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, Conservative, 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.

[Sidney Frank, Immigration Program Manager, New Delhi, India, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me to speak. My name is Sidney Frank, and I am the program manager of the New Delhi visa office and area director for South Asia.

I would like to provide a short overview, emphasizing topics that I understand are of most interest to the committee.

New Delhi is Canada's largest visa office, with over 150 staff. We are responsible for delivery of the immigration program in India, Nepal and Bhutan. A satellite office in Chandigarh processes temporary residence applications, primarily from the states of Punjab and Haryana.

We operate a network of visa application centres in nine major Indian cities and in Nepal to make the application process more convenient for private visitors, tourists, business travellers, students and temporary workers.

I am certain that you are aware that in spite of the current worldwide economic downturn, India's economy continues to grow rapidly. Consequently, our visitor, study permit, and work permit programs have grown very rapidly in the past decade. They have roughly tripled in size. This pattern continued in 2010, with an increase of about 20% over 2009 volumes.

New Delhi assessed over 96,000 temporary resident applications in 2010, and it receives over 1,500 passports on peak days. Nevertheless, we are able to maintain our processing standards on all temporary resident business lines at all times.

A significant portion of the Indian population has not benefited from economic growth. As a result, strong push factors for migration remain, and fraud and misrepresentation are widespread. In spite of high levels of fraud, roughly 75% of our temporary resident visa applications are approved.

We also have several innovative programs through which we work closely with stakeholders to facilitate documentation for low-risk travellers. For example, our business express program, in cooperation with about 55 large and reliable firms that do regular business in Canada, provides simplified documentation and 24- to 48-hour processing. It has an approval rate of over 98%.

Our student partners program, inaugurated in 2009, and now with 43 participating community colleges, has succeeded in improving approval rates and in quadrupling application volumes while managing risk through stricter documentation and feedback on actual attendance.

In each of our temporary resident business lines, processing times are falling. For example, 92% of all visitor visa applications are finalized within one week, and a growing number are done within two days.

India has been Canada's second-largest source of permanent residents in recent years. New Delhi issued over 25,000 permanent resident visas last year.

New Delhi has by far Canada's largest number of family class program applicants and also the largest inventory of economic category applications. They issue about 20% of the global family class visas each year.

In our priority category--spouses and dependent children--we finalize 80% of cases within six months. The median is three months. Although marriages of convenience are common, the large majority of marriages are genuine. About 82% are normally approved.

In the parents and grandparents category, output is managed globally. We process a sufficient number of cases each year to meet the objective assigned to the office. Current processing time at the visa office is 31 months, but this does not include sponsorship processing time at the case processing centre in Mississauga.

For sponsored parents and grandparents, the primary difficulty relates to the misrepresentation of dependent children. Many families provide fraudulent documentation showing that children are still full-time students, or they add unrelated children to their applications. As applicants are generally elderly, these cases are also frequently delayed by complex medical conditions.

New Delhi had the largest inventory of skilled worker cases submitted prior to the ministerial instructions pursuant to Bill C-50. In 2008-09 significant progress was made in reducing the pre-2008 inventory of over 140,000 persons to the 119,500 persons there are today, which is a decrease of 15%. The processing time for these cases continues to lengthen. It was 79 months in 2010.

Due to the large number of new cases submitted under ministerial instructions, we processed few old inventory cases in 2010. At the present time we are devoting all available resources to the quick processing of new cases received under the second and third set of ministerial instructions. In 2010 we finalized 80% of all these cases within 10 months.

New Delhi issued over 11,900 skilled worker visas in 2010, which was an increase from about 8,400 in 2009.

I would also note that New Delhi is quickly becoming one of the major source countries for provincial nominee programs. This program was small in India until recently, but tripled in size between 2008 and 2010.

The federal investor program was very small in Delhi in the past, with few applications prior to 2007. Intake has increased significantly in the past two years. In 2010 we finalized 80% of cases within 28 months.

I wish to assure you that the team in India is committed to the expeditious processing of all types of cases and is working hard to advance Canada's interests in India.

I also would be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.

Thank you.

[Nigel Thomson]

It's a huge issue, obviously, in generating the backlogs we face today. Bill C-50 was again very innovative. The minister took a bold step to give himself some control over the ability to accept applications. But that, moving forward, is only addressing essentially economic immigration categories; it hasn't addressed the family class, particularly parental sponsorships.

I think we have a basic conflict, Mr. Weston, between the basic principles of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which embodies and enshrines family reunification as a principle we all adhere to, and the concept of what family reunification really means in the 21st century. That's something that needs to be the subject of a frank, open, and realistic conversation with Canadians.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

I will try to be quicker than that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

My thanks to all the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is a pleasure for me to appear before the committee for the first time since this Parliament began its work.

I would like to congratulate all the members of the committee on the activities they are undertaking. I would particularly like to thank the committee for choosing the backlog in our immigration system as its first study topic. This is quite a serious problem that we must all work together to resolve.

I am pleased to be here with some senior officials of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We have our Deputy Minister, Mr. Neil Yates, our Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Mr. Linklater and our Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Ms. Deschênes.

Mr. Chair, allow me to say that, as minister, I am very fortunate that the officials at all levels of the department are so capable and dedicated.

Mr. Chair, I would like to provide you with a presentation showing the principal elements of the problem of the backlog in our immigration system. I must say at the outset that the backlog problem is partly a reflection of the fact that Canada is the world's most desirable destination.

So I can tell you that the problem we have with inventories.... The technical term in the ministry is inventories; the common English is backlogs. Whatever we call them, they are partly a reflection of the fact that Canada is, I believe, the most desirable destination in the world. In fact, last year Ipsos Reid did a global poll, from which they estimated that at least two billion people around the world would like to emigrate to Canada right now. This includes 77% in China, 71% in Mexico, 68% in India, etc. They didn't actually survey every country of the world.

This is a reflection of the good problem we have, that Canada is seen as such a land of opportunity, prosperity, and democracy. This of course is why we must have a managed immigration system. The objective of that managed immigration system is to attract and select those people to Canada who will make the maximum economic contribution to our country, in part. It is in part to deal with the challenge of our shrinking labour force in the future because of our aging population. It's in part to try to counteract that aging demographic, so we have more people working and paying taxes, contributing to our country and economy and its prosperity in the future. Of course, as the country that now receives the highest per capita number of resettled refugees in the world, we also seek through our immigration programs to discharge our humanitarian obligations.

There's that huge, almost infinite, supply, if you will, of people who are what we would call in immigration policy a huge push factor from all around the world. How do we do in terms of receiving people? On slide 2 we can see that Canada has very high levels of immigration. In fact, over the course of the past five years our government has received the highest sustained level of immigration--that is to say, of permanent residents, not just temporary residents--of any government in Canadian history, with an average of 254,000 admissions. Admissions is a term that used to be called landings, but that basically means when someone comes here and has the right to stay permanently to work and to live in Canada. That compares to the previous 12 years, when the average was 222,000.

To put it in relative global terms, this represents about 0.8% of our population that we add on average per year. That is the highest per capita level of immigration in the developed world. I say the developed world because many third world or developing countries don't really have control of borders or managed immigration systems, so they're not a fair comparator. The only country that comes close to our levels right now would be New Zealand.

During and since the recent global economic downturn, many other countries actually cut their immigration levels. I'll give you one example. The United Kingdom has a population about twice our size, and they are right now restricting immigration to about 100,000 a year, when our average intake is a notch over a quarter of a million a year, so three to four times more on a per capita basis. That just gives you one point of comparison.

The backlog problem facing us is quite simple, in a way. Backlogs are a function of very simple mathematics.

Backlogs are a function of very simple, basic math. Here is the calculation. When you get more applications for immigration than you're able to admit, you end up with a backlog. When total applications exceed total admissions, you get a backlog. When that happens year after year after year, the backlog grows. As the backlog grows, of course so do processing times. Even though the time it takes our ministry to process a particular application may shrink through operational efficiency, the total time it takes someone to go from the point of application to the point of admission gets longer. This is not because of operational inefficiencies but because they're simply waiting in a growing queue.

The inverse mathematical formula is when the total number of admissions exceeds the total number of applications, backlogs shrink and processing times speed up.

I invite you to remember this basic mathematical formula through today's hearing and during all of your studies. There are a lot of interesting issues to be discussed, but at the end of the day it's a very simple mathematical problem.

Let's see how this works out in any given year. I'll just take, for example, 2008, which is the last year for which we have full stats, and it's an average year in terms of numbers for the past several years.

So, on page 5, we can see

--and I hope you see that we have these video screens--that we established an operational target for 2008 for admissions in the range of a quarter of a million, which is about average for the past several years. We assessed those applications and we found that about a quarter of a million met our criteria and could come to Canada, and about another 100,000 applications were rejected. But here's the problem. We received about 450,000 applications. That is to say that the total number of applications that we received exceeded the total number that we were able to consider that year by about 100,000. This is the problem we've had year after year.

Another way we could look at this is to think if we were to actually try to process everyone who would like to make an application, based on the Ipsos Reid poll, that would be over two billion people. I just throw that in there just to give us a sense of perspective about how much supply there is versus our capability to accommodate that demand to come to Canada.

As another way of looking at this, a metaphor I often use is to look at how a transport company would sell tickets, because it's a good way of considering the problem of backlogs.

This is essentially what happened. The problem really picked up momentum following the adoption of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by the previous government in 2001, because that act created a legal obligation on my department, on the government, to process all new applications to a final decision, regardless of how many people we plan to admit or practically could admit. So there was, frankly, I would say, an irresponsible policy decision that threw completely out of alignment the number of incoming applications with an obligation to process them versus the capacity to admit people and settle them in Canada. That is one of the primary reasons we've seen this problem.

So one way of explaining this metaphorically would be to say that over the past decade or so the Government of Canada was on an annual average basis selling 400,000 or more tickets on the plane to Canada to that market of two billion people who would like to buy those tickets. Yet even though we've been maintaining our highest average levels of immigration in our history, the highest averages in the developed world, unprecedented levels of immigration to a developed country, notwithstanding that, we've been admitting about, on average, a quarter of a million people. It was a little less than that under the previous government, a little more than that under the current government.

So every year selling 400,000-plus tickets, admitting, let's say for sake of argument, a quarter of a million people, what does that mean? It means 150,000 customers, if you will, who bought their tickets to Canada, who paid their fees, and those fees went into our general revenue fund and we cashed those cheques. And they end up at the airport, saying, “What happened? You oversold the plane by 35% and we're left sitting here.” We say, “Yes, sorry about that”. Next year we come back and we sell another 400,000 tickets. We say there are a quarter of a million spots on the plane to Canada and then that crowd at the airport grows to 300,000 the next year. Then the third year we do it again. The next thing you know there's a growing number; in fact, there are 450,000 in the backlog. Year after year, that's how you end up with a backlog of over a million people.

Here I will admit that our government did not act quickly enough to reverse the policy mistake of our predecessors to align the number of applications with a capacity to accept newcomers to Canada. This is not the fault of one government. We must accept some of the responsibility for not having acted more quickly to better align applications with admissions. This is why we've now ended up with a total backlog in all programs of just over a million. In fact, I think it has just gone back down below that.

Let's look at this over time, in the past decade. On slide 8 you'll see that in 2001 the backlog was just under 700,000. But here's the interesting thing. The bottom line shows the immigration target. This is what we call our operational target. And you'll see that it's gone up over the course of the past decade to about a quarter of a million a year.

The red line above it shows the number of applications received, and as you can see, the number of applications received over the past several years is consistently over 400,000. That means there is a consistent, perpetual surplus of applications over admissions. And because of the basic math formula I talked about, that's why you see the growing backlog.

The backlog, incidentally, was at about 150,000 when our government came to office in 2006. The good news is that in some of the programs we've begun reducing the backlog, and I'll address that in a moment.

What are the possible solutions? Well, they really boil down to two very simple possible solutions. One would be a massive increase in the level of immigration to Canada, by orders of magnitude. So if we wanted to just maintain what we would call a working inventory, or a just-in-time immigration system, without limiting the number of new applications, then we would have to increase overall immigration levels to over 400,000 a year. That's a massive increase, an increase by orders of magnitude.

Or we could limit new applications, find ways to control incoming applications or at least our obligation to process new applications. Or we could do a combination of both.

Let me just say that there are some people suggesting that we actually open up whole new huge avenues of immigration to Canada. For example, I believe my friend Mr. Davies suggested recently that we find a pathway to permanent residency for all temporary foreign workers. Excluding those who already have a pathway to permanent residency, that would mean adding about 140,000 additional people to the immigration queue.

So if we want to prevent the further growth of backlogs merely by increasing admissions, we'd have to increase admissions to over 400,000. If we then wanted to add new PR programs, as Mr. Davies has suggested for temporary foreign workers, we'd have to increase it by about another 140,000, and that would bring us up to well over half a million permanent resident landings per year to Canada. And a valid argument could be made for that. I don't think there are many Canadians who support that, but if that's where people want to go and if that's where parliamentarians or this committee want to go, I invite you to be explicit about wanting to invite over half a million immigrants, essentially more than doubling immigration levels to Canada. Let Canadians participate in that debate.

I have a little dynamic video here and I have a mad scientist here who is going to show what happens when you try to do this. Some have said we should just increase processing resources for the department. Give Claudette more money to hire more visa officers around the world so they can make these decisions faster. And that's one of the suggestions that's come from the opposition, faster processing. Well, here you can see what happens when you're trying to take the demand—that is to say, the number of applications we get—and put it through a funnel, so it goes slowly. The number of people coming, the volume that is received, comes through that funnel, but you see it goes up to the number of people we can accept, which is about a quarter of a million.

Let's say that we hire a whole bunch more visa officers and process the applications faster. Well, guess what. You end up with just the same number of people admitted to Canada. So that's not a solution. Let me put it this way. Backlogs are not a function of a scarcity of operational resources in the department. Yes, our department could always function more efficiently, and we are doing that. In fact, I'll get into this perhaps in questions and answers. Through our implementation of, for example, our global case management system—which is a new worldwide electronic IT platform—together with other aspects of modernization, we are seeing our whole system operate more efficiently. But at the end of the day, if there's not an alignment between the number of new applications and the number of admissions, it doesn't matter how quickly you can process them. You could hit your targets in the first quarter of the year, and if the surplus of applications over admissions ends up waiting in the airport lounge, so what?

I'm someone who believes we should listen to Canadians on immigration.

I do not want to see here the problems that we see in Europe, for example, where immigration policies do not reflect the will of the public. In Canada, fortunately, people are on the whole in favour of immigration and diversity.

I want to keep our minds open in that way, Mr. Chair, but I am conscious of the fact that about 80% of Canadians tell us that immigration levels must be frozen at present levels or reduced.

Consistently, only about 10% of Canadians indicate that immigration levels are too low. About eight out of ten Canadians are saying that they're too high or high enough. There was a study that came out this week that points out that immigrants to Canada are those who are least likely to support increased immigration levels, and that's consistent in the polling.

Let's look at how we might fix the problem. In 2008 we had to overcome opposition, but we managed to pass Bill C-50, which gave the minister the capacity to limit the number of incoming applications. This power we have applied to the federal skilled worker backlog—that is, the point system. Had we not taken those actions, the federal skilled worker backlog would now be over a million. But as a result of limiting those applications to 10,000 a year, we are at 475,000 overall, so we've had a significant reduction.

We've applied the same logic to the investor immigrant program, and we are doing the same thing with the privately sponsored refugee program. But there's one program where we have seen real problems with backlogs and we've not applied that logic—parents and grandparents. The backlog when our government came to office was 108,000; it's now 160,000. Last year we received almost 38,000 applications for the program. On average, over the course of the past decade, we've been admitting about 18,000 people. Just to freeze the backlog would require that we double the number of parents and grandparents coming to about 38,000 a year, which would be moving that up from about 6% to maybe 14% of total immigration to Canada. That would mean cutting economic immigration. Increasing admissions to that program, even doubling them, will not eliminate or even significantly reduce the backlog in the program. We could not achieve this even if we cut applications in half.

My hope, my vision, is that by using some common sense, we can in the next few years arrive at a just-in-time immigration program where applications received for our various programs are processed in the same year, and people are admitted without having to wait longer than a year. I hope that we can have a constructive debate about how to get to that just-in-time immigration system.

Merci beaucoup.

[Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure for us to be here today, to give you an overview of our operations and provide some background on our activities and policies at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Our presentation contains 12 or so slides and will take 30 to 40 minutes.

There is a lot of material here, so we will make sure we leave time for questions at the end.

Before we go into the detail of the slide presentation—and I apologize that it was a table drop—let me say that I think it will be useful reference material for committee members as we see a lot of you over the course of the next few months, and it will help situate some of the challenges and opportunities the department has.

On the opening slide we have the historical overview of immigration levels to Canada. These are the permanent admissions to Canada for the last 100 years or more, looking at some of the trends we have seen.

The spikes on the far left-hand side are really about immigration to western Canada in the early part of the last century. The big dip is World War II and the depression. Following that are a couple of spikes, notably post-war, but there is the Hungarian uprising—that one spike in the middle of the page—the Czech uprising further on, and the Indo-Chinese movement in the early seventies. More recently, since the early part of this century, we have the highest level of sustained immigration to Canada historically, whereby we have welcomed traditionally between 225,000 to 250,000, and now between 250,000 and 265,000 immigrants to Canada every year.

There are three broad streams of permanent immigration to Canada. The first is the economic movement, with a number of subclasses, including federal and provincial programming. There is family reunification—spouses, dependent children, partners, as well as parents and grandparents. Finally, there is the class of refugees and protected persons.

Given the various streams and subcomponents within these three broad categories, setting a levels plan is a challenge for the minister as he tables his report every year before November 1, in that we need to find the right balance between the various priorities that many stakeholders and other groups have and the government's priorities for immigration—more recently, ensuring that our economic needs are supported through permanent migration as well as temporary migration.

I think as well it's interesting to note that there is a considerable temporary movement to Canada. This includes temporary foreign workers, international students, and also individuals who seek admission as simple tourists or business visitors, many of whom require a visa from Canada. This requires our officers overseas to make more than a million decisions every year. My colleague, Ms. Edlund, will get into that a little later on.

One of the key elements, which I would reinforce this morning, is that in setting the levels plan—and we hear media reports or other commentary about caps on certain parts of the program—it's important to understand that what we're talking about is providing a levels plan that balances the various components I've mentioned, and that we are quite limited, in any given year, in the number of immigrants we can bring in. Striking the right balance is our challenge. Effectively, all streams within the levels plan have certain limits, as we look at meeting the trade-offs and the balances across streams.

More generally, historically the program has not had intake controls. We introduced some in 2008 with C-50 that have proven to be quite effective. But as you can imagine, without intake controls, backlogs accumulate, as the pipe is only so big. If we have a levels plan of 240,000 to 265,000 admissions in any given year and applications far outstrip that number, backlogs are inevitable and then lead to processing time delays and concerns, and likely to representations to your offices.

With that, perhaps we can get into the substance of the presentation. I'll ask Dawn to take you through slide 2, which is an overview of our operations.

[Jim Versteegh]

I'll begin with a short overview of what this office does.

Hong Kong is a full-processing mission responsible for the delivery of the immigration program in Hong Kong and Macau, and we share responsibility with Beijing for the immigration program in China. Family class applicants from the four southern provinces of China are processed here in Hong Kong, in part because of Hong Kong's Cantonese language capacity. All other immigration applicants in China have the option of applying either in Beijing or here in Hong Kong. Since the opening of the visa application centres in China in July 2008, People's Republic of China residents rarely apply here for temporary resident visas. There remains, however, a large Hong Kong-based temporary worker and student movement out of the office in Hong Kong.

The immigration section in Hong Kong consists of 10 Canada-based officers and 62 locally engaged staff, including seven designated immigration officers. Two of the CBO positions are migration integrity officers filling CBSA positions here. Hong Kong works with the regional medical officer and the FCO based in Beijing and the RCMP liaison officer here in Hong Kong. The highest production office of the Service de l'immigration du Québec is also located here in Hong Kong in the same office tower, just below us. That office has regional responsibility for all of Asia.

The Hong Kong visa office issued just over 16,000 immigrant visas in 2010, and we expect to issue a similar number in 2011. Almost all visas issued by this office are to people resident in mainland China, with over 80% being in the economic categories. Output, however, continues to be lower than intake. As a result, the inventory of cases in Hong Kong has grown from about 22,000 early in 2008 to over 34,000 today. That represents about 95,000 people. The largest component of our inventory is federal investor applications, of which we have about 16,000 cases and over 50,000 people. The next largest part of our backlog is pre-Bill C-50 skilled worker files; we have over 10,000, or about 24,000 people, with the oldest cases dating back to 2006. We issued about 1,500 visas to Bill C-50 skilled workers in 2010.

Hong Kong has a large temporary worker population originating from many source countries in the region, such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal, and China. The majority work in the domestic sector and in construction. Though Hong Kong relies heavily on foreign workers, it remains difficult to obtain permanent resident status here, including for people from the People's Republic of China. As a consequence, accepting a temporary work contract here in Hong Kong is seen by some, particularly domestic workers, as a stepping stone for a subsequent move to Canada. Hong Kong processed over 3,600 temporary work permit applications in 2010, mostly to LCP applicants, and our refusal rate was about 12%. The number of applications for temporary work permits received in 2010 was comparable to that of the previous year. Fifty per cent of temporary work permit cases were processed in about two months.

Counteracting fraudulent activity is a major preoccupation here in Hong Kong and is addressed by way of a multi-faceted anti-fraud and quality assurance strategy. An experienced case analysis unit that is skilled in document verification works closely with an anti-fraud unit that is part of our migration integrity unit. Site visits are also carried out on a regular but exceptional basis by the migration integrity officers stationed in Guangzhou and Shanghai.

A major focus of our anti-fraud activities has been spousal applications; in this area, marriages of convenience have been found to be endemic. The family class priority processing timeframes incorporate the assumption that 80% of such cases are non-problematic; in Hong Kong, the reverse is true. We have serious fraud concerns for 60% of our spousal movement and have some concerns for another 20%.

Although in most countries FC1 interviews can be waived, that is not the case in Hong Kong. About half of our spousal applicants are interviewed in order to give them an opportunity to address our concerns in person. Of those seen at interview in 2010, 70% were refused because of confirmed or highly suspected marriage fraud. The information and evidence collected suggest strongly that the movement is organized and very lucrative for the organizers. Our high refusal rate has resulted in a decrease in new applications received in that category in the past two years, as those intent on abusing our system are now less likely to apply. As a consequence, our refusal rate has started to go down; it down from 57% in 2009 to 47% in 2010. Constant vigilance, however, is required to curb abuse.

Priority processing has been maintained for genuine spousal cases. We have instituted measures such as tracking case processing at the front end stages, doing upfront background checks, increasing our interview schedule, and requesting the passport early on in the process to meet the new service standards, but we're not there yet. The extra time required to investigate many of our most problematic cases adds to our average processing times, but with the ratio of illegitimate cases decreasing, we are focusing on bringing down overall processing times in the next months.

The changes to the federal immigrant investor program that took effect on December 1, 2010, served to moderate the intake of new applications. At the time of the moratorium on investor applications in June 2010, we had already received about 9,000 such applications that year. Following the reopening of the program in December and the doubling of the personal net worth and investment requirements, the number of new applications received dropped to a more manageable 300 per month. Active recruiting for business immigrants by consultants continues to take place in the PRC, and we do not discount the possibility of renewed growth in our intake. The visa office in Hong Kong processed about half of Canada's 2010 global target of federal investor cases and will do so again in 2011.

New applications, however, still outnumber finalized ones. As a result, a backlog of new federal investor files is already being created, while there is little reduction in the inventory of old files. We are currently processing applications received in mid-2008 in that category. The majority of Quebec and provincial nominee cases processed in Hong Kong are also in the investor categories.

I'll stop there, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

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.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly the experience of Mr. Shory is not unique. The regrettable thing is that there are so many foreign-trained professionals, like Mr. Shory, who never do get accredited in their chosen professions. I commend Mr. Shory for overcoming the obstacles and persevering and for being called to the bar in Canada. It is a great example for many others who feel frustrated and give up.

As the member knows, Mr. Chairman, this is a problem that's vexed successive federal governments, because at the end of the day, labour market regulation is not a federal responsibility. However, we have seen, I believe, under this government, a growing federal leadership role in accelerating and creating more transparent pathways to foreign credential recognition in the provinces. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development has a robust foreign credential recognition program, which, among other things, provides support to local organizations that assist individuals in making their applications and in dealing with the more than 400 credentialling, recognition, and licensing bodies across the country. There are more than 40 in each province.

In the 2006 budget we created the Foreign Credentials Referral Office, which is working to provide information on the process for immigrants before they land in Canada so they can get the ball rolling before their arrival and can get a head start. Most importantly, at the January first ministers meeting here in Ottawa, the Prime Minister led his provincial and territorial colleagues to agree to the creation of a pan-Canadian framework for foreign credential recognition. The target date for an initial report is September of this year. Our budget put a $50 million investment into putting the meat on the bones of that pan-Canadian policy framework for credential recognition. Twenty-five million dollars of that $50 million is being invested through my ministry. We are focusing on the priority occupations included in the ministerial instructions under the Bill C-50 amendments to work with the relevant professional agencies in Canada.

The bottom line is that in the framework of credential recognition, a necessary precursor is labour market mobility within Canada. Part of the problem is that there are 10 to 13 different regimes in each single profession. It's ridiculous that you can go from Poland to Portugal in Europe as a medical doctor and be recognized, but you can't go from Manitoba to Saskatchewan. We need to solve that problem, which the provinces and the federal government are working on. That itself will help create a simpler, more transparent pathway to recognition.

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

Fine.

If I may, my intention was not for you to justify the decision, but rather to establish that it was made at your level—meaning that the government made the decision and that it was not on the recommendation of the two competent bodies.

When Bill C-50 was passed and received royal assent in June 2008, a decision was made to set up a $2 billion fund. Can you tell me where that $2 billion came from?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Finley.

Ms. Finley, last year, the House passed Bill C-50, and it received royal assent on June 18, 2008.

That royal assent authorized the establishment of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was a new organization that was supposed to be able to set up a separate employment insurance fund.

Furthermore, the act confirmed that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission was being maintained. Its role is to make recommendations on the EI program, and the board's role is to manage the premiums.

In the last budget, which was sanctioned and approved by the Liberals, you froze the EI premium rate at its lowest level since 1982; you also decided which EI measures would be enhanced.

Two years ago, representatives of the organizations spoke up and said that the two establishments, especially the board, would only serve to ensure that the Conservatives retained control over the fund. Are we to understand that those concerns are founded?

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 Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

From a finance point of view, what we tried to do was have one session dedicated to navigable waters. Obviously members are free to substitute in or out. It is my understanding that this is how it was handled in the last session of Parliament with respect to the immigration provisions of Bill C-50.

Monsieur Carrier.

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

Did we forget Bill C-50 or Bill C-17?

(Motion negatived)

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, Liberal, 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

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

Thank you.

As you know, last week the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-50, and in that bill there are some significant changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. One of the concerns I have is that in these changes we may be getting away from what is an important part of our policy, and that is attending to humanitarian and compassionate grounds when looking at people who have come here as refugees. I'm wondering what your response is.

Is there a danger that in changing the law and looking at groups instead of looking at individual cases, we have forgotten too much what refugees coming to Canada may have experienced?

[Chantal Desloges]

Thank you.

I also agree with the other recommendations that are set out in the One Free World International brief. One of them that I'll mention specifically is that I think the board needs to use some discretion when they're deciding which board members and which interpreters they're going to use in different refugee cases, because what often ends up happening is that you get an interpreter or a board members who is from the ethnic or religious group that persecuted the claimant in the first place. While I would never suggest there is an actual bias on the part of these people, it's the perception to the claimant. If you can imagine that you've been tortured in your country by a person of a specific religious or ethnic group, and then you show up in court on the day of your hearing and the person who is staring you down is actually a member of that group, it's a very serious problem. It really inhibits people from being able to remember details accurately and to be comfortable enough to tell their story.

I would also advocate that the board rely increasingly on using real experts in the determination of religious claims. At the refugee board, they rely heavily on general human rights documents, such as briefs prepared by organizations like Amnesty International or the United States Department of State. While those can be interesting background information, there is a strong argument that almost any organization that writes these briefs tends to have their own inherent biases, particularly the United States Department of State, which obviously is a political organ of the United States. When they write their international human rights reports, they tend to be harder on the people who are not on their list of political favourites at that moment and easier on the countries they want to foster good relationships with. I've noticed that particularly with the country of Egypt.

Now, leaving the refugee board, I also want to make some comments on refugee determination that occurs outside Canada at our Canadian embassies. I do a lot of these types of cases, that is, for refugees who are outside Canada and are applying to our embassies for protection to be able to come here.

I am regularly shocked by the apparent complete lack of understanding of refugee law exhibited by a lot of visa officers. They appear not to understand even the most basic legal tenets of our refugee system—which I find really, really appalling. What ends up happening is that the people who apply for refugee status outside Canada don't get half of the kind of good assessment that they would get if they were inside Canada. Why in the world should a person who is persecuted face the luck of the draw? Whether they're actually able to make it to our border and make a claim, they should have the same treatment.

Let me just give you a couple of examples of real-life situations that I've seen at our embassies. I saw an Iraqi Christian family who was refused on credibility grounds because the officer could not believe that the nasty terrorist would write a death threat on flowered paper. I'm not joking—I don't have to make this up. Another family was rejected because even though all of the other Christians in Iraq were being exterminated, they were told, “Nothing has actually happened to you yet.”

These are mistakes of the most juvenile order, something that you would never get away with at the board in Canada, and which the court would easily overturn. However, a lot of these people don't have the resources to litigate their cases in the court.

There was a time a couple of years ago when there was such an enormous disparity between the acceptance of Iraqi Christian cases inside Canada, compared with outside Canada, that a committee of concerned Iraqi Christians was convened around this issue. It asked for a meeting with the minister, which did happen in March.

Numerous recommendations were made by the Iraqi Christian committee to the Minister of Immigration. One, they wanted some kind of recognition that the Christians of Iraq are a particularly vulnerable subgroup, and there was a lot of evidence brought to bear to prove that this is actually the case. I should also note that the countries of France and Germany have made public statements to this effect lately, just within the past few months.

A second recommendation was to increase the number of Iraqi Christian refugees who are admitted, because the government has what they call “targets”, which are actually more like quotas for the numbers of people from various regions they can accept. We felt the target was too low.

Third, we wanted them to allow people who had previously been refused to reopen their cases and to have them get a second look.

Fourth, again, was the need to deal with the problem of using interpreters who are from the persecuting group, whether ethnically or religiously.

I am very happy to say that the minister, within several weeks of the meeting, did make an announcement that she was increasing the number of refugees who would be admitted from Iraq, but she failed to implement any of the other recommendations of the committee, including making specific provisions for the Iraqi Christian minority. Incidentally, she didn't increase overall the number of refugees. All she did was to subtract from the Middle East quota and allocate more of those positions to Iraqis, which, in my opinion, is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It doesn't really solve the overall problem.

The minister's press secretary was later consulted about this problem, and he said there was no plan to recognize any specific religious group in Iraq as being particularly vulnerable and that Canada would take its direction on the matter from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This is despite all the evidence that was submitted about this minority.

Honourable committee members, the last time I checked, the UNHCR is not the democratically elected Government of Canada. We need to make our own decisions and our own policies when it comes to refugee protection. Germany and France are taking the lead on this issue. Why it is that we are so afraid to say what is actually a fact, that the Iraqi Christians are more at risk than any other group existing inside Iraq? Why are we afraid to say this? It's not right.

Another problem for the Iraqi Christian cases, which most of you probably wouldn't know about, but which I believe is going to get some media attention soon, is the subgroup of Iraqi Christians who are of Armenian ethnicity—of which there are quite a few in Iraq. There is a new trend at our Canadian embassy in Damascus to reject Armenian cases and to tell those people, who are clearly qualified for refugee status here and have been sponsored: “No. Why do you need to come to Canada? Why don't you apply for status in Armenia?” It's a country they have never been to, whose language they don't speak, and from which they don't know anyone. It's something like telling Jews from the former U.S.S.R.: “Well, why do you need to come to Canada? Why should you be a refugee here? You could just apply to and go to Israel.” It absolutely makes no sense as a logical point.

My last point is extremely important and I think extremely timely right now. There are many members of religious minorities abroad who are being persecuted, but for a variety of different technical legal reasons, they don't fit within the definition of a refugee and they don't fit with any other recognized immigration program. These people need to have access to an alternative method of applying for status in Canada, and one of the most important ways they currently can do that is by requesting humanitarian and compassionate consideration of their cases. Basically what they are saying is, look, I know I don't qualify under any particular program, but this is my sympathetic situation and I want you to at least consider it and let me know whether you could consider making an exception for me.

However, as you all know, Bill C-50 was voted on last week, and one of the powers the minister has given herself is to have increased discretion over the use of humanitarian and compassionate discretion abroad at our visa posts for overseas humanitarian cases, which is exactly what I'm talking about now. Nobody knows how the minister intends to use this power, but it's obviously an issue of very great concern for people in this type of situation.

Let me give you two concrete examples of people who would be affected if this provision were changed. First of all, this is a real case of an Iraqi Christian family, all of whom are medical doctors, living here in Canada and doing very well. They sponsored their parents, who are living in Iraq at the present time. Fine, they qualified to sponsor them; there's no issue there. The problem is that they have an elderly aunt who has lived with them since they were born, who never got married and never had any children of her own. She's an old woman, a Christian, who will be left completely alone if the rest of the family comes to Canada. Her only option is to ask for humanitarian and compassionate discretion--and thankfully, she's recently been approved. But if this provision of the act is tampered with in any way, I fear that someone in her situation might not be accepted in the coming times.

Another example I have is a young Catholic lady who is living in Sri Lanka and is of Tamil ethnicity. Because of her religion and her ethnicity, she is suffering serious persecution right now. She has a friend in Canada who is willing to provide for her. There is no immigration program under which she can qualify, because you cannot be a refugee while you're still living inside your own country. That's part of the refugee definition. Again, the only option for her is humanitarian and compassionate consideration.

In my view, the minister should be urged not to affect the scope of discretion in these kinds of cases.

Those are my submissions, honourable members. I thank you for your time. I'd be happy to field questions at the end.

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?

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at third reading stage of Bill C-50.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-50. I will dedicate most of my comments today to addressing the issue of the so-called immigration reforms or changes that the Conservative government is proposing within the bill.

First we need to ask ourselves a question. Why are the Conservatives introducing immigration changes or amendments to the immigration act within a budget? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is not a budgetary matter. This is a policy matter that should have been introduced as a separate bill where the policies could have been discussed extensively, where the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration could have completed its study and examination of those proposals and offered its opinion, and then it could have been voted upon.

However, the Conservatives have chosen, under the cloak of $20 million, to introduce it within the budget bill. Many Canadians are asking why immigration changes have been introduced through the budget. That is a very good question that needs a real and honest answer.

The fact is that the Conservatives have been misleading Canadians and making things up about these changes because they are unable to explain their purpose. They claim that these changes will help reduce the backlog, which is now around 900,000 applications. However, if we were to actually read the proposed changes we would see that these changes will not take effect until February 2008. These reforms will not address the 900,000 applications that are already in the backlog. They will still need to be dealt with using the existing rules.

The government claims that the minister will not use this power, which the bill would give her, to limit the number of applications the government receives. How can the government draw that circle when it says that it will expedite economic immigrants but that it will not slow down family reunification? It also says that it will cut the backlog, that it will be transparent and that it will do everything by the book, but that it is important to give the minister unchecked discretionary power in order to implement these changes.

