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.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Well, they're dishing out all kinds of money. Certainly, after this, you can apply.

Mr. Pang, are you supportive of Bill C-50, sir?

[Roberto Jovel, Coordinator, Policy and Research, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too wish to thank the members of the Committee.

I represent the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. It is an umbrella organization, somewhat like the Canadian Council for Refugees. The latter operates at the national level, whereas our Council is the umbrella organization for Ontario. The Council is made up of approximately 200 organizations throughout the province serving immigrants and refugees. From the very beginning, we have been strongly opposed to part 6 of Bill C-50. We did an analysis that we are going to be sharing with you over the next few minutes. We mobilized our members. We asked the various organizations to contact their local MP in order to explain why we have concerns with regard to the process, the content and the possible repercussions.

I'll go very quickly, because many of the issues were already mentioned during the first panels this afternoon—I was able to listen to them—and I don't want to be repetitive. Of course, the first one, the existing backlog of over 900,000 applications, is not going to be resolved by this, contrary to what has been said in the media by government officials. The measures are now going to be in place, but only for those applications that have been filed on February 27 or after. So that huge backlog is not really what these proposals address.

Of course, we are concerned about the arbitrary power that is given to the minister. It's unchecked power. I'm going to go into detail on this in a bit. The applicants are also losing their legal right to have their application dealt with properly. We're concerned with the issue that if your application meets all the requirements of the law, if instructions issued by a minister say that you fall within a category that shouldn't be even treated, then you wouldn't even have a way to have reparation for such a wait to deal with your application.

As well, there has been a lot of discussion as to whether or not this applies to or affects family reunification. In our analysis it does in different ways. I'm going to be looking at that in detail as well. It also impacts on humanitarian and compassionate applications, which are filed overseas. Of course, these proposals shouldn't be within the budget legislation. They have nothing to do in there. They should have gone through a proper proposal submitted to Parliament and to the Canadian public, with proper consultation. So that was one of the things we have been asking directly from Prime Minister Harper and the department, that part 6 be removed from the bill project.

As a response to all the criticism and all the concerns that have been expressed publicly since the bill was announced on March 14, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration issued a news release from the minister on April 8 that was intended to respond to all the criticisms and all the issues. I think it addresses the issues, but it doesn't respond properly, and I'm going to go through it as well very carefully. One of the major problems is that even a news release or a public statement of that kind is not binding enough to prevent any misuses of power that may occur in the future by this minister or any other minister, by this government or any other government. It's just a problem with promises or statements of intent that are not equivalent to the law or that are not equivalent to properly checked and controlled proposals.

One of the concerns is an example that has happened very recently. When the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was being discussed, the minister back then promised that the regulation on section 117 that deals with people-smuggling would not be applied to humanitarian workers supporting refugees. So those were ministerial promises back then, and everyone agreed, “Okay, your promise is enough. We believe in your good faith.” But what happened only a few months ago was that a humanitarian worker, who was only accompanying refugees within the U.S. to the Canadian border, was detained under this as if this person had been a smuggler. So ministerial promises and public statements of that nature are certainly not enough and we won't take them as seriously as the government would like us to believe in them.

So family reunification concerns.... If you look closely at proposed section 87.3 in the proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act within Bill C-50, you look at the application of ministerial instructions. So the only subsection that is excluded from application of the instruction is subsection 99(2). But then sponsorship applications made by persons referred to in subsection 13(1) will be included for application of instructions. Maybe the minister doesn't have the intention to issue any instructions now, but under the project that is being submitted for a vote, it could happen and it's a reason for concern. The minister could issue categories or groups to be processed in order to be just not dealt with.

Another issue is that there's also a backlog and very long waiting times for family reunification sponsorship applications. This bill is not dealing with that.

We're also concerned that if, through the instructions, the minister would give priority to skilled workers or certain categories of skilled workers' applications, this might mean less in resources and less priority to family reunification. That's also a good reason that a government should go through proper consultation, through Parliament and through the public, to look at these kinds of impacts and not have to just deal later with statements and promises.

There are other misuses of power that should be prevented as well in terms of discrimination. There are many ways in which you could issue instructions that may be neutral or appear to be neutral at first reading but may have a differential impact on people from different countries or from different religions or cultures or races.

