Roy Cullen

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I lived in British Columbia for 12 years and a part of me is still there. The problems, challenges and opportunities in British Columbia are replicated across the country.

I could not agree more that investments in infrastructure are needed. Reducing the GST is a misallocation, in my judgment, of federal government resources when we need these investments in infrastructure.

Our leader recently came out with our 50-30 plan to reduce child poverty. This House voted unanimously to reduce child poverty a number of years ago and we have not made much progress. Our party is committed to dealing with child poverty when we form the government the next time.

On affordable housing, the former Liberal government established agreements with most of the provinces. In my province of Ontario we had the Canada-Ontario affordable housing agreement, which consisted of two parts. One was investment in new stock. For people in my riding, it is not so much a need for new housing stock; it is to have affordable housing so they are not spending 40% to 50% of their income on housing. We need a combination, and that is what our program did. It created new housing stock, but it also created some subsidies for housing.

I agree with the member for British Columbia Southern Interior that there are many challenges. I do not agree with him though on the question of corporate income tax cuts because I think corporate income tax cuts, in the overall scheme of things, do not impact the fiscal situation of the government that severely. There is an opportunity there to attract investment, and if we attract investment we are going to create jobs and that will be good for all Canadians.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with my colleague from Northumberland—Quinte West that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is a model for how committees should work in a non-partisan way. The member opposite has fought very hard for a number of issues upon which we all agree, such as counterfeit goods, anti-terrorism legislation, et cetera. I thank him for that.

I would agree with him on certain aspects of what he said. I am not sure I would agree that in two years the government has laid some very new ground.

On the debt reduction, it was our Liberal government that started to pay down the national debt. When we came into office in 1993 we were faced with a $42 billion annual deficit. In three short years that was eliminated and we started to pay down the debt. In fact, at the end of our mandate I think our government had paid down something in the order of $55 billion in debt which saves the federal treasury, then and now, $3 billion per year in perpetuity. I am glad that the Conservative government has continued that trend and is paying down more debt.

On corporate tax reductions, I agree with him that having a low corporate tax rate is good. It attracts investment to Canada and by doing that, it creates jobs in this country.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-28, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled by the Conservative government in March 2007 and also to implement certain provisions of the economic statement, or mini budget, tabled in October of this year.

The Conservative government has been in office now for close to two years and, apart from bringing in ideas and initiatives that were started under the Liberal government and complaining about the Liberal government in the 13 years that preceded it, it has not really brought in much in terms of a vision or a sense of direction for this great country of Canada. In fact, to coin the Conservatives' own phrase, they are just not getting the job done, and t his bill is a good example of that. It is deficient in a number of respects and I will attempt to highlight some of the concerns in a moment.

I would like first to comment on a couple of the positive elements of Bill C-28, the budget and the mini budget, and that is that the Conservatives, with this legislation, will bring back the personal income tax cuts that our government introduced in 2005, which reduces the basic rate from 15.5% to 15%. While the Conservative members opposite denied that they had actually increased personal income taxes in their budgets, they now recognize that they did increase personal income taxes and now, with Bill C-28, they will be reducing personal income taxes for Canadians.

If a federal government is going to reduce taxes for Canadians, which is laudable from time to time, getting the balance right in terms of reducing taxes and investing in our future is the careful balance that governments need to achieve. I do not think the government, frankly, is achieving that, but if it is going to reduce taxes, cutting personal income taxes is the way to proceed and not reducing the GST.

Economic advisors throughout the country have spoken of the poor economic policy that is associated with reducing consumption taxes like the GST. Of course, the Conservative Party ran on a promise to reduce the GST from 7% to 5%. It reduced it from 7% to 6% and now Bill C-28 further reduces it from 6% to 5%.

The cost of implementing that initiative for each percentage point is approximately $5.5 billion each and every year moving forward. Therefore, the combined reduction in the GST from 7% to 5% is $11 billion annually, in perpetuity, taken away from the fiscal capacity of the federal government. That would be fine if there were no needs facing Canadians that need investment, program focus and funding.