The fact is that if the government tries to expedite economic immigrants and keep the target of immigrants the same, this will happen at the expense and on the backs of family reunification, and that is of concern to many Canadians.

Many Canadians are keen that we attract economic immigrants who address our economic needs. Nobody is arguing against that. Also, nobody is arguing that the immigration system needs reform. However, to assume that the only way to fix these issues is to give the minister of immigration these powers, regardless of who the minister is or which party is in power, is a shortsighted solution and it will not help. In fact, it will only introduce powers where a lot of questions can be asked when they are applied.

What we need to do is fix the immigration system in a systematic and comprehensive way. We need to see where the issues are and apply more resources. We need to be wise and thoughtful about how and when we process our immigration applications.

This disingenuous proposal that by giving the minister unchecked discretionary power we can solve the backlog problem, does not stand up to scrutiny. The reality is that this is an ill-advised, ineffective, short-sighted proposal on which it makes it very tempting to bring down the government. I would like to see the Conservative government go yesterday before today. I do not believe it has the best policies for this country nor do I believe it is able to come up with thoughtful, reasonable, practical and pragmatic policies.

However, this is the choice we have. Let there be no doubt that we disagree and oppose these immigration changes. The question that remains is when should we have an election. I know the Conservatives will not like it, but we will choose that timing.

I am quite disappointed with the NDP. If it had been up to the NDP, we would have had 17 elections by now, even though it is the party that claims it wants Parliament to work. The NDP is the reason that we lost the child care agreement with the provinces and the reason that we do not have a Kelowna accord.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague. I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture with him. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree and I guess this is a moment of disagreement. Clearly the member should know why I did not talk about a lot of what is not in Bill C-50, because it is what is not there that concerns me. It is the ignoring of rural Canada, the ignoring of primary producers, the putting farmers last that concerns me. I had to express those concerns.

Earlier we heard the parliamentary secretary try to put a spin on the survey of the Canadian Wheat Board. He tried to put a spin to misrepresent the facts. That is what the hon. member did in terms of the carbon issue. We are talking about a green shift. Let me be clear that on gasoline, there will be no increase. Wait until the plan rolls out. The member will probably be jumping up and down in favour of what the leader of the Liberal Party is trying to do.

Let us look at some of the opportunities in terms of a green shift for the farm community: other alternatives, research and development, carbon sinks. The net benefit at the end of the day will be an environment where our children and our grandchildren can enjoy a future. We on this side of the House will not bury our heads in the sand like that party over there does when it comes to dealing with environmental issues. We will deal with the facts. There are opportunities for farmers and primary producers in terms of a green shift: research and development, new crops, carbon sinks, and a better future environmentally for all Canadians and indeed the world.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the time he has put in. It seems as though he is a little confused as usual.

He talked about all these initiatives, but he did not even mention Bill C-50 and what is actually in this budget bill. He did not talk about the $500 million to help improve public transit. He did not talk about the $400 million to help recruit new front line police officers. He did not talk about the $250 million for carbon capture and storage in projects in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. And he certainly did not talk about the need to pass this legislation immediately so we have time to put the regulations in place so that the tax-free savings account can take effect on January 1.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he will stand up for rural Canadians. If he wants to talk about something that is going to destroy rural Canada, it is his leader's carbon tax plan. It will destroy areas, farmers and producers in rural Canada. It is worse than any other plan since the national energy program. He talks about it being cost neutral. How can it be cost neutral for farmers who have to put crops in the ground? Is the price of gasoline not high enough already for the member? How can it be cost neutral to those seniors who have to pay for increased heating costs? How can it be cost neutral for rural Canadians?

If the member insists that he stands up for rural Canadians, will he show up and vote on this budget implementation bill and support our government, will he vote against it where apparently his beliefs are, or will he do what he and his Liberal Party colleagues have been doing for months, which is to sit on their hands and run away from the issues?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, Budget Implementation Act, 2008.

I can say right off the bat that, if this bill were a movie and an uncensored one, its title could be something like “In Search of Promises Kept”, because they are few and far between in this budget.

Take the promise made to seniors for example. Before the election, every member of the Conservative Party in this House rose to vote in favour of giving back to seniors the money owed to them in connection with the guaranteed income supplement. This is money that has been owed to them for several years now. Yesterday's vote showed that the government does not keep its promises to the people it was supposed to represent. The Conservatives were unanimously opposed. Every Conservative member in the House stood in his or her place and voted no. So, where seniors are concerned, promise made, promise broken.

One might also think of the promise made to veterans, their widows and their survivors to provide them with a more extensive support program than the current one, ensuring that all survivors of veterans and their widows would be eligible for help. Again, promise made, promise broken.

Take the promise to respect provincial jurisdictions. It is a promise that was made with great fanfare, but it still has not been kept. Instead of respecting provincial jurisdictions, the government, through this bill, is setting up PPP Canada Inc., a crown corporation that will work with the public and private sectors to support public-private partnerships. There are fears that this crown corporation will have a say in federally funded infrastructure projects in Quebec, whereas Quebec wants full control, including the power to decide on potential PPPs.

Bill C-50 also provides an additional $110 million for the Mental Health Commission of Canada, even though health and social services are Quebec's responsibilities.

The bill also provides for a $500 million fund for public transit, whereas we are calling for the block transfer of federal infrastructure funding so that Quebec can make its own choices, which it usually does quite well. All the other provinces look to Quebec, because Quebec's social programs and tax benefits are far superior to their own.

The government is still committed to setting up a common securities regulator, as we saw again last week. There were discussions about this.

Lastly, Canada would invest $25 million to help Canadians understand the impact of the environment on our health. This is a public health measure, and Quebec has its own public health agency. The government has therefore broken its promise not to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

Despite its promise to govern with transparency and integrity, the government decided to sneak an immigration measure into Bill C-50 that would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to decide who can enter Canada and who cannot. It is disgraceful to include an immigration measure in a budget implementation bill. I have never seen such a thing. It is really underhanded. I think that this is emblematic of this government's overall approach.

They also made a promise to correct the fiscal imbalance. This has not been kept either. Even though part of it was addressed by allocating some money, the idea of correcting the fiscal imbalance involves a lot more than just throwing money at it. We need to talk about tax points and many other very important aspects if we truly want to free the provinces from the federal government. Promise made, promise broken.

Lastly, I will talk about a promise made to women in January 2006. During his election campaign, the current Prime Minister assured women that he would do what is necessary to help them achieve true equality. He said that in January 2006. It is now June 2008 and nothing has yet been done to help women achieve true equality. On the contrary, the government has tried to muzzle women by cutting funding to Status of Women Canada, funding that has not been reinstated.

I even have some excerpts of speeches given by Kathleen Lahey and Armine Yalnizyan to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. After carefully examining the budget, they came to tell us what they thought about it, taking into account the fact that the budget must address both the men and the women who pay taxes. Women make up 52% of the population, whether my colleagues like it or not. This 52% of the population deserves some respect when it comes to measures that are to represent or at least serve the entire population.

There is nothing in this budget for women or even anything that would benefit women, let us be honest. For example, $20 million has been allocated to Status of Women Canada, but there are 16.6 million women in Canada. That means that Status of Women Canada has to assume all of its responsibilities with a budget of just $1.21 per woman or girl in Canada. This is an overall budget of $1.21 per person for the duration of the budget.

In comparison, pork producers—and I am very happy for them—are getting $50 million to help them adjust to new market realities. With roughly 14 million pigs in Canada, that represents $3.57 a pig. The 10,000 or so pig producers are getting twice as much as is being allocated to help Canada's 16.6 million women cope with the serious disadvantages they face.

We can see which is more highly valued by the Conservative government: a woman is worth $1.21 while a pig is worth $3.57. Let us not think about it for too long; it is plain to see that this budget does not offer much to women.

Of course they talk about a plan—a vague plan that will not amount to much if it is not actually developed. They can talk about a plan for a very long time. They talk about it in the budget as something to come. However, we still have not seen a single word about this plan. We have not heard the minister say anything about this plan either. It makes us wonder whether the government is really serious about implementing a plan when one has existed since 1995 that was ratified and adopted by all the countries present in Beijing.

In closing, when women are mentioned just six times in the entire budget, and one of those occurrences is to make the distinction between fishermen and fisherwomen, it is because there is not much interest in or respect for them.

I highly doubt that we can support this budget. As hon. members know, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against it. We will all rise in this House with great pride to vote against this budget. We have no need for broken promises. We need the government to keep its promises.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tackle the first question regarding why this is in a budget bill. If the issue of immigration is so critical, and if it needs thoughtful consideration, it should never be part of a budget bill, it should go its standing committee. That is part of the democratic and parliamentary process. The government chose to put it in a budget bill probably to hide it.

There is no transparency in what the government is doing. It claims that the process it has put in Bill C-50 are instructions. There is no process, they are just instructions by the minister to somehow eliminate the backlog.

If one were to look carefully at the bill, the instructions would come into effect February 2008. For the backlog, which has been there before February 2008, any person who is already in the system is not get affected. I think this is a smoke and mirror game that the Conservatives are trying to play.

Why are the Conservatives trying to play this game? I would suggest that they want temporary workers. They do not want permanent residents.

Every one of us in the House is an immigrant, whether one came here three years ago, or one's ancestors came here 300 years ago. To bring in only temporary workers is being regressive and going back to when coolies were brought in to build the railway. This is a very regressive and repugnant bill that has to be overturned by the next government.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take a deeper look at budget 2008 and Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill.

In the normal course of parliamentary debate a budget discussion would ordinarily reflect a thorough examination of the government's fiscal policies and state of the nation's finances. However, for some strange reason the Conservative government has chosen to depart from this parliamentary tradition and to effectively attempt to sneak through a major shift in immigration policies, literally through the back door. This is a strange course of events.

Our parliamentary tradition calls upon the government to introduce legislation according to departmental responsibility, which is to say, a transportation bill would be proposed by the Minister of Transport, or a defence bill would be proposed by the Minister of National Defence. On what grounds does the government justify lumping an immigration bill with a budget implementation bill? If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is so convinced that her proposal is of vital importance to the country, why is she so afraid to introduce a separate act and face the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration?

Under normal circumstances a proposed act is debated separately for the simple reason that respective parliamentary committees, for example, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, or the Standing Committee on National Defence, will have an opportunity to review the proposed legislation according to the committee's area of responsibility. This is how a democracy works.

We are in a democracy. We are not in an autocracy. We are not in a dictatorship. We are in a democracy. Therefore, democratic institutions have to be respected. There are long-standing established processes within Parliament that are available to the minister. Those are what she should be using. It is quite straightforward.

Canadians are not gullible. They are well aware that the Conservatives are attempting in an underhanded way to force an election on the backs of immigrants. The Conservatives have been putting advertisements in the papers trying to justify their stand. They probably think immigrants are gullible. The government has been sending the junior minister out to meet with people. Immigrants are not stupid. People understand where the government is coming from.

Canada is a land of immigrants. Everyone in this House, with the exception of the aboriginal people, is an immigrant, whether one came here three years ago, or one's ancestors came here 300 years ago. It has been through thoughtful debate and discussion that our immigration policies have evolved. Immigrants are here to stay and the government cannot cherry-pick whom it wants.

In previous years immigrants were brought in for specific labour purposes and we have seen the repercussions of that. Canada, having learned lessons from its immigration policies and its stand on immigration since World War I and World War II, has become more thoughtful. As a nation we have become more thoughtful. It has been Liberal prime ministers, such as Prime Minister St. Laurent, who started the formal process of immigration from European countries. As an immigrant myself, I remember well that it was Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau who opened immigration from countries other than European countries.

Canada is a choice for a lot of immigrants. That is because we are a people who have a very good view of what it means to live in a pluralistic society. We have seen societies that cannot comprehend pluralism. Canada has been thoughtful. Canada has been respectful. I think all members in the House should understand that and should behave in that manner toward this bill.

My colleagues in the Liberal caucus are committed to make this Parliament work. We do not want to be constantly in an election. This is not the same as a hamster on a treadmill. This is not how Parliament should function.

Let us take a closer look at the immigration proposal that we now have before us. Bill C-50 proposes a series of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which quite frankly is regressive. Under that bill the Conservatives are seeking to abandon all sense of transparency and objectivity in the selection process and simply empower the minister with absolute discretion and the ability to cherry-pick applications at will. Previous ministers had that power but they decided not to utilize it. They decided to give away that power.

The current bill allows the minister to give instructions. What sort of instructions is the minister proposing to give to the immigrant officer abroad or here in Canada? What does the minister think she will be doing? Is she the one that will be reviewing every file? Is she the one that will be reviewing everyone's qualifications? Is she the one who has the authority to determine who comes in and who does not? Objectivity is being dispensed with so that the minister or the government of the day can be extremely selective.

Under the new legislation the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would have the discretion to determine not only which applications will be processed quickly and which ones will be held at the visa office until a later date, but also to return some applications without any consideration at all. These are the ones that people are concerned about. The Conservatives are attempting to toss out objectivity and fairness under the guise of expediency.

Yes, there is a backlog in the application process, but any intelligent person knows that the process requires resources, not cherry-picking by the minister. The Conservatives have not made immigration policy their priority. They have been withholding funds. They claim that they have put in money, but they have actually extracted money from the immigration department.

If the government does not put resources in the right area, how can it be determined how the process will work? It is important that resources be allocated to streamline the process.

The bill also represents a major change in the way in which we choose who is to become a Canadian citizen. Yet the Conservatives feel it is okay to tuck this into a budget bill and somehow bamboozle the Canadian public, which is what it is trying to do with money from the government coffers. The Conservatives are putting forward an advertising campaign to bamboozle the immigrant population. It is not going to work because my colleagues and I, as we have stood in the House, have been standing to fight for fairness, for equity and for transparency.

It appears that the Conservative members have a fixation on forcing an election rather than acting as a responsible government. We have seen in the weeks and months that have passed that the government has no agenda, no vision and no direction. It just wants to go on a treadmill like a hamster.

When an election is called, I can assure the House that Canadians will surely remember which party acted responsibly and in the interest of the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out some facts about what the Bloc members have done in committees.

New Democrats want both the immigration committee and the finance committee to go across Canada, including Quebec, to talk to workers who are unemployed and are seeing their EI funds being taken away, or immigrant groups that have serious concerns about the legislation in front of us, Bill C-50. We moved those motions, yet the Bloc members, along with the Liberals and the Conservatives, at both committees said no to public hearings.

In the finance committee we said that we have to speak to these issues. When we were about to deal with clause by clause consideration of the bill in the finance committee, the Bloc was silent. Bloc members did not speak out in the finance committee to say why they are opposed to the immigration portion of Bill C-50, and why they are opposed to setting up a crown corporation which will only be provided with $2 billion, instead of the $15 billion that is needed, as the Auditor General said. They said nothing. There was no response, complete silence.

If the hon. member's party is so concerned about this bill, and I am glad that unlike the Liberals at least Bloc members are standing up, why is the Bloc afraid to agree to conducting hearings across the country, especially during the next few months when we have a bit of time? Why rush this bill through? Why was the Bloc silent in the finance committee where this bill was considered only a week and a half ago before it was reported back to the House? Why the silence?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois regarding Bill C-50, the 2008 budget implementation bill. I am especially pleased that the Bloc Québécois's judgment has always been irreproachable in its analysis of Conservative government budgets.

I will list the reasons why budget 2008 and Bill C-50 should be defeated.

We all know that Quebec and part of Ontario are currently facing an unprecedented crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. Yet this budget offers no direct and immediate assistance to those sectors. The problem will not be solved by announcing a diversification program.

Ultimately, what the Conservatives want to do, despite the fact that the forest continues to grow, is to rid that economic sector of its expertise and try to force workers into doing something else. That is what the government proposed in its budget, which offers no direct assistance, no programs to modernize businesses, no programs for refundable tax credits.

I do not need to remind the House that in order to benefit from tax credits, one must first be able to pay income tax. But businesses in the forestry and manufacturing sectors are declaring deficits and losses. Therefore they cannot take advantage of tax credits, unless they are refundable. The Bloc Québécois has always defended such a measure, proposed by the industry itself, in this House.

Once again, the Conservatives have decided to ignore the appeals from people in the industry. Yet they are the ones best suited to analyze the situation. The Conservatives, however, decided as always, based on their philosophy and ideology, to let free competition run its course and let market forces prevail. That is the Conservative way. Of course, in a market left to its own devices, usually, the big fish swallow the smaller ones, but the Conservatives do not seem to realize that this time the big fish are swallowing each other, and even the big ones cannot survive.

This is yet another example of the right-wing ideology that is still not working. When an entire sector is in crisis and does not receive help, it will disappear. What the Conservatives have proposed in the budget is to change the economy. The economy is being diversified and the fate of the manufacturing and forestry sectors is being decided. They want to create call centres and retrain the employees. For example, they will be asked to learn about computers, regardless of their age. That is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable for the regions. We cannot take all the workers in a region and send them elsewhere. The Minister of Labour even had the gall to say—although he later retracted his statements—that there were jobs to be had in western Canada, in the oil industry. When the oil companies, nuclear power plants and our military need help, the Conservatives are there; there is no problem. But when it comes to helping the manufacturing and forestry sectors or seniors, the Conservatives are nowhere to be found, because those matters are not important to them.

This brings me to the second part of my speech. The budget did not provide for any assistance for workers or for an older worker adjustment program, such as the one abolished by the Liberals, which ensured that workers over the age of 55 would have an income until they retired. This program provided compensation for workers by helping them find a new job and retrain. The program always covered the salary they were earning up to a certain percentage—70% or 75%. The difference was covered until they turned 65. This program cost only $70 million.

Once again, the Conservatives told us that there were jobs available elsewhere. That is basically what the Minister of Labour came out and said. Workers are being asked to move and go work in areas were jobs are available. But if workers do that, it will empty out the regions of Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois will never agree to that.

Once again, no measures were proposed to help seniors. There was a vote concerning the guaranteed income supplement program. The member for Repentigny introduced a bill here that was passed by a majority of the members. The bill sought to return to seniors what had been taken from them, but the Conservatives, once again, did not support it. Those entitled to the guaranteed income supplement were granted just 11 months' retroactivity, but we asked for full retroactivity because the government has owed that money to seniors from the time the supplement was first paid out.

It is just like income tax. When people owe money to the Canada Revenue Agency, the agency can go back as far as it wants, any number of years, if money is owing. We wanted justice and equity, and we wanted the government to increase guaranteed income supplement payments by $100 per month. Seniors certainly deserve it, because everything—drugs, insurance, fuel and groceries—is costing them more and more. The price of everything is going up.

We wanted the guaranteed income supplement to go up by $100 per month, but once again, there is nothing in this budget for seniors.

Worse still, the government has taken advantage of this bill to sneak in a measure giving more power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to reject applications without having to provide any justification for doing so, and to prioritize certain classes of immigrants. They want to bring in economic immigrants to develop some parts of the country rather than others.

That is the Conservatives' way of doing things. They like to dispense patronage. They managed to do that with immigration. Now they are planning to engage in even more patronage in the sector. They are governing just like the old Conservatives did. As it turned out, the old guard disappeared from the political landscape because citizens were sick and tired of having masters of patronage in power. That is the truth.

Just as unacceptable is the fact that the Conservative Party includes members from Quebec who, quite simply, have poor judgment. The member for Beauce, the former minister of foreign affairs, who was a rising star in the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party, proved that in spades. Imagine what the others are capable of. He lacked judgment, so what does that say about the other members from Quebec who have seats here? It says that all of those members lack judgment and toe the line without considering Quebeckers' values and interests. That is what it means to be a Conservative member from Quebec.

Therefore, this is not of interest to us. Obviously, it is no better being a Liberal member. I was listening to the member for Laval—Les Îles grandstanding earlier about immigration measures being introduced through the back door. Quebec's Liberal MPs simply have no judgment because they simply will not vote. It is fine for them to talk and do what they want, but then they are going to let these measures through. That shows either a clear lack of judgment or that their decision-making is driven by monetary concerns. They do not have the money to head into an election and the leader does not have the money to repay the debt incurred in the leadership race. Thus, they let bills pass that run counter to the interests of Quebeckers. We, on the other hand, defend our citizens. The member for Laval—Les Îles said that she would stand up in the House. Well, she will stand up, but she will not vote.

We were elected to exercise the right to vote and to use that right to the fullest as the representatives of the voters in this House. They did not elect us so we would stay seated and wait for our party to have the money and our leader to have repaid his debts to run in an election. That is the reality.

The New Democrats are no better, because they wait before making a decision. They wait to see what the Liberals will do. If the Liberals oppose a measure, they support it. If the Liberals are in favour, they vote against it. That is no better.

All that to say that the only party representing the interests and values of Quebeckers is the Bloc Québécois. We are not afraid of elections. We are not afraid of anything at all. We are not even afraid of power because we do not want it. The only power of importance to us is the power entrusted to us by the citizens who elected us. We are proud to rise in this House to vote against Bill C-50, which runs counter to the interests of Quebeckers.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today about Bill C-50, which, in part 6, seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The first point I would like to make is this is a bill that actually is hidden in another bill, which is strictly against the kind of Parliament that we have had in the past. The budget implementation bill is a budget bill. Although an immigration bill also has budget implications, the kind of immigration bill that has been presented by the Conservative minister here is of such importance to Canada and Canadians that it should be a stand-alone bill.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration should have full powers and as much time as it requires to study the bill and its implications and add whatever amendments it decides are necessary. With the way the Conservative government has presented this legislation, that is not possible.

We are stuck with a bill for which the government has told us that it will not accept any amendments. The immigration legislation has been hidden inside a budget bill, thereby forcing our hand. This is very much against the kind of parliamentary tradition that we have always lived under since Parliament was founded.

The bill also would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral power to decide on preferences in the treatment of applications for immigration and refugee status.

Under the system we have at present, all applications for immigration are examined. Once they have been examined, claimants receive a positive or negative response. However, all applications are examined, which allows a claimant whose application has been denied to appeal, because that person's application is on file.

Under the new system, however, the immigration minister can tell his officials that he is going to change the order of priority of immigration categories. The minister can decide at any time that, for this year, the largest number of immigrants to be accepted will be in the independent category, for example. That would not only lower the priority of the other categories, but also reduce the number of immigrants in those categories who would be accepted, because in a given year Canada accepts a fixed number of immigrants that is approved by the Parliament of Canada.

This decision by the minister will therefore have a significant impact on family reunification, something that concerns me a great deal, and also on not only the number of refugees we accept in Canada, but the number of refugees we seek out in refugee camps around the world.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that the minister can make this decision without consulting with NGOs that work with immigrants, with the business community or with this Parliament. In other words, the minister can make a completely unilateral decision without having to answer to the Parliament of Canada. This is extremely serious. Since 1867, and even earlier, with the Parliaments of Upper and Lower Canada, Parliament has always been accountable. “Accountable” means that cabinet ministers are accountable to Parliament and consequently to the Canadian people.

Now, with this immigration bill, the minister will no longer have to answer to Parliament because he will no longer have to consult Parliament. He will not be accountable to Canadians. Something very serious is happening here. It is more of what the Conservative government has given us for two years now: a government that acts in secret, does not answer questions in the House, refuses to talk to the media and, now, refuses even to be accountable to Parliament and Canadians.

What is going on right now is a serious matter. I hope Canadians are watching this very closely because having such a secretive government that keeps information to itself is unprecedented in Canada.

The Prime Minister promised Canadians an accountable, honest and scrupulous government. The more time goes on, the more we get to know this government. We are seeing the Conservative government for what it is: a government that does not want to be accountable to anyone, not to Parliament and not to the Canadian public.

This also means that the immigration minister and officials responsible for applying the legislation would have carte blanche with respect to processing applications. Their first decision would be on which applications to examine. A large number of those applications will likely be rejected. Some will be returned to the claimants without even being looked at. That means that the large number of claimants whose immigration applications are returned to them will have absolutely no recourse. They will not be able to come back to see an immigration officer. They will not be able to ask why or how. They will not be entitled to an appeal since, for all intents and purposes, their application no longer exists, as it was not accepted and examined.

Again, this is an attempt to limit judicial review of the decisions made by immigration services. Under the bill, immigration and refugee status officials will have to follow instructions from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration before examining claims and, when they do examine them, they will have to prioritize them by category of immigration.

This bill eliminates the right to equal opportunity in the processing of claims. Equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of our Canadian society: equal opportunity in employment, housing and in the possibility of immigrating to Canada. A number of us sitting here in Parliament have benefited from this equal opportunity.

I find it especially hard to accept that some members opposite, on the government side of the House, who came to Canada as immigrants through this equal opportunity, are now closing the door behind them in a way by voting with the Conservative Party. They came to Canada and now they are saying too bad for those who want to come behind them. They are closing the door.

This bill could reduce the number of new immigration applications accepted by the federal government and, as I said earlier, notably those applications for family reunification and permanent residency on humanitarian grounds. Giving one category priority will only serve to reduce the number of applications in other categories because there is a limit to the number of immigrants accepted in any one year.

The government would go ahead with a subjective selection of applications without imposing any limits on the minister. It would also focus its attention and resources on economic immigrants, those who are wealthy and more qualified.

Obviously, there must be a focus on qualified immigrants. In fact, before its defeat, the Liberal government organized a number of major projects with the provincial governments as part of bilateral agreements with each province. The federal government would ask each province to submit the number of immigrants they would like in each of the trade categories, for example. That is something very important that my colleague across the way did not mention. Agreements already exist between the federal government and each of the provinces that allow them to make their needs known in terms of qualified immigrants.

On this side of the House, we ask that qualified immigrants be able to continue to enter the country and meet the needs of the provinces. More importantly, we ask that family reunification not be forgotten.

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

Mr. Speaker, an objective system would have points and people who want to immigrate to Canada would be able to go online to look at the criteria and see if they have enough points to qualify. After doing the calculation to determine that they do have enough points to qualify, they could apply and, of course, be approved, which is the objective of the system.

Under the proposed change in Bill C-50, even if applicants have all the points, completely qualify, have submitted an application and have waited for several months or a year, their application can be returned. It would not even be processed or considered. The applicant would just be told to come back another time.

Applicants would have no right to appeal and no rights under any law to argue that they had qualified so why was their application not processed or even considered. That is what is alarming the Canadian Bar Association and various immigrant communities all across Canada, because it is arbitrary. It does not tell people whether they fit the criteria or not. I understand that we need skilled labour but this is not the right way to proceed.

Instead, we in the immigration committee should study the point system again and say that in 2002, Canada made a mistake. We changed the existing point system to a human capital situation and it is not working. We are not giving immigrants a head start in Canada. Many of them come into this country and become unemployed. We need a better system, with better tracking and a better match. The way to do it is to fine-tune the point system and actually look at the skills.

In Australia, for example, people are given extra points if they have relatives in the country. It does not necessarily have to be immediate family members. We should probably do the same. The system used to be like that. Under assisted relative class, people were able to get extra points if someone was willing to sponsor them.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trinity—Spadina for speaking for all of us in this room about the difficulties we have in trying to service the thousands of immigration cases that come to our office out of sheer desperation. People do not know where else to go. They are desperate by the time they come to an MP's office because they have tried and failed to get basic information from a system that is so clogged up, so bottlenecked and so dysfunctional that they feel they have no avenue of recourse.

People watching at home might be wondering why, in the context of a budget implement bill, we are talking about the Canadian immigration system and its foibles. They should be made aware that this budget implementation bill has a key element to it to reform, in a radical way, not improve, but change the immigration system.

The basic unfairness, as my colleague points out, is that we, as representatives of Canadians, will not get an adequate chance to debate properly the immigration changes while we are debating the budget implementation bill because it does not properly belong here at this time.

However, if the bill passes, and I have a hunch it will pass, immigration law and practice will change for the worse, we argue, in a very dramatic and significant way.

My colleague pointed out that the changes contemplated to the immigration act in Bill C-50 would actually enhance the discretionary powers of the minister. Did I understand her correctly? Will the minister be, more than ever, able to make arbitrary rulings on things that should properly go to a tribunal, a panel or some due process? Is this one of the hazards that she is alerting us to today, the enhancing of the discretionary power of the minister at the expense of due process, as most Canadians would understand it?

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

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

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, thanks to the opposition, the House had the opportunity to debate two specific aspects of Bill C-50, namely immigration and the creation of an employment insurance financing board, or parts 6 and 7 of the bill. I had the opportunity to speak about these subjects in the House on Monday. Today I will be challenging the bill in its entirety. I will bring up various points.

Bill C-50 deals with the implementation of the intentions the government laid out in its 2008 budget speech, a speech that I criticized then, on April 9, for reasons that I would like to restate today.

Although the budget speech included some timid measures, it had nothing to offer in terms of redistribution of wealth and government management of the common good.

The bill's preamble concerns me a great deal because it talks only about global economic uncertainty when there is real uncertainty in all regions—mine in particular—about economic development; we know that. And the government should be concerned.

What has the government done in this time? I am sure everyone will recall that it created this trust fund, which, at the time, was linked to the budget. We managed to stop it, after some citizens demonstrated their dissatisfaction.

Although the trust fund, totalling a billion dollars over two years, was removed from the budget, the government did not really address the crises currently facing our communities. The agricultural and forestry sectors are in crisis. Of course, there is also a crisis facing non-profit organizations, which saw their funding suddenly slashed by the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

Although he says he will space it out over two years, we all know what this means in Rimouski, for example, and in eastern Quebec for all non-profit organizations in the marine sector. We have a research centre. We are the hub of marine technology, and this will have a major impact. In that sense, the government has set us back. I will never accept this kind of thing.

The government created a savings account, known as a TFSA, and would have us believe that they have reinvented the wheel. In reality, it will not help modest to middle income earners. It will only help those who are already well off.

Speaking of the less fortunate and of the poor—and I will probably wrap it up here—I want to say once more that the government had an opportunity with this budget to help our seniors and to bolster the guaranteed income supplement. Instead, it put $10 billion towards the debt and decided that only the first $3,500 earned by seniors who choose to work would not affect their benefits.

The government should have accepted motion M-383, which I moved and which was adopted by a majority in this House. It would have allowed seniors to not be penalized had they wanted to work up to 15 hours per week at the average wage in their province of residence. This would have been a significant gesture that would have helped seniors currently living below the poverty line and who, obviously, want to work. I am not suggesting that all seniors should go back to work. Far be it for me to suggest that.

However, there were some relatively easy and practical ways to help our seniors and other disadvantaged groups, as well as to fight poverty. Instead, the government cut corporate taxes for companies that are already making obscene profits, such as banks and oil companies.

I see no sign, in the government's vocabulary or ideology, of the will to concern itself with the common good and the redistribution of wealth. They are focused solely on looking after companies that are already doing very well. Their tax cuts will not help those who have little or no income—

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to treat employment insurance as real insurance, what would that mean? It would mean that the workers who have the highest rate of unemployment would have to pay the highest premiums and that the industries that have the highest rate of unemployment would have to pay the highest premiums. It would be a complete disaster for working families across the country.

I do not know why the New Democratic Party and indeed many of my friends in the labour movement continue to persist in this notion that somehow the answer for everything is to get back to the idea of employment insurance being real insurance. They are not serving the interests of working families when they do that, because they do not understand that the experience ratings that would apply would absolutely clobber working families.

Ironically, it is the New Democratic Party that has contributed to one of the most inane aspects of Bill C-50, which is the creation of this crown corporation. The NDP members got their wish and they will come to regret it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used the term “principled position”. How is it that there is any principle involved when in Bill C-50 there is the theft of $54 billion of workers' money that they will need if they become unemployed? We know that Ontario is in trouble. We talked about that earlier. A lot of the unemployed manufacturing workers and their families will need this fund, yet this bill only puts aside $2 billion to set up a crown corporation.

How could there be a principled position when 92% of Liberal members refuse to vote on this issue? Tell me.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Brampton—Springdale and also in my capacity as the social development critic, I rise today to speak about the budget implementation bill, which has wide-ranging ramifications for the vulnerable in our society.

I rise today to speak on behalf of vulnerable people: those who are homeless, those living in affordable housing projects, the single mothers, those in the aboriginal community, and many newcomers to Canada.

When people look at Canada, they see our nation and country as a symbol of hope. We are a symbol of hope for many nations throughout the world. When we look at our country, we realize that the hallmarks of equality, acceptance, tolerance and respect are the very champions which have allowed us as a nation to become that symbol.

When we speak of the budget implementation bill, it is unfortunate that the agenda of the government has come forward. We realize in reading this budget implementation bill that the most vulnerable in our society, those who perhaps need government most, have been ignored. They have actually fallen off the agenda and the priority list of the Prime Minister and the Conservative government.

There have been absolutely no investments in terms of social justice in this particular implementation bill. There have been no new investments in affordable housing projects, the health care sector, the homeless or aboriginal people, so many of the people who live in my constituency of Brampton—Springdale.

Let us look at what has been attached to Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, and has been brought forward through the back door. Canada has always been a world leader in developing immigration policy. When we talk about our nation being a symbol of hope, we realize that we are a country in which so many people from so many different parts of the world live in harmony.

Our country has always been a pioneer in an open and transparent process, which has invited people like my parents to come to Canada in the 1970s. We are proud of this heritage in our country and also proud of our reputation of having a fair and humane immigration system.

However, it is unfortunate that the new reforms being proposed by the Conservative government, in particular the amendments that have been made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, are going to threaten our international reputation and threaten our nation's status as a symbol of hope.

It is these amendments being put forward by the Conservative government that are going to give the minister the unprecedented power of selection. The minister will be able to pick and choose the number of immigrants who come to Canada, the type of immigrants who come to Canada, and the category of immigrants who come to our country. The bill is also going to give the minister the ability to restrict the right of failed overseas refugee applicants to bring forward appeals.

What is even more disturbing is the fact that these changes are being brought forward through the back door without consultation with many of the people that this bill and these amendments are trying to help. They are being brought forward without the consultation of community groups and advocacy organizations. These issues are being brought forward in a secretive manner with a hidden agenda.

The government is desperately trying to paint these changes as improvements. I have travelled across the country and have met with constituents in my riding of Brampton—Springdale and with many Canadians, immigration and advocacy organizations and Canadians from particular ethnic groups. I can say firsthand that they are deeply worried and frustrated by the fact that the government has shut the door on them and refuses to listen.

The government paints a picture of how we need to reduce our country's backlog of 900,000 immigrants who want to come to Canada. However, it is very clear when one reads the fine print and the details of these proposed changes that all of the amendments and changes being brought forward are going to be effective starting on the date they are brought forward and will not have any impact or effect on reducing the backlog in this country.

As for the amendments that are being brought forward, there is a state of reluctance and frustration out there among the community groups and organizations. They do not really know what they should do or how they could get involved in the process. What we see is a government that wants to centralize powers in the hands of one individual, allowing that one person, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to pick and choose and perhaps insert politics and a bias into her decision making process.

It is this discretion, which we hope will not turn into discrimination, that is going to be at the minister's fingertips. We all know that in the 1900s our nation's immigration policies were at times discriminatory, exclusionary and even racist, which impacted many community groups across the country. As a nation, we have come so far. Our nation is a symbol of hope. I would hope that we will never ever go back.

We need to ensure, in this time of surplus and prosperity in our nation, that the government realizes that effective and efficient changes need to be made to the system. We must actually provide investments to ensure that there are additional officers placed at some of the busiest consulates and embassies throughout the world. That is what will make sure that we actually start to reduce the backlog of immigrants.

