being dealt with in the bill that has been presented.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the years, New Democrats have taken a strong role in talking about foreign credentials and recognizing the skills that new Canadians bring to this country.

Many times, we actively recruit people from overseas who have particular skills but then we do not allow them to work in their particular profession, which is a huge loss of human potential. Far too many people, whether they are engineers, physicians, nurses, physiotherapists or computer technicians, are not working in their professions because we have failed to recognize their credentials.

We need to work with our provincial partners to ensure that people who come to this country can work and contribute to the Canadian economy.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member concerning affordable housing and homelessness.

Is she aware of the $270 million investment in our homelessness partnering strategy to help those in vulnerable communities that have more poverty?

I also want to know if she is familiar with the housing trust, which is a $1.4 billion investment?

This government, working with the provinces, has invested over $1 billion in affordable housing. The member's province will benefit from all these programs.

To suggest that we are not meeting our commitments on affordable housing is misrepresenting our government. We have done exactly that. Annual funding for affordable housing and homelessness has never been higher than it is now.

The member might check her facts to get a better understanding of how much this government has done for those who are homeless and those who are looking for affordable housing.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, the NDP worked hard through Bill C-48 to ensure that there was money for housing.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said:

The main impediment to expanding these efforts is the scheduled expiry of all federal social housing funding programs in March 2009. This will mean the termination of $2 billion in funding available in the 2007–09 period. At the same time, ongoing federal subsidies for existing social housing are already expiring, and in the next 10 years, annual spending on assisted housing will decline by an additional $500 million.

The Conservatives are failing to implement a national action plan on housing and homelessness. They are playing a shell game with the money. They are using money that was often already allocated. They are not demonstrating leadership on this very serious issue.

We have been sanctioned by the United Nations special rapporteur on the housing crisis in Canada. This government's failure to act means more people will end up on the street or in inadequate housing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to the budget but I did follow the debate and some of the issues fairly closely and I would like to make a couple of comments with regard to the housing issue that was just debated among members here.

Most of the homeless data and research is done in urban centres. A research study, which was actually funded in large part by the Government of Canada, was done on homelessness in Toronto. As the member has raised this issue, I tried to reflect on some of the numbers, which I think would exemplify why it is important for us to get the facts and to know them, rather than present issues as very simplistic and having simple solutions.

In the Toronto situation, and I think it was from the Anne Golden report, 35% of the homeless were people who suffered from mental illness. If we provide some sort of accommodation, whether it be a rent supplement or rent geared to income, they will not take it. A lot of this happened because we are not providing the mental health facilities for a very serious problem in Canada, and that is mental illness.

Twenty-eight per cent of the homeless in Toronto were youth on the street who had been alienated from their families. It was found that 75% of those youth who were on the streets of Toronto had suffered from physical or mental abuse in their homes. This does not have a lot to do with economics. It has to do with a serious social problem, and that is family issues and dealing with our youth. In fact, when 75% of these youth on the streets are suffering from physical or mental abuse, the problem is much more than providing a little box somewhere for them to live. We need to deal with the problem at the beginning.

Of the homeless in Toronto, and I am sure in Winnipeg, Manitoba it would be about the same, 12% were aboriginals off reserve. It is kind of interesting. A very significant number of aboriginals who are living off reserve are a significant number of the homeless in our country. This is a shame. I must admit that when the Kelowna accord was brought forward I thought there was hope for aboriginals, with the leadership as a starting role, to bring the dignity and assistance that was needed in our aboriginal communities, but the Conservative government decided that Kelowna just was not of interest to it.

Ten per cent of the homeless represent abused women on the street. We can only imagine that there are a lot of circumstances where women, who have been the provider for their families in terms of caring for the family homes and the children, do not have the economic independence maybe that their spouse has after a divorce or after a break-up because of abuse.

Therefore, what happens to women? Some in the shelters do their job but there is the mental duress of having a breakdown and of being an abused person. I know, having spent five years on the board of my own shelter for battered women, that there is a great deal of mental stress and duress with regard to that. We have people on the streets and just saying that we will give them a spot to live in a subsidized social housing unit or something like that will not solve the problem.

Finally, about 10% of the homeless were actually on the street for economic reasons.

Putting it all in context, it would appear that the solution to homelessness in Canada, particularly as it relates to urban centres, is not to provide subsidized homes to people. We need to deal with the root causes. When we approach problems, we need to demonstrate first that we understand the problem and then, second, apply solutions that deal effectively with the root causes of the problem.

If we take that as an approach to legislation and to budget making, if we look carefully at this budget, we will find that it has not identified a problem. It has not defined a problem. It has not identified a priority or an objective.

This budget has presented Canadians with a litany of gimmicks. It is trying to look attractive to a bunch of different disparate groups. It is called trying to appeal to voters that one wants to get for the next election.

Governing is not just about spending taxpayers' money to get votes, or buying their vote with their money which is what it really is all about. Why I can say that is because when the Liberals took over government in 1993 it inherited from the Conservative government a $42 billion deficit in that fiscal year. That was $42 billion more spent than what was brought in.

We could not just cut some expenses somewhere and get rid of $42 billion of overspending. It took some time. It took three years. It was not until 1997 that the Government of Canada finally boasted of a balanced budget. It was a lot of pain for everyone in the country. Cuts were made to things as fundamental as health care, social services and the operations of the Government of Canada itself took the biggest hit of all.

The good news was that after about three years the fiscal position of Canada was at least back in a balanced position. Then, with strategic initiatives, with investment in infrastructure, which we started in 1993 with the investment in science and technology and research and development, we invested in our future, and very slowly surpluses started to be developed.

Members will know that we paid down over $100 billion worth of debt. When we started, 42¢ or 43¢ of every $1 that was being paid by Canadian taxpayers to the Government of Canada to manage had to go to pay down the interest on the debt that we were carrying.

It was nothing like that any more. All of a sudden, as the fiscal health became stronger, more surpluses were being developed. It was not a matter of just paying down the debt. As we earned it, as Canadians earned it, as our economy started to grow, as we started to get more efficiency in the operations of the government, more and more dollars were there to put back into health care and into other issues that were the priorities of Canadians.

We had 10 years of balanced budgets. When the government across the way took over in January after the election, the House of Commons started the first session of the current Parliament in April. The year end of the Government of Canada is March 31. Therefore, before the government even did a thing, we reported for that last year a $10 billion surplus, which the Conservatives like to take credit for.

I do not care who takes credit for it but the fact is the Conservative government inherited a very healthy fiscal position. We had cut taxes and we invested in the economy. We invested in people and in our health care and in the services they needed. We believe that governments have a role to play in the lives of people, particularly those who are not in a position to help themselves.

Therefore, it was really important to get the fiscal house in order. It led to the appropriate investments. We took the opportunity to get our fiscal house in order and Canadians have been the beneficiaries.

Where are we now? The government is forecasting no more big $10 billion surpluses that can be invested or used to pay down debt. What is it talking about now? One SARS or one unforeseen circumstance will put this country back in deficit.

The bottom line is that the budget that the Conservatives have presented to Canadians has no vision and has no purpose other than trying to buy votes with Canadians' own money. It is bringing us back down to the old days of being back in deficit financing. That is what Canadians have to look forward to with another year of Conservative governing.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, we should review and analyze. After 10 years of doing work in homeless situations and visiting shelters from coast to coast and throughout the United States, the most commonly accepted numbers of homeless people who are in the shelters and the conditions and reasons for being there are: approximately 25% because of addictions; 25% because of severe mental illness; and fully 50% because there is not affordable housing for them.

The member refers to the Anne Golden report for the city of Toronto. That report was done over 10 years ago. It identified the simple fact that singles housing had been torn down, removed and never replaced. It was identified, and the fact remains today. Singles housing is the largest need of those who are in the shelters. With affordable singles housing, the number of homeless could be drastically reduced.

The point being that over 13 years, the Liberal legacy is that the number of homeless people in the shelters is at a record all time high. Would the member explain why, after 13 years of Liberal management on the homeless file, the number of homeless is higher than it ever has been in the history of Canada?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the homeless are not in shelters. As the member knows, they have shelters for abused women. If he wants to provide statistics on abused women, that is fine, but I was not talking about that.

Therefore, I will not talk any further about the issue with the member other than to say there are root causes of homelessness, which involve all levels of government. The federal government also has a role to play.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of what my talked about was the priorities of the government in the budget. Our party happens to believe its priorities are wrong and are taking the country in the wrong direction. Working families are not going to be helped by this, particularly those who are being squeezed from what we have called the prosperity gap.

However, I want to get to where the Liberal Party is at. We had a debate in the House about corporate tax cuts. It seems to me that the Liberal line for today is that corporate tax cuts are good things because eventually the benefits will trickle down and there will be more jobs created and there will be a green and pleasant land.

What I am trying to understand from the Liberal Party, and maybe he can help me, is we changed the budget in 2005 to provide $4.5 billion in investments for infrastructure in cities, for housing and for key investments. We had to get the Liberals to change the budget because they wanted to give out corporate tax cuts. They seem to now believe that is the wrong direction, that corporate tax cuts are the way to go, and they support the government on that. We had the debate in the House on this.

I am confused because by the same token they take offence to the Conservative government pointing the finger at the Government of Ontario for not cutting corporate taxes further. I am trying to understand this. Do they believe in sweeping corporate tax cuts or key investments in our infrastructure?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no one who would have a responsibility to govern a country would say, “Do you want this or that?” The recipe for governing is to balance the needs of the nation based on the priorities and be dynamic enough to move forward.

Last October the leader of the official opposition gave a speech in which he said that tax cuts were important. Let us at the content of the speech. He was talking about providing R and D incentives to companies so they could invest in green technologies, just like Dupont, the company he and I visited that very week before. We found that by changing to greener technologies in the processes of its business, it was saving $300 million a year on fuel alone.

Again, as I said in my speech, we do not look at things in a linear basis. Everything we talk about has much more information. Let us inform ourselves and make right decisions.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to join the debate on Bill C-50. First, I would like to state the position of the Bloc Québécois on this budget, which does not meet the conditions the Bloc set for giving its approval. You may have heard our position several times, but I want to state it for the people who are listening to us and watching us on television and who may not have heard it.

It is our position that the budget does not provide any direct, immediate assistance for the manufacturing and forestry industries, which are in crisis. It does nothing to help the workers and communities hit by the crisis. It contains no measures to reimburse seniors who have been shortchanged by the guaranteed income supplement program. It continues to take a polluter-paid approach rather than a polluter-pay approach, and it refuses to make a 180-degree turn on the environment.

Clearly, the budget makes no major investment in culture and does not undo the many ideological cuts made by the government in programs such as the court challenges program and the women's program. It also appears—the budget is clear on this—that the Minister of Finance is going ahead with his crusade to create a single securities commission for Canada. This plan has been criticized not only by the Bloc Québécois, but by the entire National Assembly and Quebec's finance minister, Monique Jérôme-Forget, who did not shy away from reacting publicly to the budget in the national media. And I am sure that she has made her views known to the Minster of Finance and the Premier of Quebec.

This bill covers a number of issues. As I have just 10 minutes, I would like to focus on areas I take a special interest in, such as natural resources. As a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I paid special attention to this part of the bill.

The budget allocates $10 million over two years to help the forestry sector break into the international market as a model of innovation. The timing is good, because the committee has just completed a study of the sector. Many witnesses told us that $10 million is a nice gesture, but that it is not enough, given the crisis, and that more money is needed. We agree with the many witnesses who took the time to meet with parliamentarians during our hearings on the forestry crisis.

I am still wondering about this. We did not have a chance to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources because his agenda was too full to appear before the committee members and explain things to us. Apparently, however, he will soon come and tell us about the $300 million in the budget for nuclear energy, most of it earmarked for the new CANDU reactor and for safety upgrades at the Chalk River lab in Ontario.

Naturally, we would not oppose making a facility safer. You all know about what happened recently at the Chalk River lab. The reactor was shut down last winter for safety reasons. Unfortunately, that resulted in the president, Ms. Keen, being dismissed. The Bloc Québécois still believes that the minister engaged in political interference by removing her from her position on the eve of her appearance as president of the facility before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for a specific study.

As the natural resources critic for the Bloc Québécois, I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say and asking him questions. For now, we have no way of knowing how that $300 million is going to be distributed, how much taxpayers will be asked to pay for the development of the advanced CANDU reactor, or how much of the $300 million will be used to make the Chalk River site safer.

It is rather worrisome. They have started to think—and the Minister of Natural Resources comes right out and says so—that nuclear energy is an energy of the future, a clean energy. But my political party and I do not believe it is a clean energy. Although with this energy there are no greenhouse gas emissions, there is still work to be done before it can be considered clean, since it generates waste, and we are still unsure of the long-term effects of this waste, or how it will be managed.

It is natural that debates are being held in the provinces, since energy falls under provincial jurisdiction. The fact remains that the current Conservative government is promoting nuclear energy in Canada and all over the world. The Bloc Québécois and I do not think this is a good sign. We see that nuclear energy would perhaps cut down on greenhouse gases in the short term, but it also brings about major problems related to the management of nuclear waste, the safety of citizens who live near nuclear facilities, and the possibility that terrorists could use the waste to create weapons.

Now, I will talk about the environment. In the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we did a study on the oil sands and we came to understand the significance and size of such operations in Canada in terms of the future and the potential of these operations.

Obviously the oil companies, the explorers and the beneficiaries are investing a lot, but in exchange, they make huge profits. One thing is certain, people in my riding have written to me to ask why oil companies, which make huge profits by operating in areas such as the oil sands—the royalties, after all, go to the Province of Alberta—and which have received so much assistance from the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada, are receiving more assistance in order to generate less pollution.

I would point out that $240 million was allocated in the budget for carbon capture and sequestration pilot projects. I truly believe that oil companies and other producers of fossil fuels have the means to invest in green technologies. In fact, I believe that it is their responsibility to do so. It is not up to taxpayers to once again dig into their pockets. The budget already forces them to do that. The money in the budget is not government money but taxpayers' money. More taxpayer's money is being put on the table to help this industry develop green technologies. I believe this is a corporate responsibility they can afford.

In addition, in the last budget, there was a gradual withdrawal of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands operations. We would have preferred that this measure be eliminated altogether, but it was nevertheless a step in the right direction. In this budget, the allowance has been reinstated for carbon dioxide pipeline developers. That means more money in support of polluters, who make large profits, so they can continue their exploration.

This responsibility should be shouldered by producers.

In closing, I will say that the budget allocates $12 million to national parks. There is a federal wildlife reserve in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry which could use a great deal of money for its operations and to improve programming so as to become more accessible to the public and provide an appreciation of nature.

Unfortunately, programming for reserves was neglected. We would have liked to have seen a bit more financial support in the budget for federal wildlife reserves.

This bill ignores many groups and issues including seniors, older workers, the homeless, social housing and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but she has already mentioned that I gave her notice.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to mention that in 2006 the oil and gas sector paid over $5.5 billion in corporate taxes. Therefore, she should not tell the House that it has taken more from the government than it has given. It has given a great deal through corporate taxation.

The member brought up seniors issues. She also brought up the tax dollars that we are to guard. Retroactivity is something we have looked at carefully and it cannot be done for seniors. However, we have done more for seniors than any other government in history. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement by 7% and we have increased the earned exemption. These are things that were asked for by the House and delivered.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just a quick reminder: the last tax cuts that the government gave will benefit oil companies and will prevent the government from redistributing several million dollars to various programs like social housing and homelessness. For instance, there is no amount actually set aside in the bill to address homelessness.

I am not sure if you are aware, but the HPI program will be ending soon, in March 2009. There is no money set aside, no vision in this budget that would indicate that the Conservative government is concerned about homelessness and that it has a vision for the future and a plan to help the homeless.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-50, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will have 3 minutes left for questions and comments.

The House resumed from April 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night I flew into Canada from the United States. On the runway approach into Toronto, we fly over literally hundreds, possibly even thousands, of manufacturing establishments. As the jet descended onto the runway, we cane closer and closer to a huge basis for Canada's economic well-being.

When I flew over these buildings on our approach to landing, my mind was cast back to a conversation I had with a friend on the weekend. My friend is an owner and president of a fairly significant manufacturing entity. It is a family business that he inherited from his father. It employs quite a number of people in the Mississauga area and it ships internationally. His primary business is in the domestic market, but it is also international. He uses wood products as the basis for his manufactured product.

The conversation was to the effect that he did not know how he would survive. He would have to make a fairly significant decision, in a very short period of time, as to whether he would de-camp from Mississauga, Ontario and from Canada and move his operation offshore. At this point, it is the only alternative he can see. This would result in an obvious loss of quite a number of jobs in the Mississauga area, which would have the ripple effect into the other areas of Canada from where he gets his base resources to build his product.

It was not a very happy conversation. It was a difficult one, one which he had done a lot of thinking. In some respects it was reflective of the difficulties that many people in Canada currently have and speaks to why Bill C-50 is such an inadequate document.

The previous speaker talked about “Advantage Canada”, and the Conservatives beat that drum every time. I raised with my friend some significant tax relief contained in previous budgets and he somewhat scoffed at it. He was not terribly interested in tax relief because he had no income on which to be taxed. We went through other initiatives that had been put forward by the government and said that there was really nothing there for him.

It is somewhat confirmed by the government's materials in the budget document. I would direct attention to chart 2.2 on page 31 of the budget plan 2008. It shows very clearly a significant decline in employment, both on a regional basis and on a national basis, with respect to those who are employed in the area of manufacturing.

Probably hardest hit in manufacturing is Quebec, although Ontario is neck in neck with Quebec. Although it may not be in the future, manufacturing is such a significant component of the economies of both of those provinces. It gives, in graphic terms, a classic illustration of the conversation with my friend over the weekend about the decision he has to make to lay off quite a number of people, close his business in Canada and move it offshore, with obvious losses all the way around.

This shows the indifference of the Conservative government to these difficulties. It also shows the indifference of the government and its lack of a plan to address these difficulties. We can see this directly in its budget documentation in Bill C-50.

This is a very difficult issue. We layer this on to the reality of manufacturing loses and the personal conversations and apparent hostility of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to the aspirations and desires of the people in the province of Ontario, suggesting to them, and indeed to the world, that Ontario would be the last place in which one should invest. I do not think that particular comment by the finance minister was appreciated by my friend. It has reduced his alternatives to try to keep his manufacturing facility in Mississauga. He could bring in a partner who would help him survive this period of economic turmoil in this country.

When the finance minister says that Ontario is the absolute last place in the world that one should invest in, we have to wonder what he is thinking about.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

That's nonsense.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

He seems a bit upset with me, but I cannot really help that. I think he would, upon reflection, wish to take those remarks back and possibly have a bit more sympathy and interest in the plight of the people of Ontario and Quebec.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

What did they say about Stéphane in Windsor? Is he as popular in Windsor as he is in Ottawa?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I hear one more member of the attack pack from the Conservative Party chirping away. He is more worried about his own political skin than the people of Ontario, who he purports to represent.

I appreciate that the hon. member gets most of his briefing notes from Frank magazine, but it would be a bit more useful if he actually read his government's budgetary documents. I know he has no interest in the environment, but at least he could appreciate the fact that the budget is a rather important document and it will impact the people of Ontario.

I also direct the hon. member's attention to table 1.2 in which, after having inherited a $14 billion surplus, his government has basically shrunk it to a rounding error in this fiscal year to $2.3 billion and to $1.3 billion in the next year. I do not know whether hon. members opposite pay any attention to the “Fiscal Monitor”, but my guess is no. The member will notice that in the past issue it was very concerned the government was spending its way into a deficit.

It would be one thing to reduce the government's revenues and have some fiscal discipline about its expenditures, but in the period of time in which that lamentable government has been in office, it has increased its expenditures from $188 billion in 2009-10 to $218 billion, which is about a $30 billion increase or something in the order of about 15% as a rough calculation. This expenditure increase over a period of four years would exceed the increase in GDP. No household or individual can expect to spend that way and continue on to financial solvency.

First, Bill C-50 makes no provision for people like my friend, who is has deep serious concern with respect to the survival of his entity. Second, the government has almost spent its way into oblivion, and we are staring down the barrel of a deficit.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech.

I come from Windsor, Ontario, where we have suffered incredibly with manufacturing job losses. Not just this year but for the last four to five years we have seen a significant downturn. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in my community while government policy has been very much absent. People basically have to make decisions about whether to keep their homes or whether to send their kids to college or university. We have witnessed a downturn that is so significant it has undermined the fiscal capacity even of this country. We used to have economic earners that would contribute quite a bit to the tax coffers of this country.

We have not seen any government policy. We have been fighting this nonsense for a number of years, with the current Conservative regime and with the previous Liberal one, where they thought that if they just gave general corporate tax cuts without a strategy, we would see economic development and growth. That is not the case for the automotive industry. It is not the case for the tool and die and mould-making industry. The best on the planet, in Windsor, is actually going under because of the fiscal problems and the borrowing practices.

They are being undermined by the unfair competition of trade barriers, be it particular ones or non-tariff trade barriers that are implemented. They cost Canadians jobs, and they are the best in the world.

I listened to my colleague. He understands that have a corporate tax cut when companies do not make a profit does not help them rebound. The same holds true with research and development, if they do not have access to the grants that are available through the SR and D program. Because they did not make a profit, it does not lead to the changes that are necessary, or it does not provide the capital that they need to advance into alternative types of competitive industries, transforming, for example, from the auto sector to some other sector. They do not have that availability even to compete.

My question for my friend is simple. He sat on the plane thinking about this. Why does he not support his friend and vote against this budget bill so we do not undermine the fiscal capacity of this country and instead put in programs that actually work for him and his friend?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has the luxury of being able to oppose everything at all times, at any place. It has no aspirations to actually form government. It is a great place to be.

On the other hand, he does make a rather valid point with respect to tax relief. Tax relief which is misdirected is basically wasted fiscal capacity. The government has in fact run us up to the precipice of a deficit and we may well enter into a deficit.

He is right with respect to manufacturing and well paying jobs. That is the basis of our economy and has been the basis of our economy for many years. We would layer on to that, particularly in Windsor, the thickening of the border. The Americans can seem to be so excessively concerned with terrorism that they actually wish to cut their own economic throats. In so doing, they are doing us no favours and making it very difficult for our people to compete as well.

He may also recollect that our leader put forward a very concrete and specific policy with respect to R and D and training, and the allocation of funds with respect to the difficulties that manufacturers are facing. He may also recall that when we were in government, not only did we run fiscal surpluses, not only did we do tax relief, but we also invested heavily in R and D, so that in fact we reversed the brain drain and became a brain gain.

Under this particular government, anybody with any sense, as the finance minister has said, is just going to leave the country in the first place or they are never going to invest here. Welcome to Conservative freakonomics.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise to anyone if I state that the Bloc Québécois cannot support this budget, much less its implementation. And why can we not support it? There are a number of reasons, and I will do my best to explain them in less than 10 minutes.

The Bloc Québécois' idea of a fair and balanced society is not the same as that of the Conservative Party. As a first example: the government had ample means to help many people in society, but they decided they would only help their friends in the oil business, banks and arms companies. There was a surplus of $10 billion, and the Conservatives decided to put that amount against the debt instead of helping those who need it right now. They gave some crumbs, but they decided to take $10 billion and pay down the debt at a time when people needed them.

When people in society are in dire straits, a government should be there to try to help them. Unfortunately, the Conservative ideology has always been one of laissez-faire. Leave the economy to its own devices, and you have the law of the jungle.

Here is another example. The government says that it has given companies tax breaks; people need to understand that these tax breaks are for companies that are turning a profit.

Where are companies turning a profit at present? In the three main sectors I named earlier: oil, banking and defence. People in these industries are making a huge amount of money, and they are the ones who are benefiting from these tax breaks. The manufacturing and forestry industries are not benefiting from these breaks, because companies in these sectors are closing.

Not only are companies closing, but workers are not receiving any assistance. It is a disaster. As for helping the manufacturing and forestry industries, the federal government is going to give $1 billion for the entire country. It has even gone so far as to say that it will distribute this money on a per capita basis. Did Alberta need this money? Did British Columbia? Perhaps to some degree, but Alberta certainly did not. The provinces that needed the money the most—Quebec, Ontario maybe and British Columbia—are suffering because of the way in which the $1 billion is being distributed.

What is $1 billion in a budget like the one the Minister of Finance has brought down? The Government of Quebec has allocated $2 billion to try to help people affected by closures in the manufacturing and forestry industries. What the federal government is offering is peanuts. And as I just said, it is not distributing this money properly. Clearly, we cannot support these policies.

What is there for forestry and manufacturing workers who are losing their jobs? For ages we have been calling for improvements to the employment insurance system, and for ages the government has given us absolutely nothing. The government has done nothing, and the surplus in the EI fund has grown steadily larger, year after year.

This year, the government has had a brainwave. Yet we have been asking for this for a long time. The government should not be involved in employment insurance; there should be an independent commission and an independent fund. The government said that we were right and that it was going to create an independent fund.

But what is happening to the $50 billion surplus that has built up in that fund over the past 10 or 12 years? The government is not saying anything about it, even though it is money that belongs to workers and employers, who could use it right about now.

What happens to workers in the manufacturing and forestry sectors who lose their jobs and are 55 or older? Just try to find a job in the Gaspé when you are 55 and the big employer in your village is a sawmill that has closed. There are very few jobs.

However, the government had the means to help these workers by implementing the POWA, a program for older worker adjustment but refused to do so. Only a small amount of money was required: $60 million would have done it. Once again, the government ignored the problem and turned its attention to other matters. It is more interested in looking after the big banks and oil and defence companies.

Speaking of defence companies, what about the fact that it is much more interested in the American defence companies?

It buys expensive tactical and strategic lift aircraft with taxpayers' money and there are virtually no spinoffs for Canada or for Quebec, where 55% of the aerospace industry is located. This is a flagrant injustice.

With regard to seniors, we all heard the current Prime Minister say, when he was the leader of the opposition, that he would retroactively reimburse individuals to whom guaranteed income supplement payments are owed. As soon as he crossed the floor and became Prime Minister, he reneged on his promise. These individuals are among the lowest paid and receive the smallest income from our society and yet no one wants to help them.

We were able to identify and inform individuals who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. Grandparents phoned me to tell me that they would finally be able to buy a present for their grandchildren because they did not have the money to do so before. A good number of individuals did not realize for many years that money was being withheld from them. Now that we could help them, tell them that a mistake was made and that they would be paid retroactively, the government—now that it is in power— has forgotten the promise it made when in opposition. We find that completely unacceptable.

