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.

Committees of the House—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the points of order raised on November 26, 2012, by the hon. House leader for the official opposition and the member for Kings—Hants, both of which arose from proceedings in the Standing Committee on Finance during its consideration of Bill C-45, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. House leader of the official opposition and the hon. member for Kings—Hants for having raised their concerns, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their interventions.

In raising his point of order, the opposition House leader asserted that the Standing Committee on Finance, through the adoption of a timetabling motion on October 31, 2012, regarding how it would conduct its proceedings on Bill C-45, went beyond its mandate and usurped the authority of the House when it invited other standing committees to study particular sections of Bill C-45 and to forward any proposed amendments back to the finance committee. He drew particular attention to that part of the finance committee's timetabling motion that provided for amendments to the bill recommended by other committees to be deemed proposed to the finance committee and must be considered in its proceedings along with amendments proposed by members of the committee. He argued that, as the House had referred the bill specifically and solely to the finance committee and had not adopted a motion of instruction authorizing other committees to study specific parts of the bill and subsequently report back to the House in the usual manner, the 13th report of the committee on Bill C-45 should be ruled out of order.

In replying to these arguments, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons insisted that the Standing Committee on Finance had at no time relinquished any of its authority over the committee proceedings on Bill C-45, as it had simply invited other committees to offer suggested changes to the legislation. Further, he stated that there was an established practice whereby a committee charged with studying a bill has consulted other committees by inviting them to study a particular subject matter in the bill and then provide feedback.

The point of order raised by the member for Kings—Hants centred on the manner in which the committee dealt with the amendments to the bill which he, as a member of the committee, had submitted. He pointed out that the motion adopted by the committee on October 31, 2012, specified that once a specific time was reached, “the Chair shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill”, and explained that, accordingly, the chair of the committee ruled that the committee would not be voting on any amendments on notice which had not been moved prior to the deadline.

Because the committee overturned that decision by the Chair, the member for Kings—Hants argued that the committee forced votes to be held on all amendments submitted, even those which had yet to be moved. He alleged that the removal of his discretion to decide which amendments he wanted to move, coupled with the overturning of the Chair’s procedurally sound ruling, constituted an abuse of the committee process.

The government House leader began his remarks by pointing out that, as committees are masters of their own proceedings, such matters ought to be settled in committee. He then argued that a broader interpretation of the timetabling motion adopted by the finance committee was needed in order to have a consistent interpretation in committee and in the House of such practices. He asserted that, in overturning the chair's decision, the committee broke no rules, nor did the putting of the question on all amendments submitted result in the member's rights being denied.

The Chair is therefore being asked to address two questions. First, did the Standing Committee on Finance overstep its authority when it adopted a timetabling motion, which, among other provisions, asked other standing committees to consider the subject matter of various parts of Bill C-45 and to offer suggestions as to possible amendments?

Second, do the actions of the committee in overturning the Chair so as to have all amendments on notice, including all the amendments of the hon. member for Kings—Hants, deemed moved during clause-by-clause consideration constitute a denial of his rights as a member?

The government House leader and the parliamentary secretary have both argued that the approach taken by the Standing Committee on Finance, namely, to seek the assistance of other standing committees in the consideration of the subject matter of a bill, is not extraordinary. In support of that contention, the parliamentary secretary referred to a motion of the Standing Committee on Finance on April 28, 2008, when it proceeded in a similar fashion by requesting that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration consider the subject matter of a part of Bill C-50, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

While it may be overstating matters that this is “established practice”, it is true that committee practice is of considerable flexibility and fluidity. This is acknowledged by the opposition House leader himself who spoke of the need for committees to respect clear and distinct limits but declared to that, “when work is assigned to it by the House, it is largely up to the committee to decide how and when to tackle it”.

It should be noted that in the present case, even though other committees were invited to suggest amendments, it is the finance committee itself that chose to do so. It also decided how to deal with any suggested amendments and it retained the ability to decide whether or not to adopt any such amendments.

This is not the first time proceedings in a committee have given rise to procedural questions in the House and concerns about precedents being created. The Chair is reminded of a ruling given by Speaker Fraser on March 26, 1990, which can be found at page 9757 of the Debates of the House of Commons, in relation to a particularly controversial committee proceeding. He said:

I would caution members, however, in referring to this as a precedent. What occurred was merely a series of events and decisions made by the majority in a committee. Neither this House nor the Speaker gave the incidents any value whatsoever in procedural terms. One must exercise caution in attaching guiding procedural flags to such incidents and happenings.

The case at hand is not necessarily analogous to the one before us now but, nevertheless, this quote from Speaker Fraser serves as a useful reminder that committee practice is in continuous flux and that it is important to place particular occurrences in context.

As all members are aware, it is a long-established practice that committees are expected to report matters to the House before they can be considered by the Speaker. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling made on November 27, 2002, which can be found at pages 1949 and 1950 of the Debates, put it this way:

As Speaker, I appreciate the responsibility that I have to defend the rights of all members and especially those of members who represent minority views in the House. At the same time, it is a long tradition in this place that committees are masters of their own proceedings. Ordinarily the House is only seized of a committee matter when the committee reports to the House outlining the situation that must be addressed.

In the same ruling, he added:

—it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.

Even the rulings of the chair of a committee may be made the subject of an appeal to the whole committee. The committee may, if it thinks appropriate, overturn such a ruling.

Today, I am being asked to decide, in the absence of a report from the committee whether, in this particular instance, the committee exceeded the limits of its powers to such an extent as to warrant an intervention from the Chair. As I see this case, the House referred the bill to the committee for study. The committee proceeded to study the bill, as has been described, and then the committee reported the bill back to the House without amendment. The report of the committee returning to us the bill is all this House has before it.

In other words, I cannot see how the Chair can reach into committee proceedings to somehow provide redress without a report to the House from the finance committee detailing particular grievances or describing a particular set of events. Accordingly, I cannot find sufficient evidence that the standing committee exceeded the limits of its mandate and powers in the manner in which it considered Bill C-45.

The Chair is fully aware that some members are frustrated with the way in which the proceedings took place in committee, particularly given that, as events unfolded there, they believe they were left without recourse. However much I might appreciate these frustrations, the fact remains that none of the actions of the Standing Committee on Finance have been reported to the House for its consideration. Therefore, in keeping with the long established practices of the House in that regard, the Chair is not in a position to delve into the matter further.

In conclusion, the Chair finds that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-45 is properly before the House and, accordingly, that the bill can proceed to the next steps in the legislative process.

I thank members for their attention.

Committees of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to briefly supplement the initial response of the hon. government House leader to the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition on proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-45.

To be clear about the October 31 motion of the finance committee, which the four New Democrats on the committee voted for, for the record, the chair of that committee was asked in paragraph (a) to write to his counterparts on 10 other standing committees “inviting those Standing Committees to consider the subject-matter” on certain provisions of Bill C-45. They were invited to take up a subject matter study, on which the NDP House leader himself admitted yesterday, “any committee has the right to initiate a study on the subject matter that applies to their policy area, including on the elements of Bill C-45”.

Nonetheless, it remained up to those 10 other committees as to how they would respond to the finance committee's invitation. As I understand it, to a committee, they agreed to consider the relevant subject matter of this budget implementation bill. Indeed, pages 1004 and 1005 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, state:

The standing committees may themselves initiate, without first obtaining the prior approval of the House, any study they feel it advisable to undertake, insofar as it falls within the mandate provided to them by the Standing Orders.

Circumstances of a wide variety inform the choices of committees for studies, whether they be legal or procedural in nature or have a political impetus behind them or, in this case, an invitation letter from a fellow committee. Meanwhile, in paragraph (b), the other committees were “requested to convey recommendations, including any suggested amendments...in a letter...”.

The other committees were not instructed to make a report to the finance committee, as the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley suggested yesterday. They did, however, each agree to correspond back to the finance committee chair with their views on the subject matter studied. That the other committees have not reported to the House on these studies is not a matter of concern for a point of order in the chamber.

I will continue reading the passage from O'Brien and Bosc at page 1005, which states:

The committees then undertake to define the nature and scope of the study, to determine how much time they will devote to it and whether or not they will report their observations and recommendations to the House.

As the hon. government House leader pointed out yesterday, the finance committee did not cede any of its authority with respect to Bill C-45 and the finance committee retained the authority to vote on all proposed amendments before the bill was ever reported back to the House. There was certainly no undue delegation of authority here.

Finally, he pointed out that this was not a novel practice. It may be of benefit to point out, for example, the case of Bill C-50, the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, in the second session of the 39th Parliament. As part of its study of that bill, the finance committee adopted a motion to ask the citizenship and immigration committee to consider the subject matter of a portion of it. The immigration committee accepted the invitation and later agreed to a letter in reply to the finance committee, even agreeing to append a dissenting opinion to that letter.

In closing, while it may be infrequent for one committee to write to another committee inviting it to undertake a study within its area of competence and to reply with suggestions, it is not out of order.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to this chance to speak to Bill C-9, although I must say quite candidly that I find the bill very troubling.

I am proud to speak today to the amendments to this bill brought forward by the member for Hamilton Mountain. It is very clear that this bill must be amended. It is unconscionable that the government would continue to include in its budget implementation bills the kinds of things that are objectionable not just to the members of this House, but to the people of Canada. I welcome the amendments, and I do hope that, despite their incredible silence, members of the opposition will support these amendments.

I want to start with an observation. The Conservative government claims to be the government of accountability, yet it has proven time and time again that it is anything but. Rather than putting forward individual bills dealing with many of the issues that face this country, the government instead elects to hide issues in its bills. We call these poison pills, and there are a number of poison pills in this budget implementation bill.

Before I speak about the poison pills in Bill C-9, I want to take a few minutes to review the poison pills of the past, because in budget after budget we have seen these poison pills.

The first one that I want to speak about is pay equity. The House will remember that the changes to pay equity were slipped into a budget implementation bill. The government, and the government before it, could have and should have used the 2004 pay equity commission report, an incredible and solid report, to create a pay equity bill that actually worked for the women of this country. Instead, the government chose to put in its place the excuse for pay equity that came forward in its budget implementation bill that stripped away the right of women to be considered as worthy of equal pay for work of equal value.

The government called it the equitable compensation bill or something like that, but the truth is that it was far from equitable. It basically told women that they would have to negotiate at the collective bargaining table whether they deserved equal pay for work of equal value. That is not acceptable.

Pay equity is a human right; it is not something that can be negotiated away. In these troubled times when negotiations are very difficult, it only stands to reason that if issues of women in the workforce are not regarded or taken as seriously as some other issues, such as dental benefits or long-term health benefits, that human right could be negotiated away.

The government is saying to women across this country that it is lovely that they make up 52% of the population and do contribute to the economy, but when it comes to equal pay for work of equal value, when it comes to their human rights, it is just not interested. The government perpetrated this sham on the women of Canada, and that is not the end of the things it has done to the women of Canada.

The Conservative government cancelled the court challenges program. It removed equality from the mandate of the status of women department. The Conservatives did put back the word, because there was a great outcry across the country, but they did not put back the spirit of equality, because they have continued with their draconian measures against women's groups across this country that advocate for women, that stand up for women in regard to the issues that they and their families face.

The Conservatives have also removed research from the mandate of the status of women department. That research was absolutely integral to providing the kind of intelligent policy that would guide us to real equality. Members may have noticed that I used the term “intelligent policy”. That is something that we do not have and are not likely going to see.

Even more to the point, the Conservatives underfunded or defunded groups that were the least bit critical. I am thinking of two: the National Association of Women and the Law and the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. Why? Because those two groups had the audacity to hold the government and the previous government to account in regard to our CEDAW obligations.

Members will recall that in 1982 this country signed the covenant on the elimination of discrimination against women. This country signed it and this country pledged that it would do something positive for women. This country would make sure that aboriginal women were given opportunities in regard to education and housing and were protected from violence, and infact, that all Canadian women were protected from violence and that women had economic security and the opportunity in regard to pay equity, child care and housing.

All of these things are in CEDAW, and this country signed it in 1982. In the nearly 30 years since that agreement was signed, nothing has been done in terms of advancing women. We do not have a universal housing policy. In fact, we have 1.2 million Canadians who are under-housed, homeless or living in unsafe conditions, Canadians who are living in these unsafe and unacceptable conditions with their children.

We have no national child care program. Since 1984, this Parliament in its various incarnations, whether it was the Mulroney government, the Chrétien government or the Martin government, promised the women of this country that there would be a national child care program, but we do not have one. It is 2010 and there is nothing in sight in terms of how we are going to address the real needs of young families in this country, women being the primary caregivers.

These groups that advocated for women had to be shut down and silenced. The women in this country had to be put on the back burner, as it were, because the government had another agenda. I am saying now and I do believe these words will ring true, the women of Canada will not forget what the government has done to them, nor will they forget that the Liberals aided and abetted in this disgusting behaviour towards the women of Canada.

There were other poison pills, such as immigration changes in Bill C-50. Those immigration changes made it virtually impossible for family reunification. They chose very carefully. They gave the minister the ability to determine who could come into this country. Even if people had been approved, even if they were on a waiting list, if they came from Southeast Asia, if they came from the Middle East, if they came from certain African countries, they were removed from the list because the minister said they were not any longer acceptable. So people who were waiting, who had fulfilled all of their obligations, who would have made wonderful Canadian citizens were told, “Sorry, too bad, you cannot be reunited with your families, because the minister says so”.

Imagine that in a democracy. It is absolutely unthinkable. Of course, the list goes on and on, but I want to address some of the issues in Bill C-9 and the fact that it has a number of poison pills too.

First of all, we have the tax grab such as the airline security tax. That is something that is profoundly concerning. The government claims and claims it shrilly, and claims it at every question period and with all kinds of bravado, that they are the government of tax cuts. That is ludicrous. Conservatives are most certainly not the government of tax cuts. If we look at the HST and what is perpetrated against Canadians, they are the government of tax grabs.

Let us go down the list. In regard to the emptying of the employment insurance account, that $57 billion belongs to the people of this country, who put that money in so that families could be secure in the event of a downturn in the economy. Conservatives are waiving that money and taking it away.

They like to blame it on the Liberals and they are very good at blaming everything on the Liberals, but the truth is that they have done nothing in terms of making sure that Canadian families are safe and secure. They are taking that money away and it is supposed to be for Canadians.

I have much more to say, but I will wait for the questions.

Private Member's Bill C-241

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons spoke in this House to indicate to you that Bill C-241 to remove the waiting period imposed on employment insurance recipients requires royal recommendation. You will not be surprised to hear that I not share that opinion at all.

Although I do recognize, as the parliamentary secretary has said, that you ruled on this matter during the 39th Parliament concerning Bill C-269, which also contained provisions for elimination of the waiting period, I am of the opinion that there are some new elements that need to be drawn to your attention.

In fact, there have been many changes since that ruling. In my opinion, it ought to be reviewed because the legislation surrounding the funding of employment insurance has changed. Bill C-50 to implement the February 26, 2008 budget, which was given royal assent on June 18, 2008, enacted the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act.

In order to properly explain the purpose of that act, I would like to quote an except from page 71 of the 2008 budget plan.

To enhance the independence of premium rate setting and to ensure that EI premiums are used exclusively for the EI program, the government is creating a new, independent Crown corporation, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB). It will have the following key responsibilities:

Managing a separate bank account. Any annual EI surpluses going forward will be held and invested until they are needed for EI program costs.

Then, further down on page 71:

The CEIFB will be structured as a Crown corporation that will report to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. It will have an independent board of directors and be staffed with the experts needed to manage the financing of the EI program.

I would like to now draw your attention to a ruling by the Deputy Speaker of the House on October 3, 2005 concerning a bill which dealt with the use of the surplus in the reserve fund of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I will quote an excerpt from that ruling if I may:

Bill C-363 proposes that monies within the control of CMHC—not the Crown—be dedicated for a particular purpose. A royal recommendation is required when a bill seeks an authorization to withdraw monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Is Bill C-363 seeking to withdraw monies from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? I would conclude that it is not. Bill C-363 is preventing CMHC monies from being placed in the Consolidated Revenue Fund by having them used for another purpose. The transfer of monies from the CMHC reserve fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund—or in this case to the provinces—is not a matter relating to the appropriation of monies from the Crown. Therefore, Bill C-363 does not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.

The parliamentary secretary also cited a May 9, 2005 ruling, which among other things addressed the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation. He argued that Bill C-363 is adding a new purpose which was not contemplated in the original legislation establishing CMHC and would therefore need a new royal recommendation. Again I wish to stress that the original royal recommendation strictly applied to matters concerning the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of an appropriation of monies within the control of the Crown; that is not the case with Bill C-363. As Bill C-363 does not appropriate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it cannot be considered as altering the purpose of the original royal recommendation.

This precedent is extremely relevant in this case. We have already noted that the government's aim in creating the Canada employment insurance financing board was to set up a separate bank account in order to make sure that contributions would be used exclusively for the employment insurance program. Therefore, by the government's own admission, the purpose of creating the Canada employment insurance financing board is to make sure that the monies in this account are no longer available to the Crown for general appropriations.

Once this has been established, we must conclude that a royal recommendation cannot apply to Bill C-241, because it does not have to do with monies within the control of the Crown. The monies in question here are within the control of the Canada employment insurance financing board. Consequently, in our opinion, this bill does not require a royal recommendation.

The Economy

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is something cooking and it is a new-found friendship and some strange bedfellows over here, these clueless people that they are making arrangements with about economic policy.

If we run a deficit of $30 billion in this country, we are running a structural deficit. It took a long time to get out of that problem. We have taken the long-term view, the view that says we have to help Canadian business with the Bank of Canada, with Bill C-50, with ensuring adequate credit in this country. There are more provisions in that regard in the fall economic statement, all good for the country, not running big deficits.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-207, An Act to repeal legislation that has not come into force within ten years of receiving royal assent--Chapter 20

Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence--Chapter 21

Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts--Chapter 22

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord--Chapter 23

Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009--Chapter 24

Bill C-59, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009--Chapter 25

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act--Chapter 26

Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day--Chapter 27

Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget--Chapter 28

Bill C-60, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (court martial) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act--Chapter 29

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act--Chapter 30

Immigration

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, until yesterday, the government said that it needed Bill C-50 to secure skilled workers for our country.

Will it now start by addressing the issue of undocumented workers? They number over 200,000, many of them Portuguese. They possess proven and needed skills. Most of them have been here for more than three years. They are already integrated, the certification of their credentials already verified by their employers. An architecture for providing them with permanent residency was already put in place by the previous government, along with the money to get it done.

The current government has squandered two and a half years of opportunity, doing nothing. Meanwhile workers, crucial to our economic development, are prevented from making a contribution and getting on with their lives. They languish in uncertainty.

The government has the money and now it has the legislative authority. Does it have the political will to do the right thing and land these undocumented workers now?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. I did not take this job to sit you know where and not work. I say without question that all members do work.

To say what the governent House leader said shows the lack of respect the Conservatives have for this House and all members of Parliament. How many times when the Prime Minister was in opposition said that the government of the day was not respecting the wishes of the House?

The changes to the immigration act should not be in a money bill. Those changes should not be in Bill C-50, but the government has put those changes in a money bill in order to say it is a vote of confidence, it is the Conservatives' way or the highway. That is what is wrong. The Conservatives do not get it. They are in a minority government situation. The Conservatives should respect that but they do not. They should understand that. The Conservatives should work with the opposition parties.

In many countries in the world there are minority governments and they work better than the minority government under the Conservatives does here.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by saying that the Bloc Québécois, like the official opposition, and like—I believe—the NDP, will opposed the motion by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to extend the sitting hours, for a number of reasons.

First, it is important to remember—and this was mentioned by the House leader of the official opposition—that the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have been completely unwilling to negotiate and cooperate. Usually, when Parliament is running smoothly, the leaders meet and agree on some priorities, some items and some ways of getting them done. But since the start of this session, or at least since September, House leaders' meetings on Tuesday afternoons have simply been meetings where we hear about a legislative agenda, which, within hours after we leave the meeting, is completely changed.

That is not how we move forward. Now the government can see that its way of doing things does not produce results. In fact, I think that this is what the government wanted in recent weeks, to prevent Parliament, the House of Commons and the various committees from working efficiently and effectively.

As I was saying, usually such motions are born out of cooperation, and are negotiated in good faith between the government and the opposition parties. But we were simply told that today a motion would be moved to extend the sitting hours, but with no information forthcoming about what the government's priorities would be through the end of this session, until June 20.

This was a very cavalier way to treat the opposition parties. And today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Conservative government are reaping the consequences of their haughty attitude. As the saying goes, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind. That is exactly what has happened to the Conservatives after many weeks of acting in bad faith and failing to cooperate with the opposition parties.

In this case, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons—and earlier I mentioned his arrogance, which, to me, has reached its peak today with the way the motion was moved—gave us no indication as to his government's priorities from now until the end of the session, despite the fact that he was pointedly questioned about that matter. What we did receive was a grocery list with no order, no priorities. As the leader of the official opposition said earlier, when everything is a priority, it means that nothing is.

That is the current situation: they gave us a list of bills which, in fact, included almost all of the bills on the order paper. Not only were things not prioritized, but in addition, as I mentioned before, it showed a disregard for the opposition parties. There is a price to pay for that today—we do not see why the government needs to extend the sitting hours.

Not only was the grocery list not realistic, but also it showed that the government has absolutely no priorities set. The list includes almost all of the bills, but week after week, despite what was said during the leaders' meetings, the order of business changed. If the order of business changes at the drop of a hat, with no rhyme or reason, it means that the government does not really have priorities.