Our nation must realize that when we invite these individuals into our country they are coming here with their hopes, dreams and aspirations. However, upon coming to Canada, they very quickly find that their degrees and their qualifications are not recognized. They cannot be accredited. They are not allowed to enter Canada's workforce for lack of experience.

We must ensure that government surpluses are invested in programs for foreign credentials recognition. We must ensure that when we invite the best and brightest into Canada they have an opportunity to succeed and achieve their dreams. There is absolutely no reason why investments of this nature cannot be made.

Again, perhaps the greatest shortcoming of this bill, the budget implementation act, is a disregard for the most vulnerable of our nation. I can speak on behalf of those who live in affordable housing projects and those who are homeless in this country. We need only take a look at the statistics to realize that in this time of economic prosperity there are over 1.5 million Canadian households with a core housing need. They are spending over 30% of their income on home rental.

Having a roof over one's head is a basic fundamental human right. All of us as Canadians have to ensure that everyone in our country has a roof over his or her head and is in secure housing. It is a matter of dignity. It is a matter of pride. This budget has failed to address this crisis we have, a crisis that really knows no boundaries and has no barriers in this nation.

The fact that the government has thrown the issues of social justice off its agenda and off its priority list is really an insult to the many families and individuals who live without the basic means of survival. More than half of social housing applicants spend more than 50% of their income on housing. It is a tremendous burden for those who are in a low income bracket, which is a growing segment in our communities. That includes seniors, single parent families and immigrants.

We need only take a look at the waiting lists, even in an area like mine. In Brampton alone, there are approximately 30,000 people on a wait list to get into an affordable housing project. There is a wait list of over 21 years for some of these individuals.

There are regions like Peel, which has started a program called “Home in Peel Affordable Ownership Program”, which is going to provide some assistance, given the increase in population, the housing shortage and the market increases. Owning a home is no longer affordable for many Canadians across the country. We need the government to show some action. We need the government to show some leadership to ensure that these vulnerable people in our society have that chance and that opportunity.

When we take a look at national housing across the country, we see three major programs: the homelessness partnership initiative, the housing program, and the residential rehabilitation assistance program. All three are major federal programs that have provided resources and support for many of these community organizations in order to help the vulnerable in society. All three of these programs are due to expire at the end of this fiscal year. These groups and organizations are crying out, but what has the government done? Absolutely nothing.

Whether it is on child care, health care, affordable housing or dealing with immigrants in this country, we have realized that social justice has fallen off the map. We need action. We need leadership. We need a government that is going to care about the vulnerable in our society.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the budget, Bill C-50.

When I became a member of Parliament in 1993, the new Liberal government inherited, to be quite frank, a fiscal mess. The expenses exceeded the revenues of the government by some $42 billion in that year ending in March 1994.

It is a situation that members will know. The accumulated deficits of the country had built up to some $500 billion, actually peaking at about $524 billion. It was untenable. We were basically compared to third world countries in terms of our fiscal health.

As debt increases, the cost of borrowing increases and that means that the ability to meet the needs of Canadian citizens is put under pressure and services have to be cut. It was very important and, for the Liberal Party, our first priority was to get our fiscal house in order.

That took some pain. Canadians will remember that there were very significant cuts, not only to the operations of government but cuts in programs, important programs that Canadians needed, but there were some cuts. Everybody had to bear that burden. It was a tough decision to make but governing is about making tough decisions.

Finally, in 1997 we had whittled down that $42 billion deficit and finally balanced the budget. Throughout the 13 years, it was a tough governing period but we continued to pay down debt, to restore the level of services and, in fact, start increasing the level of services provided to Canadians, to the point that when the 2006 election came around, there was fiscal room to meet the need of paying down debt, to meet the need of providing additional services and programs to Canadians, particularly looking at areas of health care and the needs of seniors, of our aboriginal and first nations people, some very important areas, areas of poverty and areas to do with children.

Those were important programs and those were the kinds of things in which we were investing in.

However, just like people who have a house with a mortgage, Canadians expect to continue to make regular payments on that mortgage and save interest.

I can recall when some 40% of every dollar collected by the government in taxes was used to pay down the cost of borrowing money to finance the excess of spending over revenues of the government.

When this budget came out, it made me reflect on where we were back in 1993 after almost nine years of the Brian Mulroney government, where not one year was a balanced budget. Every year, year after year there were deficits. The debt was being built up and Canadians let the Conservatives know how they felt about the fiscal mismanagement in that election in 1993. They reduced that party from a majority government to only two seats in the House of Commons.

That is how significant this matter is in terms of how Canadians feel about whether or not a government can be a good fiscal manager, because if we do not take care of the finances of the nation, we do not take care of the people of the nation.

We saw in the budget that there was, as a result of inheriting the fiscal position that we had, a good, healthy position, that the government enjoyed a $13 billion surplus in its first year. It has gone down a little in terms of the projections, but what concerns me is that two major decisions were taken by the government and they were on the same item. It was the cut to the GST.

Providing Canadians with tax relief is always important when it is earned, but we must remember that there is a difference between giving someone something once and giving to people year after year the same amount.

If we take some $5 billion to $6 billion a year for a one percentage cut in the GST and then we do a second cut, all of a sudden, $10 billion to $12 billion of the annual surplus that we were enjoying to be able to pay down debt and to invest in Canadians, is gone. In two years out, looking from that budget, the surplus projected by the government will be less than $2 billion.

All of the hard work was to establish the security that we need to deal with fiscal challenges that are unforeseen. A prudent government says that we should not play with a zero balance in our bank account. We need to keep some savings there. We need to ensure there is a bit of latitude to deal with the ebbs and flows of the economy.

Now we are facing situations where it appears that we have already had one quarter where we had a decline in growth. It appears that Canada may very well go into a recession.

We have seen it, particularly in terms of the manufacturing sector. Jobs are being lost and people are becoming concerned. The confidence level in the government is dropping and it is all because of economic certainty or uncertainty. People care about their jobs and they care about paying for that next bill.

The government had better be there to take care of those needs because we do not know how protracted an economic downturn may be. We do not know what will happen in the U.S. but we do know that we are inextricably linked to their economy.

When we take over $10 billion out of the financial flexibility that a government has, we have no flexibility and no latitude to deal with the unexpected.

The government has not used prudence in its forecast. It has not used a contingency fund to provide for the eventuality of a thing like a SARS epidemic, which cost a very large amount of money.

I wanted to make that point only from the standpoint that it appears that we have come from a period of the last Conservative government that was in power up to 1993, passing off a $42 billion annual deficit, spending $42 billion more than it took in.

We came back with financial health under the Liberals and now the curve is going down again. It appears that we are going back to being at risk of going into deficit yet again. This is of concern to Canadians and it should be of concern to all parliamentarians.

The other matter I would like to briefly talk about is an item in the last budget called the tax-free savings account. My first reaction as a chartered accountant was that this was another administrative burden, a tax gimmick, that sounds good but that will not translate or deliver what it seems to be.

The Conservatives say that this tax-free account will allow people to put $5,000 a year into the account and anything they earn on that, whether it is interest income or dividend income or whatever, they will not have to pay tax. It will be a tax-free account. That sounds really terrific, $5,000 tax free. However, that $5,000 is not tax free because that is tax paid money. A person has to earn the money and have $5,000 of tax paid money to put into the account.

However, because this program has special conditions attached to it, every Canadian who wants to participate in the program will need to open a new bank account. The banks, however, will not do this for nothing. They will charge service charges on a monthly basis. If people want to do a transaction, such as buy stock, commissions are involved. It will be the same for term deposits. Does anyone think these agencies, whether it is an investment house or the bank itself, will provide all these services for nothing? That is not the case.

I just took a very simplistic example. Let us look at a basic savings account where someone was able to invest through the bank in a $5,000 term deposit that earned 5%, much more generous than we could earn today, but as an example, 5%.

If someone was earning $35,000 a year, making 5% on $5,000 would actually save the person $61 in tax on the interest earned. The person's taxes would go up. If the person made $70,000 a year, the person's savings on the same amount would be $88. If the person made $100,000, it would be $108. Those examples are to illustrate that the higher the level of income the more a person can benefit from this instrument.

I believe the instrument missed the target because it skews the benefits to those who have money, not providing a savings opportunity and a tax savings opportunity to Canadians who really could use the help.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will have to compress my long and witty speech into 10 minutes now.

We are debating the budget implementation bill, Bill C-50. It is a bill that would implement the recent budget, but it also has some other legislation piggybacking it in a way that, for the most part, the official opposition objects to, and I will explain why.

Taking a broader look at the economy, there has been a lot of talk about whether the economy is doing well or not. I am actually a bit more positive about the economy. To be sure, there is a huge difficulty involving manufacturing. In central Canada it has severely impacted a number of localities and there may be more impacts. Generally across the country, however, the country is making jobs.

I took a look at the economic data for the area I represent in the greater Toronto area and Ontario and the statistics are pretty good. For the last month that we looked at, employment was up; the participation rate in employment was up; the unemployment rate was down; the number of social assistance cases in the greater Toronto area was down; inflation is down; the prime rate is 5.75%; commodity demand, all up. For a buyer that is not so good. For a seller, and generally Canada is a seller of commodities all around the world, those prices are up. There are a lot of good things to say about the economy.

I am not a doom and gloom type speaker at this point in time, but I will say that at this time of low interest rates and low inflation, it is absolutely the best time for the government to be showing leadership in investment and reinvestment in our economic sector, particularly the manufacturing sector. I am not seeing any leadership at all with respect to this particular issue.

The bill has provisions governing capital cost allowance. This is an incentive for business generally to reinvest in plant and equipment, but there is no leadership being shown by the government. There is no focus being brought to bear. It is simply scattering the crumbs across the barnyard and saying, “Here. Fend for yourself”.

I accept that our business does well when our entrepreneurs, our business leaders and our workers get together, focus themselves and bring about those good economic investments and impacts. However, there has hardly ever been a time in this country when the Government of Canada did not show leadership in this envelope. All of our major economic activity centres today bear the thumbprint of government leadership at some point in our history, whether it is transportation, or communications, or pharmaceuticals, or electronics, or technology, or research. All of these economic activity areas have had specific government leadership in the past that have made them successful and what they are today, and I do not see that leadership now.

The second thing I want to talk about in this bill is the Canada employment insurance financing board provisions.

I have heard in this debate, incessantly, the New Democratic Party trying to tell us here and Canadians that somehow our governments have been whacking away the money that has been contributed into the EI fund by workers and employers. I point out that the fund is not owned by, but was contributed to by, employees and employers. In fact, employers have put in a slightly greater share of that money. That fund is there; it is intact.

I am very disappointed to hear the New Democratic Party incessantly suggest to Canadians that somebody somewhere in government has stolen this money, so I thought I would look at the Public Accounts of Canada just to check. I am just one MP. There are 300 or so of us here. The taxpayer allows us to spend all this money on printing every year so that we can see the Public Accounts of Canada. There are three volumes. I thought I would go back nine years to 1999.

Where is the fund? How much money is in it? Does it exist? Did somebody steal it? How was it managed? Those who are interested can go to page 4.19, the Public Accounts of Canada, Volume I, 1999 and there it is with a surplus shown in the prior year, 1998, 10 years ago, of $13 billion and change. In 1999 it is $20 billion and change. I looked at the notes to the financial statements just to make sure it was the way it looked. There is was. It even talks about the Government of Canada paying interest into the fund at 90% of the T-bill offering rate. Every year the government under the watchful eye of the Auditor General of Canada accumulates the money in this account. It is a conceptual account but it is real. The government pays interest every year on the EI account as it accumulates. That was 1999.

I thought maybe it had changed in the interim years. I looked at 2005 and there it is, the same fund, alive and well, moving up to $48.5 billion with the same interest being paid every year. It shows the interest being paid. It shows the money being paid out in premiums and the money being paid out in employment programs. There are revenues and expenses to the program and a balance of $48.5 billion.

Then I went to last year. The NDP members have been talking about this. I thought, they have to be misleading us; this is not correct. There it is again, the EI fund. The surplus has moved from $50 billion to $54 billion with all that interest being paid every year. The interest paid in 2007 was $1.9 billion. The Government of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, have allocated $1.9 billion to be added to this fund.

I am saying to the House that members can simply not accept the NDP members' statements at face value. They are weak on facts. It is misleading. There it is for everybody to see. That again is in chapter 4 of the Public Accounts of Canada, in case anyone wants to look at those.

I still say that this is the perfect time for the Government of Canada to be investing in employment programming, training and in manufacturing, to be leading in that for the benefit of Canadians.

The next thing I want to address is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sections. I am one who believes these provisions should not have been piggybacked on the budget implementation bill. There are four sections. There are a couple of legislative tweaks which I will not go into because they are fairly technical, but the ones that have caught the most attention have to do with the desire of the government to give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the legal ability to issue what are called instructions. I have served in the House for 20 years and I have never seen anything called an instruction. It does not exist. What is an instruction? Is it a letter? Is it a phone call? is it a communication? Is it an email? Is it a text message? We do not know but the government, with the collaboration of the department, wants to use a new statutory instrument called an instruction.

I have only one minute left. The time has gone far too quickly, so I will cut to the chase here and say that the government has chosen a very poor form. It is not a statutory instrument. It is not a regulation. It is not pre-published. It is not reviewed by any of the committees of the House as a regulation and it is not consulted on before it is done. It is a huge variance from the rule of law, a huge variance almost to the point of impinging on what is called the pretended power of dispensation which is part of our early parliamentary and constitutional law. The government is at huge risk in using this instrument, and so is Parliament and so are Canadians. I certainly oppose those sections of the bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the bill today I want to highlight not only what my concerns are about some of the things contained in Bill C-50, but actually about some of the things that should be and are not.

I want to begin, for instance, with the millennium scholarship fund, the cancelling of the fund, and the current redistribution of the money to students.

On the surface, this seems like a very good thing, but the point is it was not made stable. The millennium scholarship fund had been there for 10 years. This new fund is now there for who knows how long. The Canadian Alliance of Students Associations said that part of the budget for students lacked any sort of long term vision. Putting in little bits and pieces that may sound good on the surface on a one shot deal quite often is of great concern, when we think that the issues of productivity and competitiveness in this country will have to do with skills and training, and an educated labour force.

The fact also that the fund will now be distributed mainly as an income-based fund and not a need-based fund makes a big difference. We cannot expect this party to understand that difference, I understand, but when we look at the millennium scholarship fund, it used to be based on cost of living, tuition, cost of books and was based on student resources and need regardless of income.

The Education Policy Institute in Quebec noted that this seemingly simple shift in language could create a loss to Quebec students of over $80 million a year since the Quebec system is based on need.

Here we have a system again that had been changed. I do not know why, but the government did not give much thought to what the consequences would be. We now have a province that is going to have a problem with its own students having the ability to access the funds.

The new student fund also seeks to increase the number of students who will get the grants that the millennium scholarship fund used to bring forward. However, we now find that this could create larger numbers of students getting perhaps $2,000 instead of $3,000, and for a student a thousand dollars less a year is a lot of money.

The other thing is that this has been taken away from the arm's length body that used to manage the millennium scholarship fund and it has gone now directly to HRSD to be looked at, and we have seen what happens when programs go directly under HRSD. The summer student program fiasco last year had the government scrambling to do damage control and it did. However, again, it was short term, one year, damage control.

This year, we see the same thing happening. I am getting letters and I am getting calls from many NGOs who cannot get students this year, never mind the fact that students are being deprived of the ability to have that apprenticeship experience in their field of studies. Once again, we see this kind of one shot deal, this kind of shiny object in the window that happens for a year but does not have any substance to it that can actually achieve a long term objective of having more students accessing education.

The MSF is only one example of how the government is very good at playing with language which is designed to fool the people. It is the old Harris trick. The problem is that citizens actually get hurt in the end.

We need to remember that the strengthened plan for students' access to post-secondary education brought forward in the Liberal fiscal plan of 2005 and the fiscal update brought in by the then finance minister was hastily tanked by the NDP who love to speak about students and its wish to help students. In its rush to get to the polls to gain a couple more seats, in spite of the fact that it had been asked to wait until February or until a budget came forward that would actually cement in place some of the excellent policies that were coming forward with the then Liberal government, such as a national housing strategy, a national child care program, the Kelowna accord, and all of those would have been enshrined in the budget, the NDP put at risk and eventually allowed the cancellation of some extraordinary programs. One of them was for students, as we can see.

Now we have proposed legislative changes, for instance, in the bill to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is buried in a budget implementation bill. I put it to the House that this is a way of bypassing due process that would have allowed real input by the Canadian public, by trade unions, by trade councils, by business communities, and all of these stakeholders and players. We would have been able to look at where we need to go as we are poised on the brink of 2011, a year in which we are told we are going to be dependent for 100% of our net labour force on immigration.

Everyone knew this was coming. The last Liberal government, over the course of two years, had begun to plan with the provinces on how to deal with this and what the essential costs of changing the system would be, so that we could deal with the need for a labour force, at the same time remembering that immigration is far more than merely a tool for accessing a labour force.

However, we had put in an effective strategy. We had talked to the provinces. A plan was in the works. The then immigration minister had put in $700 million to help with integration, to help with retention of people in areas and helping to deal with cutting down the long waiting list, which as we hear is the reason why the bill was hastily pushed into a budget implementation bill without due process. All of those things were there. They were in the works. What happened to that? What happened to the $700 million.

The minister is putting in $60 million. Great. We used to have $700 million targeted. What happened to the other $640 million? Where did it go? These are questions that we really need to ask.

If the government really cared about the issue of labour force, if it really wanted to look at how immigration in Canada could actually be preparing Canada for the 21st century, then we would have done it the right way. The Conservatives would have been able to bring this forward as an appropriate bill under the appropriate minister. They would have been able to let the bill go to the citizenship and immigration committee. There would have been the usual travelling of the committee, getting input, getting information from all of the players, so that we could have had a substantive bill that would have been a vision implementation, building for perhaps the next 20 years in terms of a solid way of looking at immigration and refugees in this country.

However, that was not done. What we now have instead is this little fly-by-night thing, an edge through, put in with the right words and put into a sort of trap in which it is left in a confidence motion in the budget, so that nobody really has any input, but with the threat that if we do not pass this, then we will bring down the government.

This is a sort of cheesy kind of flouting of the democratic process that actually bothers some of us across the aisle because it really is not about something substantive. It is really just about cheap political tricks.

I want to speak a little bit about why the government did not go through the process. Why did it not do the proper consultation? One of the things we see is that the minister would now be the only person, the point of entry and the point of exit into the system.

The department will be the only place people can go if they seek to come here as immigrants to this country. Everyone used to know what the rules were. They applied according to the rules and then they went through a process. There were appeals built into the process. That is now gone. There is one judge and one jury, and that happens to be the minister, who will decide who will get in, with no accountability.

Again, we see, and this is a problem surfacing every day in the House, a lack of accountability of the government for the things that it intends to do, a lack of process and structure that would allow the Conservatives to explain to Canadians what they are doing and why they are doing it, and then to be accountable for whether it worked or it did not work. That has gone.

What we see now are some problems that will create issues. Suddenly we bring in labour market immigrants. They come in and they are unable to have access to jobs because it is not just getting into the country that allows a person access to a job. There are many barriers in the way and there is nothing put in place to deal with those barriers.

This is what I felt was very interesting. Currently, we have about 500,000 internationally trained workers in this country who are unemployed or underemployed with regard to work in this country. It is not because no one cares.

In 2004 I was given the job by the then prime minister to set up an immediate medium and long term plan to deal with the internationally trained workers, not only the people who were here and who could not get jobs, but the people who would come into the country in the future.

We recognize that there were a number of barriers. It was not a one shot deal. People walk in and what happens? They get a 1-800 number to call, which is the government's answer to an internationally trained worker. Give people a 1-800 number, call the government, and what will it do?

The point is, it cannot do anything because it is multi-jurisdictional. When we set it up, and we did set up a long term plan for this in 2004, we put money into the top priority, which was getting internationally trained physicians to work in this country because we realized that was a crisis situation at the time. In 2005 enough money was put in to deal with the other issues, and what were the issues?

First and foremost, the government cannot make someone have a job. One must become accredited and have one's papers assessed. This is a provincial jurisdiction. One has to work with the provinces. One has to be able to work with the credentialing bodies under provincial legislation. Do those bodies believe that the person has the right skills, has the right education to be able to do the work according to Canadian standards? These are questions only credentialing bodies can answer, so one has to work with the credentialling bodies.

Second, in some sectors language is a huge issue. If someone does not have an enhanced or an expanded access to language and an understanding of the depth of language, like a physician or a nurse or a social worker, they cannot actually deal with the Canadian population in English or in French. Language training was a huge problem and our government put forward $20 million a year under the minister to give access to that kind of enhanced language training.

What is happening to that? Where is that money? Is it happening?

The third problem that we found was that immigrants came to this country and they went to three cities: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The jobs were not there, yet the immigrants stayed there. They could not get the jobs and we tried to get them into other provinces, working with the provinces as we did. We tried to get them into rural areas where they would leave at the end of a year, and so retention became a problem. The former Liberal immigration minister had put in a substantial amount of money to deal with the problem of retaining people in areas where they were needed.

Finally, there is the issue of apprenticeship. Some people who come to Canada may have the on-paper training, but they do not have the Canadian experience. In our plan, that the Liberals tabled, we were going to give them apprenticeship training, help them to work in areas where they could get the kind of Canadian experience that they needed.

This was not a simple thing. It was a complex plan. It took us a year to set up and we began to roll the plan out, and I am asking this question. What is the minister going to achieve by allowing internationally trained workers to come into this country without a plan that was an extremely costly plan when we put it forward?

It was the beginning of a five year plan. Without that plan in place, people would just be left, as I said earlier on, calling a 1-800 number and nothing would be solved at all, because this is not something that the federal government can do alone.

My question is this. Where is our plan that we tabled and where is the money that we had put in, in the first two years to implement that plan? We do not know where it is. Therefore, we have again this sort of sleight of hand, of bringing in what sounds like a choice piece of legislation or amendments into an act which does not really deal with the problem at all and which is done by stealth, putting it into the wrong bill.

Not only that, we talked about the labour force, which we all know is an issue that we need to deal with. However, how could the minister bypass the provinces that have a provincial nominee program, and that have been involved in deciding what they need in their diverse areas for their workforce? That has not been done. Suddenly, the federal government has taken it all over and there has been no consultation with the provinces and no ability to work with the provinces.

All the work that had been done by the Liberal government has been thrown out the window and we are starting from scratch with no plan and no money.

At the same time, immigration is not only about the labour force. Many of us who have come to this country over the last 300 years came here not merely to find work but to find freedom, to find opportunity, and to build a nation. Immigration is about nation-building and when all we do is set it up to be something that is an in and out scheme to get workers in and nothing more, we do not take into consideration that if people are going to put roots down, grow families and build a nation, they are going to need a family class. They are going to need to be able to bring their families and have a vision for this country, and truly belong.

None of that has been taken into consideration in this immigration amendment that we see.

I said that I would talk about the things that concern me. Those are some of the things that concern me, but I also want to talk about the things that are absolutely not present and that should have been done.

We know that productivity and competitiveness is a huge problem right now in this country. There is no vision for this. We see manufacturing jobs being lost. There was an opportunity here. The government had three budgets in 2006, 2007 and 2008 to set down a plan for productivity and competitiveness, for the forestry sector a real plan, an action plan, not merely words that have not really resulted in any change at all.

Workers in the automobile and manufacturing sectors are losing their jobs. Not a single idea has been put forward. There was an opportunity to do it in the budget. The opportunity was lost.

The Minister of Health stood in the House and said he was concerned about the rising epidemic of obesity in the country. In fact, the minister then said that the government had put forward a $5 million plan. The $5 million came out of the money that the Liberal government had allocated to deal with community participation.

In a $140 million budget, $5 million was taken out of it for ParticipAction. ParticipAction, as devised by the government, is a television ad and that is it. We found out that the reason young people were not participating, even though there was community program money for them to play sport, was they needed places to play. It is called sports infrastructure, like gyms, having coaches helping children to learn to play a sport that would result in better physical activity and better health for the children.

None of that was put in the budget. Our Liberal government had in place an infrastructure fund specifically for community sport infrastructure. Where is that money? Where did it go? A $5 million TV advertising program does not even hope to touch that.

Talking about immigration and the international trade worker initiative, we read in the newspapers that more and more Canadians are having less and less access to health care. We all know the Canadian Medical Association and other bodies have studied this. They tell us the reason people are being denied access to health care is the lack of health human resources such as doctors, nurses and lab technicians.

The government had a huge opportunity to deal with the health human resource crisis, with the lack of physicians. In 2005 our government had allocated money to bring in 1,000 new family practitioners. What happened to that money? Where did it go? What happened to the 1,000 new family practitioners? What happened to that plan? No wonder there is no access almost three years later and things are going downhill. It is about opportunities missed.

Government is about a vision for a nation, not just little one-shot, one-off deals where the government thinks it can fool the people of Canada. The people of Canada are too smart to be fooled. They see the results of a lack of a plan and vision. This is what we are talking about, opportunities missed, opportunities lost on the ability to build a nation, to look to the future, to protect jobs, to find new creative and innovative ways of bringing Canada into the 21st century and to compete in a global marketplace. None of those things have been in any of these budgets. In this budget there was a hope something would to deal with some of these issues, but was nothing.

We talk about all the little pieces of programs here. Government is about vision and looking to the future. With only 32 million people in our country, we do not have the ability to compete in numbers with Asia, China, India and other populous countries, countries with large populations like Europe and even the United States to the south of us. Even if we double our population by some magic figure in 10 years time, we will still be a small country, so we need to have the best, brightest and most trained workers.

We have to foster innovation and creativity in the country so companies want to come here because they can get good workers and people who think outside the box. It should be about looking at ways to deal with energy, the environment and creating a Canada that can stand tall in the world.

In 2004 we were number one in the world. We had taken a country that was almost a developing country with a huge $43 billion deficit, with no jobs, with people losing their mortgages and we built it with a vision, not just with one-shot deals, into a nation that was holding its head high above the world. We had nine balanced budgets and a huge surplus. We are now looking at a deficit and the possibility of a recession. Jobs are being lost. This is what happened in two years under the Conservative government and that is because it has no plan, no vision and it does not even understand what our country is about.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I definitely share that concern as well. The purpose of this fund is to have it during the ups and downs in the economy, which happened to be doing very well in recent years. However, all of a sudden we have this downturn that could cause a huge number of people having to apply to this fund. There certainly should be sufficient latitude in that fund to deal with those types of contingencies.

I went to the briefing on Bill C-50, the finance bill, and there were a couple more esoteric points I had related to this fund and also to the changes to the Bank of Canada financing. What I am worried about is taking the investment ability and distancing it into this agency from the Government of Canada.

We have had a crisis lately related to asset backed funds. If we take the investments at more arm's length from government, how do we know what these investments might be in? How do we have government control? We, of course, want safe investments and socially acceptable investments with these funds.

It is the same with the Bank of Canada. Some provisions in this bill, which I am not sure have been talked about in the debate at all, that would increase the latitude and the mechanisms the Bank of Canada has in investing the money that it happens to have at a particular time.

I do not have a problem with modernizing the investment procedures to fit modern instruments, et cetera, but in this time, when we have had some great crises, in fact we have had a committee hearing specifically on this crisis of failures in certain types of assets, I think we should give particular concern to watching the latitude or the distancing of government investments. We need to keep that very close at hand and ensure, as people always expect, these are safe investments. People do not expect the government to be making huge profits but they do expect it to be investing in things that will never lose their money.

I think those are two important items that, as these things are implemented in the future, we should keep very careful watch of. I know members of the various opposition parties will be watching these items.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to advise the hon. member that when we come back to the study of Bill C-50 he will have 2 minutes left in his debate and 10 minutes under questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to oppose Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill.

I can assure members and the people of Nanaimo—Cowichan that I will actually be in my seat and will vote in the House when Bill C-50 comes before the House. Not only will I speak in opposition to the bill, but I will actually vote in opposition to the bill, unlike some members of the Liberal Party.

There are many good reasons to oppose the bill. On one of them, I will come back to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which has issued a paper called “A Budget Canadians Can Count On”. In the paper, the centre says:

The legacy of this minority government is one of neglect: the Conservative government has failed to address some of the most pressing issues of our time....

Canadians are working harder but they are struggling to afford the basics: housing, child care, post-secondary education. There has been nothing in the previous two Conservative budgets to address these issues. Canadians have not been able to count on their government to get them through shaky financial times.

The centre goes on to state:

This, for a minority government, is shocking. Its tax cut agenda to date reduces Canada's fiscal capacity by close to $190 billion over the next six years. That $190 billion could, and should, fund programs and services that all Canadians can count on but within a matter of years--the blink of an eye--it will have disappeared with no lasting investment in this and future generations of Canadians.

That in itself is a very good reason to oppose the budget implementation bill.

Over the last several months since the budget came out, we have seen increasing joblessness in Canada. A CBC story dated May 9 talked about the fact that manufacturing continued its decline in April, with losses in Ontario and British Columbia. The number of factory workers has decreased by 112,000 since April 2007, according to Statistics Canada. Recently, of course, we have heard of more layoffs in the auto sector, and certainly forestry is reeling.

In my province of British Columbia and my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have seen hundreds of jobs disappear over the last six months. We have heard nothing but absolute silence from the government. We have called on the government to institute a national forestry strategy and a national auto sector strategy. The silence is deafening.

The Financial Post of Saturday, May 10 said:

B.C.'s forestry industry has experienced hard times before, but nothing close to this. As long as fallers worked the forests, and truckers hauled their logs, and sawmills produced lumber, and pulp mills turned their waste to paper, the whole system, while precariously co-dependent, seemed to work.

With three production lines capable of producing 400,000 tonnes of pulp product a year, Harmac was the industry's Hercules. It was ageing, and not terribly efficient and probably in need of a major overhaul. But the mill was always counted on to chug along...

This week was black. A sawmill near Campbell River, on Vancouver Island, was scheduled to permanently close. Its owner, Vancouver-based TimberWest Forest Corp., had been trying to sell the Elk Falls plant since 2005. Another 257 jobs, gone. Production stopped this week at Harmac's sister pulpmill in Mackenzie, a town in the B.C. interior, putting 260 more people out of work. A thousand loggers and contractors on Vancouver Island were laid off this week by Western Forest Products Inc., a leader in the industry.

Trees are still being felled in B.C. forests, but more and more, logs are loaded onto ships and delivered, raw and cheap, to such countries as the United States and China, where they are processed. Trucks used to haul logs and wood products around the province are sitting idle.

The result: Mills are starving...A sawmill in Ladysmith, near Nanaimo, closed indefinitely in April. More than 80 workers just lost their jobs at a mill in Crofton, down the highway. Almost 150 people were told not to return to a papermaking plant near Campbell River.

According to the Forest Products Association of Canada, there have been 46 mill closures in B.C. since January, 2007, and 5,747 jobs lost. There is no fix on the horizon...

Nanaimo lost something integral. The city, a thriving, busy hub of shopping malls, new housing developments and myriad services, is at heart a mill town.

All of that was from the Financial Post, but I want to now put some names and faces to this, because this is not just about numbers. This is about people. It is about their families. It is about their children. It is about their grandchildren.

I want to talk a little more about what the article says about how this impacts on people's lives. The article states:

“We thought it would go on forever,“ said John Kloppenburg, 53, one of the few men who did stop to talk outside the mill on Wednesday...“It was my bread and butter for 34 years. And now...” His voice trailed off. “Now I feel lost.”

Further on the article states:

“Guys are looking for answers, they are trying to figure out how they are going to put their lives together,” says Gerry Tellier, president of president of the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers Union, Local 8....His father, Louie, started at the mill in 1951, three years after it opened. “He told me that if I was going to work for a living, I might as well work for a big company that's going to pay well, because they are likely going to stay around forever,” Mr. Tellier recalls.

He took his dad's advice, and signed on at Harmac in 1966. He passed the wisdom along to his own son, Trevor, who went to work at Harmac 20 years ago.

There are three generations of the Tellier family who worked at Harmac. Now they have lost their jobs and they are being forced into leaving the community where they grew up, a community which they love and which they contribute to in so many different ways.

Another person from my constituency, Laura Bohun, in writing on behalf of her husband, said:

As a voting taxpayer in the degenerating province of British Columbia, I feel I must call on you to address the issue of Employment Insurance. My husband is one of the many thousands of men across the country that lost long term forestry employment as a result of the criminal changes made to our forestry code by provincial government, ignored by federal Ministers....The rape of our forest communities continues the sell off of raw logs to the U.S. while forestry communities are dying.

After 26 years of employment at the Ladysmith Western Forest Products Mill (formerly known as Domans) he was given a one week notice (on April 17, 2008) and told that the mill was shutting its doors indefinitely, at least one year minimum. Since January of the same year, my husband only worked every other week on an on call basis. Never enough time off to apply for EI benefits until the mill shut down on May 5th.

She goes on in her letter to talk about the fact that her husband is going to face an unconscionable delay in even getting a decision about whether he qualifies for EI benefits. She recognizes the fact that there are surpluses, excuse me, that there were surpluses. She said:

I implore the powers that be to take some of this EI surplus and use it for the purpose it was intended to serve. How...are ordinary working class people supposed to stop paying mortgages and buying food while we wait for the government to give us back money they failed to disburse to us?

She goes on to talk about the fact that there are 10,000 other unemployed skilled workers in B.C. and that work is very hard to find, and that no one who makes $10 an hour can afford to own a house.

That is a critical point because in Bill C-50, there is a clause to actually set out the EI fund at arm's length to the government. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with setting the EI fund at arm's length so that successive governments cannot pilfer the fund, what we are really concerned about is that over $50 billion has disappeared from the EI fund. This is money that could be used to help workers in transition, to help them with bridging into other employment, to take a look at reinvesting in communities so that communities can diversify and make sure that families get to stay in their own communities instead of having to move somewhere else.

On March 5, the member for Acadie—Bathurst in a question put to the minister responsible for the EI fund, said:

Why does the reserve fund of the new crown corporation not contain the entire $57 billion that belonged to workers?

Fifty-seven billion dollars. The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development responded by saying:

Mr. Speaker, there is no question the Liberals did raid the EI account to the tune of well over $50 billion.

The minister acknowledges the wrong that was done by the Liberals but does nothing to rectify it. We are telling Canadians it is perfectly okay for the previous government to take $50 billion of workers' money, money that workers have paid into a fund for decades and never collected, and then when it is time to actually make sure that workers have that social safety net in place, the government says it is too bad. The money was pilfered by the Liberals, but the government is not going to put it back in the fund where workers can actually take advantage of that fund to make sure that their communities stay viable.

Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of parliamentary privilege and that we have to be very careful about how we talk about funds that go missing, but the member for Halifax today talked about a former finance minister and about misappropriation of funds. I would argue that when workers pay into a fund and expect it to be there and the fund disappears, that sounds like misappropriation.

We know that the previous Liberal government gutted the EI fund anyway. The Liberals took the money out and made sure that only one in four men and one in three women who were working could actually qualify. The Liberals reduced the amount that people would get to 55%. The benefit rate is now only 55% of their earnings. They made the number of hours much higher so that people would have more difficulty in qualifying.

What is happening right now in Nanaimo--Cowichan is that people who had worked for decades in the forestry industry, after five or six months on EI, are told that their benefits are running out because Nanaimo--Cowichan's unemployment rate is tied to that of the Lower Mainland, a completely different labour market. When we followed up to find out if there was anything that could be done about that, we were told that the regions are reconfigured every so many years and it is just not time. We wrote to the minister saying that these are real people who are worried about paying their mortgages, about sending their kids to college and could something not be done. The response to date has been silence.