We have seen how the Conservative government seems intent on going after women. I have lost track of how many Status of Women Canada offices it has closed. But in this day and age, women are still not at the same income level as men, even if they have the same level of education. There is work to be done. We need to advance the cause of women. If we can do this, then society advances. But once again, the government is turning a deaf ear.

It is frustrating to see this government's attitude towards the environment. It has the means to do something; it could decide to put a surtax on the oil companies that make huge profits. Our planet is crying out for help. The best legacy we could leave our children and grand-children is a clean planet, green or blue, but not brown. The oil companies are squandering our environment.

I remember a time when things were going well for our planet. When we see what is happening these days, it is very worrisome. This government has the means to do environmental research and development, but it does nothing. On the contrary, it is trying to convince people that everyone must share the cost of paying for those who have done the most environmental damage. Yet Quebec is probably one of the cleanest provinces, thanks to its hydroelectricity. Since the petroleum industry was once given a $77 billion subsidy to help get it off the ground, while nothing was given to Hydro-Québec, why must we now pay a quarter of today's pollution costs?

There are a number of reasons why we cannot support this budget. We do not agree with the Conservative government's definition of a fair and just society. I gave some examples. I could have given many more, but I have only 10 minutes, since we have unfortunately reached the stage when we have 10 minute speeches. However, I could go on about this at length. There are many other things that we do not like about this budget.

It is really too bad that the government has ignored the appeals from the planet, manufacturing and forestry companies, workers and women's groups. We find this completely unacceptable, which is why the Bloc Québécois will gladly vote against this budget. It is not our definition of a fair and just society.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech, which describes what is happening in the manufacturing sector in my riding.

In my riding, it is primarily the furniture sector that is experiencing serious problems, because of competition from Asia and the strong Canadian dollar. This industry requires more support in order to remain competitive, to survive and to help ensure the survival of rural communities. Small manufacturing firms and agriculture will enable our rural areas to revitalize and survive.

However, this Conservative government does not seem to want to help these industries or agriculture, nor to help these communities, which are presently grappling with depopulation, the exodus of youth and other problems.

I would like my colleague to explain why the Conservative government is incapable of doing anything even though it inherited a Liberal surplus, which has continued to grow over the past few years. Why are the Conservatives not taking action to help our communities? These communities are in difficulty and the life is draining from them. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him: communities are in serious trouble. A few years ago, an article entitled “Quebec cut in half” was published in Quebec. The article was about how young people were leaving small towns for large urban centres and how the population in towns and villages was declining. When a small town has only one sawmill that employs most of the people in the town and that company closes, there is a very real risk that the town will also close. This is a tragedy.

My colleague is right: the government had the means to help these people, but the Conservative ideology dictates that this money be used to pay down the debt. That is why we are criticizing the government. It could have done both. My finance colleague also knows this, because we suggested helping these people over two fiscal years.

In addition, even after these two fiscal years, the government could have paid down the debt. But when a government is totally closed-minded and expects people to look after themselves and towns to close, when it does not support the manufacturing and forestry industries but uses $10 billion to pay down the debt, then it is not doing its duty. This government is not doing its duty. People in our towns and cities needed support, but the Conservative government abandoned them.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the topic of this bill. I would like to divide my time approximately equally between the budgetary side of this budget implementation bill and the immigration side.

It is very simple really to deal with the budget itself because it really did not do anything. The budget was an analogy, so it would hardly be worth bringing the government down and causing all the expense associated with a general election for a budget which did next to nothing.

The best illustration of that point is the so-called centrepiece of the government's budget, a savings plan, which, when compared with my colleague's alternative savings plan, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, his plan looked bold and imaginative and of great benefit to Canadians. The government's so-called centrepiece would make very little difference to the vast majority of Canadians.

One does not need to spend too much time talking about the budget itself. The more interesting economic questions come when we combine the economic statement of October with the budget because there we see the fiscal irresponsibility of the government.

As we all know, the government, when it came to power two years ago, inherited surpluses without precedent in the history of our country for any incoming government. Then it proceeded to spend so fast when economic times were good, earning the Minister of Finance the title of Canada's biggest spending finance minister from none other than Andrew Coyne.

It took $12 billion a year out of the fiscal framework through cuts in GST. Having inherited billions and billions of dollars in surpluses, two years later, when times are becoming difficult and more uncertain, the government is virtually without money and it is a SARS crisis or an Asian crisis away from returning to deficit.

For our government to spend crazily when economic times were good, leaving nothing in reserve when economic times become less good and more uncertain, is definitely not what one would call sound economic management.

The other point I would make about the budget is the question of corporate tax cuts versus investments in training, infrastructure and things of that nature. We alone in the Liberal Party understand that good government requires both the creation of wealth and the redistribution of wealth or social programs.

The Conservative government perhaps understands the creation of wealth but has no concept of social justice. The NDP is the other way around, never having been government, occupying what can be called the neanderthal stream of the global social democratic movement, it has no idea of wealth creation and no concern for wealth creation, so it necessarily lives in the class conflict context of the 1960s or even the 1930s, and regards any cut in corporate income tax as evil. Whereas, the Conservatives see cuts in corporate income tax as the panacea.

We, on the other hand, have a balanced position. We see corporate tax cuts as a necessary condition for Canada's competitiveness and prosperity, but not as a sufficient condition. I might refer back to the NDP and the finance critic for the NDP. The deputy leader of the NDP the other day was talking about the NDP opposition day motion and went out guns blazing with a press release saying we Liberals did not know our numbers because unknown to us, corporate tax rates in Scandinavia and U.K. were actually higher than in Canada and we had been saying the opposite.

This just shows the economic incompetence of NDP members because what did they do? They compared the national corporate tax rate for Sweden, Norway, Denmark and England with the federal only corporate tax rate for Canada. They ignored provinces. Once the provinces are included and we look at Canada's national corporate tax rate versus those of Scandinavia and United Kingdom, we find the truth, as we said and as the IMF says, that indeed Canada's overall corporate tax rates are significantly higher than those in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. In fact, one of the very highest corporate tax rates in the western world is in George Bush's United States.

The point is not that this is a left-right fight. Because otherwise, why would we find the highest corporate tax rate under George Bush and the lowest under the social democratic governments of Scandinavia?

The point is that this represents a sensible policy for any responsible government concerned with productivity, competitiveness and jobs in our highly competitive world.

Let me turn now to the question of immigration. A great concern among members of the Liberal Party is the arbitrary powers that the minister has committed to herself under this bill.

We have other examples where the Conservative government has stated that it will take decisions behind closed doors and simply said to Canadians, “Trust us”. We see this with the Wheat Board. We see this with the censorship bill. Now we see this with the huge changes in immigration, giving vast powers to the minister to make decisions behind closed doors.

Are Canadians wise to trust this government, to trust this minister, to do what is right for Canada behind closed doors? Are they right to give this trust to this government on the Wheat Board? I would say definitely not.

Are they wise to give this trust to take decisions behind closed doors to Conservative ministers or their appointees on the question of censorship? No.

And, similarly, in questions of immigration where constituents in my riding, for example, have been waiting for years to reunify their families and to bring their loved ones into this country, the Conservatives are saying to them, “Trust us. Your family reunification won't be in jeopardy. Trust us to do the right thing behind closed doors.”

I would submit that this government has not earned the trust of Canadians to be given such discretionary powers behind closed doors, whether we are talking about the Wheat Board, whether we are talking about censorship or whether we are talking about immigration.

When this comes to committee, there will be so many questions to ask because the details of this bill are entirely unclear. For example, the immigration department is receiving only a pittance in additional resources, something on the order of 1% or 2% of the budget. If we are going to clear up the backlog, common sense would suggest we need more civil servants to process that backlog.

So, immigration is getting essentially no additional resources. At the same time, it is fast-tracking certain groups. What is the logic? If it has essentially no more resources and it is fast-tracking certain groups, does that not necessarily imply that it is slow-tracking other groups?

Does that not mean that if we put additional resources into getting certain preferred types of people, and we do not yet know from the government who is preferred and who is not, that, given there is no net increase in resources, others who are not on the preferred list, like people wanting to reunite with their families, will have to wait even longer? So, it sounds to me that those who are on this waiting list will perhaps wait even longer.

We do not know the answers to these questions. The Conservatives have been hiding behind a very short new bill without telling Canadians the details.

One of the advantages of getting it into committee is that, I hope, we would hear many representatives of immigrant groups, many experts, who can tell us, for example, how it is possible to fast-track certain groups without slow-tracking other groups given that there are no additional resources.

Let me give, one final example. I do not know how this is going to work. Suppose that the government in its wisdom decides that one certain trade is needed in greater numbers; carpenters, for example. Is the government going to take these carpenters from the new list of people who apply after the budget date or go into the backlog and pick out the carpenters? If it is the former, then the backlog will simply--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but I have given him signals.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with much of what the member had to say about the immigration component of Bill C-50. Newcomer communities right across the country are hugely worried about the impact that this hidden agenda in a budget bill will have for potential immigration patterns in this country.

I wonder, though, if you feel this strongly that we cannot give the government a blank cheque and that we cannot give the Minister of Immigration a blank cheque, can you commit today, for all of those people who are watching this debate, that you will stand up in this House and vote against Bill C-50?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain will remember to refer to other members in the third person, not in the second person. I am the only guy who gets the second person.

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know by now, there are two distinct questions: whether the Liberal Party opposes a bill and whether the Liberal Party thinks that now is the appropriate time to cause a general election.

As our party has indicated very clearly, we do oppose this immigration bill, for the reasons I gave in my speech and with which she seemed to agree. We are in agreement on whether we oppose the bill: we do oppose the bill.

As for the second question on whether it is the appropriate time to cause a general election to occur, that decision will be made at the appropriate time by the leader of the official opposition.

However, the member should also know that if we vote against a bill, even if it is in small numbers because we do not want to provoke an election, we are putting a marker down, so that as and when a Liberal government comes to power we will have indicated our opposition to that bill, which is just as strong as the opposition that we would have if we had voted in our full numbers. At that time, as and when a Liberal government again comes to power, we will be in a position to reverse any number of bad laws that the Conservative government will bring in.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Markham—Unionville used the word “trust” quite often. I would like to give him an opportunity to talk about this, if he could, because I have grown up to listen always very carefully, and when people use the word “trust” more than three times, I begin not to trust them.

I remember that the Prime Minister in the campaign said to “trust us” on income trusts, trust us on the Atlantic accord, trust us that there will be no more bickering with the provinces, trust us on Kelowna, trust us that we will treat all the provinces fairly--and look at what has happened to our province of Ontario--and trust us on veterans. Now the government is saying to trust it and it will take care of immigration.

Over the weekend, some friends asked me a question. On these numbers that the Conservatives are pointing out in regard to the backlog of 800,000 immigrants, they have had over two years in government, so why did they not take care of it? Now, after two years, they are coming to us with some suggestions. Can the member for Markham—Unionville elaborate on the trust factor with regard to all these points that I have indicated?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an excellent one. I do believe that trust is critical. I believe that a government that wants to earn the trust of Canadians has to demonstrate by its actions that it is indeed trustworthy.

The reason I say we should trust the Conservatives no more on immigration than we should trust them on censorship or on the Wheat Board is because of the very record that my colleague has pointed out. The Conservatives have not earned that trust.

Perhaps the biggest of all sources of mistrust is income trusts. The Conservatives said repeatedly during the election campaign that never ever would they tax income trusts. As a consequence, Canadians by the thousands rushed to buy income trusts, secure in the knowledge that the Prime Minister had committed never to tax them. Then, one Halloween, he broke his word, and the next day $25 billion of Canadians' hard-earned savings went up in smoke in a single day.

That is just one example. I do not think I have time to go into many others. However, it illustrates the point that this is not a government that has earned the trust of Canadians. If it breaks its promise on income trusts, why in the world should Canadians trust it with enormous discretionary power in an area as critical to Canada as immigration?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in the debate on Bill C-50, the budget implementation act. As the name suggests, this is the bill that will implement the Conservative government's vision for the future of our country.

To date I have listened to the debate on both the budget and Bill C-50, and I know that many members, particularly on the Liberal side of the House, have decried the budget as having no vision at all. The Toronto Star echoed that sentiment in its headline of February 27, which said the budget was “devoid of big ideas”.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. This budget does have a vision. It is one of the most ideologically driven budgets in the history of this country. The problem is that it represents a vision that the majority of Canadians would categorically reject if they were to become aware of it.

That is why the Prime Minister muzzles his Conservative colleagues and scripts their every word in the Commons. Fortunately for Canadians, he forgot to muzzle his top dog. The Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, who remains one of the key advisers, let the cat out of the bag. He praised the Conservative government for pulling off “quite a performance”, achieving radical changes with successive revenue cuts without ever tipping its hand about what it was up to.

Flanagan described the Conservatives as “turning the screws on the federal government” and “boxing in the ability of the federal government to come up with new program ideas”. If that sounds familiar, it should, because the Conservative government has taken a page right out of the playbook of the Bush administration. It is simultaneously increasing the military's budget and cutting government revenue to set the stage for future cuts to social programs.

I can see the government members of the House starting to squirm. They loathe being compared to their Republican counterparts south of the border, not because they disagree with the Bush administration but because they know Canadians disagree with the Bush administration. They would just as soon implement their Republican ideas without being exposed for doing so.

Let us look at the facts. Just like George Bush, who also came into office with the so-called problem of huge budget surpluses, the Prime Minister is well on his way to achieving the neo-conservative objective of permanently hobbling government's ability to fund anything but the military.

Murray Dobbin published a brilliant analysis of this online on March 4. He points out that Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a dedicated Bushite, might well have been speaking for the Prime Minister when he said, "My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub".

Previously announced Conservative tax cuts will mean an annual loss of government revenues of $40.2 billion by 2012-13. Put differently, the tax cuts will cost as much as it currently costs to run the entire non-military side of Canada's government.

Programs that New Democrats are championing, such as a national child care program, a national housing strategy and a national drug plan, are all meant to become impossible dreams, and government revenues as a percentage of GDP are to drop to levels that existed before the establishment of key programs, such as medicare, so that these programs too will appear increasingly unaffordable.

For those people from Ontario who may be watching today's debate, this approach is eerily reminiscent of the Harris government in Ontario. All of us will forever remember John Snobelen's comments that he was going to create a crisis in education so that the Conservatives could then implement their own agenda. It is déjà vu all over again.

Once again, it is hard-working families and seniors who will be paying the price. They will be paying it directly through increased taxation and indirectly by losing government support for the programs on which their families rely.

Let us look at the taxation picture first. I would encourage everyone to have a look at page 201 of the English version of the 2008 federal budget and to take a look at table 5.4. It is also available online.

At the end of March, we finished what is called the 2007-08 fiscal year. Table 5.4 presents for all of us sources of government revenue or money coming in.

For personal income tax, tax paid by individuals, we see that the figure for 2007-08 is $112 billion. Two years from now, for the 2009-10 fiscal year, it will be up to $125 billion, which is a 12% increase. On the next line, we see corporate income tax, tax paid by corporations and companies here in Canada. For the same period, we see $42 billion today, but that goes down to $36 billion for 2009-10, which is a 14% reduction.

The table shows a 12% increase for ordinary Canadians and a 14% reduction for profitable corporations. Nothing shows more clearly that the gift the Conservatives are handing to their corporate friends will be paid for by hard-working families in my hometown of Hamilton and, indeed, right across this country.

How did we get to that point? It is not complicated to follow the trail. Last fall, with their usual fanfare, the Conservatives announced that they had the solution to the hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. They were going to give out $14 billion in tax cuts.

There was one little problem for the Conservatives, who make themselves out to be the big experts on the economy. Most of these corporations did not make a profit last year, for the simple reason that after the government put all its eggs in the oil sands basket, the loonie soared to heights never before seen, making it increasingly difficult to export forestry and manufactured products. The more the Canadian dollar is worth, the harder it is, of course, to export.

Where did the so-called tax reductions go in regard to helping the manufacturing and forestry sectors? They have all gone to the most profitable sectors of our economy: the big oil and gas companies, which are the biggest polluters, and the banks, which are already making enormous profits.

Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector, which has lost 350,000 jobs over the last five years, continues to hemorrhage an additional 300 jobs a day.

As the member for Hamilton Mountain, for Steeltown, this utter disregard for the key engine of our economy is the most devastating impact of the government's misguided budgetary policy. The little bit of money for the auto sector for research and development, which the government did allocate in its budget, in no way amounts to an adequate strategy to help our manufacturers and exporters deal with the spiralling dollar in Canada.

Even Jay Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, is on record as saying that the Conservative government “doesn't seem to understand the seriousness of the problems facing industry in Canada today”. Where is the plan to deal with the high dollar? Where is the national “buy Canadian” procurement policy that most other developed countries use to boost their local products?

Where is the plan to balance our trade so we do not export all of our good jobs? Where is the green job strategy? Where are we positioning Canada and our economy for the 21st century? Simply, we are not.

To the Conservative government, people are there simply to serve the economy, when it should be the other way around. The economy is a man-made construct. Our economy must serve Canadians. In that way, the economy is a moral issue. It must be judged by how many people it leaves behind.

As the manufacturing sector is confronted with a tsunami of job losses, we must look at this in terms of its impact on workers. Older workers desperately need income support, yet the budget implementation bill offers nothing.

Employment insurance, which is funded solely by worker and employer contributions, is being denied to those who have faithfully paid their premiums. Why do Ontarians get an average $5,000 less in EI than those in other parts of the country? Why is it virtually impossible to access retraining benefits when disaster strikes?

Instead of reworking the EI system so that it is there for workers when they need it most, Bill C-50 sets up a crown corporation. Instead of greater benefits, workers got greater bureaucracy.

What happened to the $57 billion surplus that has accrued in the EI accounts? Why is the new bill setting aside only $2 billion for the new corporation? Where is the rest? It is legalized theft from working families.

Budgets are about priorities. They are about walking the talk. We know that the priorities of the Conservative government are about downsizing, getting out of services and getting out of the things Canadians care about most. Its priorities are about helping its friends: the big banks and the big polluters.

However, there are millions of Canadians who share a different vision for our country. They are asking the same questions that we in the NDP have been asking since the government took office.

Where is the national child care program? Where is the national drug plan? Where are the additional health care workers for the over five million Canadians who are still without a family doctor? Where is the wait times guarantee? Where is the national housing strategy?

Where is the plan for accrediting foreign credentials? Where is the money to reduce the immigration backlog in a fair and accountable way instead of allowing the minister to cherry-pick who gets to visit or work in Canada?

Where is the infrastructure investment to help our aging cities and to provide property tax relief for tenants and homeowners alike? Where is the increase to the OAS and GIS so that seniors can retire with dignity and respect? Where is the help for the building trades so they can accept temporary jobs away from their homes without suffering undue financial hardship?

Where is the assistance to make post-secondary education and training affordable for young people? Where is the concrete action on climate change?

Where is the vision that sees the federal government as an agent for positive change? It certainly is not in the 2008 budget and it is not in the corollary Bill C-50. For the Conservatives, that is by design.

However, the Conservatives have the support of only a minority of Canadians. The majority of Canadians know that we can and must do better. I am proud to stand in the House and represent their aspirations by voting against the bill. I know that my NDP colleagues and the members of the BQ will as well.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the Liberals will not. They talk the talk, but they refuse to walk the walk. There is so much at stake. This budget severely restricts the ability of any future government to undo the damage done.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain made a good point when she described how the government has put itself in the position where it cannot be an agent of change. I agree with her because of the way it has addressed the surplus. It has put all the money on the debt and not into some of the programs that Canadians have asked us to support.

The member wanted to know where the national housing program and child care program were. The 2005 budget contained money for post-secondary education, for the infrastructure and for the cities, which she talked about.

The NDP is bashing the Liberals for not voting against this bill. It is because the budget contains a few elements that are worthwhile supporting, which is why we want this amendment to go to committee where we can fine-tune it.

How will the member and her party answer to their constituents for betraying them in 2005 when they abrogated their responsibilities? They had the money for housing, for child care, for cities and for post-secondary education. It has all disappeared, not because of the Conservative government, but because of the NDP.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the NDP did have the kind of power that the member talks about, because, frankly, if we had had the opportunity to pick the next government it certainly would not have been the Conservatives. It speaks to that really profound sense of entitlement that members on that side of the House still have.

The people of Canada decided to turf the Liberals out of office after the sponsorship scandal, after the Gomery inquiry, because they did not think they deserved to continue to be the government. It was not the NDP that turfed them out of office. It was the voters of Canada. The same voters of Canada, now in the majority, are opposed to the agenda of the government. They are looking to leadership from people in this House to vote against initiatives like Bill C-50.

The Liberals still believe they have the same sense of entitlement. They do not think they need to stand and be counted on votes. They do not think they need to stand up for their constituents but that their constituents should still re-elect them to government. It is absurd. The people of Canada know better.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions.

First, every time I hear the Liberals talking about putting down markers, I get this image in my mind of an agitated stray dog. What is the good of all these markers if policies that are unacceptable, like those in Bill C-50, go forward?

Second, budget 2008 makes much of these tax cuts. However, as the member for Hamilton Mountain has said, tax cuts are not all that the government talks about. I would like her to comment on this so-called tax largesse in relation to some specifics.

At the committee for status of women, we discovered that 68% of women were below the lowest income bracket and, therefore, a significant number of low income women do not benefit from personal income tax deductions. Furthermore, almost four of ten women will get nothing from income tax deductions because they just do not earn enough in the first place, and, of course, non-refundable tax cuts are equally useless to those four of ten Canadian women.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the value of putting down markers, there is no value to that at all, when in reality we have the opportunity now to defeat those initiatives that the Liberals and the Bloc say we oppose but only two parties are willing to actually stand and oppose them when it counts, which is during votes.

I really do not understand the strategy of the Liberals where they are willing to put the futures of newcomers and their families on the line and put their own electoral needs ahead of the needs of Canadians.

With respect to the corporate tax giveaways, it is true that the giveaways actually outstrip new program funding by a ratio of six to one.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating what should be two bills, a budget implementation bill and an immigration reform bill. First I will deal with the immigration reform bill and then I will continue with comments about the rest of this budget implementation bill.

The fundamental changes to Canada's immigration system that we are debating today are significant and important because they have the potential to affect the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of people.

The government has attached to its budget implementation bill, amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These amendments would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral authority to determine priorities for processing immigration applications and requests.

Make no mistake, this will be a very significant change to our immigration system.

Instead of visa officers following rules, procedures and policies, we will essentially invest in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to decide who enters Canada and who does not with no oversight or accountability.

The bill would penalize those who have played by the rules, those who have submitted their application, paid their fees and sat on waiting lists, in some cases, for many years. However, they now may see later applicants move ahead of them. This can only be described as queue jumping and will actually increase the time they spend languishing on waiting lists.

In the last election, the Conservatives made all sorts of promises to increase accountability and transparency for a better and fairer Canada. If anyone ever needed an example of the government doing the precise opposite of these commitments, Bill C-50 is that example. In fact, the bill actually removes the assurance that every application will receive due process before being returned.

These amendments attempt to create the perception that the Conservative government is trying to reduce the immigration application backlog which now sits at about 900,000. Although reducing the backlog and preventing future backlogs is a laudable goal, they would be better served by hiring additional visa officers.

The solutions offered in Bill C-50 would present numerous challenges for prospective newcomers to Canada.

I have received numerous letters from concerned citizens and organizations in my riding of Davenport expressing concerns about Bill C-50 for the city of Toronto and for the entire country. Many of them have brought to my attention the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would also be given the power to limit the humanitarian and compassionate categories under this legislation.

This is truly disconcerting for the temporary visa workers who come to Canada to fill labour shortage gaps and who, undoubtedly, would use this channel for pursuing family reunification. This is true for my riding of Davenport and for the city of Toronto, which is more than ever dependent on the immigration community to help with our labour shortages.

Morteza Jafarpour, executive director of the Settlement and Integration Services Organization, stated:

An immigrant here without his family sends his money home. With his family here, they have to buy groceries, goods and houses.

I could not agree more with this statement as it also demonstrates the common misconception that appears to be the belief of the Conservatives: that the family and humanitarian categories do not contribute to the economic growth of our country.

The Conservatives are once again playing politics by making these immigration amendments a matter of confidence by including them in Bill C-50, budgetary legislation. I firmly believe that these critical immigration reforms deserve to be fully debated as a separate matter from Bill C-50 so that it can be studied in Parliament through the appropriate channels.

I encourage the government to reconsider its approach to immigration reform. Action needs to be taken to renew our immigration system. However, if we are to be successful, we need to be inclusive. We need proper consultation and review. More than anything else, we need a system that is fair and based on the rule of law and upon policy rather than the whim of the minister of citizenship and immigration of the day.

However, immigration is not the only important thing at stake in this bill.

The greater Toronto area is the home of one in six Canadians. When we consider this reality, it is certainly of concern that the proposed changes do nothing to specifically recognize the unique importance of the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario.

As Toronto and Ontario struggle through a manufacturing sector crisis and the global economy faces a recession, we need the federal government to play its part in helping us meet these challenges.

The finance minister has responded to these challenges by consistently criticizing the Ontario government's financial policies. As with any challenge, the greatest chance of success comes not from confrontation and unnecessary verbal barbs, but from cooperation and mutual respect.

Not only does the bill fail to address Toronto's present economic concerns, it also hurts education, the key to our future economic success. Sadly, ignoring education has become a pattern of the government.

In 2006, the government walked away from the federal-provincial child care agreement. These agreements were a major step forward for families in Canada. They ensured that child care would be more affordable for all Canadians and certainly more available.

For the past year, students, parents and members of Parliament have been calling for the renewal of the millennium scholarship fund, an innovative and effective initiative of the previous Liberal government. The program set aside significant long term funding to help students pay for post-secondary education. Rather than renew this independent and long term program, the government has simply rolled it into a ministry program and committed funding for only a few years.

Perhaps most shockingly, the government is using the bill to strip the RESP program of recent Liberal amendments that would help families save for their children's education, much as they save for their retirement.

The contrast is clear when we review the facts. The previous Liberal government created child care agreements with the provinces to help Canadian families. The Liberals set up the millennium scholarship fund. The Liberals worked with members of Parliament from all parties to pass an important education tax credit that would have helped parents save for their children.

Liberals believe in cooperation, consultation and fair programs. The same cannot be said of the approach of the current government.

I must say that the content of Bill C-50 and the manner in which it has been presented to the House is becoming a trend for the government. It is a method of operation that does not lend itself to constructive review and debate. It is a manner of conduct that is, quite frankly, disrespectful to this institution and to our democratic traditions.

The bill's back door approach to immigration, disregard for Toronto and Ontario and failure to address education is a serious concern. Canadians deserve better than this.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I know it was difficult for the member for Davenport to speak over the heckling by government members on the other side but he gave a very well thought-out speech.

