Debates of March 10th, 2005

Committees of the House

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade regarding the supplementary estimates.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre on his speech, which proved to be very informative. I was pleased to learn that Manitoba has a law similar to the one that is proposed here. Some provisions may be different, but the legislation obviously leads to the same results as the ones we wish to obtain through the bill proposed by my colleague from the Bloc.

The member for Winnipeg Centre made an analogy—very similar to the one we heard from the member for Joliette—regarding the whole issue of poverty, crime and safety. If I understood correctly, he made a connection between the issue before us today and poverty. I take that as an invitation for us to keep in mind, when we take measures such as the ones we are contemplating, namely reversing the burden of proof with regard to the proceeds of crime, that it should not detract us from dealing with the situations that lead to crime.

In this regard, the people who are the most vulnerable to crime are the poor. For example, youth, who are reached in school yards or elsewhere and who are tempted to become the conduit for organized crime, particularly in drug trade, are people who, to a large extent, are not only interested in making money as such, but are also motivated by the fact that they are poor.

One of the measures that increase poverty—I know that my NDP colleague is very sensitive to this issue, because his party has spoken many times about it—is the employment insurance issue and the restrictive measures brought in by Liberal governments over the years. These measures have made families poorer and have ensured that we saw an increase in poverty among youth before Christmas.

I would like the member's comments on this. If I have understood his concern well, yes, we must vote in favour of the bill before us today, but the government must go further. It must correct the distortions created by the employment insurance measures to allow families that contributed to the employment insurance fund to get their fair share of EI benefits.

I would like to hear him on this.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising those very salient points and adding to my presentation by expanding on an area that I would very much like to add to my comments.

It is true that my inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre is the third poorest riding in all of Canada, by whatever statistical measurement is used. When dealing with chronic long term poverty, one of the predictable consequences is perhaps not more crime, because I do not want to say that poor people commit more crimes, but poor people are more likely to be victims of or exposed to crime. Therefore, it is very much a top of mind issue for the people I represent.

As for the contributing factors to the fact that mine is the third poorest riding in the country, one can be directly blamed on the cutbacks to the EI program in the late 1990s. We did a study and a survey right across the country. In my riding of Winnipeg Centre alone, the cutbacks to EI resulted in $20.8 million per year being sucked right out of my riding, pulled out, extracted and ripped out.

This is a riding that was already low income and suffering the consequences of poverty. Taking that $20.8 million every year out of my riding alone pushed more people from being low income marginal families into families in dire poverty. I thank the member for making that connection.

As for the EI fund alone, with its $20.8 million a year, let us imagine a company with a payroll of $20.8 million a year wanting to move into a riding. We would pave the streets with gold to welcome that company because that would mean 2,000 well-paid jobs. The government pulled that out of my riding just by those changes to EI alone. The impact is shameful. I know of other ridings in eastern Canada, for instance in Newfoundland, where the impact is $50 million or $60 million per year in single ridings, according to that same survey.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to get back to the topic of debate today. I am wondering if the member might have thoughts on either of the two subjects I will mention.

In terms of confiscation of the proceeds of crime, before we enact legislation the state or the government would want to give an eye to how the state does it. In other words, we would want the procedures to be charter proof and have a reasonable amount of fairness even though we are dealing with organized crime proceeds and organized criminals.

I am just wondering how far we would track that money, those proceeds of crime. An example came up earlier. If a hospital foundation had received some bundles of money out of the organized crime envelope, how much knowledge would the charity need to have before we actually confiscated the money? Is this something we should be paying attention to as we develop the legislation?

Second, we have a government agency called Fintrac, which now, on a relatively covert basis, tracks all significant financial transactions in the country. I am wondering whether or not the member feels we should be marshalling all the resources of government, including agencies like Fintrac, to be part of this organized crime initiative. Some taxpayers will say yes. Others will say that we should be careful how we do it and how much of the resources of the state we use in various ways in relation to citizens.