Those 1,500-plus workers who have lost their jobs over the last six months, whether it was at Munns Lumber, Ted LeRoy Trucking, Catalyst Paper, Harmac Pulp Mill or Western Forest Products' Ladysmith mill, whatever the company, are all people who have homes in our communities, who pay taxes in our communities. Not only are those workers worried about whether or not they are going to have a future in our communities, but the municipalities are also worried about it. They are losing a good tax revenue source as these companies close. The very health and vitality of Nanaimo--Cowichan was the forestry sector. People are wondering what the future holds for them.

There are some very good reasons, just on the forestry sector alone in Nanaimo--Cowichan, British Columbia and across this country, for opposing this bill. This bill holds nothing for forestry. It holds nothing for the EI fund in terms of making sure money goes back to the workers who actually deserve it.

On another note, as the aboriginal affairs critic for the New Democrats, I have to draw attention to the shocking absence in the original budget speech and now in the budget implementation bill of meaningful measures for aboriginal people.

I have spoken many times in this House about the desperate poverty with respect to many first nations, Métis and Inuit, but as a reminder, 41% of aboriginal children under 14 were living in poverty nationally in 2001, rising to 51% in Manitoba and 52% in Saskatchewan. Those are shocking numbers. In Canada in this day and age we should not be talking about how poor the first nations, Métis and Inuit children and their families are, but sadly all we see is the government's inattention and neglect in such matters as education, housing, clean water, and many of the initiatives in early learning and child care that would actually help lift first nations, Métis and Inuit out of poverty.

We all know from the many studies that have been done that education is one of the tools that can be used to make sure that people have access to employment. In some areas there are skills shortages, for example, apprenticeable trades, physicians, medical technologists. There are many, many occupations where there are skills shortages. It has been studied to death, whether it was in the aboriginal affairs committee or the human resources committee, and the recommendations have consistently been to put more money into education. It is simple. The second piece of that is to make sure that first nations, Métis and Inuit are involved in designing, developing and delivering that education.

I have spoken about the First Nations Technical Institute many times in this House. We recently received a letter from the minister indicating that although the First Nations Technical Institute got some additional money this year, it is not likely to happen in future years. In fact the letter stated:

--the Department's preferred focus is on transferring tuition dollars directly to learners. As a result, 2007-2008 is the last year the Department will provide transitional funding to the First Nations Technical Institute.

This flies in the face of so many reports that have talked about the importance of indigenous control of education. The First Nations Technical Institute graduates high numbers of students. The students have a very high success rate in terms of placement in employment or further education. What we are hearing from the minister is, “Too bad. You have the results. You are performing, but too bad. You have to find some private money from somewhere”. First nations post-secondary students have to go to institutions that are privately funded from somewhere else. We do not ask other students in Canada to do that. Why would we ask first nations students to do it?

While I am talking about schooling, the member for Timmins—James Bay has been tireless in bringing forward the shameful fact that Attawapiskat children do not have access to a clean, safe public school.

We did a bit of research. We asked the Library of Parliament to do an analysis. The analysis showed that there was roughly $56 billion in federal corporate tax cuts from 2001 to 2007. Based on that amount, we could build every pending school project 177 times.

When we tried to get a list of what schools were pending for construction or renovation we were able to get the names of 39. We know the number is substantially more than that because of an access to information request. Based on 39 schools that needed renovation or construction, that would total $315,833,000. From the billions of dollars that were used for corporate tax cuts, surely we could have found $315 million to build schools to provide education for first nations children. Without proper education, first nations children will continue to face the wall of poverty that their mothers and fathers faced.

Officials from Indian and northern affairs appeared before committee. I posed a question to them around the funding issue. There are a couple of issues here. There is something called the band operating funding formula which allows the schools to continue to operate. We found that they received exactly the same money as they received last year even though we know that was substantially less than what is needed to operate the schools.

On reserve schools are substantially underfunded compared to schools off reserve. Does this mean a first nations child does not deserve the same level of education as an off reserve child? First nations children do not have access to computers or other technology or libraries. They do not have access to special needs programs or a speech therapist because they live on reserve and they are a first nations child.

I asked the associate deputy minister about the funding and he said that K to 12 funding is still part of the 2% funding cap and that is a challenge. It is a bit of an understatement to say that it is a challenge. The Auditor General has identified population growth at around 11% and yet funding has been less than 2% when a bunch of other elements are factored in, such as the cost of living and those kinds of things.

The 2% cap was put in under the previous Liberal government in 1995-96 as a cost saving measure despite the fact that it knew that the population was growing. The Conservatives have maintained that 2% funding cap despite all of the reports, including the Auditor General's report, that talk about the serious underfunding crisis in education, in housing, in health care.

I want to put a couple of faces to this issue.

The member for Timmins—James Bay has done an excellent job in raising the issue around Attawapiskat. Canadians from coast to coast to coast recognize that the children from Attawapiskat articulately talk about what it means for them to go to school.

The Canadian Press on January 24 published a report, “Funding crunch affects native schools”, which states:

“They've put a freeze on even our renovation dollars,” said the co-director of education for the Prince Albert Grand Council in Saskatchewan. It's one of the largest tribal councils in Canada, representing 12 bands and 26 communities.

Hill said at least a quarter of the council's 29 schools need major repairs.

Sometimes there isn't even a building. A school at Deschambault Lake in northern Saskatchewan hasn't been replaced since it burnt down in 2004.

That was four years ago. For four years those kids have been shipped all over their community, taking classes in basements and wherever else that space could be found. I would argue that in any community off reserve it would not take four years to get a school back on the ground; in fact, I know it would not. In other communities where schools have burned down, they have been rebuilt within two years.

The member for Timmins—James Bay did an access to information request on the state of school construction projects. I could not even find that one on the list.

We talk about the importance of education, yet the government keeps shovelling money away from education. It has underfunded so many projects. In the period 1999-2000 and 2006-07, a total of $72 million per year was reallocated internally from the capital facilities maintenance program to address the pressures in other areas.

When we are trying to fund schools, there has to be a dedicated pot of money that puts children first. We need to make sure that first nations kids on reserve have the same access to education as has every other off reserve child in this country. It is criminal that children are not getting that education.

We in the NDP will be opposing this bill on principle.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is possible, but I would suggest, quite frankly, that my colleague put aside all partisanship, disregard all of the parties in the House and respond simply as an elected representative of the people and his constituents, just as I am.

He spoke very eloquently about immigration. I myself spoke yesterday about part 6 of Bill C-50. When it comes time to vote, at the end of debate on this bill at third reading, why would he not actively vote in the interest of his constituents of whom he so eloquently spoke? Why would he not speak out against this bill? As far as I understood, the member expressed nothing but concerns, just as I did in my speech yesterday.

Why would he not rise in this House to vote against this bill that he is criticizing? That is how I see it.

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

Mr. Speaker, almost two months ago, I rose in the House to discuss the serious concerns my constituents had about the proposed changes to Canada's immigration laws in Bill C-50.

It is with great frustration that I rise in the House again with the same concerns.

The government has had ample time to listen to the many people who have spoken out on this issue and to the changes that it wants to make, yet it has refused to listen. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was recently in my riding. Instead of listening to my constituents and instead of bringing the message from my constituents of Newton—North Delta to Ottawa, she tried to impose the orders from Ottawa on those constituents. In fact, she did not even care to meet the general public there. She only met her Conservative loyalists to relay her message and to look good.

It is not only my constituents of Newton—North Delta who are concerned. In fact your constituents, Mr. Speaker, of Ottawa—Orléans are feeling the same way. They want you to bring the message from the grassroots to the House of Commons, not the other way around.

Another incident happened. When the minister was to meet the South Asian media on this issue, some people gathered where the minister was supposed be so they could express their concerns to her. What happened? As usual, following the Conservative policy and plan, the minister cancelled the event to meet with the media because she did not want to face those constituents. She met only with her preferred people and left out the South Asian media.

On another issue, when an election spending scandal issue was in the House, the Prime Minister did the same thing. The minister is following the lead of her leader.

We should be clear that the government has never tried to make an honest, open attempt to improve our immigration system. The Prime Minister has always wanted to sneak these changes through the back door by including them in the budget implementation bill, a confidence measure.

Those who had hoped for a change of heart over the past two months have been sorely disappointed. There was never any public consultation on these changes before they were introduced in the House of Commons. The only real public consultation these changes received was from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The committee heard from a number of witnesses over extended meetings last month. Its conclusions were disheartening.

First, the committee reiterated how fundamental changes to our immigration system should be made. Changes need comprehensive and meaningful consultation. That did not happen. Changes should be introduced in stand-alone legislation. That did not happen. The committee should be given clear and detailed explanatory information. That did not happen. It is almost as if the government is trying to prove that these changes are being made in bad faith.

Nonetheless, the committee continued its work, and I commend its well thought out conclusions. The committee concluded, as I have, that these changes would not fix the backlog of applications. The changes would only apply to the applications and requests made on or after February 27, 2008.

The changes will not speed up the processing of the 900,000 applications made before then. This point is worth repeating. The government claims that it introduced these changes to reduce the backlog but they will do no such thing. Even when we look at the record of the government on reducing the backlog, the record is very clear. Under its administration, the backlog of applications has increased by 125,000 applications. The changes could even result in longer waiting times for these people as new applicants are prioritized.

The committee also found that the proposed changes cut at the heart of Canadian values. Canada is known around the world for its commitment to fairness and equality and yet these changes jeopardize the predictability and fairness of the current immigration system that we have in place.

The changes would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration discretionary powers to prioritize who will get into Canada and to direct which category of applicants may be returned without even being processed. This discretion lacks transparency and creates uncertainty for prospective immigrants. It takes oversight and accountability away from Parliament. That is not unusual when it comes to the accountability of the government. On every issue the government has failed to prove that it is accountable to Canadians.

No person should be subjected to that kind of arbitrary power, which the minister is trying to skew. People are worried that they could do everything right and obey every law but still be rejected out of hand. The minister claims that the intent of these changes is more modest. The problem is that our country is ruled by law, not intentions.

We are opening the door to the kind of abuses that are completely unacceptable in a country like ours. If we open the door to these abuses, where will it stop? Even the attempts at openness proposed in the new law are nothing more than red herrings. The Conservatives say that the government will publish new instructions for prioritizing applications in the Canada Gazette, but publication will only occur after the instructions have come into effect, leaving no opportunity for consultation.

It is sad that the government did not try to hold a consensus among all parties to reform our immigration system. We all agree that the system is in dire need of reform. We have a backlog of more than 900,000 applications of people who want to immigrate to Canada. This backlog leaves applicants waiting for years to hear back from us.

At the same time, many parts of Canada also have severe labour market shortages. Within the next decade, British Columbia will face a potential shortfall of 350,000 workers. Even though the government is trying to bring in the temporary workers to fill those positions, it is not working.

Every day in my riding of Newton—North Delta small business people come to my office with complaints and getting frustrated with the government's policy because only one out of ten applicants are successful in coming here as a temporary worker.

Small businesses, particularly manufacturers, are facing competition from giant forces like India and China. They cannot compete when it comes to the labour force. On top of that, they have a shortage of people. They have spent millions of dollars in capital investment but the government is doing nothing to help them with the shortage of labour they are facing.

The record on that one is very clear as well. If we look at the government's record over the last two years on bringing immigrants into this country, it brought in 36,000 fewer immigrants to meet the needs of those businesses. It is very important to have those permanent immigrants coming into this country because in the next decade the only way we can meet that demand is from those permanent immigrants. Those are the ones who will create the local economy. On the other side, temporary workers will come in for eight months, earn money and then go back to their countries. They will not be contributing anything to the local economies.

Over the next decade, particularly in British Columbia, over $100 billion worth of new infrastructure projects are planned or under way in British Columbia but many are delayed due to the lack of workers. The opening of Cloverdale Trades and Technology Centre at Kwantlen University was delayed because it could not find enough tradespeople to finish the job. It is hard to believe that a trades school could not find enough trades workers to finish its own building. This is how bad the situation is and the minister and the Conservative government are not waking up to this issue.

On top of that, our aging population makes these challenges all the more important. For the first time ever, over half of our workers are over 40 years of age. The ratio of those aged 65 and over to those of working age from 18 to 64 will start rising from the current level of 20% to 46% by 2050. The bottom line is that Canada cannot survive without immigration. All of our population growth and labour market growth will come from immigration over the next two decades. Without immigration our economy will collapse.

This is not rocket science. Canada should match its labour market demand with the labour supply that is waiting to immigrate. The backlog represents a tremendous opportunity to do that. There are two ways to actually solve the backlog. We can either eliminate applications or add more officers to process them faster.

The choice is very clear. Does the minister want to eliminate the applications to catch up with the backlog instead of hiring more immigration officers to process those applications expediently so we can bring in those immigrants and meet the demands of the labour shortage in places like British Columbia and Alberta?

The government has the money to hire more officers but it has been unwilling to do that. The government found money for boutique tax credits, money to reward their friends and money to bribe voters in swing ridings but it cannot find the money to bring in immigrants to meet our labour market needs and meet the needs of small businesses that are going out of business because they cannot find competent people right here in Canada.

It is not that the government cannot invest more money into the system. It is that it has chosen not to do that. This is the right time to make that investment and for the government to listen to the opposition members in this House and to those businesses and Canadians who know exactly where the problem is, not the minister who has no clue what she is trying to get into.

If the government had any integrity, it would withdraw section 6 of Bill C-50 and begin a real consultation on a different way to fix the challenges facing our immigration system, but I do not think it will, and I cannot support that.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-50. I want to touch on a number of issues, one relating to the widening income gap that we are seeing in Canada. On another issue, I want to touch on some solutions that my colleagues and I have proposed.

I also want to talk about what the government could have done with some of the money received from Canadians other than continuing to subsidize large oil and gas companies and other big corporations. I also want to speak about the changes to the immigration act, as they will really touch some of my constituents who come into my office to speak to me.

The latest census figures paint a grim picture of our economy. While incomes for the richest 20% of Canadians have increased, the poorest have become poorer and meanwhile the incomes of those in the middle have just simply flatlined. This is according to the recent Statistics Canada report.

This corporate wealth grab is the result of a well orchestrated partnership with neo-liberal governments of past decades. The Thomas d'Aquinos have syphoned off all the benefits. We hear a lot about the trickle down effect. I am sure that it might make sense if it were not for the sponges at the top that are preventing any kind of trickle down.

In Victoria alone, according to recent research published from a “Quality of Life Challenge” report, parents need to make almost $16.50 an hour just to earn a basic living wage. It reports that 27.2% of families in B.C.'s capital fall below the acceptable living standard line. What is more alarming is that the research reveals that the majority of parents had 70 hour work weeks, the equivalent of two full time jobs. This is up 10 hours from last year.

What we see also are young people, aboriginal and immigrants, who are marginalized and trapped in part time, unstable, low paying McJobs, despite the government's rhetoric about job creation.

It is important for all of us in the House to talk seriously about the living wage. Victoria's housing costs are among the highest in the country. While the unemployment rate is the lowest in nearly four decades, I concede, employment trends are toward more low wage, part time and more insecure jobs that support the service sector, including tourism.

The labour pool will continue shrinking as the boomers retire and not many families with children can afford to live in Victoria. Only a small number of new immigrants make their homes in my riding. Young people tend to move away.

When more people are paid a living wage, the quality of life in the community improves. That is well known. A healthy economy attracts families, businesses and tourists. A living wage begins to close that income gap that we are seeing and reduces the number of people who are disadvantaged because of poverty.

In the study that I mentioned, expenses for a family of four were calculated on approximately $4,600 income per month. The rent took the largest bite with about $1,300, approximately 28% of costs, but it was closely followed by child care which amounted to approximately $1,000 a month, and then food and transportation costs. However, we know that food prices are rising exponentially.

This is where the government's neo-liberal approach is failing Canadian businesses and families. The federal government's absence from the table to make housing more affordable in Canada is inexcusable. The government's inaction in establishing national standards for child care and providing multi-year funding is adding to the crisis that families face.

These are all actions that we know would help working families and small businesses.

A couple of months ago, I met with some mayors of rural communities in the province of British Columbia. They told me that the absence of a national child care system and stable multi-year funding from the federal government were creating serious problems for those communities' ability to attract new businesses, because business owners know that they will not be able to attract employees.

High living costs are impacting businesses as well. They are having difficulty in attracting employees to our own high priced city and retaining them. Despite historically low unemployment and new sources of wealth creation, poverty in British Columbia's capital region, particularly among the working poor, is unacceptably high.

I was intrigued to read in the Statistics Canada report a couple of weeks ago that in 2007 British Columbia had its second best year for retail sales since 1995. That was a 6.7% increase over the previous year in Victoria, yet Victoria's downtown shopping centre, with its report of double digit sales growth for most of 2007, showed that the actual number of shoppers going through its doors was flat.

There is something wrong there. Or if it is not wrong, it is at least interesting that businesses have higher sales but fewer shoppers. Perhaps this indicates that fewer shoppers were simply purchasing more. This could be explained by the fact that in Victoria more than 30% of residents live below the poverty line and are unable to shop for anything beyond the very basics of food, transportation and so on.

This percentage could be reduced if more people who want to return to work were able to do so. At the moment, they are hampered by the fact that affordable day care, for example, is simply not available in the capital city of British Columbia.

Another recent report, from the University of British Columbia's Human Early Learning Partnership, highlighted an immediate need of 13,000 child care spaces for children from infant to school age. These numbers clearly cry out for a high quality national day care program to be put in place.

Along with high quality child care, education and skills training must be the starting point in breaking the cycle of poverty and illiteracy and ensuring Canada's competitiveness in the knowledge economy. Yet since 1995, when the then Liberal government initiated devolution for training to the provinces, Canada has remained leaderless in setting national standards or certification and qualification systems.

An OECD report,“Beyond Rhetoric: Adult Learning Policies and Practices”, states:

Governments' influence over national legislation and public resourcing policies is perhaps the most important way it can express clear commitment to supporting integrated policies for adult learning.

We need government policies, legislation and regulation that facilitate adult learning. We need financial incentives that encourage firms to invest in their workforce or incentives for individuals to engage in learning. All of this was cut by the Conservative government in last year's budget, at a crucial time when we know that many Canadians still lack the fundamental skills they need to move ahead.

Basic skills training and equitable access to education obviously remain a low priority for the government. Many Canadians come to my office and tell me about training needs and the difficulty in accessing programs. According to a recent Canadian Council on Learning report, 30% of Canadian workers reported in 2002 that there was job related training they needed or wanted to take, but they were unable to do so.

Although I realize this represents partly the former government's under-investment in training, important issues remain. Not enough is being done, and certainly not in this budget, to address the problem nationally.

Along the same lines, many families have spoken to me about the high cost of education. Without a meaningful investment in student grants for students of low income and middle income families, the Conservatives' transfer of funds from the Millennium Scholarship Foundation to a government-administered grants system will do nothing to improve access. If it is essential to our prosperity, why are we not doing more?

Not only does the lack of skilled workers affect ordinary Canadians' ability to cope, but it is impacting businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up Victoria's business community, face greater barriers. Some small business owners have told me that poaching is a real problem for them. If the Conservatives chose to act on the employability report recommendations, it could help address these issues.

The employability report was tabled several months ago. If the government decided to implement these recommendations, it could help reduce the problems associated with poverty and also help small and medium-sized enterprises. I would like to mention a few of these recommendations. One of them recommends:

that the federal government provide funding to assist individuals who agree to relocate to enter employment in occupations experiencing skills shortages.

That is exactly the type of recommendation submitted by my colleague for Hamilton Mountain to the government. Another recommendation proposes “a national agency for the assessment and recognition of credentials, especially foreign credentials”.

Yet another calls on the government to consider:

expanding and restructuring the apprenticeship job creation tax credit and the apprenticeship incentive grant to encourage growth in apprenticeships and the completion of apprenticeship training generally.

Several recommendations seek to make access to education more equitable. At present, low to middle income families find it quite difficult to pay the very high tuition fees charged by Canadian universities.This employability report recommended that the federal student loan interest rate be considerably reduced or simply eliminated.

At present, students from low to middle income families have less access to education than students from rich families. Although the government has announced some changes and improvements to the administration of the student loans system, which I certainly applaud, there remain many bureaucratic and administrative problems to be resolved. We recommended the creation of an ombudsman for student loans to promote the better use of the loan system.

Various recommendations of this type would help solve the problems faced by many Canadians with respect to precarious jobs and would also help small businesses facing labour shortages.

I also wish to take a few minutes to speak about the changes to the immigration act that the government has proposed. These changes are going to encourage queue jumping. They are going to make family reunification more precarious and that is of serious concern.

I want to give members two typical cases. I could give many cases, but these two really illustrate some of the basic problems.

We are all aware that there are problems with the huge backlog of applications that has accumulated over the last decade, and these problems must be solved. However, they should not be solved by simply accepting that we have an immigration policy that becomes totally arbitrary, withdrawing it from the purview of Parliament and putting it in the hands of one person, the minister.

The son of one of my constituents, for example, still has not received a visa after many years. We have contacted the Canadian embassy in Nairobi. When it did not respond to our emails, I called the ministerial inquiries division and asked it to check into the situation. I was told that Nairobi was waiting for the medicals to arrive from the doctor, but when we spoke to the constituent, she said that she had called the doctor's office and had not heard back.

The message is that this reunification of a mother and a son has taken an unacceptably long time. This is not a problem that we will solve by simply making the kinds of changes that render our immigration policy totally arbitrary.

We need that family reunification clause. It is an important aspect of our policy, a longstanding policy that Canada offers to families we welcome in our country to allow them to better settle here.

I would like to give a couple of other examples. Back in 2004, one of my constituents and his wife began the process of applying to sponsor her parents from the Ukraine. It took two years before the application was actually received in the embassy in the Ukraine, which was November 2006. They continue to wait. My question is, why does it take so long to reunite a family?

I see that I have a couple of minutes left and would like to end by touching just briefly on the environment. The 2008 budget does not take decisive action to tackle climate change. It continues to reflect a regressive approach to the issue, focusing on such measures as carbon sequestration to further increase the development of the tar sands rather than a comprehensive program to reverse climate change.

Just in the past few days, we have seen Ontario and Quebec get together to put in place measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions, as have B.C. and Manitoba. As the Globe and Mail stated, the country's most populous provinces “are turning their backs on Ottawa” by setting up a cap and trade system.

Faced with the government's inaction, Canadian premiers are giving up on Ottawa. For example, Quebec's and Ontario's use of 1990 emission levels as a baseline for setting caps contrasts with the government's baseline, which is 2006.

The Minister of the Environment said just today in the House during question period that Canada must actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I wish he would actually take action to do that rather than maintain the Conservative government's intensity based targets--

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to look back to December 2005 when a choice had to be made. At that time the NDP and the Bloc joined forces to bring down the then Liberal government. This was done after ignoring the pleas of most progressive forces in this country, be it the Sierra Club, environmentalists, child care advocates, first nations, and the list goes on.

The Liberal Party is opposed to Bill C-50. My party is also cognizant of the political reality that the Conservative government wants an election on Bill C-50, particularly as it relates to part 6.

Conservative members observed what happened in the last provincial election where the ADQ used immigrant bashing in the province of Quebec and almost formed the government. We saw that intolerance generated during the course of the reasonable accommodation debate. Make no mistake about it, the Conservative Party had this very much in mind in terms of trying to trigger an election on Bill C-50.

The decision to trigger an election belongs to the official opposition because without it there will be no election and our leader is cognizant of that. As much as I counselled our leader at the time of the Throne Speech and on numerous other occasions that we should go to an election, thinking better now than letting the Conservatives do any damage, I have to be cognizant of the fact that we have a responsibility to make sure that those folks across the way, the neo-conservative party in the House, never form a majority government.

It is the job of the leader to frame the question on what the next election is going to be fought on. That day is coming. I see an election being called around the issue of the carbon tax because most opposition parties want to reduce our carbon output. It would shift the economy to reward things that are good and would penalize things that we want less.

I am not the leader of my party, but I do have a strong interest in citizenship and immigration and issues related to the charter. I do occupy a place in the House that no member with my years of experience occupies. This gives me a good view of what is going on and it also affords me the opportunity to get a bird's eye view not only of all members from the backbenches forward but in the opposition as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague. I appreciate the sacrifices that he has made. He was the only member of the Liberal Party, aside from a small group of the leadership, who actually voted against Bill C-50 and for the NDP amendments that would have taken out the most egregious aspects of the immigration changes and the theft from the employment insurance fund. Essentially, he was the one Liberal who said, “I am going to vote along with the NDP for these amendments and I will vote against Bill C-50”.

The appalling results last night were that aside from the hon. member, there were only 11 other Liberals who were in the House and Bill C-50 was allowed to move from report stage to third reading. Because somewhere around 84 or 85 Liberals were absent last night, that essentially allowed the Conservative government to move forward with an agenda, which the hon. member has said very clearly is not a good agenda for Canada, and I admire him for it. I realize he has been punished by his leader for having spoken up. I am grateful that there is one Liberal who is willing to stand up in the House and show some backbone.

My question for him is very simple. What can he do when his own leader refuses to stop any aspect of the Conservative Party agenda? For over a year now in confidence vote after confidence vote we have seen Liberals endorsing the Conservatives' agenda. Every single time, all the Conservatives have to do is mention the “c” word, confidence, and the Liberals and the Liberal leader automatically vote for whatever it is, regardless of the consequences for the country, regardless of what it means for ordinary working families.

How does the member feel about his own party simply not standing up for the principles that he has enunciated in this House and for which he actually voted last night, principles on which the NDP has led, amendments to this bad, bad bill in order to move forward with a budget that actually would do something for working people? When his own party has left him, where does that leave him?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage in the debate on third reading, particularly as it pertains to section 6 of Bill C-50, which deals with the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The changes that are being proposed are major structural and draconian changes to our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. To put such important structural changes in conjunction with a budget implementation bill shows the government's contempt for the institution of Parliament, the citizenship and immigration committee, new Canadians and all Canadians.

I need not remind the government that immigration has been the lifeblood of this country, that immigration is the lifeblood of this country and that immigration will continue to be the lifeblood of this country.

Any thoughtful person in Canada knows that we are faced with serious demographic challenges. Within the next four years, 100% of our net growth in labour will be met through immigration. This issue is one of great importance to the future of our country.

When section 6 was put into the budget implementation act, it is amazing that no reference was made by the government to the citizenship and immigration committee. The reason we have standing committees of Parliament is to hold the government, the minister and the bureaucracy accountable. That is the very basis of our parliamentary system. The government tried to bypass that process and, to a large extent, it has bypassed the process.

It so happened that the finance committee of this House of Commons referred a question pertaining to changes to the Immigration Act, section 6, over to the citizenship and immigration committee and asked us to respond to it. In considering the changes, the committee tripled its number of sittings. It held extraordinary sittings to ensure we could hear from Canadians.

I will tell members what happened. When the government announced Bill C-50, the committee was just starting to undertake a cross country consultation in every capital city on the issues of undocumented workers, temporary foreign workers and immigration consultants. The Conservative members on the committee would not allow us to talk about Bill C-50 as it pertained to the changes to the Immigration Act.

Members can just imagine the incredible wasted opportunity we had at that point not to be able to talk to Canadians. Every time we got into the issue of witnesses trying to make representation on Bill C-50, the parliamentary secretary objected very strongly.

We need to revisit the rules because it puts us in disrepute as a parliamentary committee conducting consultations across the country and we are not talking about the most important issue on the parliamentary agenda, which is section 6 of Bill C-50. However, as I mentioned, we did the best we could. We held hearings and extended the hours of those hearings.

I want to share with members of the House what one witness said to the committee. The name of this witness was submitted by the parliamentary secretary as being someone who should be speaking to Bill C-50.

Mr. Warren Creates, head of the Immigration Law Group with Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall, said:

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

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

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

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

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

What I find particularly heinous or egregious is proposed subsection 87.3(2), which talks about the opinion of the minister. The legislation says:

The processing of applications and requests is to be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion of the Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals.

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

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

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

I will not read any more of that but I will say that this person, when he first heard the announcement around section 6 of Bill C-50, stood and applauded it and supported it. As soon as he was able to examine what it really meant we see the results. That is what I quoted and he was very much in opposition.

Another issue which the person talked about, and it should be talked about, is what the government claims it was going to accomplish.

The government has taken the unprecedented step of spending $4 million to spread misinformation to Canadians, by buying ads in the ethnic media. It is making the same kinds of claims that were made to that gentleman, who is a lawyer and who, upon examination, rejected those claims. The minister said, and this is an important issue, “Currently, the immigration backlog sits at 925,000 applications. This means that the wait time for an application can be as long a six years”.

The skilled workers class, which is essentially where the growth happened, had a waiting list of 615,000 at the end of 2007. This is essentially the backlog. Those are the numbers that are important in this debate. It so happens that since the Conservatives have been in office, they have grown this category by over 100,000 in two years. The minister is responsible for 85,000 of that growth. Here we have a minister saying that she is going to reduce the backlog, but the reality is that it was on her watch that the backlog grew.

Regarding the claim made by the Conservatives in terms of dealing with the backlog, let us take a look at another standard of performance. What has happened to the backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board?

When the Liberals left office, there was a backlog of less than 20,000. The processing time was being reduced. It was less than a year and we had hoped to get it down to six months. For the first time we had turned the corner on the program. It had been put in place initially by the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney and actually was a beehive of patronage appointments, but we changed it to a merit based system and the Liberal government did not interfere in the appointment of IRB members.

The Conservative government came in and it failed to fill the vacant positions. Of a 160 member Immigration and Refugee Board, there were about 100 members. The Conservatives grew the backlog from less than 20,000 to about 45,000 today, which is going to hit 60,000 or 62,000 by the end of the year.

The time to process the claims has increased to 18 months and that is if there is no appeal. If there is an appeal, because of the shortage of IRB members, they cannot even take time to make a booking because they just do not have the people power to process it.

That is one claim the minister made. I think I have shed some light on the fact that the rhetoric does not meet the record of the government.

The government in this ad, upon which the government is in the process of spending $4 million, promises more resources. It states, “More resources: An additional $109 million to speed up the application process”. That is over five years. That works out to something like $22 million a year. The Liberals put in $700 million, which breaks down to $140 million a year to deal with the backlog and make the system more efficient. The Conservative government got rid of the $700 million and put back $109 million. That is a cut of $600 million.

The government is promising faster processing times. We know the reality. The processing times have gone up under the Conservative government's watch. While I talk about the processing times going up, I might also mention that the government missed the number of immigration landings that the Conservatives themselves promised would take place in 2007. This was the first time in the past decade that the targets were not met.

The government talked about complete processing, that all applications currently in the backlog would be processed. There is really no credibility in the claim by the government. It is really an insult to all parliamentarians, to this institution itself, and to Canadians that the government would do advertising on legislation that still has not been passed. I can only say that we expected better from a government that promised transparency, that promised to do things differently, that promised accountability, that promised parliamentary reform. What we have are promises upon which the government has not delivered.

In closing, the open and transparent process of objectively selecting immigrants coming to this country was pioneered by Canada. It is a process that has been copied by Australia, by New Zealand and by many nations in Europe. The United States Senate is studying it because it looks to us as the leaders in this area. What we are doing is walking away from that process.

The reason we have that process is steeped in our history. It is steeped in the reality of the evolution of this country. I remind the House of the Asian exclusion act, the Chinese head tax, the internment of Ukrainians, the Komagata Maru, the SS St. Louis. I remind the House of a time when immigration policy essentially discriminated against people from various countries because of the colour of their skin or because of their religion. That is why, because of our sorry history and the sufferings of many Canadians, we pioneered a process that was open and transparent, where it was done objectively. The Conservative government is walking away from that process, a process that we should be proud of. We pioneered this process.

What do we have? We have a Conservative government which, when it came into office, did it reach out to a member of its party who is competent and knowledgeable on these issues to help with the necessary reforms? The member for Calgary—Nose Hill is a very experienced member. She served on the citizenship and immigration committee. She knows the portfolio. Did the Conservatives appoint her? No, they appointed a rookie minister who has no previous experience in the immigration and citizenship portfolio, none, zero, zilch. That person was in office for less than a year and the Conservatives replaced him. Did they replace him with someone who is knowledgeable on the portfolio, such as the member for Calgary—Nose Hill? No, sir. They replaced that person with another minister who has absolutely no understanding or knowledge of citizenship and immigration, but who gets high ranking in the Conservative hierarchy because her husband happens to be a major organizer for the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative Party.

As I said before, immigration has been, is and will continue to be the lifeblood of this country. I call upon the government to come to its senses and make the necessary changes that we can embrace in order to maintain objectivity and transparency. Let us continue to be leaders.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his dissertation on Bill C-50. It is certainly one that we have spoken to many times in the past in the House.

When we look at the state of economy that we have heard coming forward in the last report on the gross domestic product, for instance, which has slipped by 0.3% over the last three months, even at a time when our resource profits and the huge increase in the price of oil and natural gas have occurred in the country, one would think that these types of activities in the economy would by themselves create a positive nature in the gross domestic product. However, we are seeing a drop.

Quite clearly, the losers are losing and the winners are winning very strongly with this budget. Where is the fairness in the budget, in the corporate sector at least, where so many companies that are trying so hard now to remain afloat are having such great difficulty?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tragically bound to comment on Bill C-50, the corporate handout act.

We talked earlier in the day about the tens of billions of dollars that the Conservatives, through this bill, are giving to wealthy corporate CEOs rather than providing that money for health care, post-secondary education, housing and the variety of needs that working Canadian families have. Instead, the Conservatives are shovelling money off the back of a truck to the corporate sector.

I spoke a bit about the indentured servitude provisions that bring in temporary foreign workers.

I would like to address in my final few minutes the legalized theft act, which is essentially diverting $54 billion in insurance premiums paid by hard-working Canadian families into employment insurance. The Conservatives are now diverting that away. They are simply writing off $52 billion of that $54 billion total.

This is contrary to the advice of the Auditor General. It has changed the employment insurance system from what existed before the Liberals started taking money from the insurance fund. It has changed it from an insurance system to a lottery system.

Essentially what we have today when people are unemployed is a system in which, instead of people having insurance when they need it, they have a lottery. One out of every three women actually has access to the employment insurance she has paid for.

It is a shameful situation. For me, it is unbelievable that the Liberals are voting to support this Conservative measure. They essentially are allowing this budgetary measure as well as the immigration changes and the corporate handouts of tens of billions of dollars going to the corporate sector. The Liberals are allowing all of that to pass. The leader of the Liberal Party is ensuring that all of that passes and becomes law. That is the most disgraceful aspect of all of this.

When we know that changes to the immigration act are going to lead to underpaid temporary foreign workers who are not subject to health and safety regulations, the Liberals support it. When we see the theft of money that was paid by hard-working Canadian families into employment insurance, the Liberals support it. When tens of billions of dollars are going to corporate CEOs, which now take almost half of all income in this country, we see the Liberals supporting that.

In fact, the Liberals go even further. They say they want to push down corporate taxes even more despite the fact that we are seeing record levels of profit and most working families are earning less now than they were 20 years ago. Two-thirds of Canadian families are earning less now than they were 20 years ago.

The Liberals are supporting all of these Conservative schemes. All I can say from the one corner of the House where there is opposition to the Conservative agenda is that the Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

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

I hear some heckling from the Liberals and Conservatives. It is important to note that the Department of Finance did a long term study, the only time one has been done in Canada, on which governments managed money the best.