I just want to know if the member for Davenport would agree with me that it is the tactic of--

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering whether the rules of the House permit an indirect accusation of people not being truthful. The member referred to the heckling on this side of the House when in fact there was none.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

We will let the two comments stand and return to the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, if you want me to name the hecklers, I can certainly do so because it was very loud from the other side at the beginning of the speech.

The member for Davenport gave a well thought-out speech on the tactic that the government is using here to insert draconian immigration measures into a budget bill to avoid debate.

However, with the heckling and some of the other tactics by the government, is it not true, I would ask the member for Davenport, that the government attacks rather than explains itself? We are seeing that on the Wheat Board, the immigration bill, on the trusts the Conservatives have set up and on the farm issues.

I wonder if the member would want to comment on the fact that it is the tactic of the government to go as far as attack personalities to avoid getting in-depth into the issues so that the people of Canada cannot really understand what the government is trying to do.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the comments of the member for Malpeque and his assessment of what took place. It was extremely difficult to say what I had to say, what I thought was very important to my constituents and my city of Toronto when there was constant heckling from the government benches. In many ways it is an attempt to silence members of the House, to prevent them from saying what they feel is important to their constituents, the citizens of this country.

I said over and over again in my speech that the immigration policy being put forward by the government in Bill C-50 is being brought in through the back door. We need to have immigration reform. I am one of those who has always felt that there are things in the immigration system that need to be reformed. We do need a study of immigration policies. We need to hear from the public. I find it highly regrettable that the government has actually attached this to a budget vote and made it a vote of confidence.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Davenport that the labour shortage in Toronto is important. That is exactly what Bill C-50 addresses. I also agree that there is a significant impact on the lives of immigrants. This bill will make that impact much better.

The Conservative government brought in the last remaining residents who would join their families. The Liberals did away with it. The Liberals also brought in the $975 landing fee and then they opposed the reduction of the same. Right now it takes skilled workers six years and if we do not change the regulation it will take ten years to come in.

They may not agree with the policies and they want to criticize them for the sake of criticism, but I thank them for showing their confidence in the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party by supporting all our budgets and everything else. However, how does the member justify keeping people in their countries so that they are not able to come to Canada? He may not care for them, but does he not at least care for the Canadian economy? Does he not agree that a 20% to 40% faster reunification of families is a good thing for the country? His own deputy leader agreed that the Liberals did not get it done on immigration. I would like to hear his comment on that as well.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a point here that is missing, that if we are talking about immigration reform, there is in fact a need for it, the need for a proper study and proper process to do it. Should it come through a budget bill? I do not think so. I think even my hon. colleague would agree that this is terrible and bad judgment on the government's part. It is bad politics in fact to tie immigration reform to a budget bill and make it a vote of confidence. The government so wants to be defeated, it is actually becoming quite laughable, because it attaches everything to a vote of confidence. I do not think this is the way that Parliament should work. It certainly is a waste of our time. It is a waste of the resources that we could be putting forward in a more effective way.

If we are going to have immigration reform, we need to do it in a cooperative way. We need to make sure that it is also done in a correct way. I do not agree with the way in which it has been handled by the government and I think most Canadians do not agree with it.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill. I will use my time to speak generally of my opposition to both the Conservatives' and the Liberals' policies since they appear to form a majority government as it concerns this bill. I am also going to take some time to identify some of the glaring gaps that I have seen in the bill.

As I listened to the debate last week, I was struck by the new Liberal MP for Toronto Centre's somewhat arrogant comments that New Democrats are against companies making profit. Maybe that is what he believed when he was premier of Ontario and that is what gave them the enormous success they had, or perhaps as a new member he is just trying to explain why he switched parties. Whatever the case may be, the comments made by the member certainly do not represent the beliefs of the NDP.

In my community of Victoria I have had the opportunity to work with a large number of young business entrepreneurs and established businesses. I have whole wholeheartedly supported and encouraged them in many ways to continue their successful initiatives.

We on this side of the House support responsible governance, offering a triple bottom line approach to government policy. That is largely absent from the policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives as is evidenced in this bill.

Tax incentives to large oil and gas companies like accelerated capital allowance have been an intrinsic part of the Liberals' and Conservatives' policies. What we do not support is the focus on corporate welfare that has characterized the economic policies of both parties.

When the Liberals say that contrary to the Conservatives they balance social and economic policies, how is it then that an estimated 3.4 million Canadians, about one in 10 people, now live in poverty? How is it that about 800,000 of them are children? Why is it that more Canadians each year are reduced to holding precarious jobs, sometimes two or three jobs at the same time just to make ends meet?

Other pertinent and pressing questions for Liberal and Conservative members of this House include why is there still no nationwide system of affordable child care in Canada? Why have university fees skyrocketed out of control since the early 1990s? Why has our environment continued to suffer degradation with the sharp increase in pollutants and toxins and a rise in greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer is that all these societal problems are the product of years of single bottom line thinking. It is not that the New Democrats are against corporate profits, but rather it is that we believe in a triple bottom line approach integrating social, economic and environmental factors.

I would also like to consider some of the specifics of this budget implementation bill. In giving $60 billion worth of tax cuts, mostly to large corporate interests, the Conservative government has robbed the cupboard bare. With an economic downturn lurking over our shoulder, the federal government has seriously compromised its ability to help Canadians weather the impending storm.

We had high hopes, for example, of seeing significant changes in the area of post-secondary education before the release of budget 2008. We are pleased to see that the government did establish the first Canada-wide student grant program. However, many fundamental structural problems with the current system of post-secondary education have not even been considered or addressed.

There is nothing to suggest that the government has acknowledged the crushing levels of debt faced by young graduates. As a result of the deregulation of tuition fees throughout the 1990s, many young students and graduates are disappointed that the government has not even reduced student loan interest by a token 1%, not even to give them the nod that this is a problem that is putting them in debt and seriously impacting their life choices as they set out in life and in their careers.

We are pleased, though, that this bill acknowledges the challenges faced by part time students and seeks in some small measure to remedy them.

We have also noted that the statements of student loan accounts will now be available online. However, this measure should never have been in question since it is the right of every borrower to have a clear statement of how much is owed. Interestingly, this has been denied to students. They have had difficulty finding out how much they owe.

Again on post-secondary education issues, although the bill deals with severe permanent disability, it still makes no mention of what has been acknowledged as a policy gap, something called “episodic disability”, such as mental illness or cancer, illnesses that are clearly debilitating but do not necessarily fall under the definition of “permanent disability”. We know that their lack of ability to access relief makes their difficulties even more severe.

There is also no mention whatsoever of a student loan ombudsman. This would have been an easy measure for the government to take, a position which the NDP and many student groups have been calling for.

In all, this bill provides a small measure of progress while neglecting some of the most important issues facing students today.

Another issue is housing. In my region housing prices have gone through the roof and have left many people under-housed or on the verge of homelessness. The gap in this bill with respect to housing is absolutely unexplainable. Cities are experiencing serious funding shortfalls in dealing with the lack of housing. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that it will take an injection of $3.35 billion annually to end homelessness, build new affordable housing units and rehabilitate and renovate existing units.

The federal government must be present at the table to discuss a long term national housing strategy. Otherwise, cities that do take measures to address their housing problems could find themselves overwhelmed by people from another region. This highlights the need for the national government to be at that table.

I would also like to briefly talk about the environment.

The federal government has adopted a business as usual approach to the most serious problem we have ever faced, that is, climate change. Carbon sequestration, which is mentioned in the budget implementation bill, is certainly part of the solution but it is simply not enough.

In this budget bill, the government could have established targets, for example, to retrofit thousands of homes and buildings to allow Canadians to make the necessary changes to adapt to current environmental realities.

It is not only a question of inadequate policies, but the government is taking us in the wrong direction. We have been embarrassed internationally by the government's inability to take up the challenge on basic human water rights. Canada emerged as the pivotal nation behind recent manoeuvres to block the United Nations Human Rights Council from recognizing water as a basic human right according to international observers.

That is where this government is taking us, and that is unacceptable. I hope that it will go back to the drawing board, listen to Canadians and come up with real solutions, which Canadians have been waiting for on these issues.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good things for the north in the budget, but there are two problems.

One is that the Prime Minister promised two icebreakers to the north and has totally broken that promise. It looks like it may get one many years down the road. The second problem is in the budget implementation bill, Bill C-50, it explains that police and transit will be allocated on a per capita basis, with about $160,000 for each territory. How many policemen with their attendant costs could we hire? We could hire maybe one or two at most in a territory as big as any country in Europe.

Could the new EI fund invest in certain things? I have heard concerns about that. Will the member follow in what that fund invests? Also, now the Bank of Canada can have more liberal investments. Is she concerned about what those investments might be?

Does she think the government ever expects to get another vote from Ontario after owing it hundreds of millions of dollars, allocating it less seats than is fair in its allocation proposal, implying Ontarians are the little people of Confederation and suggesting that Ontario is the worst place in which invest? It is incredible. The Premier of Ontario is not the only premier to be upset. Other premiers are also very angry.

Finally, everyone admits, even the Conservatives, that there are major changes in immigration. Does the member think it is enough in the budget bill for the government to say it is changing the Immigration and Refugee Act to improve and speed up the application process? Everybody agrees that these major changes should have been explained to Canadians.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can answer all my colleague's questions in the time I have left, but I will at least deal with the employment insurance and immigration questions, which are very significant ones.

We all know that $57 billion have disappeared into general revenue, while the criteria for eligibility have been tightened progressively, to the point where workers cannot claim employment insurance. The new agency the government would create would do nothing to increase accountability. In fact, it would undermine the principles of parliamentary accountability for employment insurance.

The NDP does agree, and has long agreed as a party, that EI should be separate from general accounts. In fact, I believe a number of bills and recommendations have been made to that effect in the House by some of my colleagues who have worked on this issue. It is not yet clear how the government would structure this new agency or how representative it would be.

On the immigration issue, this is a very serious concern to the NDP. First, hiding this major change in the budget bill was really a show of lack of respect in the House. It also would give the minister or cabinet discretionary powers for decision making behind closed doors on setting priorities, a responsibility that should rightly belong in the House. It is very worrisome if this is allowed to proceed. In fact, my colleagues and I will not allow this change to proceed.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to the budget bill as it relates to values behind decisions that are made and how they relate to the city of Surrey, which is now 400,000 people.

I talked with officials of the city of Surrey before the budget was brought down. I asked them what they saw as being legitimate needs in Surrey, things for which they had asked the federal government, things that would make a significant difference in the quality of life of the near 432,000 people of Surrey. Incidentally, we have more babies every day at Surrey Memorial Hospital than I think any other hospital in Canada. There were a number of things both for B.C. and Surrey that were particularly important, but we did not see them in the budget.

As always, we wonder whether people who prepare the budgets can see south of the Fraser River. In this case, let me use a couple of examples.

The city of Surrey is a growth city both residentially and business-wise. It was very important for it to have transportation so people could either live and work in the community of Surrey, or perhaps live somewhere else and work in Surrey, or live in Surrey and work somewhere else.

While there was a significant amount of money for the Skytrain on the north side of the Fraser River, Surrey needed about $5 billion to invest in a provincial transit plan that would bring transit equality just to Surrey in terms of the number of buses needed. For a young mom or dad to get their child from Cloverdale to the hospital and to a specialist is truly an all day outing in our community. That money was not there. There was no real indication other than a few new buses. that people recognized that a the city is big and growing quickly. It is an economic driver. People need to recognize the kind of transportation needed for a city of Surrey's size. It also has a new university.

Surrey is quite a wonderful and interesting city. It is very urban and residential. There is lot of industry, but we are also very blessed to have a large amount of agricultural land reserve. We desperately needed and asked for infrastructure dollars from the federal government for flood work. Money needs to be spent on dikes to protect the riverbanks so farmers' fields will not be flooded. That money is not there either.

It is as if a message has been given to Surrey that the government has recognized other people, but Surrey is still this little growing community and it does not think that it deserves that kind of money.

In terms of policing and what that means to the city of Surrey, the 2,500 new police officers who we keep waiting to see, the budget states they are to be front line officers. The city of Surrey, the city of Delta and others have spoken very strongly of their needs. We could all use more police officers everywhere, but in the Lower Mainland we have a number of integrated teams, drug teams, gang teams, homicide teams and child exploitation teams. We need the dollars to support those teams so they can do their work.

It is as if the federal government is saying that it knows better, that these officers should be used as front line officers and the integrated teams can find money wherever they can. However, much of the Lower Mainland has said that those integrated teams work well and it needs more support for them. We have not seen that.

It is a very small program, but the federal government has put money into it before but has decided not to it this year. It is called SHaRP, or the salmon habitat restoration program. It has employed 180 post-secondary students who have been able to save money to go to post-secondary education or to reduce their enormous debt load. They have done riparian work. They have repaired not only the riverbanks, but the bottoms of the river for the salmon. The program has done superb job. It has been written about across the country. As a result of the federal funding not being there, although it was requested before the budget, it will be unable to function this year in the way that we had hoped. Again, it is another example of being unable to see the local needs or having someone in Ottawa make a decision about what the local needs might be.

People across the country talk about homelessness. The issue really is not homelessness. The issue is where do people live long term. We can build more homeless shelters, and I have no doubt that we will and that they will be full. However, where do people go when they leave a homeless shelter? There is no such thing as affordable market housing in the city of Surrey, where an average apartment is $800 to $900 a month.

Many people living in our homeless shelters are working full time. They cannot afford to pay rent in the city of Surrey. They live in a homeless shelter. They get up in the morning, go to work, work all day, do something for a couple of hours until the shelter opens, then they sleep at the shelter, sometimes sitting up, and go back to work in the morning.

It is not that these people are not trying; they are. Until the federal government looks at a national housing strategy, not homeless strategy, we will simply build more homeless shelters, but people will not in any way be able to put down long term roots either for themselves or, heaven forbid, afford to support a family.

The gasoline tax is now being returned to the city, and I give people credit for that. The Conservative government has done that. It has been lobbied very hard by many cities and by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It does make a difference.

Other people have spoken on the issue of child care. However, the $100 a month does not make a difference for child care. One cannot find any kind of child care, one cannot probably even find child care for a day a week or a day and a half a week for $100 a month. Children who are eight and nine years old come home after school by themselves. Children from zero to five, for whom that $100 applies, are in child care where parents have no idea what goes on because it is not licensed and they are not sure it is safe. It is the worst feeling people can imagine.

People can say, “Stay home with your children”. I am sorry, at $8.35 an hour to pay rent and buy groceries in an urban area that it is not possible without support for children. This has been completely ignored. Not only is it ignored, but the position the Conservative government has taken about child care has been very deliberate.

We were hoping very much to be able to have some money for the World Police and Fire Games in British Columbia this year. Some of the sites are in Surrey. There was a significant amount of money put into the World Police and Fire Games when they were in Quebec. Now that they are in British Columbia, there is no contribution from the Conservative government for the World Police and Fire Games, which bring almost as many people as the Olympics do.

We also look for support for softwood. People think about manufacturing jobs as being cars, and it is very critical in Ontario, but softwood as well is a manufacturing industry. We saw no money whatsoever for the tragedy of the pine beetle that is destroying the trees in British Columbia forests.

For the city of Surrey and the goals that we had for this budget, the hopes we had for this budget, the lobbying that had gone on from our council, we do not see very many initiatives that will make a difference in the everyday lives of people who live in our city.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Surrey North and she mentioned some of the programs that were cancelled, the SHaRP being one, and the need for a national housing strategy. I do not imagine in her wildest dreams she would ever expect to get that out of the government.

She also mentioned child care, as did the member for Victoria before her. In fact, the member for Victoria, after going on a little rant against the Liberals, asked the question of why there is no system of early learning and child care in this country. To both members, the answer to why there is no early learning and child care in this country is quite simple.

It was implemented by the last Liberal government. It was signed with the provinces, but the leader of the NDP, in his wisdom, got into bed with the leader of the Conservative Party and decided to bring the government down. That is why there is no early learning and child care. That is why there is no real chance of getting economic and social policy that means something to ordinary people again.

These are the bedfellows of the leader of the NDP over here. He is the leader who made it possible for that crew to form the government. That is the reality.

Why does the NDP not at least be honest and admit the facts, that it is responsible for the lost program in terms of early learning and child care, and indeed for the lost opportunity to have social and economic policies that matter to ordinary people?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that when the government was defeated, the Liberals said that they were about to call an election 42 days after that. In 42 days, they were going to do child care? In 42 days?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It was already done and signed.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

No, it was not. The member is shouting that it was already done.

I carried portfolios for child care through four portfolios in the B.C. cabinet and in point of fact, the Liberals had 13 years in government to put in child care with deep roots and sustainable funding that could not be pulled out by a government that suddenly was defeated 42 days early, so that is absolute nonsense. I have heard all of this before.

The NDP defeated the government and it would have been a miracle, in the time that was left, that all of these things that they talk about wanting to do and believing in would have been done in four, five or six weeks. That is foolish and I do not think people believe that.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member and of the member who spoke before her, the hon. member for Victoria. I was particularly interested to hear the long list of big programs that they would like to see funded by the federal government.

What I would like to know is when we can expect to see a costing of all of those promises to the dollar, and maybe a list of the tax increases that would be required to pay for those promises.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the programs I spoke of from the city of Surrey were all costed. The costs were submitted to the federal government when the information was submitted. They were not programs outside the realm of the federal government as much of that was infrastructure money. Those programs were all costed when the submissions were made.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on the budget bill as well as the immigration changes included in the bill.

Let me be clear. We in the NDP were attempting to negotiate with the Liberals to keep them in government with our deal on health care but they refused. We actually extended the opportunity to change the path they were moving toward and they refused to negotiate. They were behaving like the current administration.

When it came time to vote in the House of Commons, there were not enough NDP votes to prop up the Liberals because independent members voted against them. The Liberals cannot even do simple basic math. Surprise, surprise.

Liberals members want to blame everyone else for their misfortunes. At the end of the day, Canadians defeated their administration because they were sick and tired of the constant empty promises and most importantly, because they were sick and tired of the Liberals ignoring the greatest needs of Canadians.

We have been left with the current environment of Liberals continuing to feel sorry for themselves. They expect some empathy from Canadian citizens but at the same time they prop up the current administration for their own benefit without any type of hesitation whatsoever. They have been explicitly doing that under their current leader and will probably still do that under their new slate of leaders now sitting in the House. Liberal self-interest always comes first. Nothing has changed over there.

I once again remind the Liberals that they did not actually work in a forthright way to negotiate a change in health care. They brought themselves down.

I do want to speak to the government's current fiscal plan, which is a clear gutting of Canada's capacity. The slew of corporate tax cuts are once again being supported by the Liberals. This was originally started by the member for LaSalle—Émard, who is always missing from the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The member knows that he is not supposed to refer to the presence or particularly the absence of members of the House of Commons. I would ask him not to do that anymore.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I retract that and appreciate that correction.

I do want to talk about what the budget is going to do to the manufacturing sector. We have seen a record number of job losses over the last number of years. It is not a current crisis that has emerged over the last year. This has been several years in the making where we basically witnessed a strategy of saying that reducing tax cuts would actually lead to economic development, and growth and prosperity in the manufacturing sector.

That is not the case because we witnessed the decline of that industry because of a whole series of issues related to trade and tariff and non-tariff barriers, as well as unfair competition. It is also reflected in the changing technologies where we have not been supportive and where other countries have done that to ensure they take advantage of it.

What has happened is that we have eroded ourselves. For example, in the automotive sector, we were actually number four in the world in terms of producing and assembling automotive vehicles. Now we are actually down to tenth. The slide will continue as the government continues to negotiate a Korea trade deal which will be at the expense of the automotive industry.

I want to pay particular attention to a couple of aspects of the budget affecting the automotive industry which are very important. The first is the feebate program which we were happy to see cancelled. This eco-feebate program, for those who are not familiar with it, literally saw millions of dollars of Canadians' money wasted, some of it actually going to those who produced automotive vehicles in Japan, Korea and other countries abroad. This program cost $116 million over two years. We were glad to see this program gutted at the end of the day and cancelled, but I was very disappointed with the Minister of Finance who did not rollover those funds into a specific automotive strategy.

What the Conservatives have done instead is kept the component which has the tax on vehicles which will go to many Canadian manufacturers and that is roughly estimated at $50 million a year. They cut $116 million out of automotive, kept in an extra tax, and now have introduced and maintained a current tax on automotive, and from tax rolled out another $250 million program over five years. It is a $50 million program over five years. That is just coming from the tax, so they have really gutted the automotive component and support.

This is at a time when even parts manufacturers were looking at some type of an investment strategy. We have seen a lost opportunity with the automotive sector and we are going to completely witness its demise if we do not come out with a practical strategy. The strategy has to come with an investment arm and I would argue it has to be more complicated than what the province of Ontario is suggesting. It has to have greater accountability when it comes to job creation, components to technology as well as accountability.

I would also argue that the federal government is wrong by not having that actual strategy compared, evaluated and supported by a trade strategy. That is very important because the Minister of International Trade is pursuing a deal with South Korea. This is ironically the star candidate from the Liberals who crossed the floor in the House of Commons just after losing out in a general election but winning his seat back.

This deal has been condemned unilaterally, just basically across the board by many groups and organizations including the auto industry because there are several factors not taking place in terms of the consideration of how we actually ship vehicles to Korea. We have only a few hundred vehicles that get there, but the Koreans get hundreds of thousands that can be put into the Canadian market. That is not fair. We have to have some sense of balance. With that we are expecting to see some type of change.

Regarding the budget there was no understanding or appreciation with regard to the tool and die, mould making and parts sector. We have seen that the capital cost reduction allowance is going to be diminished by the government over the next three years. We fought hard on this issue at the industry committee. We actually committed to work together and created a report with over 20 different recommendations, many of which were shelved. However, one of the ones we were pleased about was the capital cost reduction allowance.

The government only came in with terms of a two-year program, but it was not sufficient because many decisions had already been made about investment at that point in time. What we want is the third, the fourth and the fifth year. So we went for two years which is only a small window but it was helpful to some degree. We were appreciative of that.

There were actual projects that got underway that are very helpful. But the fact of the matter is that the Conservatives are now phasing out this strategy, so what we will see is a devolution of this as an opportunity to invest back into Canada.

I do not care what the personalities are, but I am sick and tired of listening to the battle going on between the province of Ontario and the federal government. It seems to be a war of personalities more than actually working to create an opportunity for economic development.

That apparently goes back 10 years, but it does not matter, because the fact of the matter is that we need an automotive strategy. For many years, we in the NDP have been proposing that through a green transportation strategy. We would like to see movement on that. The budget does not do it. Instead, we see a complete erosion of the fiscal capacity of Canada, to the point that when we have to respond next time, it is going to be more challenging.

Hence, one of the key elements that we see as taking advantage of people and as egregious is the fact that the government is changing the employment insurance system to basically rob workers and employers of all the money in contributions they have put in over the years. From the previous administration, and going back several years, we know that the fund is up around $57 billion in terms of employment insurance. Now that system will be basically robbed and the government will be putting in a $2 billion program.

I am from a city that has been struggling with the recovery of manufacturing and trying to go forward, and I can tell members that retraining and opportunity are very important. With this employment insurance decision, when areas have greater losses of jobs and there will be a squeeze on the funds, I am willing to bet the number one thing that will happen is that we will see a reduction of workers' hours and a reduction of eligibility.

It will be just as it is now. Many people who pay into the system can never take advantage of it because they are working at part time jobs or they do not have enough consecutive weeks. We see it every day in my constituency. People do not meet the qualifications any more because the bar has been set far higher than the hours they can work or achieve in the current market. That is wrong, because people need an opportunity to be retrained and they need to have faith and hope that supports will be there for them and their families.

As for what is happening right now, we only have to look at a few industries to see examples. A lot of people just assume that we should go high tech, that we should do the high end of things and make sure that we will be the best in the world. I can tell members that this is happening right now in our tool and die and mould-making sector. Windsor and Essex County are the best in the world, there is no doubt about it, but they are significantly challenged because of the lack of automotive decision making and the procurement decisions that have happened, as well as being blocked from other markets, intellectual property theft, and a whole series of things.

All we have to do is tour some of these plants and we literally will see that work that used to be done in this area, which was the best in the world, is now sent overseas to China and to other places, and sometimes it has to be sent back to be fixed at our own plants here.

However, here is what that has done. It has meant layoffs for workers in our community, workers who have good skills and abilities unmatched across the world. Some people think we can just lower the wages by a couple of dollars, but that will not make a difference at all. We could lower it to $10 an hour on a job. If we do not have access to the market, it will not make a difference.

That is just like the corporate tax cuts we see right now. As tool and die and mould-making companies are struggling to get buy, a reduction in taxes does not help them. They need targeted, specific, developed plans. One plan, for example, needs to deal with some of their funding. When they make arrangements with the auto sector, they do not get paid for a year or a year and a half for their actual projects, so they have a problem getting access to capital from banks and large loan centres, or they have to pay extra interest, which becomes an inefficiency.

We need the federal government and the province to work together on a strategy that eliminates this type of non-cooperation with regard to the fiscal arrangements and also to make sure that there are going to be supports there, so that when workers are the best in the world and are actually trained, they will have access to the markets that are being penetrated over here.

I have to say that I cannot support the budget. There is a whole series of reasons behind that. It is not just the economic sector and the manufacturing sector, but I want to be very clear about what will happen if we do not seize the opportunity. Despite the fact that we have a lot of unemployment and despite the fact that a lot of change is happening, if there is a real interest in being involved with this, there can be significant change.

Canadians have done their part. The people in my constituency of Windsor West have shown consistently that they are the best in the world in terms of producing and manufacturing automobiles and all the component parts. They win awards on a routine basis. I am very proud of their accomplishments.

However, they cannot do it alone. They need fair trading practices and a government which recognizes that other countries are doing these things at their expense. Even the countries next door, such as the United States, for example, have several favourable clauses under our NAFTA agreement that protect their industries at the expense of Canadians.

We cannot pretend that this is going to go away. We have to deal with it. This budget does not do that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct when he talks about the United States protecting some of its industries when it comes to free trade talks. The hon. member will know that in every free trade agreement the United States has entered since 1924 it has always exempted shipbuilding and marine services from those free trade talks.

In fact, when the United States negotiated with Canada in the 1980s, one of the first things it exempted was shipbuilding and marine services, yet we did not do that in our country and now we see the result, which is the decline of the industry in our country. Even though there has been a report sitting on the desk of the Minister of Industry since 2001 and we have had four ministers since then, we still have not seen any movement on this file.