Could I ask him for his comments on those two sidebar issues?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising those two very legitimate points. I am aware that there is work under way to look at money laundering and the aspects of money laundering. I am aware that there is great interest on the part of the federal government to have a holistic approach to attacking organized crime. I would only put forward that what has been proposed by the Bloc Québécois today is in fact a way of financing that activity.

The hon. member did ask me specifically about the process and perhaps how far it would reach. Let me use as an example the way we wrestle with that in Manitoba. It is up to the chief of police, including the commanding officer of the RCMP, to make application to the Court of Queen's Bench for orders to seize or forfeit and confiscate property. I doubt they would be looking at charitable institutions which may have inadvertently become the repository for proceeds from crime.

I would like to think, seeing as we folded the judiciary into this, that a Court of Queen's Bench has to issue the order. I suppose there would be some analysis of the type of application made and some judicial wisdom shown there.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

First, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who had the courage to present this motion today. This motion will force or invite the government, which appears to agree with it, to introduce a bill. The reason the hon. member has presented it today is that this issue, reversing the burden of proof, has already been under discussion and a solution sought for a long time. We want the situation clarified.

Obviously, we know that in Parliament things often proceed slowly. Bringing this motion before the House today, and discussing it all day, has made it possible to get a general idea of the members' feelings. I have seen much stormier debates in this House during an opposition day. It appears there is some consensus among the political parties. It feels as if we are moving forward with a situation where we really want to find a rapid and practical solution—one which everyone is waiting for eagerly.

Our primary role as human beings is to take care of ourselves, each other and our children. We can see what is happening in the schools today. One need only look at the big high schools or even primary grades. People come in to sell their illegal products—drug products—to our children. These people come from organized crime. Everyone knows that. They are known. Ask any teenager: they all know exactly where to get drugs.

That is at the foundation. As legislators, we must try by every means possible to fight against it. Reversing the burden of proof is one solution. It is not the only solution, but it can help a great deal. When criminals are arrested, they will have to prove to the rest of us that their property really belongs to them and that it was earned legally, not illegally.

I am rather concerned about what my colleague from the NDP said earlier. I hope I understood correctly. He was talking about Manitoba and said that even if people were not facing criminal charges and not found guilty, they could ask for this kind of investigation. If there are suspicions about someone, they can ask whether that person's goods were legally obtained. I think that violates the Charter of Rights and Liberties.

What we are proposing is more applicable to a situation where, after an accused is found guilty, he must prove that his assets belong to him and that they were earned lawfully.

Obviously, this is ascertained during investigations currently underway. Some have gone on for years. It costs taxpayers millions to try to prove that a known criminal obtained his assets legally. Some cases have been dragging on for seven years. They have already cost millions of dollars.

We should not have to pay to prove that a criminal's assets were obtained with the proceeds of his crimes. It should be the other way around, and that is the reason for our motion today and for this debate.

In my opinion, this would be a enormous progress. It would be a step forward. However, we must also consider allocating resources for this. We cannot simply pass legislation and then think that it will be enforced on its own. That is not how things work.

We must be able to ensure that there are enough people in the field dedicated to this. Once again, I come back to the situation with regard to the RCMP detachments, because this has affected many of my colleagues, including my colleague from Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The Magdalen Islands are facing an extremely serious and acute crisis.

It is no less acute in all the other ridings. There is my colleague from Joliette. When a murder was committed in his riding, it made the headlines in Quebec. It involved a young man in his twenties who was a bar owner and who had refused to let gangs sell drugs there. He was murdered in cold blood, just like that, on the sidewalk.

So, there are situations where criminal groups are still very powerful. Quite often, the only way to deprive them of that power and strength is to seize their assets, so that when they come out of jail—assuming of course that these assets were illegally obtained, and I am quite convinced it is the case for some of them—these people cannot resume their criminal activities. They will have no choice but to operate under the legal system, like the rest of us.