I think everyone in the House would agree that the people in the Department of Finance are the economic experts, supposedly. They did a long term study on the actual fiscal returns of NDP governments, Conservative governments and Liberal governments. They found that the NDP, while not perfect, managed money the best. Most of the time NDP governments actually finished their fiscal period returns, not the budget documents, not the promises and projections, but the actual fiscal period returns, and balanced its budgets or were in surplus.

What happened to the Conservatives? Two-thirds of the time the Conservatives were in deficit. We are not talking about the budget flim-flam, the budget documents and the promises. We are actually saying what happened on the bottom line. Two-thirds of the time Conservative governments were in deficit, which I think shows that they have some problems with fiscal management. In fact, Conservative fiscal management is kind of an oxymoron.

How did the Liberals do? It was the only party that was worse than the Conservatives. They were in deficit 86% of the time.

It is important to note that the federal Department of Finance, which I do not think anyone would say is a socialist hotbed, has looked at how the various parties manage money and it said that the NDP managed money the best.

Since I was getting some heckling from the Liberals and the Conservatives, I thought it was important for the people of Canada to know who manages money best.

It is true that the NDP would not be giving corporate handouts. It would not be providing $6 to corporate CEOs for every $1 in spending that touches vital and important issues like housing, health care, post-secondary education and getting the debt down, this mortgage on the future that we are imposing on younger Canadians.

We now have record levels of student debt, $26,000 on average. When these kids come out of post-secondary education they go into a labour market where the entry level wages are lower than ever before, which, unfortunately, has been accentuated by Conservative policies. I will come back to that in a moment. These people are also in a job market where most jobs that are created do not come with pensions or benefits.

We are looking at this apprehended incomes crisis where those kids, having finally succeeded in paying off their post-secondary debt, will retire, after a long working career, at a time when there is no company pension available to them. That is what has happened under the Conservatives and Liberals.

What has happened directly in terms of employment under the Conservatives? We saw that two weeks ago with the study that came out about the jobs we are losing in the manufacturing sector and the jobs that the Conservatives have managed to dig up for Canadians. They seem to be very proud. They talk about these jobs they have created but they do not mention what they actually pay. The jobs the Conservatives have lost paid over $21 an hour. They were good manufacturing jobs, family sustaining jobs.

We have lost hundreds and thousands of jobs in the softwood industry because of incredibly irresponsible policies, like the softwood sellout, and in a wide variety of other sectors, such as the auto sector and soon to be the shipbuilding sector because of another free trade deal that is a sellout. There is a complete lack of understanding of how the federal government can support key industries and put in place an industrial strategy to keep those industries, ensuring good jobs for Canadians.

We have lost the $21 an hour jobs. What have we gained? The same study indicated that the jobs the Conservatives have gained to offset that massive hemorrhaging of good manufacturing jobs are service industry jobs paying less than two-thirds of the salaries of the jobs lost.

Statistics Canada also tells us that most of the jobs created in today's economy are part time or temporary. We are not talking about family sustaining jobs anymore. A constituent in my riding told me that he guessed the Conservatives had created jobs because he had to take on three of them that are all part time jobs.

The Conservatives love to say that they have created lots of part time jobs but when a Canadian has lost a full time family sustaining job and has to take two or three jobs for $6 an hour for six hours a week, they are not better off. Their real income has catastrophically fallen. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that fundamental mathematics.

If people have a good job at $21 an hour and they lose it due to Conservative policies and then work at two or three jobs at $6 an hour, six hours a week, they have actually lost two-thirds of their income. They have not gained anything. The Conservatives continue to stand up in the House and pretend that there has been some kind of net gain. It is clearly not the case.

The extent of Bill C-50 is basically corporate handouts when support for health care, housing and post-secondary education were really called for.

What else is contained in the bill? The Conservatives, with Liberal compliance, have slipped in major changes to our Immigration Act as well. We call it the indentured servitude act because it would give the minister full powers to bring in temporary foreign workers, rather than ensuring the kind of family reunification that we used to have in Canada.

This has been put into place because we have seen, under the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government, chronic underfunding for the immigration system. The immigration system, like the health care system, has to be funded for it to work effectively, but we have seen cutbacks under the Conservatives and Liberals.

The result has been a waiting list that has ballooned to almost one million people. Seven hundred thousand of those came from the Liberal government which did not deal with the problem. Now because the Conservatives are not dealing with the problem, the list has grown even longer.

What is the solution? The solution is to invest in our immigration system. Instead, what we have is a reliance by the Conservative government on bringing in temporary foreign workers. Those folks are not subject to the health and safety regulations, nor the minimum wage laws that Canadians enjoy. This is to the advantage of a company, of course, because why pay a skilled worker from Canada a good, family sustaining wage when the company can bring in someone and pay below minimum wage?

No one objects to bringing in foreign workers when there is a skills shortage, but there is clear evidence that Canadians who could be in those positions are not being hired for those positions because the companies can bring in, with the compliance of the Conservative government, temporary foreign workers and pay them less. Then the companies send them home when their contract is finished. If the workers argue for a day off, or if they actually talk about forming a union, any of those reasons are good to send those temporary foreign workers home.

The Conservatives tucked this provision into a budget bill and the Liberals are saying that they are going to let this budget bill go through. As in Shakespeare's famous phrase, all sound and fury signifying nothing, the Liberals have stood up in the House of Commons and said that they are opposed to the immigration provisions. My goodness, they are opposed; they are opposed so much they are going to let the bill go through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak, sadly, to Bill C-50, which is known as the budget implementation act.

Given the weakness of the Liberals, the Conservatives have rolled two other provisions into the budget implementation act, one that would simply gut our existing immigration system and give new powers to the minister, and another that would essentially take money that was set aside for Canadians in employment insurance and readjust that away, contrary, of course, to the advice of the Auditor General.

In my opinion, what we are considering today with Bill C-50 is the corporate handout act, the indentured servitude act and the legalized theft act. I would like to speak to each aspect of Bill C-50.

I will first talk about the corporate handouts. The Conservatives have not been speaking today. They refuse to defend their own budget, which is kind of interesting. However, when they did speak to it a couple of days ago, when they were actually willing to speak before they realized the inconsistency of the budget document, they said that they were spending a certain amount of money on this and a certain amount of money on that. They tried to say that the budget, overall, was a good budget because they would be spending some money on new programs that deal with the desperate situation that so many Canadians are in. I will say more on that in a moment.

It is important to note what the NDP has been saying in the House, even though the Conservatives are moving to adopt the budget, with the support of an incredibly weak Liberal leader who is essentially allowing the budget to pass, that for every $1 in new program spending, $6 will be going to the corporate sector in corporate handouts, in tax cuts to corporate CEOs. They are essentially shovelling money off the back of a truck to the corporate sector.

I call Bill C-50 the corporate handout act because it is a redistribution of income from hard hit Canadians to the wealthiest of Canadians.

We know the last 20 years have not been kind to ordinary Canadian families. Ordinary working families have borne the brunt of incredibly irresponsible and misguided economic policies conducted first by the Conservatives, then by the Liberals and now by the Conservatives. In fact, we have the same ministers sometimes crossing the floor once or twice. It seems to be the same group of people with the same economic policies.

It is helpful to talk a bit about what the actual impacts have been for ordinary Canadians since 1989. The portrait is a very disappointing one for NDP members who deal on a regular basis with ordinary Canadian working families. We can see the impact of misguided economic policies.

What has happened over the last 20 years? The wealthiest, the corporate CEOs, the folks who the Conservative Party love to give money to, now take half of all income in Canada. We have not seen that level of inequality in income since the 1930s, and that is essentially what the Liberals and Conservatives, working as some sort of weird wrestling tag team, have managed to produce in the Canadian economy. The wealthy now take half of all income.

What has happened to the other income categories? The upper middle class has seen stagnation, neither a rise nor a fall in their real incomes. However, it becomes much more sad and impressive when we look at what the income impacts have been as we move down the income ladder.

Middle class Canadian families earning between $40,000 and $60,000 a year, which is one-fifth or 20% of the Canadian population, have lost a week of real income for each year since 1989. It is like they are working harder than ever because the average Canadian family is working 200 hours more now than they were then. They have been working extremely hard but it is as if they do not get a paycheque for one week each year. They are working 52 week years and getting paid for 51 weeks, and that is because of the economic geniuses in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.

What has happened in other income categories? What about the lower middle class, those families earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year? They have lost two weeks of income since 1989. They are working 52 week years but it is as if they miss an entire paycheque. Under the Conservatives and Liberals, they have one paycheque taken away from them. They now work 200 more hours a year but they now have to skip a pay period of two weeks.

What about the poorest of Canadians, the families earning less than $20,000? Under the Conservatives and the Liberals, they have seen a catastrophic fall in income. They have lost a month and a half of income for each year since 1989.

It is no secret why it is estimated that there will be about 300,000 Canadians sleeping out in parks and on the main streets of our country tonight. It is because for the poorest of Canadians, it is as if for a month and a half a year there is no paycheque at all waiting for them and they need to scramble to make ends meet.

We have seen a catastrophic incomes crisis for most Canadian families. Since 1989, the real income of two-thirds of Canadian families has gone down. What do the Conservatives and Liberals offer in their budgets? They offer more corporate tax cuts to corporate CEOs, as if that is the only group of Canadians that exists. It is as if they are unable to see that on the main streets of this country there is a completely different reality from Bay Street. Bay Street seems to be the only place they are willing to listen to because those corporate CEOs now take in half of all income. We have seen a decline in real income for the vast majority of Canadian families but what do we get in the budget? We get the corporate handout act. It contains $6 in corporate tax cuts for every $1 in new spending.

We have a crisis in the health care system. We have record levels of student debt in post-secondary education. We have the collapse of the softwood industry brought about by the foolish and irresponsible softwood sellout that has particularly impacted British Columbia. Now we have other trade initiatives from the government. It enjoyed selling out the softwood industry so well that it is now moving to sell out the shipbuilding industry with the EFTA. It just seems to be serial sellouts from the government.

We have seen, time and again, all of those elements that Canadians are crying out for, such as a national pharmacare program, which the NDP has been pushing forward, and the adequate funding for our health care system and actually saving money in our health care system by redirecting the money toward bulk purchasing of drugs, for example, which would actually allow us to save money on the health care system and redirect it to primary care, but instead, under Liberal governments, like Conservative governments, it just seems to be the same old story repeating itself, one time after another.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague. He makes a bit of sense on a few issues, but I have some questions for him. I just read in the Calgary Herald today that the Ontario based construction sector council said Monday:

—unrelenting construction growth is pushing the labour force to its limits, and nowhere is the problem more acute than in Alberta. The council said Alberta will need an additional 52,000 construction workers over the next decade—21,000 just to replace retirees and 31,000 to handle growth.

Not only Alberta is growing. We are seeing construction growth in Ontario right now. The hon. member talked a lot about the knowledge based economy. I came out of the knowledge based sector. I have taught computer programing. I worked in the knowledge economy for a long time before I came here, so I know of what I speak. When we cannot find anyone to do the construction work to build colleges and universities, then we will not have much of a knowledge based economy to build it upon. While it is great that so many educated immigrants have come to our country with masters degrees and Ph.D.s, we also need people to get down into the trenches and do some of the heavy lifting.

While my hon. colleague is so vehemently opposed to the budget and he said we are absent in so many areas, will the member be present or absent when it comes to third reading on Bill C-50?

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have been listening to the debate on the budget because I thought that was what we were discussing.

The budget is an opportunity for the government of the day to lay out a vision, to lay out a plan, to lay out a strategy for how it will expend the nation's resources; that is, the taxes that it collects, what it will give back to Canadians for the money that it takes out of their hard-earned paycheques and equally important, how it will deal with the economic stresses of the day, and the natural resources that are at the disposal of people in every province in order to meet the demands of everyday life.

That is what a budget is supposed to do. That is what a budget is designed to do in a democratic environment, so that a government can be accountable. It lays out a plan, it lays out a vision, and it takes responsibility for both vacuums; that is, what is not done and what is done insufficiently.

In this budget document, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to think carefully upon the following for a moment.

First, it has shown that the government is capable of spending money at a rate that no other government that has preceded it has been able to demonstrate. In fact, public expenditures have gone up by 14%. An increase of 14%, we would probably say, is money well spent, whether it is done through tax cuts or outright emissions of dollars, this is good for the country.

All of my constituents, like the ones from British Columbia, are asking: What do we have to show for that 14% increase? If we spent 14% more on a car we purchased, we would be able to tell the difference. If we bought 14% more groceries, we would be able to tell the difference. If we spent 14% more on our clothing, we would be able to tell the difference. What has been accomplished with that 14% expenditure increase? Perhaps the government members would like to tell us what impact that 14% increase has had on an auto sector in Ontario, primarily, but throughout Canada, that is completely collapsing.

Today, for example, General Motors announced that in Oshawa it will cut another 1,000 jobs. I am not a member from Oshawa. I used to be responsible for the GTA. I might, without undue humility, say I prevailed upon cabinet to do some things for the province, for the manufacturing sector, and for the auto industry, in particular, because so many jobs depend on the auto industry.

Mr. Speaker, were you aware that there are approximately 385,000 jobs that are directly or indirectly associated with auto assembly, the auto part industry and after market delivery? That is 385,000.

When we take a look at that number, we get a sense of how much of an impact that number has on Canadians everywhere. That is 385,000 families. Even if we were to take the average number of people per family and do the appropriate multiplication, we would see that it is a population that is in excess of the population of the province of New Brunswick. It is greater than the population of the province of Nova Scotia. It is almost greater than the population of Manitoba as well as that of Saskatchewan,.

We are not talking about incidental job losses. We are talking about the infrastructure of a people and the infrastructure of a province on which the people depend for sustenance, for wealth creation, and indeed, for the maintenance of the Canadian federation.

I do not see anything in the budget on that. It shocks me that the Minister of Finance, who is from the centre of that manufacturing industry, the auto sector, would have not a mere consideration for what would be involved.

He sees, for example, as the government must see, that the price of fuel, gasoline at the pumps, has gone to $1.30, in some cases more, and there is nothing there. Yet, we know that the government, when it was in opposition, was complaining intensely when the price of a litre of gasoline was at 80¢ and 85¢.

What does the government do now? What does it do to alleviate the increased costs of energy and the means of production, both of goods that are edible and goods that are consumable differently? What is in the budget that tells us that the government is seized of the crisis and is prepared to do something about it? Is the answer “nothing”?

I see government members in the House willing to support the initiatives of their Minister of Finance, but where is the action? There is none.

In fact, let us take a look at the transportation modes that are at the heart of the way that the manufacturing sector must operate, not only in Canada but, and let me be parochial for a moment and think about my province of Ontario, the north-south trade. In particular, the trade that we have with the United States depends so much on the access routes, specifically in Windsor and Fort Erie, but also in Sarnia, up in Sault Ste. Marie, and up north in Thunder Bay, and I dare say even as we get closer to Brockville and Kingston. However, none of those access routes were mentioned in this budget. There are no funds for a transportation system that would facilitate the flow of goods to our biggest market, our partner that consumes approximately $1 billion of our exports every day of the year.

Where are the funds for ensuring that CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, builds its efficiencies at these border points, so that goods can move across freely and quickly in a just-in-time environment, a just-in-time environment in a manufacturing sector that is collapsing as we speak today.

These are not inventions. General Motors and the CAW issued press releases today, probably at a press conference while we were here in the House, to reinforce it. The economy is collapsing because of these issues. Where is the government on this budget? It is absent.

However, I have to compliment at least one member in this House because the total amount of money that this budget apparently, although we do not see it definitively, talks about, in terms of transportation flow from the federal government to any province, specifically Ontario, has to do with a potential train between Peterborough and Toronto. Forty per cent of all of the moneys put in a transportation transit fund, $200 million, is for that one singular project.

If it is a city or a greater metropolitan area like the GTA, it is out of luck. Peterborough is not yet part of the GTA, although I imagine that some of the transportation funds and the construction associated with its expenditure might eventually build out in that direction.

I do not want to be too facetious, but the construction industry is collapsing. Where is the government on an issue where we are talking about the collapse of the construction industry? And it is collapsing for the usual factors that we would think of. There is a financial meltdown in the United States and its effects are being felt here in Canada, number one.

Number two, we have been talking about the lumber industry, its impact, the prices associated with it here in Canada, the production associated with it, or lack thereof, and the closing down of communities.

Where is this budget on these matters? It is a financial statement, a financial expression of the government's willingness to lay out a strategy for the entire federation, and the answer is nowhere. There is no strategy. There is no plan. There is no vision.

I take a look at where we have been going in the debate so far. People have started to refer to Bill C-50 as “the immigration bill”. Can members imagine that? We are talking about a budget.

One page has defined this budget, the importance of which has been magnified by the Minister of Finance who has said that it is of crucial importance to this country that we eliminate the backlog in the number of applications of those who would make Canada their home. That is the big crisis. The big demand for a vision statement that the government opposite is responding to.

Let us take a look at some of the figures. Government members and opposition members have now begun to accept the fact that there were 700,000 applications in the backlog when the Conservatives formed government. According to Conservative figures, that represented an increase in the backlog by 54,000 per year during the Liberal administration.

According to government advertisements, the 700,000 backlog in applications has jumped to 925,000. In two short years the government has managed to increase the backlog in applications by 225,000. The government has not told us how many people have actually applied but it picked this number of 925,000. The government is not going to do anything to solve the problem. In one page out of a 139 page budget document there is one little clause that says none of this applies to anybody who was already in the queue as of February 28, 2008. Imagine.

Canadians following this debate are thinking the government does not have a strategy for meeting this crisis of the day, but when it fabricates one, it does not have a plan to resolve it. The government is simply going to pretend the problem has disappeared because as of February 28 those 925,000 applications are still going to be there and the government is not going to do anything about it. The government's position is not to do anything. It is the same as the economic position on the crisis of the day.

Does the government treat immigration as an economic issue? Let us look at it for a moment. To meet the economic requirements of today, the government says people must be brought in who would satisfy the demands of a growing Canadian population. That is fine but consider this. Between 2001 and 2006, the five year period immediately preceding the arrival of the Conservatives to government, what happened? According to the government, immigration policies were wrong. Yet, over a five year period the immigration program produced 350,000 new immigrants between the ages of 25 and 64, people at their most productive. These individuals had a university degree or better. How much money does that represent in terms of investment?

If the budget were directed to 350,000 people in Canada with a university degree or better; that is, they were prepared to meet the demands of a changing economy, a knowledge-based economy, an economy of the future, how much would that cost us? The cost would start at $50 billion and climb, but we could not produce that kind of talent pool in five years because we would have to do it over a 22 year period.

Let me use our young men and women pages here in the House as an example. It takes about 22 years from the time they enter school until they graduate. A knowledge-based economy, a competitive economy, in the 21st century cannot wait 22 years to produce 350,000 people with a university degree or better.

Our immigration system, over the previous five years preceding the Conservatives coming to power, produced that many people. In addition to that, it produced an additional 70,000 people who had a college diploma or equivalent; that is applicable skills in the post-secondary environment. That is not bad. That cost a little less. Those immigration policies also produced an additional 30,000 people who had some form of training that went beyond high school. In other words, they had a skill set that could be applied in a hands on environment.

I know you have been following those numbers, Mr. Speaker. Of the men and women who entered our country between the ages of 25 and 64, 67% had better than post-secondary school education or training. Canadians probably are wondering what the comparative numbers are for born in Canada applicants to the job market. While 51% of immigrants had a university degree or better, only 23% of those born in Canada had a similar qualification. We go abroad for our talent.

Think about the kind of talent we need. Today provincial premiers are telling us we need more than university educated people. We need more than college educated people. Yes, we need people who have skills on the job. We need more of them, and we need more of those who have post-graduate degrees.

Canadians should think about this, that 49% of all Ph.D. degree-holders come through our immigration system. How many have a master's degree? The answer is 40%.

I know my colleagues opposite are saying where is this going? It is going precisely to this location. If Bill C-50, through the immigration changes, is designed to give us greater skilled immigrants, how much does the government expect to improve on those figures? How many more does the government expect to bring in who meet those qualifications? In fact, does the government want people with those kinds of qualifications?

Those numbers are available to the government. Statistics Canada reported them. I did not invent those numbers. Statistics Canada is giving the government those answers. Statistics Canada and Human Resources Canada is telling the government what we have as a basis for building a society and an economy and budgets therefore that will respond to that economy. Here is what we can do. Here is what we ought to do.

What is the government's response? On the economy, it is nothing. On immigration, it is less than that. Let us do away, is the government's response, with all those measures that succeeded in bringing to us, for us, for the development of a Canadian society for the 21st century the kinds of men and women who provide us not only with the skill sets we need today, but for the leadership that we must have tomorrow.

Are we up for it? We are. Are we prepared to go forward with the kind of change that will bring a new dynamic to our country? We are. Are we prepared to take those risks that say that immigration is as much a part of the economic policy of the nation as any other fiscal plan? We are.

Why is the government silent on its most fundamental defining document of both where we are going in the future and how we are resolving the problems of today?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure to join this debate, but unfortunately, the process that we see existing between the two parties in front of us, the two that are nattering back and forth today and on previous days around such an important piece of legislation, does not allow one to have a lot of confidence either in the government's ability to manage prudently the affairs of the nation nor in the ability of the official opposition, in this case the Liberal Party, to oppose the mandate put forward by the government.

In order to have some balance and fairness, some sense of equity in our House of Commons, there must be the exchange of ideas, the to and fro of debate. That is what Canadians expect and it is what Canadians deserve. The government proposes various notions under a budget. The budget, as are all budgets, is the most serious and important piece of legislation a government provides in a fiscal year. It allows government agencies, corporations and individual Canadians to get a sense of the government's priorities and the direction that the government is taking. Has this been done in a thoughtful way or in a considerate way? Has it been done in a democratic way in this Parliament? I would suggest not and I will present some important reasons regarding that.

In a budget, choices are made. The government has only so much in funds available to it. It has only so much time and only so many powers. In those choices, it sends a clear and concise signal to Canadians at all levels, in private enterprise, the public sector and as individuals, as to where the government feels the most work needs to be done.

New Democrats oppose this budget and have consistently done so from the beginning. At its first instance this budget presented an unfair choice for Canadians, an unbalanced approach to our economy and the future direction of our country. Not only has the government chosen an unbalanced approach in terms of fiscal matters, the way that our tax regime is handled, but it has also rammed into a budget bill one of the most sweeping changes to immigration the country has known for some decades.

One would think that in a two and a half year mandate, and it is feeling longer every day, if immigration was a top priority for the Conservatives, they could have presented those changes in an immigration bill. It is logical. It would allow the minister of immigration to promote the changes. It would allow the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to debate those changes and bring the appropriate witnesses forward. It would give a clear and concise view of what the government's intentions are with immigration.

Instead, sensing a certain weakness from the official opposition benches and the current Liberal leader, the government chose a tactic known as confidence and placed the immigration changes into a confidence bill. The government has thereby upped the ante in this high stakes game of poker that it has been playing with the Liberal leader over the last number of months. The Conservatives have received, I believe, 22 consecutive confirmations of confidence from the Liberal Party. This is unprecedented in Canadian history. When a party presents itself, as the Liberals have, in opposition to some of the fundamental beliefs and ideologies of the current regime, the Conservatives, one would expect that that lack of confidence would show up when it came time to vote.

Last night was very instructive. The government was faced with amendments to fundamentally change what it was proposing on immigration, to strip out the powers that the government is attempting to give to the minister of immigration. Certainly members of the New Democratic Party have railed against the government's proposal here in the House of Commons and all across the country. Members of the Bloc have also suggested opposition, as have members of the Liberals, but last night when there came the opportunity in the full light of transparency and democracy, there were 12 Liberals, and I am not sure how many Liberals are left, who decided to vote in a show of tokenism, in weak opposition, which therefore allowed the government bill to pass unamended, unchanged.

That is what occurred, after all of the protestations from my Liberal colleagues, and I am sure some of them are even sincere. They have heard from their constituents who time and time again have said that these proposed changes to our immigration policies, these changes to the fabric of our nation, an immigrant nation, are unhelpful and damaging and should not be supported. That is what my constituents have been telling me. That is what my industry partners have been telling me in my community. I am sure that is what is being told to many members of this House from all corners.

The question comes to that fundamental choice. When we ask Canadians to step into the ballot box, we ask them to make a choice. We ask them to determine who will go forward and represent them and their interests in this place, this most sacred place of democracy in which we all stand forward with various levels of courage and pride and attempt to represent in the best manner possible the interests of our constituents and our ridings.

The best way that is done is when the Speaker calls a vote. That is the determination. There has been a debate. There have been press conferences, public meetings and community gatherings. When the vote is called is the moment when each member individually makes his or her choice and describes his or her allegiance, to whom the member feels most indebted.

I represent Skeena--Bulkley Valley in northwestern British Columbia. The people in northwestern British Columbia have a very solid principle which they reiterate to me time and time again. On various decisions and votes they may have a difference of opinion, but their base expectations are twofold. One is that I listen and apply my thinking and my own prudence and judgment to what I am hearing from my constituency. The other is that I express that opinion here in the House of Commons when that opportunity is given to me. That is the moment of voting.

That is the moment when the Speaker calls for each member to stand in his or her place. At that time any given member of Parliament has a few choices available. One choice is to support the vote, as was done by the Conservatives, as was to be expected because it is their bill. The second choice is to not show up at all, which was done by the Liberals, unfortunately, lamentably. The third choice is to oppose, to push back against the agenda and ideology and present a different view on the future, hope and expression for our country.

The priorities that were represented by members of the Liberal Party last night showed more loyalty to their own party and their own polling numbers than to their constituents. That is a deep and profound shame. It is a shame in the sense that all of us come together collectively and present our own views, but the expectation at the end of the day is that we will have a fair, honest and democratic exchange and then go forward, because Parliament, in particular a minority Parliament, needs to be able to function.

Canadians have constructed for us a minority House. They have said to the Conservatives, “We will not give you the authority and absolute power to mandate what you will, as is the case under a majority Parliament. We are giving you part of the power. We would like you to share the power with the other parties, to work out the ideas”. The NDP has been consistent in trying to present alternatives to the government.

There will be a vote tomorrow night on the most important issue of climate change, on a private member's bill in the name of the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth, to put for the first time ever in Canadian law climate change targets. It is something that Canadians have talked to us about time and time again. We expect members of this House to present themselves either to support the bill or to oppose it. To simply not show up or to simply show up and then sit in their seats is such a tragedy and such a perversion of democracy, it is difficult to attempt to achieve the right pitch and tone of condemnation. To not show up, to not represent their constituents and still pretend that they are members of Parliament, to still pretend that they are representing the interests of anybody outside of their own party interests, is a falsehood.

Choices will be made in the future. I have great faith in the Canadian electorate to watch, to pay attention and to show some judgment. When they make a decision at the ballot box and a choice for the future, part of that decision will include the notion that whomever they choose will represent them. I am appalled that we have to stand on this most fundamental principle and point out first, the idea that we expect members of Parliament to show up here and vote. That that is even a point of contention and debate is incredible to me. We can debate all the other issues, whether they be immigration issues, fiscal measures in the budget or, environmental issues, but the fact that we have to encourage my colleagues and friends in the Liberal Party to show up to work is lamentable. In any other circumstance, not showing up to work has immediate and dire consequences for most Canadians. They are given a warning and then they are fired. That is the typical and natural course of events.

Let us take a look at what is actually in Bill C-50, now that we have established the tragic consequence of a weak official opposition and a government that has realized it and has received more than 20 consecutive supports of confidence from that party. An immigration bill has been rammed into a bill on the finances of the country.

When the Conservative government took office, there were 700,000 people in the backlog which is constantly talked about. They are waiting for some sort of hearing, for fairness, to be listened to and understood on their applications to come into this country.

As with many members in this place, my family was an immigrant family. My family had to go through that process, make and application and indicate what it was they wished to bring to the fabric and strength of Canada, hard work, determination and honesty, which is what the immigrant community has brought. Now we see this being perverted. We see this being taken down a different path for political expediency and for the interests of a very narrow few.

The backlog was 700,000 people. The Conservative Party decried it for many years. In the time between then and now, in two and a half years, the backlog has grown to over 900,000. Applications have actually been at a lower rate of acceptance under the Conservative government. It has jigged the numbers in talking about receiving more people from overseas. It has started to include temporary foreign workers as if they were in the same category as those who receive landed immigrant status.

That a temporary foreign worker is given a small piece of paper which allows the person to work for a short period of time but then must leave Canada is part of the immigration scheme of the government speaks very well to why that was included in a bill on the finances of the country as opposed to a bill on immigration policy. This bill at its essence is about a very narrow interest within the business community, which seeks to have temporary foreign workers come into the country at lower rates and lower rights than the average Canadian worker. They are removed from the country when they are no longer needed, when the projects are over, thereby contributing less to the Canadian economy and hurting the interests and values of workers who are already in the Canadian economy.

In the northwest of British Columbia, the unemployment rates in some of our communities are devastating economically and socially. Communities like Hazelton, Terrace and others in the far northwest have experienced rates of unemployment upward of 80% to 85%. It is devastating. The forestry industry is closing one mill after another.

Of all the wood produced in Canada and exported, British Columbia produced more than 50% of it. With all those trees of such magnificence, stature, strength and desirability on the marketplace, it is an unimaginable notion that British Columbia may no longer produce that wood. It certainly does not produce much in my region where the foundation of many communities was forestry and ecology.

Forestry lived with us and we lived with it and understood the measures, the to and fro of a sector that experiences the upward and downward trends of a resource based economy. Now we see a downward trend like we have never seen before. In the northwest there is a perfect storm. The minister of all things, of industry, foreign affairs and various other things, has been involved in the forestry sector, and understands that a high Canadian dollar, a bad softwood lumber deal and a softening U.S. housing market have contributed to this unimaginable convergence of events that has virtually shut down the northwest's forestry economy, a long and proud tradition that built up many of my communities.

In immigration the government is asking for a very unusual and significant proposal. Under this bill the Conservatives will give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the absolute power to reject acceptable applications, people who have applied through the process, ticked all the boxes, made sure their applications were strong. Under this bill the minister could reject those applications with no scrutiny or transparency whatsoever, and in the reverse, accept applications that do not meet the measure of our own immigration law, thereby sending further confusing signals to those who are considering coming into our country.

Canada has unfortunately gained the reputation, particularly from the professional sector, as an unwelcome place, a place where an application will take many years longer. The bill, in pretending to speed up that process, has unfortunately made it less transparent, less accountable, and therefore less reliable to that immigrant community. There is no certainty given. There is no ability for parliamentarians to petition on behalf of willing and able applicants who have met all the requirements. All people will get is a rejection from the minister and no indication as to why and no ability to find out why, to change their odds and get their application approved. This is a tragedy.

This speaks to an increasingly serious component, particularly in rural Canada, where we have been losing our brightest and best, our youngest. We have watched the brain drain. This applies not just to northwestern British Columbia but across our country. We are working hard to attract our young people back here. We are working hard to ensure that they have education opportunities, both within the region and without, but also that they have an economy and a community to return to. Immigration bills like this do nothing for us.

One important caveat that I need to throw in here in qualifying my expressions for this and in qualifying the interests of people from the northwest is that when I first arrived we asked the Library of Parliament to do a cursory study of all the money the northwest has sent to Ottawa's coffers over the previous 10 years. We also asked the library to make an estimation of all the money Ottawa has sent us back through all the programs and systems that the government can do.

It took the Library of Parliament some time. I thank the library for its work. It was diligent. That work was boxes high on my desk when it finally arrived. The ratio was 10 to 1. For every $10 sent from the northwest, from Skeena, from our mining, forestry and aluminum operations, from people earning money for their own behalf and paying those taxes to the Canadian economy, the Library of Parliament told us there was $1 coming back in services.

The most remarkable thing is that folks in Skeena and folks in the northwest do not necessarily hold a grudge about this. They do not mind contributing to the wealth and prosperity of this country. They understand that when they are doing well, when forestry is doing well or mining is booming, the boom and bust cycle means they are contributing. They understand that. They are proud Canadians and strong nationalists.

On the other hand, when the economy turns down, when the forestry sector goes through such upheaval, they have paid into an insurance scheme, not specifically just the employment insurance scheme but the insurance of what it is to be a country, to have a fabric, to be connected, so that when one part of the economy or one region slows down, the others that are doing well are okay and contributing their tax dollars.

The irreversible damage done in this bill is to attempt to permanently tilt what it is that the Government of Canada can and cannot do. In this budget, the government is stripping out some $200 billion of the government's fiscal capacity over the foreseeable years, the capacity to answer any question, whether it happens to be an economic downturn, the challenge of climate change, the need for affordable housing, the need for safe and accessible child care or any of those circumstances.

As members of Parliament, we have constituents and people in our offices all the time who are petitioning for certain bills and certain programs and showing the need, the proof and evidence of why this or that is important. I have been turning that back to them time and time again and asking how they can expect the federal government to do anything when the government is stripping away its own capacity to do anything at all.

More and more, the constituencies that work around Parliament Hill and within the Canadian diaspora as they push for various initiatives and efforts, for part of their vision for this country, are realizing that the real and irreversible damage going on, the real game under an ideology that is spoken to in this bill, is to change the very nature of the way federal government works, to devolve itself of its powers and its ability to affect the direction of the country, and to regionalize, to continue to fracture what it is that is Canada.

Someone once said that Canada works well in practice but not in theory, saying that a country so large, with so many unique and different histories all cobbled together, would be unimaginable in other parts of the world. It has been said that this would lead to inherent and conflictive tensions that would erupt into violence on a consistent basis and we would never be able to hold the fabric of the federation together.

However, look at what we have done. For so many years, we have been providing peace, order and good government. Now we see a government intent on something else.

In the northwest, we have noticed the immediate effects of climate change. We have noticed the impacts and direct implications. That is not coming from me but from the chief forester of British Columbia. It is coming from industry and the mining community. All they are looking for is some level of certainty and understanding from government that it will take climate change seriously.

What do we see instead? A report released just last Friday afternoon late in the day, so that no one would read it, shows that the government's own plans on climate change are all being downgraded. The spending is all being downgraded.

The attempts to lower greenhouse gases in this country are all being lowered by the government at a time when people in the northwest are demanding otherwise. They are demanding a government that takes the issue seriously and will come forward in a forthright manner.

Last, in the balance and the choices that every government has in a budget, it is to be noted that revenue coming from corporations will go down by 14% in the foreseeable future and revenues from individual Canadians will go up by 12%. That is what the government has shown as its priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we are discussing Bill C-50, it is probably the last opportunity to really look at the bill and how it affects immigration.

Let me go back in history.

Last year, when we had problems with “Lost Canadians”, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration came to the committee. She asked us to produce a report, bring it to her and she would certainly move to ensure that we would get something through the House on “Lost Canadians” and ensure they would get their citizenship.

A unanimous report was written, although, personally, I had problems with the second generation. This report came to the House and the House moved very quickly to ensure that children and brides of our war people of World War II were given the citizenship for which they had been waiting for many years.

Therefore, I thought that in this context and in this period, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would have had the fortitude and the backbone to come to the committee and say that there was a problem, that there were long wait lines and ask if could the committee take a look at it and get back to her with solid recommendations for her to go through and implement.

What have the Conservatives done? They put have included this under part 6 of the budget bill, saying to the rest of the House, “Do or die”. It is not a do or die situation. The citizenship and immigration backlogs are more serious than just a vote of confidence at the end of the day and who votes for it or who does not vote for it. There has to be a serious discussion on this item and there has to be serious consideration. It would take the citizenship and immigration committee to do a report, to give it to the minister and for the minister to adopt that report and move forward.

However, what happened? The citizenship and immigration committee was given less than two weeks to talk to people, come back and write a report to the committee of finance to tell it how bad this legislation was.