I wonder if the hon. member would like to elaborate. He comes from an auto area and I come from a shipbuilding area, but the problems are literally the same in regard to the lack of action and planning by the government.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to be in Halifax and tour the shipyards on a couple of occasions. I talked with the workers there and I can tell members that we have the best in the world here. I have heard a few Conservatives say today that we must have freedom of movement of labour and that those individuals there should basically pick up and ship out.

However, what I can tell members is that if we do not change the way we trade and the way we actually have accountability, we will continue to lose out on good, skilled people and also on the infrastructure that is important for our national security. For heaven's sake, how can a country like Canada, from coast to coast to coast with so much water, not have the capacity to build and maintain some of its own ships? That we are going to have to farm this out is unacceptable.

I know that the hon. member has fought for this, but it needs to be understood, not only in terms of an issue related to employment, training and the capacity of the country to actually be involved in something, but also because it is a national security issue. We must have our shipyards for Canadians to protect Canadian interests.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things we have long known across this country when communities are in difficult economic times, and I would certainly describe the city of Windsor and the member's riding in that way from the number of manufacturing jobs lost, is that we most frequently see an increase in partner abuse and an increase in child abuse.

Could the member tell me if that in fact is happening in his city and if indeed there are services being provided, or if services have been cut back and will not meet the needs of those people?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a challenge for social services during a downturn. There is no doubt about it.

Ironically, with this budget the Conservative government is actually reducing what we can get on a return for a charitable donation. Because the Conservatives have tied it to the income tax bracket, what has happened is that the for amount of money we give to charities we are going to get less back this year than we did last year. The government has not decoupled that. Basically what it is going to do to Canadians is that as we give to charity, we are going to get less back, so it is a double whammy.

I can say that when it comes to our city and area we also have been hurt by the thickening of the Canada-U.S. border. We have witnessed a loss in trade for some of the tourism as well as some of the other activities for which Americans came over to Canada. They would visit and partake not only in the lifestyles but also in commerce and social functions. That has actually put other charities at risk. That is a shame.

I have a private member's bill that actually looks at reforming the charitable tax act of Canada. I wish the government would adopt that as opposed to a general corporate tax cut, because that would put more money back in people's pockets and more money into charities and not for profit organizations such as the United Way and the VON, which do good work for Canadians as opposed to having that money sent overseas.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

That will bring to an end the five minute question and comment period and bring us fortuitously to statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-50, the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, but specifically on the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, which picks in particular our concern in this corner of the House for provisions that are included in the budget implementation act regarding changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Specifically, the motion that we are debating at this point in the debate reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, since the principles of the Bill relating to immigration fail to recognize that all immigration applicants should be treated fairly and transparently, and also fail to recognize that family reunification builds economically vibrant, inclusive and healthy communities and therefore should be an essential priority in all immigration matters.

I think that spells out very clearly what our concerns are with this provision regarding immigration in the budget implementation act.

We are concerned because a measure that changes our immigration law so significantly, we believe, should not be buried in a large budget implementation bill. We believe that this change to the immigration law is so profound and so important that it should be debated on its own merits in a separate debate.

It should have separate committee consideration as well and that it should be considered by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, not the finance committee which does not have the expertise that the citizenship and immigration committee does in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and immigration concerns from coast to coast to coast in Canada.

We believe that this piece of Bill C-50 is improperly placed and really should be debated on its own with particular reference to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

What does this proposal from the government actually do? We see that it gives major new powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to control the types of applications the minister accepts, to impose quotas, to dispose of current immigration applications, and to facilitate queue jumping.

We would say that it puts certain limits on the humanitarian and compassionate category which currently is the only channel for many who encounter challenges in the process of pursuing family reunification.

We believe that it gives the minister new powers to deny visas to those who meet all immigration criteria. We also believe that it further supports the current policy shift whereby immigrants are increasingly being understood and treated as economic units to be brought here through temporary visa arrangements, instead of the permanent residency program.

Those are all very significant concerns with this provision that is buried in the budget implementation act. That is why we believe that it should have a very thorough debate. All of these questions that we raise, we believe, should have a fulsome debate here in the House and in committee. By having it as part of a budget implementation bill and sending it to the finance committee will not allow for that.

It is not only New Democrats who are concerned about these provisions that would change the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are found in the budget implementation bill. Richard Kurland, who is one of the most prominent immigration experts in Canada and editor-in-chief of Lexbase, which is one of the key sources of information about immigration policy and procedure in Canada, has been very critical of this proposal from the government that is included in this legislation.

He notes that it took a long time and it was a long fight to establish clear criteria for the processing of immigration applications to establish the principle that anyone who applied should have their application considered, that anyone who met the criteria of the immigration program should have a chance at success of their application.

He has some specific criticisms of what this legislation would do. He notes that in the existing IRPA, section 11.(1) states:

A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.

The important word there is that the visa “shall” be issued. Mr. Kurland notes that in the proposed legislation this same section 11.(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended to say:

A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.

There is a significant difference between the words “shall” and “may”. It opens up a huge opportunity for discretion and the operation of the minister's own biases. It is a real attack on the kinds of transparency and guarantees that exist in the current legislation, guarantees for the appropriate processing of applications that were fought for long and hard over many years.

Mr. Kurland further points out that the use of the word “shall” in IRPA's section 11.(1) gave all visitors, foreign students, foreign workers and applicants for permanent residence the right to a visa when they met the preconditions for visa issuance.

He notes that the use of the word “may” in the government's proposed change to IRPA's section 11.(1) takes away those rights. All visitors, students and foreign workers and applicants for permanent residence no longer will have the right to a visa, even when they qualify for the visa by meeting the required preconditions for visa issuance or renewal of their status.

Mr. Kurland additionally points out that under this proposal, applications for visas do not have to be accepted, applications for visas that are accepted do not have to be processed, applications for visas that are processed do not have to be given visas even when the person meets all the requisite conditions to the visa issuance, and applications for visas with the supporting materials and documents may be disposed of at any time.

Surely, those are all important compromises to the kinds of transparency and guarantees that have existed recently and that were fought so long and hard for in the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the addition of that kind of discretion to the minister or the department is a huge step backward in ensuring the appropriate processing of immigration applications.

The whole question of what this does to family reunification is a key one in all of this. It is something that we need to highlight when we are looking at the effects of current Conservative government policy when it comes to citizenship and immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to resuming my speech.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas will still have two minutes when we return to the study of Bill C-50 and, of course, five minutes for questions and comments, which I know he is looking forward to.

The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas had the floor. There are two minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had best get going if I have only two minutes. What we are debating is the amendment from the New Democratic Party to separate out the immigration provisions of this legislation because there are very serious changes to Canada's immigration law. We do not believe they should be buried in a budget implementation bill and we do not believe they can best be scrutinized there.

The Conservatives are right in that there is a problem with the backlog. The Liberals did not address the problem with the backlog and in fact created the backlog over many years in office. They stimulated it by not providing the appropriate funding to the department to do the processing and by not providing appropriate immigration targets for the country despite the fact that year after year they promised to increase that target. At one point, I added up all the years in which they missed their proposed target for immigration. If we added them all up, it probably would have eliminated the backlog on hand at that time.

Yes, there were problems. However, what the Conservatives are proposing is not going to fix the problems. In fact, it is only going to make them worse. The kind of discretion that the Conservatives propose to give the minister is just plain wrong. We need clarity in our immigration proposals. This is wrong.

In their immigration policy, the Conservatives are also giving far too great an emphasis to temporary foreign workers. We know that these workers are too easily exploited. They provide cheap labour.

Fortunately, we in Canada have never relied on this kind of labour to drive our economy. Unlike European countries that have had strong guest worker policies, we have never gone that route. We prefer instead to bring people in because of economic need as permanent residents and put them on the track to becoming full citizens of Canada. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are reversing that policy as well. It is one of the serious problems with their immigration policy.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering about the NDP's position on this, quite frankly, and I am hoping that perhaps their members will address this, because this is not an immigration bill. There is no such thing on the table. This is a budget bill. If they want to address the budget, I would dearly love to support them.

However, I have some difficulties with their position on immigration because of what happened when there was an immigration plan on the table. There was $1.4 billion for integration and settlement. There was $700 million for fixing the system by accelerating processing and eliminating the backlog over a five year period. There was $88 million established for foreign credentials recognition. There was $10 million for expanding a student visa program to encourage more students to come into the country.

The NDP members voted against that and precipitated an election as a result. Today they are objecting to a plan they say is there, but I have not seen one. Would they please elaborate for the members on this side, who would like to support them, what specifics of a plan they are objecting to might actually emerge from a bill that is not in the House?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had heard the beginning of my speech he clearly would have heard what problems we have with this legislation.

The fact is that this legislation, which is buried in a budget bill, would fundamentally change the powers of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, so much so that we could in fact drive a Mack truck right through the immigration act and the immigration provisions. They are very significant proposals. They should not be buried in a budget bill. They should stand on their own. They should be debated on their own. They should go to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, whose members have the particular expertise and experience to deal with those kinds of recommendations, not to the finance committee, whose members' expertise lies in other areas.

What would we do instead? We would make sure there is transparency. We would make sure that we meet a target of 1% of population for immigration every year. We would make sure that we preserve the track from permanent residence to full citizenship in Canada. We would make sure that temporary foreign workers do not become guest workers and get exploited in Canada. We would make sure that family reunification, the most successful piece of our immigration program, retains a central place in our immigration program.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the member talking about the backlog as if it is some kind of disease. I suggest to him that the backlog of 800,000 people is actually a huge asset in regard to immigrants wanting and waiting to come here. It is a two and a half year wait if we look at the average wait time for those 800,000 people. We take more immigrants per capita than any other country in the world. I am not so sure the member should be calling it a backlog. If we had no backlog, would the member not agree that we would be pulling our hair out and saying that our immigration program is an absolute failure?

Why do the member and his party not simply focus on the committee process? We cannot materially alter this bill here. We can defeat it in the House, but this is a budget implementation bill containing dozens and dozens of provisions and all kinds of financial provisions. We should try to fix this bill at the committee where the clause in question can actually be excised and not adopted. Is that not a better solution than the NDP proposal in this case?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the backlog is actually 900,000 people. I would ask the member to talk to people in his constituency who are waiting for a relative stuck in that backlog and ask them if they do not think it is a problem. It is a huge problem for families looking to be reunited in Canada to have to wait year after year to be reunited with that relative, especially when they were promised when they emigrated to Canada that their family members would be able to join them. We broke a promise to immigrants who came to Canada when we told them that our immigration policy was such that their family would be reunified in Canada.

There are two possibilities. If we did not have a backlog, it could mean that we were in desperate need of immigrants, but it might also mean that the processing in our immigration program was working appropriately and that people were not having to wait unacceptable lengths of time to have their applications processed and to join their family members in Canada. It would mean that employers would not have to wait for employees that they need to do important work in Canada.

We could have an efficient immigration system if we put those resources into place.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I plan to talk about the whole issue of the amendment, but I will also take this opportunity to speak on Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, and share some more general but, I believe, nonetheless very important thoughts.

Coming on the heels of a budget that is timid, to say the least, Bill C-50, Budget Implementation Act, 2008, confirms this government's vision and essentially incorporates a bill on immigration that is totally unacceptable in terms of both its content and the way it is being introduced.

On reading budget 2008, I felt that seniors and the poor were the big losers. I voted against this budget largely for this reason. Now, by adding immigration clauses, the government has done something totally unacceptable, in my opinion. These clauses give the minister absolutely extraordinary discretionary powers. There will be other big losers if we accept this. If this goes through, all newcomers to Canada, especially people who want to sponsor family members, will have a hard time living with the new reality of arbitrary decisions.

I want to talk about more general issues, as I said previously. In this Budget Implementation Act, 2008, regional economies—an issue I feel strongly about and one that will always be close to my heart—and environmental concerns are really given short shrift. The measures in the bill are too timid to give clear, targeted help to the thousands of people across Canada with urgent, pressing needs. It is shameful that, once again, the government has not chosen to act for the common good and redistribute wealth when it can.

The government has chosen to use $10 billion to pay down the debt instead of looking after the people for whom it is responsible and redistributing wealth. Because it has decided to pay down the debt, the government is using smoke and mirrors and more often than not presenting us with budget measures spread over two years—measures it is not giving much attention to. Sometimes, the figures look quite promising, but when they are cut in half, they are much less attractive.

Very few people are fooled by this scheme. As I said last fall in criticizing the economic statement, it is precisely because, quite frankly, there was not much to it and nothing substantial for seniors and businesses in our region that I obviously decided to vote against the statement, as I did against this budget and as I will continue to do against this budget implementation bill, which I find unacceptable. It is only logical.

Today, the government is implementing some of the claims regarding provincial jurisdictions. We had questions about the elimination of the millennium scholarship and the creation of an independent employment insurance commission. All these steps taken by the government are baby steps and their significance should not be exaggerated, as it is quite limited. The people in our regions want to see real, detailed changes, which they do not often see from this government.

The people who need help from this government, people in my riding and throughout Quebec, are truly being left out in the cold by this budget and this budget implementation bill. I am talking about seniors and forestry workers in particular.

As far as seniors are concerned, this government recently had the opportunity, as many in this House will recall, to take a look at our least fortunate seniors and study the entire issue through the motion I presented, which, I am happy to report, was adopted by a majority vote. The only members who voted against the motion were the Conservative members.

The government thus had an opportunity to address the issue, to do things differently, to try to eliminate poverty among our seniors, those who built our regions, our country, our nation of Quebec and the rest of Canada. It had an opportunity to lift these people above the poverty line.

My motion did not ask for much. In it I asked that our seniors be lifted above the poverty line and be allowed to work 15 hours a week at the minimum wage established by their province of residence without being penalized with respect to the guaranteed income supplement. It was not much, but it was well-meaning. We know what this government decided to do.

The Conservatives have taken some measures. No one can be against the good things or against virtue. They announced $13 million to fight violence against seniors; that in itself is important. Furthermore, they announced the creation of a TFSA, that special account. This is good, if the seniors have any money. My main focus was help for poor seniors. If seniors can save a maximum of $5,000 per year in a special savings account, good for them.

But before helping those who have resources and pensions, the government's responsibility and obligation is to take care of the people who need it most. In this case, I will continue to hammer home my demands, the demands of the people, of seniors and of those who fight for seniors' rights and needs, because they need more than what the government offered in its budget.

I will not have a chance to discuss all the sectors of the Quebec economy, but there is one in particular that affects everyone, at least on this side of the House: the manufacturing and forestry sector.

It is completely unacceptable that despite the creation of a special fund intended to help these regions and sectors where many manufacturing and forestry companies are experiencing a crisis, there are still huge job losses. The government had the opportunity to help these foresters and to give them a boost.

In my region and in Quebec in particular, I am thinking about private woodlots and the foresters who own them, who cultivate our forests, who look after them competently, successfully taking environmental concerns into consideration. The Conservative government completely forgot about them. It completely ignored the reality in the forestry sector, and particularly the private forestry sector, in Quebec and elsewhere.

For all the reasons I mentioned—and I am sorry I must stop, because I could have talked for 20 minutes—it is clear that I cannot support this budget implementation bill, and will vote against it.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's remarks on the budget implementation act, and I share a lot of her concerns. In fact, I am going to be speaking in a short time about those concerns.

I wonder if the member could expand on some of the things that the government should have done when we had billions of dollars in surplus. Where could some of that money have been directed? What kind of programs might she envision that would really help some of the lowest income people in our country? Some people are at risk of losing their homes. There are people who need child care, people who need a lot of supports in our society. Those are the kinds of people that we in this House should be supporting.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

I have often noticed that when our colleagues from the New Democratic Party speak, one of their recurring themes is reducing poverty throughout the country. On behalf of the people, I applaud that.

As an independent member, I am always hesitant to tell the government what to do. To me, the most important thing is to remind it that it has the means. The first thing the government must do if it wishes to fight or reduce poverty, for everyone from children to seniors, is invest the necessary funds in existing programs.

In answer to my colleague's question, in my opinion, the second thing the government must do—while respecting the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, of course—is hand over significant sums of money—within the framework of the existing system—so that those who are closest to the people can take provincial and territorial realities into account.

As everyone knows, sovereignty is dear to my heart, so I am sure my answer will not surprise the hon. member.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I spoke in opposition to the government's budget for 2008-09 because of its tax cuts that favour big corporations, big banks and big polluters. I am very glad to have another opportunity to speak to the budget implementation bill. Of course, I support the amendment that my colleague from Trinity—Spadina put forward.

I oppose this budget once again because there is precious little in it for everyday Canadians struggling to make ends meet right across this country, including in my riding of Vancouver Island North.

As others have done, I will not talk about how the Liberals supported the Conservatives' budget that gives away Canada's fiscal capacity with billions of dollars in tax cuts, taking our country in the wrong direction. Instead, I would like to talk about the real effects of not investing in the supports needed by ordinary people living day to day in all of our communities.

I want to tell all Canadians that the Conservative government made a choice in its budget but it is who it did not choose when giving out those billions of dollars that speaks to the kinds of priorities it has and the kind of Canada that the Conservatives want. Sadly, this is not what most Canadians want.

I received a letter from one of my constituents, Jennifer McPhee. When I read her letter, I was moved by her sense of frustration. Her letter tells the story of how members of one family are trying so hard to make ends meet, to live their lives with respect for the environment and to improve their lot in life, only to feel that they are being ignored and thwarted by the actions and lack of support from the government.

I would like to read some excerpts from Jennifer's letter, with her permission, of course. She writes:

I am a...mother, a wife, a LPN at the ...hospital and a contributor to our communities.... I am fully aware of how hard it seems for the average person to get by. The warning signs are all over, showing every person on this earth that we need to collectively work together to save our earth as we know it.... I personally am learning every day about ways to help reduce, reuse, recycle, become more energy efficient, and some of that information comes from what my 8 and 10 year olds are learning in school. If school children are aware, how can our Canadian government turn a blind eye to the crisis we are in? How can they not see it at as an opportunity to lead the way into a new way of thinking and pioneering a system that we can be proud of? ...I started to become thrifty and thoughtful as a means of self-preservation initially, and it has evolved for me as a necessary way of life.... I work at the hospital giving it my all...then provide a foot care service for the elderly in our community that cannot afford to go to town to see a podiatrist or cannot get around well. I spend as much time as I can providing extracurricular activities for my kids as schools cannot afford the time or money to assist [them].... I have volunteered at our school to do hot lunches. I have been on the board of directors for our children's centre, a non-profit society that has been near closing for years due to a lack of financial help to rural communities, fundraising and fighting for the right of quality child care for our community's children.... I try so hard to be a good role model for my children. I try so hard to find a balance between the work that I have to do to stay afloat and my family and friends. It feels more and more every year like the government is trying to make sure that the young adults of this world don't ever succeed. I don't get raises that coincide with the increases in the cost of living.... If we weren't thrifty and creative making my foot care business and growing our own garden...we would have lost our home shortly after we purchased it.... I am over the allowable threshold for a child care subsidy and my children were born before the date that would give me access to that extra $100 a month.

She goes on to state:

I get called continuously from work at the hospital begging me to work more as the staff members there are always overtaxed with patient load. Yet when I have looked into furthering my education so that I can help out with our nursing shortage by becoming an RN, there is no access to funding. There is no incentive to lose [my] job security...to miss time with my family, to go into debt with student loans. It feels like an unreachable goal, unless I want to jeopardize my family in the process.... I feel desperate for help and change. I don't know how to achieve it and I'm so tired already from trying so hard. I know that this letter will be one of the masses and it will go nowhere. That seems to be what happens with the average voice and the average fight for the greater good. That's how I feel, anyway.

This is just one person among millions in this country who feel that their voices are not being heard. I want the Jennifers of this country to know that there are people out there listening and taking action on the issues she raised: the environment, support for seniors, child care, education and training, affordable housing and the cost of living for ordinary people.

The NDP is the only party consistently opposing this wrong-headed Conservative agenda. We are listening to everyday Canadians and ensuring their voices and their choices are part of the national debate about the kind of Canada we want.

I would also like to talk about a growing crisis in this country, that of poverty and homelessness. We just heard again this morning that homelessness is on the rise in this country. While there are people in all our communities living on the streets, living in substandard housing or at risk of becoming homeless, the Conservatives ignored their needs in the budget.

I congratulate my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for the work he is doing on the issues of poverty and homelessness. I look forward, as do poverty and housing advocates in my riding, to the upcoming hearings to discuss this issue and to, hopefully, help the government to understand that Canada can do better.

There are solutions that need to be acted upon. We can do it. We are a rich country. We can afford to take care of one another, especially the most vulnerable in our society.

Sadly, the government does not just forget or ignore people struggling to make ends meet. It also takes from them. Do members remember the EnerGuide program for low income households that the government scrapped in its first budget? That program was helping cut energy costs for low income households. Now, with the increase in energy costs, the inability to pay those bills is putting more families at risk of losing their homes. In fact, it is the second leading cause of evictions in Canada.

Why do the energy producers get huge tax breaks but the energy users get gouged?

One more segment of our society has been left out of this budget when it comes to housing. I do not know if anyone from the government side has been on a first nation reserve recently and seen the deplorable conditions of their homes but I have. In Ehattesaht and Kyuquot, at Gwa'Sala-'Nakwaxda'xw or Fort Rupert, in Tsaxana and Homalco reserves, and in Campbell River, I have been invited into people's homes to see their living conditions. Most of the homes on reserves are falling apart and mouldy. This is creating unhealthy living conditions for everyone but especially for children and elders.

While this is a deplorable situation in and of itself, to subject anyone to live in these conditions, there is also overcrowding because there are not enough homes to go around. I have been in homes in which there are several families living. Sometimes up to 24 people are living in one home meant for a family of four.

Every time I visit a first nation community in my riding, and I have been to at least 12 of them, I get angry. I get angry at a government that is not listening to the first people of this country. I get angry at a government that perpetuates the systemic discrimination of our forefathers by turning a blind eye to the reality of life on reserve.

However, my anger does not stop me. My anger fuels my drive to raise this injustice in this House. It might be hard for some people in this place to hear that we are responsible for allowing the third world conditions in which first nations people live in this country but we better pay attention.

Funding from the federal government does not meet the needs of first nations communities. With the money they receive, they must provide all the services to their people that three levels of government provide to others in Canada: education, social services, infrastructure, housing, health care, child care, elder care, all this at the same time as they are dealing with the legacy of the residential schools system.

I have the privilege of travelling around one of the most beautiful parts of the country, my riding of Vancouver Island North, and every time I do, it reminds me of what I have a responsibility to protect and the people I have to represent. I made a promise to bring their voices and their issues to Ottawa. I hope I have done them justice, but more important, I hope this government and the other opposition parties listen and vote against the implementation of this budget.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank the member for Vancouver Island North for the overview that she has given, which is indicative not only of her riding but also of circumstances in which Canadians and new Canadians, indeed, first nations Canadians, find themselves.

My riding is one of the very needy ridings in Ontario. According to the package of indicators, it is second in terms of the kinds of supports that are necessary. We have a large number of new immigrants and a large number of them are not working because they cannot meet the certification that is required.

The member talked about Jennifer McPhee. I think Jennifer is one of those among the working poor who are searching for dignity in life. However, she has dignity because the member has taken up her cause.

I did not hear the member actually speak to the immigration act, the portion of this omnibus bill with which we are trying to come to grips.

Could the member indicate what she would like to see with respect to those supports that new immigrants require? We talk about settlement services and so on. Could she just give us a quick overview on how deficient the bill is and why, in those particular areas, we should seek out resolutions because of the kinds of circumstances that she and I and many members are facing in their ridings, and that the government's approach is not coming to grips with those needs?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his understanding of some of the severe lack of supports for ordinary Canadians who are trying to make ends meet. Day to day Canadians, just ordinary people, are out there struggling to make a living and doing the best they can.

When it comes to the issue of immigration, my colleague from Trinity—Spadina moved an amendment to the bill to take the immigration piece out of the budget implementation act because it ought not to be in there. Immigration should be in a separate bill that would be debated in committee but, unfortunately, that will not happen.

The inclusion of immigration within the budget implementation bill would give the minister sweeping powers to have the final say and have the discretion over all immigrants, which will not help the process.

As my hon. colleague knows, significant problems have created a backlog. My office deals with many immigration cases, even in Vancouver Island North. We are not a big centre but we still get many cases.

The problems that are precipitated because of this implementation bill with immigration in it, will not do anything to help immigration, to speed up the process and allow more people to come into this country.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member will want to ask the minister, once this bill goes to committee, why it is that the numbers keep changing on the question of the backlog. It was 690,000 two years and, by today's estimate, it has gone to 925,000, but she has no measures to eliminate that backlog. That is an increase of over 100,000 per year. She cannot blame that on this side of the House. She can only take responsibility.

Will the member allow herself to ask those questions of the minister in committee and ask her why her government has allowed a 100,000-plus addition to the backlog--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Vancouver Island North has about 30 seconds left.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I do not think I will even take that long, Mr. Speaker.

Why did my hon. colleague not support the once in a lifetime bill introduced by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park? That bill could have alleviated some of the backlog. I know many of the people who have applied are people waiting to be reunited with their families.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East, Foreign Affairs.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation act and, along with my colleagues, I intend to vote against this bill. It is very problematic.

The budget and the budget implementation act would basically strip away the government's fiscal capacity and place a rising burden on individual taxpayers.

We have seen corporate tax giveaways rising while the individual burden proportionately is increasing through this budget and it is destroying any semblance of balance between the taxes paid by large corporations, many of which are very profitable, and the taxes paid by ordinary Canadians.

We know that the kinds of across-the-board tax cuts that the government is bringing in continues the pattern, unfortunately, of previous governments, which is of giving back moneys to the most profitable companies. Who has been making the big profits in this country? Certainly the banks have been digging in with both hands and have been extremely profitable. The oil and gas companies have seen their profits skyrocket with the rising price of oil. They are doing extremely well and these corporate cuts just fuel their profits and support. It subsidizes a sector that, quite frankly, should not be getting subsidies.

What is the impact here? The impact is that the proportion of tax revenue coming from large corporations will go down by 12% but the percentage paid by individual Canadians, the average person who goes to work every day and pays taxes, their share will be increased by 14%. In other words, individual Canadians will be paying a greater share of creating the fiscal capacity that we have in this country to pay for the programs and services that we all want to enjoy.

This growing imbalance is increasingly squeezing the average person at a time when personal debt is at an all-time high. Salaries are flat. More and more people are working full time and still below the poverty line. Individual savings are at a real low point. Most people do not have savings for a rainy day.

To summarize, what we are seeing in this budget is that for every dollar that the government is spending in services, programs and infrastructure, it is spending $6 on corporate tax cuts. Six to one is the ratio of spending in this budget. We disagree with it and that is why we have opposed it.