I am thinking about Bill C-50, a bill to implement the budget, which we waited on for a long time. The government is surprised that we are coming up to the end of the session and that it will be adopted in the coming hours. However, we have to remember that between the budget speech and the introduction of Bill C-50, many weeks passed that could have been spent working on the bill.

As I mentioned, the list presented to us is unrealistic. It shows the arrogance of this government, and furthermore, the order of the bills on the list is constantly changing. We feel this is a clear demonstration of this government's lack of priority.

In light of that, we can reach only one conclusion: if the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform cannot present us with his government's legislative priorities as we near the end of this session, in effect, it means that his government has no legislative priorities. It has no long-term vision. Its management is short sighted, very short sighted indeed. I would even say it is managing from one day to the next. From my perspective, this can mean only one thing: it has no legislative agenda. When we have before us bills dealing with only minor issues, this is what that means.

Proof of this lack of legislative agenda is easy to see, considering the current state of this government's agenda. An abnormally small number of bills for this time of year are currently before the House at the report stage and at third reading. Usually, if the government had planned, if it had been working in good faith and had cooperated with the opposition parties, in these last two weeks remaining before the summer recess, we should have been completing the work on any number of bills.

Overall, as we speak there are just five government bills that are ready to be debated at these stages, in other words, report stage or third reading stage. Among those, we note that Bill C-7, which is now at third reading stage, reached report stage during the first session of the 39th Parliament, in other words in June 2007. It has been brought back to us a year later. And that is a priority? What happened between June 2007 and June 2008 to prevent Bill C-7 from getting through third reading stage? In my opinion, we should indeed finish the work on Bill C-7, but this truly illustrates the government's lack of planning and organization.

As far as Bill C-5 is concerned, it was reported on by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources on December 12, 2007, and voted on at report stage on May 6, 2008. Again, a great deal of time, nearly six months, went by between the tabling of the report and the vote at this stage, which was held on May 6, 2008, while the report was tabled on December 12, 2007.

Finally, Bills C-29 and C-16 were both reported on by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs roughly six months ago.

All these delays of six months to a year force us to conclude that these bills are not legislative priorities to this government.

It would be great to finish the work on these four or five bills, but let us admit that we could have finished it much sooner.

This lack of legislative priority was even more apparent before question period when the House was debating second reading of Bill C-51 on food and drugs. Next on the agenda is second reading of Bill C-53 on auto theft.

If these five bills were a priority, we would finish the work. But no, what we are being presented with are bills that are only at second reading stage. This only delays further the report stage or third reading of the bills I have already mentioned. If we were serious about this, we would finish the work on bills at third reading and then move on to bills that are at second reading.

Furthermore, if its legislative agenda has moved forward at a snail's pace, the government is responsible for that and has only itself to blame, since it paralyzed the work of important committees, including the justice committee and the procedure and House affairs committee, to which several bills had been referred. And then they dare make some sort of bogus Conservative moral claim, saying that we are refusing to extend sitting hours because we do not want to work. For months and months now, opposition members, especially the Bloc Québécois, have been trying to work in committee, but the government, for partisan reasons, in order to avoid talking about the Conservative Party's problems, has been obstructing committee work.

Earlier, the NDP whip spoke about take note debates.

Once again, it is not the opposition that is refusing to work on issues that are important to Canadians and Quebeckers. Rather, it is the government that refuses to allow take note debates, because of partisan obstinacy. In that regard, we clearly see that the argument presented by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform is mere tautology or a false argument. In fact, it was the Conservative Party, the Conservative government, that slowed down the work of the House and obstructed the work of several committees.

Not only is the government incapable of planning, vision, cooperation and good faith, but furthermore, its legislative agenda is very meagre and does not in any way warrant extending the sitting hours. In addition, the Bloc Québécois sees many of the bills that are now at the bottom of the list as problematic, but if we extend the sitting hours, we will end up having to examine them.

Take Bill C-14, for example, which would permit the privatization of certain Canada Post activities. Do they really think that sitting hours will be extended to hasten debate on a bill that threatens jobs and the quality of a public service as essential as that provided by the Canada Post Corporation? That demonstrates just how detrimental the Conservatives' right-wing ideology is, not just to public services but to the economy. Everyone knows very well—there are a large number of very convincing examples globally—that privatizing postal services leads to significant price increases for consumers and a deterioration in service, particularly in rural areas.

I will give another example, that of Bill C-24, which would abolish the long gun registry even though police forces want to keep it. Once again, we have an utter contradiction. Although the government boasts of an agenda that will increase security, they are dismantling a preventtive tool welcomed by all stakeholders. They are indirectly contributing to an increase in the crime rate.

These are two examples of matters that are not in step with the government's message. It is quite clear that we are not interested in extending sitting hours to move more quickly to a debate on Bill C-24.

I must also mention bills concerning democratic reform—or pseudo-reform. In my opinion, they are the best example of the hypocrisy of this government, which introduces bills and then, in the end, makes proposals that run counter to the interests of Quebec in particular.

Take Bill C-20, for example, on the consultation of voters with respect to the pool of candidates from which the Prime Minister should choose senators. Almost all the constitutional experts who appeared before the committee currently studying Bill C-20 said that the bill would do indirectly what cannot be done directly. We know that the basic characteristics of the Senate cannot be changed without the agreement of the provinces or, at the very least, without following the rule of the majority for constitutional amendments, which requires approval by seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

Since the government knows very well that it cannot move forward with its Senate reforms, it introduced a bill that would change the essential characteristics of the Senate, something prohibited by the Constitution, on the basis of some technicalities.

It is interesting to note that even a constitutional expert who told the committee that he did not think the way the government had manipulated the bill was unconstitutional admitted that the bill would indirectly allow the government to do what it could not do directly.

They are playing with the most important democratic institutions.

A country's Constitution—and we want Quebec to have its own Constitution soon—is the fundamental text. We currently have a government, a Prime Minister and a Leader of the Government in the House of Commons who are manipulating this fundamental text— the Canadian Constitution—in favour of reforms that would satisfy their supporters in western Canada.

We do not want to rush this bill through the House by extending the sitting hours. It is the same thing for Bill C-19, which, I remind members, limits a Senator's tenure to eight years.

These two bills, Bill C-19 and Bill C-20, in their previous form, meaning before the session was prorogued in the summer of 2007, were unanimously denounced by the Quebec National Assembly, which asked that they be withdrawn. It is rather ironic that the federal government recognized the Quebec nation and then decided to introduce two bills that were denounced by the Quebec National Assembly.

I must say that the two opposition parties are opposed to Bill C-20, albeit for different reasons. Thus, I do not think it would be in the best interests of the House to rush these bills through, since we are far from reaching a consensus on them.

I have one last example, that is, Bill C-22, which aims to change the make-up of the House of Commons. If passed, it would increase the number of members in Ontario and in western Canada, which would reduce the political weight of the 75 members from Quebec, since their representation in this House would drop from 24.4% to 22.7%. It is not that we are against changing the distribution of seats based on the changing demographics of the various regions of Canada. We would like to ensure, however, that the Quebec nation, which was recognized by the House of Commons, has a voice that is strong enough to be heard.

The way things are going today, it is clear that in 10, 15 or 20 years, Quebec will no longer be able to make its voice heard in this House. We therefore believe we must guarantee the Quebec nation a percentage of the members in this House. We propose that it be 25%. If people want more members in Ontario and in the west, that is not a problem. We will simply have to increase the number of members from Quebec to maintain a proportion of 25%. There are a number of possible solutions to this.

Once again, I would like to point out that we introduced a whole series of bills to formalize the recognition of the Quebec nation, including Bill C-482, sponsored by my colleague from Drummond. That bill sought to apply the Charter of the French Language to federally regulated organizations working in Quebec. That was for organizations working in Quebec, of course. At no time did we seek to control what happens elsewhere in Canada. The bill would have given employees of federally regulated organizations the same rights as all employees in Quebec, that is, the right to work in French.

Unfortunately, the bill was defeated, but we will try again. Once again, the fact that Bill C-482 was defeated does not mean we are about to throw in the towel and let Bills C-22, C-19, and C-20 pass just like that. As I said earlier, we will certainly not make things easy for the government by rushing debate on these bills here.

And now to my fourth point. I started out talking about the government's lack of cooperation, vision and planning, not to mention its bad faith. Next, I talked about its poor excuse for a legislative agenda. Then I talked about the fact that we find certain bills extremely problematic. We will certainly not be giving the government carte blanche to bring those bills back here in a big hurry before the end of the session on June 20. Our fourth reason is the government's hypocrisy, in a general sense.

This has been apparent in many ways, such as the government's attitude to certain bills. I would like to mention some of them, such as Bill C-20. I cannot help but mention Bills C-50 and C-10 as well.

Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, makes changes to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's powers, but that is not what the debate is about. Bill C-10, which introduces elements that allow the Conservative government—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to move the standard motion that can be made only today. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Monday, June 9, 2008, and concluding on Thursday, June 19, 2008, the House shall continue to sit until 11:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week in answer to the Thursday statement, this is we have work to do week. To kick off the week, we are introducing the customary motion to extend the daily sitting hours of the House for the final two weeks of the spring session. This is a motion which is so significant there is actually a specific Standing Order contemplating it, because it is the normal practice of this House, come this point in the parliamentary cycle, that we work additional hours and sit late to conduct business.

In fact, since 1982, when the House adopted a fixed calendar, such a motion has never been defeated. I underline that since a fixed calendar was adopted, such a motion has never been defeated. As a consequence, we know that today when we deal with this motion, we will discover whether the opposition parties are interested in doing the work that they have been sent here to do, or whether they are simply here to collect paycheques, take it easy and head off on a three month vacation.

On 11 of those occasions, sitting hours were extended using this motion. On six other occasions, the House used a different motion to extend the sitting hours in June. This includes the last three years of minority government.

This is not surprising. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard to advance their priorities. They would not look kindly on any party that was too lazy to work a few extra hours to get as much done as possible before the three month summer break. There is a lot to get done.

In the October 2007 Speech from the Throne, we laid out our legislative agenda. It set out an agenda of clear goals focusing on five priorities to: rigorously defend Canada's sovereignty and place in the world; strengthen the federation and modernize our democratic institutions; provide effective, competitive economic leadership to maintain a competitive economy; tackle crime and strengthen the security of Canadians; and improve the environment and the health of Canadians. In the subsequent months, we made substantial progress on these priorities.

We passed the Speech from the Throne which laid out our legislative agenda including our environmental policy. Parliament passed Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, to make our streets and communities safer by tackling violent crime. Parliament passed Bill C-28, which implemented the 2007 economic statement. That bill reduced taxes for all Canadians, including reductions in personal income and business taxes, and the reduction of the GST to 5%.

I would like to point out that since coming into office, this government has reduced the overall tax burden for Canadians and businesses by about $190 billion, bringing taxes to their lowest level in 50 years.

We have moved forward on our food and consumer safety action plan by introducing a new Canada consumer product safety act and amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

We have taken important steps to improve the living conditions of first nations. For example, first nations will hopefully soon have long overdue protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Bill C-30 has been passed by the House to accelerate the resolution of specific land claims.

Parliament also passed the 2008 budget. This was a balanced, focused and prudent budget to strengthen Canada amid global economic uncertainty. Budget 2008 continues to reduce debt, focuses government spending and provides additional support for sectors of the economy that are struggling in this period of uncertainty.

As well, the House adopted a motion to endorse the extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, with a renewed focus on reconstruction and development to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country.

These are significant achievements and they illustrate a record of real results. All parliamentarians should be proud of the work we have accomplished so far in this session. However, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done.

As I have stated in previous weekly statements, our top priority is to secure passage of Bill C-50, the 2008 budget implementation bill.

This bill proposes a balanced budget, controlled spending, investments in priority areas and lower taxes, all without forcing Canadian families to pay a tax on carbon, gas and heating. Furthermore, the budget implementation bill proposes much-needed changes to the immigration system.

These measures will help keep our economy competitive.

Through the budget implementation bill, we are investing in the priorities of Canadians.

These priorities include: $500 million to help improve public transit, $400 million to help recruit front line police officers, nearly $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and $100 million for the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

These investments, however, could be threatened if the bill does not pass before the summer. That is why I am hopeful that the bill will be passed by the House later today.

The budget bill is not our only priority. Today the House completed debate at report stage on Bill C-29, which would create a modern, transparent, accountable process for the reporting of political loans. We will vote on this bill tomorrow and debate at third reading will begin shortly thereafter.

We also wish to pass Bill C-55, which implements our free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

This free trade agreement, the first in six years, reflects our desire to find new markets for Canadian products and services.

Given that the international trade committee endorsed the agreement earlier this year, I am optimistic that the House will be able to pass this bill before we adjourn.

On Friday we introduced Bill C-60, which responds to recent decisions relating to courts martial. That is an important bill that must be passed on a time line. Quick passage is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of our military justice system.

Last week the aboriginal affairs committee reported Bill C-34, which implements the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. This bill has all-party support in the House. Passage of the bill this week would complement our other achievements for first nations, including the apology on Wednesday to the survivors of residential schools.

These are important bills that we think should be given an opportunity to pass. That is why we need to continue to work hard, as our rules contemplate.

The government would also like to take advantage of extended hours to advance important crime and security measures. Important justice measures are still before the House, such as: Bill S-3, the anti-terrorism act; Bill C-53, the auto theft bill; Bill C-45 to modernize the military justice system; and Bill C-60, which responds to recent court martial decisions.

There are a number of other bills that we would like to see advanced in order to improve the management of the economy. There are other economic bills we would like to advance.

These include Bill C-7, to modernize our aeronautics sector, Bill C-5, dealing with nuclear liability, Bill C-43, to modernize our customs rules, Bill C-39, to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers, Bill C-46, to give farmers more choice in marketing grain, Bill C-57, to modernize the election process for the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-14, to allow enterprises choice for communicating with customers, and Bill C-32, to modernize our fisheries sector.

If time permits, there are numerous other bills that we would like to advance.

These include Bill C-51, to ensure that food and products available in Canada are safe for consumers, Bill C-54, to ensure safety and security with respect to pathogens and toxins, Bill C-56, to ensure public protection with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, Bill C-19, to limit the terms of senators to 8 years from a current maximum of 45, and Bill C-22, to provide fairness in representation in the House of Commons.

It is clear a lot of work remains before the House. Unfortunately, a number of bills have been delayed by the opposition through hoist amendments. Given these delays, it is only fair that the House extend its sitting hours to complete the bills on the order paper. As I have indicated, we still have to deal with a lot of bills.

We have seen a pattern in this Parliament where the opposition parties have decided to tie up committees to prevent the work of the people being done. They have done delay and obstruction as they did most dramatically on our crime agenda. They do not bother to come and vote one-third of time in the House of Commons. Their voting records has shown that. All of this is part of a pattern of people who are reluctant to work hard.

The government is prepared to work hard and the rules contemplate that it work hard. In fact, on every occasion, when permission has been sought at this point in the parliamentary calendar to sit extended hours, the House has granted permission, including in minority Parliaments.

If that does not happen, it will be clear to Canadians that the opposition parties do not want to work hard and are not interested in debating the important policy issues facing our country. Is it any wonder that we have had a question period dominated not by public policy questions, but dominated entirely by trivia and issues that do not matter to ordinary Canadians.

The government has been working hard to advance its agenda, to advance the agenda that we talked about with Canadians in the last election, to work on the priorities that matter to ordinary Canadians, and we are seeking the consent of the House to do this.

Before concluding, I point out, once again, that extending the daily sitting hours for the last two weeks of June is a common practice. Marleau and Montpetit, at page 346, state this is:

—a long-standing practice whereby, prior to the prorogation of the Parliament or the start of the summer recess, the House would arrange for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance its business.

As I stated earlier, it was first formalized in the Standing Orders in 1982 when the House adopted a fixed calendar. Before then, the House often met on the weekend or continued its sittings into July to complete its work. Since 1982, the House has agreed on 11 occasions to extend the hours of sitting in the last two weeks of June.

Therefore, the motion is a routine motion designed to facilitate the business of the House and I expect it will be supported by all members. We are sent here to engage in very important business for the people of Canada. Frankly, the members in the House are paid very generously to do that work. Canadians expect them to do that work and expect them to put in the time that the rules contemplate.

All member of the House, if they seek that privilege from Canadian voters, should be prepared to do the work the rules contemplate. They should be prepared to come here to vote, to come here to debate the issues, to come here for the hours that the rules contemplate. If they are not prepared to do that work, they should step aside and turnover their obligations to people who are willing to do that work.

There is important work to be done on the commitments we made in the Speech from the Throne. I am therefore seeking the support of all members to extend our sitting hours, so we can complete work on our priorities before we adjourn for the summer. This will allow members to demonstrate results to Canadians when we return to our constituencies in two weeks.

Not very many Canadians have the privilege of the time that we have at home in our ridings, away from our work. People do not begrudge us those privileges. They think it is important for us to connect with them. However, what they expect in return is for us to work hard. They expect us to put in the hours. They expect us to carry on business in a professional fashion. The motion is all about that. It is about doing what the rules have contemplated, what has always been authorized by the House any time it has been asked, since the rule was instituted in 1982. That is why I would ask the House to support the motion to extend the hours.

Motions in Amendment

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin after listening to my colleague from the Liberal Party. I did have some prepared comments, but he has actually knocked me right off my game with the outlandish remarks he made regarding EI reform and his efforts to convince Canadians that the Liberal Party sincerely would like to see the EI system reformed.

I would like the record to show that it was the Liberals who gutted the unemployment insurance program in 1996. It was the Liberals who paved the way in 1996 and showed the Conservative Party how to use the EI fund as a cash cow for everything except income maintenance for unemployed workers.

It was the Liberals who were punished resoundingly in the province of Nova Scotia by six seats because they had the audacity to undermine income maintenance for unemployed workers. They got slaughtered in the election in 1997 as a direct result of using the EI system to pay off their debt on the backs of the most vulnerable people in the country, unemployed workers.

Before I begin my remarks on the bill put forward by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, I must tell the House that the Liberals gave away $100 billion in tax cuts, which they are very proud of and crow about from the rooftops. Let me tell the House where they got that $100 billion to give away to their buddies.

The Liberals took $30 billion right out of the unemployment insurance program, whether we call it stealing or lifting or pilfering, and not one penny of that was their money. It was paid in by contributions from employees and employers, nobody else.

They took another $30 billion from the surplus of the public sector pension plan. Again, they had no proprietary right to the surplus in the pension plan without negotiating it with the beneficiaries. The Liberals took that $30 billion right out of there and used it to do whatever they wanted, from paying down debt to giving tax breaks to their buddies.

The last $40 billion they took was from direct social program cuts.

That is where the Liberals got the $100 billion that they gave away to their buddies.

I must not get completely knocked off my game. I will return to the issue at hand here, which is Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), introduced and sponsored by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that working people in Canada have no greater champion on this issue than my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. He was elected on the basis of his advocacy on this subject and he has been a tireless champion.

Throughout 11 years this June 2, this man has stood up many times to try to drum some reason into the ruling party of the day. There have been nine years of Liberal leadership and two years of Conservative leadership. He has been trying to get it through their thick heads that income maintenance for unemployed workers is a good thing to bridge the gap of employment.

He has been trying to tell them that our system is dysfunctional and broken. No wonder it was showing a surplus of $750 million a month at its peak: nobody was qualifying any more. It is not hard to design a system that shows a surplus if benefits are denied to virtually everybody who applies. That happened for two reasons.

First, the Liberals introduced a system that went to an hours-based system of 920 hours, which made it very difficult for people to qualify for the first time. The bill put forward by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst proposes to reduce the eligibility qualifying time and return it to 360 hours. The benefit would be based on an individual's best 12 weeks.

We know who undermined that at committee. The heart and soul of this legislation, in summary, is that it would reduce the eligibility time so more people would qualify, and it would increase the benefit per week that individuals would receive so they would get a reasonable benefit based on former income. That was undermined at committee by the Conservatives, backed up by the Liberals.

This is a minority Parliament. The opposition parties could in fact effect this change in this finite window of opportunity, but it was gutted, stripped and undermined by the Liberals at committee. Therefore, we are right back where we started. Again we have the same fight of nobody qualifying for eligibility for EI any more and successive ruling parties in government using this fund as a cash cow to pay for everything but income maintenance for unemployed workers.

In 1997 we did a calculation of the impact of the Liberal cuts. In my riding alone, just the riding of Winnipeg Centre, when the Liberals gutted the EI system, $20.9 million a year in federal money that was coming into the riding of Winnipeg Centre was ripped out. It was like losing the payrolls of two huge pulp mills or auto plants. Federal payroll money of $20.9 million a year that was coming into the riding no longer did. It was stopped.

That was true in every riding across the country. There were some ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec where the impact was in terms of $50 million a year of federal money that used to come into those ridings. In the riding of Acadie--Bathurst, it was $81 million a year.

Do we wonder why the constituents were up in arms and sent the bums running by voting them out of office en masse in those Atlantic Canada ridings? That was the real impact of the changes to EI. Yes, the Liberals might have balanced the books, but they balanced the books on the backs of the people least able to afford it.

I am a journeyman carpenter. I have been on probably 10 different EI claims in my life, which is just a fact of life as an employee in the blue collar industries, but let me tell members about one thing that always bugged me, which neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives ever fixed.

When I was going through my four year apprenticeship, there was a two week waiting period even when I was going to trade school, as if I had been laid off. But apprentices are not laid off: the beauty of apprenticeship is that people earn while they learn. The employers give them six weeks off to go to the trade school and study for those six weeks.