If I may have two more minutes like my predecessor—

[Ping Tan, National Executive Co-Chair, National Congress of Chinese Canadians]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Ping Tan. I am the executive co-chair of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee this afternoon on these very important amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The National Congress of Chinese Canadians was established in Vancouver in 1992 following a resolution at the national convention of Chinese Canadians in May 1991 in Toronto to discuss and try to get a fair settlement of the Chinese head tax and the Chinese exclusion act. Over 500 delegates from across the country representing over 200 associations attended that meeting and, as a result, the congress was established to pursue a fair settlement of the head tax and the Chinese exclusion act.

In October 2005, I appeared before a committee of this House regarding a private member's bill, brought by Mr. Inky Mark, a member of Parliament from Manitoba, regarding redress of the head tax and the Chinese exclusion act. The bill received second reading. Unfortunately, an election was called and it did not receive third reading. So it did not pass and become law.

Also in October 2005, I signed an agreement in principle on behalf of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians with the then Minister Raymond Chan, to address the head tax and the Chinese exclusion act. That agreement in principle was signed. However, the current government has yet to honour that agreement.

Today I appear before you again on behalf of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians to study the proposed amendments to part 6 of Bill C-50. I would like to recommend to the committee that it remove these proposed amendments from the budget bill. It is the view of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians that the proposed amendments give too much discretionary power to the minister that is not necessary. Part 6 should be removed from the budget bill.

We share the view of the legal profession, as represented by the Canadian Bar Association, that the proposed amendments are not necessary, because they will remove parliamentary oversight of the exercise of the proposed discretionary power by the minister. The exercise of that discretionary power would not be subject to judicial review. I'm sure you have heard similar views expressed already.

These proposed amendments are inconsistent with Canadian values and the Canadian parliamentary system of government. The proposed amendments, if passed, will fundamentally change the current legislative and regulatory framework for the selection of immigrants. It will erode public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our immigration selection system, because qualified prospective applicants, after waiting years, will be subject to ministerial discretion and not be approved.

We support the government's announced intention to deal with and reduce the immigration application backlog, and the need to bring in the skilled workers that we need in the most speedy way to meet the current labour market demands. We are all supportive of that. However, the current legislation and the regulations already give the minister the needed authority to deal with these issues. More powers, especially discretionary powers, are not justified.

We are particularly concerned that there has been no public consultation about these major changes. In the last 30 years, when the government of the day decided to bring in new immigration laws, there have always been wide public consultations.

Why such a rush this time for such a fundamental change? The Chinese Canadian community is still dealing with the impact of the Chinese head tax and the Chinese exclusion act. We should not make another mistake again.

I have tried to confine myself to seven minutes, Mr. Chairman. You can see that I'm not done yet, but I'd like to take questions.

[John P. Ryan]

Any choice at this point, given the size of the backlog, the size of the fore-log, and the inefficient system, is going to be unpopular. Whatever the colour of the government in force, it is going to have to make some hard decisions. We have Bill C-50 in front of us. There may be other alternatives.

One of the concerns we have at the society is the government's limitation of the consultations to government partners and stakeholders. We think there are a lot more groups—the professional bodies, the trade unions, the immigrant groups—that need to be consulted. We would recommend to the minister that she change this stance and that she have a more inclusive consultation going forward.

[Imran Qayyum]

Thank you for the question.

From what I've read, Bill C-50 is part of a three-pronged approach to dealing with the backlog. One of the prongs of this approach will be to put aside $109 million to immigration. Another aspect is to train officers—bring in new officers—to tackle the backlog, and also to appoint SWAT teams to go after the backlog in high-density consulates. The final part is what's happening in Bill C-50.

Given that, I will restate our position that we are willing to give the minister the benefit of the doubt at this time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments that have been made.

Mr. Creates, would you agree with me that the legislation, Bill C-50, relating to the immigration portion will have to stand the test of the charter--it will either be charter-compliant or not--but that in order to be effective, it would need to be charter-compliant? Would you agree with that?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you. You make very valid points. Unfortunately, I'm running out of time.

I want to direct one question to you, Mr. Bédard. The proposal in Bill C-50 seems to me to be a half-pregnant solution. There is an argument to be made that we could set up a separate EI commission, but when you underfund it at $2 billion instead of $15 billion, and talk about the cyclical.... I don't know why you people say pro-cyclical, when I think it's converse-cyclical, but that's just actuary talk.