Here is another personal example. I used to own a commercial building, and two young women wanted to start a business. They opened a bar in our small town, but one day some members of a criminal organization showed up and told them bluntly that they wanted to sell drugs in their bar. The two women refused and soon received death threats. They had to shut down their business, because they were afraid they would be found dead on the sidewalk. Such situations still exist today.

Therefore, in order to try to avoid such situations, we must put in place all the necessary tools—not only the reverse burden of proof, because it is part of a whole set—to fight crime in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. I am convinced that doing so will lead to a better society.

However, we must act rather quickly. As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mentioned earlier, there are some major criminal figures in Quebec, particularly Normand Robitaille and Maurice “Mom” Boucher, who has a big smile on his face, even though he is in jail.

If we cannot use the burden of proof, once these individuals come out of jail they will still have their three Mercedes, two boats, three houses, etc. They will have spent a few years in jail, where they will have been well treated—to be sure—because they really know how to behave in that environment, since it is their field of expertise. Currently, when they come out of jail, they can simply get their assets back, quickly reorganize their criminal gang, reintegrate their former position as leader of a criminal gang, and resume their operations, because they have the money to do so. Therefore, we must put a stop to that.

The day that we are able, as in the case of Maurice “Mom” Boucher for example, to seize his illegally obtained assets and to see to it that he can no longer use this money to commit crimes, it will change a lot of things. We have to start with one individual so that others realize that there are laws and there are things going on in the field that prevent them from engaging in these kinds of activities from now on. We have to take a stronger stance to attack the problem at its roots, meaning that we have to try to protect our children as best we can.

In Saint-Jérôme, in my riding, the RCMP provides services and has an excellent knowledge of the area. In fact, RCMP officers recently discovered in our region a counterfeiting ring that came from the United States. It had been there for a long time, but they were waiting for the right moment to proceed with the seizure. They did an excellent job because they know their people. If they are withdrawn from the area to be sent elsewhere, all the work done in the past will be wasted. They also do a lot of work with youth. So we must ensure that these positions are maintained because they are part of a whole, as I was saying earlier.

I am very pleased to see that there is a certain degree of consensus in the House today in support of this motion.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord on her speech and to thank her for drawing attention to what is going on, particularly in my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, where those who could do a great deal in the battle against organized crime are no longer present. I will give the background on this. There used to be two RCMP detachments, one at Gaspé and the other on the Islands.

A year and a half ago, the detachment on the Islands become just a telephone connection to Gaspé. There is no local contingent. Situated as they are in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Magdalen Islands are becoming an ideal environment for organized crime. It is as if it has been advertised as an open house. An open house, an opportunity to take advantage of what I would term government nonchalance. I would also go so far as to say that these actions are irresponsible. With nine detachments gone, one can well wonder about those that are left. We do have an RCMP presence at Gaspé, but for how long?

This I think illustrates just what we have been hearing and seeing about the government's washing its hands of responsibility. We see this in its actions, or lack of action. I would like to hear the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord say more about the advantages of having an RCMP detachment since she still has one in her riding. Since laws are important to fighting crime, what we in the Bloc Québécois are proposing is to strengthen the law and change the burden of proof. That is very important and also leads us to examine the situation in order to see what we can do about organized crime.

I will take this opportunity, of course, to ask: what next after Magdalen Islands? Gaspé? And then what? That is the dangerous situation we are in right now.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague and I can appreciate his situation. I understand how people can feel abandoned in a situation like this. We are talking about an important resource, because these are people with special expertise in the specific field of safety, as well as in investigation and intervention of a type that is different from those conducted by our other police forces. We need them in the field. Organized crime is also a specialty of theirs. Without them, there is a void, and serious problems might arise.

The idea of a telephone connection is absolutely preposterous. This is nuts. There is no way that an RCMP officer will be able to deal with problems in the Magdalen Islands by phone. We have to be realistic.