However, let us look what triggered this. It was triggered by waiting times and a backlog. Waiting times, when the Conservative government took power in 2006, went up by 20.79%. In 2007 they went up by 7%. Fifty per cent of our immigrants come from countries such as China, the Philippines, South Asia, being Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka, and the Middle East, being Iran, Iraq, Syria and Jordan. Therefore, although 50% of our immigration cases were from those area, in 2006 there was over a 10% increase in the waiting times.

Let us look at some specific examples. In 2006 the overall increase in waiting times was 40.78% for Beijing, 8% for Islamabad, 11.45% for New Delhi, 5.88% for Manila, 10.28% for Hong Kong and 20.83% for Colombo.

However, let us fast-forward to today. The minister put this legislation in Bill C-50. Even before the bill became legislation, the minister put out an advertisement about what a great piece of legislation this was. She went out to the ethnic press. It was the first time a government department had advertised in the ethnic press, and it spent well over $1 million.

When she came to committee, my question to the minister was, “will the minister come back to us with specifics, where the money was spent, which newspaper was bought, how much did it cost on advertising, all the details?” The minister said, “Yes, we will do that”. That was May 13. The minister promised she would come back in two weeks with specific details.

The minister appeared before the committee on May 28 and I said, “two weeks ago you made a commitment to provide this committee with a list of newspapers in which the department placed advertisements”. The minister answered, “We will be providing it very shortly”.

When I asked her again how soon, she answered, “Very soon, by the end of the week”. That was supposed to be last Friday. I also asked her, “And these will be an itemized, breakdown list?”. The hon. minister answered, “This will be a list that you requested”. We requested an itemized list of where the ads were place, how much they cost and the whole gamut.

I tabled in the committee and in the House an email that I received from a particular newspaper of Tamil background in Toronto. It said that it was encouraged by the agency on the record to charge three times as much. I gave the minister specific examples of how in some newspapers there were editorials that were favourable to the government. There were op-ed pieces by the minister. There were front page articles, and I would not say bought but maybe just encouraged, of how the Prime Minister was in Toronto touting and hollering about the immigration bill. This was in a Nigerian newspaper, and the Prime Minister went to a south Asian event.

I sat there and scratched my head. Why would the Nigerian newspaper carry on its front page something the Prime Minister said to the south Asian community? It is nice to see the diversity of our country and see different ethnic newspapers carrying news about another community. However, hardly ever do we see a newspaper of one ethnic group carrying front page news about another ethnic group unless it was encouraged to do so.

The newspaper in question is the Nigerian Canadian News.. I have in my hand its contract for a full page ad. It is a full page, black and white, 10X14.6 inside, at a cost $220. I am sure the department paid much more than $220. I also have the weekly AWAM,, $450 black and whites; the Urdu Times, $600; the Philippine Reporter, $315; the Shahrvand, $375; and the weekly Hindi, $500.

The minister was questioned and given the opportunity to do the right thing and provide the committee with information on where the ads were placed and how much they cost. At 4:52 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, knowing absolutely full well that the national media had gone home, that their stories had been filed and that everything has been done, the minister sent us the list. This is the garbage we get.

The list states the province, the city, the publication, the insertion time and the language. There is one thing missing, and that is the cost. It is not so much that the Conservatives have contempt for the House, that the government advertises before a bill is even law and is sugar coated, but they also have contempt by the minister. When she came to committee, she stated, “Very soon, by the end of the week”. I asked again, “And this will this be an itemized, breakdown list? She said, “This will be the list that you requested”.

Therefore, twice in committee, on May 13 and May 28, to specific questions, questions that were put forward to the minister, asking her if she would supply the committee with breakdowns on where the money was spent and the publications, she failed very miserably. Not only did she fail the committee, she failed the House and she also has failed Canadians.

Canadians want to know where the government spends its money. They want to know what we get as a result of that money. There have been many examples where in the past governments spent money before the bill passed and they were told that it was a no-no. Similarly in this situation the minister went out of her way to advertise in the ethnic press and tell the ethnic press and the diverse multicultural tapestry of our country what a great government it was and what it would do to take care of the backlog.

The Conservatives are saying that they will get doctors in before us. What hogwash. What a lie. They well know that when a medical doctor comes to Canada, unless working with the provinces and the provincial and territorial organizations, the Ontario Medical Association and the Quebec Medical Association, these people cannot get their licences, they cannot practise in that province.

The province of Ontario says that it will double the amount of medical people it takes from 24 to 48. That is great. It will now have another 24. There is a lack of doctors in northern Ontario. I am wondering if the minister will stand in this House and reassure the people in northern Ontario or the small territories that the legislation she is proposing will bring doctors to their community when she has done absolutely nothing to talk to the provincial bodies that legislate these folks. Has she asked the provinces to give licences to these doctors to practise if she brings more in?

We have hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in Canada who have their credentials as doctors back in the old country. The minister can simply say that we have doctors and that she will talk to her provincial counterparts and to the medical associations about us getting them to rectify and acknowledge their credentials. Why would she say that the government will bring doctors into this country when we have hundreds, if not thousands of qualified physicians from other countries already in this country who are willing and able to practise?

The minister says that the government will expedite family class reunification, that it will expedite husbands, wives, children, grandparents and parents. What a bunch of hogwash.

The minister is looking to Bill C-50 to get the power to dictate from where and who comes forward. However, when she says that the government will expedite parents, we know very well that she is looking at categories that the provinces want, which are economical, and that business people go forth in the line. We will have two streams. We will have the old stream and we will have the new stream. In the new stream the minister will decide that we need bricklayers and then move forward to bring them into the country. In the old stream we still chug along with the applications that are there. Parents and grandparents are way at the back of the line.

How can the minister say that the government will expedite parents, grandparents, family class and bring them to the fourth of the line, when she knows very well that her new legislation would chug along? She will decide who is necessary and those people will come to Canada faster. Then we have the old stream, the 925,000 cases still pending, and parents and grandparents are way in the back. What total hogwash.

Why does the minister not have the fortitude to go to the committee and say that there are 900,000 cases in the backlog, that we have a problem and that we need a solution? Why is there disrespect from the minister when she comes to committee and is asked where the money was spent, which newspaper was bought, how much it cost and all the details? On May 13 the minister said that the government would do that.

I have many more examples of how the minister has misled the committee and the House and how the minister is hiding behind a list of close to 100 pages of rhetoric, with absolutely no figures on how much money was spent, where it was spent and how it was spent.

Where was the money spent? Who received the money? What favours did the Conservative government get in return for the $1 million-plus advertising that it did with the ethnic media?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and to the Minister of International Trade, and I had the opportunity to travel recently to Colombia and to Panama to further our trade relations and opportunities for Canadian businesses to prosper.

The bill we are debating, Bill C-50, is to continue to keep our country strong and competitive, and our businesses prospering and to promote innovation and productivity.

There has been a lot of discussion coming from British Columbia concerning the forestry sector. In this perfect storm that has been set up, the fact of the increased dollar, the downturn in the housing market in the U.S., and of course the pine beetle that has devastated the forests of British Columbia, our government has reacted with $1 billion throughout the country, about $129 million for British Columbia.

The province of B.C. has been working with the communities to try to help those who have been severely economically impacted, and I am proud of working with our province, our Prime Minister and the government leaders to do that.

I hear a lot of gloom and doom in the House about our economy, and I just want to refer to an online story today from the CBC. BMO capital market economist Doug Porter said, “We know that bad news sells, but this is ridiculous”. We are basically criticizing the media because bad news sells. He said there are all kinds of signs that the economic fundamentals are strong: low inflation rate, rising real incomes, healthy government surpluses, record high employment rate, record car sales, and a strong TSX. He added that rising trade surpluses are positive economic benchmarks.

The glass is more full than half full and it is a good sign that our fundamentals are strong. The Minister of Finance has indicated we have some challenges, but I would like my hon. colleague to talk a little bit about--

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the preamble to Bill C-50 states that “the Government of Canada is committed to meeting the challenge of global economic uncertainty” and so on. I would like to ask my friend whether he was surprised that this document makes no mention of regional economic uncertainty. I am talking about the whole country, but my friend will understand that one sector in my riding is particularly affected, and that is the forestry sector.

As we have seen, the trust did not meet the needs of foresters in crisis, who are self-employed workers who own private woodlots and manage our forests, the lungs of our planet. I imagine that there are also such forestry workers in the province of the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. Yet they have been completely left out of the budget.

Why does this bill contain nothing for this sector of Canada's and Quebec's economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the third reading debate on Bill C-50, the budget implementation act.

It is not without some disappointment that I rise this morning to speak in this debate, largely because of what happened last night at the report stage votes on Bill C-50.

Last night we had the opportunity to show our displeasure with two key components of this legislation, the changes that it would impose on employment insurance and the immigration measures that are included in the bill.

Last night we were voting on two series of amendments that the NDP strongly supported. I know the Bloc also supported them; in fact, they proposed some of the amendments that we voted on, and the NDP proposed the other set. The amendments would have made significant changes to the legislation that we are debating this morning. They would have deleted the problematic sections pertaining to immigration in this legislation. They would have changed the provisions dealing with employment insurance in this legislation.

Unfortunately, we were robbed of that opportunity by the Liberal Party. Twelve members of the Liberal Party voted against the legislation last night, despite their protestations that they strongly oppose these provisions and that they are speaking up for Canadians who are concerned about immigration policy. Unfortunately, that was not enough to affect the outcome of the vote last night.

It is actually shocking that despite their protestations, the Liberals find it difficult to come to this place and express the opinion that they expressed to Canadians across this country and instead say, “Trust us. We will change it when we come to power”. We do not know when that is going to happen.

The reality is that last night was the opportunity for the official opposition, the Liberal Party, to exercise the power that it does command in this Parliament and to see that the legislation was changed, to see that the problems were fixed, to see the Liberals standing up to speak for those Canadians who are concerned about the changes to immigration, for instance, in this legislation. Instead, they chose not to do that. I think that is a very serious problem.

I do not think there is anything more important that I do in this place than rise in my place and vote on important legislation that is before the House. I take that moment very seriously. I wish more members of the Liberal Party would take that moment seriously. We have that opportunity in this minority Parliament. It is important that when we say we are going to seek changes, as the Liberal Party did, when we see problems with legislation that we exercise the power we have in this place, but that is not what is happening.

Sadly, the bill is at third reading now and we are debating the bill that the Conservatives proposed. We are debating again the immigration and EI measures that are so problematic and so significant, that imply such significant changes, and which we really do need to address.

I thought it was ironic this morning in debate that a Liberal member said that we could not trust the Conservatives to exercise the discretionary authority around immigration that is in this legislation, that we could not trust them to have that kind of discretionary power, and at the same time said that Canadians should trust the Liberals some point down the road to fix the legislation.

The opportunity is here now. The opportunity was here last night to make those changes. Clearly, Canadians cannot trust the Liberals to put their votes where their mouths are on this immigration issue in particular. That opportunity was lost last night. It is very serious. I think many Canadians will have something to say to Liberal members of Parliament about that.

With regard to the bill before us, one of the significant changes that is in this legislation is regarding the operation of the EI fund.

We have heard very strong language used, particularly from this corner of the House, about the implication of the changes in this legislation. Some members have said that there is a theft under way, that money is being stolen from workers and employers in Canada as a result of this legislation. I have to agree with members who use that strong language, because it is a very serious proposition that we are debating in this legislation.

In recent years there has been an accumulation of a $54.1 billion surplus in what is taken in in EI premiums over what is spent on EI payments and on training programs related to EI. That is money that has been collected in good faith from Canadian workers and from Canadian employers to run the employment insurance program.

The legislation is proposing that a new Canada employment insurance financing board be established. The board's job will be to set rates and cover payments for employment insurance. There is a significant change in all of this because the operation of the board will be more related to general economic trends rather than the needs of individual workers, which is the current bias of the operation of the EI program. That is a significant change.

The other significant problem with what is being proposed is that the reserve fund that is being established to cover changes in the economic climate and a rising unemployment rate will only be $2 billion. That is the reserve fund that is being established as a result of this legislation.

We know flatly that is just not enough. We have strong supporters in that opinion. The Auditor General has been very clear in saying that $10 billion to $15 billion at a minimum is necessary to ensure that any economic downturn can be accommodated by the EI fund. The former chief actuary of Canada has said that $15 billion is necessary to accomplish the same thing. Yet the proposal that we have before us only sets aside $2 billion.

When there was $54 billion collected from workers and employers over the years and we are only setting aside $2 billion, what is happening with that other $52 billion? That is a serious problem.That is why some members have been led to call this a significant theft and claim that that money is being stolen from workers and employers in Canada.

Rather than propose this kind of measure, there was a time when the Conservatives were in opposition when they actually proposed that the $54 billion should be repaid to the EI fund recognizing that this was money collected from workers and employers in Canada. Sadly, they have lost that impetus to do the right thing, to do justice to workers and employers in Canada to ensure that that money was used for the purposes for which it was collected. They have done a complete about face and are now willing to write off that $52 billion completely, and in doing so, make a very inadequate accommodation for the possibility of an economic downturn.

I think all of us are nervous about that right now. The Conservatives talk about people who are preaching doom and gloom. I do not think any of us want to preach doom and gloom, but I think all of us want to be aware of the signals that are out there. There are many people who are concerned about the possibility of recession and the possibility of an economic downturn.

Without a strong EI program we know that is going to make any downturn more problematic for Canadians. Many of us believe that the EI program that exists today is a mere shadow of what it once was. Many Canadian workers are finding it difficult when they are laid off to get by without the kind of EI program that we have had in the past.

The news today from Oshawa, the city where I was born and in which I grew up, is not good. The truck plant is being shut down and a thousand more auto workers are going to be out of a job. That is a very significant development. It is a real depletion of the operations of General Motors in Canada. It is a significant blow to Canadian workers, losing a thousand more well-paying manufacturing auto industry jobs, jobs that have great benefits, that have pensions attached to them. The shortcomings of the EI program are going to make it more difficult for workers in places like Oshawa who are losing their jobs today and in the coming months. It is a very serious problem. We should be using that $52 billion to ensure there are programs to assist workers as job losses happen and assist them with job retraining. That is not what is going on. That is not the direction the Conservatives are choosing.

If there is a reason to not support Bill C-50, that is one excellent reason. I put it to the member for Oshawa and the member for Whitby—Oshawa, who proposed this legislation, that I do not know how they could turn their backs on their constituents at this terrible time in their community. I do not know how they could not be taking every measure possible to ensure that programs are in place to assist them as these very difficult closures happen.

It is not just in the auto sector that this is happening. It is happening in the forestry sector in British Columbia.

We have seen many communities in British Columbia dramatically affected by the loss of forestry jobs, such as the community of Mackenzie, for instance, and many other communities in the interior of British Columbia, as well as communities on Vancouver Island and even communities on the lower mainland, where mills have closed. They all have seen the difficulties associated with the changes in the forestry industry, yet there has been precious little assistance from the government.

The EI fund is of less assistance than it might have been at one time because of the changes that have been introduced to it. That is a significant issue in British Columbia.

We know about the ongoing litany of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs that have been lost in recent years in Canada. Those jobs are gone. Gone with them are the high wage rates, the benefits and the pension plans.

The government says constantly that it has created many other jobs. We know that those jobs that have been created have been largely service jobs. They are largely minimum wage jobs or pay slightly above minimum wage. They do not have the same kinds of benefits. They do not have pensions associated with them.

There can be no substitution of those kinds of jobs with the kinds of jobs we are losing all across this country, the jobs that pay great wages and have excellent benefits and pensions associated with them. It is a very serious problem.

Our EI critic, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, has often described the situation of eligibility for employment insurance today. Only 32% of women workers are eligible and only 38% of male workers are eligible. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers are ineligible for EI benefits. These are people who are out there working in the economy and yet do not qualify for EI.

As well, any time there is the possibility of a downturn in the economy, localized or national, provincial or regional, we know how important having a strong EI program has proven to be over many years and decades in Canada. Sadly, we do not have the same commitment to that program today. This legislation is not going to help that at all.

We also know that when we are trying to address poverty issues in Canada, family poverty and child poverty, EI is a crucial piece of the grouping of policies and programs we need to see a decline in poverty in Canada. Sadly, when we do not treat EI with the kind of respect it deserves as a program central to that effort, it is actually an outrage. It is an outrage that we would not give it that place of importance in all of this.

This legislation also includes the controversial amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would give the minister, among other things, greater discretion in whether or not to accept immigration applications. There is a problem with the fact that this is here in the first place.

This change should not have been included in the budget implementation act. It is a serious change to immigration law in Canada. It should have been on its own. It should have been stand-alone legislation so that it could have had the direct attention it deserves because of the significance of the change it implies.

It should not have been buried in a budget implementation bill. I hope the Conservatives will reconsider that kind of tactic in future when they are bringing forward other legislation. It is not appropriate to bury something on a completely different topic in this kind of legislation.

This change the Conservatives are proposing is very important to people in my riding. I have a significant new Canadian and immigrant population in my constituency. Any change to immigration law is keenly watched in my constituency.

Giving these kinds of discretionary powers to the minister is inappropriate. We should not be giving the minister this kind of discretionary ability to ignore applications.

We fought long and hard to ensure that any immigration application submitted was considered. That change was a major victory for people who care about the exercise of immigration policy in Canada.

This legislation would undo that. Again, if there is a reason for not supporting this legislation, that is it. This turns back the clock on important gains that have been made in the past with regard to immigration policy and the immigration application process in Canada.

The reality is that this change is promoted as a way of dealing with the immigration backlog, which is at about 900,000 applications or more right now. This will not do anything to address the backlog because it does not apply to most of the applications in the backlog. It does not really do what it is being sold as attempting to do.

I think it is a bit of false advertising on the part of the Conservative government to say this measure is somehow going to improve the backlog, because it will not. It will not even really touch it. We need greater processing capacity to deal with the backlog. This bill does nothing to address that.

There are a lot of problems with where the Conservatives are going on immigration and this bill highlights all of those problems. The new emphasis on temporary foreign workers is a huge change in Canadian immigration policy. In the past, we have encouraged people needed in our economy to come here as permanent residents. We have put them on the track to becoming full citizens of Canada.

European countries, for instance, have relied on a guest worker policy. We have never gone in that direction. When we see some of the social problems that have occurred in Europe as a result of that kind of guest worker or temporary foreign worker policy, we are lucky that Canada has not gone in that direction.

However, that is where the Conservatives are going now. In fact, they are reducing the number of places in the overall immigration target available to economic immigrants for family reunification in favour of temporary foreign workers and students. They are encouraging them to apply for permanent residence instead.

That is not going to help the backlog either. We are not going to alleviate that backlog if we keep taking away places that could be considered for family applications in the system.

It is a real problem because family reunification has been one of the strong points of our immigration program. It has been one of the successful points of our immigration program. One of the reasons people have chosen to emigrate to Canada over other countries is that the possibility of having family members join them here was held out as a significant promise to them when they came to Canada.

We let that program wither at our peril, I believe, because in a world that is increasingly competitive with regard to immigrants, we cannot afford to give up any of the competitive edges that we hold over other countries when it comes to attracting immigrants.

I believe the government is bent on reducing the emphasis on family reunification. The first time the former minister of citizenship and immigration appeared at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, he left reunification out of the list of reasons why we have an immigration policy in Canada.

He talked about the economic needs of Canada, nation building and protecting vulnerable refugees, but he did not mention family reunification. It is significant when a minister fails to list one of the key objectives of Canada's immigration program over many decades. That was a significant indicator.

If people go to the immigration website, as I did a little while back, it is hard to find in any of the general descriptions of Canada's immigration policy a reference to family reunification. It has dropped off the opening pages of the website. Again, it is a very serious downgrading of the position of family reunification in Canada. The changes proposed in this bill will only feed into that.

I could have talked about some of the things that this bill does not address and should have. It does not talk about any new program for housing in Canada. We know that is a significant problem all across this country. Affordable housing and homelessness are very serious issues that Canadians want addressed and they are not in this bill.

I could have talked about how the Conservative government, with this legislation, is lowering overall corporate tax rates but raising overall individual corporate tax rates. That is inappropriate as well.

I could have talked about the loss of income that Canadians have suffered since 1989 and how these budget measures do nothing to address that. It is only the very wealthy who are doing better in this time period. Everyone else is taking a hit, particularly those at the low end of the income scale.

I could have talked about gutting the fiscal capacity of government by over $200 billion, which the government is in the process of doing.

I could have talked about the funding cuts to the important programs that would have addressed some of the important social needs of Canadians. Those programs would make it possible for Canadians to collectively address some of the social problems that exist in this country.

There are a lot of problems with this legislation. We in this corner will be voting against this legislation once again. We will stand in our places to do that and to keep our promises to Canadians on what we think about this legislation.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party has difficulty understanding that the Canadian currency has gone up significantly and that does affect our GDP number since we are a major exporting nation. Nominally. when our dollar goes up, vis-à-vis foreign currencies, that does affect our GDP but that does not mean the economy has shrunk. The member, however, does not quite understand how currency volatility can affect those things.

We will see how that comes out in the second quarter because I really do not buy into the Liberal doom and gloom. Canada has a great economy. We are moving forward, led by constituencies like mine, of Peterborough. We work very hard and we will continue to make the economy very strong.

During clause by clause at the finance committee, the Liberals voted with the government members to limit debate on every amendment brought forward to five minutes. They then abstained on every vote that was brought forward.

The government has a position on Bill C-50. Whether they agree or not, the NDP members have a position. They have made that clear and they stand by their convictions.

The Liberals stand in the House today and make speeches. They pretend to counter positions when they really have no position at all. They have no plan. I am sure the NDP will agree with me when I say that the Liberal Party is void of any plan whatsoever. The Liberals simply pretend to have a separate position from the government but put no solutions forward whatsoever.

I do not think doom, gloom and spin is a good position for a party that hopes one day to be government. Maybe the Liberals will come up with a platform because they sure do not have one right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present Bill C-50 at third reading, a bill that proposes to implement certain measures from budget 2008.

This year's budget further illustrates the responsible leadership of this government. This is a budget for uncertain times when a strong and steady hand and focused leadership is needed.

Building on the government's 2007 economic statement, budget 2008 is balanced, focused and prudent in order to ensure that Canada remains strong and secure amid global economic uncertainty.

To that end, budget 2008 continues reducing debt and taxes, focusing government spending, and providing additional support for sectors of the economy that are struggling in this period of uncertainty.

Today I would like to touch upon some of the key measures in the budget that are included in Bill C-50, including as it relates to citizenship and immigration and specifically as it impacts on my constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain. In doing so, I will demonstrate how the government is providing strong and responsible leadership.

I will also demonstrate that our priorities accord with those of Canadians. We are reducing debt, strengthening Canada's tax advantage, investing in the country's manufacturing heartland and investing in priorities that matter to Canadians.

By carefully managing spending and continuing to reduce debt, the government is ensuring that its programs provide value for money, are sustainable and keep the tax burden to a minimum.

We are also ensuring intergenerational equity. This means that we should not ask our children and our grandchildren to pay the freight on the spending excesses of the past, such as by the previous Liberal government in the March spending madness that took place where budget surpluses were used for continual and additional spending.

That is why we are reducing the federal debt by more than $37 billion, including $10.2 billion in 2007-08. As a result of our aggressive debt reduction plan, by 2009-10 personal income tax reductions provided under the tax back guarantee will amount to $2 billion, which will continue to grow into the future.

Our government is also working to create a tax advantage for Canada. The measures we have introduced since taking office will provide almost $200 billion in tax relief over 2007-08 and the following five years. That is $200 billion left in the pockets of Canadians to further increase their business and their initiatives, which will produce more jobs.

As the Minister of Finance has said, our government is meeting the challenge of global economic uncertainty with a plan that is real, a plan that is responsible and a plan that is working.

Budget 2008 builds on past action by proposing what is the most important, federally driven, personal finance innovation since the introduction of the registered retirement savings plan, and that is the tax-free savings account. This flexible, registered, general purpose account will allow Canadians to watch their savings, including interest income, dividend payments and capital gains grow tax free. Yes, tax free.

As a new general purpose savings account, the tax-free savings account will provide an additional tax efficient savings vehicle for Canadians that complements existing registered savings plan, such as the RRSP and the registered education savings plan.

In other words, Canadians will have access to a complete set of tax efficient savings vehicles to meet their various needs: for their children's education, for their retirement and for their own immediate use purposes during life.

An important point to emphasize is that a tax-free savings account will provide greater savings incentives for low and modest income individuals. Neither the income earned in a tax-free savings account nor withdrawals from it will affect eligibility for federal income tested benefit credits, such as the Canada child tax benefit, the GST credit, the age credit, the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement benefits.

In fact, in the first five years it is estimated that over three-quarters of the benefits of saving in a tax-free savings account will go to individuals in the two lowest tax brackets.

The government has taken another action to help those who need it, including Canadian seniors, for example.

Many seniors live on a fixed income. They often find it difficult to make ends meet. That is why our government has provided significant tax relief for seniors and pensioners. This includes a doubling of the pension income amount to $2,000, with an increase in age credit amounts by $1,000.

The tax relief also includes increasing the age limit for maturing RPPs and RRSPs and, for the first time ever in Canada, pension income splitting for seniors and pensioners. For a one-pension working family of two, the savings will be incredible, into the thousands.

However, we can and must do more to support our seniors. Budget 2008 therefore proposes to increase the guaranteed income supplement exemption to $3,500 from the current maximum of $500. This will benefit seniors with low and modest incomes who choose to continue working. We must also remember that the interest they earn on their tax-free savings account will continue to help them. Moreover, this initiative will help these seniors live their retirement years with dignity and the respect they deserve.

Our government is also investing in Canada's manufacturing heartland. It is committed to helping Canadian communities in need. Just this past February, members will recall, Parliament passed the government's $1 billion community development trust to support communities and workers suffering from economic hardship. Among other things, this funding could support job training to create opportunities for workers, community transition plans that foster economic development and create new jobs, and infrastructure development that stimulates economic diversification.

Budget 2008 also demonstrates responsible leadership by helping to create the conditions for our businesses and entrepreneurs to invest and thrive at home and abroad. To that end, budget 2008 takes targeted action to help important Canadian industries. For example, it proposes to provide $250 million for an automotive innovation fund. This initiative, being led by the Minister of Industry, will help Canada's automotive sector adapt to the challenges of the future and remain a key component of Canada's economy.

Budget 2008 also proposes to extend temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for manufacturers and processors for three years, on a declining basis.

This government continues to invest in the priorities of Canadians, one of these being a desire to live in a safe and secure community. This government takes seriously the responsibility of protecting Canadians. Budget 2008 provides funding to protect Canadian families and communities, building on the important investments this government has made in previous budgets.

Bill C-50 proposes to implement a measure from budget 2008 that will provide funding to provinces and territories to support them in recruiting 2,500 new front line police officers. The bill proposes to set aside up to $400 million in 2007-08 to be paid into a third-party trust for provinces and territories, allocated proportionately, to meet this objective.

There is little doubt that the environment is another priority for Canadians. Canadian participation in the earth hour event in March was strong evidence of that. People, not only across the country but around the world, turned off their lights to make a statement about helping find new ways to reduce their impact on the environment.

One of the budget measures contained in Bill C-50 is a proposal to set aside $250 million for a full scale commercial demonstration of carbon capture and storage in the coal-fired electricity sector and for research projects to accelerate the deployment of the technology. Carbon capture and storage presents an opportunity for Canada to develop and benefit from world-leading technology that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

On March 15, the Prime Minister of Canada visited my constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain to formally announce the budget provision of $240 million to the province of Saskatchewan for carbon capture and storage and clean coal technology. The province of Saskatchewan confirmed plans to use the funds at the Estevan Boundary Dam, located just south of my home city of Estevan, Saskatchewan.

This federal funding will help leverage an estimated $1.4 billion of investment into clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage. This project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated one million tonnes per year.

I wonder if NDP members realize that by voting against the passage of Bill C-50 they are voting against this critical investment that will result in the equivalent of removing millions of cars from the roads. This project has the potential to provide a solid base for enhanced oil recovery, more jobs and significant economic spinoff.

SaskPower is developing what it is calling one of the first and largest clean coal and carbon capture demonstration projects in the world. This commercial demonstration of state of the art carbon capture and storage technology will make Canada a world leader in clean energy production. Benefits from this project will extend to enhanced oil recovery initiatives.

At the premiers conference in Prince Albert, the premier of Alberta stated in the Saturday, May 31 issue of the Leader-Post that the carbon capture and storage technique is “the quickest, most rapid way of significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions”.

In the same article, Premier Wall said that Saskatchewan already is a centre of excellence in terms of carbon capture and storage, with the Petroleum Technology Research Centre in Regina, Saskatchewan, and its Weyburn-Midale pilot project, the largest carbon dioxide storage in the world.

Encana's facility located near Weyburn, Saskatchewan is Weyburn's flagship project, with a seven year record of demonstrating CO₂ storage on a commercial scale. At this time, Encana receives CO₂ from Beulah, North Dakota, using it for enhanced oil recovery, and is presently touted as the world's largest CO₂ sequestration project and the largest commercial scale carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery project in Canada.

The Petroleum Technology Research Centre in Regina is actively involved in the Weyburn project. The potential for southeast Saskatchewan is phenomenal. CO₂ can be compressed and piped to storage locations. The geological formation for CO₂ storage exists in southeast Saskatchewan. It is waiting for expanded, innovative thinking and brave initiatives on the part of all affected parties.

Budget 2008 provides a capital cost allowance rate for compression and pumping equipment on CO₂ pipelines of 15% and an increase in the rate from 4% to 8% on CO₂ pipelines transporting CO₂. It is this type of initiatives that the NDP would be voting against.

It sounds exciting. It sounds invigorating. It is the kind of action and leadership that are required of a government, that enhance and encourage the enterprise, the initiative and the ambitions that Canadians possess and that partner with others like the province of Saskatchewan, SaskPower and industry to ensure projects such as this can take place.

Kevin Hursh, a consulting agrologist and farmer based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, stated in a National Post article on May 31, 2008:

In a lot of small and large towns, [in Saskatchewan] you can hardly find a house to buy and if you do, the price has increased dramatically. Older houses that no one wanted a few years ago are being gobbled up and renovated. Even houses in old farmyards are in demand.

He added that there is an optimism in the agriculture and grain industry sector that has not been seen before. He stated:

People are moving back to Saskatchewan and it isn't only the cities that are benefiting. Rural Saskatchewan still has problems, but there has been an amazing reversal of fortunes. Local governments are scrambling to switch from survival mode to a growth mode.

Our economy and its continued growth will depend on a flexible and responsive immigration system to ensure we have the skilled workers and the tradespeople that our country needs. Neither Canadians nor prospective immigrants benefit from an immigration system that, due to its dysfunctional nature, forces prospective immigrants to wait for up to six years before their application is looked at, let alone processed.

The current system is especially problematic, since in a few short years all of our net labour growth will come from immigration. That is why changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act were included in budget 2008. “Advantage Canada” in 2006 identified that Canada needs the most flexible workforce in the world, an issue that is critical to Canada's future.

A new and more efficient processing system is desperately needed, a system that is responsive both to the needs of newcomers and the needs of Canada. Canada faces serious international competition in attracting people with the talents and skills we need to ensure our country's continued growth and prosperity.

Compared to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Canada is the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen, code or prioritize skilled worker applications. Compared to other countries, Canada's system is just not flexible enough.

The legislative changes that we propose will prevent the backlog from growing. With the growth of the backlog halted, the government also has allocated additional resources to reduce the backlog. Among other things, our government has committed over $109 million over five years to bring down the backlog.

Part 6 of Bill C-50, when combined with these non-legislative measures funded in budget 2008 and beyond, will act to control and reduce the backlog and speed up processing. The government will be required to consult with provinces and territories, industry, and government departments.

These consultations will include getting assurances that if the regulated professions are prioritized, commitments from provincial regulatory bodies will be obtained, to ensure that individuals brought here will be allowed to work in their chosen fields soon after arrival. The instructions must respect our commitments to provinces and territories regarding the provincial nominee program and the Canada-Quebec accord.

These proposed changes are part of a vision that involves creating a more responsive immigration system, one that allows us to welcome more immigrants while helping them get the jobs they need to succeed and build a better life for themselves and their families. Their success is our success.

Urgent action is required. Part 6 and all of budget 2008 delivers this much needed action.

The bill we are debating today illustrates just how our government is prepared to meet the challenge of global economic uncertainty. We have a realistic plan for Canada, a plan that is working. There is no way we are going to slide back to the days of high spending, high debt and higher taxes, as some would have it. Canadians do not want that and neither does this government.

Rather, as reflected by the measures proposed in Bill C-50, our plan is taking us down the right road, a road that requires focus, prudence and discipline, yet at the same time it is a road that is very refreshing, exciting and invigorating, a road that will point the way forward for Canadians for years to come. To all Canadians, it will be like a breath of fresh air.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-50.

When we return to the study of Bill C-7, there will be five minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member for Charlottetown.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration 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 reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. The member has raised some very good questions.

Basically, that is what we think. We also pointed that out earlier today when we talked about immigration provisions. The minister is giving himself a lot of powers, the power to cross names off waiting lists, which are growing longer by the day. The minister will have the power to simply cross names off the list. The Conservatives would rather deal with management issues that way than bring in good management practices. “Good Conservative management practices” is something of an oxymoron. This plan will not work.

We are seeing exactly the same thing with these provisions in Bill C-50, that is, the concentration of powers in the hands of ministers who have already made it clear that they do not have the public interest at heart. They are taking money that honest Canadians contributed to an employment insurance system that no longer exists for two thirds of people who find themselves out of a job. Basically, this problem will not be solved by concentrating powers in the hands of ministers.

That is why the NDP is saying no to all of these measures. We will vote in favour of the amendments to Bill C-50 to fix these detrimental aspects.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the Liberals do not like the characterization of what they did with employment insurance. However, it is not a laughing matter for the hundreds of thousands of working people who have been denied employment insurance benefits because of the Liberal government's actions and now the current Conservative government's actions.

I would think that everybody in this House, if they were in touch with their constituents on Main Street, would understand if we were to call this the false premises act. Essentially that money was collected under false premises in a fraudulent way. When we say that money will be redirected to support those who are unemployed and then we take that money and apply it to general revenues, that is a false premise. Hundreds of thousands of workers and working families have been impacted by that decision.

The Liberals do not like being reminded of their record, but in this corner of the House the NDP speaks the truth and we are bringing up that record, and we will not let them forget it. However, we also will not let the Conservatives get away with what is clearly contrary to the practices as even covered by the Auditor General.

The Auditor General says that the actions proposed in Bill C-50 are not appropriate, that there must be a larger reserve put aside for the money that was collected under the pretense that it would go to help working people in this country. We have a situation where only one-third of unemployed women can actually claim employment insurance. That is a devastating situation for people who are unemployed in this country. Who are these people? Let us talk about the facts.

We had a debate last Wednesday night with the Minister of Finance and he was unable to even acknowledge the reality that Statistics Canada tells us about working families in this country. Two-thirds of working families are earning less now than they were back in 1989. The wealthiest of Canadian families are doing better than ever. They now take half of all the income in this country and their income has skyrocketed over that same period.

When we talk about middle class families earning between $40,000 and $60,000 a year, they have lost a week's income each and every year since 1989. Lower middle class families earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year have lost two weeks of income. Try getting by with no paycheques for two weeks. We have a profound understanding of what working families are living through.