I think your basic point is quite correct. Have you actually worked out numbers in which, if you projected a certain level of unemployment in a particular scenario, in fact it would have a drag on the economy and make it more difficult for the economy to actually recover?

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

On that ground, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Creates, right now in Bill C-50 the minister can retroactively change the law and say, “Well, yes, you've applied, but my instruction is that people from these visa offices would be less favourable, and certain targets, such as skilled labour, I would prefer.”

She can do so retroactively, right?

[John P. Ryan, Chair, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants]

Mr. St-Cyr, I concur with my colleague, except that I want to mention one thing. The current system provides that the federal government retains the ability to refuse or to issue a visa on statutory grounds. That would continue with Bill C-50; it wouldn't be affected. Irrespective of Quebec's having selected the immigrant, the Government of Canada can still refuse on issues of security, criminality, etc.

[David Cohen]

I'll take a stab at that.

The Quebec-Canada accord is not the same as the other provincial nomination programs. In terms of how it deals with the other provinces, the federal government can pretty much impose whatever kind of restrictions or limits it wants within the provincial nomination system. Quebec has an agreement with Canada, and that agreement, as I see it, will not be changed, with Bill C-50 with regard to the speeding up of applications, holding applications for later consideration, or returning applications.

However, when in Bill C-50 there is mention of the fact that only applicants inside Canada have the right to apply for residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, that clearly affects people in Quebec. I'll give you an example.

Let's say you have a Canadian permanent resident residing in Quebec, a single mother who works outside of Canada, and she gives birth while outside Canada and wants to sponsor her child and bring that child back to Canada. It's by use of the humanitarian and compassionate application on behalf of the child outside of Canada that this type of situation has been addressed.

As Mr. Creates said, it doesn't come up often. But when it does, when somebody is desperate, and whether that person is in Quebec or in British Columbia, when that person is outside Canada or has a connection with somebody who is from Quebec or British Columbia, clearly we should not be cutting back on and taking away that right. In that sense, people in Quebec are affected just like people in any other province.

[Warren Creates]

It's very common. That results in processing resources going into requesting documents we've already given. The criminal record reports expire after six months, the medical examination expires in 12 months, and so on. It is very unproductive to be living in a system, in this modern world that surrounds us, where we get requests for documents we've already provided or where, because of the slowness and passage of time, things have expired.

If you get change engineers in this department it would be a good investment. The $22 million they're talking about--the impact on the budget by C-50 and these changes to the immigration act--and more, should go into the system for change-engineering it, for using the existing platforms, for training the office to be more productive and less redundant, and for just fine-tuning an existing good program, making it transparent and less totalitarian. You didn't have to go to this totalitarian style of legislation to get to the goal that we all around this table want to see happen.

[Warren Creates]

I'll answer that.

Our immigration program is a good system. We have a lot to be proud of in this country with our immigration program--in Quebec, equally with the other provincial nominee programs, and the federal system itself. There's a lot of fat in it though. There are a lot of unproductive components. If you have some change engineers--I think you all know what I mean by that--to do some consultations on how to overhaul the system without it being totalitarian, which this system will become with C-50 if it's passed, it would be possible to make the forms more simple, to make the officers more productive.

I brought my staff here today. They get requests on files we're involved in. We get letters every day from different embassies and consulates all over the world asking for documents that we've already provided.

[Warren Creates]

We all know that Bill C-50 and the amendments for IRPA are not going to have any effect on the backlog, other than it will decline in time, as you describe it, which is a good thing. It should never have become what it is, and it must decline. It will decline by attrition either because people die, they migrate to another country, or they give up. That's why we need to find out how many of those 925,000 are still good, intending applicant. That's not very difficult to do. It involves a letter and a licked envelope with a stamp on it, to find out whether 925,000 people are still interested in coming.

[Michel Bédard, Member, Task Force on Financing of Employment Insurance, Canadian Institute of Actuaries]

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

My name is Michel Bédard and I would like to thank you for inviting the Canadian Institute of Actuaries to appear before your committee to discuss the creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, as provided for in Bill C-50.

Our profession puts public interest before its own needs and those of its members. It is with that in mind that in December 2007, we published our report on the funding of employment insurance and that is we are appearing before your committee today.