As I said, these tax cuts are shrinking our fiscal capacity. What does that mean? It means that we are not spending in the areas that we ought to be investing in, in spite of some of the very pressing needs that we have in this country.

What could we have done with the money that the government is spending in corporate tax giveaways? We could have created 1.14 million child care spaces. We could have done that to help working families that are so squeezed when both parents are trying to make ends meet and still care for their kids.

We could have added 74,000 hybrid transit buses that are clean, new and more accessible and, my goodness, even Canadian made. We could have put these on our streets, created a lot of jobs, kept a lot of people in work, created new jobs and created a big demand for all the auxiliary parts and services that go into this production.

We could have created 12.1 million units of non-profit affordable housing. Would that not have been something? That would certainly clear up the 70,000 families that are on the waiting list for affordable housing in my city of Toronto alone.

We could have invested in 25,000 MRI machines to help with some of the backlog in our health care system. We could have invested in our health care system so that Canadians could get the timely, efficient, good quality care that they need. We could have invested in annual health services for 10 million patients and made sure that our seniors, or anybody who needs health care, have the services in a timely fashion.

We could have helped with undergraduate tuition for 11 million students. That would have made an enormous difference for young people starting out in life rather than saddling them with an oppressive mortgaging of their future. We could have invested in their education and helped them get the kind of start that they ought to be getting in a country as wealthy as ours. We could have forgiven 2.1 million graduates of their student loans.

Unfortunately, supported by the opposition, the government has decided not to invest in all of these pressing priorities, whether it is child care, housing, health care, or the arts, many of the issues that are of concern to people in my riding of Parkdale--High Park.

Another choice that the federal government made was to undermine one of the core adjustment programs that working people in our country need and that is our employment insurance program.

This program has already been significantly undermined by previous governments. It used to be our strongest program to help working people when they lost their job and needed to get into a new job. This program used to provide funding for unemployed workers. Some 80% of unemployed workers used to get EI to help them through their transition.

As a result of cuts made by the previous government that significantly undermined who would get benefits and the level of their benefits, we find today that more than three-quarters of laid off people in the city of Toronto and about two-thirds across the country do not get employment insurance benefits. This is shocking. Is there any other insurance program where an individual cannot access the benefits even though he or she has paid the premiums? This defies logic.

Working people and employers across the country have been paying into the EI fund for some time, resulting in a surplus of $57 billion. Previous governments, as well as the present government, have used that money to pay down the debt or for other programs. People who have been paying into the fund and ought to be getting the benefits are in fact being denied the benefits.

What is the Conservative government doing? Rather than saying there is an imbalance between the money paid in and the abysmal level of benefits and services available as a result of the inadequacy of the EI program, the government has decided to take, or steal in fact, the $57 billion and set up a separate account that will not be accountable to this Parliament. That is shocking. That is a disgrace. That is a dishonour to unemployed workers across the country.

The decision by the government to change the immigration act and put so much discretion and power in the hands of the immigration minister is a terrible betrayal of the hopes and dreams of newcomers who want to come to this country.

Our system is far from perfect. There have been too many cutbacks in the system that have created a backlog. But too many people are now going to be denied the opportunity to come to this country because of the changes in this budget implementation act.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Parkdale—High Park comes from an urban Toronto riding. She has given a strategic overview of what the main elements of a comprehensive strategic economic plan would be.

She mentioned child care. She talked about transportation, affordable housing, the health care system and MRI units. These are all of the things that would have been possible had there been a different tactical approach with respect to not touching the GST but dealing with low income earners and attempting to reinvest through them to give them the ability to meet their account problems and a whole variety of concerns that they have.

There is one area that I share in common with the member and that is the whole area of affordable housing and the existing housing stock. One thing she did not mention was how important it is to invest through the residential rehabilitation assistance program on old buildings that have structural needs and mouldy conditions, and are a health concern.

I wonder if she would like to take a moment to outline how that approach through the residential rehabilitation program, which has been cut in fact, would have an impact on her riding which is similar to mine.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. Not only was there no new money for affordable or social housing, for renovating or retrofitting existing homes, no money for a strategy to reduce homelessness, but there was no commitment to renew funding for the residential rehabilitation assistance program or RRAP funding.

This funding has been used across the country to take substandard housing, these bachelorettes in Parkdale in my riding, and convert them into more liveable housing.

It is shocking to see the number of people, who not only are homeless on the streets of Toronto but who live in such deplorable housing conditions. I see children living in apartments that are water damaged or mouldy. The apartments are cramped, dark and really substandard.

I do not think this program and others did the job. The national housing strategy has been abandoned. What this country needs is a massive investment in housing. We have a national housing crisis. We could have used some of this money and some of this fiscal capacity to invest in housing. Meanwhile people are being evicted.

People could be living in safe, secure and affordable housing. Instead, we are seeing so much of it shovelled to those who already have so much. It defies logic and it defies any kind of humanity to approach our budget this way.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one thing I would like to address, even though there were many issues in the hon. member's speech.

I am greatly surprised with the issue that the NDP brings up over and over. It is its objection to paying down debt. It is my distinct belief that when people borrow money, it is because they do not have enough for what they want to do. I would like to blame the Liberals from the 1970s on. They drove this country into huge debt from which we need to escape.

The reason I think it is strange for the NDP to have this stance is that people who have more money than they need invest it and buy Canada savings bonds. People who are poor cannot. They are the working poor usually. They still pay taxes. We have a transfer of money from the poor to the rich when we have national debt. We need to get rid of that debt in order to stop that transfer. I am surprised that the NDP does not support the paying down of debt.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we agree with paying down debt.

It is a question of balance. We do not need to be the most aggressive debt payers of the G-8. To me it defies logic that people would want to completely pay off their mortgage, but have a big hole in the roof and be unable to keep the rain out. It is a question of balance. The debt should be paid down, but we also invest in our society and in our economy today to ensure that we take care of people.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand again in Parliament and speak about the types of issues that the Conservative Party brings forth within a budget.

We have an amendment now in front of us dealing with Bill C-50 to separate some of the immigration issues that are extremely important to Canadians right across the country and in my riding as well.

We think it is absolutely imperative that the heavy-handed legislation that has been introduced through the budget process be taken out.

For myself and the constituents I represent, the situation with immigration is horrendous. The backlog means loss of productivity and loss of sense of identity for many people across the country. We need to change that, yes, but to change it as it is proposed, where we could arbitrarily choose those we wish to reward with the benefits of a properly working immigration system is really wrong.

We need to keep it democratic and we need to keep it fair across this country. That is why we have put this amendment forward and that is why we will continue to not support this bill as long it contains this type of effort.

Having said that, I would like as well to talk about the budget and the budget implementation bill. In reality, I have actually been harangued by many in the Conservative Party about my position to not support the budget. So, I would like to explain that to people and get it on the record.

The other day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Macleod, claimed that my constituents were extremely disappointed with me for not supporting the budget. I do not understand why he would say that, but he continued by saying that a member from the Northwest Territories who did not support a northern residents tax reduction was really failing his constituents.

When we look at the record, we will see that for the past eight years I have been fighting, in three elections, to put forward the concept that fairness within the northern residents tax deduction needs to be addressed.

In this Parliament, I have been consistently bringing this issue up and putting it on the order paper. I have worked with my constituents across the Northwest Territories and in the other northern territories to raise petitions and to bring attention to this issue.

It is nice to see that the Conservative Party has picked up on the issue, but it did not get the job done. A 10% increase to the northern residents tax deduction is simply a convenience to the Conservative Party so that it can say to the electorate “We did this”, when in fact what was required and was asked by all my constituents, whether they be labour, whether they be the chambers of commerce, or whether they be the legislative assemblies, was a 50% increase just to keep up with inflation for the past 20 years.

The Conservative Party did not get the job done in this budget with the northern residents tax deduction and it should be ashamed to try to fool Canadians into thinking that it did.

The Prime Minister was in my riding, in Yellowknife, a number of weeks ago. What did he do? He stood and harangued me for not supporting the budget. The Prime Minister took the time to tear into the member for Western Arctic because I did not support the budget. The Prime Minister used the northern residents tax deduction as a convenient tool to try to increase the electoral chances of his party in my riding. What a shame-faced effort that was by the Prime Minister.

That is the kind of common approach that I see this Conservative Party taking on so many issues for the north. It talks big about what it is doing for the north and yet everything it does has a hidden touch to it; it turns out to be less than what is expected.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development came up north the other day and talked about what he had done for crime prevention, with the new fund he set up for police procurement in the north. He is offering up $800,000 over five years to the Northwest Territories, an amount which the minister of justice in my territory admitted was only 70% of one police officer position.

In a territory that has extreme problems of distance, the cost to move police services across a vast area the size of one-sixth of the whole country of Canada, the government has offered up 70% of a police officer over the next five years to answer our needs. After the kinds of incidents in the north of over the last year with police, the troubles policemen have had, having to act on by themselves because they simply do not have the resources to implement the proper procedures used in normal situations and we this is what we get. Once again, the Conservative Party brags about a program that really amounts to nothing.

Then we go back to previous budgets wherein the Conservative government brought forward a new formula funding agreement, which at the time it touted as being very progressive. Once again, it was established that the funds would go to the three northern territories, not on what it would cost to provide services in the north, but on a per capita basis. Costs in the north are rising daily. The expanding economy in western Canada is driving up the costs to everyone to a great degree.

After the wonderful work the Conservative Party did with the new formula financing agreement, the territorial government now says it is $135 million short. It will have to cut positions and very particular things that it needs to do to provide decent services within the Northwest Territories. Therefore, we have a problem right now.

When we talk about the Northwest Territories, it is an area where money is being made. We in the Northwest Territories want to see devolution. We want to see revenue sharing from resources, which is an important thing for us, but we do not want to be shorted on that as well.

When the Conservative government announced that it would continue the $500 million socio-economic fund to be set up for the pipeline, what did it say about it? It said that the fund would not be available until the pipeline was guaranteed and that the fund was okay because it would come out of the royalties that would be accrued to the Mackenzie gas project. That is not a subsidy. That is simply giving us the money that should be ours.

If the Conservative Party is providing this fund to the north to mitigate socio-economic activities will come as a result of industrial expansion that will favour southern Canada, it should take that money out of the revenues that accrue to southern Canada, not the ones that come to the Northwest Territories. That is unfair. Once again it shows the nature of the Conservative Party when it comes to funding the north and giving it a fair share.

What about the Norman Wells project? Oil has been pumped through that pipeline from Norman Wells for some 20 years. Right now, the federal government will not put it on the table in devolution. It will not put the revenue from that project on the table. The Conservatives say that it is their money, that they traded royalties for ownership of the pipeline, that they own 33% of the pipeline and they will not share it with us in the Northwest Territories. They say that they will not give us our fair share. What kind of deal is that? What kind of respect for the Northwest Territories is that from the Conservative Party?

Would the Alberta MPs who sit in the House be satisfied with this kind of arrangement for their provinces? I do not think so. I think they would be up yelling like I am right now.

When it comes to the diamond mines, when the original environmental assessment was set up, the benefits the Northwest Territories were to receive were employment and business opportunities based on a certain rate of production. Some of the mines are exceeding their production by 50%. Do we see the government standing up for our interests in this? No. It continues to let it go, with bigger profits and bigger taxes that will accrue to the federal government. Where does that leave the people of the Northwest Territories?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with apt attention to my friend who has the riding just north of mine in northern Alberta. He asked me to say something as an Albertan MP.

I noticed he was a little nervous about the security of his own riding after the Prime Minister visited it and made some great announcements, and I understand his nervousness. However, some of my constituents received an increase in the northern living allowance. After 20 years, that is the first increase in the northern living allowance. I am very proud of our government for that increase.

As well, I want to let the member know that yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with the minister of transport in the Northwest Territories. He is very happy with the federal government. He is very happy with the initiatives we have taken. He is very happy with the money we have invested in the building Canada fund and the other issues in the Northwest Territories.

Has the member had an opportunity to speak with members of the governing body for the Northwest Territories and talked to them about how happy they are with the Prime Minister and how excited they are with this government for the steps it has taken to help them after nothing was done by the previous Liberal government?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's riding is next to mine, a riding from which I do get some things. They come in by air, by water and from the development that his riding depends on for its economy.

When the Conservative Party dealt with the capital gains exemption in the last budget, and it had been 20 years since it was increased, it said that it was fair, that it would raise it by 50%. That was the amount of inflation taken out the benefit over that time. What is different about the northern residents tax deduction? Why did we only get 10%? Is that because we are second class citizens up there? Is that because we do not deserve that kind of benefit, that we are not working hard, that we are not contributing to Canada? I do not think so. I think it is because the Conservative Party is treating the north badly.

I spoke to my minister of transport the other day, as well. He is a very positive guy. He would be positive at any time. I certainly hope that his positive nature will not be affected by any more trips to Ottawa to meet with the Conservative Party. If it is, I will have to try to encourage him to keep his smile, to keep working hard for the people of the Northwest Territories.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I might have a little history check for the hon. member regarding the budget. He talked about the northern allowance. I also remind him of a few other promises the government made when it was in opposition.

The now Minister of Veterans Affairs and Prime Minister both said that if they were elected, they would compensate everybody in the agent orange file from 1956 to 1984. They came out with a package that even the Liberals would not have accepted, and they asked for a public inquiry. It is not done.

The Prime Minister, in a letter to a widow of a veteran, said very clearly that if the Conservatives were elected, they would immediately extend the VIP to all widows of World War II and Korea, not only some. The budget came out and 30% additional widows will get that coverage, while 70% of additional widows need not apply. Why would the government say “all” and only give it to some?

The former defence minister and the current defence minister said to our veterans who had been in Nevada for the atomic testing that the government would have a package very soon for them.

The agent orange people are now in court against the government. The atomic veterans have gone to court. The veterans facing the SISIP clawback are in court. Why do these veterans who fought so hard for our—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to cut off the hon. member there to allow the hon. member for Western Arctic a chance to respond.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with the Conservative Party, we are dealing with a party that is penny-wise and pound foolish when it comes to turning out things for Canadians. The Conservatives will give away pounds to the corporations. They will turn their pockets inside out for the corporations. However, when it comes to turning over dollars to hard-working Canadians across the country, to the veterans, to all those types of people, the pockets shut, a nervous look comes over their faces and we do not see the generosity they have shown to many of their corporate friends.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Karen Redman]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred to the end of government orders today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Accordingly the vote stands deferred until the end of government orders this day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-50.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #83

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the amendment lost.

The House resumed from April 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-50, the budget implementation act, and outline some of the reasons that New Democrats will be opposing the legislation.

On any number of fronts, the bill fails to provide for working and middle class families, but I want to address specifically first nations, Métis, and Inuit. On these fronts, it fails to provide adequate housing, safe drinking water systems, education and, unfortunately, the list does go on.

I want to put this into some context. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in its alternative federal budget document, did a very good job analyzing some of the challenges facing first nations, Métis and Inuit. In its document, it talks about the fact that government figures confirm that first nations received approximately $6 billion from the federal government in 2006-07. This funding was for all services, services that other Canadians receive from all three levels of government, which would include the federal and the municipal governments.

It goes on to say that the 2% annual increase in first nations' budgets is less than one-third of the average 6.6% increase that most Canadians will enjoy through Canada health and social transfers in each of the next five years. When adjusted for inflation and population growth, the total budget for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada decreased by 3.5% between 1999 and 2004. As a result of the 2% cap, it is estimated that the accumulated shortfall through 2007-08 is $774 million. This has an impact on all aspects of first nations, Métis and Inuit, whether it is their ability to join the labour force, to live in clean housing or to access clean drinking water.

There are on reserve and off reserve Inuit in the north. When we talk about off reserve, I want to touch briefly on the plight of Indian friendship centres. The friendship centres have been chronically underfunded for any number of years and yet we know they deliver a vital and important service in urban communities where there are large numbers of first nations, Métis and Inuit.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have two very good friendship centres, Hiiye'yu Lelum and Tillicum Haus. Both of those friendship centres have been forced into the kind of fundraising that we would not expect of any other organization delivering services. I would agree that it is important to look for partners but these organizations have such limited core funding that they are always lurching from funding crisis to funding crisis, despite the very good services they deliver in their communities.

I want to talk briefly about the funding and the fact that the budget implementation act does include funding for child protection services. However, in the alternative federal budget it states that the current funding formula drastically underfunds services that support families and allow them to care for their children safely in their homes and communities. As a result, for first nations the removal of children from their homes and communities is often the only option considered, not the last option.

I have spoken to this House before about least disruptive measures and how we actually pay for foster care off reserve at prices that, if we were to put that money into the on reserve community for least disruptive measures, we would actually close the gap around education, housing and the poverty that is a daily living condition in many first nations communities.

The alternative federal budget estimates that rather than the $43 million over two years that this bill would put in place, $388 million should be allocated over three years. The sad reality is that the Assembly of First Nations and other partners have had to take this complaint about the chronic underfunding for child protection services in this country to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

In December, this House stood and supported unanimously my private member's motion on Jordan's Principle. I do not want to repeat all of the stories but Jordan was a little boy from Norway House Cree Nation who died in the hospital. He had spent four years in a hospital and two of those years were because of a jurisdictional dispute between the federal and provincial governments.

In a recently released report called “Reaching for the Top: A Report by the Advisor on Healthy Children and Youth”, a recommendation was made that when there is a jurisdictional dispute between the federal and provincial governments that the federal government step forward and demonstrate some leadership and pay first. It has mechanisms to recover those payments once those jurisdictional disputes are completed.

We simply should approach this from a child-centred approach and say that children come first in this country and we will put the resources where they are needed.

The Norway House Cree Nation, where Jordan lived and where his parents gave him up to foster care in order to get him care, there are 37 children right now with complex medical needs. The parents of these children may also need to surrender their children to the provincial foster care system in order to get their children's needs met. This is happening because of a funding problem from the federal government perspective.

I will now touch briefly on the issue of violence against women. British Columbia has a highway called the Highway of Tears that runs between Prince George and Prince Rupert. From 1989 to 2006, nine young women either disappeared or were murdered on that highway and all but one of them were first nations women.

Working with community partners, the provincial government has stepped forward and funded some forums and a number of key recommendations came out of them.

However, once again the federal government has failed to demonstrate leadership when it comes to aboriginal women and violence. There have been many pleas for the federal government to step forward and help with the funding of some coordinator positions in Prince Rupert and Prince George. People are calling for a highway transportation feasibility study that would look at community safety. They are also asking for funding for some of the important recommendations that came out of the community forums.

We have wide documentation on violence against aboriginals and the federal government could step forward and support some of the initiatives that communities have put forward.

I now want to turn to education. Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.

Sadly, the federal government has failed to support a number of articles in the UN declaration and, in fact, actively lobbied not to support the declaration. It is playing out right now in first nations education across Canada.

Many people in this House will be familiar with the Attawapiskat situation where the community is resorting to tools like YouTube to get its message out across this country. Attawapiskat is not the only school in this country that is suffering. The parliamentary library did some research for us and found that 39 schools were currently on the list for construction or renovation projects, and those were only the ones that we could identify. The parliamentary library estimated that it would cost $350,833,000 to construct or renovate these 39 schools.

We have seen surplus after surplus and yet we continue to have schools to which not one of us would send our children. Reports have shown many safety hazards with respect to these schools, such as doors not closing properly, mould, and roofs in danger of collapsing from heavy snow, and yet we still cannot get the kind of movement that is required from the federal government. A school in northern Saskatchewan burned down in 2004 and still has not been replaced.

This is not just a problem in Attawapiskat. Unfortunately, because of the lack of transparency within the government, we have not been able to get a complete list of all the schools on the list so we could let Canadians from coast to coast to coast know how many first nations and Inuit children are unable to access the kind of education that we say is a fundamental human right in this country.

We often try to present ourselves as champions of human rights and yet we have citizens in this country who do not have access to the things that we think are fundamental human rights.

I would encourage members of the House to oppose this bill unless it can be amended to include some of these important measures that would ensure the quality of life for first nations, Inuit and Métis is equal to that of other Canadians.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started her speech by talking about the north. We are doing many great things in the north and we are determined to keep doing that. We have a very aggressive northern agenda.

The newspaper in Yellowknife has urged the NDP to get off its high horse and support this budget because it is good for the north. I wonder if the member would comment on the fact that many northerners say that this is a good budget for the north.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like anything else there are always elements in any piece of legislation that have a positive effect. However, what we have to do is look at the piece of legislation as a whole. We have to look at the complete context.

We had a housing report not long ago for north of 60 which talked about the failure of the federal government and previous federal governments to address the housing crisis in the north. We have women in the north who are in violent situations, who are at risk, and they simply have nowhere to go.

I would argue that we need to take a comprehensive look at the north, work with the people in the north to make sure that we are covering that range of services, which includes education. Justice Berger's report still has not been responded to by the government. On the north of 60 report, where is the comprehensive response to that? There are many other issues being faced by the north that simply are not addressed in this budget.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She mentioned that she did not think our government was doing anything to protect first nations women from violence.

I think that first nations women in particular when they are in a matrimonial breakdown find themselves very vulnerable. Our government, and of course the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has brought forward legislation that will bring about matrimonial real property protections to first nations citizens, including women. Does the member think that is a good idea and would she support it?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the government was doing nothing. I was actually calling on it to address a very specific situation on the “Highway of Tears” where the federal government simply has not stepped up to the plate.

With regard to matrimonial real property, article 18 of the UN declaration talks about indigenous people having the right to participate in decision making, in matters which would affect the rights to representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures and so on.

When it comes to matrimonial real property, we have had the Native Women's Association of Canada quite clearly say that it did not have a hand in the final drafting of this legislation and that it has some very serious concerns.

Therefore, I would encourage the government to bring the MRP bill back to the House for debate. We could then send it to committee to call witnesses and make appropriate amendments that would actually reflect the needs of first nations women and children in this country.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the member in more funding for friendship centres.

I was the president and treasurer of our local friendship centre and I have mentioned this many times. Hopefully there will be more money for the headstart program, which is a very successful program.

Also, we have had a review of land claims in Yukon and I am hoping that in the budget or in the supplementaries there will be sufficient funds to deal with that.

I am hoping that the government will work quickly to settle more land claims. There is much to be done and I hope the government will come up with the money either in the budget or in supplementaries for that and hopefully Tsawwassen will come to the House soon.

Finally, the Yukon Aboriginal Women's Council had a great conference. I think the member is aware of that. It came up with all sorts of recommendations and I hope the government will look at those recommendations and implement some of them.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in the member's question. I will just talk about the Yukon self-government agreement and land claims.

What we have seen is delay and stall tactics on the part of the government. The Council of Yukon First Nations and the nations that have been involved in these agreements have done a tremendous amount of work in pushing forward its agenda on justice as well as many other matters.

Yet, the government is very slow to respond and come to the table with the resources that are required for full implementation of these very important agreements.

Again, the budget fails to address some of the important implementation issues that have been raised consistently over the last five to nine years.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the NDP and the Liberals have finally seen the light. They have seen the great initiatives this Conservative government is taking in relation to aboriginal Canadians and all Canadians.

As a result of that, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think this motion is out of order. We are in the middle of a debate. Members in the House are ready to speak to Bill C-50. I do not know where this motion comes from, but debate on this bill is continuing. A number of members are here ready to debate this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Just on that point, the motion does not prevent the debate from continuing. All it does is prevent any further amendments from being moved, so that the members in the House who are lined up to speak on the matter will be able to do so.

Of course, the parliamentary secretary concluded his speech as he rose by moving the motion. We will now move to questions and comments, on what I am not sure. Nevertheless, we are in a question and comment period with respect to the brief appearance of the parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from that very short speech, I want to be really clear that I was not in wholehearted support of this particular budget implementation act. I think the budget is sadly lacking with regard to issues facing first nations, Métis and Inuit.

I would like to ask the member if he could tell me how this budget addresses the serious education gaps, gaps around housing, and violence against women, just to name a couple?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. It did not take us two years, it did not take us one year. The very first budget this government ever implemented addressed the issue of northern housing. It provided $300 million for northern housing on reserve and $300 million for off reserve housing. We have already addressed that issue and we continue to address the issue.

We continue to support vulnerable Canadians. We have provided $110 million to the Mental Health Commission of Canada to increase our knowledge of those who are homeless and suffering from mental illnesses. We have provided $282 million over this and the next two years to expand the veterans independence program. This government stands up for vulnerable Canadians. We get the job done for all Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member gave a one sentence speech, which basically said that the speeches made by the Liberal and NDP members showed that they supported the government's work on aboriginal people. That, of course, had absolutely no relation to reality. I even saw the Speaker raise his eyebrows.

I want the member, if he wants to maintain his integrity, to defend the statement that the previous two speeches said even one thing in support of the government's support of aboriginal people.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to talk a bit more about what we are doing for aboriginal Canadians in this particular budget.

There will be $70 million over two years for measures to foster aboriginal economic development. Those are real steps to move forward for aboriginal Canadians. There will be $70 million over two years to improve first nations education outcomes. There will be $147 million over two years to improve first nations and Inuit health outcomes. We have listened to aboriginal Canadians. We have moved forward with safe drinking water and housing.

We have moved forward because this Conservative government wants to get the job done for aboriginal Canadians and all Canadians, and we are doing that. We are glad that the Liberal Party is standing up or I should say sitting down because it is allowing us to move forward our agenda for Canadians. We want to thank the Liberal Party because we are getting the job done for Canadians.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I too am puzzled by the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

But remember the quote that I read about you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes, and I am also puzzled by the comments that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made.

I guess he did not see the poll that was conducted in the Yellowknifer as well, which unanimously supported my position to stand up to the Conservative Party that only provided an increase of 10% in the northern residents tax deduction.

I say this to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. The New Democratic Party does not stand and say that the government has taken our money that it should be allotted to housing in Bill C-48. It applied it and that is great, but that money is going to be sunsetted.

The minister of housing in the Northwest Territories is distressed by the fact that we are going to be running out of money for housing that can assist aboriginal and non-aboriginal people across the territory in getting affordable housing. This is the case. There is nothing new for housing in this budget. It is a disgrace.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there, but I know the NDP takes a position to the left, to the right, out of this world, and somewhere on the moon. It does not matter what position those members take, they are never going to form government. They are never going to be able to take any positive steps anywhere to help Canadians.

I have talked to the people in northern Alberta because actually I am right next to him as far as our constituencies go. I respect the member. However, let us be clear. The increase of 10% in the northern living allowance was welcomed by all northerners. It had not been touched in 20 years before this government took positive steps. We recognize the needs in the north.