The poorest of Canadians, including unemployed Canadians, have seen a devastating fall in income. They have lost a month and a half of income since 1989 for each and every year. We are talking about a catastrophic fall in income and the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing to address this fundamental economic problem in this country.

What do they do? What is their solution? It is more and more corporate tax cuts. They just shovel the money off the back of a truck to the wealthy corporate sector, the most profitable corporations in the country. CEOs are doing well and that is all the Conservative government responds to, the agenda of corporate CEOs, not to the agenda of working families that are struggling to make ends meet, that are working longer and longer weeks and harder and harder, 200 hours on average. Canadian families are working more and more while at the same time earning less and less.

Perhaps the most insulting aspect of this is when the Minister of Finance stands in this House and says that jobs have been created in this country. We know what kind of jobs they are but the Minister of Finance could not even respond to that last week.

He and his government have kicked good manufacturing jobs out the door, family sustaining jobs paying over $20 an hour, on average $21 an hour, and they have created part time and temporary jobs that pay barely better than minimum wage.

The government, far from being proud of its economic record, should hang its head in shame for what it has done to the working people of this country. We have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in a hemorrhaging of our manufacturing sector that is without precedence in Canadian history. What it has given us are temporary and part time service industry jobs that pay minimum wage. They do not come with pensions or any sort of benefits.

This hits younger Canadians particularly hard. Right now we have record levels of student debt that the Conservatives have done absolutely nothing about. Young Canadians see themselves going into a job market where there are low entry level wages and jobs that have no pension benefits. They can see, after working a 40 or 45 year career, retiring with no company pension.

What do the Conservatives offer? They offer the false pretense of taking $54 billion from the employment insurance fund and tucking it away, not putting it in any sort of debt reserve, not responding to the needs of Canadian working families, but tucking it away and putting $2 billion aside. That is less than 2¢ on the dollar that they are putting aside.

In this corner of the House we say, no, that is not appropriate accounting practices, which is what the Auditor General says, and it is not at all in the interests of working families who have struggled for 20 years while corporate executives have been given anything they want from the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government.

The Liberals and the Conservatives do not like their actions being characterized as a false premise. They do not like their actions being characterized as taking the money for one reason and then diverting it without consulting the public and without responding to the need in working communities from coast to coast to coast, but that is what has happened.

It is a false premise for the government to pretend it is doing something for working families when it essentially takes $52 billion away that came from hard-working families from coast to coast to coast. It is unfair and inappropriate and we are voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in opposition to Bill C-50 and in favour of the amendments presented today in this House, especially those concerning employment insurance.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the work done by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, as he has been working very hard ever since coming to the House on June 2, 1997. Today is the anniversary of that date. Since then, he has worked relentlessly for an employment insurance system that protects workers across the country. It is important to commend his work.

The question is, what do the Conservatives propose to do in Bill C-50?

We talked earlier today about the immigration provisions. That portion of the bill should be entitled the indentured servitude act. It essentially would bring foreign workers into Canada who would have no rights.

These provisions we are talking about now are the legalized theft provisions of Bill C-50. Let us go back a few years. We had the Liberals stealing from the unemployment insurance budget and basically taking billions of dollars of money from unemployment insurance.

That money could have gone to the unemployed workers, of which there are so many, an increasing number in this country. I will come back to that in a moment.

The Conservatives, of course, do not like this. They do not like being connected to criminal acts, but this is legalizing a theft that occurred under the Liberal regime and that the Conservatives have perpetuated. There is no doubt about this.

Essentially--

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the more this government introduces legislative initiatives, the more I realize that it is incapable of proposing a really good measure for our people, our workers in particular. It is not capable of that because the only thing it considers to be a social measure is cutting income taxes and taxes in general. It is turning a long awaited measure that would be a step in the right direction into a real crime meant only to please businesses, in that contributions would be reduced.

For more than 10 years, people who are concerned about social justice have been calling for an independent employment insurance fund. For a long time now, the federal government has been collecting employment insurance contributions from employees and employers, restricting eligibility for benefits and using the money for other purposes.

In addition to causing endless frustration among the workers and a good number of colleagues here, such the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, who are worried about this situation, this reprehensible behaviour by the government has created a double standard.

First, employees and employers pay far too much for what they get in return. Then their benefits are reduced.

Access to these benefits is also being limited more and more, especially for seasonal workers who work in necessary jobs that vary from season to season.

Year after year, the government has used the surplus created in this way to balance its budget and create astronomical surpluses that it then used to pay down the debt, as everyone knows.

The result is as follows: $54 billion that belongs to the people who contributed—not to pay down the debt—has been used for other purposes, while there are pressing needs in employment.

The Conservative government has finally reacted and decided to create a Canada employment insurance financing board. It was a good idea, but behind the terms healthy management and good governance lie intentions that will not really help workers.

Cutting EI contributions will not help workers. The government is obviously trying to convince us that it will—and this is not the first time—but does paying a dollar less every week matter to a worker who receives $100 less in benefits because of a bare-bones calculation? In reality, this calculation is of much more benefit to businesses and regions experiencing full employment, like Alberta. Is anyone here surprised?

The only way to help workers is to provide benefits that ensure a decent income for seasonal workers who are supporting families and for older workers who get laid off and have to make it to retirement with no hope of receiving any income other than employment insurance and, unfortunately, welfare.

The only way to help workers is to transfer funds for employment programs to Quebec—in our case—for workers in seasonal and precarious jobs.

Creating a Canada employment insurance financing board is a step in the right direction only because it will finally put an end to the theft of people's contributions. That being said, the government has no intention of reimbursing the $54 billion by applying it to employment programs or worker assistance, and that is unacceptable.

The new board will not be giving that money back to workers. In fact, should a recession or massive layoffs occur, it will have to borrow from the consolidated revenue fund. So there is that whole borrowing problem. What will happen? Who will have to pay when there is a liability? Unfortunately, once again, the workers are the ones who will pay.

This is what they are calling improved management and governance, which the government promised on page 6 of its Budget in Brief.

An actuary will determine the contributions to be paid. Only $2 billion will be kept in reserve, and employment programs will in the hands of the Minister of Human Resources and of businesses that will pay as little as possible.

This vision will be enshrined in legislation, and this crown corporation will not have to answer to Parliament.

As for Bill C-50 on the budget, I want to bring up a point that has to do with part 7, concerning the board's duties and restrictions, so to speak.

According to clause 36 of this part, “the Governor in Council [the cabinet], on the joint recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance, may make regulations...respecting the investments...the limitations—” and other revenue. I would like to know how this clause 36 will work with subclause 4(c), which states that the object of the board is to manage any amounts paid to it. Who will do what?

We are talking about transparency and good management. Does this not strip the board of its essential role? Does this not strip it of the great transparency and also the great responsibility it is supposed to have? Is it an independent entity? I get the impression that sometimes it is, sometimes it is not.

Also, what about the auditor general's recommendation that there should be an adequate reserve, estimated at $15 billion, I believe?

In conclusion, as we can see, the Conservatives are trying to make it seem as though they are responding to a legitimate demand, and have concocted a bill that is unacceptable on at least two points, not to mention that they did not address all the demands for the redistribution of wealth. In particular—and this topic is close to my heart—they have not attempted to help poor seniors get out of poverty.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for their interventions. I think most people would be more than surprised to find out that probably the two most significant changes that have occurred with the Conservative government exist in Bill C-50. I say that because what we have in front of us is not a traditional budget bill. Bill C-50 has a couple of Trojan horses in it. One will irreversibly change our immigration system and the other will irreversibly change our employment insurance system.

In speaking of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act that are in front of us, it is interesting that the Conservatives previously had suggested that government should get out of the way of Canadian citizens and just let the invisible hand take over. We have seen that with the rhetoric and certainly the economic philosophy of those of the Calgary school. We have seen the government and its predecessor party advocate for that.

It is interesting what the government is doing. It is taking what was a social democratic idea, something that was a progressive idea and it is using a crown corporation to delegate away the authority, to delegate away the responsibility and to delegate away any efficacy of our employment insurance system. It is deft policy making on the one hand, but it is really absurd on the other.

We have a government with a philosophy of a certain school of economics that does not actually believe in crown corporations. If we actually got behind closed doors with some of our friends in the government, I think the truth would come out that if they had their way they would get rid of all crown corporations. I find it passing strange that the Conservatives are using the crown corporation structure with respect to the EI system. I guess they think that Canadians can be fooled, but I do not think that is the case at all.

Employment insurance, or unemployment insurance as we used to call it, came out of the Depression. In 1935 Prime Minister Bennett came up with the idea and was pushed by the predecessor party to the NDP, the CCF, to do something about the egregiously horrific situation of people suffering from unemployment. I could regale members with stories that were passed on to me from my mother and father who lived through the Depression. Their parents would help people at the back door by giving them food and supplies. People would go to the back door because they were too ashamed to go to the front door. This country built social programs to deal with that. That was in 1935.

When it was first brought in, an interesting thing happened from a constitutional perspective. It actually was one of the times we had to deal with the nature of our system. The relevant act was challenged and the unemployment insurance measures that were brought in 1935 were deemed unconstitutional, because unemployment was deemed the responsibility of the provinces. That constitutional crisis had to be dealt with and changes to the BNA Act were made in 1940, I believe.

Then we went forward with an unemployment insurance system in different capacities for many years. It got to a point where we saw the unemployment insurance system as a progressive way of dealing with downturns in the economy which happened from time to time. We would have a safety net along with our health care system and our pension system. Canadians were proud of it because we built it and supported it. There was a consensus on that.

Around 1990 we saw the first challenges to it fiscally with the previous Conservative government. There were cuts and again in 1993 and yet again in 1994. In 1996 the whole thing was revamped. The then Liberal government changed the name. The most recent way to deal with things is to change the nomenclature, never mind that the challenges to those who paid into it to actually qualify were undermined, but change the name and somehow people will not notice. Now the government is trying to change the administration of it to a crown corporation. It is delegating away the authority, delegating away the accountability and delegating away the ability for us to have a robust system. By 1996 with the previous Liberal government, we were dealt yet another death blow. There was another chink in the armour of our employment insurance program.

Many Canadians who paid into this system will never have to use it, which is the idea of insurance. We pay into it hoping that we will never have to use it, but we pay into it because we know that it should be there for people if they need it. What frustrates so many people is that they watched the previous government stand and take credit for slaying the deficit when in fact what it did was a shell game.

It was preposterous to see and it was horrible to watch as it claimed that it had done all the work when in fact all it did was bleed working Canadians of the money that they contributed to the employment insurance fund. Then it said, “Look, we have slayed the deficit”, and along with that of course it downloaded responsibilities without money to the provinces.

When we look at the history that I have just provided, employment insurance came out of an experience in this country of the Depression. We had constitutional challenges to make sure it was congruent with our British North America Act and it was something that over time was built and changes were made. It has been challenged since 1990 in terms of the fiscal capacity of the fund and recently in 1996, it was raided and the name was changed.

We know that something desperate was going on with employment insurance, and I challenge anyone in this House to tell me that they went out on the doorsteps and campaigned to have the Employment Insurance Act taken out from the accountability of Parliament and thrown over to a crown corporation. There is not one. I see everyone looking down at their computers and their shoes with great interest at this point because they know that none of their constituents had a clue about this planned proposal.

Just like the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, not one of these government members went out and talked to their constituents. There were no consultations. Not one of the government members, not one of the cabinet ministers or the Prime Minister, I could go through the whole list, consulted Canadians on this change. That is reprehensible.

We live in a representative democracy. We are supposed to be under the guise of responsible government and what we have is a government packaging together all of its changes, feeding them through in a budget, and hoping that no one will do anything. Of course, the official opposition will not do a thing. It will say, “Just wait until we are back in power with our God-given right to govern and we will change everything again”.

The problem with that is that by the time the Liberals get there, there will be a crown corporation set up for employment insurance. It will be too late. There will be an immigration system that centralizes power in the hands of the minister, that gives temporary citizenship to employers to use people and then throw them on the scrap heap when they do not need them anymore, for places like the tar sands. Those things will have been done, and do not tell me that any government is going to come in there and put the genie back in the bottle successfully and without harm.

That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the breaking of a tradition, the breaking of trust, the breaking of a social contract between citizens and their government with this change in the bill, and at the end of the day, what we have done is say to Canadians that we do not care about them. Why? It is because we have foisted all of the responsibilities, fiduciary and otherwise, to a crown corporation that has no accountability here other than whomever the government decides to appoint to that board.

It is a sad day in this place. It is a sad day for responsible government and it is a sad day for everyday people when a government is allowed to do that. That is why this party and our members on this side of the House will gladly stand against the government, vote against this bill, and say to Canadians that when the election day comes, ask the government how it voted and what it did. Did government members look down at their shoes or did they look people in the eye and say, “Yes, we are going to represent you and do something in your interests?”

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for outlining some of the problems associated with part seven of Bill C-50.

My colleague pointed out how fundamentally wrong it is to deduct something from a person's paycheque for a specific purpose and then to use it for something completely different and for which the government was never authorized to use it. That goes beyond misrepresentation. It builds an expectation that workers will be covered for income maintenance should they be unfortunate enough to be laid off.

Would my colleague agree that this is a double insult? First, it is fundamentally wrong to take money off a worker's paycheque every week, and there is no choice because it is compulsory, and then use it for purposes the worker may not have ever authorized or approved. Second, it is a misrepresentation to say that a worker has insurance against unemployment and then when the worker becomes unemployed, in some cases, the worker has a less than 40% chance of being eligible for any benefits. A youth has only a 25% chance and a female youth has a 15% chance of qualifying for any benefits at all. What kind of an insurance policy is that? I would ask my colleague to expand on these two big lies associated with the EI fund in recent years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to join my friends from Hamilton Centre and Hamilton Mountain in this important debate.

I will be speaking to Bill C-50, as the others have, and in particular the aspects of Bill C-50 concerning employment insurance. One of the most important parts of this debate must include how the unemployment insurance fund came to this end, how it became employment insurance in the first place and what it meant to the working people who had been paying into the fund all of their working lives.

I can recall in the early to mid 1990s the finance minister of the day, the member for LaSalle—Émard, undertook substantial and fundamental changes to the social compact that Canadians held so dear. It was also what we believed was part of the very foundation of why Canada was a great country. It took into account the needs of people when they fell on hard times.

It was during this period that new buzzwords started to appear and it became the language coming from Ottawa, the bubble that is Ottawa. “Downloading” and “offloading” were among the most destructive of the words that I heard used. One may ask why? In the name of deficit fighting, the Liberal government of the day foisted changes in the form of the Canada health and social transfer onto the provinces. The Liberal government systematically began to seriously cut back the funding the federal government was transferring to the provinces, as well as offloading many of their responsibilities.

Included were changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which were meant to reorganize the act and begin to focus more on retraining, as we heard the member for Hamilton Mountain speaking about a few moments ago. In my community of Hamilton, workers began a cycle of training, retraining and then some more training, but no one understood what they were training for because there was a serious job crisis at that time. No jobs were available, just this cycle of training and retraining.

In addition, during that period, the theft of some $50 billion of worker and employer contributions was well underway. However, to grow the fund to the unprecedented size of in excess of $50 billion, the Liberal government first had to build up the fund and to do so, changed the eligibility rules. Following the massive rule changes, Canadians found that instead of the benefits they previously could depend on, the benefits that for years they had paid for, more and more Canadians found they did not qualify for the benefits at all or, if they did, they received them for a far shorter time period.

This effectively forced some Canadians onto welfare rolls. These Canadians were offloaded, so to speak, from the more equitable funding available from income tax and shifted over to the less comprehensive programs funded by property tax. That not only hurt those workers, but it added a new burden to the municipalities. We have heard from the FCM how it has the $23 billion deficit in infrastructure in the country, and that is part of the reason it has that. However, municipal governments, especially in hard times, had to raise property taxes and that hurt people on fixed incomes, pensioners or low income earners.

Canada's employment insurance program was significantly undermined by the previous Liberal government. Canadians knew it as one of the strongest programs, which helped working people when they lost their jobs. When they needed bridging to new employment, this program used to provide funding for unemployed workers. Some 80% of unemployed workers used to get EI, or UI as we knew it, to help them through that transition. As a result of the cuts made by the previous Liberal government and other changes to EI, it significantly undermined who would get benefits and the level of those benefits.

Today, about two-thirds of Canadians do not get employment insurance benefits. I still find it impossible to accept that new language. The fact that so few actually get the benefits is shocking. If other insurance companies refuse to allow individuals access to the benefits they have paid into, there would be a huge uproar across the country.

This move to EI and what we have before us today is completely unfair. Working people across Canada and employers, in good faith, have paid into the employment fund for many years, building a huge surplus. The estimates vary but some say it is as high as $57 billion. It now appears the previous government, as well as the present government, used that money to pay down the debt and for other programs. People who have been paying into the fund and who ought to get the benefits are denied those benefits.

This is at a time when the current government's budgets have failed to invest in strengthening our economy and opted instead to reduce social spending in favour of the huge corporate tax breaks to the banks, oil companies and gas companies. Consecutive Liberal and Conservatives governments collected EI premiums and made a conscious decision not to distribute those proceeds to the people who need them.

The jig is up. What will the Conservative government do with this misappropriation of the EI premiums of Canadians? What is its goal? Rather than saying there is an imbalance between the money paid in and the abysmal level of benefits and services available as a result of the inadequacies in the EI program, the Conservatives have decided to write these billions of dollars off Canada's book. To ensure that they never have to repay the money, they are setting up a separate account that will not be accountable to Parliament.

In spite of all the rhetoric we hear day in and day out in election campaigns about accountability, the Conservatives are legislating accountability away in this bill.

This should be unbelievable. Sadly, and equally unbelievable is the Liberals who, in the ultimate act of self-preservation, will sit on their hands, take a walk or somehow allow this stuff to occur. I guess it is understandable when they already were accomplices to the theft or even the masterminds behind so many of the subtleties of the theft that it led to the legislation before us today.

How does this provide fairness and support for unemployed workers across the country?

People in my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek are among the thousands who have lost their manufacturing jobs. These manufacturing jobs paid living wages, provided good benefits and allowed workers to live and retire in dignity with adequate pensions. Unfortunately, these jobs are evaporating, forcing workers into non-standard arrangements. What will the budget do for the workers of Hamilton who are in need?

Clearly, the provision contained in Bill C-50 will legitimize the stealing of billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund, and is done to cover the steep costs of the government's corporate tax breaks, estimated at $14 billion yearly.

The Conservative government is taking the wrong approach on employment insurance, especially by creating a crown corporation for EI, as envisioned in Bill C-50.

With Bill C-50, the Conservatives are ducking their much touted public accountability, and are aiding and abetting the continuation of the fine tradition of previous governments, of stealing the money of Canadians, the tradition of taking billions of dollars in premiums paid by workers and employers and using them to support their own political agenda, rather than providing benefits for those most in need.

The government's creating of the Canada employment insurance financing board as a crown corporation will completely undermine the principle of parliamentary accountability for employment insurance.

The NDP agree that EI should be separated public accounts, but it is the government's job to manage it. It is the government's responsibility to take care of its people, not profit from them.

The government must recognize it owes Canadian workers and their families a $50 billion-plus debt. That money belongs to the workers and their families and it is time to give it back.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the EI provisions in the budget implementation bill. My riding is part of steel town, Hamilton, the city that was built on a vibrant manufacturing sector where industrial workers earned family sustaining wages. Unfortunately, today those decent paying jobs are disappearing. They are being replaced by minimum wage, service sector jobs with no job security, few if any benefits and certainly no defined benefit pension plans. In that regard, Hamilton is a microcosm of what is happening in the country as a whole. We have lost 350,000 manufacturing sector jobs in the last five years alone and we are still hemorrhaging 300 additional jobs each and every day.

As the manufacturing sector is confronted with the tsunami of job losses, we as elected members have a responsibility to mitigate its impact on the hard-working Canadians who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own.

That of course was the original reason for creating EI, or unemployment insurance as it was originally known. It was established so workers who lost their jobs would not automatically fall into poverty. EI is the single most important income support program for Canadian workers.

In 2004-05 almost two million workers received some $13 billion in benefits. Just under two-thirds of that amount was in the form of regular benefits for temporarily unemployed workers actively seeking work, while most of the remainder was for parental and maternity benefits, which allow a new parent to take up to a year's supported leave from the workforce.

It is a myth that the EI program is mainly accessed by frequent users in high unemployment regions. While the program is indeed of vital importance to seasonal workers and other workers in high unemployment areas, only about one-third of regular claims in 2004-05 were filed by so-called frequent claimants.

In today's labour market, many workers can and do experience periods of interrupted earnings and require temporary income support. But even workers who never, or very rarely, make a claim have the knowledge that support would be there if needed. In short, the EI program was designed to help reduce poverty and insecurity. In the process, it stabilizes community economies.

It is true that the stabilization effects were significantly weakened by the cuts of the mid-1990s. When the Liberals were in power, the then finance minister took almost $50 billion of workers' money out of the employment insurance program and used it to cut taxes for his friends in corporate Canada. By the end of their 13 long years in office, the system had been gutted so badly that only 38% of unemployed workers were receiving benefits, down from more than 75% in the early 1990s before the Liberals took office.

Women were particularly disadvantaged because they make up the bulk of the part time workforce. Only three in ten women who lose their jobs are now eligible for EI.

Similarly, long years of service in the workforce no longer count for anything when it comes to collecting EI benefits. Workers on leave for training, the key to staying employed and employable in a modern economy, are also no longer covered. Why? Because after the Liberals took close to $50 billion out of the employment insurance program, there was little left to meet the program's original mandate, except it was not their money to take.

Employment insurance is funded solely by worker and employer contributions. The government simply administers the fund, so why are benefits being denied to those who have faithfully paid their premiums? Why do Ontarians get on average $5,000 less in EI than people in other parts of the country? Why is it virtually impossible to access retraining benefits when disaster strikes? New Democrats have been raising these questions in the House of Commons since the former Liberal government first started this unscrupulous raiding of the EI fund.

With the change in government in 2006, voters could be forgiven if they thought that a Conservative government might lead to some positive change. After all, before the election, it was the Prime Minister, then serving as the leader of the opposition, who joined us in harshly criticizing the raiding of the EI surplus, but that was then and this is now. Once elected, the Conservative government simply continued to rob workers of what is rightfully theirs.

It is totally unacceptable and frankly incomprehensible that last year when there was a $51 billion surplus in the EI fund, 68% of women and 62% of men who pay into the system were not eligible for benefits. It is time to say enough is enough. Workers' rights have been pushed to the side for far too long.

That brings us to the bill that is before the House today, Bill C-50, the implementation bill for the 2008 budget. What does it do? Instead of doing right by hard-working Canadians and returning all of the employee and employer contributions to the EI fund, it does the unthinkable. It legalizes the theft of $54 billion. That is the biggest theft in Canadian history and it is being perpetrated in the House of Commons and in the Senate. That is wrong and it is completely unacceptable. That money belongs to workers and their families. It is time to give it back. Workers deserve enhanced benefits, not enhanced bureaucracy, but more bureaucracy is all that the workers are getting from the government.

The Conservatives are setting up a new Canada employment insurance financing board that is mandated to use surpluses to reduce premiums instead of using them to improve access to benefits and the quality of benefits for Canadian workers.

Moreover, the reserve fund is limited to just $2 billion. Even then the bill says that the finance minister may give that sum to the board, not that he has to. How can we ensure there will be enough money in the reserve permanently?

The EI fund is supposed to protect workers in the case of economic downturns. It needs to be recession proof, but the Auditor General has estimated that $10 billion to $15 billion would be the amount required to balance the employment insurance account in the event of a recession.

I could go on forever, but I realize that I am running out of time, so let me reiterate my main concerns.

I have concerns about the legalized theft of the $54 billion surplus. I am concerned that the surpluses will not be used to improve access to or the quality of benefits for Canadians, which may even be a step toward the covert abolition of the employment insurance program altogether.

I am concerned about the reallocation of the most recent employment insurance surplus. I am concerned about the government's evasion of its obligations to workers since it will not have to answer for a crown corporation in the House. I am concerned about the uncertain funding for the reserve fund. I am concerned about the possible inadequacy of the reserve fund. I am concerned that the establishment of the board in no way improves Canadians' access to benefits or the quality of those benefits.

I am concerned about a potential suspension of benefits. I am concerned about the government's focus on establishing the board rather than attending to the employment insurance program's real problems.

These concerns are shared by thousands of hard-working Canadians in my riding of Hamilton Mountain and, indeed, right across our country. Yet today, the government is ramming it through the House just like it rammed it through committee.

There were no meaningful consultations. There were no cross-country hearings nor indepth study. The finance committee closed down debate on the bill. The Conservatives imposed a five minute limit to each speaker, and the Liberals supported that motion, five minutes to steal $54 billion. Workers deserve better. The EI surplus comes from their pockets. Unemployed workers desperately need these funds.

I urge all members of the House to do the right thing now, especially my Liberal colleagues. They should put the needs of working families in their ridings ahead of their own electoral needs. I know the Liberals do not want an election this spring and to vote against the government would trigger one, but this is not about their future; it is about the future of workers in our country. This is the time to stand up and be counted.

I am proud to stand with my NDP colleagues in voting against the bill. We know which side we are on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to part 7 of Bill C-50, although I am not pleased about what is happening. I will be clear with all Canadians, including workers and businesses.

This evening, we will see the first vote that will truly legalize the theft from the employment insurance fund. This evening, we will see $54 billion being taken away. That is what will happen. The sad thing in all of this—and we saw this coming—is that the NDP proposed amendments, which went to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, asking that, if such theft must occur, that there at least be a mechanism in place to try to help workers.

For example, the Auditor General said that a $15 billion cushion was needed in the employment insurance fund. We would like to have an amendment stipulating that there be at least $15 billion in the crown corporation. The Liberal Party refused and even refused having $15 billion out of $54 billion placed in the employment insurance fund. It voted against that.

Today, we are in the House of Commons and we see that to date, the Liberal Party of Canada has not even stood up to explain whether it is for or against Bill C-50, which is the government's budget implementation bill. The government will take this $54 billion, put it aside and forget about it. That is what is going on right now.

What is more, in Bill C-50 the government is saying that it will put $2 billion into the crown corporation. If there is a problem with the economy, money can be borrowed from the government's general funds and interest will be charged. Imagine that. Today we see that the Liberals are not even standing up to condemn this. I am talking about $54 billion that was taken out of the pockets of workers. Those people got up every morning to go to work and that money was deducted from their pay.

If the government wants to pay down the debt, it can use the taxes we pay. I remember when the Mulroney Conservatives brought in a new formula called the GST, which was to be used to pay down the debt. But instead of paying down the debt with the GST, the taxes people paid, the Conservatives decided they would use the money in the employment insurance fund and hit workers. When workers lose their jobs, they have no money to defend themselves in court. They cannot defend themselves. If workers try to get money from Imperial Oil, Shell, Ultramar or Irving in New Brunswick, these companies can afford to take the workers to court. The poor workers, who have lost their jobs and have no more money to feed their families, cannot afford to go to court. That is who the government is taking money away from. The government is taking money away from the poorest, most vulnerable members of society. That is what the Liberal government did in 1996. It made cuts to employment insurance, and the Conservatives supported those cuts.

In 2005, the last year the Liberals were in power, 28 recommendations were made regarding employment insurance. Among those recommendations was one made by the Conservative House leader that the $54 billion be put back in the employment insurance fund within 10 years. The Bloc Québécois had generously called for a timeframe of 32 or 33 years. The current Conservative House leader said that this should be done within 10 years. The money belonged to employers and employees and should be returned to them.

Now, the Conservatives are telling us that this is just virtual money, that it disappeared because it was spent and that this is the Liberals' fault. They have brought in a bill that legalizes all that. They are also telling us that if we want to get our money back we will have to pay interest. This is a sad day. It is true that they would like us to stop talking about this.

Why should we stop talking about the biggest theft in Canadian history? It is the worst scandal to have ever taken place in this Parliament. It is even worse than the Liberal's sponsorship scandal and the Conservatives spending $1.5 million over the $18 million spending limit in the last election. We are talking about $54 billion. This money could have been used to help people, but instead people are forced to go on social assistance and to embrace poverty. That is the end result.

In Canada, only 32% of women and 38% of men are eligible for employment insurance; some 800,000 workers are ineligible. Furthermore, 1.4 million children are hungry. How many times have I said this in my speeches in the House of Commons? I have never tired of repeating it. Today it seems that the Liberals are tired of hearing it and are in a hurry to move on.

The member for Kitchener—Waterloo rose earlier saying that he wanted to talk about immigration. He had already had an opportunity to do so. He said that it was terribly important and that he wanted to talk about immigration. If it is so important, he will have the opportunity to vote this evening and tell the government that he does not agree with it. The Liberals do not have to sit on their hands or leave Parliament or not vote. This evening, if the Liberals decide to remain in their seats and not vote, that will mean that they approve of the Conservatives' theft from the employment insurance fund, a theft from the workers that they initiated in 1996. I hope that workers are listening today and that they do not forget what happens.

I hope some workers are listening to what is being said here. The government has decided to put Bill C-50 to a vote tonight. The Liberals will just sit in their places. They have decided not to vote on the bill. As a matter of fact, they have decided not to speak to the bill at all today.

I hope the men and women who call their members of Parliament telling them they cannot get their employment insurance will understand that today the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have stolen their $54 billion employment insurance surplus. There are provisions in Bill C-50 to create a crown corporation and only $2 billion will go to the crown corporation. What is going to happen if it runs out of money? The bill is very clear. If Canadian workers need money from employment insurance, the money will have to be borrowed from the government and interest will have to be paid on that money. They will have to pay interest on their own money, something never seen before in the history of this country. The vote is going to happen tonight. It is a sad day for workers. I hope workers never vote for the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party based on the action those parties are going to take against workers tonight. Canadians must remember.

When a person has a job, things go well and he or she has no problems. However, when the person loses his or her job and the paycheques stop coming in, it is a sad day not just for the worker, but for the family under the person's responsibility.

There are 1.4 million kids in this country going hungry. When 800,000 people do not qualify for a program that belongs to them, they will go hungry because they will have no money. The Liberals are partly responsible for this. The Conservatives are totally responsible by introducing Bill C-50 and creating this crown corporation.

Having a crown corporation means that when a member of Parliament raises a question about EI premiums, the government will tell the member to ask the crown corporation. It is arm's length to the government. The government will not answer any questions, just as it does not answer any questions about CBC or Canada Post.

For this reason, I am proud that the NDP members will stand up this evening in the House of Commons and vote, unlike the Liberals, against this bill and against the immigration bill. They are not like the Liberals, who will remain seated and so shirk their responsibilities as parliamentarians and as Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we are now talking about Group No. 2, the amendments concerning employment insurance. At the outset, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I must say that we will support the NDP's amendment to remove the part that deals with the employment insurance board.

Let me provide some context for the people listening today. At the Bloc Québécois' request, the House dropped two successive bills, one of which died on the order paper just before the last election.

That was about the creation of an independent fund with full, exclusive authority over the administration of employment insurance benefits by commissioners selected, for the most part, from among employers and employees. Why? Because they are the ones who pay into the fund.

The board proposed in Bill C-50 does not meet those criteria. Not only that, but it entrenches an injustice perpetrated on both workers and employers: the diversion of $54 billion from the employment insurance fund.

There are some people in this House who would like us to forget about that money. They are doing their level best to make us forget, but we will not forget. They would have us believe that the money is virtual. It is not. Workers and employers who contributed put real money into the fund. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have used that money for other purposes. Today, they are trying to convince us that because it was spent on other things, it no longer exists and is therefore virtual money.

I would also note that representatives of all parties on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities unanimously recommended that the money be returned to the employment insurance fund at a rate of at least $1.5 billion per year for 32 years. At the time, about $46 billion had been diverted; now that figure has risen to $54 billion, as I said earlier.

My NDP colleague said earlier that this would be a serious economic crime against the unemployed, their families and the communities and the provinces affected. Each time money does not return to the provinces through employment insurance benefits, the provinces—notably, Quebec—have to make up for this lost revenue with welfare.

Once again, this further worsens the fiscal imbalance. And none of this will be improved by the board. Even worse, within the fund there will be a reserve of $2 billion that will come from the consolidated revenue fund, but as a loan. At least admit that this reserve is money owed to the people.

The reserve is absolutely insufficient as well. The chief actuary of the Employment Insurance Commission has been saying for many years that the reserve should be at least $10 billion to $15 billion. Why? So that year after year, whatever the rate of unemployment, we can provide at least one year's worth of EI benefits according to the fund's obligations.

We are not the only ones who are saying this. Everyone who came to testify in recent days at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, including the major unions, employers and interest groups such as those representing the unemployed, came to say that this reserve is insufficient and that the $54 billion should not be forgotten.

Those are the first two points I wanted to bring up.

The third point is that the government is creating a new board separate from the commission, but is keeping the commission in place. The board is an addition. There will therefore be one decision-making body and two management bodies. The main management body is the Employment Insurance Commission. It will continue to ensure that benefits are paid in accordance with the minister's decisions. It will have no decision-making authority. The minister will make decisions based on the previous year's experience and will recommend a premium rate to the board. When he testified on April 29 and May 27, the minister essentially said two things. According to him, the employment insurance system is already generous enough. He said that. However, we find that the system currently excludes 60% of workers who pay into the fund. If they are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs, they are excluded under existing conditions and cannot receive benefits.

In a written statement that was tabled in committee, the minister also said that, from now on, any surplus can be used only to reduce premiums. That reflects a dangerous and unacceptable ideology that is based on the same principle as the one behind reducing the GST. Of course, every time it reduces the GST, the Conservative government subsequently finds a reason to cut social spending. Now the government wants to do the same thing with employment insurance, as if it had not done enough damage already.

Initially, we were in favour of the board because the government said its sole function would be to manage contributions in the interests of the unemployed. In fact, this is not true, as we have seen. Not only is this not true, but the board will work against the interests of unemployed workers. As I said earlier, the government is legalizing the theft of $54 billion and saying that in future, this money will not be used to help rebuild the fund, much less improve benefits. Instead, from now on, it will be used to reduce premiums. That is the government's philosophy, and it is unacceptable. I said earlier that we were in favour of the board because the clear intention was that, from now on, this fund would be used only for employment insurance.

The minister's statements, the facts revealed to us in committee, as well as the concerns expressed by the stakeholders, showed us that this board would not assume the responsibility I just described.

There is another thing. By separating the roles, by not allowing the Employment Insurance Commission to set the rates, the government is trying to have it both ways. We think it would be wise to create an Employment Insurance Commission worthy of that name. Commissioners are appointed by the minister, of course, but recommended by whom? We need to have commissioners who serve the interests of contributors, which would mean people who, for the most part, are recommended or delegated by the employer and employee organizations. Also, as was the case for large management companies in Quebec, these people need to be able to work alongside consultants who can give them information about decisions to be made. The chief commissioner is one of them. A representative from the Canadian Institute of Actuaries also came to speak about this. He said that the fund needed to be managed by taking into account a five-year period, that it should have a reserve fund that is worthy of the name, and that it should be used exclusively for employment insurance.

I thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I truly hope that our colleagues here will vote in favour of the amendment before us in order to remove the employment insurance financing board from this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as for responding to it, we already had debate on it. You called it out just before question period and said that after question period the debate would continue. Nobody from the Liberal Party found it important at that time to get up to speak on the immigration issue and then you closed the debate. We voted on it.