Let me start first with infrastructure. Our national infrastructure is in an enormous deficit and we need to start dealing with that. In fact, some competent bodies have estimated that our national infrastructure deficit is in the order of about $120 billion. Those are the investments needed to upgrade our sewer systems, water systems, bridges, roads, ports and airports, infrastructure that is critical to the safety of Canadians and to Canada's competitive positioning as a nation. The longer we wait, the more costly it becomes.

I, for one, think that, instead of reducing the GST from 6% to 5%, we could leverage that $5.5 billion with the provinces and municipalities and start to deal with our infrastructure deficit. That would be a far wiser decision than the one before us today in Bill C-28.

However, the reality is, and we all know it, Bill C-28 is a confidence bill. If it does not pass we will be into a federal election and, frankly, I do not think Canadians are ready for a federal election and therefore we may have to let the bill proceed.

Although the budget implementation act reflects the budget and the mini budget, the problem is that it lacks a vision or a sense of direction for Canada.

I mentioned infrastructure. What about the Kelowna accord? I do not see that financed in the budget implementation act. The needs of our aboriginal peoples in Canada are enormous. Our former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, met with aboriginal leaders and other stakeholders during our last mandate and agreed to invest in schools, in hospitals and in the basic infrastructure that is sorely behind the times for our aboriginal peoples. What has the government done? I do not see the $5 billion over a number of years to deal with our aboriginal people reflected in the budget.

I do not see the child care agreements, which were negotiated by our Liberal government, in the budget. Those agreements would have created real child care spaces in Canada so that working families could take advantage of them and work and nurture their children in an affordable and sensible way. I do not see that reflected in the budget.

I do not see anything in the budget implementation act that really deals with Canada's need to be a global competitor, to invest in research and development and to be innovative. The world is a rapidly changing place. Countries like Brazil, India, and China are expanding at an enormous pace and, hopefully, they will do that in a sustainable way. Jobs that used to be in Canada, in the United States or in Europe are now in places like Bangalore in India, in Shanghai in China or in places in Brazil.

Because labour costs are much lower in those jurisdictions, jobs are migrating. The trend is called offshoring or outsourcing and it is a trend that we cannot fight. It is a reality and we have to deal with it. The way to deal with that as a nation, in my judgment, is to start developing our workforce, which is highly trained but we can do better. We can create an even more educated and highly trained workforce and we can start pursuing the value-added opportunities that exist. Commodity type businesses will not operate so much here in Canada. They will be operating in countries like India and China.

I do not see much in the last two budgets that deals with making Canada innovative and research oriented and in terms of building a highly trained and educated workforce. I do not see much of that in Bill C-28 and that is a serious omission.

Members of my caucus met with some individuals at the University of Toronto not too long ago who are running the MaRS project. This is an organization that is an intermediary between the research that goes on in universities and the companies that actually commercialize this research and make it an economic development activity in Canada. It is a tremendous project.

We also met with some professors from the University of Toronto who had come up from the United States because of the research environment that had been created in Canada by our previous Liberal government when it invested in research chairs, in the Canada Foundation for Innovation, in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and in the overheads that were needed to conduct this federal research.

We created the brain gain, not the brain drain that happened before us, and that took a lot of work. After we had dealt with the fiscal problems of this country, we started to reinvest significantly in research and development. Those professors spoke about the very positive research environment in Canada that attracted them to this country.

Sadly, however, under the Conservative government, investments in these initiatives have slowed down. It is creating an environment where the research environment in Canada is not as strong as it was. We are at risk of losing these scientists back to the United States and to Europe and, in fact, losing some of our own scientists who came back to Canada because of the very positive research environment that we had created.

If this were to happen, it would be a sad day for Canada, after going through all the work that was initiated and launched under the Liberal mandate. Our future is dependent on our ability to innovate, to be research oriented and to be at the leading edge of technologies in the future, which is where the future lies.

Although Canada's economy is still driven, to a large extent, by our natural resource economy, it has shifted significantly. Part of that is into areas like biotechnology, telecommunications, information technologies and the service sector. We need to recognize the importance of our natural resource economy. In fact, there is a lot of high technology embedded right in our natural resource economy. We also need to take advantage of these new and emerging economies and possibilities. The only way to do that is to invest in research, innovation and a highly trained workforce but I do not see much of that reflected in this particular budget.