It used to be that we could go right onto EI. That was part of the deal. Then the Liberals introduced a two week waiting period for apprentices, who had to starve and somehow borrow money to bridge that gap. That cost $11 million a year. A lousy $11 million a year would have made people whole for the two week waiting period, at least among the carpenters. I guess we have to extrapolate that to other trades.

That is how nickel and dime they were as they were trying to squeeze every ounce of juice out of the EI system. I will never forgive them for the inconvenience that it caused me and people I know.

Now that the Liberals think they are poised to form a government again someday, they are unwilling to fix the EI system, which they broke. In spite of all their rhetoric and being sympathetic to the issues, they are unwilling to fix it. I listened to that guy from Dartmouth and I could not believe it as he fudged around all of the issues that he knows very well are true.

When we add up the numbers of opposition members in this House of Commons, we see that we can do anything. United, we could bring this government down. United, we could fix the EI system. United, we could have a national pharmaceutical health care plan. United, we could have a national child care program.

We could do anything, but those members have squandered this finite window of opportunity.

I am running out of time, but I want to do justice to the bill that my colleague has introduced and has fought so valiantly for. It must make his blood boil to sit here in the House of Commons today and watch the other parties, the ruling party and its dancing partner, the Liberal Party, once again strip, undermine and destroy his efforts to fix the EI system.

I know that people in his riding had some optimism that perhaps this was the window of opportunity we needed, that surely Parliament would listen to them now that working people are represented in the House of Commons, and now that the three centre-left parties, so to speak, are united in opposition, but no, one of those parties went south on us. The official opposition went south on us, and we lost this again because the Liberals still see the unemployment insurance fund as a cash cow they can milk.

That $54 billion that we will vote on later today in Bill C-50 will be the end of that surplus money. Just let me state for the record one more time in case there is anybody who does not understand it: this is not the government's money. The entire EI fund since 1986 has been made up of contributions from employers and employees. Not one penny has come from the federal government.

When the fund dipped into deficit for a few years in the early 1990s, the total accumulated deficit was $11 billion. That was paid back, so as for the government taking $54 billion now and leaving only $2 billion in the kitty, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour says we should not call it theft, but I am at a loss for words for what else we would call it. It is simply not the government's money to use as it sees fit.

It is not too late, I urge members, to support my colleague's amendments to reinstate these conditions to make the unemployment system work. I call on all members to vote in favour of the amendments he has put forward today.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to address Bill C-265, and the proposed amendments to it, which have now been grouped. I am glad the Speaker of the House found all three motions in amendment to be in order.

A number of years ago, in 1996, a change was made to employment insurance. This was the most significant change to EI and affected workers across the country. Some would have had us believe that the intention behind changes to unemployment insurance was to get people off employment insurance, to reduce their dependency on it. According to them, most people would rather receive EI than go to work. I can say that, everywhere we have gone, we have seen that this is not the case, and colleagues from across the country could say the same thing.

I would argue that the government is the one dependent on employment insurance. The surplus has been accumulating ever since the EI fund was created and now it totals $54 billion. Last week, theft from the employment insurance fund was made legal by a vote in the House of Commons. Ironically, when we finally vote on Bill C-50 tonight, that will seal the deal, and that will be that.

Bill C-265 seeks to re-establish the situation—I am not sure that that is the right word—in other words, it seeks to make employment insurance a little more humane.

People who receive employment insurance benefits get just 55% of their salary. Imagine what that means for people earning minimum wage. That is not at all uncommon in seasonal industries and tourism, for example. People working in the tourism industry earn little more than minimum wage, and most of those jobs are seasonal.

I have done the math, and it turns out that in most cases, 55% of minimum wage is much less than social assistance benefits. I should add that these employment insurance payments offer no benefits, such as a drug card—no benefits whatsoever. As such, that is a very low wage.

What does Bill C-265 seek to do? Employment insurance can be pretty complicated with all the formulas and so on. For example, some pilot projects use the 14 best weeks, but others do not even take that into account. That means the factor is 14. Consequently, for an individual who worked 12 weeks, the benefit calculation is still based on 14 weeks at 55%. That reduces the employment insurance benefit even more. This bill would see benefits calculated based on the 12 best weeks.

Some parts of the bill were not quite right, so that is why the amendments were made. When the committee members were studying Bill C-265 on employment insurance, they discussed the 12 best weeks and the 360-hour minimum for eligibility. The Conservatives proposed an amendment, and to everyone's surprise, the Liberals agreed to it. The Liberals refused to agree to Bill C-265 as written, including the 360-hour minimum for eligibility. They voted against this measure.

As it turns out, the Liberals have not changed their position on employment insurance since 1996. Let us not forget that that was when they were wiped out in the Atlantic region. They lost ground there because they brought in hours worked minimums for employment insurance eligibility, minimums that made people ineligible.

For example, a claimant needs to have worked 420 hours to qualify for employment insurance in areas where the unemployment rate is higher than 13%; 490 hours if the unemployment rate is 12% to 13%; and approximately 535 hours if the unemployment rate is under 12%. Those figures are approximate.

We thought things had changed since then. It has been nearly 12 years since the Liberals had their lesson and saw that changes needed to be made to EI, but they did not support us. I cannot wait to hear what the Liberal member has to say about that.

For years, I have seen Conservatives here in the House of Commons. Before they were Conservative Party members, they were members of the Canadian Alliance or the Reform Party. The only thing they said during debates was that we needed to decrease EI premiums, which would create jobs and ensure that more people were working.

How would lowering EI premiums solve the problem with fish processing plants in the Acadian peninsula, the Gaspé, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador? At this very moment, crab fishing season is open, and workers in the fish processing plants are working only 20 hours a week. How can we solve the problem by lowering EI premiums when people have not accumulated the required number of hours to qualify?

Then, the Conservatives and the Liberals told us that we needed to change the employment insurance rules, because people depended on it. They took $54 billion from the employment insurance fund and put it in the general fund to pay down the debt and achieve a zero deficit. This was done at the expense of workers who lost their jobs.

Opposition Motion — Conflict of Interest Code

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know you are always a dutiful listener. The members on the other side probably are not, so if they had been a little bit more patient, which is a virtue that they cannot exhibit, at least not publicly, although I acknowledge that he has indicated he was incorrect in what he had heard already.

I was going to say that if I accused the Minister of Finance of deliberately abusing the position that he had in order to satisfy his own electoral, and therefore personal and financial, needs in Oshawa in a way that he did not do anywhere else, all I would have to do is wait to receive a legal notice so that I could not vote on this in committee, that I could not express myself because I would be in some way disadvantaging someone, or in fact advantaging myself.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge River, with this motion, is saying he wants members of all caucuses to be able to go to committee and to raise the questions that they need to raise in the fulfillment of public policy. For example, in this instance, since Bill C-50 has not passed, since there is not a regulatory process for inviting applications for funding, and since the due diligence has not yet been put in place for the funding of any application, why would someone deliberately mislead a significant segment of the auto industry or the manufacturing sector in order to realize their own personal gain?

That is a logic that the Conservatives would think was acceptable when they are trying to shut down my colleague from West Nova. We have to exercise a little bit of caution here. We need to be able to tell the world that in Canada members of Parliament are going to be unconstrained as they seek solutions to problems.

For example, I would have wanted to ask the Minister of Finance where he got some of the information that he was going to be able to sprinkle some money on General Motors in order to put on a third line for a product that nobody knows exists and that nobody knows is under development. How did he get that information? Who gave it to him? Did he go to General Motors and say that the $200 million it received for the Beacon project entitles us to ask what is being done in the community, for the people who not only work at General Motors but the community that depends on its functioning for its livelihood.

Where is it going with the money that we gave it to stimulate research and development, to train people for a new technology, to bring in new technologies so that we could ensure the health and continuity of this part of this sector or the manufacturing environment?

Conservatives could easily come forward and say that here again I am attributing motive and therefore not being fair, and suggesting, for example, that his silence when the auto sector was complaining about problems associated with engine plants in Windsor, Chatham, St. Catharines and Brampton, that all of these had nothing to do with personal interests.

Suddenly, the Minister of Finance is faced with the problem in a riding adjacent to his own and immediately talks about parliamentary process that has not yet seen its course, but he is prepared to put up whatever amounts of money in order to protect his own interest.

Would that be a fair comment by any member? Clearly not, but they are legitimate questions to ask in a parliamentary environment. Certainly, they would not merit an attack on legal grounds, which I think is what my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River is saying. Let members debate the issues that are important to people.

Is the substance of this debate of great and central importance to all of those people in Oshawa and in the manufacturing sector in Ontario? What they want to know is that the argument, whatever is in the essence of this motion, goes to the heart of members of Parliament being able to resolve the problems that they face on a day-to-day basis for themselves and their families.

I would have asked why, for example, we would be looking at some of these statements that are gratuitously thrown out in the press as an opportunity to gain some accolades and perhaps some support from an electoral point of view if this motion did not go through, if the government insists on beating down a motion that addresses the fundamental rights of members of Parliament to promote the interests of Canadians everywhere, we could, collectively, bring similar kinds of motions forward with respect to a finance minister who is being so irresponsible as to gratuitously throw out the public's money before it has been authorized for distribution.

That is a lot more serious accusation than the one against the member for West Nova, who has been forceful in getting to the heart of matters that are important to Canadians everywhere, that go to the issue of accountability and responsibility in government, which the government said were important.

The Conservatives said that accountability, responsibility, openness, and transparency were the things that counted in government but suddenly they are part of a big libel chill in order to silence the voice of members of Parliament everywhere.

For example, somebody like me could not ask the Minister of Finance if he has engaged in conversations with his Ontario counterpart on the auto sector or the manufacturing sector. I could not ask if he spoke to his colleague, the human resources minister, about job transitions for those individuals who will be facing unemployment today at that plant and elsewhere in southern Ontario. I could not ask him if he talked to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, to see whether he would support that kind of initiative and whether he managed to get it passed in cabinet so the general public could employ all of its resources to achieve such an end. That is what the motion really means.

Canadians want to know that members of Parliament can ask those kinds of questions without the libel chill that the government wants to put as a veil over transparency and accountability. The Conservatives want nothing to do with that. We want to open it up.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to engage in this debate but for different reasons than the ones that have been enumerated so far. They have all been very eloquent and to the point.

I want to associate myself not only to the motion but to my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River who had the temerity and wisdom to put his motion forward before the House. I think it is called trying to solve a problem and he should be commended for that.

The problem, as I see it, and not as everybody else has necessarily seen it, is that this is not essentially what we are here to do. This is a correction of the mechanisms that we utilize to do what we are supposed to do. In other words, he is suggesting that we are being deprived of the tools that make us capable of fulfilling our duties.

I am surprised that government members are actually objecting to this motion, that other members of Parliament in the House would actually propose a solution to an impediment that would allow members of Parliament to work and do their jobs properly.

Some may wonder where I am going with this. Like all of those who are watching this sitting, they are saying they really do not understand what it is that the members of Parliament are complaining about. I will give an example of what this really means.

If a member of Parliament is in any way constrained to speak his or her mind on a matter of great importance to the general public because there is a dilatory action, like a lawsuit threatened or real, then we might as well shut this place down. For example, just this morning I picked up a newspaper and there I read, much to my surprise, that the Minister of Finance was going to come to the aid of General Motors. He was going to use a $250 million fund in order to accomplish that objective.

We can go to the heart of the matter for a moment, but just imagine that I said that this person is making promises he cannot keep. The Minister of Finance is leading people down the garden path, his government is deliberately distorting what it can or will do for the auto sector, and in particular the employees in Oshawa, because there is no such fund. He has no right to make such a promise. There is no such fund. Yes, there is an allusion to it in Bill C-50, but Bill C-50 has not passed the House yet.

If I were to say that the Minister of Finance is making this suggestion--

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Bill C-50 is a budget bill. Votes with respect to amending Bill C-50 are matters of confidence. The member for Burlington is right. If the bill does not pass, the loss will be about $1.5 billion in key federal support in a number of areas, including $500 million for public transit, $400 million for new police officers, $250 million for carbon capture in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, $160 million to support genomics and biomedical research, and $110 million to help Canadians facing mental health challenges and homelessness.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is willing to resort to old political games and has announced it will attempt to stonewall Bill C-50 in an effort to prevent it from passing before the summer recess in June.

In doing so, the NDP is knowingly putting $1.5 billion in important federal funding at risk, including $500 million to help improve public transit, $400 million to help recruit new front line police officers, nearly $250 million for carbon capture and storage, $110 million for the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and much more.

These tactics by the NDP could even delay the implementation of the highly touted tax-free savings account that would allow Canadians to save up to $5,000 every year tax free for life.

These cheap political games prove that the NDP's priorities are different from those of most Canadians, again demonstrating why an overwhelming majority of Canadians will never ever take the NDP seriously.

It is time for the NDP to stop its political posturing, start listening to Canadians and help pass Bill C-50 before the summer recess.

Citizenship and Immigration — Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt and the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina on May 15, 2008, concerning the Department of Citizenship and Immigration’s newspaper advertisements entitled “Reducing Canada’s Immigration Backlog”.

I would like to thank the hon. members for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention.

In his remarks, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt brought to the attention of the House that advertisements had been placed in newspapers by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration regarding proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He contended that the advertisements promoted certain changes to the act as contained in section 6 of Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

As hon. members know, Bill C-50 has not yet been adopted by this House or by Parliament. The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt argued that these advertisements and the use of public funds to pay for them demonstrated contempt for this House on the part of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In her submission, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina also contended that these advertisements constituted a contempt of Parliament by presenting misleading information that has obstructed and prejudiced the proceedings of this House. The hon. member likened this situation to a case in 1989 when the government of the day placed an advertisement in newspapers to announce changes to the federal sales tax, which had not been adopted yet by Parliament.

In support of the contention that the use of public funds for these ads constituted a contempt of Parliament, the hon. member cited an October 17, 1980 ruling by Madam Speaker Sauvé regarding an advertising campaign on the government's constitutional position.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued, for his part, that the question of privilege was not raised at the earliest available opportunity since the advertisements in question had first appeared in newspapers on April 15. To support this point, he quoted passages from House of Commons Procedure and Practice on pages 122 and 124 which state that the Speaker must be satisfied that a question of privilege was raised at the earliest opportunity.

In addressing the issue of the use of public money, the government House leader stated that the funds used were not dependent on the passage of Bill C-50 but, in fact, had been approved in March of this year as part of interim supply.

In addition, he maintained that the advertisements were written in such a way as to take into account what he described as the core principle of Mr. Speaker Fraser's 1989 ruling, that is:

...that advertising undertaken by the government should not presume or suggest that a decision had been made already when it had not been taken by the House of Commons or by Parliament.

He stressed that words and the tone used in the advertisements fully respected the jurisdiction and privileges of Parliament since they did not presume that Parliament had already taken a decision on the matter. To that end, he quoted from the advertisements in question.

In assessing the merits of any question of privilege raised in the House, the Chair is always mindful of the important point raised by the government House leader regarding timing. It is true that members wishing to raise a question of privilege must do so at the earliest opportunity.

However, there is an important nuance the government House leader may have overlooked. In this case, as in others, it is not so much that the event or issue complained of took place at a given time, but rather that the members bringing the matter to the attention of the House did so as soon as practicable after they became aware of the situation.

The Chair has always exercised discretion on this point given the need to balance the need for timeliness with the important responsibility members have of marshalling facts and arguments before raising matters of such import in the House.

In the case at hand, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was asked about the advertisements when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 13, less than two days before the matter was raised in the House. Given these circumstances, I am satisfied that the members for Scarborough—Agincourt and Trinity—Spadina have respected the timing requirements of our established procedure for raising questions of privilege.

The Chair must now determine whether or not the placement of the advertisements related to certain provisions of Bill C-50 has interfered with the ability of members to carry out their responsibilities as members of Parliament. In doing so, the cases cited by the member for Trinity—Spadina have been most instructive.

As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated in his ruling in the Debates of October 10, 1989, on pages 4457 to 4461:

In order for an obstruction to take place, there would have had to be some action which prevented the House or Members from attending to their duties, or which cast such serious reflections on a Member that he or she was not able to fulfill his or her responsibilities. I would submit that this is not the case in the present situation.

Despite not finding a prima facie case of privilege in that case, Mr. Speaker Fraser did raise serious concerns about the situation, stating that the ad was “objectionable and should never be repeated”.

With respect to the content and the cost of the advertisements, in the ruling given by Madam Speaker Sauvé on October 17, 1980, she stated on page 3781 of the House of Commons Debates:

The fact that certain members feel they are disadvantaged by not having the same funds to advertise as does the government, which could possibly be a point of debate, as a matter of impropriety or under any other heading, does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege unless such advertisements themselves constitute a contempt of the House, and to do so there would have to be some evidence that they represent a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons or misrepresentations of members.

As I indicated when this matter was raised, the issue of the money spent for these advertisements is clearly not a procedural matter.

In addition to these examples, another can be found in 1997, when a question of privilege was raised concerning advertisements made by Health Canada in daily newspapers regarding anti-tobacco legislation that had not yet been adopted by the House. In that case, Mr. Speaker Parent ruled, on March 13, 1997, in the Debates, on pages 8987 to 8988, that the advertisement did not give the impression that the House had already passed then Bill C-71 and, therefore, he could not find a prima facie question of privilege.

It is with these precedents in mind that I reviewed the advertisements in question. They contain phrases such as “the Government of Canada is proposing measures”, “These important measures, once in effect,” and “These measures are currently before Parliament”. In my view, the advertisements clearly acknowledge that these measures are not yet in place. I am therefore unable to find evidence of a misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House or of any presumption of the outcome of its deliberations.

While the hon. members for Scarborough—Agincourt and Trinity—Spadina may disagree with the title and content of these advertisements, this is more a matter of debate than of procedure or privilege. The Chair must therefore conclude, for the same reasons as my predecessors did, that the case before us today does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege or contempt of Parliament.

Once again, I thank the hon. members for Scarborough—Agincourt and Trinity—Spadina for having brought this matter to the attention of the House.

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by almost 100 petitioners.

The petitioners are quite upset that the Conservative government has introduced major changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in a budget implementation bill. They note that the bill would give major new powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that it would have irreversible damage to the humanitarian compassionate tradition that Canada has had, that it would limit the ability of ordinary Canadians to be united, based on humanitarian compassionate grounds, with overseas family members and that it would give the minister and her officials the power to deny visas to those who have already qualified.

They call upon the Government of Canada to abandon the changes to her powers that were introduced as part of Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, to increase staffing in overseas visa offices to deal with the immigration backlog, to increase Canada's immigration target to 1% of the Canadian population, which would be 330,000 new residents, to facilitate family reunification and meet labour needs and also to stop—

Finance—Main Estimates 2008-09

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to add that we did not cooperate with the government this afternoon because we were against the time limits and against what they wanted to do with Bill C-50 regarding employment insurance. However, the theft and diversion of $54 billion by the Conservative government and the Liberal government before it has been confirmed.

All that aside, I have a question. The Conservative government, which had a $10 billion surplus at the end of last year, saw the Government of Quebec introduce a program for the manufacturing sector. How could the Conservative government then turn around and allocate just $1 billion for a trust for all of Canada but put $10 billion toward the debt, thereby abandoning Quebec, Ontario and the provinces that are having a lot more difficulty making ends meet? They do not have the financial means since the fiscal imbalance has not been completely resolved.

Why did the Conservative government make such an egotistical decision, as though it were a corporation rather than a government, to allocate 100% of the surplus to the debt, while leaving manufacturing businesses in their difficult situations? Thousands of jobs and many communities have disappeared, families can no longer make ends meet, and tonight, he is telling us that the only way to help older workers is to retrain them so that they can find new jobs even though many of them cannot find new jobs.

Are the Conservative government and the Minister of Finance ready to make a commitment, to change their attitude and to move forward with more appropriate measures to support the manufacturing sector and help older workers? Are they ready to find a way to make Conservative members from Quebec contribute and help solve the financial situation? Could that be why he does not understand Quebec? I do not know.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Chair, I knew the tax free savings account had to be a good idea because when he was a Conservative, the hon. member for Halton said that this is a good idea, something he had long advocated for. So I know it is a good idea as do the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the CD Howe Institute, the Winnipeg Free Press and the economists at BMO.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said:

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

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, “--the savings account, for one, that is an inspired measure”.

It is the most significant tax change with respect to savings and sheltering savings since the RRSP was brought in, in 1957. So it has been many years since then, but members opposite will observe in the next couple of years what an important tax measure this is for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, those 18 years of age or over. I sure hope they will support it when it comes to the House for a vote with Bill C-50 later this week or next week.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Chair, speaking about skating to where the puck is going to be compared to where it has been, I am told it is 1:0 for Pittsburgh. Sydney Crosby scored with two minutes left in the first period. That is for the eight or nine Canadians who are not watching the game, but who are actually watching us do this in this place. That is a great Canadian taking action there.

We have reduced taxes of all kinds. We have also done something else and that is create the tax free savings account. This was something that needed to be done. In Canada we did not have a savings vehicle outside of the retirement savings vehicle and the RESP, not to mention the registered disability savings plan which this government created.

This tax free savings account is terrific. It has been called by various commentators a jewel and a gem. If Bill C-50 were to pass when it comes back to the House within the next day or two, what it means is as of January 1, 2009, Canadians 18 years of age or over would be able to contribute $5,000 a year tax paid into a fund and have any kind of gains, dividends, or accumulated interest within the fund, and have it paid out whenever they want. This is a tremendous advantage.