It is obvious that not only the detachment in Gaspé must remain open, but also that serious thought ought to be given to reopening the one in the Magdalen Islands. I encourage my hon. colleague to make representations and to continue fighting, as he has in the past, for the detachment in the Magdalen Islands to reopen and, above all, to prevent the one in Gaspé from closing.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for my hon. colleague. What does she make of the position of the Liberal Party, which is agreeing today with our whole approach to the reversal of the burden of proof, while at the same time giving up resources as important as RCMP detachments? There is something that does not make sense, which our colleagues opposite have not done a very good job explaining to us. The facts, however, are completely contradictory. From her experience, was she able to gain any understanding?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be extremely brief. Sometimes, here, connections are not made. This is probably one of those times. If, in voting to reverse the burden of proof, the government does subscribe to this and does introduce legislation, I hope that it will implement measures that will enable the re-opening of various RCMP detachments, instead of the reverse. It would be only logical. I sincerely hope that the connections are made in the right places and that ultimately a solution to these problems can be found.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to take part in this debate on the Bloc Québécois motion. Our motion seeks to amend the Criminal Code so as to reverse the burden of proof in our legislation.

This motion was moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and seconded by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. First, it is important to read the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, in order to better fight crime, the government should introduce a bill by May 31, 2005, to amend the Criminal Code by reversing the burden of proof as regards the proceeds of crime, requiring the accused, once found guilty of a serious offence, to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that their assets were not obtained using the proceeds of their criminal activities.

First, I want to remind the House that the motion introduced today comes as no surprise. The Bloc Québécois has been working for many years and has led a real crusade since the 2000 election campaign to get the federal government to introduce measures and amend the Criminal Code to include this reversal of the burden of proof.

On this side of the House we thought, and still do, that we needed to provide police officers and crown prosecutors with every possible means to combat organized crime better, since it is has such a social and economic toll on society. As early as the 2000 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois had been calling for amendments to the Criminal Code, thereby providing law enforcement officers with more concrete measures and more suitable provisions to deal with this scourge.

The government did, of course, respond in part to what the Bloc Québécois was calling for by passing Bill C-24 in this House in June 2001. This amended the Criminal Code to enable law enforcement agencies to seize, block and confiscate the proceeds of organized crime.

It is important to keep in mind that organized crime is not restricted to motorcycle gangs. Any group of more than three individuals involved in criminal activity can be considered a criminal organization according to the law. These individuals can therefore be found guilty by virtue of the amendments adopted by the House of Commons in 2001 in the form of Bill C-24.

As I have indicated, however, the Bloc Québécois supported the government's Bill C-24, and as I also said did not deem it to be sufficient. We have several examples proving that the bill has not necessarily achieved its initial objective: attacking organized crime. This is why my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles introduced Bill C-242 in October 2004. This bill basically was a remedy for the government's inaction in connection with the impossibility of including the reversed burden of proof in the Criminal Code.

So, four years later, we have decided to present this motion. The ancestors of that motion were the Bloc and the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, whose major crusade has led to the motion before the House today. As my colleague from Chambly has said, to our great surprise, today the government is supporting our motion.

I recall that when Bill C-242 was introduced by my colleague, it received support from a number of members of the House, in the NDP and the Conservative Party. They all agreed that legislative amendments would be needed in order to include this reversal of the burden of proof in the Criminal Code.

What is interesting is that my colleague was the first one on a path later followed by even the federal and provincial ministers. They expressed their agreement with this approach to reverse the burden of proof in June 2004—that is, quite recently—at a federal-provincial conference where the issue was actually discussed. The provincial ministers gave their support to the approach recommended by the Bloc Québécois, not only during the 2000 election campaign, but also more concretely in Bill C-242, introduced in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

Thus, all of Canada is lining up behind the Bloc Québécois. The newspaper Le Devoir had a comment on this recently, in February 2005, and I quote:

The Bloc Québécois, the first political party to propose the reversal of the burden of proof, in Bill C-242, introduced in the Commons last fall, has taken this idea to heart. “It is a suggestion that pleases the Bloc”, confirmed the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—

In this respect, it is very clear that my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has been a real trailblazer on this issue.