As I said, we need to deal with infrastructure and build more public transit. The city in which I live and represent in a riding in the city of Toronto, we can see the effects of urban sprawl, of too many cars and of not having enough public transit. The air quality is suffering. We need to have more investments into public transit. We need to deal with urban sprawl and create the population densities that support more investments in public transit. I do not see much of that in this budget.

There are also some issues that are not really the focus of much attention by the government. A lot of market fraud is being perpetrated in our economy by people who are taking advantage of unsophisticated investors and/or who are taking advantage of our lax rules and regulatory environment with respect to the investment in securities in Canada.

Our government launched the integrated market enforcement teams that were meant to comprise a balance of law enforcement officers and lawyers to prosecute people who perpetrated stock frauds and who took advantage of investors in very sophisticated schemes. The reality is that these integrated market enforcement teams did not get off the ground. They are not doing much. The present government should be putting more resources into that initiative. Again, I do not see anything in Bill C-28 that would implement that measure.

We have many seniors in Canada who are investing through pension plans or directly. We see the effects of the stock market going up one day and down the next. I think that is as a result of many stockbrokers churning accounts, selling one day and buying the next. We have no real, independent body that can research, act and review on these particular matters. In my judgment, we need to do more to protect small investors.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security wrote a report.

In May 2007, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security produced the report “Counterfeit Goods in Canada—A Threat to Public Safety”.

This report was followed a few weeks later by a report by the Standing Committee on Industry, which also had a number of recommendations to deal with the plague of counterfeit goods and piracy in Canada. Canada has become notorious--I was going to say famous, but notorious is a much more appropriate word--in the world for piracy and counterfeit goods.

Legislation was enacted last year to deal with the pirating of motion pictures. That is when individuals go into movie theatres with a video camera to record movies and then mass produce and distribute them. Notwithstanding that law, I am sure there is still some of that going on.

The public safety committee focused on those counterfeit goods that are creating safety and health issues for Canadians. We have read in the papers about the toothpaste that came from overseas. Regrettably I have to name China. China is a big player in counterfeit goods. I have to say that. There are tubes of toothpaste that do not contain toothpaste at all; it is sawdust or something, but certainly it is not toothpaste.

There are pharmaceutical products coming in from China and I suspect other countries where the pills or tablets are filled with something other than what the tablet or pill is supposed to contain. People are relying on these pills or tablets to cure some disease or infection, but the pills or tablets are actually filled with food colouring and other compounds.

There are some electrical products coming into our country with a forged Canadian Standards Association stamp which indicates that the product meets the CSA standard, but the products are substandard. In fact, they are a safety risk to Canadians. It used to be that people could only buy them at flea markets but the reality now is that these products are penetrating other retail establishments, dollar stores, et cetera. Extension cords and various other electrical products can be a huge safety hazard. They can short out, cause fires and cause ignition. Because these products can be imported from China at very little cost, the profit margins are huge and the sanctions are low. Organized crime is engaged very aggressively with counterfeit goods and pirated goods.

The government needs to respond aggressively to the reports from the Standing Committee on Industry and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and enact the laws to toughen up the sanctions. Also, we have to give the Canada Border Services Agency the mission and mandate to search, seize, and within the laws of Canada, destroy counterfeit goods and pirated goods.

We saw a reference in the throne speech to intellectual property rights, but apart from that there has been nothing that I can see in the budget or the mini-budget and nothing that I can see in Bill C-28 to deal with these growing problems in Canada.

I see nothing in Bill C-28 that would reflect the government's recognition that it made a mistake on its decision to tax income trusts. I do not see anything in Bill C-28 that retracts from that position. It is fine to have a tough position. It is fine to say we are taking that position and sticking with it, but if it is the wrong position, that is not the right way to proceed.

We know that income trusts had to be dealt with. Certainly, I believe they had to be dealt with, because they were not meant as a tax avoidance scheme for the industrial sector. They were designed for a specific purpose, for energy companies, property development companies. However, it is the way in which the Conservatives went about dealing with income trusts after they promised they would not tax income trusts. People invested based on those undertakings, and they got hammered to the tune of $25 billion in lost market capitalization. I do not see anything in Bill C-28 that addresses that.