Over time this is going to mean something like 90% of the savings of Canadians would be sheltered from taxation through one plan or another, especially for young people, but also for people of moderate means. During the first five years there will be no clawback. It is a terrific idea for Canadians to save money. I look forward to Canadians starting to save money through tax free savings accounts starting January 1, 2009.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Chair, on the GIS, we increased the amount that could be earned to $3,500 in this year's budget. We also created a tax-free savings account which is an important vehicle for young Canadians, however, it is also a very important vehicle for older Canadians in that they will be able to put aside $5,000 a year and earn interest on that, or dividends, or capital gains, or any other type of gain, and not have that money taxed when it comes out.

I expect this will be very popular not only among young Canadians but also among older Canadians based on certainly what I have heard from Canadians across Canada since budget 2008 was announced.

In terms of the employment numbers, employment has been strong across the country. I am pleased to say that in this place. We have seen strength in employment in Atlantic Canada, certainly strength in Quebec and in Ontario, and the west. In fact, in many parts of the country, we are seeing labour shortages.

This is a reality as we go forward with economic growth. We are going to have to seek to have more people working in Canada and deal with the immigration issues that we are attempting to deal with in Bill C-50, so that the economy can grow and we will have the people power that the economy needs to grow.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the rhetoric of the member and other members of the Liberal Party saying that they oppose the concept of Bill C-50 and the immigration portion that would reform the immigration system so it works better.

However, despite the rhetoric, I appreciate the fact that the Liberals supported us at the finance committee to ensure the bill comes back to the House for a vote, and again today in the main estimates and supplementary estimates, they concurred in approving the injection of additional funds, part of the $109 million that was in the estimates and supplementary estimates, to ensure that goes forward.

They are talking one way in the House with respect to this issue and voting another way to ensure that the bill receives passage. I thank them for that because the bill does need to go forward to address, not only the continuing growth in the backlog that ballooned from 50,000 to over 800,000 under that member and his government's term in office. It needs to be addressed now.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no one can dispute that Canada's immigration system must be fixed. What the opposition, immigration experts and Canadians do not agree with is the way in which these amendments have been proposed and the unnecessary powers that they would give to the minister.

Major changes to Canada's immigration system, such as those contained in Bill C-50, must be debated openly, honestly and in a non-partisan fashion. The government has failed to meet these three requirements and has failed to earn the trust of Canadians.

I urge the government to listen to Canadians, remove the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act from Bill C-50 and allow them to be debated and voted upon on their own merits.

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

Mr. Speaker, to reply to some of the remarks made by the hon. member, it is obviously important to communicate the intention of the budget bill that relates to Citizenship and Immigration because it will affect a number of members of the ethnic community and it is important to meet with them and to ensure they are aware of what we are proposing. That is what has been done.

The intention with Bill C-50 is to take care of the backlog that grew under the member's government over the past number of years from 50,000 to over 800,000, and continues to grow. No one is served by the fact that we are simply taking in more and more applications. The bill would stop the backlog from growing and then would address the backlog to ensure families are reunited faster, skilled workers are brought in from every country and race, to ensure that those skills that are required in the community are met by those who have the skills, and to ensure that is done fairly quickly, not over a period of six years, but in a period of months. It is important for the bill to go forward so that can happen.

The bill would also ensure dollars are invested to reduce the backlog in a proper fashion. It will not be discriminatory in any way with respect to race, religion or ethnicity. It will be charter compliant and dealt with on an objective basis.

Our party is proud of the fact that we have many members of ethnic communities in our party. We were the first party to have a Muslim elected to Parliament, the current member for Edmonton—Strathcona; the first Japanese Canadian to become a cabinet minister, our Minister of International Cooperation; the first Chinese Canadian MP; the first Hindu MP; the first of two Indo-Canadian women, the member in our party for Fleetwood—Port Kells; and, the first black MP and minister of the Crown. Under the previous Clark government, there was a generous response whereby 77,000 Indo-Chinese refugees entered Canada between the years 1975-81 and, of course, Prime Minister Mulroney introduced the first Multiculturalism Act in 1988.

We have opened our arms and doors to invite people from various cultures and countries to come into our country but the immigration system has been burgeoning and has not been proceeding as efficiently as it should.

Also under the previous government, in which the member was a part of, settlement funding was literally frozen for over a period of 10 years. People were coming in but they were not given the support or language training they needed to become integrated as quickly as possible.

Under previous budgets, the government allocated $1.4 billion over five years to directly address settlement issues and to ensure that those who came here would succeed. We also reduced the head tax on newcomers by cutting it in half in the previous budget. In the new budget, we have allocated $109 million over five years to ensure efficiency is built into the system and that it works the way it was intended.

My sense is that we will have more newcomers joining us quicker, more being reunited with their families quicker and more becoming successful citizens faster.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on April 3, I asked several questions of the government about the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained in Bill C-50.

Instead of answering my questions, the minister started a taxpayer funded advertising campaign in ethnic media across the country to convince immigrant communities that, despite all evidence, they can trust the government with the future of Canada's immigration policy.

In addition, the Globe and Mail reported yesterday that the minister secretly used Toronto city hall meeting rooms to promote the Conservative Party's views on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Bill C-50 to ethnic media outlets.

This is despite the minister's rejection of Toronto Mayor David Miller's requests for a consultation on the proposed changes.

Mayor Miller is not the only one who is not being fully consulted. The speed at which these amendments have been pushed through the House and its committees shows the government's lack of respect for the opposition and parliamentary procedure. Given the potential impact of the bill on the future of Canada, the government owes it to Canadians to remove the immigration provisions from Bill C-50 and propose them as separate legislation. Changes of this scale should not be just an afterthought in a budget bill.

The minister has also refused to tell Canadians who she would fast-track and who she would leave behind under the new regulations.

This is not a surprise. It would be nearly impossible to sell Bill C-50 if the minister admitted that she plans to put a cap on family class applications, which she has refused to rule out.

One idea that has the support of many in the immigrant community is my proposal of a visa bond system. Under a bond system, immigration officers could give applicants or sponsors the chance to provide a financial guarantee in borderline visitor visa cases. This would help many applicants wanting to come to Canada for weddings and funerals to avoid the rejection and emotional distress they face under the current system.

Canada's visitor visa process is unfair and discriminatory, especially for applicants from developing countries.

The amendments in Bill C-50 would do nothing to improve the situation for visitor visa applicants and, as such, would not truly fix Canada's immigration system.

The government has attached its immigration proposals to a budget bill and tried to force them through the committee and the House without making amendments and used tax dollars to sell its plan to immigrant communities. These are the actions of a government that knows its views on immigration are at odds with those of the majority of Canadians.

I again ask the government why it is sneaking these reforms in through a budget bill, instead of allowing the House to have an independent debate on this critical issue.

Finance

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, without amendment.

I am very proud of the committee and its work and very pleased to present this to the House at this time.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are surprised to learn the NDP is ready to play political games to prevent the passage of Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, before the summer recess in June.

In doing so, the NDP is knowingly putting $1.5 billion in important federal funding at risk for Albertans. This includes $53 million over two years through the public transit capital trust and $43 million to Alberta to hire new front line police officers over the next five years. Additionally, it is threatening to delay the landmark tax-free savings account that would allow Canadians to save up to $5,000 every year tax free for life. These tactics prove that the NDP is out of touch with the priorities of Canadians.

I respectfully ask the NDP to let Parliament work, stop playing games and listen to Canadians. I ask the NDP to help pass Bill C-50 before the summer recess so Albertans and Canadians everywhere can benefit from better public transit, safer streets and lower taxes.

Price of Petroleum Products

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the story in the past of someone who was told, when they were going in to give a speech, “Give them hell”. His response was, “I just tell them the truth. Liberals think that is hell”. Tonight, that is what we will do once again.

I am pleased to be here as part of this debate. Tonight we have heard the Liberals avoid, at all costs, a discussion of their carbon tax. I will talk first about what this government is doing, what it has done and what it will do in the future for Canadians. I will then talk a bit about the alternatives with which Canadians are faced.

One of the most important alternatives that this government has come up with and has taken has been to invest in transportation alternatives and in taxation options and alternatives. I will talk a bit about that tonight.

This government has clearly made significant investments. It has made investments from gas tax revenues into infrastructure. The Liberals who are here tonight do not want to talk about their future plans and, I suspect, do not want to talk about their past actions either but we have made some changes that people were waiting for and were happy to see.

In the words of the mayor of Brampton, Susan Fennell, “The Conservative government has done more for municipalities in the last two years than the old government did in the last 13 years”. I think that says something about what we are doing in terms of taxation and what we are doing in terms of things that will begin to affect the cost of fuel across this country as well.

In the 2008 budget, for example, the Minister of Finance announced that we would make the gas tax permanent. Canadian municipalities have been asking for that for years but again something which the Liberals failed to deliver. We delivered on the 5¢ of the excise tax that is collected on fuel and now municipalities have the long term, sustainable funding for infrastructure that they have requested for so long. Mayors from across the country have praised this announcement and said that they appreciate the opportunity to use that small amount of taxation money on fuel in order to fund the projects that are so important.

The government also introduced an infrastructure plan called the building Canada plan. It is a historic $33 billion investment, the largest infrastructure investment by any government in the last 50 years. Building Canada is meant to provide funding for cleaner water, better highways, more efficient border crossings and public transit. At least two of those things will directly impact fuel prices and fuel usage, and that is our highway system and the public transit options and alternatives.

The largest amount of funding under the building Canada plan is not only for the funding of public transit. After 13 years of lots of talk and no action by the Liberals, this government has made several important investments. For example, budget 2006 included the public transit pass tax credit. Tonight we hear the Liberals talking about the fact that they do not think anything has been done. Clearly this change in the budget has rewarded Canadians who use public transit regularly and who buy monthly passes.

Budget 2006 also included $1.3 billion in support of public transit capital investments. Amazingly, the Liberals and the NDP voted against this important public tax credit. They are here tonight saying that they have some sort of plan but when we come out with things that will support the public, particularly in terms of public transit, they oppose it.

In March 2007, the Prime Minister announced up to $962 million in a partnership with the province of Ontario and five municipalities to generate a combined investment of close to $4.5 billion in public transit and highway infrastructure projects in the greater Toronto area. That is something that will work toward reducing gridlock, improving the environment and increasing economic growth in the GTA.

There is more. Bill C-50, the budget implementation act, includes a $500 million public transit trust and nearly $250 million in carbon capture and storage projects, which will be spent in Saskatchewan and in Nova Scotia. That was a great boost for the economy and for the opportunities in my own home province of Saskatchewan.

This government also made a decision to put almost $500 million into alternative biofuels in order to reduce fuel costs. That is something that has been praised by the other parties as being necessary. We are glad to be leading the way in those kinds of alternatives that give people other options and that will contribute to lowering the cost of fuel.

Canadians understand that this government's investments in public transit are significant. Those are some of the things that we have done and that we are doing.

I would like to take a little bit of time tonight to talk about the alternative stats. It is necessary to do that because we have been moving ahead with a number of tax initiatives. I will talk a bit more about some more of them in a few minutes but I want to talk about the alternative that is being presented for Canadians.

The Liberals have said they do not want to talk about any phantom plans or anything but I just heard the member who spoke talk about the fact that they coming out with a plan. By everything that I understood, he was talking about the carbon tax plan that they and the media have been discussing over the last month.

The Liberals' carbon tax plan seems to be something where they are trying to trick Canadians into thinking that there will not be a cost to Canadians. There would be an increased cost. There would be an increased cost on gas, for example, which will certainly hurt public transit users because it would become more costly to run the buses.

The costs will be transferred to Canadians who are taking public transit. Canadians right away will begin to find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Taking a car will become more expensive but so will public transit. It is just another example of how the Liberal opposition has not thought out the program that it is trying to bring forward.

Canadians know that the Liberals will be coming up with some sort of a massive punitive gas tax on Canadians which will force them to pay more for just about everything from heating their homes to groceries.

I was a little frustrated with the NDP because it is trying to delay the passage of Bill C-50 and we are trying to provide significant funding through that for the environment and public transit. The Bloc, I guess, as witnessed by the emergency debate tonight, seems to more interested in playing political on this issue than anything else and is trying to score some cheap political points rather than provide actual solutions. However, I would imagine that comes out of its frustration from understanding that it will never be able to make a difference here in Ottawa, that they will never be anything but a protest party here in the House of Commons.

The government has taken a number of other initiatives. I would like to talk about those because it is important that we really set the framework for what we have done. We have clearly been ahead of the game. The finance minister and the Prime Minister have done a tremendous job of moving ahead of what is happening in our economy and to react to it in order to keep our economy strong.

I want to talk about a few of the things that have happened. We have brought a lot of personal tax help to Canadians over the last two years. I do not think I need to mention that we have cut the GST by 2%. We made a decision to make a bigger tax cut in the GST than the one we had indicated earlier . We removed 1% and then another 1% on the GST.

I found it interesting to be reading some material tonight that indicated the Liberals would reverse that tax reduction.The finance critic for the Liberals said that “hiking the GST is an option. All I can say is that i consistent with our approach”. He said that about a year ago. The leader said the Liberals would consider raising the GST. He said that it may need to be raised back to 7% and perhaps higher than that.

This government has also reduced personal income taxes. We felt that it was important that Canadians get income tax relief so we have consistently worked to lower the income tax for Canadians.

One of the most important things we have done is raise the personal exemption so Canadians have a higher personal exemption and, as a result of that, they pay less taxes as well.

Those are things that Canadians may not realize how much difference it has made for them. I was talking to a couple of people in my riding in the last two months who wanted to thank me for the changes the government has made. One of them said that he did not make a lot of money, that he had four young children, but he said that the differences in the taxation from two years ago until now for his family was about $2,000 a year.

I had somebody else tell me that his family was saving close to $4,000 this year on income tax because of the changes that the government has made in terms of income tax. People can say that it does not amount to much but for the average Canadian it is a huge difference.

I hear one of my colleagues over here muttering to herself. I guess she is probably annoyed and angered by the fact that we have been so effective in lowering taxes across the country that Canadians are now beginning to understand how important and how much that difference has made in their lives. For most people, taking home $2,000 or $4,000 extra a year is very significant.

I want to contrast that again with what we heard the member from the Liberals talk about a bit ago where he used the words “tax shift”. I think Canadians need to start paying attention. Right from the beginning when they hear the words “tax shift”, they should understand that is not going to end well for them.

The Liberals want to leave the impression, first, that they do not really have any tax plan. However, when their critic starts talking about the fact that they are going to be shifting taxes, we need to take a look at what that means. Their proposal, as they say, is that they are going to move taxes from one area to another, but overall it is going to stay about the same. We know that is wrong, for a couple of reasons.

First, the Liberals have made about $60 billion in additional spending promises. So we know they cannot lower taxes. We know they can only raise them.

Second, they say that they are going to, I guess, put a carbon tax on somewhere, but they claim it is not going to affect the price of fuel. Well, we know that it will.

So, as they are moving their taxation money around, we know they are not going to lower income taxes. We know that they are not going to lower the GST because they have already said that they think they would like to hike it. We know full well that they are going to be putting a carbon tax on, so that taxes are going to go up. That is not a tax shift; that is a tax increase.

There is no such thing as revenue neutral on these taxes. I want to just point out one way that it cannot be revenue neutral even if, in their fantasy, they were not to raise the overall taxation because what it does is it shifts taxation from one person to another. If they think that they are going to lower income taxes, who does that impact the most? It will impact high income earners. If they lower the income taxes for them, somewhere else there is another taxation going on. I can tell members where it is going to be. It is going to be in the rural areas. It is going to be for seniors. It is going to be for low income families who do not pay a lot of income tax.

So, for someone who is making a lot of money, paying income tax, the Liberals say they will reduce it, but we know that they are going to shift that. Even if it is neutral, they are going to shift that to poor people who are not paying income tax, those who have to try to pay electrical bills and home heating bills.

As we heard the member for Yukon say earlier, things like transportation and home heating is a big issue for people in his rural riding. Even getting food into his area is a huge issue if the prices continue to rise.

I live in a rural area and I face those same challenges. I do not think that people, when they begin to look at this carbon tax proposal that the Liberals have, are going to find that it is acceptable in any way, shape or form.

It is funny because the Liberals say they want to put on a carbon tax, but tonight they do not want to talk about it. Every time we have mentioned their proposal, they say that we are attacking them and being critical of them. However, we want to know what they are talking about. We think it is important. We think it is good that we talk about this.

It seems to me that there are a couple of things wrong with this carbon tax. First of all, it is a bad idea. However, for the Liberals, there is another reason why it is not a good idea. They have a pile of their people who do not even support it. Their party is completely split on the issue of what looks like is going to be their main campaign platform.

Let me quote a few of those people because I think it is important that Canadians understand that not only are the Conservatives against this, not only are thinking Canadians opposed to this, not only is the NDP opposed to this, but a number of Liberals are opposed to it as well.

Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella has stated that a carbon tax is unfair to people on fixed incomes, such as the elderly and the poor, who have to heat their homes and buy their food as well.

The Liberal member for Beauséjour has declared that artificially manipulating fuel prices is environmentally irresponsible. Certainly, the goal of a carbon tax is to artificially manipulate prices.

The Liberal member for Kings—Hants has stated that he is, “--strongly against energy taxes”. He said: “I would never propose that Canada needs higher taxes in any area”.

The member for Vaughan has said that a carbon tax is certainly not an option for him, and former leadership contender and Liberal candidate Gerard Kennedy is of the opinion that a carbon tax is the clumsiest of the options they have so far.

I would think that the Liberal leader would listen to some of these people and understand that he does not need to be in a situation where he is picking out any more clumsy options. If he is listening tonight, I would certainly ask him to reconsider this poorly thought out idea that he has of imposing a carbon tax on Canadians.

There are some former high ranking Liberal leaders who are scratching their heads when it comes to this new Liberal plan for a carbon tax. Bill Graham, who was a long time member in the House, said, “Certainly, when we were in government, we clearly did not advocate a carbon tax”. It just seems that there are so many people who are opposed to this.

The strangest thing of all is that one of the people who has been most opposed to a carbon tax is the Liberal leader himself, the one who is now suggesting that we need to have a carbon tax and several times he has stated that he is adamantly opposed to a carbon tax. However, in true Liberal form, we expect the Liberals to flip flop and completely change their position. He said one thing, now he is doing something that is completely contrary to that. That just points out to Canadians that this is not a group of people we should trust with government.

What has happened to him between the time when he said he opposed the carbon tax and now when he says that we really need one in Canada? I would think that perhaps he remembered that Liberals love tax dollars. They have no qualms about trying to find ways to tax and certainly will come up with new ideas all the time to do that. They love to get deeper and deeper into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. We have seen that time and again, and they like to spend that money as though it is their own money.

We recognize there is only one place that government money comes from and that is Canadian taxpayers. That is why the Conservative Party has worked so hard to try to leave that tax money in the pockets of Canadians rather than taking it from them.

There are a number of reasons why people should oppose a carbon tax. The most obvious one is that it imposes a tax punishment on Canadians. It does not matter how carbon tax is organized or how it is arranged, it will punish Canadians. It will have to increase the price of gas at the pumps because that is the purpose of it. It will have to increase the price of home heating fuel, which will be affected by the carbon tax as well. It will increase the price of natural gas for people to heat their homes and it will increase the price of electricity.

It will lead to an increase in the price of everyday goods. Higher gas prices will obviously result in increased shipping costs as well. I would suggest that the Liberal leader needs to rethink this because heating our homes and eating food are not bad habits that a Liberal government would need to discourage. Yet, that is exactly what a gas tax would do. It would force Canadians to cut back on necessities and try to figure out what they will spend their money on.

As I have already mentioned, the gas tax will have the biggest impact on low income Canadians, particularly seniors.

Another reason to oppose this tax is because it will not reach its intended goal. A number of people have said, and David Coon, the policy director of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick is one of them, that a revenue neutral carbon tax will not help the environment or reduce carbon emissions. Neutrality is ridiculous.

I know I have to wrap up here but I just want to say that Canadians will not be fooled by the Liberal leader. If this looks like a massive tax grab and sounds like a massive tax grab, it is a massive tax grab.

Our government has lowered income taxes. It has lowered the GST. It has raised the personal exemption. It has brought in child tax credits so that Canadians can keep their money and spend it as they choose. When it comes to sound management of the economy, the choice is clear. The Liberals want to increase taxes, and punish Canadian workers for their own out of control spending and lack of priorities.

In contrast, we are delivering balanced budgets and lowering taxes in order to keep Canada growing and keep it strong.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this and the point raised by the member for Scarborough—Agincourt earlier today. While not the same, it is obviously related to the exact same question.

The first point I would like to raise is that the member did not raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity. This is one of the requirements for a question of privilege of this type. I refer the Speaker, to Marleau and Montpetit at page 122 where it reads as follows:

A complaint on a matter of privilege must satisfy two conditions before it can be accorded precedence...First, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been made and, second, the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity.

Page 124 states:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently arisen and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, Members must satisfy the Speaker that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity. When a Member does not fulfil this important requirement, the Speaker has rule that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, the advertisements in question began running on April 15. We are now about a month later. We have had, since the advertisements began running, 17 sitting days. I would think that on that basis alone, you should dismiss this question of privilege.

I would further add that in terms of the member raising the question, the member for Trinity—Spadina who just spoke, that she is in fact quoted in the media commenting on the issue in question. Some time ago, after the advertisements began running, there was a story by Andrew Mayeda of the Southam group on April 21, which was four days after it began running. Therefore, that, again, is many weeks ago. Ample opportunity has existed and the member has failed to meet that minimum obligation of raising the issue at the earliest possible opportunity.