Why do we have to fight organized crime by adding the reversal of the burden of proof to the Criminal Code? First, because of the huge social and economic impacts.

How can we agree, in this Parliament, that people—whom I dare not describe as ordinary—the citizens of Canada and Quebec who earn their living honourably, who must pay income taxes and other taxes to the federal government and who do so fairly and honestly, see these people, these organized groups, these criminal gangs, finding all sorts of devious ways to practice what amounts to tax avoidance.

It means significant losses for the Canadian government and, in the end, for the social, education and health services that the taxpayers are entitled to receive. Meanwhile, these organized criminal gangs laugh at the world and in the faces of people who earn an honourable living, and meanwhile, we, the elected representatives, look at the situation and refuse to act.

This is nothing new. This comes as no surprise. Many countries have adopted this same approach at various levels. Some countries partially reverse the burden of proof. Others, like Australia, fully reverse it. France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Germany have decided to include this important concept in their legislation.

It is a question of social justice, individual rights and justice. Provided the motion is unanimously passed by this House in the next few days, it should inevitably lead to the tabling by the government of a bill to recognize this issue and to give effect to the motion by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the Bloc Québécois.

I can assure you that we will be vigilant over the coming months and weeks, should the government decide to table a bill. We will work at the parliamentary committee and we will make sure that the very spirit of the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois—that could be passed by this house—is reflected in this bill.

Often the government opposite refuses to keep its word.

What we are hoping for today is for this motion—tabled in the House of Commons and votable—to be reflected in a bill.

Partisanship aside, the Bloc Québécois will be proud to support the bill that is tabled. We must never forget that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the Bloc Québécois were trailblazers in this.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary for disposal of the opposition motion shall be deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Business of the House

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have received notice from the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday, March 11. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence.

Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour tomorrow will thus be cancelled and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private member' hour.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, would you just clarify for me what time we start tomorrow and what are we working on when we start?

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will begin at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, but we will have an extra hour of government orders because there is no private members' business.

Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 5:30 p.m., so we can start private members' business?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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.

Foreign Credential Recognition Program

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should create a secretariat responsible for overseeing the Foreign Credential Recognition Program, which would work with all stakeholders and provincial representatives to coordinate and collaborate on activities, implement processes, and assist in the research and the development of national standards that recognize foreign-training credentials in Canada.

Mr. Speaker,I rise before the House today to speak to an issue that is of vital importance to many Canadians across the country. This issue has a direct impact on the lives of many new Canadians. It has an impact on the economic growth, the prosperity and the competitiveness of our nation.

The issue before us today is FCR, or foreign credential recognition, the recognition, the accreditation and the integration of foreign Canadians into the Canadian labour market.

Canada is a nation of immigrants. It has been built on the talent of these immigrants. Year after year waves of immigrants have come to Canada filled with hopes and dreams to have a better life for themselves and their families. These new Canadians left behind their countries, their communities and their homes for a land of the unknown. They came to a land of the unknown and brought with them a work ethic of hard work, ambition and dedication. It is these very qualities that have contributed to the success of immigrants in our country.

I, like many other first generation Canadians, see a moral responsibility to ensure that the path for new Canadians to integrate into Canadian life is less challenging.

Today I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the generations of new Canadians who have come to Canada, people like my mother who came to this land of the unknown with absolutely nothing but a passion and a vision, not only for herself but a passion and vision for a better life for her children.

I spoke about Canada being a nation of hopes and dreams, which is why we as a nation have been able to attract the very best and the very brightest. We continue in our country to invite the very best and the very brightest. All these new Canadians come here with all the right tools. They come with the knowledge, the skill, the talents and expertise, yet when they come they discover challenge after challenge.