I do not see anything in Bill C-28 that deals with the wrong-footed decision of the government to deal with the interest deductibility of corporations. I do not have time to get into that now. We know that we need to deal with those who would deduct interest in Canada and have tax free income offshore, but we did not need the unintended consequences that that brought to us.

I think it is a flawed bill, but regrettably, it would mean a general election if it was defeated, so I rest my case.

[Canada Transportation Act, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was at a committee and came here the middle of the parliamentary secretary's presentation on Bill C-8,

I do not know if he covered this, but one of the things we hear from the forest industry and other big shippers is they feel they are often left with no alternative other than to deal with CN.

I know in my experience in the forest industry, many of our mills and the company I worked for did not have any options. It was CN and that was it. Therefore, the shippers feel that in some cases they are gouged in terms of the rates.

Is there something in Bill C-8 that deals with this issue, something like final offer arbitration or some way of arbitrating these differences where CN has a monopoly position and there are no reasonable alternatives?

[Budget Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Peterborough does not get it. I think the Conservative Party is misreading the mood of Canadians. I think Canadians would tell us that we should start investing in infrastructure. It is because of the work our Liberal government did over 13 years in dealing with the deficit and getting our fiscal house in order that the current government is now seized with a large surplus. Yes, we need to reduce taxes but we also need to invest in those critical areas like infrastructure.

[Budget Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives across the way, we do not look for blame, we look for solutions. We look for opportunities to deal with things.

On the question of urban sprawl, I do agree with the member that part of the problem that we have created in Toronto is urban sprawl. I was glad to see the Liberal government at Queen's Park announce the formation of a green space.

However, the reality is that we need to get the density of populations up to rationalize or justify more use of public transit, which is why I am glad our government invested in public transit. Unfortunately, we need to do a lot more because public transit is good for the environment, good for people living in cities and it is a positive thing to do.

Mayor McCallion is very credible. I think most Canadians would say that if she cannot find it in her budget it is probably not there. I know the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, has been saying the same thing. I think that he does a very credible job as well, but the reality is that the federal government needs to take responsibility for investing in infrastructure.

Our government did it over many years with our cost shared programs. They worked very well. If we look at the United States, its government is making huge investments in infrastructure. It is not worried or concerned about it. Our federal government needs to take a very strong position on infrastructure and leverage other investments but take a lead role.

[Budget Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this discussion of Bill C-28, which implements the budget tabled on March 19 by the finance minister. It also implements the provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on October 30, which is what we refer to as a mini-budget.

We know that Bill C-28 is a confidence bill and that if it is defeated we will be into a general election in Canada. I am sure that Canadians do not want to have a general election right now. We do not need one. I certainly do not want one either.

Having said that, I think that this bill, in implementing these measures of the budget and the mini-budget, falls far short of what Canadians deserve. I would like to cite a few examples, first of all on reducing the GST from 6% to 5%. We all know, as economists worldwide and certainly in Canada have commented, that this is bad economic policy. It is better to reduce income taxes or invest in programs and services that Canadians need. Reducing the GST is not a very good economic measure.

I know that the Conservatives committed to this in their platform, wrongly I think, as they realize now, but there is a better use for that money, that $5.5 billion which reducing the GST from 6% to 5% is going to cost annually in perpetuity. We have already lost roughly $5.5 billion per year by reducing the GST from 7% to 6%, so cumulatively this is $11 billion taken out of the federal treasury from now until forever. It is not a very good use of taxpayers' money.

I would rather see an investment in our national infrastructure. Let us take that $5.5 billion and, instead of reducing the GST from 6% to 5%, collaborate with the provinces and the municipalities and start dealing with our national infrastructure deficit. Some have estimated that the infrastructure deficit is in the range of $120 billion to $130 billion, but whatever the number is we know it is significant, and we know anecdotally about some of the pressures on our infrastructure. All we have to do is look at the bridge that collapsed in Montreal. There are many other examples.