However, let us talk about something else that is going to directly affect this member.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

We will just have to talk about it at another time because the time has expired.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about an issue that has caused my constituents great concern and fear.

In fact, in the time that I have served as the member of Parliament for Newton—North Delta, my office has never received this kind of reaction from the people in my riding. The issue that I am referring to are the changes the government is proposing to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Over the past few weeks, Canadians have been told that these amendments would make the system more efficient and improve the way that immigrants are welcomed into this country.

The facts do not support these claims and the government is misleading Canadians. Since this government took power, the application backlog has grown by over 100,000.

The simple fact of the matter is that Canada's immigration system is severely understaffed. We need more immigration officers, more consulate officials, and more branch offices across the globe. These are the simple adjustments that must be made if we have any hope of overcoming this backlog. I will tell members something else we need more of, and that is immigrants.

Two-thirds of Canada's population growth between 2001 and 2006 was fuelled by immigrants. According to the 2006 census, Canada is on track to becoming 100% dependent on immigration for growth. By 2012 immigration is expected to account for all the net labour force growth. The Conference Board of Canada estimates a shortfall of three million skilled workers by the year 2020.

These statistics are the reality of our country's future. Canada's growth, both in population and in the economy, will collapse without a steady flow of immigrants.

The new powers that are being proposed for the minister would have the potential to allow great abuses of the system. The minister would have the ability to pick and choose which immigrants she decides are acceptable. The minister would also be able to cap the number of applicants by category. Family reunification and permanent resident applications could be slashed.

The scariest proposal is to allow the minister to reject applicants who have already been approved by immigration officers. This minister is bringing politics into the immigration system. No one person should have the power to choose who gets into Canada and who does not.

How can Canadians be sure that the government will not favour one class of immigrants over another? With these new ministerial powers, there are no guarantees that people and businesses would be treated objectively.

Every day I speak to residents in my riding who are very fearful that if this bill passes their family members are going to be ignored and their business are going to suffer.

There are thousands of my constituents who were once immigrants themselves and who have built a life that contributes to the betterment of Canadian society. These Canadian citizens are desperate to be reunited with their families, and they have gone through all the proper channels to make this happen. However, with these changes, the rules would not matter any more.

At times, I wonder if this government understands what immigration really means, beyond a raw economic cost-benefit analysis. Does the government even understand the religious and cultural heritage that immigrants bring to our country?

This Sunday is Vaisakhi, the celebration of the birth of Khalsa. It is one of the most important days in the Sikh nation heritage. I congratulate the Sikh nation on this most important day. Hundreds of thousands of Sikhs and their fellow Canadians will celebrate peacefully and inclusively for the well-being of everyone in the world.

I am proud to say that the largest celebration of Vaisakhi, the birth of Khalsa, in North America takes place in my riding of Newton—North Delta. I encourage my colleagues to take part in these ceremonies in their communities and celebrate Sikh heritage.

I am an immigrant to this country. My family members have joined me in Canada since I arrived over two decades ago. There is one thing in which I always had faith. I never had a doubt about the fairness of our country and its immigration system.

Canada represented new opportunity, a better life for my family and, most important, equality, meaning that everyone was assessed in the same way. If these amendments pass, that expectation of opportunity for all will disappear, so too will Canada's reputation as a welcoming country for immigrants.

I want to conclude by asking a simple question. If the government feels these amendments will improve the system, why is it hiding them in a budget bill? The budget should be voted on by itself. These proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are too important to be hidden. If these changes will make a positive impact, then the House should be able to consider them on their own.

I encourage the government to remove the proposals from the budget bill and allow all members to voice their opinions without the threat of an election. This is what I mean when I say that politics is being put ahead of good policy. This is a matter that should not rushed through in isolation. If the government believes in transparency and accountability, it will allow an open and honest debate. We all know the record of the government on transparency and accountability. Conservatives talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk.

Once again, I want to repeat the desire of my constituents to allow the House to consider the immigration act on its own. Governing is about making choices. In an age where we have billions of dollars in surplus, there is no reason why immigrants should be turned away. We have the resources to speed up the immigration process. We have the ability to increase the numbers of immigrants we let into our country. We have an obligation to ensure that fairness continues to be a guiding principle in our decisions.

Now is the time that we, as representatives of the people, must stand up for Canada's best interests. I will stand up to vote against Bill C-50. I am grateful for this time to speak and I am ready for any questions my colleagues might have for me.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the floor go on and on at great length about his opinions on the bill. I heard him say that he would stand in this place and vote against the bill.

Will the hon. member opposite bring any of his colleagues in to vote against it, or will they stand in the House, make their speeches opposing the bill and then do what they have done in the past, which is sit on their hands? Is this another case in which the hon. member is making his leader look weak?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, when I look at the track record of my leader, whether it is on environment, or immigration or on social justice issues, there is no one who comes close to him. I am very proud of my leader and I am in full support of him.

I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety asking the question, but this is exactly what I mean. When it comes to the government, it is playing politics with immigrants. It has put this as part of the budget bill. I can say—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

How are you going to vote?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

If the member for Langley is in the House, he will find that out.

However, every group in our country is avoiding the drastic changes the government is bringing to the immigration system because businesses and families in Canada will suffer.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Newton—North Delta regarding immigration. I know it is an important issue for the hon. member, being an immigrant himself.

In the budget, surprisingly, the Conservative government indicated that it intends to give more discretionary power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We all know about the hidden agenda. It seems a little paradoxical to say everyone knows about the hidden agenda, but we could say that everyone suspects that the Conservative government, which is reactionary, might have a hidden agenda.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Newton—North Delta how the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will use her new discretionary power, that is, the power that will allow her to make decisions that go against all existing rules. Why does he think this government is granting itself this discretionary power? For what purpose and how will it be used?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the hon. member for her work on the very important files.

When it comes to the transparency and accountability of the government, the member is well aware of the bad practices of the government, whether it be the Brian Mulroney-Schreiber affair or the Afghanistan issue. These are issues of which the member is aware.

It worries me that the minister can pick and choose which immigrants she wants to bring into our country. When I look at the system, perhaps she will want to bring in skilled workers, depending on the demand, but the provinces already have that program in place. It is the PNP program. Under that program, provinces can bring in those immigrants.

This is exactly what the government is all about. It is playing politics with every single issue.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased and honoured to have spoken last week about Bill C-50, Budget Implementation Act, 2008. I spoke about various aspects of this bill. Let me begin by putting things in context. This may seem like a good budget and it may work for some, but there is nothing in it for Quebec. Quebec's Conservative members were not able to meet a single condition that the Bloc Québécois set down on January 23 on behalf of the majority of Quebec ridings. At that time, the Bloc Québécois presented Quebec's immediate and urgent needs. I will list them for you, but first, I would like to remind you that these needs were identified by Bloc members during our prebudget consultations, not only in Bloc ridings, but in other ridings as well. You will note that one very important, very urgent need was not included in the budget, and that is direct and immediate assistance for the manufacturing and forestry industries.

Nor did it include any assistance for workers in the manufacturing and forestry industries. Yet Quebec and Canada have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs because of this manufacturing crisis. As you know, Quebec and Ontario have been particularly hard hit. The Bloc Québécois members are here to defend the interests of Quebeckers, and we condemn the fact that the budget contains no measures to resolve the current crisis in Quebec's manufacturing and forestry industries.

The dozen or so Conservative members elected in Quebec two years ago now have not followed through on their promises. These members were elected based on big promises: they asked to be put in power in return for millions. And I am not talking about the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, who even had the courage to say something. Courage is not the right word, but I would not dare use the word that comes to my mind right now. It is certainly not courage, perhaps it would be gall, to use a slightly nicer word than the one I am thinking of. So, he had the gall to promise a Marshall plan, with billions of dollars and called it the “Blackburn plan”. I apologize for using his name, but he said it himself two days ago in the House of Commons. He then spoke about another plan called “his name II”.

First of all, when I heard this, I had little hope that his second plan would be any better than the first, since his first plan was a bust. He spoke about the “his last name II” plan, which made me think about Star Wars—we started with the fourth episode, before seeing the first three. Second, we realized that it was not the [his name] II plan, but the “Blackout II plan”. In short, there was absolutely nothing in his first plan or in the second one.

The Conservative government gives absolutely nothing to Quebec in this budget implementation bill. The Conservative MPs from Quebec were absolutely incapable of obtaining anything. I imagine that they have no power in caucus. Nothing has changed for Quebec and that is why the Bloc exists. Federalists have been elected and sent to Ottawa. Since 1993, that has happened less and less. A minority of Conservative or Liberal members are sent to Ottawa because Quebeckers understand what goes on. Conservative members who have promised to defend Quebec's interests and wield power get elected. Some will become ministers and will sit with the other Canadian ministers in cabinet or in their caucus. And there they do nothing, absolutely nothing. They very seldom are able to obtain anything for Quebec. The Conservative ministers scurry on all fours to collect the crumbs thrown by the cabinet.

The same thing happens with the caucus: it throws some crumbs to the starving Conservative members who keep quiet and ask for nothing in public. They do not speak up publicly because they are told to keep quiet in the name of party discipline, in the name of Alberta, which does not need money but receives it nevertheless, because that is where the stronghold of the Conservative Party is. These Conservative members are incapable of doing anything for Quebec. This budget before us is ample proof of that once again.

I promised to list the Bloc Québécois's demands made public on January 23. We asked for direct and immediate assistance for the troubled manufacturing and forestry sectors, as I explained a little earlier. There was no help in this budget for the workers and communities affected by this crisis. We have been calling for an older worker assistance program for a long, long time. Again, there is absolutely nothing in the budget for that. And yet it is precisely that kind of program that could help the workers get through the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

I want to take a few moments to explain POWA. It is a program that gives working people generally over 55 years of age an income roughly equivalent to employment insurance. It actually does fall under the employment insurance umbrella. This income helps them bridge the period between becoming unemployed, for example at 57 or 58 years old, and the moment they qualify for a government pension at 60 years of age. It covers a year or maybe two, or sometimes just a couple of months. In most cases, it helps these people avoid having to resort to welfare. POWA provides very parsimonious benefits to people who cannot easily change jobs and find themselves in what I would call desperate straits.

Some of us were lucky enough, of course, to be born with the gift to learn things quickly and easily all our lives. Others find it more difficult. They get close to retirement and for them to learn about computers at that age is just too big a mountain to climb. We need a program like POWA for people who find themselves in a difficult situation and cannot easily learn new skills. That was one of the Bloc’s demands.

We also wanted compensation for the seniors who were swindled out of the guaranteed income supplement. This program was a scandal under the Liberal government and the scandal continues under the Conservatives. I remind the House that it was the Bloc Québécois that exposed the GIS problem. Hundreds of thousands of seniors were entitled to benefit from it and receive annual payments of as much as $6,000 to add to the meagre government pensions they were already getting. It afforded them an almost decent income and raised them over the poverty line.

For years, though, the Liberal government of the day did all it could to ensure that seniors did not find out they were entitled to this supplement. The Liberals did all they could. The call centres were real labyrinths where people could never actually reach anyone. We know how difficult it is for the average person to deal with an answering machine and can only imagine what it must be like for someone who is older. In addition, the people who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement are usually among the poorest and have the least education. Often they have difficulty speaking one of the two official languages, or even both, and are also ill and isolated.

The guaranteed income supplement was one of the Bloc Québécois's demands. A few improvements were made to it, thanks to the Bloc. When we in the Bloc say we are helpful, there is no need for any more proof. Assistance for older people, thanks to the guaranteed income supplement program, is another specific accomplishment of the Bloc Québécois.

My time is running out, unfortunately, because I still have a lot to say. The Bloc Québécois will vote against the budget implementation bill, therefore, because it fails to meet our minimum demands. I did not have enough time to mention the environment, culture or a single securities commission, but these issues were also included in the Bloc’s minimum demands, which the Conservative government failed to meet.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-50, it is important to see the context in which this budget bill has come forward and the economic policies of the government that underwrite it. In that regard, it is important for us to look at the policies the government has implemented since it has been in power, and in particular the Conservatives' absolute obsession with their ideology around the importance of tax cuts to move economic development forward in this country.

We saw the process kick into high gear in the fall of 2007, when we saw the governing Conservative Party and in fact the Liberal Party bidding each other up as to how much in corporate tax breaks and corporate tax cuts should be given to the large corporate sector in this country. Those cuts went ahead fully supported by the Liberal Party to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

The cuts were to be concentrated in the oil and gas sector and the finance sector. In the finance sector the banks alone were earning an annual profit in the $20 billion range. Those corporate tax cuts gave that sector an additional $2 billion. The oil and gas sector received similar types of benefits from the government.

We see the consequences in the budget. The budget is very close to being balanced. Depending on revenue this year, it is not beyond the pale that we would fall into deficit. It is very clear that at the very least a number of programs that are sorely in need of assistance from the government will not be funded because of those decisions.

By hollowing out the ability of government to pursue valid social policy programming by this type of tax cut, we ensure that on an ongoing basis governments are not going to be able to protect their citizenry and develop all of their potential as individuals in our society. That is what is going on here. That is the context in which we see Bill C-50, the current budget bill.

I want to address the consequences to the auto sector. I come from a community where the auto sector is the dominant industry. It is rather interesting to watch the conflicts that go on between the finance minister and the industry minister, but the finance minister and the Prime Minister say that they cannot pick winners or losers.

That is not accurate. The government is quite prepared to intervene in the market. I am going to quote some statistics from a group that is not particularly friendly to the NDP, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. These statistics were printed in this morning's newspaper.

During their first fiscal year in office, the Tories paid out $25 billion in grants, contributions and subsidies. Here is where we are into this inaccuracy on the part of the finance minister when he says they are not prepared to pick winners or losers. That included $350 million to Quebec based Pratt and Whitney Canada and $47.5 million to the Mont Tremblant ski resort, again in Quebec. In the spring of 2007, the government announced a $900 million fund for the aerospace sector.

Where is the auto sector? The auto sector creates at the present time 140,000 jobs in this country. The aerospace sector creates 75,000 jobs currently. The number in the auto sector is dropping dramatically. The aerospace industry is stable at this point.

It is interesting that the industry minister at that time, now the foreign affairs minister, said we needed that $900 million fund “for the defence of the aerospace industry”. The auto industry is in much worse shape and in much greater need of defence than the aerospace sector is.

My party repeatedly speaks about the need for assistance to the auto sector, and we heard the same this week from the Liberals, but what do we get? We get the platitude from the finance minister and to a lesser degree from the industry minister that they do not support winners or losers. That is simply not true.

The government has made a very clear decision in its economic policies and it is reflected again in the budget, in Bill C-50. It has made very clear decisions that it is going to support certain sectors of the economy and give them preference and priority over other sectors. Oil and gas, finance and aerospace are all getting preferential treatment. There is direct assistance and subsidies in the form of tax cuts or direct dollars going to those sectors and nothing to the auto sector.

In the auto sector in my community alone, in direct and indirect jobs over the last three to three and half years, 17,000 jobs have been lost. That is in a total population of less than 400,000. It has the second highest unemployment rate in the country and this budget does nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing to assist the auto sector.

I want to make a point and perhaps it will be of particular concern to the finance minister since he comes from a riding that is immediately adjacent to Oshawa, a major auto sector dependent community. Windsor is at the very forefront of these losses and devastation in the auto sector, but his community is not far behind, nor is Oakville, St. Catharines or London. They will be facing the same kinds of problems that Windsor is facing.

The problem is that, either because of its obsession with tax cuts based on that very warped ideology that has been proven not to work around the globe or because of its desire to support specific sectors like oil and gas, aerospace and finance, the government is unwilling to help the auto sector. This is reflected by the absolute absence of any assistance in this budget to the auto sector.

There are a great number of programs and policies that could be put into place within the auto sector and then funded to some degree by the government. The NDP has been working on a green auto policy, for instance, for well over five years now, with very specific, detailed proposals as to how we would put that into place. We need to understand that this budget totally ignores any of that. This is not just the NDP speaking. It is the auto sector, the major corporations that produce and sell cars in this country and, of course, the labour unions that work in those plants.

It is a cohesive policy. It is one that has very little disagreement within that sector of what needs to be done, the roles that all of the participants in the sector need to play and the need for a partnership from the federal government in order to be sure that policy can be put into place and the results of that work deployed into the economy generally so we create many more jobs while saving a great number of jobs as well.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague very intently. He touched on a number of issues.

I would like to ask him why he voted against the environment when he voted against providing funding of $1.5 million to help the provinces improve their environmental positions by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Why did he vote against providing $30 million to the Great Bear Rainforest? Why has he voted against carbon capture and sequestration? It is a technology in which Canada is a world leader but he voted against that.

On one hand, the NDP speaks as though it supports the environment, but when it actually comes down to voting for funding for the environment, the NDP votes against it. Why is that? Why do we see that inconsistency in the NDP?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I regularly get up and point out the hypocrisy of questions. That question has got to be near the epitome of it when we see what is going on in the environment committee right now. For the first time in Canadian history, a government is filibustering a committee.

What is that about? It is about the environment. It is about dealing with global warming and climate change. It is a bill that the three opposition parties all support. It is a bill that all of the major environmental groups in this country support. However, what is going on? The government, for how many hours, how many days and how many weeks, has tied up that committee. It is just absolutely hypocritical that I would get that kind of question from the government.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would expand on his last comment about committees. He is on the justice committee, where the chair has walked out four times in a row, leaving witnesses from across Canada stranded, witnesses for whose attendance Canadians have paid.

I was glad the Conservative member mentioned the carbon sequestration project, which we started.

However, my question is for another area of the hon. member's expertise, that of the justice agenda. He is a very thoughtful participant in that area. I think we can agree that the government had a large number of misguided bills in that area, many of which failed, and thank goodness for Canadians, considering the damage they would have done to Canada.

Nevertheless, bills did get through and that agenda had financial consequences. I would like to ask the member if he thinks the government's budgets, estimates or anything even analysed and then reflected the financial costs of the agenda that was presented in legislation.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Yukon raises a very valid point. The government, and I will say this both about the justice ministers and the public safety minister, has consistently moved forward with programs and law that impose additional burdens on the provinces.

For instance, when it comes to our police forces, we are still waiting for those 2,500 police officers the government was supposed to fund. There is money in the budget. I question whether that money is in fact going to flow, because up to this point in the previous two budgets it did not. We did not get any of those police officers whatsoever. We had been assured that we were going to get 1,500 more RCMP officers. We got hardly any of those.

There is no question that the prosecution and judicial wings of our courts now are significantly overburdened. Again, first, the government has not done the assessment of how much it will cost the provinces and, second, has certainly given no indication of willingness to assist the provinces in those added costs. On those costs, by the way, both the prosecutors and our judges were already substantially overwhelmed before that new legislation came forward.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-50, the 2008 budget implementation bill, which contains many of the measures set out in the government's budget.

After over two years of lavish spending, the government decided, wisely, to be a little more fiscally prudent with this budget. We have heard many times before in the debates that this is indeed the first Conservative government to have a balanced budget since Robert Borden's government in 1912.

The only reason why the government has not plummeted into deficit is the sound fiscal inheritance of the previous Liberal government. When the Liberal government left office there were billions of dollars in surpluses. Also, the Liberals managed with eight consecutive balanced budgets. Canada had the best fiscal record in all of the G-7 economies.

This year the title of the budget was “Responsible Leadership”. It is rather ironic, I would think. We have heard from many that we are indeed on the cusp of a deficit.

The government went on a foolish spending spree when times were good. It made irresponsible tax cuts, taking $12 billion out of the fiscal framework with the two cuts to the GST, and now that the economy is beginning to slow, our financial situation becomes more precarious. Responsible leadership and sound economic management, I would say, are certainly questionable.

When the government delivered its budget speech, it appeared like a straightforward document, only for the government to deceive Canadians with the bill before us, which contains what I would call a zinger clause. With the budget implementation bill, the government has imposed upon Canadians immigration measures that would give the minister unprecedented power: unprecedented power to pick and choose, unprecedented power to determine who gets in and who stays out, and unprecedented power to play favourites.

What the government is saying yet again is “trust us, we know best, we will make the rules and you will be better off”, a pattern we have seen with the Wheat Board and the government's manipulation of processes and numbers. We have seen it with the censorship activities of Bill C-10 and with the lack of consultation on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the list goes on.

In this case, the government wants to be trusted, trusted to decide behind closed doors if one's mother, father or children can come to Canada, again with no consultation, with no input from those most affected on any of the impending changes, whether they are families, settlement groups, employers or provincial governments.

Just this morning in committee, the Auditor General was before the committee and spoke to the importance of consultation in the development of any policies of government. The government wants us to believe that it will meet its goal, as articulated, of reducing the backlog with an increase in the budget of approximately 1%, and it is asking for trust.

Immigration needs to be taken out of the bill and properly studied in committee. A few years ago, I was part of the committee that revamped the immigration bill. The consultations were widespread. The chorus was not unanimous by a long shot, but everybody had an opportunity to put forward his or her position and the consequences of decisions taken and decisions not made, and I would say that we have to do that again this time.

The government plays mind games with Canadians. It talks about being tough on crime, yet it stalls its own justice bills in the House and uses them to play petty partisan games when they get to the Senate.

When I look at this budget, I have somewhat the same reaction that I did to last year's budget. A little money was spent, with a sprinkle here, a dash there, a pinch for this and a pittance for that. Once again the government tried to appeal to everyone, but has spread its funds too thinly. One of my constituents calls the Conservatives' style of government and budget making “fast-food government”.

We know that our cities and communities are in vital need of investment. We have all heard about the billions of dollars of deficit Canadian municipalities face with respect to their infrastructure. We have also heard from the finance minister that potholes are certainly not his responsibility.

My own city of Winnipeg, like other cities in members' ridings, has significant financing challenges and yet there has been no recognition by the government of these challenges faced by cities. What the Conservatives did finally incorporate was the step the Liberals promised, and that was to make the gas tax permanent, and I commend them for that.

Budget 2008 provided $500 million for public transit out of the 2007-08 surplus. However, within days of that, we learned that $108 million of it was going to restore a train service to run through the minister's riding. Nobody had asked for that and no advice had been given on it.

The government has refused to answer questions about Manitoba's infrastructure program. We know that the floodway for Manitoba is non-negotiable. We know how important it is.

It was over a year ago when funding for the floodway was announced under the Canada strategic infrastructure program. A month later, it was decided to allocate the funding under the building Canada fund, which, I might add, is full of moneys committed by the previous Liberal government. This would shortchange the province of Manitoba by $170 million in infrastructure funds that could well go to a host of other issues.

I also want to talk about Lake Winnipeg. We heard grant announcements on what we in Manitoba call “our beloved Lake Winnipeg”. We heard that an additional $11 million would be headed toward the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg, bringing the total, with moneys committed previously, to $18 million.

Examination of several websites, coupled with conversations with many researchers and scientific experts on the restoration of the health of the lake, show that few funds indeed have been forthcoming to date. Again we have heard empty words and hollow commitments.

The Conservative government continues to treat the women and children of Manitoba and this country as an afterthought. Many of the issues of importance to women have largely been bypassed. The programs that most women talk about as important and transformative, such as housing, child care, education, health care, unemployment insurance, and legal aid, are of limited interest to the government.

We hear members opposite espouse family values and talk about children as the future. We also hear members opposite talk about skill shortages and the need for skilled workers. However, social programs go hand in hand with economic programs.

I have spoken many times here in this House about the need for quality child care. What about it? Nothing is forthcoming except that cheque through the mail. Where are the promised spaces? In my riding, there are huge waiting lists. Parents are forced to leave their employment. Parents, and particularly single mothers, do not have the necessary supports.

In the last few months, the waiting list at one day care in my riding has grown from 300 to 400 children. It receives five to ten inquiries a day about spaces. The government has not made the connection on the availability of child care spaces to economic growth.

Although I do not have time to read for members an email on this, I will take another opportunity to do so. I received an email that listed all the parents with respect to that child care facility, the jobs they do, and the contributions they make to the economic growth of the city of Winnipeg. Coupled with that is the desperate need for space in their day care.

I wanted to talk about the government's shortcomings with respect to aboriginal people, whether it is in education or in how the government is ignoring them in the consultation process on the repeal of section 67. We heard in committee this morning from a group of aboriginal women who have very grave concerns about the matrimonial real property legislation, which I look forward to reviewing.

However, we know that the government has not addressed the needs of aboriginal peoples except in this piecemeal, cherry-picking, fast-food manner of a little bit here or a little bit there. We will see what we can do.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg South Centre a number of questions on a file we both share, I will leave that to the time I have in committee.

The question I have for her is in relation to the statements she made with regard to the changes to the immigration policy as proposed in the budget.

In a democracy I feel individuals who are elected to the House of Commons have the opportunity to put forward ideas and changes in policy and represent, in the House, the reasons why we feel they are right for the country. The member opposite also can stand in her place to advocate for a different position.

Is she philosophically opposed to the position we have put forward to the point that she would vote against our government and force an election?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is taking lessons from members opposite in not answering questions.

It is incumbent upon us, as duly elected legislators, to have the opportunity to hear from those who are most affected by the legislation. It is important that the legislation go to a separate committee, that it be dealt with in a comprehensive manner, that we hear from those who are involved in the immigration world, those who are most affected by the legislation, and then decisions will be made as to whether to support or not support the legislation.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I especially noted the member's comments about the lack of early learning and child care facilities and services in her city. We face the same issue in Victoria. I heard last night that there was a large meeting in Nelson held by the mayor, wherein it was expressed that the lack of child care really prevented economic development because people could not go to their city.

The question I have for the hon. member is this. I introduced a bill that would enshrine principles of accessibility, universality and affordability into home care to create a program across Canada. I know the member supported the bill. Would she continue to support this, to have a law in Canada, instead of simply the kinds of agreements that her government negotiated, which, as she knows, were cancelled at the stroke of a pen.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the House has heard me many times speak about the importance of child care. I would do whatever is required to ensure that a national child care and early learning system was built across the country, whether it is legislation, or negotiation with provinces and territories one on one, whatever it takes to enshrine and create a national program.

I think it is a definition of who we are as a country. Some of the members may have heard me tell this story in the House before, but it always bears repeating. The first child care agreement was signed with the province of Manitoba. For the hundreds of people who were there that day, it was a very exciting. It was made into a remarkable moment when a group of people stood, as the two ministers signed the agreement, and sang O Canada. I want to be a part of that kind of Canada.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week I spoke about Bill C-50. Due to the amount of time that each of us is given, we cannot always delve into all the details of a bill, but we can be certain that Bill C-50 deals with the implementation of the budget.