Fifty-four per cent of new Canadians in 2002 arrived in our nation under the economic category. They arrived possessing at least one foreign credential, all these new Canadians hoping to turn their potential into success. Out of these individuals, less than half were able to obtain employment in their respective professions. The Conference Board of Canada estimates this economic loss to be in the realm of $2.3 billion, lost because Canadians with foreign credentials are not recognized.

It is not that these new Canadians are not finding jobs. They are. Almost 40% of newcomers into our nation find jobs. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether they are the right jobs. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we as a country are truly maximizing their potential. Are these newcomers to Canada finding jobs in which they can utilize their talents for which they have spent years training? Let me tell all my colleagues in the House that six out of ten new Canadians do not work in the same occupation or the area of expertise for which they had spent so many years training. This is simply unacceptable.

Let me enlighten this House with some other alarming and shocking statistics from Statistics Canada. Of all the new Canadians who arrived in this country in 2002, 55.4% of them were trained in a field such as in natural or applied sciences, which means they came either as doctors, or scientists, or lab technicians or surgeons. Less than half of these people actually found work in their field. Instead of working at a clinic, or in a lab or in a hospital, they all put their talents as doctors, as scientists, as lab technicians to use by either chauffeuring us around or maintaining one of our public facilities.

Further still, 20.7% of newcomers to Canada in 2002 arrived with an expertise in the field of management, which means that when they came they had either been CEOs, or VPs or accountants. Only 7% of these people actually found work. Thirteen per cent of these newcomers had been trained in the area of management had expertise and a knowledge base in the area of management. They were resigned to working in hard labour.

The numbers I read are simply unacceptable for a nation that is on the brink of facing a very well-known and serious shortfall in skills labour growth. The Conference Board of Canada has predicted that by 2011, baby boomers will be retiring in greater numbers. Immigrants are expected to account for all of the net labour force growth.

We know we have an aging workforce. We know our workforce is shrinking. We also know this will have a significant surefire economic impact. That is why we as a nation must be prepared.

We as parliamentarians know that this emerging domestic and global challenge really requires an aggressive approach. We as a nation have what it takes. We have the greatest resource of all, and that is our people.

Our prosperity as a nation lies in people who are skilled, talented and knowledgeable. We must utilize this potential. We cannot afford for all these valuable, educated, talented and skilled people to go to waste.

The challenge for our country is to ensure that we remove any barriers for any type of full participation. The challenge for our country is to tap into all the experiences, to tap into skills and into expertise. It is the federal government's responsibility and for us as nation to move from the role of facilitator and supporter to a much more active and aggressive role, one that will ensure we utilize all the skills of new Canadians and Canadians who have been born and raised here. For example, Canadians who choose to go away to medical school and come back have to be assured that we will put their skills and experiences to proper use.

It is a proud moment to say that our Prime Minister has demonstrated a willingness to recognize foreign credentials. The recognition of foreign credentials is more than just about the accreditation of credentials within our own nation. Foreign credential recognition is about cementing Canada's role as a leader in the global arena. Foreign credential recognition is about global competitiveness.

The importance of this issue has been acknowledged in the past three throne speeches. In the past budget, moneys were given toward great policy initiatives. For that, I thank the Prime Minister, the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I also thank all the other numerous government officials for their commitment toward this issue of national importance.

However, this issue is growing so rapidly and with such a sense of urgency that we must do more. We must increase our efficiency, our outcomes and the pace at which we do this work. This will equal results.

The federal government cannot do it alone. We as parliamentarians in the House cannot do it alone. We need willingness and commitment from all stakeholders, provincial and territorial governmental representatives, l professional and regulatory bodies, colleges and universities and the private sector. We need that commitment and willingness from everybody. Only by working together as one team toward one common goal will our nation no longer have the best educated taxi fleet.