If we do not deal with our infrastructure, we will create a number of problems. We are creating safety issues for Canadians. We are also becoming less competitive as a nation. If our roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and harbours are not up to snuff, we are not going to be competitive as a nation, especially in this global economy.

I, for one, would support not cutting the GST from 6% to 5%. I would support taking that $5.5 billion, working with the provinces, leveraging some provincial money, leveraging some municipal money, and starting an infrastructure program, initially a five year to ten year program, maybe, and extending it from there. We would start to make a very big dent in our infrastructure deficit.

There are mayors such as Hazel McCallion, a very respected and reasonable mayor of the City of Mississauga, who is saying that the federal government is being hugely negligent by not investing in infrastructure and, because of that, the municipality of Mississauga is going to have to increase its property taxes. If we had this infrastructure program, I am sure that mayors such as Hazel McCallion would not implement this property tax increase and would use the money to invest in infrastructure. That is just one example.

The budget and the mini-budget are deficient in a number of other ways, particularly in regard to their lack of emphasis on innovation and research and development. Our Liberal government started to reinvest in research and innovation after we started to deal with the deficit and paying down federal debt. We made large investments in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, in the Canada Foundation for Innovation, in establishing research chairs across Canada, and in putting money forward for research overheads, which are needed to implement these research programs.

As a result, what we have seen in Canada is the brain gain. We had been losing a lot of researchers and scientists who were leaving Canada because of the poor research environment. Because of the measures of our government, we created the brain gain. In fact, I met some of them at the University of Toronto recently. They are U.S. researchers who had come up to Canada as research chairs and spoke very positively about how our government had dealt with this positive research environment.

However, this is now in jeopardy. It is in jeopardy because the Conservative government is not making those investments in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research or the Canada Foundation for Innovation and also has very cumbersome and unwieldy processes.

A lot of those researchers were saying that while the environment is still not bad, it is on a decline. I think it would be a horrible thing to happen to Canada if we reverted to the brain drain, because we had undertaken so much effort to create this very positive research environment.

What does that research environment do? It allows us to be competitive in the global economy. It allows us to develop products and services that add value and that create high value jobs in this country. All we have to do is look around and we can see the impact of our global economy. There is a lot of material to read. I would recommend The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century as a starter.

Recently I have been doing some work on the diamond industry. It is well acknowledged that Canada is now the third largest diamond producer in the world, and we have more diamond production coming in from northern Ontario, but guess what? Ninety-nine per cent of the diamonds leave this country in an uncut, unpolished and no value added form.

I have been working with various stakeholders to see what we can do to deal with this. We could perhaps establish a diamond bourse or a diamond exchange here in Canada. From there, the value added activities, the cutting and polishing and other jewellery businesses, would grow. That is the experience worldwide. In fact, we know that it cannot all be done up in the Northwest Territories and in Yukon. We have to centre some of it in some of the major metropolitan centres. Of course, as a member of Parliament from the Toronto area, I am trying to centre some of that activity in Toronto.

We have a great opportunity with retail diamonds in Canada. They can be and are being differentiated in the marketplace and are a great attraction, but one of the bottlenecks I am running into is that the cutting and polishing of diamonds is increasingly happening in India and China.

We could repeat that scenario over many different sectors. We cannot fight that. It is the new reality, but if we are going to compete in this world economy, we have to seek the higher value added initiatives. We have to be innovative. We have to invest in research and in adding value to our products.

I could go on in regard to the manufacturing sector. Another colleague commented about it. Our businesses need to invest in new technologies now to increase our productivity. That is why the accelerated capital cost allowance measures that the Conservative government brought in need to be extended, but we need to give business a longer planning horizon. Businesses do not make decisions like these over two years. They need to have the accelerated capital cost allowances extended for five to 10 years.

We have job shortages looming. What was in the budget about that?

What was in the budget about investing in carbon capture and sequestration and in technologies that will help us recycle water in areas like the oil sands?

What was in the budget about dealing with intellectual property rights or fighting counterfeit goods? I did not see a thing.

What was in the budget about protecting small investors? What was in there about the brokers who are using investors' money and churning their accounts? There is no accountability. There is no responsibility. The integrated market enforcement teams, which are supposed to deal with this type of fraud, are not effective. They are ineffectual. What was in the budget to deal with that?