This week I spoke about the type of society we would like to live in, and I highlighted the very conservative philosophy that underlies this budget. I spoke about oil companies and banks that seem to be receiving numerous tax credits, while in the manufacturing and forestry industries companies cannot benefit from these tax cuts because they are not making any profit and are systematically closing down.

Today I would like to focus on an aspect of the bill that falls under my responsibilities. I took a long look at the military contracts that are inherent in this budget. Since the Conservative government came to power, we have seen a clear trend towards militarization and an American-stye military philosophy. Some American and Canadian companies are really hitting the jackpot because of the Conservative government's major shift in direction.

Defence contracts will be worth roughly $20 billion over the next few years. What is even worse is that there has been almost no discussion of this spending. It would practically take experts to investigate the ins and outs of all these contracts and how they came about. Normally, the government should follow a specific procedure when it purchases equipment worth more than $20 billion.

First, it is very important to have a foreign policy that describes Canada's place within the international community and clearly establishes the responsibilities Canada intends to take. This forms the basis for a defence policy and possibly an international development policy under CIDA, as well as a number of other things. Certainly, nothing has been done since 2005, when the Liberals updated a policy or policy statement.

As a result, today we are faced with announcements and the signing of contracts worth more than $20 billion, but we have no word on the foreign or defence policy. Normally, in such a case, discussions are then held to determine what military equipment we will purchase to meet the requirements of our defence and foreign policies.

For the past year or two, the government has promised us a defence capabilities plan and a defence policy. Not only have these failed to materialize, but Canada is taking a piecemeal approach to military procurement, issuing more than $20 billion in contracts. The risk is that, once all these contracts have been signed and the goods purchased, Canada will tailor its foreign and defence policies to what it has purchased. The government is unlikely to create a policy that says Canada does not need C-17s or strategic or tactical aircraft when it has just purchased $20 billion worth of such aircraft. The government's approach is therefore somewhat dangerous. In my opinion, the government is going about things backwards, because it should have drawn up a plan, from which a policy and a defence capabilities plan would have followed. Then the government could have determined what equipment it would need.

What we are dealing with here is an inconsistency, and Canadian and Quebec taxpayers are the ones who are going to have to pay the price.

I have the figures here. Those C-17 strategic aircraft cost $3.4 billion. The worst thing is that there are two parts to military contracts: the cost to acquire the equipment and the cost to maintain it over 20 years. That is the department's new approach.

Many Canadian companies are saying that at least Industry Canada is responsible for the purchase cost and that companies will benefit from the economic spinoffs of all of this. Unfortunately, that is not what happens with many of these contracts, like the contract for the C-17 strategic aircraft. The government will be giving Boeing $3.4 billion, and there will be next to no economic spinoffs for Canada. All of the maintenance support for 20 years will be done in the United States. We can try telling Boeing to invest money in Canada and Quebec, but really, the company can do whatever it wants. We cannot be at all sure that there will be $3.4 billion in spinoffs.

The same thing is happening with tactical aircraft. We just found out that the government signed a contract for a $1.4 billion portion of a $4.9 billion contract to buy tactical aircraft from Lockheed Martin. In this case, Canada will be getting only a portion of the $1.4 billion acquisition cost back in economic spinoffs from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin has decided to give back $843 million in reinvestment in Canada and Quebec.

This is all very unfair to Quebec. Quebec accounts for 54% of the aerospace industry. In the Lockheed Martin contract, Quebec will have to be satisfied with only approximately 28% of the spinoffs. This is unfair, considering that the Atlantic provinces, which account for just 4.6% of the aerospace sector, will reap 28.7% of the economic spinoffs. The Atlantic provinces, with 4.6% of the industry, will get over 28% of the spinoffs, while Quebec, with 54% of the industry, will get 28.5% of the spinoffs. The Atlantic provinces will be getting more than Quebec in terms of spinoffs.

That is a gross injustice. I could go on at length about this. The Chinook helicopters from Boeing represent an investment of $4.7 billion. That investment was just announced. The Canadian contract will take priority over others that were waiting to get Chinooks. An agreement was probably reached with the U.S. president in Bucharest. Once again, we do not know for sure if the maintenance will be done in Canada. Nor can we be sure of the potential spinoffs from this contract. Furthermore, the government renounced its prerogative as signatory of these contracts to tell them where to invest in order to ensure economic spinoffs for Canada. That is their laissez-faire policy and Quebec comes out the big loser.

Supply vessels are another example. We are talking about $2.9 billion. Transport trucks represent $1.2 billion. Search and rescue aircraft represent $3 billion. As an aside, however, search and rescue aircraft are actually very useful to Quebeckers and Canadians. When there is a problem in isolated or mountainous areas, that is the kind of equipment used to help Quebeckers and Canadians. Yet it is at the very bottom of the list right now, as we speak. It is not a high priority. It is at the bottom. I met the air force commander this week and he said that things were going at a good pace. Yet we are far from where we should be in the contracts at this time because they have almost all been signed.

Thus, this is a gross injustice. At a time when people in the manufacturing and forestry sectors need help with employment insurance and seniors need help with the guaranteed income supplement, it is unfortunate that over $20 billion is being invested in the military sector. This is completely unacceptable for the Bloc Québécois and one of the reasons why we will vote against the bill before us here today.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed serving on the defence committee with the member. We get very good input from him. As he knows, I always talk about the north and encourage more military there.

Could he comment on the need for military in the north and the fact that we need it to be increased? I have been pushing for this. Also, could he comment on some of the failures related to sovereignty? The Prime Minister promised two icebreakers. We might finally get one, but it will not be new because it will not come until an old one has died.

The government cut back the Aurora flights, which used to do the surveillance of the north. As I travel across the north, the Canadian rangers, whom the Conservatives said they would increase, have all kinds of technical problems in getting their pay. It is such a tiny expense. Why can they not at least make it good for those very important northern rangers?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for the excellent work he has done on the Standing Committee on National Defence and elsewhere. It is obvious that the member for Yukon regularly defends his region, and that is something I have always admired in him.

It is true that there are currently some major concerns in the far north. As the passages open up, there will be more maritime traffic. It is also clear that more and more countries are starting to occupy the far north. This is probably because of maritime passages, and also because the far north has unbelievable natural resources. We must move into this region, and the way to do so is with the Rangers. This should be encouraged.

Furthermore, the government should respect the commitments it has made concerning the far north. There needs to be a presence; airplanes need to fly over the area to ensure Canadian sovereignty. We also need ships. But the government is starting to back off a little. The only thing in the contracts I have here has to do with supply vessels. But I too heard the Prime Minister say that there would be three large, armed icebreakers for the far north.

We should also think about whether this is the right way to proceed. Would it be better to hold meetings with the four or five countries making territorial claims in the north and to sign agreements with them, instead of arming ourselves to the teeth? I do not think that the Canadian navy would last very long against the American navy in the far north.

Nevertheless, I congratulate the member for being so involved in his region, Yukon, and for being such a strong advocate for the far north.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's presentation and I appreciated his comments. I would like to ask him a question regarding the problem with sources of drinking water in Canada. We know there are problems throughout the country, not just in Ontario, but in Quebec and elsewhere. We recently learned that about 1,600 communities in Canada have serious problems and have had to issue boil water advisories, not to mention 93 other locations in Canada where aboriginal communities are experiencing these types of problems.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on this issue as well as on the government's inadequate attempt at dealing with the matter. We know that the United Nations is doing everything it can to ensure that drinking water remains a right for all human beings.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate this to the speech I just gave. The armed forces is one of the biggest polluters nowadays. I can attest to this because I have been to the far north and all over with the armed forces. We often see that their work on the ground leads to major pollution of groundwater.

However, it is not just the Canadian armed forces that pollute, but also the oil companies. I am really quite concerned with what is happening with the Athabasca River in Fort McMurray. There is nowhere to put the water that is forming huge lakes. If they were to give way, we would have an incredible disaster in that part of Canada.

Potable water is very important. I am also worried about the fact that many companies are stealing drinking water. They bottle it, sell it and often do not pay the country for it.

We have to immediately put an end to this policy of paying the polluters, which is basically what the government is doing by lowering taxes for companies that are making a profit, because oil companies benefit the most from tax cuts. On the other hand, are they good corporate citizens in terms of drinking water? I do not think so. And that is where the government has a role to play. It must forget about its laissez-faire attitude and impose strict standards on these polluters so that we can keep our water. It is an important legacy for us to pass on to our children and our grandchildren.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-50, the budget implementation act. I would like to speak on two aspects of the bill. One is the significant changes to the immigration system that are included in this bill and the other is the priorities of the bill that we are debating today.

I represent Vancouver East, a riding that certainly reflects the multiculturalism of Canada. It is a community that is built on immigration. Vancouver East would not exist in terms of its economic vitality and the people who live there, if it were not for many waves of immigration beginning in Strathcona and moving throughout all of Vancouver East and indeed Vancouver as a whole. Immigration is a very important part of our community. Immigrants and new Canadians are people we welcome into our community.

It is very alarming to me to see that the budget bill we are debating these days in the House contains such dramatic and significant changes to our immigration system. It concerns me that those changes are in a budget bill. One would expect that changes to the immigration system would be contained in legislation pertaining to immigration and that the legislation would then go to the immigration committee.

The Conservative government has brought in very significant changes to the system through the back door. The Conservatives are trying to hide them under the cover of the budget bill and hope that no one notices. Luckily, there is a growing debate in my community and across the country about the impact that these immigration changes would have if the budget bill is approved.

The immigration changes that are contemplated would give major new powers to the minister to control the types of applications she accepts. It would impose quotas. It would dispose of current immigration applications and would even allow queue jumping. There would be new limits put on the humanitarian and compassionate grounds category which often is used by many families for the purpose of family reunification. It would even give the minister the power to deny visas to those who meet all of the immigration criteria. This would confer enormous, and I would say very dangerous, powers on an individual, a powerful minister and it is being done through the back door.

The most significant change is that it is supporting what has already been a policy shift wherein our immigration system is increasingly being understood as a system that looks at immigrants as economic units. For example, these changes would allow applications to be disposed of and put aside, but it would allow a further dramatic increase in what is called the foreign worker program or the guest worker program, where people are treated as cheap labour from foreign countries. We have seen it in Alberta and in B.C. where there has been a massive influx of foreign workers who are often exploited and abused by employers. It is very hard to track what is going on and whether or not they are able to avail themselves of their rights as workers.

This is something that is incredibly alarming in this budget bill. We are seeing this dramatic policy shift in our immigration system that would displace families. It would do nothing further in terms of reunification and would place a greater and greater emphasis on foreign workers who come to this country on a temporary basis. They have no adequate rights. They are not treated as permanent residents. They do not have an opportunity to become citizens.

It is something that we have seen in Europe. We have seen the kind of instability, both politically and culturally that it fosters, where there are two tiers of people. There are citizens and workers who have no real status, who are never protected in the society to which they are major contributors. That is the kind of thing we absolutely should not be accepting in Canada. I am very afraid that is what would happen under these changes.

There are other very concerning things in the bill.

A couple of days ago the homelessness count in metro Vancouver was released. This count is done every few years. It was conducted by over 700 volunteers who literally go block by block, alley by alley, shelter by shelter and endeavour to get, and indeed do get, a very accurate count of people who are homeless, whether they are in shelters or on the street.

That count was done on March 11 and the results were released on April 8. It showed that overall there has been a 19% increase in the number of homeless individuals found in metro Vancouver. That is a 19% increase since 2005 when the last count was done. It is a 131% increase since the one previous to that was done, which was in 2002. This should cause enormous concern.

In my community of Vancouver East, particularly in places like the downtown eastside, the visibility of homelessness, the number of people on the street, those who are destitute and those living so far below the poverty line with no resources or hope for the future, causes enormous distress. It causes illness and mental distress not only to the individuals who are in that predicament but also to the community at large.

The latest figures from the homeless count should be setting off alarm bells. One would think that over the years there would have been a concerted effort to address this as a grave human tragedy. In a country as wealthy as Canada, nobody should be sleeping on the street. Nobody should be without shelter. Everybody is entitled to a living wage and decent, safe, appropriate and affordable housing.

Yet, when we look at the budget, there was no new money for housing. A number of local advocacy groups in the downtown east side, including Pivot, United Native Nations, DERA, the Carnegie Community Action Project and Streams of Justice, recently released a report that showed there were 10 new low income housing facilities that have either closed or will be closing for a further loss of 448 units.

My community is facing a very grave situation where people are either already homeless or are on the verge of becoming homeless. Yet there was nothing in this budget to address those issues.

I read a quote from the minister allegedly responsible for housing, where he dismissed the idea that we needed a national housing program. I have heard the minister say that the government is spending more money on housing than any other government in the history of Canada. He is talking about mortgages. He is talking about existing projects, some of which were built 20 years ago. No new co-ops or social housing units have been built. Even the homelessness programs that exist are in jeopardy because it is not yet clear whether they will continue.

All of this creates incredible anxiety both for the organizations that seek to assist those who are homeless and certainly the people on the street and in shelters who wonder whether they will ever have a roof over their heads or have a place they can call home.

To me, this budget is about priorities. I find it shameful. When we look at the $50 billion in corporate income tax cuts that are contained in this budget and the former economic and fiscal update that was presented last October, when we look at the corporate tax cuts that are laid out from 2007 all the way to 2013, we are talking about $50 billion that has been lost from public revenue.

Let us think about what could have been done with that amount of money. It could have provided 1.14 million child care spaces. It could have provided 74,000 hybrid transit buses. It could have provided 12 million units of non-profit affordable housing. It could have assisted 11 million students with their undergraduate tuition, or another two million graduates with their student loans. It could have put a much greater emphasis on dealing with climate change. None of these priorities were addressed in the budget.

To add insult to injury, when people in my community read that VANOC, the Olympic committee, received another $45 million yet housing receiving nothing, they knew that they were at the bottom of the list.

This is a very bad budget and it is the reason—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for raising a number of the issues associated with the budget, with which I too find fault. Her riding of Vancouver East has many of the same social problems and challenges with which my riding of Winnipeg Centre deals, not the least of which is a complete dearth of affordable social housing.

This is not by accident, but by deliberate policy, first by the Mulroney Conservative government, which killed most of the social housing programs. I was the president of a housing co-op at the time. During that era, most of the access to federal funding disappeared. Then when the Liberals were elected, they killed off the last remaining streams of money for affordable social housing. In fact, we can trace this negligence toward affordable housing through three successive federal governments.

I visited her in the riding of Vancouver East and the downtown east side recently, and a study was published at the very time of my visit. It made the business case for affordable housing, in that it cost more per person in social services for a person on the street and without housing than it did to provide social housing. Could she expand some on that study?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to have the member for Winnipeg Centre in Vancouver East. We visited a number of organizations and walked around the neighbourhood. We saw the devastation because of the loss of affordable housing units.

The member is correct. The report has clearly pointed out that the cost of dealing with homelessness in the required social, help and emergency interventions far outweigh the costs of providing secure, appropriate and supported housing where needed. It is simply dollars and cents. The economics of that are common sense. To me, it is not rocket science. This is about the basics of where we invest money.

When I walk around the downtown east side and I see vacant lots that are going to be condo developments, when I see people being evicted from their homes only because they are in low income housing sitting on land that is becoming very valuable on the east side of the downtown, it is a great tragedy. It is something that does not need to happen.

Again, it is very alarming that there is no money in the federal budget to provide for such a basic human need as affordable housing and shelter.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about housing. Housing across the country and in northern regions is a subject of great concern. The minister of housing in the Northwest Territories indicated that the only programs available from the federal government have a sunset clause after next year. Then there will be no money for housing for people in the north. Is that a similar situation in the south?

Do we have this thing happening where the federal government, basically under the direction of the Conservative Party, is getting out of housing entirely?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that is the case. When I was the housing critic for the NDP, I visited the north. I found there were many common issues between the north and the south. Communities were feeling the impact of a depleting housing resource and a lack of support from the federal government.

We can see it in the daily lives of people. People are sleeping on sofas and doubling up. Kids have to stay at home many years later than they normally would. In some communities people have to go to the local jail to sleep overnight because they are homeless and it is the only place to go.

The federal government, under the Liberals and continued by the Conservatives, abandoned its responsibility. In fact, Canada is now the only western industrialized country that does not have a national housing strategy. Even the United States has far superior programs from the federal government that support state initiatives. We do not see that in Canada, and we see the consequences of this in our local communities.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, which also includes the amendment to the immigration act. I will focus my debate on the immigration act.

I represent the riding of Richmond, an island city just next to the city of Vancouver where the Vancouver International Airport is situated. The riding is composed mostly of immigrants. It has a very booming economy. We have the privilege of having a farming community. We have a dike that is very close to the city. At the same time, we have the convenience of the metropolitan facilities.

Richmond has a very low crime rate and a booming economy. The lifespan of our citizens is one of the longest in Canada. Therefore, we can demonstrate from our experience in Richmond that immigrants contribute a great deal to the lives of Canadians.

The Conservatives have said that the new immigration policy is aimed at reducing the backlog of immigration applicants. They have said they want to expedite selected classes of immigrants and focus their resources on desirable immigrants, but their methods will not work and they are wrong.

The amendment tabled would destroy a democratically based immigration system, which has been hailed as a model for other countries to follow, and replace it with dictatorial system, allowing the minister to cherry-pick who is allowed to come into our country.

The amendment to section 87.3(4) states:

If an application or request is not processed, it may be retained, returned or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the instructions of the Minister.

Giving the minister the discretionary power to dispose of applications is an illogical way to reduce the backlog of applicants. The government is implying that if we have a huge backlog, we should give the power to the minister to hand-pick a few and then outright reject everyone else. To me, this is not only unfair, but illogical.

The amendment allows the minister to unilaterally and arbitrarily dispose of applications without any recourse, so applicants would be unable to appeal their cases. This is very unfair. The proposed amendment to section 81.3(c) states, “The Minister may set the number of applications or requests by category or otherwise to be processed in any year”.

Along with the fact that unprocessed applications can be disposed of, this amendment would allow the minister to set a cap on applications.

Capping the number of applicants only superficially reduces the backlog by temporarily not allowing potential immigrants to make their application. How will forcing applicants to pay for re-applications year after year help reduce the backlog? These are situations which senior officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration agree would happen.

Reducing the backlog is not about prioritizing some and ignoring others. The Conservatives' rhetoric seems illogical. They have said that they can set priorities, but does that not mean there will be lower priorities? Even so, how does this reduce the backlog? Just because we focus on cleaning up the kitchen first, it does not mean the rest of the house gets any cleaner any sooner.

However, the worst and the most worrisome change that the Conservatives are pushing for is the change of a single word, from “shall” to “may”. As it stands right now, if an immigrant passes the bar, then it is clearly stated in section 11(1) that he or she “shall” be granted a visa. The amendment would change this so that someone who has already fulfilled the requirements only “may” be granted a visa.

Why is the Conservative government trying to subvert the immigration process? If a reason is found as to why a visa should not be granted, then make it a part of the evaluation. If immigration applicants cannot be certain, even after they have passed all requirements, why should the apply and how will this help reduce backlogs?

Time and effort would need to be spent in the processing of their applications. I see this as yet another opportunity for the minister to cherry-pick again, even after the applicants have escaped the first round of cherry-picking by the minister.

None of the proposed amendments are aimed at clearing up the backlog or reducing wait times for applicants. It is about letting the minister choose who is and who is not a desirable immigrant. Again, this is an unfair method.

The Conservatives' cherry-picking in the darkroom, dictatorial approach will destroy our well hailed rules based democratic and transparent immigration system. This will lead us down a very dangerous path.

A senior immigration official was quoted on Wednesday in the London Free Press saying, “There is no right in the law—and there never has been a right in the law—to come into Canada”.

This is wrong. It is because of this kind of attitude that led our forefathers to create a racist immigration act, better known as the Chinese Exclusion Act. After the Pacific Railway was built with Chinese labourers, they were no longer desirable. A head tax was exclusively applied to Chinese immigrants. When that did not stop Chinese immigrants from coming to Canada, they were totally excluded.

Yes, being allowed to immigrant to Canada is a privilege. However, we must apply that privilege fairly, respecting the core values of democracy, rule of law and equality. The bill eliminates the rights to equal opportunity for every application to be given fair review and consideration, regardless of background, country of origin or skill set.

Even after Paul Martin Sr. amended the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1947 to allow ethnic Chinese to become Canadian citizens, in general, we Chinese still cannot have the privilege to come to Canada. It was not until the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson changed the Canadian immigration system into a race free, transparent, point based system in 1967 that most Chinese could come to Canada.

This continuing and worrisome trend by the Conservative government must be stopped. Canada's race free and transparent immigration point system is hailed as a model for other countries to follow. It should not be tossed aside so lightly.

The Liberal government committed $700 million in 2005 to cleaning up the backlog, which the Conservatives cancelled after becoming the government in 2006. After ignoring the problem for more than two years, they now claim to have allocated $100 million to fix the problem. It is far from enough.

We must not allow the Conservatives, under the excuse of solving the backlog problem in our immigration system, to lead us away from fundamental Canadian core values of democracy, the rule of law and equality. I will vote against it.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague from Richmond. I heard him talk about Richmond being a wonderful part of the world. I concur with him and I know he is very proud of it.

I also listened very closely to all his comments. I am pretty proud that this side of the House has righted some of the wrongs on the Chinese head tax, of which he spoke. We have cut in half the immigrant landing fees.

I thank the hon. member for being, in a way, a co-author of this new change. As we know, that side of the House, when in government, ran the waiting list from 50,000 to 800,000 immigrants. I cannot think the Liberal members are very proud of that. Now they are obviously going to help us in correcting that with this new legislation.

I heard the hon. member say that he would vote against it. Is the member going to bring his colleagues to the House and vote against it or is it another case of making his own leader look weak?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem with this amendment is that it would change a transparent, open, rules-based, democratic system into a dictatorial, undemocratic decision making process under the control of the minister.

One of the biggest problems with our immigration system in the old days was that it was not transparent. It was not democratic. It was not fair and it was not equal for every ethnic group or even every area of the world. As a result, only a select few, primarily from the European countries, could come to Canada.

It was not until 1967, when the right hon. Lester B. Pearson saw the problem with the system and corrected it with a new points system. It became transparent and equal for everyone. The system began allowing people from other ethnic groups to come to Canada. For the Conservative Party to now propose a system that would go back to the dark ages is not right and we must stand against it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-50. I am not pleased to see Bill C-50, but I am pleased to be able to talk about it. In this Bill C-50, the government is establishing a crown corporation for employment insurance.

For years the NDP has been calling for an independent employment insurance fund that is separate from the government's consolidated revenue fund. In 1986, the Auditor General suggested putting funds from employment insurance into the consolidated revenue fund. After a number of years, as the surplus in the consolidated revenue fund increased because of employment insurance, it became apparent that the EI fund was the government's cash cow.

The government said that workers depended on the employment insurance fund. It soon became apparent that it was not workers who depended on the EI fund, but the government. The government started to run zero deficits and balanced budgets with the money it stole from the EI fund in the consolidated revenue fund. This was the biggest heist the country has ever seen. It was like an old movie where the protagonist robs a train full of money.

The previous government stole $57 billion from the surplus in the EI fund. The fund generated some $57 billion. This afternoon, that theft will be legalized in Bill C-50. It is not unlike stopping at a bank to steal money and instead of going to jail, seeing a bill passed to legalize bank robbery. That is what is happening this afternoon: money that workers have worked so hard for is being stolen.

The most surprising thing is that a crown corporation is being created and that is different than an independent fund. A clear explanation is needed. We asked for an independent fund. People might wonder what we are crying about today since we will get an independent fund. There is a difference between an independent fund and a crown corporation. An independent fund would be a fund separate from the government's consolidated revenue fund and would only be used to deposit employment insurance premiums into the employment insurance fund. A crown corporation is a separate, independent corporation, like Canada Post, Radio-Canada or the CBC.

When we stand up in the House of Commons to ask questions about the employment insurance fund, the government will say that it is a crown corporation and that we should go ask it. We will not be able to ask any more questions in the House of Commons about it. The same thing will happen when we rise in the House of Commons to ask questions about Radio-Canada or the CBC. The government says it is at arm's length, that it is a crown corporation and that we should go see the president. The government will wash its hands of the whole thing.

Moreover, the Auditor General has always said that there should always be a $15 billion balance. In this crown corporation fund, it will be just $2 billion. This afternoon at 3 p.m., during the vote in the House of Commons, $55 billion will be stolen with the help of the Liberals. Either they will vote for Bill C-50 and make the theft legal, or they will not vote and just let the theft happen. That is exactly what will happen this afternoon.

What might we do instead to help workers? People often talk about POWA, for example. Manufacturing and forestry companies in Canada have closed their doors. I remember POWA and PWAP in New Brunswick. When the fish plants closed, people had PWAP, a retirement program for fish plant workers, for women, when the groundfish fishery collapsed. These programs helped working men and women at the time. Employment insurance was there to help people.

Today, employment insurance is there to help the government, not workers. Employment insurance is insurance that workers and employers pay for directly. I am concerned, because the only thing the Conservative government is worried about is reducing employment insurance premiums and making sure employers do not pay premiums. We do not often talk about the workers who pay premiums. According to the government, if employers did not have to pay premiums, they could create jobs.

Once again, I have never seen a company hire more people because it is turning a profit. Companies do not hire people because they are making a profit; they hire people because they need them to produce. I therefore do not believe that Canadian companies have gone bankrupt because they were paying employment insurance premiums. On the contrary, a good employer is not afraid of paying employment insurance premiums, because the employer hates to have to tell an employee not to come in on Monday morning because there is no more work for him.

Employment insurance existed so that these families would receive benefits to help them. In 1996, the Liberals decided to make a sweeping reform of employment insurance, following on the reform that began when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. The first signs of reform were seen in Inkerman, New Brunswick, in my riding. The reform continued until 1996. A $57 billion surplus built up, and now the government is starting to want to wipe out that surplus. At 3 o'clock this afternoon, it will be wiped out, with the support of the Liberals who carried out the reform in 1996 and the Conservatives who are spearheading this reform in the House of Commons by introducing a bill to create an independent crown corporation to avoid any further questions about the surplus, because they get embarrassed when they are asked about it. They have even told us to stop asking questions in committee, because the money is not there anymore. They have asked us to stop pestering them with questions. Meanwhile, individuals and families are in need, and this government is completely ignoring them.

What could be done with this money? First of all, the government could do away with the two-week waiting period. It is not people's fault if they lose their jobs. I have said this time and again in the House of Commons, and I will keep on saying it.