It is with this sense of urgency on behalf of my constituency of Brampton--Springdale that I set forward a motion to have the federal government move expeditiously in recognizing foreign credentials in Canada. This is not just about new Canadian immigrants. This is also about young Canadians who were born and raised here, but who chose to study abroad and now face challenge after challenge to get in. This is unacceptable for a nation that has wait lists. It is unacceptable for a nation where Canadians cannot get access to doctors.

It is for this reason that we, as parliamentarians, must act with a mindset that is expansive. We must act with a political vision in which innovation will be at a premium. Only with this mindset and vision will Canadians, both the ones who are born and raised here and the new Canadian immigrants with foreign credentials, be recognized, accredited and integrated into the social and economic fabric of our nation.

I stand here today to ask all hon. members in the House for their support of my motion to recognize foreign credentials in our nation.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I admire the efforts of the member for Brampton—Springdale on this important issue.

What will the economic impact be if we do not utilize the professional individuals, their talents and abilities?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know she has a tremendous interest in this issue as well and has done a tremendous amount of work. She has a number of constituents who are also faced with this concern. Many other parliamentarians share this concern with her as they have a number of constituents within their respective ridings who are directly impacted by this.

As I mentioned during my speech, the economic impact in our nation of not utilizing or recognizing the credentials of foreign trained individuals, either new Canadians or Canadians who were born and raised here, is in the range of $2.4 billion. These people come here trained in the sciences, in management or in a variety of other skilled professions. However, when they arrive in the country, it takes so long for them as individuals to get their credentials recognized, to be accredited and then to actually integrate into the labour market workforce, and our country suffers a huge economic loss.

It is not only about the dollars, or economic loss or reduced economic prosperity and growth. There is also a social factor to this. There is a cost in social and human terms that is quite extensive. It is our obligation as Canadians and as parliamentarians to really work in a collaborative spirit with all provincial and territorial stakeholders and regulatory associations to ensure we really move forward in this area.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions.

First, I have been here for a while and I have observed that the government has made commitments in this area for quite some time. Does the member have any statistics as to how often this has already been promised to us?

My second question is about the barriers between the provinces in regard to this issue. Is there anything in her proposal that would address the fact that credentials are not recognized from one province to the other? Teachers cannot move from Saskatchewan to Alberta to Ontario without jumping through hoops and hurdles. Is there anything in her proposal that would address that?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the hon. member's last question first. The particular area of recognizing the credentials of individuals who have been trained abroad is over a number of jurisdictions, including provincial, and within professional and regulatory bodies. believe that is one of the reasons there has been a slower pace in terms of getting results. That is why my motion talks about a collaborative spirit. It talks about a spirit of commitment of all these jurisdictions working together.

In the member's first question he mentioned that the federal government has spoken about this issue in previous years, that it has been mentioned in the past three throne speeches. It was a proud moment for me when the finance minister delivered the budget. A total of $75 million was allocated toward recognizing and improving the accreditation of health care professionals from abroad.

We as a government have made some movement. This motion brings together all the stakeholders and all the respective jurisdictions to work together.

Canadians, whether they are new Canadians or were born and raised here, want to work in the fields for which they have been trained. Whether it is a provincial issue or a national issue, they do not necessarily have an understanding of it.

If we all work together as a team and in a collaborative spirit, we will achieve results.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the member elaborate on the health care professionals? We are facing a critical shortage.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign when I knocked on the doors of a number of my constituents in Brampton—Springdale they wanted to know what we as a government were going to do to address the shortage of doctors.

As I have said, in this budget $75 million has been allocated toward accrediting and integrating these health care professionals.

A very exciting task force report was done which made a series of six recommendations. I would encourage all members to look at that report. The report recommended that the credentials of individuals who have been trained as doctors should be recognized. We should get those individuals accredited, get them internships and get them working. In that way we could reduce wait times in our hospitals, and Canadians could have access to doctors.