We support the creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, an independent board to supervise the funding of the plan; however, there are major aspects of this bill that could lead to problems for workers and employers as well as for the government itself.

The merit in this new system, of course, lies in the fact that after 2008, all costs and premiums will be balanced. However, forcing the financing board to maintain that balance on an annual basis, one year at a time, represents a serious handicap and will lead to fluctuations in the premium rates, and, more particularly, will trigger a procyclical rate increase at the first sign of a recession.

To illustrate, let's look at the following scenario. A recession hits Canada. Unemployment levels rise to 8%, which is 2% higher than now, increasing payments to out-of-work Canadians by about $3 billion. What happens? The board's $2 billion reserve is totally depleted. The EI account is forced to borrow another $1 billion from the government, even though, by the way, the EI account shows a surplus at this date of $56 billion. Unemployment levels might rise further. The government fiscal balance falls into deficit.

When the premium rate is set for the following year, several things will need to happen. First, the $1 billion that was borrowed by the EI account will have to be repaid, and so premiums will have to rise to cover that. The $2 billion so-called reserve has to be repaid within a single year. Then, of course, an increasing number of Canadians are out of work, and premiums have to increase to cover those extra costs.

Well, consideration of raising the premiums above the legislated limit of 0.15%, which is in the current legislation, will then fall to ministers. This will not be an easy decision in a weakened economy and weakened fiscal position.

We can look at the many times that the government substituted its health to the EI commission in the past to see that this is a real risk and a real possibility. Of course the impact on Canadian businesses, which pay for nearly 60% of the EI program costs, will be significant at those times when their cashflow and profits are severely reduced. And workers, who foot the bill for 40% of the EI contributions, will also be deeply impacted.

We believe having a five- to seven-year time horizon, closer to the normal course of a business cycle, would eliminate the necessity of raising premiums at the precise moment when they need to be stable, not increasing. Our calculations also indicate that an actuarial reserve of $10 billion to $15 billion would be needed to stabilize premium rates over such a timeframe. The rest of the existing surplus, which now stands at $56 billion as I pointed out, is not needed for the proper financial management of the EI program.

Even during an economic downturn that's not as deep as the one I described.... Even deeper recessions might also be possible, but during a smaller economic downturn, the one-year look-forward system would necessitate raising premiums on each occasion, pro-cyclically. Canada's actuaries believe this mechanism needs to be abandoned.

In fact, the proposed system is likely to produce premium rates that vary erratically from year to year, even in normal times, to recover normal forecasting errors. The so-called reserve of $2 billion does nothing to prevent this, as it must be rebuilt each and every year. In this sense, it is not a real reserve under that proposed system. It will not help stabilize premium rates at all. In fact, there is no fiscal cost for the government in any of this, of course, as the new board's operations will be entirely consolidated with those of the government.

Bill C-50 also has a number of restriction override provisions that, in our opinion, minimize or undermine the promise of independence put forward by the Minister of Finance in the February 26 budget. Under proposed sections 66.1 and 66.2--it's paragraph 2(b) in each--ministers are authorized to regulate what is binding on the board in addition to the rules they have to follow in terms of setting premium rates for a year.

Proposed subsection 66(8) allows ministers to override the 0.15% limit.

Proposed section 66.3 allows ministers to override the board without even any limit, at any time.

And proposed subsection 80(2) allows the Minister of Finance to dictate these loans and the pace at which they will be repaid.

We conclude with three recommendations. First, as I pointed out, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries recommends that premium rates be set taking into account a five- to seven-year period, with an actuarial reserve of $10 billion to $15 billion drawn from the existing surplus of $56 billion--maybe not all at once, maybe spread out over time, but ideally, given through a truly independent body.

Second, the institute recommends that Bill C-50 be amended to allow the chief actuary and the board considerably more latitude in the assumptions and projections needed to develop the premium rates, taking into account a five- to seven-year time horizon.

Third, the institute must, as a point of principle, reiterate our position of principle that the existing surplus belongs to the EI system and to its contributors, and should be addressed clearly instead of being swept under the rug once again. And in that domain, I must point out, of course, that the Supreme Court will be hearing this very situation tomorrow morning.

Thank you.

[Warren Creates, Head, Immigration Law Group, Perley-Robertson, Hill and McDougall LLP]

Thanks for asking me to participate in this important piece of your parliamentary business.