What was in the budget to deal with backlogs in immigration processing?

What was in the budget for literacy or for women's programs?

I could go on, but I am going to end here. I will probably vote for this because I do not want an election, like most people in this House, but I think this is seriously flawed.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, has a lot of experience working with young people and I certainly appreciated what he had to say.

Regrettably, in my riding of Etobicoke North, there has been a lot of youth violence, gangs, and drugs, and it is one of the ridings that the member from the Bloc was asking about. Fortunately, there was a police raid last year where they rounded up 50-odd young people involved with gangs and drugs. So things have been more quiet since. I am hoping that they stay that way because it was a terrible problem.

What is often misunderstood is that our Liberal government made changes to what used to be called the Young Offenders Act. We brought in the Youth Criminal Justice Act and with that, we made a number of changes. I will just cite a couple.

One is that with the legislation we allowed for transfer of information back and forth between the schools and the police, which is an important thing, and the police are using that information with good effect.

A second change is that under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and it is often misunderstood, a judge, at his or her discretion, can try a 14-year-old as an adult if this is, in the wisdom of the judge, the appropriate way to proceed.

I think those are some additional teeth we put into the act. However, ultimately, I think it comes back to the young people. What do we do with them at a certain young age? We cannot lock them up forever. They are going--

[Old Age Security Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brampton West for her dedicated work on the question of a 10-year residency requirement for old age security benefits for new citizens of Canada. I know she spoken up on this topic on many occasions over the years and I am happy to speak on behalf of her private member's bill today.

Bill C-362 would amend the current Old Age Security Act so that at age 65, one is able to receive a monthly pension after being a resident of Canada for three years after the age of 18, instead of the current residency requirement of 10 years after age 18, to be eligible to receive these benefits.

Unless one has lived in Canada for periods that total at least 40 years following the age of 18, he or she is not entitled to full old age security pension but rather a partial pension. This requirement was introduced in 1977.

Partial pensions are earned at the rate of one-fortieth of the full monthly pension for each year lived in Canada after the age of 18. However, it is important to note that once a partial pension has been awarded, it cannot be increased as a result of added years of residence in Canada.

Currently, as is the case in my riding of Etobicoke North, a constituency where there is a large immigrant population, elderly new Canadians who have worked all their lives are not able to receive these benefits. With Bill C-362, this issue can now be studied and debated in Parliament.

Old age security is a monthly retirement benefit paid to the majority of Canadians aged 65 and over. This program, funded by federal government tax revenues, can cause difficulties for immigrants, which was the impetus for this private member's bill, Bill C-362. Immigrant seniors must currently wait years before receiving benefits.

These new residents have left their native countries and have journeyed to Canada in order to settle and to reunite with their families. Some are also working and paying taxes. Their livelihoods presently depend solely upon their families and communities. For many, the lack of funding means the elderly must live without some basic necessities in order to survive. Frankly, the quality of life for these residents is diminished.

I have heard the argument that these elderly immigrants should not receive these benefits until the 10 year residency requirement has elapsed because they are not contributing to the economy. I do not think, however, that this is the case. These individuals typically arrive in Canada with their life savings and thereby are directly inserting these financial resources into the Canadian economy.

In addition, it is typical for these immigrants to immigrate to Canada for the purpose of assisting their family members who have previously immigrated. For example, this might include grandparents assisting with the in home day care of their grandchildren, thus allowing more opportunities for both parents in a household to join the workforce, thereby boosting the labour market.

Since Canada does not have reciprocal agreements on income security with countries such as India, which does not currently have broad public pension coverage, a number of Indo-Canadians are not eligible for old age security benefits for a period of 10 years, since the majority of them have little or no work experience in Canada.

According to statistics from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in 2005, permanent residents originally from Asia and the Pacific Rim accounted for 57.2% of people aged 45 to 64, and 52.7% of people aged 65 and over.

For example, with regard to India, until 1995 India had what is called a provident fund, which only covered people working in establishments that consisted of 20 or more employees. Employers or employees or both would make contributions to this obligatory savings mechanism. Then, whenever someone reached retirement age, became disabled or died, the fund would make a lump sum payment equal to the person's contributions plus any investment earnings derived from these contributions.