I would like to comment on something the member forScarborough—Agincourt raised this morning. He argued that the money being used for the ads flowed from Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill. Since Bill C-50 has not yet passed into law, he argued, that the government was in contempt.

There is absolutely no basis or evidence for the argument he raised, although that did not stop him from raising it. However, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the money being used for the ads has nothing to do with the passage of C-50. The money was approved in March when the House, with the support of his party, the Liberal Party I might add, adopted interim supply.

With respect to the advertisements themselves, I would invite the Speaker to review the advertisements, which I will be pleased to table in the House. You will note that the ads are very respectful to the House and the legislative process. The authors of the advertisements took into consideration Speaker Fraser's ruling from 1991, from which the member for Trinity—Spadina quoted from extensively, when they were drafting these advertisements. As you will see, they were careful not to be dismissive in any way of the legislative process, which was the subject matter of the question of privilege that led to Speaker Fraser's ruling.

Let us recall what the core finding of that ruling was and the core message. The core principle of it was that advertising undertaken by the government should not presume or suggest that a decision had been made already when it had not been taken by the House of Commons or by Parliament. It is the taking of a decision by Parliament that represents the privilege that should not be prejudiced. Advertisements that imply or suggest that a decision has already been taken when it has not would be not in order, would be inappropriate and would give rise to a case of privilege. However, if the advertising does respect the fact that Parliament has yet to make a decision, then it will not have in any way prejudiced the privileges of Parliament.

I will, for the benefit of you, Mr. Speaker, and for those in the House, read the content of one of these advertisements, and they are all essentially the same, although in many languages. I will read one that appears in English:

Reducing Canada's Immigration Backlog

Newcomers to Canada have helped build our country from the beginning.

The Government of Canada believes in immigration: we want more newcomers to join us, families to be re-unified faster and labour market demands to be met.

Currently, the immigration backlog sits at 925,000 applications. This means that the wait time for an application can be as long as six years.

That's why the Government of Canada is proposing measures to cut the wait.

These important measures, once in effect, include:

More resources: An additional $109 million to speed up the application process.

Faster Processing Times: The ability to fast-track new applications.

Better Employment Opportunities: Matching skills with our economic needs.

Complete Processing. All applications currently in the backlog will be processed.

Then, the next sentence is critical. It says:

These measures are currently before Parliament.

The advertisement continues:

All of these changes respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Canada needs an immigration system that is flexible, fast and fair for everyone—that's why we're reducing the immigration backlog.

It proceeds to provide a number of contact phone numbers and a website to which people could go.

As I have said, the principal question that has to be determined is whether the advertisement in any way apprises, or suggests or presumes that Parliament has already taken a decision, that there is a fait accompli.

What things are spoken of in the past tense? There is something spoken of in the past tense and that is newcomers to Canada have helped to build our great country from the beginning. Perhaps the member suggests this is a fait accompli that has not happened. We believe it has happened and, therefore, I do not think that gives rise to a concern.

However, as for the substantive policy measures in question, all of them are spoken of as proposed measures, once in effect, and being matters that are currently before Parliament.

As I have said, the advertisement was crafted with that critical decision of Speaker Fraser, relating back to the GST advertisement case, in mind and they respect that principle so as to respect the privileges of every member of this House of Commons.

This is very much in contrast, I might add, to what we saw from the former Liberal government, which went out of its way to dismiss the role of Parliament and parliamentarians. This was highlighted by former prime minister Chrétien's reference to his backbench as terracotta soldiers.

Compare our ad to the former Liberal government's ads, announcements and activities and it will be concluded that it is not side of the House that needs a lecture on respecting the legislative process.

For example, the Liberal minister of international trade, on March 30, 1998, sent out a press release entitled “Marchi Meets With Chinese Leaders in Beijing and Announces Canada-China Interparliamentary Group”. At that time, there was no Canada-China interparliamentary group.

The Liberal government appointed the head of the Canadian millennium scholarship foundation before there was legislation setting up the foundation

The Liberal government sent out a news release, on October 23, 1997, announcing that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada pension plan investment board. The nominating committee is provided for under subclause 10(2) of Bill C-2, which had not yet been adopted at that time by the House.

On January 21, 1998, the Liberal agriculture minister met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, as proposed in Bill C-4, An Act to Amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4, tabled at report stage by opposition members, had yet to be debated in the House. While the House was still debating how many directors should be farmer elected versus government appointees, the minister was holding meetings as though his bill was already law.

How can we forget what took place in the last Parliament, when the opposition defeated two bills that would reorganize the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. After the defeat of these bills, the Liberal minister responsible said that the government would go ahead and reorganize the departments anyway.

I point out that the Speaker did not consider any of these actions to be an affront to the House. That being the case, and in comparison to the respectful tone of this government's advertisement, I submit it cannot be viewed as dismissive of the legislative process or the role of members of Parliament. We on this side of the House do not think our caucus members are nobodies. We respect the institution and the members who serve it.

The advertisement is very clear in stating that the measures are currently before Parliament, and that is certainly the minimal test.

I might add, with regard to some other questions that were raised, much of what the member for Trinity—Spadina raised goes to the debate of the bill itself and the merits of it, some contentions about whether it would succeed in having some of the desired outcomes that were sought. Those are very much matters for debate. They are appropriate for debate, but they are not questions that go to the issue of the privileges of this Parliament, as people can have different views. The government is very confident in its views on this matter.

I might also add, with regard to Speaker Sauvé's 1980 ruling, she stated the following:

The fact that certain members feel they are disadvantaged by not having the same funds to advertise as does the government, which could possibly be a point of debate, as a matter of impropriety or under any other heading, does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege...

I understand she wished there was nobody making the case on the other side of this debate. However, the government reserves the right to make that case and it is doing so actively, but doing so in a fashion that respects the previous rulings in the House, the leading ruling of Speaker Fraser, which is the critical one to which we must have regard.

The advertisements were done in such a fashion, all of them in different languages, that they fully respected Parliament's jurisdiction, its ability to make this decision and communicated fairly to Canadians that the decision was yet to be made and it was something for which they should watch how Parliament determines, by saying that the measures were currently before Parliament and that they were, indeed, that the Government of Canada was proposing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege for which I have given you notice.

I believe that a breach of the rights and privileges of all members has occurred and that this constitutes contempt of Parliament.

For the last number of weeks, the government has run advertisements in newspapers across the country promoting unpopular amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act through Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill.

These advertisements amount to contempt of the House of Commons. These ads have both obstructed and prejudiced the proceedings of the House and its committees with dishonest and misleading information.

Furthermore, the use of public funds to promote legislation that is currently before the Standing Committee on Finance is flagrant interference by the government with the deliberations of members of Parliament and is defined by former Speaker Sauvé as a prima facie case of contempt.

On the first point, the advertisements that appeared in ethnic and mainstream news media, a copy of which I will table here today, are misleading for several reasons.

The headline of the ad reads, “Reducing Canada's Immigration Backlog”. The ad goes on to state that the Government of Canada is proposing measures to cut the wait times of the 925,000 applications in the immigration backlog.

Since the legislative changes will only affect applications submitted after February 27, 2008 and since they will have no impact on the backlog of the 925,000 applicants in the system before that time, this is a clear case of misleading government advertisements.

The word “backlog” is defined as “a quantity of unfinished business or work that has built up over a period of time and must be dealt with before progress can be made”. The definition is clear, but there is nothing in the legislative changes in Bill C-50 that deals with the “unfinished business” of the 925,000 applicants currently waiting to come to Canada.

The ad also states that there is an additional $109 million to speed up the application process.

What it does not tell the public is that there has been a cut of 49% in the spending of the immigration program at the department between 2006 and 2008. The actual spending in 2006 was $244.8 million and in 2008 it is $164.86 million. That is a cut of $80 million.

On my first point that the ads constitute contempt of Parliament due to their misleading nature, let me quote the definition of “contempt” as outlined in the 20th edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, chapter 10, at page 143:

It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

It is clear. The government advertisements are both an act and an omission. The government deliberately made misleading comments on the effects of the proposed legislation, and it deliberately omitted other information about the effects of the proposed legislation.

In attempting to shift the public debate through massive spending of public dollars on a partisan position of the government, it impeded the work of members to perform our duties and it is disrespectful of the role of the House of Commons.

Former Speaker Sauvé further ruled on October 17, 1980, which can be found on page 3781 of Hansard, that advertisements would constitute contempt of the House if there appeared to be “some evidence that they represent a publication of false, perverted, partial or injurious reports of the proceedings of the House of Commons”.

We know through the legislation before the House that the proposed changes have nothing to do with the backlog and that these ads appeared in the public even before the House of Commons finance and citizenship and immigration committees had a chance to study the issue.

Therefore, the intention of these ads is to mislead the public and mislead and disrespect the role of Parliament. These actions of the Conservative government were deliberate and should be considered a contempt of the House.

It is further considered an act of contempt against all hon. members when the government interferes with parliamentary deliberations by the spending of public funds. Madame Sauvé said on October 17, 1980:

--when a person or a government attempts to interfere with our deliberations through spending public money, or otherwise, directly or indirectly...such action would constitute a prima facie case.

The government is clearly interfering in the debate before the House and the Standing Committee on Finance through the spending of public money. According to the 2008 budget estimates, it is spending $2.4 million in public funds. Already $1.1 million has been spent, even while Parliament is considering this bill. More spending on advertisements is to come.

The sad truth is that there is a long history of governments attempting to insult the dignity of Parliament with advertising.

In 1989 the Progressive Conservatives placed misleading ads with respect to the GST prior to a vote in Parliament. In 1980 the Liberal government of the day placed ads across Canada promoting constitutional reform before it was approved by Parliament.

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent said on September 25, 1989:

We believed that advertising that advocated a certain policy before it was approved by the Parliament of Canada...should not be supported by the spending of public funds. We said it in 1980; we repeat it now.

Sadly, I am repeating it again in 2008.

In conclusion, the very tenets of our parliamentary democracy are at risk if actions like these are not reprimanded and stopped.

On October 10, 1989, former Speaker Fraser ruled on similar actions taken by the then Conservative government in its promotion of the GST. He said:

--I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.

He went on to call the advertising campaign “ill conceived” and said that “it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place”. Former Speaker Fraser continued:

If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery. I insist, and I believe I am supported by the majority of moderate and responsible members on both sides of the House, that this ad is objectionable and should never be repeated.

Mr. Speaker, in your deliberations, I am sure you know that your decisions will affect future actions of the government. We cannot allow the floodgates to open to extreme partisan advertising paid for by the public purse. We must put a stop to this practice here and now.

I thank you for this time, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to your ruling.

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

Mr. Speaker, under the stewardship of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, her department has engaged in placing advertising in numerous newspapers praising the virtues of the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Unfortunately, the changes the ads are praising are contained in part 6 of Bill C-50, which is presently being studied in the Standing Committees on Finance and Citizenship and Immigration. Bill C-50 has not yet passed this House.

Another problem is that the moneys being used to pay for these ads have not been approved by the House. The moneys are contained in Bill C-50.

This blatant disregard of parliamentary procedure shows the complete contempt for this House on the part of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to rule on this matter and, should you rule in my favour, I am willing to move a motion to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass Bill C-50, this year's first budget implementation bill. Every day constituents are calling and writing asking when Parliament will approve this important legislation.

Constituents know that included in this bill are measures to implement the landmark tax-free savings account. While some politicians might think the best place for taxpayers' hard-earned money is in government coffers, this Conservative government believes that it is better to stay where it belongs, and that is in the hands of hard-working Canadians.

The tax-free savings account would allow Canadians to place $5,000 into a sheltered account and then watch their money grow tax free without the tax collector ever being able to put his hands on it again. Simply put, this is the best thing that has happened to the tax system since the RRSP.

Canadians want Parliament to act before summer. I am asking all members of Parliament to support the important measures in this bill. Let us make Parliament work and give Canadians the tax-free savings account before summer.

Opposition Motion--The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the finance committee we had both big labour and big business. It was an interesting conversation with respect to Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, and the EI issue around setting up a separate EI fund. They pointed out that this particular provision in the budget left something to be desired.

If we want to set up an EI fund distinct and separate from the government, we need to put in about $15 billion. The reason we need to put in about $15 billion is because when unemployment times are bad we want to be able to reduce premiums and when employment times are good we want to actually increase premiums. There is this sort of counter-cyclical effect. We would not, in effect, be taxing businesses when they are strained in economic times.

I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would be interested in amending the budget provision bill so that instead of setting aside a mere $2 billion, which would do absolutely nothing, the government would put aside $15 billion so the EI fund would act in a counter-cyclical manner and would cushion the bad times and help in the good times. It actually was a recommendation that was made by actuaries in Canada.

Budget 2008

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that Bill C-50, budget 2008's first implementation act, enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of the members in the House.

While budget 2008 is widely acknowledged for its fiscal prudence, I am exceptionally proud of the many new and worthwhile investments contained in Bill C-50. Some of these investments include the creation of a $500 million public transit trust fund, a $400 million police officers recruitment fund, $110 million to the Canadian Mental Health Commission and $282 million over this and the next two years to extend new supports to survivors of our war veterans who are disabled or in financial need.

Those are but a few examples of the many substantial new investments that are contained in Bill C-50, a bill drafted by our outstanding Minister of Finance under the strong and principled leadership of our Prime Minister.

I encourage all members to assist the government in passing Bill C-50 as quickly as possible as our provincial and territorial governing partners, as well as many worthy organizations, eagerly await these new federal investments.

Opposition Motion--The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to inform my colleague that we will support the NDP motion because we think that since this government presented the budget, it no longer deserves the confidence of the House. We should have triggered an election over these things and given the public the chance to debate and make different choices.

Two specific things in the motion caught my attention. It states that there is a gap fostered by this government's unbalanced economic agenda. The best example is the $10 billion surplus that was put towards the debt, when at least $7 billion of that was needed to stimulate the economy.

In terms of employment insurance, even Canada's actuaries are saying that the reform proposed in Bill C-50 is unacceptable.

My question is for my colleague. The Bloc will support the NDP, and we will see what the Liberals decide to do. Are we not at a crossroads, meaning that the government will have to answer to the public for its actions, because it seems determined to go against the wishes of the majority of citizens?

Citizenship and Immigration

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that was moved by my colleague from Trinity—Spadina. I think it is important that we have this opportunity to talk about the work of the standing committee, particularly with regard to this report.

The report deals with the question of spousal sponsorships and removals from Canada. Specifically, the committee recommended that the government allow any applicant, unless he or she has serious criminality, who has filed his or her first in Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application, to be entitled to a temporary work permit and an automatic stay of removal until a decision is rendered on his or her application. This is a very important recommendation from the standing committee.

I worked for a number of years on that standing committee. I know how carefully the committee members consider the propositions and the work that comes before them and how well they know Canada's immigration system. This recommendation emerged out of people's concern about how folks were being dealt with in our immigration system.

I want to stress that we are talking about first applications here. This is not a way of mounting an ongoing postponement of a removal action. It only applies to the first application.

An important aspect is that it allows the person being sponsored to work while his or her application is being considered. We know that many families in the circumstance of the spousal sponsorship application and establishing a family here in Canada are in desperate need of that income. That is very important to them. Certainly the Statistics Canada report that came out last week which shows the financial circumstances of immigrant families in Canada indicates the difficulties that they face. This drives home the point and the importance of this aspect of the committee's recommendation.

The key part of the recommendation asks that there be no removal action until there is a decision on an application. That particularly pertains to people who might not have an ongoing status in Canada when the application is made. It is very important that we not split up families in those circumstances.

The committee chose to stress this as well by the way it structured its recommendation, that serious criminality could still mean deportation. If there was serious criminality involved, that still needed to take precedence in the circumstances.

When the committee was working on this issue, it heard evidence from representatives of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. In fact, the committee heard from Mr. Rick Stewart, the Associate Assistant Deputy Minister for Operations in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. He gave a very succinct outline of the existing policy and how it works.

Mr. Stewart noted that family reunification is a key element of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He said that the department and the government recognized that keeping families together helps people integrate into Canadian society and contributes to their success. It was good to hear that point reiterated by the department.

Mr. Stewart talked about the two situations in Canada where spousal applications are dealt with. One is an in status application, where spouses and common law partners who are already in Canada may apply for permanent residence in the spouse or common law partner class in Canada. In order to be eligible under this class, applicants must live with their sponsoring spouse or common law partner in Canada and they must have legal temporary status in Canada.

The second stream of applications in this regard that Mr. Stewart discussed was the out of status applicant. He pointed out that many applicants in the spouse or common law partner in Canada class have legal temporary status in Canada. However, for spouses and common law partners who are in Canada without legal immigration status, a public policy was introduced in 2005 to allow these individuals, including failed refugee claimants, to apply for and be processed in the in Canada class.

He went on to note that this public policy was implemented to facilitate family reunification in cases where spouses and common law partners are already living together in Canada, but who may have certain technical inadmissibilities resulting in a lack of status. He outlined that those technical inadmissibilities included things like having overstayed their temporary status, working or studying without being authorized to do so, entering Canada without a valid passport, the required visa or other documentations, or of being a failed refugee claimant.

He noted that the ability to submit an application in these cases allowed individuals to remain in Canada for a limited period of time, 60 days, to facilitate the processing of the application to the removal in principle stage. However, during this time, applicants were not allowed to apply for a work permit until they had obtained approval in principle. In addition to the initial 60 day deferral of removal. Once an applicant had obtained approval in principle, a stay of removal was granted until a final decision on the application was made.

That is the existing policy and that is how it operates.

What the committee is getting at is the need to have particular consideration of these. Where there is no question of criminality or no legal problems involved, other than questions around having legal status in Canada, immigration status in Canada, the person should be allowed to remain in Canada until the in Canada application is completely processed and a decision is made on that. This is a very reasonable consideration.

We always have said that Canada's immigration policy is not about separating families. I can remember repeating that to many constituents over the years, when I worked in the constituency office and now as an MP. It was always taken to be one of the fundamental principles of our immigration system, that Canada was not about splitting up families and that we should make this a very high priority, if not the high priority, of our immigration policies.

We all know the terrible trauma and frustration it causes when families are divided. We heard in the debate this morning the kinds of situations that arose when families were split up because of the way our immigration policy and processing system was applied. We know it is a very difficult situation for any family to face. It is particularly traumatic when it feels like it is because of some technicality or some overzealous application of the law that will separate these people, particularly when we know at some point they will be able to come back to Canada. It forces them out of the country, at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer, and then it forces them to go through the application process again, at great cost to the taxpayer. It does not seem like a reasonable approach.

There are many instances where it is very hurtful to the people involved. I think we all probably have examples of that.

I have worked with a family in my riding where there was an in Canada application. A mistake was made and the person being sponsored left Canada. When she returned, she was denied entry into Canada and removed immediately. At that time, her spouse was not allowed to see her before she was removed. The trauma and upset that caused led this person to become ill on the plane before the plane took off and she had to be hospitalized at a hospital near the airport. Again, the spouse was denied the opportunity to see her at that time, which was incredibly frustrating for them, given the trauma, the hopes and expectations they had. A further complication was the woman was pregnant. They were expecting their first child very shortly and looking forward to establishing their family in Canada.

It was a very difficult situation. She eventually was removed and then her partner in Canada had to go overseas to be with her when their child was born. Now they are involved in the wait of having her and their child returned to Canada. He has the difficulty of having to leave his job for a period of time. The family income is in question in that period as they try to sort this situation out and as he tries to be with his wife and young child at this very important time in their family history.

We see all of these circumstances. Granted mistakes are made, but it is how the government, the department and society respond to those very difficult, humanitarian and compassionate situations that constantly arise.

Although I do not think it specifically addresses the kind of specific case I just recounted, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration feels that we need to ensure we have the flexibility to deal with those situations fairly and compassionately and that we do not subject people to arbitrary time periods.

One of the key things about the motion is the 60 day period that is granted for the stay of removal in the current policy. That is very arbitrary. I read in the evidence presented before the committee that perhaps not many people were removed and that 60 day period was not enforced rigorously, which is probably a good thing. However, the reality is it has been enforced from time to time and it has caused great difficulty for the people involved when that decision has been made.

The committee has recommended that an unlimited stay be granted on the first application until the decision is made, which is entirely reasonable. We should not be seeking removal in that period until a decision is made on the sponsorship application. If it is appropriate to have 60 days, then I do not understand why it is not appropriate to see an application through to its conclusion and then either land the person or seek his or her removal if there is some problem with the application. What the committee has reported to us is very appropriate and I strongly support it.

There are related issues. Why, when there is a humanitarian and compassionate application before the department and the government, would we deport someone in those circumstances? Again, if there is a serious humanitarian and compassionate issue, it should be decided finally before somebody is removed from the country.

I know the motion does not deal with this, but it strikes me that is another area where we could look to a change in policy and make it more responsive to the needs of families in Canada. This would ensure that their priorities would be first in the policies of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Government of Canada. Hopefully, at some point, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will have the opportunity to review the policy and consider what is best for Canadian families in that regard.

When I hear the government argue against a reasonable recommendation from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, like the one before use, I begin to question the government's commitment to family reunification in Canada. For many years, this has been a key principle of our immigration program. It is one of the principles on which immigration in Canada was built. It has been a cornerstone of what immigration in Canada is supposed to be about and one of the reasons why our immigration program has been so successful.