Why do we penalize these people by imposing an unpaid two-week qualifying period when their employer announces that there will be no work for them next week? Who wants to lose two weeks' salary? Who ends up being penalized by this unpaid period? Why does the claimant lose two weeks' salary? This measure penalizes the family that needs to pay the electricity bill at the end of the month and to buy groceries for their children. It penalizes the family that needs to pay its mortgage. That is the end result. This afternoon, the government is preparing to carry out the largest theft in the history of Canada by legalizing the transfer of the $57 billion surplus from the employment insurance fund. That is what will happen this afternoon in this House.

We could keep the 12 best weeks to give people a chance to receive a decent benefit. We should not forget that those on unemployment receive only 55% of their salary and that 55% of minimum wage is not very much. In fact, it is less than welfare. We could therefore make some changes to help these people and to ensure that benefits are based on their 12 best weeks. Furthermore, new claimants should be able to qualify after 360 hours rather than 910 hours. Next week, we will be tabling a bill in this House to make this change and we will debate it. Once again, the Liberals did not support this measure in committee but rather backed the Conservatives by agreeing to take money from workers who are losing their jobs.

The government is hitting people when they are down. It is a terrible experience to lose one's job as I have been told by people who have called my office. People call me to tell me that they have just lost their jobs and that they need seven to eight weeks to qualify. There is no money in the system to pay the public servants to get the job done.

It is not that the public servants cannot do their job; there just are not enough of them. The money does not go to the right places.

Having a program such as POWA to ensure that those 55 and older can live comfortably until they retire at age 65 is one of the good things that we could accomplish.

Therefore, we will be voting against Bill C-50 even if the government falls, because it is a vote that should be—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for questions and comments.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for the public service that he has done for Canadians today by sounding the alarm, as it were, and notifying Canadians that a crime is about to take place, if not literally then certainly figuratively and practically, that we are about to get robbed.

It is now 12:35 in the afternoon and by 3 o'clock a crime will be about to take place. Somebody should call the cops and get them in here to witness this because hidden within the budget are two landmines that do not belong there. The first one is the immigration fiasco that the government has snuck into the budget bill. The second one is the manifestation of perhaps the greatest theft in Canadian history: $55 billion of surplus in the EI fund, paid in by employees and employers, not by the government, will be taken and used for whatever spending priorities it sees fit.

The current government, and the previous government, seem to have a misunderstanding about whose money it is. Marcel Massé was the previous president of the Treasury Board. I will ask my colleague to compare these two things. The former Liberal president of the Treasury Board, when there was a $30 billion surplus in the public service employees pension plan, by legislation, by the power vested in them, they stole that money from those pension fund beneficiaries just the same as the current government will steal the EI money. Does he not see a parallel there, that those guys do not seem to understand that it is not their money?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the public service pension plan. When we go into negotiations, we negotiate the wages that we could get right away, but to protect our pensions, we negotiate a pension plan hoping the government will not rob from it later on. The government negotiated the pension plan and then later passed legislation to take it.

As the member said, at 3 o'clock the train will go by and the robbers will jump on the train and take the money. At 3 o'clock this afternoon, $55 billion will be stolen from Canadians, money that belongs to the working people, men and women who get up in the morning, go to work and pay into a program that belongs to them. This money will be stolen this afternoon by the Conservative and Liberal Parties.

I have been arguing about that for 11 years and I do not feel that I have wasted one minute of my time. I have been doing it for the working men and women who have built and are building this country. It is a real shame what will happen at 3 o'clock this afternoon.

The government has done it in a way to make itself look better. It says that it is a good government because it will put the money into a corporate organization like Radio Canada, the CBC or crown corporations. It says that it is doing it because it is better than the Liberals, that it wants to save the money. However, it does not talk about the $55 billion that it will take. That is the shame this afternoon.

A study done said that we should have a bank account for $15 billion but the government will only be putting in $2 billion. When that $2 billion goes down, the benefits will be lost again. The people will lose benefits again, which is sad, and it will happen at 3 o'clock Ottawa time.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

As a new member of Parliament representing the constituency of Vancouver Quadra, I again thank the residents of Vancouver Quadra for their confidence in me. The people of Vancouver Quadra are educated, engaged and informed citizens whom it is an honour to represent. I intend to advocate tirelessly for their interests in Ottawa.

The Conservative government included many Liberal programs in this budget bill, albeit in watered down versions, for example, post-secondary education. Many of the people who work and study at UBC live in my riding and the quality and accessibility of post-secondary education is an important priority for them as it is for me.

Past Liberal governments were known for their many investments to benefit universities, students and research. Billions of dollars for these purposes in the Liberal budget update of fall 2005 were cut by the Conservative government. I note that due to the work of the Liberal leader and members, the government in this budget has sprinkled back some of those post-secondary investments.

The previous Liberal government left this country's finances in a strong position but Bill C-50 underlines the mismanagement by the government that has drained the fiscal gas tank of our nation. This is entirely consistent with the abysmal record of past Conservative governments, including the Mulroney government and the Ontario provincial Conservatives, whose finance minister, now the federal Conservative finance minister, helped leave the incoming Liberals in Ontario a landmine: a whopping $5.6 billion deficit.

Most unacceptable in this bill is part 6 and it is to that section to which I will address my remarks.

Part 6 consists of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These amendments are substantive, are bad public policy and are of deep concern to new Canadians in my riding and across Canada and to their overseas family members. These amendments should never have been buried in this budget implementation bill.

The Conservative government cannot be trusted, especially when one considers the past comments the Prime Minister has made about immigration. For example, in 2001 he stated:

...west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society.

What did he mean by that? Was he referring to my riding of Vancouver Quadra? Is he someone who can be trusted to amend immigration laws?

The Liberals, in stark contrast, have long been supportive of immigrants to Canada and their unique contribution to our multicultural landscape. I am proud to continue that tradition as the member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra. This is an issue of great importance to me as an immigrant myself.

The Minister of Immigration cannot be trusted. She has already misspoken in the House by claiming that last year about 430,000 new Canadians were welcomed into Canada under the Conservative government, more than under the Liberals. That is not true. She later had to retract that claim and essentially confessed that it was inflated by including students and temporary workers.

Actually, 36,000 fewer permanent residents have been accepted since the Conservative government came to power 27 months ago. Will the door continue to close arbitrarily to immigrants under the government's proposed amendments?

The type of changes to the very foundation of Canada's immigration policy that the government is proposing must be considered in the open and not slipped into a budget bill through the back door. The government is seeking to make changes that would close the door to immigrants, but even more concerning is that the amendment would give the government the power to be prejudicial in their implementation.

The Conservative government has already demonstrated its meanspiritedness over and over by cancelling the court challenges program that supported the most vulnerable Canadians, by weakening the infrastructure helping women advance our equality in Canadian society and by voting against a motion to lower the Peace Tower flag on the day a Canadian soldier is killed overseas. This is meanspirited.

In part 6, section 11(1), for example, by changing one word “shall” to “may” in the regulations, immigrants who meet all the requirements may find Canada slamming the door in their face. That is meanspirited.

As well, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would have the power to make arbitrary and unaccountable decisions, which would enable her to pick some immigrants over others, send some to the back of the line to start all over again or slam the door shut altogether. We do not know whether applications will be denied due to an immigrant's country of origin or some other factor.

According to Naeem Noorani, the publisher of The Canadian Immigrant, as quoted in the Toronto Star on Tuesday, “This sets a dangerous precedent for a healthy democratic system”.

It is precisely because of past Conservative insensitivity toward Canada's immigrants that it is not appropriate for the government to have that power. The measures the government is seeking to introduce stand in contrast to the fairness, transparency and welcoming of new Canadians under past Liberal governments, a welcoming that has led to Vancouver becoming a thriving urban region underpinned by the contribution of new Canadians.

My riding of Vancouver Quadra has welcomed more than 40,000 immigrants to Canada. Many are long-time residents now, which others have arrived more recently. Vancouver Quadra community members who have self-identified in the census as being a visible minority include Chinese, South Asian, Korean, Japanese, West Asian, Filipino, Black, Southeast Asian and Arab, among others. This diversity contributes to the richness of the community in so many ways.

Of note, more than 23,000 residents of Vancouver Quadra are of Chinese origin, whether from Hong Kong, Mainland China or Taiwan. These new Canadians make important contributions to the social, cultural and economic life of Vancouver Quadra and Canada.

Just 10 days after I was elected, I organized a round table discussion to hear from 20 leaders in the Chinese community, my very first public consultation as a member of Parliament. The changes the government proposes could prevent their family members from joining them here. The changes the government proposes could prevent those working in a particular field from becoming part of Canadian society. Through one stroke of the pen, the minister could place specific countries at the bottom of the list. In reality, we really do not know who will be acceptable to the Conservative government, a government that cannot be trusted to be fair.

The government hopes to change Canada's immigration laws so that at a minister's whim people who aim to come to this great country to make a better life and a better Canada could be prevented from even being considered. These are substantive changes that should be discussed openly and accorded a full debate.

I am against part 6, the section of this budget bill that deals with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Part 6 should be considered separately, not as a part of Bill C-50, and part 6 should be rejected.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague from Vancouver Quadra and compliment her on her thoughtful remarks in what I believe was her maiden speech in this House of Commons.

I am sure her constituents benefited from the consultation that she did on some of the negative aspects of this bill and the subterfuge that is being foisted on Canadians by slipping these immigration amendments into the budget bill.

We in the NDP have dwelt at some length on how we find fault with the immigration section of Bill C-50 and we came to the logical conclusion that what we intend to do is vote against the bill because we disagree with the bill. It follows logically that when we disagree with something and follow our principles, we vote against that.

As my colleague is new to the House of Commons and since this will be perhaps the first challenge of its type that she will have the opportunity to vote with, I can give her perhaps some guidance and ask her a question.

The way it works here is that if members believe in something they stand up for it, and if they disagree with something, they vote against it. Those are the basic tenets of being a public officer or a public servant. The member's constituents expect that she will come here and vote her conscience on what she really believes and, on those things she opposes, she will vote against.

Therefore, will she or will she not stand up with those of us who oppose Bill C-50 and vote against it at 3 o'clock today, two hours from now?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's welcoming comments. It is a great privilege to be here.

Unlike NDP members of the legislature in my province of British Columbia, the member and his party will never form government, so it is easy and predictable to vote against and oppose everything while never having to put forward the needed constructive solutions were one to assume the reins of responsibilities of government.

I appreciate that the member supports the criticisms that I and my colleagues are making on the immigration amendments. We do not trust the Prime Minister. He has been quoted as saying that “immigration should be essentially economic in nature” when he was chief policy officer of the Reform Party, so how can we trust that these amendments will be applied properly?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member. The term “trust” is a big one. Trust and confidence go hand in hand. Throughout her address to the House, the member talked about trust.

I know that if I have real concerns about someone whom I do not trust, I do everything I can to make sure that person does not perpetrate a dastardly deed upon someone. I can only think that if she has strong convictions and is really dedicated to her words, she will make sure that she acts accordingly so that she can plainly explain to her constituents how she was judicious not only in her opinions but also in her actions.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite was talking about perpetrating dastardly deeds, I was awaiting the rest of the sentence, which would have been about the government's blatant broken promise to investors in income trusts. I heard that on doorsteps again and again in Vancouver Quadra.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I can allow a very brief comment from the member for Kenora if he keeps it close to 30 seconds.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that our colleague from Vancouver Quadra has learned very quickly in the House. One thing she pointed out very quickly is the meanspiritedness of the other side of the House.

She has talked to a lot of people in the short time since she was elected and is a great asset to the House. She mentioned that she met with other Canadians. What are they saying about this legislation? Obviously she clearly has problems with the immigration aspects. Could she please comment?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people who attended my round table in the Chinese community had a lot to say and have a lot of concerns about this amendment, but other Canadians who are ringing alarm bells include: the Canadian Bar Association, Toronto mayor David Miller, the Canadian Arab Federation, the Ontario premier, the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the Regina Leader-Post, the Vancouver Sun, the Victoria Times Colonist, La Presse, the Ottawa Citizen and many others. There is a growing consensus. This is a bad idea.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this matter. I want to welcome my colleague from Vancouver Quadra. Now that I know her better, I hope the 2010 Olympic Games will be held in her riding and that she will participate in the figure skating events because I think she has the required skills, having skated around the questions she was asked the way she did.

When one is against something, one does not vote in favour of it. We may possibly never form the government, in fact we will certainly never form it. Our goal is not to form the government; it is to reform it. It is not true to say that we are going to compromise our principles. The Bloc Québécois is voting against Bill C-50. We could have said to my colleague from Vancouver Quadra that there are very many possible arguments for voting against this bill. I will give just a few, as I seem to have only 10 minutes.

Take agriculture for example. As far as agriculture is concerned, this budget provides only $72 million over two years. A number of sectors in our country, in Canada, are currently dealing with an agriculture crisis. In the nation of Quebec, the agriculture crisis is present every day. Some $72 million over two years for all of Canada is certainly not enough. This government has not been listening to the demands of the farm workers.

Then there is employment insurance. I do not want to repeat the arguments of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who gave many arguments on the employment insurance fund. The only thing I want to say to him is that he had better get back to his riding as soon as he can in the next few hours because his junior team from Acadie—Bathurst is going to have a hard time making it to the playoffs, let alone winning. Things are not going well right now, just like with employment insurance.

This government decided to create the employment insurance financing board. The government can go ahead and create whatever board it wants, but we want to know whether it will return the $57 billion it stole from the employment insurance fund, and that it stole from workers. This started under the Liberals. I understand why the Liberals will vote in favour of Bill C-50; it is becoming clear. They will have to deal with the problem if, by some misfortune, they return to power in the next few decades. The Liberals could end up dealing with the problem of returning the money they stole from workers.

I do not want to repeat what the member for Acadie—Bathurst said, but we could have done so many things with the $54 billion to address the terrible economic crisis going on in some regions in Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, in the manufacturing and forestry industries. Obviously, this does not affect Calgary very much.

The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tells us that if there are not enough jobs in Quebec, all a person has to do is go work in Calgary, because there are jobs there. Try saying that to someone who is 55, 56, 57, 58, who has 12 years left on his mortgage, who works in Béarn in Témiscamingue or in Clairval in Abitibi. This person would say that he spent his life working in a sawmill, that he started at 18, and that he thought he was entitled to a decent retirement.

The employment insurance fund could have helped create a program for older worker adjustment, or POWA, which the Bloc has been calling for for over four years. I have been here for four years, and I have been hearing about it for four years. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are able to, want to, or have the political will to create a POWA. It would not be expensive. The Conservatives could have included it in the budget. But they put nothing in the budget about employment insurance and nothing about assistance for older workers.

Older workers will remember this. And so will seniors, whose situation is even worse.

The employment insurance fund has been stolen. I very much like the comment made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst who said that at 3 p.m. today, thanks to the Conservatives with the support of the Liberals, the $54 billion theft will be legitimized. It is worse than the great train robbery. That is exactly what we will be doing by creating the new employment insurance financing board. That will be the end of the employment insurance fund. It will be gone, but will those who paid into it be reimbursed? No, no. That money was used to buy helicopters that barely fly, submarines that sink because they do not work very well, and rifles and guns. That money was used to invest $1 billion a year to go to Afghanistan, even though we have no business being there. I hope everyone will remember that.

All things considered, the worst theft is still the election promise the Conservatives made to seniors. I remember it; I heard it. They promised that, if elected, they would give the guaranteed income supplement retroactively to seniors. As soon as they were elected, they reneged on that election promise.

The Conservatives could have included that measure in the budget. They had the money to do so, with their $11 billion surplus. It would have cost less than $1 billion to help our seniors get by. I am saying this for the benefit of everyone aged 70 and older, particularly my mother, who lost $12,000 because of the Conservatives and their ridiculous promise. They would have been better off not to make a their stupid promise to give seniors full retroactivity on the guaranteed income supplement. Many seniors lost $4,000, $7,000 or even $12,000. They were entitled to seven years of retroactivity, but they are being given only one year's worth.

On the other hand, when someone owes the government money, I guarantee it can go back as far as five years and demand retroactive payments. The Conservative Party in power, however, decided to grant retroactive payments for only up to 12 months. Yet the Conservatives owe seniors the money that was stolen from them. Will they pay it back? No. That is another reason why will vote against this bill.

I am the Bloc Québécois aboriginal affairs critic. I have heard some good ones in my time. I do not want to bring up the Kelowna accord, like the Liberals, who turned it into their pet issue. I just want to say that the government could have helped and had the money to help aboriginal peoples deal with the terrible crises they are up against right now. Not far from here, just 165 kilometres north of Ottawa, in the community of Kitcisakik, people are living in 18th century conditions. They do not have running water, a water system or a sewer system, and they live in hunt camps.

The government promised to fix the problem, but it did nothing for aboriginals. The government will argue that it is spending $660 million over two years—$330 million per year—but aboriginal communities in Quebec alone need 10,000 housing units. Nunavik and the whole far north shore have to be totally rebuilt because of the melting permafrost.

Unfortunately, I have just a minute left. I have a lot more to say about this, but what I really want to say is that the government would not even have had to put more money into its social housing budget. The funds could have come from CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has an astronomical surplus. The government could have invested $1 billion from that surplus— which would not even have made a dent—to help with social housing. Yet the government has shunted that file aside and refuses to talk about it.

This government made so many promises that it did not keep.

At 3 p.m. this afternoon, the members of the Bloc Québécois will not be afraid. We will stand up and vote against this budget.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-50. I have already spoken to the bill in general and now I am speaking to the amendment for which the debate will end this afternoon. This budget bill generally did not satisfy the Bloc Québécois or Quebeckers because it does not include any type of support for the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

Over the past few days, we have seen that this crisis has nothing to do with the managers. In Quebec, Beauce, which is known as a region that is a major business supplier, is going through a very difficult time. Thousands of jobs have been lost, but we all know that Beauce is not to blame for this downturn. Beauce had a very strong manufacturing sector. I remember that the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology made 22 unanimous recommendations to the government over two years ago to help the manufacturing and forestry sectors. However, the government has decided not to carry out those recommendations.

Today, this region of Quebec, which is a jewel of Quebec entrepreneurship, is losing jobs by the thousands. Young workers and young couples whose future was secure, are seeing it all collapse. It is not just a result of nature, it is the result of significant changes in the market, including the higher dollar, for example. We could see this coming for quite some time and we would have expected the federal government to come forward with an action plan and a strategy for industry. It is not as though the government had not been informed. The Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology made 22 unanimous recommendations, but the government only carried out one, or one and a half, of those 22 recommendations. The Standing Committee on Finance then sounded the same alarm and informed the government, which then had a motion adopted in this House on that matter. There is still no action plan in the budget. That is one of the reasons the Bloc Québécois cannot vote in favour of this budget.

At a time when the regions need additional support, the budget cuts $107 million from the budget of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. This is terrible. After the election, the minister responsible said that there would be the equivalent of a Marshall plan, which he now refers to as the Blackburn plan. Today, as a result, thousands of jobs are disappearing across Quebec and also across Canada, because Ontario is also being affected by the manufacturing crisis. In addition to taking a laissez-faire approach and having no industrial strategy, the government is slashing the programs and funding that have been in place for several years in these regions that could have used more assistance. I believe that this is reason enough to vote against this budget.

My colleague also spoke earlier about the whole issue of the program for older worker adjustment. This is an important social measure that provides people who have worked for a company for 25, 30 or 35 years with bridging income support until they receive their pensions, if they lose their jobs at age 57, 58 or 60. It is also a measure that should be part of an industrial strategy. This is what happens in a sector like forestry. Jobs are cut, the younger workers leave and the older workers sometimes manage to keep their jobs. Eventually, though, as the crisis continues, they also lose their jobs, but they have no income to tide them over until they receive their pensions. At the same time, the younger workers have gone elsewhere and will no longer be available when the forestry industry recovers.

In my opinion, the federal government should come out of its shell. The government thinks that the market will take care of everything and that the government has no responsibility to act. In my opinion, Quebeckers and Canadians expect the government to create conditions to develop prosperity and enable everyone to create wealth and distribute it appropriately. There are dark clouds on the horizon. A major economic slowdown is on the way. This is just about the worst type of government we could have to deal with this sort of situation.

Unfortunately, this is perilously reminiscent of what happened just before the Great Depression in the late 1920s and early 1930s in the United States. The Republicans in power said the government should intervene as little as possible. Fortunately, the government changed at that time, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democrats implemented good policies to stimulate the economy.

We would have expected a similar attitude on the part of the government, but that is not what we are seeing. A program to help older workers would not have cost billions of dollars. Implementing such a program would have cost less than $100 million and would have allowed hundreds and thousands of people who worked their entire lives, who supported their families, to have a sufficient, minimal income to get by until they receive their pension.

Unfortunately, as soon as I was first elected in my current riding in 2004, I saw firsthand the consequences of a major closure, when the Whirlpool plant in Montmagny closed. We are still feeling the consequences today. This does not mean that it is not a dynamic, productive region or that it is not creating any jobs. What it means, however, is that when 500 workers are laid off, 150 or 200 of whom are older workers, a large number of them will definitely not be able to find other employment, for various reasons, no matter how hard they try. This government should have done something for those people, although we are seeing no such efforts on the government's part.

For Quebec, this budget contains a very clear, distinct and unacceptable provocation: the desire, the obstinate insistence and the obsession of the current Minister of Financeto put in place a single securities commission in Canada. It seems that he is reliving his past as the Ontario Minister of Finance or perhaps he is aspiring to become the Premier of Ontario. We have demonstrated that Quebec has an efficient securities commission that has worked well and offered useful services. The Conservative minister's obsession is unacceptable.

This budget does not have what Quebec wants, what Quebeckers told us they wanted in our pre-budget consultations. Beyond the words, beyond the fact that the government adopted a motion on the Quebec nation, now that the time has come to provide some substance and to indicate what that means for Quebeckers, the Conservative government has given us nothing. There is nothing in this federal budget to that effect.

We would have liked to get some answers to these concerns from the federal government. For example, there is not the level of investment in the cultural sector that our society deserves. Yet this is a nation's form of expression. The Quebec nation needs federal support to continue to make itself known throughout North America, and to obtain and expand on the success it has achieved. We need tangible measures to develop this nation. They are not found in this budget.

There is also a cultural difference, at least between the Conservatives and Quebec, when it comes to the distribution of wealth. In the past, Quebec has implemented programs such as the parental leave program and the child care program. Because of the values Quebec society deems important, these programs were implemented and money was set aside to do so. The Conservatives, however, do not take the same approach. One of the areas most affected is social housing. But they could have killed two birds with one stone. Money invested in social housing creates a need for construction, which in turn creates jobs. At the same time, it would help people get out of poverty. Often, when people are experiencing problems with poverty, it is because they are forced to spend 50%, 60% or even 70% of their income on housing. They are not left with enough money for other things.

So we can see—and I will end on this note—that there are some people who are particularly outraged at the action of the Conservatives, in particular about the budget. These people are women. Quebec women and Canadian women were stripped of an important tool to win legal cases. The Conservatives have chosen an approach more appropriate to a private company than to a government.

For all these reasons, I think that this budget is bad for Quebec and bad for Canada. We want the Conservative government to heed at least some of these messages. We shall see. Now, the Conservatives are taking advantage of the fact that the Liberals have problems within their party, but in practice, this is a bad budget. It is a bad situation, and it does not at all correspond to what Quebeckers and Canadians were expecting from a minority government. The government seems to be acting as if it were a majority government. It is making choices that would not have been made by Quebec.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his speech, which was excellent as usual.

However, my colleague said that there are problems and that the Conservatives are profiting from the Liberals' internal problems. I would go even further and say that they are profiting from the Liberals, but that the Liberals do not actually have any principles. People must have principles in life, and they will have to have them this afternoon at 3 p.m.

Our colleague has sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for a number of years. He has worked hard on the employment insurance file, since he hails from a region with seasonal workers. I believe that he has worked hard on that file, I will give him that. This afternoon, what will my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals will join with the Conservatives to legalize the theft of $55 billion from the employment insurance fund? That is exactly what will happen if Bill C-50 is passed.

Does he really see a difference between these two parties that have been in power for years? Be it one or the other, the Liberals of yesterday or the Conservatives of today, does he see a difference between these two political parties with respect to workers, ordinary people and people who need the government's support? Does he see a difference between these two parties?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As I was saying earlier, one of the problems with this budget is the fact that, because of internal leadership problems, the official opposition cannot get with the program and take a clear stance.

However, my colleague is right, and this is not just about internal leadership. With respect to the employment insurance fund, it is clear that the $54 billion surplus was misappropriated and stolen from the workers and employers who paid the premiums. The government decided to use the surplus to cover other expenses and to pay down the deficit. These people got no return on the money they had invested.

During the battle against the deficit, other people paid taxes and benefited from tax cuts later on. For example, the Conservatives have announced significant tax cuts for big corporations. But people who had paid into the employment insurance program never got any return on their investment. Instead the government tightened the screws, cut benefit weeks and increased the number of hours needed to qualify.

The government could have done something about it in this budget, because there is going to be an agency that will be something like an independent fund—we hope. However, whatever it turns out to be, it will be short the $55 billion that was hijacked, which should be in the fund, available to be reinvested, because the existing program does not provide the benefits people need. I agree with my colleague on that point.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague realize, as I do, that a crown corporation and an independent fund are different things?

An independent employment insurance fund still forms part of the government's general funds but it is independent and thus is not part of the consolidated revenue fund.

With his experience, the member must know that in this House we can ask questions about funds for which the government is responsible. However, with regard to crown corporations, the government will cast off its responsibility and when we rise in the House to represent our citizens, it will answer that, because it is a crown corporation like Radio-Canada/CBC, we will have to ask the crown corporation. The government will no longer answer these questions.

Is there not a danger that this will happen with a crown corporation, whereas it would not with an independent fund because the government would still be accountable?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. We will have to keep a close watch on this to see if the final form will be acceptable.

In my opinion, the basic mistake is that the seasonal workers from my riding and my colleague's riding and across Quebec and Canada, who have paid into the fund for years and provided a surplus of $54 billion, will never see a cent of this money. If there is an economic downturn, if there is still someone to take responsibility and, in the end, if these workers are told that the program does not have enough funds to meet their needs, this year's Conservative budget will certainly leave a bitter taste.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Accordingly, the vote stands deferred until three o'clock today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It being 3 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-50.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #88

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The next question is on the main motion.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. The House has to hear the question. I would remind hon. members of one of the Standing Orders, and I have forgotten the number, which says that when the Speaker is putting the question no member shall make any noise or disturbance. I will get the number if hon. members insist, but I would ask them to kindly show some restraint when the question is being put.

The hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois on a point of order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order to make things easier for the House, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of this House to fully apply the result of the previous vote to the current vote.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #89

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. It being Thursday, I believe the opposition House leader has a question.