When this legislation was introduced on March 14, I was on national television that night--it was a Friday--speaking in support of it. With reflection and in the fullness of time, I have considered it more carefully and want to share my thoughts with you.

The minister announced on that day that this legislation would reduce the backlog; would restrict the size and cost of maintaining a large and outdated inventory; would result in faster processing; would result in improved service--or, as she was quoted saying, just-in-time inventory--aimed at reducing the wait time to an average of one year; would make the system more responsive and nimble to immediate regional economic needs by listing and selecting strategic or priority occupations; and really, we couldn't continue to build a warehouse that would occupy these hundreds of thousands of applications, when every year we were selecting only about 250,000 to get visas.

Those were the political comments made at the time in support of the legislation, and I was one who then supported the initiative. Now I'm a very different person as I appear in front of you today. I've gone 180 degrees, because it's clear to me now what effect this legislation is going to have.

First of all, it's going to move some categories of applicants to the front of the line and delay other categories. As the minister continues to move categories to the front of the line, including the Canada experience class that we'll see at the end of this summer, there is no front of the line any more. There are so many priority silos in the business of this government now. I'll list them for you: interdiction, enforcement, refugees, visitors, students, work permits, spouses, children, provincial nominee programs, and soon the expanded Canada experience class. It's not going to be possible, with this legislation and the existing platform of resources, to deliver the promises of this minister. There is no front of the line.

What I find particularly heinous or egregious is proposed subsection 87.3(2), which talks about the opinion of the minister. The legislation says: The processing of applications and requests is to be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion of the Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals

Since when do we live in a country where the minister decides what happens with something as important as the immigration program?

Our immigration officers in Canada and outside Canada should never be accountable to the minister. They should instead be accountable to our Constitution, our charter, the legislation and laws of this country, this House, and this parliamentary process that gets the views of stakeholders. That's what's important.

We're going to see in this legislation the erosion of the sacred rule of law principle that this country is built on. Democracy is shrinking because of Bill C-50. Processing priorities, which we have already decided by a tried, tested, and true established and transparent parliamentary procedure for both legislative and regulatory change, will now be reduced to stakeholder input.

There's a high risk of political influence by certain industry sectors and industry groups that are favoured by and supported by the party in power. Certain industries, employers, unions, and professional bodies will use this political influence to either include or exclude occupations to further their own selfish interests. Democracy and advantage slips from being open, transparent, and controlled by consensus and majority, to being controlled by the privilege of a few.

The proposed changes concentrate far too much arbitrary power and authority in the minister and his or her officials. This is totalitarian and anti-Canadian.

This legislation talks about cabinet approval. That is not sufficient. There's no parliamentary input. There's no political accountability. There are no public stakeholder consultations.

The change to the humanitarian and compassionate category that's found in proposed section 25 in the bill--that we “shall” examine cases if the applicant is in Canada, and that we “may” examine cases outside Canada--is egregious and heinous. What is the distinction between a humanitarian and compassionate case inside Canada compared to one outside Canada?

We know what a humanitarian and compassionate case is. We know it when we see one. In fact, the department has policies to assess such cases. Why should it matter if the desperate case is in Canada or outside Canada? There will not be a flood of outside-Canada applications, which is consistent with what a previous witness had to say.

All right, so what are the alternatives? I've criticized it enough. I handed the clerk my brief last week, and you're going to get a copy of it. There are plenty of alternatives. We can invest in processing resources. Treasury Board can do it tonight. We can add officers to the existing platforms. We can train those officers to be more skilled and more productive. Invest in training, invest in processing resources, and we will all be rewarded.

Most important, we can increase the federal skilled worker pass mark from the current 67, which created this backlog. Lorne Waldman told you this backlog started six years ago, and he's roughly right. You know, these cases take four, five, six years to process. So let's say it was zero six years ago, when IRPA came into force in June 2002. That's when we saw a 67-point pass mark. It had been 76, if you remember, and then it went to 72 and 70, and it's down as low as 67. Well, the reason we have the backlog is because we have 67 points on the pass mark. Just change that, just tweak that. Increase it to 72, and we won't see this flood of applications and the resources required to change it.

Anyway, the rest of my alternatives are in my brief. I have about eight suggestions in there, which taken collectively.... If you pick four of them, we're going to have the better system that's accountable and transparent.

Thank you.