The government has questioned the need for a change in this policy by its dissenting report to the committee report. That is unfortunate because it plays into the whole sense that the current government is watering down Canada's commitment to family reunification on many fronts. The policy the committee is asking us to look at is a reasonable one. It would go to strengthening family relationships and its place in Canada. Unfortunately, the Conservatives denied that and would not support this policy when it was discussed in committee.

There are other ways the government is backing away from a commitment to family reunification in Canada. After the Conservatives became the government, I remember the first time the then minister of citizenship and immigration, who is now the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It was a very momentous occasion. It was the first time a new minister in a new government appeared before a standing committee to discuss the important issues pertaining to policy related to the workings of that department. It was very instructive. The minister left family reunification out of the list of key principles of the immigration system.

Maybe it was an oversight, but I have to believe that on a first appearance of a new minister and a new government before a standing committee to deal with the minister's policy area, his statement was a carefully considered one, that every word, sentence and paragraph was carefully considered before the minister appeared. I would not expect it to be a last minute thing, something that was just dashed off. I would not even expect it to be something the minister himself sat down and dashed off at his computer before he came to the committee meeting. I would think it was carefully considered before that.

In the past, and even in the immigration law, we have seen the key principles of our immigration policy. It has almost been a mantra that has been repeated by all parties in the House for many years. We have talked about immigration being important to nation building in Canada. We have talked about immigration being important to the economic needs of Canada. We have talked about immigration and refugee policy being important for the protection of vulnerable refugees as a key aspect. We have always said, as part of that mantra, that family reunification was a key principle of our immigration policy.

Therefore, it was very significant when the former minister left family reunification off the list. I do not believe it was a mere oversight. I think it was intentional. When we look at the various policies and decisions of the government, we have seen that this was probably an indication of the direction of the government. Certainly its position on this committee report is another aspect of that.

We can go to the website of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. If we go on the main pages of it and look at general categories and descriptions about what our immigration policy should be about, we would be hard pressed to find the phrase “family reunification”. I could not find it. One can get the application for family sponsorship, but in the descriptions of our immigration policy and its goals, the current government has left out family reunification. Again, that is a very serious oversight and another indication of exactly where the government will go with its immigration policies.

We see it again in the whole debate on Bill C-50 and the attempt by the government to stick something in a budget bill that pertains to immigration, to give the minister significant discretionary power to ignore applications that have been appropriately submitted in our immigration system and the ability to dismiss those applications without considering them. The Conservatives say that this is a way of dealing with the backlog and the large number of applications received. However, in this corner of the House, we do not believe that giving the minister power to choose to ignore an application, is an appropriate way to proceed on immigration policy and on the processing decision for immigration applications. Every application that is submitted and qualifies to be considered should be considered carefully by the department and the government.

It is another place where families are rightly concerned that their need for reunification, their need to have family members join them in Canada could easily be ignored and pushed aside for other priorities that would instead occupy the attention of the government.

We know there is a huge backlog in Canada of immigration applications. We have seen the government establish targets, I think it is around 265,000 applications this year. However, it has also introduced a new category of application where temporary foreign workers and students can apply from within Canada to remain in Canada as permanent residents. I think there are 25,000 applications to be accepted in that new category, but that comes from the overall target established by the government, which in turn will reduce the number of places available for family reunification in the overall target.

There is a serious problem with the government with regard to family reunification. The government's lack of support for this very reasonable and limited recommendation from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is another indication of its failure to appreciate the importance of family reunification and of keeping families together, of not separating families in Canada. I hope the government will reconsider its position on this and ultimately support the concurrence motion from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

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

Mr. Speaker, to go back to my professor who said that BS baffles the brain, and he meant a Bachelor of Science, I do not think the parliamentary secretary knows what the heck he is talking about.

What abuse of the system is there by the woman who had the two Canadian children and wanted to stay in Canada? What abuse of the system is there by Mr. Firoozian who wants to support his family and he has to wait up to three years and his wife is going to have an operation?

We are talking about inland processing. We are not talking about Bill C-50. We are not talking about outside the country.

The parliamentary secretary should get his facts straight. He should get up in the morning, look in the mirror and ask, “Mirror mirror on the wall, is there any truth to what I am saying?” The mirror will look back at him and say, “I doubt it”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked two questions of the hon. member but in the fit of his explanation, he omitted to answer both questions.

The first question was, is there a certain amount of naivety to believe there would not be any abuse of the system if the motion went forward as suggested?

There is no question there are compelling cases and those have to be dealt with, but what we are speaking about today is a specific motion that says that the government should allow any applicant who has filed his or her first in-Canada application to be entitled to a temporary work permit and a stay of removal. In Canada applications, upon filing, without any question, those would follow.

Does the member think there would be no abuses to the system given the motion and not what are the exigencies of the other cases?

Second, with respect to the processing, the timelines and the delays involved, given that there is an improvement proposed under Bill C-50 and that there will be funds put in place so there will be quicker processing, would the member support his leader in supporting Bill C-50, which would actually bring some improvements to the cases before us today? Would he do that?

My two questions are, is he naive to believe that there will be no abuse of the system and will he support that which obviously needs to be supported?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish the hon. member and his daughters well.

I would ask the member to match his rhetoric to the motion. One would be naive to believe that the system would not be abused if the motion passed. I wonder if the member thinks people would abuse it. There would be people who would abuse it. The motion indicates that any applicant upon filing an application is automatically entitled to a work permit and no removal. The approval in principle is to ensure that at least there is a bona fide relationship. That is required. If that were removed, would that not allow for abuse to take place?

The length of time it takes to process an application has something to do with the backlog. The Liberals had 13 years in government, six ministers, four terms in office, some of them majorities, and the backlog has grown to over 800,000 applicants. This is clogging up the system and the resources.

The member obviously voted against the $1.3 billion in the budget for settlement integration. That is a fair sum of money. Other moneys were put forward in the budget but they were also voted against. Bill C-50 would address some of these measures and would ensure that applications would get processed faster and families would get reunited faster. There is $109 million over five years to back that up. I wonder if the member would support his leader in supporting Bill C-50 to ensure that this happens.

Would he agree with me that if we allow the motion as it reads to pass there would be abuse of the system?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on this motion.

In particular, I would like to examine the report as well as the dissenting report. The particular report by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration states:

In accordance with its mandate pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your Committee has considered the questions of spousal sponsorships and removals.

The Committee recommends that the government allow any applicant (unless they have serious criminality) who has filed their first in-Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application to be entitled to a temporary work permit and an automatic stay of removal until a decision is rendered on their application.

I also want to put on the record and speak to the House about the dissenting opinion, which was placed by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the Conservative Party. It states:

Dissenting Opinion of the Conservative Party of Canada

Existing measures strike appropriate balance between family reunification and the need to maintain the integrity of the immigration program. Current provisions to allow applicants, including those without status, in the Spousal or Common-law in-Canada class to stay and apply for work permits once they have received approval in principle.

Those are very important words, “approval in principle”, and I will come back to them in a few moments.

I want to examine how inland spousal sponsorship works. This is a process that is done from inside Canada. I want to explain how it works and what we are talking about. People listening to this debate might scratch their heads about spousal inland and spousal outland. It is very important for us to look at this very carefully.

Inland spousal involves a couple, common law or who live together for a year or a couple of months and then get married, be it same sex marriage or heterosexual marriage. Then they decide that because of extenuating circumstances the spouse who is not a Canadian, but is in Canada on a visitor visa or is in Canada on status, wants to get sponsored by his or her spouse. Sometimes there are people in this country who have come here and claimed refugee status and who have found a partner and married.

Therefore, what is the process? Once a couple decides they are going to have an inland spousal application, they download the forms from the immigration website and fill them out. They have to provide all kinds of information. Then they send these forms to the case processing centre in Vegreville.

While this process is taking place, the sponsoree, the person who is being sponsored by his or her spouse, cannot leave Canada. They have to stay within Canada. Lo and behold, let us say that the person being sponsored is a female, a wife. If she were to get pregnant, that individual can have the child in Canada but unfortunately her spouse is going to be responsible for the delivery. These are very important things.

There are a few examples that one needs to see and examine to understand. The paperwork goes to Vegreville for processing. Vegreville looks at the forms. If it believes the individual, after it is finished the form is sent to the local immigration centre. The local immigration centre then either calls the individual in to get landed or calls them in to convene an interview so they will find the bona fides of the spousal application, of the marriage.

It is very disturbing that the Conservative government has gone so far as to destroy people's lives. I want to give a few examples. In my riding, I had a young lady who came from China and claimed refugee status. That refugee status failed. She got married to a Canadian citizen. They have two Canadian children. That young lady was deported to China on March 31 of this year.

There were two Canadian kids, the husband is a Canadian, the husband is working and the husband can afford the sponsorship, and yet CBSA moved in and removed this lady. There are two young children, aged two and one. Of course those children cannot stay with their father in Canada. They had to accompany their mother back to China. The sponsorship now will take place outside Canada, which can take anywhere from one to three years. It depends where it is.

We have destroyed the family inside. We have destroyed the family unit, the family sincerity and the family well-being. We have removed the wife and the children followed. The children will be in China and the husband stays back in Canada. I am not sure if his mind will be all there. I am not sure he will be able to concentrate at work while his wife and two kids are half a world away. Of course, wanting to see his family he will make several trips to China at an additional cost.

Here we have the Conservatives, instead of supporting and standing up for young families, they are separating a husband and wife and, in the process, separating children from their father, which will probably destroy him completely because he will not be able to concentrate at work. If he does not concentrate at work, he might also lose his house.

I want to bring to the House a particular example of how the system has failed yet another Canadian family. I raised this example with the minister when she came to committee last year. It was in the newspaper. It is the example of Mr. Masood Firoozian. He came to Canada and, after a few months, he met his wife. She sponsored him and they submitted the sponsorship application to Vegreville. This is an inland spousal application. The two individuals felt they wanted to start a family. They did not want to separate so the sponsorship was submitted inland.

The lady had two children from a previous marriage. Vegreville received the application on July 13, 2006. My office was advised that they had received the application and in July they were processing applications received in 2006.

I will read the fax that I received from Vegreville dated January 8, 2007. It states, “application received 13th of July, 2006. Our office is currently processing applications of this nature, received March 27, 2006”.

Under the Liberals, when spousal applications were sent to Vegreville there was a five month processing timeline. The application was received in July 2006 while they were processing applications received in March 2006.

After that, I did another follow up. In that follow-up I was advised that the application was referred to Etobicoke in March 2007. That is exactly one year to the date from the time that he submitted it.

Fax after fax were sent to Etobicoke in order to find out what the processing time was. On August 13, 2007, we received the following answer. It said that the spousal application was referred to Etobicoke CIC from Vegreville in March 2007. It said that it would be 12 to 14 months before this file would be assigned to an officer for review.

The fax that we received back was dated August 13, 2007 and it said that the application was referred to Etobicoke in March 2007, which was roughly well over a year. Under the previous Liberal regime, it used to take anywhere between 8 and 12 months before the application was dealt with from start to finish. We have roughly about a 50% delay.

The couple then approached me in April of this year. We are almost 25 months in the process. An inquiry was sent to Etobicoke and it replied that the spousal application was referred to Etobicoke CIC in January 2008. I am looking at the previous answer I received from Etobicoke and it said that the application had been referred to them in March 2007. I sat wondering if we were missing a year or we were in the same year. It went on to state that it would be at least 12 months before the application would be assigned to an officer for review.

Right now we are almost at 24 months from the time the application was submitted and it has not yet been looked at. The individual is still in status and has extended his visitor visa application. He has applied numerous times for work but gets refused every time.

If we want to examine it, it would be like driving a car and all of a sudden hitting a wall. I think this family has hit a wall. The wife is sick and needs to have an immediate operation. She will be laid up in hospital and at home recuperating for six months.

On April 16 we were told that it would take an additional 12 months. From the time the application was submitted to the time it is finished, it will be close to 36 months. I wonder what I will be told next year when I go back and ask what is happening. I will probably be told that it was submitted in 2009, of course forgetting the previous years, and that it will take an additional 12 months.

If I were to believe the latest fax I received on April 16, this application should be finished in three years time. Without question, that is an increase of anywhere from 300% to 500% from the previous regime. The minister was confronted in committee about that and I am still waiting for an answer.

Why are we at this stage and what is the problem? The problem is that when the Conservative government came in, it wanted to fulfill its Reform agenda, to fulfill and play to the Reform Conservative base for the votes. It started removing people in massive numbers. It moved individuals from Canadian immigration to CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency. CBSA has more officials removing individuals from Canada than working to keep people here.

Yes, there are provisions that if people are to be removed they do get another kick at the can, which is called the PRA, pre-removal risk assessment. However, I have yet to see a pre-removal risk assessment go favourably.

I was speaking about the woman from China who has two children and is about to be removed from Canada. A pre-removal risk assessment was done. If anybody were to go positive on a pre-removal risk assessment, nothing could be more compassionate than the case of this mother and her two Canadian children. When they were born, the father had to pay for the deliveries which cost anywhere between $10,000 to $15,000 per delivery. The husband was out about $25,000 to $30,000. The only sin the man committed was to get married to a woman and have children in Canada. The man wanted to populate Canada. A Canadian citizen wanted to have a family.

Did the Conservative Party move quickly to find an answer to that family's dilemma? No. Its only answer was to send the woman off to China.

Approval in principle is the key that I mentioned before. Approval in principle is when an application is submitted to Vegreville and it feels that everything is okay so it approves somebody in principle. From what we have witnessed, that climbed anywhere between five to six months under the Liberals, to twelve months under the Conservatives.

I know the parliamentary secretary will jump up and down and say that is not the case, but I would refer to last year when the minister came before the committee. She was confronted with that question and she still has not provided me with an answer.

From five to six months, bumper to bumper in Vegreville and another two months under the Liberals, now we a total of six to eight months and even a year before an individual is processed, landed and given his or her paperwork. All of a sudden we have the case of Mr. Masood Firoozian that is going on three years.

Mr. Firoozian's wife will be going into the hospital and he must wait an additional 300% to 500% longer before being given approval in principle, before being able to apply for a work permit and before being able to say that he is a landed immigrant and would like to have OHIP and medical coverage. Should this individual get into an accident or get sick tomorrow he will have no medical coverage. The reason for that is that we have taken officials from immigration and moved them to removals. Instead of having officials trying to keep families together, officials are removing them. Our dilemma is: Do we work to keep families together? Do we work to help immigrants who are in Canada and would like to support their families?

I have five daughters. What would happen if one of my daughters were to meet a young man in Canada and decide to get married and have a family. According to the Conservatives, a party that is going back to its Reform roots, should my daughter sponsor this young man he might have to wait up to three years and counting before he could apply for work. What do I tell my daughters? Do I tell them not to have children because they will not be able to stay at home and look after the children if their husband cannot go to work and provide for the family?

Where is the compassion and decency? Are we working to keep families together? Are we working to provide for the families? Are we working as a nation to support families? Do we not want to stand shoulder to shoulder with them as they begin the first steps of getting married, having children and working to provide for them and be with them? Unfortunately, though, that compassion, that interest and that love for the family has left this building. It went out when the Conservative government came to power and decided to move resources from immigration to removals.

We need immediate action. I am glad members of the Conservative Party are in the House because, hopefully, this will go back to the minister and she will listen, instead of taking the “my way or the highway” attitude.

The minister says that Bill C-50 will have no amendments. When the Conservative members of the committee said that we would have a dissenting report, I wonder if they talked to their constituents. I wonder if any of them did any constituency work and saw the problems or whether my constituency is the only one with these problems. I wonder whether these problems are only in the constituencies represented by Liberal members of Parliament.

When the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition, I remember him saying that any riding west of Winnipeg was only filled with Asian immigrants or recent migrants from the east. I wonder if that philosophy has changed. I think not.

If we are to have immediate action, we need to do a number of things. First, we need a balance between CBSA and CIC. We need to move more staff from CBSA back to CIC. We need to give an immediate work permit once someone sponsors his or her spouse. We also need additional staff to process spousal applications in Vegreville as well as in other offices. We do not want staff to be removed from other places where they are working on parental sponsorships and on cases of people working on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. We need additional staff. It has been proven that the timelines under the Conservative government have increased and, undoubtedly, all of us would agree that in the case of Mr. Firoozian that application has taken from 300% to 500% longer.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is indicating that there should be a balance in the process. That is precisely what we are saying.

The previous speaker from Kitchener—Waterloo said of course we expect that they would be bona fide applications. That is exactly the point. He makes my point, which is that we need to establish that the application has some bona fides. In order to do that, one has to look at it and approve it in principle.

The motion does not have this. It simply says “any” application filed would automatically require certain events to take place. It is true there are many people here without proper documentation, but having said that, I ask the member if he would not agree with me that there are many processes in place that have made improvements for those who do want to come in through a legitimate process.

There is the provincial nominee program, whereby provinces can nominate people who come in, particularly in the category they desire, even if they are temporary workers.There is the in Canada experience class and the foreign credentials referral office that helps them along. Foreign students can work in Canada and apply for permanent resident status. Would he agree with me that those are good elements in the evolution of immigration which provide a legitimate means and a legitimate process to get in?

Would he support Bill C-50, which actually would allow additional people to come in? In particular, family members can be reunited more quickly--more, quicker and better--and those who want to apply for permanent resident status will be able to come in on a much faster basis. Would he agree with me that this is the type of thing that should happen? This is a means to legitimately come to this country and to be able to work, reunite with family and ensure this country is built, but to do it in a fashion that is a legitimate process.

Finally, would he not agree that this balance would require at least a certain underpinning or threshold to be met before one could be entitled to the various aspects that this particular motion is calling for?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do find the comment passing strange. I will read the motion to the member so he can clearly understand it. I am surprised that he does not. The motion states:

The Committee recommends that the government allow any applicant (unless they have serious criminality) who has filed their first in-Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application to be entitled to a temporary work permit and an automatic stay of removal until a decision is rendered on their application.

An application is made. If the government says this application is bogus and makes a decision, the person is removed. There is no issue with that. Nobody is arguing that we will support a non-bona fide application. We believe in protecting the integrity of the system. We are saying that while we are in the process of dealing with the application, we do not separate families.

The member thanks me for saying that the Conservatives stand for family values. What I said was that they say they stand for family values, but they say one thing and they do something else. They are splitting families and they have no problem doing that, just like they have absolutely no problem in saying no to religious marriages in other countries and calling their children illegitimate. That is the Conservative Party's record.

I am amazed that some of my colleagues on the other side who happen to be Mennonites do not stand up and defend Mennonite marriages, and say that when we have a church wedding, we should not be discriminated against.

In terms of Bill C-50, I am afraid this is one member who will not support it. Bill C-50 very seriously undermines the objectivity of an immigration system that is being copied by all the countries they point to, such as Australia, New Zealand, Europe and England. The Americans are looking at it. Their senate is studying it because they want to have an objective system. The Conservatives would destroy ours so they could carry out their neo-conservative agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, which would indicate that our party stands up for families. Indeed, we do stand up for family values. In fact, our party ensures that every child under six years of age receives $100 per month.

I am disappointed that the member is not supporting this motion, ensuring it went forward. I know the member has worked hard to get to where he is. Will he support his leader when he supports Bill C-50? The bill would have some additional moneys that would go to reinforcing the system.

I ask the member to look at his rhetoric in terms of what he has said he wants and what the motion actually requests. They are two very different things. The member waxes eloquently, but when we look at the motion, it asks the government to allow any applicant, on filing an application to automatically be entitled to a temporary work permit and a stay of removal.

I think Canadians have an issue with this automatic business, where if applicants file, there are some automatic rights that follow; this particularly when they know applicants now who are in status after approval in principle do have a stay. Those who are out of status, and we are talking about those who have overstayed their temporary status, or working or studying without being authorized to do so, or entering Canada without a valid passport, visa or other documentation, and even to failed refugee claimants, could apply and, after approval in principle, have a stay that would take place in respect of the removal until the approval is done and any work permit issued.

I ask the hon. member to have a look at not what he says he wants, but at what the motion asks the government to do, and that is by filing a document, it automatically entitles a series of events to happen without regard to whether that is a bona fide application or without regard to the fact of whether the very principles or basic elements are established to the satisfaction of someone.

Why would the member not look at the motion and not what he proposes he would like to see it say? What is he asking? Does he seriously believe that simply filing an application, entitles an applicant to have things to happen without regard to any of the circumstances?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to engage in this debate.

I want to say to the parliamentary secretary it is really unfortunate that he had his speaking notes prepared for him for the chamber and that he did not speak with the same rationality he did in the committee, because the policy we are looking at does not make any sense.

Cutting this down to the bare bones, what we have is that somebody applies for inland spousal landing. It is legal. There is absolutely nothing untoward about it. That is how the system was set up to work. However, the processing starts on that application and since it does not get done in time, it is passed on to removal, for no reason other than the fact that the application is not processed. Where does that make any kind of sense?

Somebody takes the right step and makes an inland spousal application to be able to stay here, which is quite proper, but because the bureaucracy does not deal with the issue fast enough, we are going to remove that individual. Where does that many any sense at all? That is what this comes down to.

I am shocked, and I am sure all the opposition parties are shocked, because for years we listened to that party stand in this House and defend family values. How much more of a family value can we have than not splitting husband from wife, father from children, sons and daughters, or mothers from their children? That is what this whole issue comes down to.

If the case were that somebody was found to have a relationship that was not bona fide and it was a marriage of convenience, nobody is arguing that this person be allowed to stay here. What we are talking about is that when somebody makes an application to keep their family together in Canada the case must be processed before one of the spouses is removed.

Mr. Speaker, you must be wondering about it as well because I am sure you heard the same speeches on family values coming from the Conservative Party. This reminds me of the kind of family values where Mexico refuses to recognize religious marriages as far as derivative citizenship is concerned.