The fund, as it differs from a pension plan, did not pay any ongoing periodic benefit. In 1995 India partially converted its employees' provident fund into the employees' pension scheme, which is a defined benefit program paying pensions to contributors when they retire, become disabled, or die.

Of India's 450 million person workforce, as of 2005 only 7% to 8% are covered by the employees' provident fund and the employees' pension scheme. Because India's pension scheme only came into service in 1995 and because of its mediocre coverage of the workforce population, Canada and India have determined that a reciprocal social security agreement is not possible at this time.

For countries that have reciprocal agreements with Canada, these arrangements allow for periods of coverage to be added together to enable each respective country to compensate residents with benefits in accordance with its own legislation. It should be noted that when Canadian citizens who live and work outside Canada in a country without a reciprocal agreement decide to return to Canada, they are subject to the same 10 year residency requirement.

The purpose of residency requirements for the old age security program is simply to verify a person's commitment to Canada. However, immigrants have to live in the country only three years to be eligible for citizenship.

If a person is considered sufficiently committed to Canada to be granted citizenship after three years, why does it seem too unreasonable to use that same period of three years to determine whether a person is eligible for old age security benefits?

The Old Age Security Act made its debut in 1952. However, it has been amended many times over the last 55 years. The most important changes include: the reduction in the age of eligibility from 70 to 65 years; the establishment of the guaranteed income supplement; the payment of partial payments based on years of residence in Canada; and the ability for an individual to request that his or her benefits be cancelled. In addition, the minimum residence requirement was initially set at 20 years in 1952 before being reduced to 10 years in the 1960s.

Since this matter has been brought to my attention, I have worked with and consulted with various community groups within my riding to engage in a dialogue on this important issue. These groups include the South Asian Seniors of Rexdale, the Canadian Council of South Asian Seniors, Humber Community Seniors' Services, as well as many others. These organizations are very concerned that the elderly are being denied much needed benefits as they continue their lives in Canada.

I have listened to my constituents' concerns and investigated the possibility of a reciprocal social security agreement with India. Whether or not this treatment of seniors with less than 10 years' residency in Canada constitutes a breach of their rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is another avenue of investigation that I have pursued.

My research findings and investigative work on this topic have been communicated to my constituents, as well as to past ministers of human resources development, citizenship and immigration, finance, and social development. I have also dialogued with the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, on this issue.

I now ask this new government and the members in this House to examine this issue carefully. Bill C-362 is an excellent tool for doing so.

In closing, this is a very important issue for many of the constituents in my riding, many of whom come from South Asia. I congratulate my colleague for bringing this bill to the House of Commons. It is hoped that the bill will pass at second reading and be sent to committee for further study so that Canadians can be heard on this issue.

I am going to be supporting this bill at second reading so that, as parliamentarians, we can review this policy question and consult with Canadians broadly. Because this issue has evoked strong concern and interest from my constituents, I believe it is imperative that we evaluate and discuss the current policy at the committee level.

[Criminal Code, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for bringing this matter before the House of Commons.

All Canadians and all members of the House are concerned about the damage and the havoc that can be created with drinking and driving irresponsibly.

My own view is the bill does not really address the real core issues. It does not address the incidence of the types of accidents caused by chronic drinkers and drivers, those people who drink well in excess of .08. They put their lives and the lives of others in jeopardy by getting behind the wheel of a car. It creates havoc on our roads. These are the people, the repeat offenders, who we should address.

We already have some very good sanctions in place at the provincial and territory level. In nine out of ten provinces it is an offence to drive with a blood alcohol content level of .05 or over. The tenth province, the province of Quebec, announced its intention to introduce similar legislation this fall. The law allows for the immediate roadside suspension for anyone caught with a blood alcohol content level over .05. In Saskatchewan is .04.

The benefit of this approach is the sanctions can be handed out by police immediately without all the time and cost of a court proceeding. To criminalize these offences at the .08 or .05 level is unduly harsh. It will clog up our courts and prosecution. We already know about the dangers and the problems we have with Crown prosecutors plea bargaining because our courts are already filled with people who are committing particularly heinous crimes.