However, I mentioned that it really is too bad that the parliamentary secretary gets up in this House and reads notes prepared for him by the department, because when we had committee hearings on this issue, there was a sign in his questioning that he actually understood the issue and knew that this issue was not right.

I am going to refer to the meeting where this issue was discussed in committee and the parliamentary secretary asked the official:

I know there's a concern about multiple applications, but from what I'm hearing, if one application isn't determined in 60 days, you make it a point between the two departments to expedite it. If you removed the idea of multiple applications and just dealt with the particular case, is there any reason why, as a matter of policy, the removal couldn't be withheld until the expedited process on that particular application is completed?

This is what we all agree on. I think all of us in the committee agreed on it.

I have had a number of cases, like most members of Parliament have had, in dealing with this. There are two cases in particular to which I will refer. One involved a young couple who were married last summer. The husband was born in Canada. His father had emigrated from Guyana. The husband attended the University of Waterloo, where he met his future wife, who came from Guyana to go to Wilfrid Laurier University. They met and kept in contact.

While the young woman had status initially in Canada, she went back to Guyana. The relationship continued, she came up for a visit and the young couple decided to get married. They filed for inland application, which happened during the summer. While this was granted, the young woman could not get a temporary work permit to engage in her occupation. She happens to be a financial professional.

I come from the riding of Kitchener—Waterloo. We have a lot of insurance companies in the riding. It is the home of Sun Life, Manulife and a number of others. Her skills were in demand, but she could not get a work permit until she had approval in principle, which did not make any sense. When a young couple gets married, we want the couple to start off their life with both of them being able to work. We know the financial strains that can happen in marriages, especially with young people who are paying off students loans or whatever.

The work permit was not allowed until the approval in principle came through, which does not make any sense. We are a country that brings in well over 100,000 temporary foreign workers to work in Canada, yet for people who want to be future citizens and build a family in Canada, we deny them the right to work while the bureaucracy goes through the file.

Another situation I had was in Chilliwack. The son of a friend of mine, who is a teacher, was involved with a veterinarian who happened to be from Holland. When the couple decided to get married, and her status would expire, she specifically went out of the country to make application because that way she could continue to work.

We have two very similar cases being treated totally differently by our officials in the handling of immigration matters for spouses.

I am sure most members of the House, who were here at the time, will recall a former minister who was in trouble around the whole issue of giving ministerial permits to people who wanted to get married and maintain their partners in Canada so they would not be split up.

The problem was, instead of having it down as a matter of routine by the bureaucracy, which is the way it used to be done, the rules were changed to require a minister's permit. This was totally wrong, and the minister was in trouble for showing compassion. The case she happened to deal with spun out of control. It was referred to as “strippergate”, as members will recall.

The basic foundation of it was that a Canadian male married that woman and therefore she was allowed to stay because she got the permit. Given the problems associated with that, we changed the rules back to the way they were. The rules are, if people marry, they can apply to have them stay inland while the case is being processed. There is nothing difficult about this.

I heard questions in the chamber about the queue and about how the time spent in lineups to get into Canada might be harmful.

I would like the House to consider this situation. CBSA expends resources to get people out of the country. Because their application has not been processed, it will have to start to process the application out of the country once again, which will take a lot of time and will back up the queue. Instead of doing that, why do we not dedicate the resources that CBSA spends to go after people who have made legitimate applications to land in Canada to keep their family together, pass it to processing and ensure it gets done. This is not rocket science.

The way the rule stands is just not defensible. It does not make any sense. It is the height of ridicule of a bureaucracy to split up families. We know problems are created when a family is split up for a period of time. They suffer emotionally, financially and psychologically.

Too often our officials separate families for absolutely no good reason. They claim that children are not deported if they are born in Canada. However, the reality is when parents are moved out of the country, the children will be split from them. In the case of undocumented workers, the children follow their parents even though they were born in our country.

I do not understand the change in the approach of the parliamentary secretary. Why does he not go back to the common sense approach that he expressed in committee?

The Conservative government claims it is the pillar of family values, yet it is quite willing to split up families for no good reason. Why? The bureaucracy does not proceed fast enough. Why not? Money has been wasted on border services to round up people, which they never should round up, to send them out of the country. This ends up creating more work in getting people back into the country, and families are being split apart.

I call upon the parliamentary secretary to go back to the common sense approach he had in committee. I call upon him to persuade the minister and his colleagues in the Conservative caucus that keeping families together is a good thing. Splitting them apart unnecessarily is a bad thing. That should not be too difficult. I really am shocked that the Conservatives have not seen that point before, particularly the parliamentary secretary who understands the issues.

The money we spend to remove people from Canada, and I am not sure if it is 10% or 11% of the cases related to this, seems to be a real waste of resources. The government claims that we have to bring in more and more temporary foreign workers because of unfilled positions. To not issue a work permit to a spouse, while a case is being processed, also does not make any sense.

People who make refugee claims are allowed to have a work permit because we want to ensure they have a chance to support themselves. We also want to ensure that when people come to Canada, the first thing we do not say to them is that they have to rely on assistance from someone else, but rather they should come into the country and work. This is a good thing. I am surprised, from that perspective, why this does not make any sense to the Conservatives.

On one hand, the government is defending this policy. Essentially, the Conservatives are parroting the nonsensical evidence we heard from the officials at the citizenship and immigration committee. On the other hand, under the guise of Bill C-50, they really do not want to open up the debate to the extent it should be. Instead, they are saying that the whole system is wrong.

I ask the parliamentary secretary and the government to use a little common sense. Look at the policy, use some innate common sense and fix it. This is not rocket science. Somebody makes a legal application and then, because the bureaucracy does not process it in time, we remove that individual.

When I asked the officials in front of the committee if they could tell us what the percentage of approval of these cases was, they said it was 90%. Then I asked the officials if they could tell us how many people they got rid of because the department was unable to process the case in time and how many of those people came back in because their relationship was legitimate. The officials told me that they did not know and that they did not keep statistics on that, which surprised me.

Why not? Why would the department not keep statistics on something that simple? Then perhaps it could judge the quality of its decision making at the front end, instead of making these ridiculous decisions, removing individuals and making them go through the whole process of applying from outside, and splitting up families. How does this make sense? It does not. The only people it seems to make sense to are those in the Conservative Party, who are supposed to be the paragon of virtue by trying to defend family values. They quite lackadaisically will have families torn apart.

I do not think there is a whole lot more to say about this, except to ask the parliamentary secretary to do a better job to persuade his colleagues and the minister in caucus that it is worth keeping families together and standing up for family values.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in the discussion today of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, regarding biofuels.

As we have been hearing, this is very important legislation. The amendment before us today is also very important, as it relates to how we do the business of the people of Canada in this place.

The intent of Bill C-33 is to enable the government to regulate renewable content and fossil fuels and proceed with plans to mandate a 5% renewable content in gasoline by 2010 and a 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012. This is something that we have supported in this corner of the House, although we supported it with reservations in the hope that we might see some important changes made when it was before the committee.

My colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior and my colleague from Western Arctic have worked hard to see improvements made to the legislation before it came back to the House. Unfortunately, that work was only partially successful. That is the reason we have this amendment before us today.

I should say that in committee there was some success, in that my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior managed to ensure that a parliamentary review would be undertaken every two years on the environmental and economic impacts resulting from the biofuel industry. That was a very significant addition to the legislation.

It is certainly something that needed to be there, especially given the changing scene regarding biofuels and the concerns that are being raised more intensely with every passing day, it seems, about the effect of this industry and these fuels on our planet and on food production in particular. Achieving that review at committee as an amendment to the legislation was a very important contribution to the debate around Bill C-33 and will have an important and lasting effect should this legislation ultimately pass.

The other problem, however, is that the other amendments introduced by the NDP and my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior did not get through the committee. They were very significant as well, in that they would have ensured that Canadian farmers benefited from any federal investment in the biofuel industry by the prohibiting of imported grains and oils for the production of biofuels. These amendments would have made sure that what is used in the biofuel industry is produced here in Canada.

The other part of the amendments that unfortunately was lost at committee called for the protection of the natural biodiversity of the environment from contamination by genetically modified trees and seeds. We have seen over and over again the concern about genetically modified foods being grown in Canada. There is a particular concern about the use of genetically modified seed and the effect that will have on agriculture in Canada. Given the interest in producing for biofuels, we wanted to make sure that there was some limitation on genetically modified seed and trees being used. Unfortunately, that did not make it through the committee either.

Finally, my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior tried to ensure that prohibiting the exploitation of sensitive biodiverse regions for growing crops for biofuel production was part of the legislation. That seems to be a very reasonable addition. It is something we should be concerned about when we are going down this road of biofuels, but sadly that did not make it through either.

The final and most blatant statement, I think, and the most important statement of all, was that food production should come first, before production for biofuels. We wanted to see that enshrined in the legislation as a principle as well. That did not make it through the committee process.

These are all very serious issues that were raised by the NDP in the debate at committee and ours were all very reasonable and appropriate amendments to bring forward. I am sad that they did not get the support of the other parties to get them included in the legislation we are debating here today.

That being said, we are putting forward another amendment today at this stage of the debate. That amendment would ensure the scrutiny of the regulations related to the bill that are brought forward and would make sure that the appropriate committee of the House has that opportunity specifically to look at the regulations. We heard earlier from my colleague from Winnipeg that often the devil is in the details. When it comes to legislation, the details are often in the regulations.

That is why we believe it is important to pass this amendment. As well as having oversight of the overall environmental and economic impact of heading down the biofuels road, we want to make sure that we look specifically at the regulations that are brought forward by the government relating to this bill. That is extremely important. Often we do not pay the kind of attention that we should. Given the very serious concerns related to biofuels, it is important that we do that.

Without that kind of scrutiny, and given that this is broad enabling legislation, we worry that we are handing the government another blank cheque. The Conservative government seems to be very interested in those kinds of blank cheques. It seems to be very interested in promulgating legislation, guidelines and regulations that are big enough to drive a Mack truck through. We have seen this over and over again.

We saw this with Bill C-10. That bill was essentially about closing income tax loopholes, but also included a guideline around the film and video tax credit dealing essentially with the censorship of film and video production in Canada. It is a very broad guideline that gives the minister and the government very broad powers with respect to deciding, based on apparently their own personal tastes, what should or should not be funded when it comes to film and video production in Canada. We in this corner of the House and many people in the arts community and the film and video production community in Canada are concerned about that and are extremely upset about it. It is another example of putting a very broad guideline or regulation into a piece of legislation that would give the government broad powers to make decisions without being clear and transparent.

We have also seen this with respect to Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill. The bill includes similar broad powers for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when it comes to dealing with immigration applications from people wishing to come to Canada. It gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to choose to ignore immigration applications. This is very inappropriate. The NDP has fought long and hard for an immigration system that is transparent, that is guided by clear regulations and clear policy. To give this kind of broad arbitrary power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who can ignore immigration applications based on unknown decisions to us, such as personal preference or biases of the current government, seems unreasonable.

We see Bill C-33 as very broad legislation. It would essentially give the government a blank cheque to develop regulations around the biofuels industry. The NDP is very concerned about that. It should be more closely delineated. There should certainly be, at least as a bare minimum, more opportunity for scrutiny of the overall direction of the legislation and the impact it would have, as well as direct scrutiny of the regulations that are brought forward relating to it. That is what our amendment deals with today.

The whole question of biofuels is part of what some people are calling the perfect storm. In an article Gwynne Dyer wrote about the coming food catastrophe, he sees it as a piece of the perfect storm, related to population increase, related to the demand for food which is growing faster than the population, and to the changes in diet in countries like China and India where there is a growing middle class. It is related to global warming. Some countries are seeing changes in climate that affect their ability to grow food. Again there is the whole question of biofuels and whether they supposedly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but because of the change in food growing patterns that they are evoking around the world, they actually may strongly increase carbon dioxide emissions. Biofuels may not be a solution to the problem, but in fact may make it worse.

Gwynne Dyer certainly sees all of these things coming together as the perfect storm. He quoted Professor Robert Watson, a former adviser to the World Bank, who said, “It would obviously be totally insane if we had a policy to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of biofuels that is actually leading to an increase in greenhouse gases”.

Statements Regarding Voting Record of Member

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief on this matter which arose after question period and an undertaking I gave the Speaker, pursuant to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Richmond, in which he claimed that in a recent interview with the Chinese Canadian media, I had mischaracterized his voting record regarding Bill C-50.

I had told media outlets that the member for Richmond was saying one thing to them about this bill, but voting a different way in the House. The member for Richmond rose today on a question of privilege to contest that fact. I undertook to review the voting records. I have done so, and although I do not think I need to table the Hansard transcripts of the debates of this place, the transcript of Hansard from Wednesday, April 9, 2008 with respect to the votes on the Budget Implementation Act demonstrates clearly that the member for Richmond did in fact vote against a motion in the name of the member for Trinity—Spadina which sought to split Bill C-50 and which, had it passed, would have effectively been a confidence measure and defeated the bill.

I am therefore pleased to present this as per my undertaking which underscores the veracity of my remarks and the fact that the member for Richmond did effectively vote to support the government on this matter.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In the April 13 edition of the Sing Tao newspaper in Vancouver, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity said, “The member for Richmond, when interviewed by the Chinese media, claimed that the Immigration Act amendment is a terrible matter, but voted yes in Parliament”. He went on further to say, “This is a serious credibility problem”.

The secretary of state's claim is completely baseless and false. I voted against Bill C-50 at second reading, a fact that is on the public record. This is clearly recorded in Hansard and in the House of Commons Journals of April 10.

It is unbelievable that the secretary of state thinks that such a blatant misrepresentation and perversion of the facts would be accepted. It is being outright dishonest, and such spiteful and deceitful behaviour is unbecoming to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling that the secretary of state is in contempt of the House by misrepresenting House proceedings, and demand for him to take the honourable step of immediately issuing a public apology and retraction of his comments.

Sitting Resumed

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the circumstances of today have shortened my response to this motion from the hon. member.

On behalf of the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister, I rise to oppose this motion introduced by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. I would also encourage all hon. members to vote against this motion to divide Bill C-50 into pieces.

There are more than 900,000 people in the queue waiting to come to Canada. If we do not do something about that staggering number now, it will balloon to close to 1.5 million in just four years.

Canada is a destination of choice for potential immigrants from all over the globe. There are millions around the world who would like to come here and who would qualify to come here. They cannot all come here, though, and that is why we need to manage immigration: to make it a system that is fair to prospective immigrants, fair to their families and fair to Canada.

I was proud on March 14 when our government introduced its budget and proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA. I am proud that this government is taking positive steps to improve Canada's immigration system.

Let me address why the government has proposed amendments to the IRPA through provisions to implement the budget. Several precedents already exist in which previous governments have used budget bills to make changes to several pieces of legislation and not just to the Income Tax Act. What we are doing is not unprecedented.

As well, like any bill, the budget implementation act is a public document. It will be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Finance and the proposed amendments must be approved by Parliament and receive royal assent before becoming law.

The proposed changes are being sought in a transparent manner. As the House well knows, immigration is a key factor for the Canadian economy and figures prominently in this government's “Advantage Canada” priorities.

Finally, we should consider that the IRPA was passed in 2002, one of the few times, I might add, where major changes to the immigration system were made through wholesale changes to the act and also brought forward through the House of Commons and not done solely through cabinet.

The consultations and parliamentary debate that took place may have allowed for such discussion, but during the time of these discussions, over one million people applied to come to Canada in order to get in under the old rules. This is the genesis of the backlog that we have today, which is why a lengthy public debate on this matter might not help the problem that we are aiming to address. This is not to say that we are opposed to public debate about these proposals, as our efforts here today demonstrate.

I would like to expand on why these measures are important to Canada. I see my time is up, but I want to emphasize the fact that we will not be supporting this motion.

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

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for his support.

I am a member of the immigration committee. We will certainly study the bill and make recommendations. It is very important that we pull clause 6 out of the finance bill, the immigration portion, and study it very carefully.

Bill C-50 was introduced without any consultations or studies. That is why immigrant groups, lawyers, people who work with potential immigrants collectively are saying from coast to coast to coast that the bill needs serious study. It should be done in the immigration committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had even read Bill C-50, he would have noticed that the bill does not mention student visas.

We would not be talking about splitting the bill had the Liberal Party of Canada had the courage to stand up for immigrants and vote against Bill C-50 at second reading. Instead, we saw most of those members get up and walk out of the chamber. Where is their backbone? Where is their courage?

For two weeks nonstop we heard negative comments about the bill, which is fine, but those members are all about talk. Where is the action? What happened to standing up for their principles? We would not have to talk about splitting Bill C-50 had the Liberals actually stood and voted against it at second reading last Thursday.

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

I could not resist either.

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We note that the charter does not really apply to potential immigrants trying to come into Canada. If the minister's instruction is to fast track foreign worker applicants from Mexico as opposed to parents coming from India, the charter cannot prevent the minister from doing so. If Tim Hortons decides that it wants workers from the Philippines instead of, say, Pakistan, there is nothing in the charter that would prevent that.

Further, the Conservative government said that the minister's instructions will be transparent as they will be published in the Canada Gazette and on the immigration department's website. The reality is that the publication of these damaging instructions is not subject to debate or approval in the House of Commons. Elected members of Parliament would have no say over the minister's instructions. That is not what democracy is about.

A large number of immigrant groups have said that they came to Canada because of democracy. They want each member of Parliament to have a say over what kind of immigration policies are established across Canada. They do not want the minister to have the power to say yes or no to individual applications, even retroactively. There is just not enough trust for that to happen.

They also say that if the minister is so sure about these recommendations, why not allow the bill to be split? The immigration portion which is clause 6 of the budget bill, should be taken out of the bill and considered at the citizenship and immigration committee, rather than jamming it into the House of Commons finance committee.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that these immigration changes are in a finance bill and at the finance committee. Perhaps the Conservative government sees immigrants as economic units rather than human beings and people who bring families together and people who establish communities. To the government they are just economic units. They are here to work, to give more profit to the employers, to the big corporations so that they could pay less. Those people have less power. They probably would not dare to complain because the minute they got fired they would be deported. They would be asked to leave. They have very little power.

The immigrant groups are saying that if immigrants are good enough to work here, they are good enough to stay here. That is why the immigrant groups across the country find that Bill C-50 is blatantly anti-democratic, secretive and dangerous.

The Conservative government in its PowerPoint presentation said that ministerial instructions will not allow the minister to intervene in individual cases. The reality is that in clause 6 of the bill, by changing the word “shall” to “may”, applicants who meet all immigration requirements, who receive sufficient points and follow all the rules can still be rejected. The more dangerous part is that because of the change in wording, their rejection cannot be appealed to the courts. The immigrants and lawyers have no access to the Federal Court as a last appeal. In fact, according to the Canadian Bar Association and lawyers who are familiar with this change, that is putting the minister above the law, which again is very dangerous.

The Conservatives also say that families would still be united under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. What they failed to say and the reality is that the minister and her officials would no longer have to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds if the family member is outside Canada.

A few days ago a lawyer with Parkdale Community Legal Services presented the case of a father of a little child. The father is still in Kenya, which is a very dangerous place. The mother of the little child is trying desperately to get the father to Canada. They have applied for the father to come to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. If Bill C-50 is approved, this case would probably not be considered again.

The Conservatives said that reforms would bring flexibility to visa offices to bring in steelworkers to meet labour needs. The reality is that much of the labour shortage is also occurring in the lower skills sector and these potential immigrants would never have enough points to come to Canada as permanent residents, even though they may have relatives in Canada. Instead, they are being rushed in as temporary foreign workers, cheap labour, and they will never qualify as citizens or be able to bring their families to Canada.

In conclusion, the immigration changes embedded in Bill C-50, a budget implementation bill, are bad for immigrants, bad for working families and certainly bad for Canada, which is why we certainly have to split the bill so we can defeat the immigration portion of the budget implementation bill.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008--Bill C-50

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

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it have the power to divide Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, into two or more pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is determined to take every possible step to stop the Conservatives' irreversibly damaging immigration reforms.

This is the NDP's second attempt to stop the damaging reforms from passing in Parliament and I am proud to stand here again today in the spirit of cooperation to split this bill, and give it the study and amendments it so desperately needs.

A country's immigration policy can build strong communities, an educated and skilled labour force, and a vibrant and sustainable economy. A failed policy, however, can lead to division, resentment and transient communities of single labourers who have no prospects for citizenship, family or community.

Immigration policy that does not integrate immigrants into Canadian society, into our cities, our schools and our economy, undoubtedly leads to division in our society. When kids do not get to play together, the families are not connected and as a result the community is divided.

Canada's immigration policy needs to be much more than just about bringing cheap and skilled labour to Canada. Right now there are two streams. Skilled labour comes into Canada, but then Canadian government wastes their talents by not recognizing their degrees and certificates. As a result they cannot practise the kind of trade or jobs they are trained for. Another stream deals with temporary foreign workers which is basically cheap labour and this is what the bill is designed to do.

The Conservative immigration reforms would: first, give the immigration minister arbitrary powers to move people up or off waiting lists; second, limit immigrants the ability to reunite with overseas family members based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds; and third, let officials prioritize temporary foreign labour over family class and economic class immigrants.

What does this mean for Canada? It means lower wages for working families and it means that we will have divided communities.

It also means that tens of thousands of migrants come to work our land, our farms, wash our dishes, cook our food and pay taxes, but have no prospects of building a life in Canada. They have no prospects for citizenship, no prospect for building a family, a life and prosperous future in Canada.

There are 900,000 prospective immigrants facing really long waits, but the Conservatives' so-called solutions are just wrong. Their solution is to kick people off the waiting list and bring in temporary foreign cheap labour for their friends, especially in the oil sands. After all, the federal government approved over 40,000 temporary foreign workers in Alberta last year alone. That is a 300% jump from only three years ago.

What kind of Canada are we building if we are encouraging the growth of a program that brings to Alberta over 40,000 temporary workers with no rights, no families, and no future here in Canada? I just heard that Tim Hortons in Alberta brought in 100 workers from the Philippines, for example.

While the Conservative government ignores Ontario and Quebec's manufacturing crisis and does nothing to retrain the unemployed across Canada, it is in fact lowering wages and stalling economic prosperity for thousands of families. In manufacturing towns they are facing unemployment, whether they are in northern Ontario, southern Ontario, Quebec, and all across Canada.

Gil McGowan of the Alberta Federation of Labour said recently:

This is essentially a program that has been allowed to grow exponentially without addressing any of the very legitimate concerns that have been raised and without putting any of the necessary safeguards in place.

In an article in the Calgary Herald earlier this month, McGowan said:

The foreign workers program artificially allows employers to keep wages lower when employees are scarce, creates a lower class of worker, and will cause tensions between the temporary workers and local, permanent staff.

We are already seeing it.

Rick Clarke of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour said yesterday in the citizenship and immigration committee that it is not fair to the workers being brought in, it is not fair for our economy, and it is not fair for those being by-passed because access to this program by employers is far too open. He called the program flawed because it allows employers to hire cheap labour without offering any long term benefits to the employee.

New Canadians make this country strong. Immigrants can either help to build thriving and diverse communities, and a 21st century workforce to compete with the world's best or we can use them, abuse them, and then send them home when we are done with them as the Conservatives' and the Liberals' policy will do.

The NDP said no to Conservatives' backdoor sweeping offensive changes and no to the massive expansion of temporary foreign cheap labour.

Instead, we want to ease backlogs by investing to increase overseas staffing in visa offices, increase immigration levels to 1% of our population, and change the point system, so people of all skills can come to Canada with their families and build inclusive, vibrant, healthy communities and neighbourhoods.

It is time for fairness in our immigration policy. It is time for living wages and family reunification. It is time for strong communities instead of weak, transient, and migrant ones.

However, instead of fairness, we get half truths, spin and a public relations advertising campaign at the taxpayer's expense.

The Conservative government said it is welcoming a record number of newcomers to Canada, but the reality is permanent landed immigrants to Canada dropped by 10,587 people. More shocking still is that while the numbers fell the Liberal and Conservative governments increased their admissions to an extra 24,000 more temporary workers between 2003 and 2006. Of course, we know they do provide cheap labour and drive down wages.

The Conservative government said that there are 925,000 people in the backlog and sweeping immigration reforms in Bill C-50 are designed to ease that. However, the reality is that the legislative changes will not come into effect until after February 28 of this year and will have no impact on the backlog of that said 925,000 applicants.

The Conservative government said that sweeping changes are needed to speed up the processing of applications. The reality is that giving the minister the power to discard applications that meet all immigration requirements is unfair, it is arbitrary, and it is open to abuse.

The Conservative government said that measures are designed to attract and retain foreign students. That is in its PowerPoint presentation, taking it on the road and giving it to everyone who would listen. The reality is that there is no clause in Bill C-50 that addresses foreign students applications.

The Conservative government said that there will be no discrimination as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be respected. The reality is that the charter does not help potential immigrants trying to come to Canada.

The minister's instruction is to fast track foreign workers, skilled workers from Mexico as opposed to parents coming from India, the charter cannot prevent--

Judges Act

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act.

I have been in this place long enough to know that there are times when bills are presented to the House by the government and the argument is made that it is a housekeeping bill, that there really should be no delay and that it should be passed quickly by the House. In some cases that is true, but it is not always the case. Sometimes we have to dig a little deeper to find out exactly what the piece of legislation purports to do.

I must say when I look at this bill there is a certain logic to it. However, if we put it in the broader context of the Conservative government and how it has approached appointments generally, it does cause one to pause and to reflect somewhat.

I am thinking of a number of things. One of them is the government's initiative to set up a public appointments commission. This was a plank in the 2006 election. The idea, as I understood it, was that the Conservative Party was going to have a non-partisan system of appointments. It was going to set up an arm's length commission and have all the major appointments go through this commission. I am not sure that appointment of judges would go through that particular commission, but the subject is appointments, generally.

The government picked three members for the commission. In fact a very good friend of mine, Roy MacLaren, was asked if he would serve. The government selected Mr. Gwyn Morgan as the chair of the public appointments commission. Mr. Morgan went before a committee of the House of Commons. He was subjected to some questioning. In fact the committee decided in the end that it was not comfortable with Mr. Morgan's appointment as the chairman of the public appointments commission, notwithstanding Mr. Morgan's very strong record in the private sector, in the oil and gas industry, as president and CEO of EnCana. He had said some things that raised the ire of a number of the members of the committee. It was no secret at the time that Mr. Morgan was an active fundraiser for the Conservative Party. His appointment went to the committee. The committee did not like the appointment of Mr. Gwyn Morgan and the committee said no.

That did not need to stop that whole process, if there was some need to have a public appointments commission. If the government could have achieved this laudable objective of having completely non-partisan appointments, something which I think the cynics in town and across Canada would argue and debate, but nonetheless a very laudable objective, if it actually had decided to pursue that, what would have been the problem with the government saying that Mr. Morgan did not make the cut, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians who would be qualified to chair such a commission. Instead the Conservatives picked up their toys, ran out of the sandbox and said, “If you are not going to play with our toys, we are not playing with you”. That was the end of the public appointments commission, notwithstanding that this was a party plank of some importance.

Of course the Conservatives use it as an opportunity to blame the committee and blame the Liberals, and say, “We are getting the job done”. I am so tired of that expression. They have been in power now for over two years, but we do not get a decent answer in question period; it is always about the 13 years the Liberals were in power, blah, blah, blah.

In any case, they could have proceeded with the public appointments commission and demonstrated that they wanted a non-partisan process for appointments and picked someone else, notwithstanding Mr. Gwyn Morgan's career and his very good qualifications in the sense of the private sector, someone who was not perhaps so actively involved in a partisan way. But no, they did not. They picked up their toys and off they went and said, “It is those old Liberals again. They are obstructionist”.

I begin to wonder when I look at the bill before us today what is really behind an act to amend the Judges Act and the appointments. Not many people in the House would argue that we have a backlog in appointment of judges, but we also have a backlog in immigration. Many people should be appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board. In fact, I was told by one of my colleagues that there are something like 30 vacancies outstanding, perhaps more. These are the people who adjudicate on refugee claims and they get involved with appeals and a whole range of other issues. What is stopping the Conservative government from appointing these Immigration and Refugee Board judges?

When I look at the bill before us I wonder what really is going on behind this seemingly innocuous bill to amend the Judges Act. We know we have backlogs in immigration. In fact the government, if I might, sneakily put changes to the immigration policy of this country into the budget implementation act, Bill C-50. The government added it in at one of the clauses at the end, almost as an afterthought, but it is not an afterthought. It fundamentally changes the way we deal with immigration policy.

We know there are ways of dealing with backlogs, such as to hire more people and put them into missions abroad. That is what the Liberal government was trying to do. We went to committee and the committee rejected the proposal in the estimates, so there we are. But that is the way to deal with the backlog. The idea that the minister would have complete discretion should raise some hackles, as should Bill C-31 because it raises similar issues.

I would like to talk also about the Senate. When we are talking about appointments, I know there are those opposite and indeed some on this side of the House who would like to see the Senate reformed, but we all know as reasonable people that the Senate will only be reformed through constitutional change.

While Conservative Party members go on and on about how bills are delayed in the Senate and the Senate is obstructing the will of Parliament, the Conservatives have the ability now to appoint, I am not sure exactly how many senators, but they could appoint a stack of Conservative senators. The way the Constitution of this--

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two further questions.

First, with respect to Bill C-21, as the minister will know, the amendments that happened in committee were indeed a reflection of the hopes and the aspirations of aboriginal organizations in this country, so I would hope the government would take a fresh look at that and be willing to respect the will of those aboriginal organizations, because that will is reflected in the amendments that were made.

Further, with respect to Bill C-50, I would remind the government House leader that the vote at second reading is not passage of the legislation. It is simply reference of the legislation to the appropriate standing committee. In the standing committee, the defects in the legislation can be debated and exposed, and of course Canadians for the first time will have the opportunity to speak in a parliamentary forum to tell parliamentarians what Canadians think about this legislation, which is extremely important.

I would ask the government House leader this question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has indicated, I believe, a willingness to see not the bill itself but the immigration subject matter of Bill C-50, in addition to what may happen in the finance committee, also referred to the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder if the minister would be willing to confirm the government's willingness to see that subject matter referred to the citizenship and immigration committee while the finance committee is dealing with Bill C-50.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of Commons has just now voted to approve the budget implementation bill at second reading. The bill will now proceed to the Standing Committee on Finance where it will be studied by members of that committee.

I know that the Liberal Party originally said that it adamantly opposed the bill, so we welcome its change of heart yesterday with its help to defeat the NDP motion, which would have effectively killed the bill, and its kind cooperation today to make sure it passed at second reading.

As I am sure the Liberal House leader is aware, the passage of the bill is important to the stability of the Canadian economy during a time of global economic uncertainty and to reduce the immigration application backlog that is causing Canada to lose much needed talent from potential immigrants. We hope it will be dealt with quickly at committee so that we can have it back to the House for third reading, where I am sure it will once again receive the same warm greeting.

Today and tomorrow, we will continue to debate Bill C-23, which amends the Canada Marine Act; Bill C-33, which will regulate a renewable content of 5% in gasoline by 2010, and 2% in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012; and Bill C-5, which has to do with responsibility in the event of a nuclear incident, as part of Improving the Health and Safety of Canadians Week.

Next week will be a stronger justice system week. We will start by debating, at report stage and third reading, Bill C-31, which amends the Judges Act to allow the application of additional resources to our judicial system.

We will also consider Senate amendments to Bill C-13, which is our bill to amend the Criminal Code in relation to criminal procedure, language of the accused, and other matters.

We will then continue by debating Bill S-3, our bill to reinstate modified versions of the anti-terrorism provisions--the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions provisions--in the Criminal Code. This important piece of legislation, which has already passed the Senate, will safeguard national security while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. I hope all members of the House will work with the government to ensure its quick and timely passage.

We will debate Bill C-26, which imposes mandatory prison sentences for producers and traffickers of illegal drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children.

Lastly, time permitting, we will start debating Bill C-45, which has to do with our military justice system.

With regard to the bill dealing with aboriginal human rights, we understand, sadly, that the opposition parties gutted the relevant provisions and protections in it. Therefore, I am surprised by the enthusiasm of the opposition House leader for it. Perhaps if the members are, as they were on Bill C-50, prepared to reverse their position and support the restoration of those meaningful principles, we would be happy to bring it forward again.

Komagata Maru Incident

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale for proposing this motion which is long overdue.

I have listened very carefully to my colleagues on the Conservative benches and also the NDP and Bloc. The consensus seems to be that the government is not willing to support the motion.

As other speakers have mentioned and told the story about this incident, it is a black mark in Canadian history. When I look at the early 1900s, Canadian immigration officials began making provisions to block immigration from United India, which is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, three different countries. They were advised by London to be cautious in their approach because both Canada and India were part of the British Empire and rights of all subjects of the Empire needed to be respected.

Canadian officials nevertheless relied on immigration regulations that had the effect of excluding many prospective Indian immigrants. To be admitted to Canada immigrants were required to come by a continuous journey from their country of birth and each enter with at least $200 cash.

The continuous journey regulation did not mention race or nationality and on the surface seemed fair and applicable to all immigrants. However, it was an open secret that the regulation was intended to be applied primarily to the people from British India.

Other members have mentioned the history. I am not going to go into the history, but I will mention that the Conservative Prime Minister was in Surrey, in my riding on August 6, 2006, where he made a commitment. I will quote what the Prime Minister said at that time:

--the government of Canada acknowledges the Komagata Maru incident and we will soon undertake consultations with the Indo-Canadian community on how best to recognize this sad moment in our history.

In fact, it has been a long two years during which the government has done nothing. Now I see that it is going to oppose the motion. I personally feel that we are hurting the work done by many members of the House, and also many members from the community as mentioned by the member for Brampton—Springdale, people from Mohan Singh Memorial Foundation, people like Sahib Thind and his associates who have worked on this for 10 continuous years.

In fact, they prepared a petition asking for an apology that was filed in the House by one of the Conservative members. All they are looking for is a simple apology from the House. They are not looking for any compensation.

It is the right thing for the government to apologize at this point in time and make all Canadians proud that we care about all communities and that we treat every community equally.

When I look at the ACE agreement that the Liberals introduced in 2005, it was to acknowledge, commemorate and educate about the past injustices done to all communities in one agreement. We cannot cherry pick between one community or the other.

When the current government came in, it cancelled all the funds the Liberals had put in place. The record shows that.

With the immigration bill, Bill C-50, that is what it is doing as well. It is hiding those sweeping immigration changes. The government is trying to go around this and not come up clean.

I would request all members of the House to support the motion of the member for Brampton—Springdale and vote in favour of its passage.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 469 and to inform the member for Brampton—Springdale that the entire NDP caucus will also be supporting this important motion.

The dark shadow of racism can be found in the story of the Komagata Maru, and one of the questions that was asked earlier was how often we should apologize. I will remind people here that when we deny or forget our past, we are bound to repeat it and that is one of my concerns.

It was originally under the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1909 that the concept of the continuous journey was introduced into Canadian immigration, and that is when the dark shadow of racism started creeping across the land.

The story we have been hearing is about this Japanese steamer that sailed from Hong Kong to Shanghai to Yokohama, Japan and then to Vancouver in 1914, carrying 376 passengers mostly from Punjab, India. Following that lengthy journey they were turned away and not allowed to enter Canada. This act of racism occurred under the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden.

This was one of the most notorious incidents in the history of the early 20th century of the exclusion laws in Canada and the United States that were designed to keep out people of Asian origin.

Sadly, it was not the last of Canada's exclusionary practices. Members will recall the ship of the damned, the Jewish people who came to the shores of Canada, only to be turned away by a member of the government who said that one Jew was one Jew too many in this country.

In 1958 the Conservatives, under John Diefenbaker, moved to block the flow of Italian Canadians coming to Canada. The shadow of racism was still alive.

Of course today, buried in the latest budget bill, Bill C-50, the Conservative government is moving to control immigration. It will control not only who gets into Canada but more importantly who does not get in, who is excluded in this immigration package that is coming forth.

However, back to the story of this ship. Gurdit Singh, a well to do fisherman in Singapore, decided he wanted to force Canada to eliminate its exclusionary practices and exclusion law. He felt that by circumventing these laws, by hiring a boat to sail from Calcutta to Vancouver, he could help his compatriots whose journeys to Canada had been blocked.

During the first two decades of the 20th century, Canada passed several bills limiting the civil rights of Indians, including the right to vote, hold public office, serve on juries, or practice as pharmacists, lawyers or accountants.

However, because India, like Canada, was part of the British Empire, Canadian authorities did not pass the exclusion laws directly targeting those of Indian origin. The British authorities saw the Indian resentment when the white Australian policy was put into place in 1905. When Canada started to make its plans, the warnings came from London to take care and to understand the ramifications of building a nationalist fervour in India, so we acceded to what the British crown wanted at that time.

Clearly, Canadian immigration authorities had devised a devious way to indirectly halt Indian immigration to this country. This had been built around the continuous journey provisions that we heard about today. To be admitted into Canada, immigrants had to come by a continuous journey from their country of birth and enter with at least $200.

They knew that the ships coming from India would be stopping in Japan. That would not be a continuous journey, thus the ugly shadow of racism was hidden within the context of that continuous journey regulation. Because it did not mention race or nationality, to some it could even be argued it was fair because it applied to all immigrants.

This was certainly one of the many shadows of racism that passed over Canada over the last 100 years. It was very clear to all that the regulation was intended to apply only to Indians. At the time, the Canadian Pacific did run a very lucrative shipping line between Vancouver and Calcutta.

The Canadian government persuaded the company to stop this service. It then became impossible to come to Canada by a continuous journey. It was a mission accomplished. This of course was racist when it was used to enforce a white, Canada-only policy.

In chartering the Komagata Maru, Mr. Singh's goal was to challenge the continuous journey regulation. He believed that it would open the door for immigration from India to Canada.

Hong Kong became the point of departure. The ship was scheduled to leave in March, but Mr. Singh was arrested for selling tickets for an illegal voyage. He was later released on bail and given permission by the government of Hong Kong to set sail.

Many passengers joined the ship in Shanghai on April 8 and the ship arrived in Yokohama on April 14. It left Yokohama on May 3 with its full complement of 376 passengers and arrived in Vancouver on May 23 after several months at sea. This is a quote from the time:

This ship belongs to the whole of India, this is a symbol of the honour of India and if this was detained, there would be mutiny in the armies.

That was what one of the passengers told one of the British officers who greeted them in Vancouver.

Balwant Singh, the head priest of the Gurdwara in Vancouver, met the ship and became one of three delegates sent to London and India to represent the case of the Indians in Canada.

When the ship arrived in Canadian waters, it had not been allowed to dock. The Conservative premier of British Columbia, Richard McBride, gave a categorical statement that the passengers would not be allowed to disembark.

A shore committee was formed and protest meetings were held in Canada and the United States. At one, held in the Dominion Hall in Vancouver, it was resolved that if the passengers were not allowed to get off, Indo-Canadians would follow them back to India. The implications would be that there would be a rebellion if that were to occur.

The shore committee raised over $22,000. One can imagine that amount of money in that era as an installment for chartering such a ship. It also launched a test case to test the legality in the name of Munshi Singh, one of the passengers.

On July 7, the full bench of the Supreme Court of Canada gave a unanimous judgment, and we have heard that in the House from the Conservative speaker earlier, that under the new orders in council it had no authority to interfere with the decisions of the department of immigration and colonization.

The Japanese captain then was relieved of his duty by the angry passengers, but the Canadian government ordered a tug, the Sea Lion, to push the ship out to sea. On July 19, the angry passengers fought back with the only weapons they had. They were not armed. The quote from the The Sun in Vancouver read:

Howling masses of Hindus showered policemen with lumps of coal and bricks...it was like standing underneath a coal chute.

The government also mobilized the HMCS Rainbow, a former Royal Navy ship under the command of Commander Hose, with troops from the Royal Irish Fusiliers, 72nd Highlanders. In the end, only 24 passengers were admitted to Canada since the ship had violated the exclusion laws and the remaining passengers did not have the required $200 funds. As we know, that was an exorbitant amount of money in that day.

The ship turned around and departed for Asia. When it arrived in Asia, in Calcutta, on September 26, it was met by a British gunboat and as we heard before, it was diverted to Budge Budge, where the British intended to put the group on a train to Punjab. The passengers did not wish to go and when they proceeded to explain that, a riot broke out, and some 20 people were killed.

Today, the lessons from this dark period of racism seem to be lost on the current government. Its move to control immigration, as embedded in Bill C-50, I feel, has the same hidden exclusion as at the turn of the century.

We hear the Liberals assail this bill as being discriminatory and having the hidden agenda of exclusion, but will they defeat it? We hear the rhetoric. We will wait to see the vote and once and for all who stands up for new Canadians and their families in this country.

As for Motion No. 469, members of my party and I are proud to stand in support of this motion, as we will stand and oppose Bill C-50 when it comes before us.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-50 rips the heart out of Canada's immigration system by cabinet orders exercised in secret. Bill C-10 is the ideological censorship of film and video productions by cabinet orders imposed in secret. Now there is Bill C-46, a sneak attack on the democratic rights of farmers to control the Wheat Board, again by cabinet orders imposed in secret.

Why does the government, which ran on accountability, have so much dirty work being done in secret?

Immigration

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given Canadians' negative reaction to the Conservative government's proposed immigration reform, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I wish to request an emergency debate on the issue of immigration, specifically the immediate threat posed to Canada's global reputation as a nation that encourages immigration and welcomes immigrants.

This situation is critical. The Conservative government plans to reduce the backlog of visa applications by restricting the number and types of applications accepted. The measures in Bill C-50 would reduce the number of new immigration applications that the federal government processes yearly.

The amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that were tabled on Friday, March 14 were introduced in a manner that limits the study and examination of the proposed package.

While the inclusion and important changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Budget Implementation Act may be politically expedient for the Conservative government, it does a disservice to Canadians who want Parliament to deal with the issue of immigration in a serious and thorough manner.

Canadians understand the challenges that our country faces. An aging population, a declining birth rate and skills shortages in a globally competitive labour market all point to the need for intelligent analysis and not politically motivated manoeuvring and posturing. If Parliament is to work effectively for all Canadians, we must have a full and honest debate on this critical issue.

The bill puts too much discretionary power into the hands of a minister by allowing instructions to be issued as to the types of applications that are processed, the establishment of categories of application and the number of applications or requests accepted on a yearly basis. It should not be allowed for these controversial provisions to be forced through Parliament as a budgetary measure and stifle debate on the importance of immigration to this country's labour market needs and nation building.

Over the past two years under the Conservative Party's administration, 36,000 fewer landed immigrants have been allowed into Canada. We cannot afford to shut the door on immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, I trust you will give this request due consideration and I hope a positive response.