If it were justified, I would support it. However, in my view it is not supportable, given that the real problem is the chronic drinkers, those who reoffend, those who continuously take their lives and the lives of others in their hands.

How many times have we read in the paper about someone who has been charged with drinking and driving and may have been fined extensively. They get back on the road, drink and drive again and are given a slightly harsher penalty. Maybe their driver's licence is suspended. Then they drink and drive again, repeatedly. We need to deal with those people, not the casual drinker.

Every now and then people make a mistake. They might have two or three beers and suddenly find themselves with a criminal charge, which will be with them forever. This may impair their ability to advance in life and become a contributing member of society. I do not think that is warranted in this circumstance.

I am not arguing that drinking and driving irresponsibly is not a very serious matter; it is. That is why the provinces, rightly, have imposed pretty serious restrictions and sanctions at the provincial level.

I should also add that Bill C-2, which is currently before the House, also brings in tougher sanctions for repeat and chronic drinkers who drive. That is the way to deal with it. People who are chronic offenders could be put away for up to 10 years. Those who drink and drive while their licence is suspended should be treated particularly harshly, and Bill C-2 does that.

Bill C-2 also deals with the question of drug impaired driving. This is a reality we are facing as well. Many people today know police can pull people aside and do a breathalyzer test. They have the technology to detect if someone is over .05 or .08.

The reality is the technologies are not there to put in place a regime that recognizes people are taking drugs and driving. In fact, I think we are finding that people of all ages are saying they can beat the rap by having drugs or maybe a mixture of drugs and alcohol.

When the police pull them over, it is easy to tell what their alcohol content is through a breathalyzer, but it is very difficult to determine whether someone has ingested drugs. In fact, they might have had prescription drugs for some illness and given the technologies we have today, it is very difficult to determine whether someone has a prescribed drug or even an over the counter drug, or whether it is a mix of that plus marijuana, some cocaine, crack, heroin or whatever.

Bill C-2 attempts, and I think rightly, to put in a regime that deals with drug impaired drivers, but the reality is it is not a simple matter. We should also focus equal attention on drug impaired driving.

Some in this debate have said that by introducing the legislation before us, Bill C-376, we would be in line with other jurisdictions. With respect to those who said that, the facts say otherwise. A study was done of international drinking and driving laws in 77 comparable jurisdictions, sponsored by the Canada Safety Council, by an independent, respected organization. It found that only eight jurisdictions treat a .05 driving offence as a crime.

The study also has found that in most international jurisdictions a .05 driving is an administrative offence, not a criminal offence. I think the reason for that is for the reasons I outlined. We cannot slap people with criminal records for every crime that is committed otherwise we would be creating a lot havoc within our society.

The member who introduced the bill has the right intention and is motivated for the right reasons. However, I would draw him to the fact that the Canada Safety Council does not support the bill. It says that there is insufficient proof that the bill will have a positive impact on the number of serious accidents. This is a very serious negative evaluation of the bill from an organization that is well qualified and should know what would work and what would not.

While I think the intentions of the bill are good, and we are all concerned about this problem, Bill C-376 takes us in the wrong direction. What we need to focus on is the hard core drinkers, those who continually get in their cars, drink and drive or take drugs and drive. At the provincial level, we have seen a lot of activity with road checks, bringing people over and checking their blood level content. Now with this new regime for drug impaired driving there would be a similar approach.

The way I understand that would work, under Bill C-2, and I know we studied this at the Standing Committee on Justice, is there would be sort of a three-legged test. First, if people are driving in ways that looks like they are driving dangerously, police officers will pull them aside. They will ask them to do a simple test like walk a straight line. If they cannot do that, they will take a sample on-site of their breath or some other sample from their body and that will be checked by a technician. If that proves to be a problem, the sample will be put through a full laboratory test. If those three tests are there, if the person fails those three tests, they will be then charged with drug impaired driving.

That is a positive development in Bill C-2. It is the direction we should go. Our party supports that and also the tougher sanctions for chronic repeat offenders, those who drink and drive repeatedly. Those are the people we need to address.