Now we have switched to employment insurance and Group No. 2, which is another part of Bill C-50, I agree with the member. He wants to talk about immigration as part of Bill C-50, but that was part one, which we did before question period. Those members had enough time. As a matter of fact, if it was all that important they could have talked about it all night and we would have stayed here, but they did not choose to get up. Then you switched from the immigration issue to employment insurance, Mr. Speaker, and I think we should respect the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I might have been stretching it somewhat, so to speak, but Bill C-50 makes massive changes to the immigration act and unfortunately we really did not have the time in this House, nor did we have adequate time in committee, either to hear from the public or to debate these fundamental changes.

Seeing that this is all part of Bill C-50, I was hoping that we could talk about it in this chamber, because I think the changes that would be made in one of our most important departments and in the whole issue of immigration are going to be so massive and so destructive to everything we have done in the past that they are certainly worthy of debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the debate on the sections of Bill C-50 that affect the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The reason I want to do that is because we are making fundamental changes to the act, and instead of doing that through the front door by sending proposed changes, and changes are needed, to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, so that the committee can conduct--

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East explained it very well in her 10 minute speech about EI and what has been created across the whole country.

At one point in time we did ask to have an independent fund to ensure that we took it away from the general fund and had a fund set aside, but surely we are not talking about a crown corporation where we cannot question it anymore. That is the difference between having a separate fund from the general fund and a fund that is a crown corporation, that when we raise a question here in the House of Commons about the fund, the government will say, “Go ask the crown corporation. It is not legislated by the government and we cannot answer anymore”. Does she worry about that? That is one thing.

The other thing is that the Auditor General has said before that we should have about $15 billion in the employment insurance fund set aside. Now there is only $2 billion and I would like to hear what she thinks about that.

With Bill C-50, on which the Liberals tonight will not get up and vote, or just walk away like they usually do, they should lose their pay, because when workers walk away from their jobs they do not get paid, and the Liberals have been doing it pretty often lately.

With the $2 billion that will be in this fund, this crown corporation, if the workers run out of money and they need more because of downsizing in the economy, they will have to borrow it from the government and there will be interest charged to them. The government already has a $54 billion surplus and the workers will have to pay interest on their own money. What does the member think about that?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to these amendments at report stage of Bill C-50. My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is the NDP EI critic, and all of us in the NDP caucus are very concerned and disturbed about what is taking place in Bill C-50, and the significant changes that are taking place to the employment insurance system.

We have previously debated changes that would take place to the immigration system and we had a lot of concerns about that. Certainly, on the amendments that are now before us, which will delete sections from the bill that have to do with setting up the new corporation for crown corporations, we think this is a wrong move by the Conservative government.

When we look back over the last 10 or 15 years, we see how much the employment insurance system has changed. It is very frightening. When workers in this country go to work, their EI deductions are made and employers pay their premiums. It is a system that workers believe in and feel they should be able to have faith that the system will work for them, that it will be there to help them through difficult times of being laid off or unemployed, particuclarly if they are seasonal workers.

That system previously worked. That system is paid for by employers and workers. There is not a penny of public funds or a penny from the government coffers in that system. It is a system designed to protect the interests of workers.

We know that today only about four in every ten male unemployed workers are collecting EI benefits at any given time. That is down from 80% in the 1990s. It is now down to 40%. It is even worse for women. Only one in three unemployed women are collecting benefits at any given time. That is down from 70% in 1990. Only 20% to 25% of unemployed workers in most major urban centres like Toronto or the Lower Mainland in Vancouver now receive benefits.

These are the statistics, but what is behind those statistics are the unbelievable hardship cases. People who, in good faith, work and pay into the EI fund and then when they apply for coverage because through no fault of their own they are laid off or unemployed, they find out suddenly that this system has, in effect, crashed. It is a system that does not work for them any more. In my own riding of Vancouver East there are many cases involving employment insurance. People come to my office who cannot understand why it is so difficult for them to get benefits and why they do not qualify any more.

Clearly, what has happened since the 1990s is that coverage has shrunk because there have been so many changes in the program rules. It began with the Liberal government and has now continued with the Conservative government. They are changes that have made it near impossible for workers to collect something that is their right, which is their unemployment insurance earnings.

In all urban centres, except Windsor, people now require 630 to 700 hours minimum to claim for 22 weeks or less. The threshold for new entrants is even worse. They need 910 hours and that really impacts young people, recent immigrants or women who are returning to work. All of these barriers exist to collecting something that people should have by right.

Under the current system, the basic benefit that is paid is 55% of the insured earnings, with a level of insured earnings averaged over a 26 week period, to a maximum of $423 weekly. That is not enough to live on. Is it any wonder that the income gap is growing between people who are affluent and doing very well and people at the bottom, working people particularly, who are really struggling? People who go on to EI basically live below the poverty line. They struggle to support their families and then end up going to food banks. These are the kinds of cases I have seen in my riding.

We know that the replacement rate for insured earnings was cut in 1996 from 57% to 55%, itself the result of a cut from 60% in 1993. That was a cut from 66% in the 1970s.

We can see that we have an insured earnings rate that went from 66% down to 55%. These are really appalling figures and they really tell the story of how bad things are under the EI system.

We want to bring this to light and to show how this is impacting millions of workers in this country. I want to congratulate the Canadian Labour Congress and many affiliates of the CLC who have valiantly kept pace, done the tracking, and done the monitoring of what is happening to the EI system. Many of these figures come from the Canadian Labour Congress. If we did not have that independent research being done, I do not think we would have any idea just how bad things have become.

We know that in this budget bill the government created the Canada employment insurance financing board act. We know that it has set up this separate crown corporation, but to add insult to injury is the fact that the surplus in the EI account is now at $54 billion. I cannot visualize that amount of money, but I know it is money that is being robbed from workers. I know it is money that has gone into general revenue that is being used for other purposes. Again, the previous government started it and the current government is continuing it. There are so many questions about what it will mean in terms of this new crown corporation.

One of the basic questions we have is, why is it that this crown corporation has only been set up with a fund of $2 billion, when even the Auditor General of Canada says that what is required for insurance purposes is closer to $10 billion to $15 billion? We are very concerned that not only has the system so fundamentally changed in Canada over the last 15 years but even this new setup that we are dealing with today is going to do a great disservice to workers.

It is going to be a situation where yet again workers get cut out. Workers lose entitlement and rights and there will be no oversight from Parliament. At least now we have had some parliamentary oversight of the goings on and the scandal really, and I do call it a scandal, of what has happened to EI. Now with this arm's-length crown corporation, where will that parliamentary oversight be?

We are very concerned about these changes in the budget implementation bill. Our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, when he was at the Canadian Labour Congress convention just last Thursday, spoke on this issue to the 1,800 delegates who were there representing all of their affiliates across the country. He pointed out that the former government treated the money in the EI fund like money that it found and could use it however it wanted. He pointed out that the $54 billion from the EI fund was used to pay down the debt. That was money that was owed to workers. That is money that belongs to workers.

We see this as the biggest theft in Canadian history. There is a great deal of anger among working people within the organized labour movement about what is taken from EI. I want to assure the affiliates of the CLC and all of the labour partners that we are not going to let this issue go. We are going to fight this tooth and nail because we think it is pretty scandalous the way workers are being ripped off in this country.

I know for example that the building trades, at their recent policy convention here in Ottawa, raised the issue of EI. The Liberals did not have any answers for them. The Conservatives did not have any answers for them even when they asked basic questions as to why the new board would only be allocated $2 billion.

We have made these amendments today under Bill C-50 because we are so outraged about the budget bill generally, how it is really robbing workers of very basic entitlements: to feel secure, to feel safe, and to feel like they have something that they can rely on when they are hit by hard times.

I know that all of us in the NDP will be fighting these changes and I hope that other colleagues in the House will rethink their position. It is pretty appalling that the Liberals are willing to sit on their hands and to let this terrible bill pass through the House. That is what they have done before and that is what they are prepared to do again today. It is pretty appalling that they are going to let workers down that way. We should be fighting for these rights. That is what we intend to do.

The House resumed consideration 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 reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide some comment and to pose a question. Like us, the member is very concerned about the changes in Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, particularly as it affects immigrants in our immigration system.

One of the concerns we have had is that there is a real shift taking place. Instead of focusing on family reunification and bringing people to Canada as permanent residents, there is an increase in the foreign worker program. We see this in the agricultural sector. We see it in large construction projects in British Columbia. We see it certainly in Alberta. There are now more foreign workers being processed than there are new permanent residents going to Alberta. There is a huge shift taking place.

When people come here as temporary workers, they virtually have no labour rights. They are very subservient to their employer because their permit comes from their employer.

I wonder if the member could comment on how the immigration system under this bill has dramatically shifted to this new class of workers and how it paves the way to exploitation. In fact already there are many documented cases of exploitation, of abuse, of people not getting even the minimum wage.

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to express my views on the amendments to Bill C-50 we are discussing.

First of all Bill C-50, in parliamentary terms, is intended to “implement” the budget, that is enact it, put into effect the announcements made, heard and clearly understood when the throne speech was delivered.

If that is the objective of this bill, then why has the Conservative government deliberately chosen to devote an entire part to immigration reform? And yet, a meagre $22 million over two years is allocated to this reform. Naturally, more monies are promised in future but they are not attached to anything at all.

There is something rather odd in the government's official documents. For example, on page 9 of the Budget in Brief, which discusses the reorganization—or modernization, to quote precisely—of the immigration system, one of the key phrases states that the goal is to make the immigration system more competitive.

When I read that, once again it made me think that it all part of the ideology espoused by the Conservative Party. Most of the time it considers the government to be a private corporation.

Why is this section on immigration included? I wonder.

Could it be an attempt to mislead parliamentarians? If not, could it be an attempt to humiliate the Liberals by introducing, in a confidence bill, a measure they would quite likely find unacceptable? The Liberals would find it unacceptable, but if they act as they have been acting for a number of weeks now, they will do anything but vote to bring down this government.

On the one hand, there are principles and convictions; on the other, there is the way these Liberals will choose to act in this House, because they are all legitimately elected members.

I see that my friend from Hull—Aylmer does not agree with what I am saying. He can ask me questions about it.

As members and representatives of their constituents, the 305 members currently in this House have an obligation to vote with integrity, on behalf of the people they represent. I would add that, as a general rule, we should avoid abstaining. This is just my opinion, but as I am entitled to it, I am sharing it.

The Liberals have said again that Canadians do not want an election. My friend said so earlier this morning in this House. Every time I hear that, I wonder when people ever do want an election. We are not talking about a national sport.

Often, when a crisis or scandal occurs, people's confidence in the government is so badly shaken that they call for an election. But it is not a question of waiting until the public calls for an election; it is a question of whether we in this House should pass bills that make sense and respect the people we represent.

Let us get to the heart of the matter: immigration. People who submit immigration or permanent residence applications often belong to the groups we call the most vulnerable—it saddens me to use that word, but this is true. Much of what we do, we do for these groups.

For the Conservatives to play “petty politics”—and I use the term “politics” loosely—at the expense of these people is truly disgraceful, especially when it seems to me that they are doing so specifically to humiliate the official opposition.

Looking at the provisions of the bill we are now discussing, I noticed the somewhat questionable direction the Conservative government wants to take in processing immigration applications.

The purpose of the change is to give as much latitude as possible to the minister—and therefore the government—in handling applications. This seems obvious to me and this has been said during the debate in this House. A number of my colleagues and I feel that that is the problem.

The goal is to bring in the workers needed most by industry, as quickly as possible, to the detriment of other types of workers. That is most likely why the government used that infamous expression I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, “a more competitive immigration system”, an expression typical of the private sector. Competition is fine, but should it drive our concerns as legislators? We have to wonder about that and debate the issue.

We know that the minister can give instructions on the following: the categories of applications to which the instructions apply; the order in which the applications are processed; the number of applications to be processed each year, by category; and what is done with the applications, including those that are re-submitted.

The instructions she gives will at least be published in the Canada Gazette. But how many MPs in this House, including myself, and how many of those watching us can say that they read the Canada Gazette at least once a year? It is not really a good tool for those affected or those targeted by this.

Obviously, during this time of labour shortage, applications need to be processed more quickly for those who want to come and work here. Nonetheless, the process can be sped up in different ways. More resources could be allocated to accelerate the process.

We all remember what happened at Passport Canada not so long ago, less than a year and a half ago. The number of applications made it impossible to issue passports efficiently, that is, in less than two months. The wait was more like two, three, even five months. The necessary resources were allocated and staff recruited, after which the government and officials were finally able to clear up the horrible backlog and process the applications.

Why has the government not looked into this possibility more closely?

The bill proposes making the rules arbitrary. When we hear the word “arbitrary”, alarm bells should go off, since making something arbitrary is always dangerous, regardless of who is in charge. The bill should have provided for changes to the rules, as I was saying earlier, to find the skilled workers we need, and to allocate money and the necessary resources.

I get the impression that this method could create a number of injustices—and when in doubt, we should be asking ourselves a lot of questions. Immigrants who submit an application for a resident permit on humanitarian grounds will find their claims have been added to the backlog. Furthermore, the bill explicitly gives the immigration officer the discretion to issue visas and other documents required to enter the country. In my opinion, this is a big setback for immigrants. Immigrants whose applications are not processed within the year or within the time set by the minister will probably have their applications returned.

I heard some Conservatives say that this was transparency, because this way people would know that their application had not been processed. But I think that if one of the members opposite were an immigrant, submitted an application and received similar treatment, he would be asking questions.

The Conservative government is choosing the solution that costs nothing, but, I believe, is an injustice, instead of choosing the logical solution, which would be to allocate the necessary funds to speed up the processing of applications, to make the process more predictable and to not restrict access for immigrants submitting an application for resident permits on humanitarian grounds.

These are the points I wanted to make. I am sure my colleagues in this House understand that I will vote in favour of the amendments proposed by the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the budget implementation bill. We are debating specific amendments to the surprise addition to this legislation pertaining to immigration.

Let me say at the outset for all those watching this debate that this is a matter of fundamental significance for Parliament. We are dealing today with the government's budget and an act to implement the budget. This is an issue of confidence. The government must defend its record and win the support of enough colleagues to see its budget implemented so no election occurs.

By all accounts, if people are watching this debate, they should ask themselves how, if the Liberals are opposed to the budget and if the Bloc and New Democrats are opposed to the budget, is it possible for the government to still stand when there is very little confidence in this chamber and from Canadians across this land for the government's bill?

How can we and Canadians have confidence in the government for its road map for the future at a time when there is no job strategy in place, at a time when there is no industrial strategy in place, and at a time when there is not a shred of mention in the budget pertaining to health care, child care, education, training for the future, aboriginal people, or the environment?

Every issue that is of importance to Canadians today is ignored in the budget. The Conservative government is squandering a golden opportunity to take the surplus it still has and invest it in areas that are important to Canadians.

The government made a very unusual move when it slipped in to the bill a whole new section dealing with immigration. There was nothing in the budget about immigration when it was announced by the Minister of Finance. There was no reference to dealing with this supposed grave situation. Suddenly, in the midst of our debate on the budget, the government decided to throw in the issue of immigration. Why? Either it is indicative of just poor planning and poor collective work around the areas of importance to Canadians, or the government is trying to stick it to the Liberals.

We know this budget is not supported by the Liberals, so the government has thrown one more curve at them. This is a significant issue. It is so significant that it should make the Liberals stand up today and say whatever the consequences they will not support the government. This issue is so important that they should stand up and say they will not support a budget that does not meet the needs of ordinary Canadians. They should stand up and say they will not support a budget that does irreversible damage to Canada's longstanding record and progressive history when it comes to citizenship and immigration.

Bill C-50 must be defeated. The Liberals must have the courage of their convictions, and stand up once and for all and be counted because it matters. It matters that we tell Canadians that we mean what we say, and we do what we say we are going to do. Is it not fundamental to parenting, fundamental to families, and fundamental to communities, that we have integrity, honesty and decency?

How can we send a message to Canadians that this place is worth investing in, that it is important to vote, that it is important to run and get elected, if every time they turn around some politicians from the Liberals or the Conservatives are saying they do not like something but they are not going to do anything about it?

How is it today that Liberals are allowing the Conservatives to rule as if they have a majority? How can the Conservatives get away with these fundamental changes to our immigration system that will have lasting impacts all across this land?

I come from a riding that is one of the most multicultural constituencies in the country--

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging all the work the member for Trinity—Spadina has done on this aspect of Bill C-50. I know many other members of the New Democratic Party have risen in the House to raise concerns around the immigration aspect of Bill C-50, and I will add my voice to those other voices who have spoken out against what many would allege as a potential abuse of power by the immigration minister.

One of the things we know from the throne speech, the budget speech and now the budget implementation bill is there are some very serious issues that face our country with which the bill is simply failing to deal, whether it is forestry communities like mine where we have lost hundreds and hundreds of jobs over the last six months and now many forestry workers have run out of employment insurance because of the way the unemployment rate in our area is determined and there is no remedy for these forestry, or the fact that first nations, Métis and Inuit across the country still suffer from a lack of good, safe, quality housing, or first nations children cannot access the same quality of schools that other Canadian children can expect, or that many communities simply do not have access to clean, safe drinking water, or where many families are unable to access quality affordable publicly funded child care.

Once again, the bill was an opportunity to take a look at some of these very pressing and urgent matters facing workers and their families across the country.

However, we are talking specifically about immigration, and I will turn my attention to it.

In preparation for speaking in the House today, I asked my office to take a look at a variety of the immigration and refugee cases they dealt with as case work. The government alleges that this legislation would deal with the backlog. Yet we hear from people, fairly consistently, that this will simply shuffle the priorities around without dealing with the substantial numbers of people who want to come to Canada and make it their home.

There are a myriad of problems with which my office deals, so this is a quick look at some of the things we face in our office in Nanaimo—Cowichan.

One of the problems is the length of time it takes to process applications. It is difficult to see how resetting different priorities would deal with the length of time of applications. It will certainly fast track some people. It will certainly make some people get to Canada more quickly. However, when we are dealing with the 900,000 plus who are currently in the system, I fail to see how, without substantially more resources, juggling people around will deal with that substantial backlog.

The second is the arbitrary decisions of immigration and visa officers and the lack of appeal venues. Many times we have seen the applications of people turned down. The supporting documentation by the person who applies to come to the country seems to be all there, yet the reasons of the denial do not seem to match up with the information on file. Sometimes the lack of clear and effective communication between applicants and immigration staff is problematic. People do not exactly know why they have been turned down. What we have seen in many cases is applicants will be requested to provide a particular information. The applicants provide that piece of information and then the staff will come back and say that they now need another piece of information. Therefore, applicants provide that information, and this goes on month after month.

In another case a fairly prominent member of the community was getting married. This person wanted to bring in her mother and sister to Canada. All the appropriate forms were filled out and the office abroad said that the sponsoring person in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan had to make a decision. Either her mother or her sister could come to the wedding, but not both. This was not an application for immigration. It was simply a visitor's visa. However, the legislation will not address all of those problems in the system,

I know member for Trinity—Spadina and others have called for stand-alone legislation that would go in front of the immigration committee, where there would be an opportunity to fully review the legislation, to call witnesses, to talk about how the legislation would impact people's lives and to potentially amend it so it would be more reflective of what Canadians wanted to see in immigration legislation.

Unless we are one of the original peoples, each and every one of us in the House came from immigrant stock at one point. My mother is a first generation Canadian, I am very proud to say. My daughter-in-law is an immigrant. My grandson is a first generation Canadian on the mother's side.

Each and every one of us, at some point, are ancestors, unless we were one of the original peoples. We are immigrants. We know that immigrants have contributed to the richness and the diversity of ours country. We want an immigration system that reflects what we often have valued as Canadians, and that is fairness and transparency, equality of access, timely processing, which, sadly, is not the case right now.

A number of groups across Canada have spoken out and raised serious concerns about the legislation, including the bar association. It has said, “The Canadian Bar Association is urging Parliament to remove and not pass amendments”, calling them “a major step backwards in the evolution of Canadian immigration law.

Bill C-50 would return Canada “to a time when visas were given out on a discretionary basis, without sufficient objective criteria” said Stephen Green. He said, “the amendments are not necessary to meet Canada’s immigration goals”. He went on to say that the amendments were not necessary to meet Canada's immigrations goals. The changes would fast-track highly coveted immigrants, such as doctors and other skilled labourers, while others would be forced to wait in a queue. They would allow governments to set annual limits on a number of applications process.

Part of the argument around the legislation as well is that it would help us address critical skills shortages in Canada. Any of us who had been paying attention over the last 15 or 20 years knew quite well there would be some very serious critical skills shortages in a number of areas and called on the federal and provincial governments to jointly develop a human resource strategy that would address some of those critical skills shortages, whether it was in trades apprenticeships, or physicians, nurses, medical technologists, the list goes on and on. We have had 15 to 20 years. The baby boom was no surprise. We knew it was coming. We knew there would be a massive wave of retirements. Anybody could predict that Canada would be in some periods of economic growth, which would require a skilled labour force to meet those needs.

Instead, we have had successive federal governments simply sit on their hands instead of turning their energy into developing a human resource strategy that would address these critical skills shortages.

The Vancouver Olympics is a really good case in point. The Vancouver Olympics, once it was awarded, was an opportunity to train apprentices in Canada. Many first nations and Métis in British Columbia would have made highly qualified tradespeople, with some effort and attention. Instead, we are meeting much of the needs of the Olympics with temporary foreign workers. It was an opportunity to train first nations and Métis in the construction trades that would have left a legacy in their own communities once the Olympics was over. That would have been a true legacy left by the Olympics.

However, again, the federal government failed to move in that direction. Working closely with the provincial governments, it had an opportunity to do that and it failed. We now have workers coming in, building the buildings, the roads, all the structures that go into place to support the Olympics. Then they will leave and we will still have first nations and Métis who could have been quite successful tradespeople. It was a lost opportunity.

Many others have spoken up, including the UFCW, about the fact that the bill is a back door way to give the minister unfettered powers. Regulations will be put into place that we will have no oversight over because they are not part of the legislation.

I would argue that the House should not support Bill C-50 as a total because of the immigration changes inherent in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by changing a word, “shall” to “may”, in the act, applicants could meet all the immigration requirements, receive sufficient points, but still be rejected.

That is perhaps one of the reasons the Liberal leader attacked this bill every day for two weeks in the House of Commons during question period. I read the newsletters going to constituents about how terrible these changes to the immigration act are and yet the Liberals run, hide and do not speak at the finance committee or in this House. Now, without the House of Commons even approving this bill, the Liberal dominated Senate is beginning to fast-track Bill C-50 through the Senate.

The Liberals are saying one thing to their communities, but acting completely different from that here in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a large number of south Asians in her community.

Throughout the last few months, as the immigration part of Bill C-50 has been debated, a large number of people from the community have phoned talk shows like Radio India and asked, how can the minister be above the law? Under the proposed legislation, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would be able to make decisions on what kinds of immigrants she and her department would like to have come in to the country without going through Parliament.

Many immigrant groups have said that one of the reasons they came to Canada was because of democracy and because Canada believes in the rule of law. They have said that elected representatives in the House of Commons should be making the decisions and those decisions should be given weight and value.

They are also alarmed by the fact that if the bill were to pass, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would, behind closed doors and without any consultation, make the decisions. Her decisions would then be published in the Canada Gazette.

How many of the member's constituents, especially from the south Asian community, read the Canada Gazette? Does she think they will know what kinds of changes would occur and what kinds of instructions the minister would give if the bill were to pass?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to part 6 of Bill C-50 and the changes that are intended ostensibly for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Really, however, these are changes that will make a difference in a negative way, I believe, in the lives of people in Canada and in the lives of people who will be encouraged to come to Canada but of course not stay.

This country was built on immigration. If Canada were not a country that believed in immigration, then I do not know who would be sitting here today. I do not believe that in this House today we have anyone whose family did not at some time immigrate to this country from another mother country, not 10 or 20 years ago but 100 or 150 years ago. The history of the very building of this country, from literally the first building built, has been one of people who have immigrated here.

The need for immigration also has been shown over the years. That is only becoming clearer as people have fewer children or choose to not have children. We need immigrants. We need new people coming to Canada in order to have this country be sustainable.

Very often in the current debate and in the debate that I have seen over the last few years, some of this gets driven by fear. So much of what we do and what happens, not just in our country but around the world, is based on fear. People talk about immigrants taking the jobs or immigrants getting ahead of them, as opposed to what immigrants have done for our country. Quite frankly, what immigrants have done for our country is actually to build it.

Before I move on to some specifics, for me this also speaks to an issue of how we manage things in government. I confess to being a first term federal member of Parliament, but I have served in a number of governments and am familiar with management strategies.

The management strategy when we have a long list is to simply decide that we will not serve some of the people on the list, that we will delete them, and it is not a management strategy that I would consider to be either particularly fair or particularly proactive. I ask my colleagues, where does this go next? Do we take a surgical wait list and decide that it is too long, that if a person's name starts with a B, for example, he or she is suddenly not on that list? Is that a management strategy?

There is a management strategy that we often see in government, not just in this government but we do it see here as well, in regard to government putting forth a policy that it thinks many Canadians are going to be unhappy with. This will be familiar to all people who have served in governments. The government will put it out late on Friday afternoon or on the last day of the sitting or try to include it in a much broader bill, where hopefully it will not get the same profile that it would as a stand-alone bill.

As has already been stated, this should have been brought forward as a stand-alone, as a change to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. If this is a new management strategy, and if old ones of course are used as well, I do not consider it to be very positive management.

We cannot now in this country even manage the professional immigrants who have come and who we have encouraged to come. They cannot practice their professions in Canada. There have been some small steps taken, but there are many physicians, engineers and accountants who are here and cannot get work in their trained professions. They are doing other work. All work is valuable work, but they are not working in the areas in which we so desperately encourage them and in which we so desperately need them.

This part of Bill C-50 went to the immigration committee. The committee looked at it and recommended that it not be included at all. I think the committee's unanimous advice, certainly that of the majority, was not to include this.

There is this interesting thing that happens in government with committees. They do a lot of work, they even pass a report, but there is no obligation after having done all this work for a government to actually act upon it.

In my experience in the community in which I come from, where probably 40% of people certainly are recently from other places other than Canada, it is that they have been waiting for two, three or four years and they are part of that group of 925,000 people waiting for their family members to join them. Sometimes it is grown sons and daughters who have all kinds of skills that they can bring to Canada.

I have seen families that have actually bought a new home that has a room in readiness for the person that they are so certain will at some time get to the top of the list and be allowed to come here. For many of these people, it has been at least five years of hopeful waiting, of counting on having parents, children, whoever that is here. Then they are told, “I am sorry, but those are some of the names that we took off the list. Better luck another time”. It is not fair to change the rules in midstream.

Again in my community, I know that the immigrant community is part of a huge economic driver in Surrey. It makes Surrey a very successful city. We are treating temporary workers as a product. We use them for three months and then dispose of them.

We can talk about how they will be safe and looked after, but there is no history to prove that. We have had workers come before, and we have seen that very recently in Vancouver, they do not make minimum wage. Sometimes they do. They do not get overtime. There is no guarantee of work and safety for them. I think people know that.

We have never had people come and say to them, “You don't have the right if you like being here to come back, to apply to stay here”. That is an abuse of wages. That is an abuse of people by putting them in unsafe working conditions. I thought we were long past having to put canaries down in mines. If these people dare to complain, then they are gone. They take it because that is the only money they will have.

I have been very pleased with what I have heard from the Liberal members. I am sure that as we vote on this, they will all be standing up to oppose it. I will be looking forward to seeing that because I judge people by their actions. All I have heard in the newspapers, in forums and in the House, is how bad Bill C-50 is. Naturally, I know that I can look forward tonight to all those members standing up and opposing the bill.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the budget implementation bill, Bill C-50.

In the normal course of parliamentary debate, a budget discussion would ordinarily reflect a thorough examination of the government's fiscal policies and the state of the nation's finances. However, for some strange reason, the Conservatives have chosen to depart from our parliamentary tradition, and it is strange that they have decided to sneak in a major shift in immigration policy through the back door.

Our parliamentary tradition calls upon the government to introduce legislation according to departmental responsibilities, which is to say that a transportation bill would be proposed by the Minister of Transport or a defence bill would be proposed by the Minister of National Defence. Again, under normal circumstances, a proposed act is then debated separately for the simple reason that respective parliamentary committees, such as, for example, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, or the Standing Committee on National Defence, would have the opportunity to review the proposed legislation according to its area of responsibility.

This is how a parliamentary democracy works. It is really quite straightforward.

My question, then, is this: on what grounds is the government justified in lumping an immigration bill in with the budget implementation act? If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is so convinced that her proposal is of vital importance to the country, why is she so afraid to introduce a separate bill and face the scrutiny where it is supposed to be faced? Why does the government insist upon making this a confidence motion?

Canadians know that Canada has been and continues to be the first choice for immigrants all across the world. I am an immigrant myself. The consequences of living in countries where the political environment is not conducive, or where citizens are expelled just because of their creed or colour, is a very devastating experience. Hence, we are fortunate to live in country like Canada, which is a pluralistic society that respects diversity. It respects the diversity of its citizens. It does not just tolerate it but respects it.

Therefore, why is the government trying in an underhanded manner to force an election by any means possible?

Canadians are not gullible. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister attempted to force an election through Canada's participation in an the NATO mission in Afghanistan. When the Canadian public told the Prime Minister to stop playing politics with the lives of our men and women serving in the Canadian armed forces, he beat a hasty retreat back to the dark confines of the PMO in order to devise yet another scheme to force an election.

My constituents have told me and Canadians have repeatedly told us that they do not have a burning desire for an election. We have been elected as members of Parliament so that we can work on behalf of our constituents, not so we can run in series of continuous elections like some hamster on a treadmill. My colleagues in the Liberal caucus are committed to make this Parliament work, so let us take a closer look at the immigration proposal we now have before us.

Bill C-50 proposes a series of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that, quite frankly, are regressive. Successive Liberal governments had developed a system that would allow immigrant applications to proceed on their own merits in a fair and unbiased process. Everyone knows that for a small country like ours to grow it needs people, so there were certain criteria set up, and we know that we have had a diverse population come in and settle in Canada.

As the system evolved, the ministers relinquished their direct involvement in individual files in order to reduce any backlog, thereby making the process more efficient. Why does this minister want to go back? Why does she want the power to choose which people she wants to come in? Under the bill, the Conservatives are seeking to abandon all sense of transparency and objectivity in the selection process and simply empower the minister with absolute discretion and the ability to cherry-pick applications at will.

A Montreal-based immigration lawyer recently put it this way:

--the [current] selection of immigrants is based purely on objective criteria...everyone who chooses to submit an application to come live in Canada is entitled to be considered fairly. Under the new [immigration act], the Minister of Immigration...would have the discretion to determine not only which applications will be processed quickly and which ones will be held at the visa office until a later date, but also that some applications will be returned without any consideration at all. These are the ones that we should be most concerned about.

In other words, the Conservatives are attempting to toss out objectivity and fairness under the guise of expediency. Yes, there is a current backlog, but not because of the process. Rather, it is because the Conservatives have not made immigration a priority and have held back on new resources for the immigration department.

This bill represents a major change in the way we choose who is to become a Canadian citizen, yet the Conservatives feel it is okay to sneak it into a budget bill and somehow bamboozle the Canadian public. It is not going to work, because we will have to ensure that the House and all members of Parliament give it thoughtful consideration and that we debate it in a manner which is dignified and upholds our constituents and our people, who wish us to do a good job in debating this bill.

It seems that the Conservative members of this House are fixated on forcing an election rather than acting as a responsible government. When an election eventually occurs, I am sure that Canadians will remember this, because the Liberal government, under its Liberal policies, had invested a lot in immigration. If I remember where Vegreville came from, it was not under the Conservative government.

That we need efficiency in the system nobody denies, but we need to ensure that the process is transparent, fair and equitable and that the minister does not use her power of instruction to determine who would come in and who would not.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps no other area is indicative of the kind of incompetence we have seen over the last 20 years as the immigration area.

Essentially, under the former Liberal government and under the current Conservative government, we have seen chronic underfunding in immigration, which has led to huge backlogs developing.

The immigration system is a lot like the health care system. If we underfund it, if beds are not in place and if we do not have doctors and nurses staffing a hospital, then an adequate degree of health care cannot be provided.

That is exactly what we have seen from this chronic obsession with corporate tax cuts that has developed, particularly over the last 15 years.

The Conservatives and Liberals have been falling over each other trying to see who can give the biggest corporate tax cut to the most profitable companies in Canada without any exchange of jobs or any positive economic repercussions, which I will come back to in a moment. We have seen underfunding in immigration that has led to a crisis in the immigration sector.

The member for Kitchener—Waterloo said that this was a recent development, that the hundreds of thousands of people in the backlog in the system is a result of recent Conservative policies.

The Conservatives have mismanaged and botched this file enormously but to be fair to them, 700,000 of the over 900,000 people who are now in backlog in the system come from the former Liberal government. That chronic mismanagement, that underfunding, that inability to adequately staff consular offices and embassies around the world so we can adequately deal with the immigration work the government must be dealing with, started under the Liberals. We have seen mismanagement from the former Liberal government and mismanagement from the current Conservative government, and that has led to this backlog of nearly one million individuals.

What is the solution? The NDP has been saying very clearly what the solution needs to be. We need to invest in the immigration system so that it functions, in the same way we need to invest in the health care system. The government has to stop this appalling obsession with bigger and bigger corporate tax cuts, which has led over the last 20 years to two-thirds of Canadians earning less now than they were in 1989.

That strategy, that one note band that we have seen under the Liberals and the Conservatives, clearly has not functioned. We need to reinvest so that we have a federal government and government institutions that are functioning effectively. Instead of doing that, we have the Conservatives trying to rewrite the rule book. They realize the backlog is too long so under Bill C-50 in the immigration provision they give the minister dictatorial powers to simply delete names from a list.

Does that make any sense whatsoever? If the backlog is a problem, we give the minister power to delete names. That is essentially what the Conservatives are offering.

They have another strategy. They want to turn the immigration system from encouraging family reunification and encouraging building communities. In my community in Burnaby—New Westminster, the bulk of the community has come from immigration over time and those families who have reunited here in Canada have helped to build and underpin the growth of our communities.

Instead of doing that, the Conservatives have decided that they want to import temporary foreign workers at lower wages and not subject to health and safety standards, essentially indentured servants. They will be brought in by companies but if they quit or are fired because of appalling working conditions, they will be sent home.

That is not how Canada was built. I had hoped that we had learned the lessons of the 19th century and the appalling racism that existed then but, no. We see the Conservatives trying to re-enact the kind of indentured servitude that we saw in the past.

The NDP is opposing this legislation because it simply does not make sense. The Conservatives lack managerial capacity. It is obvious from the fact that the Minister of International Trade now holds four ministerial portfolios because there is nobody, outside of himself, who is considered by the Prime Minister to actually have the ministerial competence to handle a ministry.

The Conservatives, obviously, are unable to effectively manage government institutions. We see the net result of that in the government's great strategy. The brain trusts, the rocket scientists in the PMO have solved the problem. They want to give the minister the power to delete names from the list and then we no longer have a waiting list.

We can extend this to other areas as well, such as health care. Why do we not just delete sick patients from the list and then all of a sudden the Canadian population would be much healthier? The Conservative approach to management boggles the mind. When we say “effective Conservative management”, that is an oxymoron.

We have a bad bill. We have a bill that does not deal with the backlog and the chronic underfunding in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It simply gives the minister power to delete names and bring in temporary foreign workers. The NDP rises in the House and says that it will fight this bill on behalf of new Canadians from coast to coast to coast because it is bad policy and it is bad for Canada.

The folks who actually caused the immigration backlog, or most of it, the 700,000 names that were on the backlog list until January 2006 under the Liberal watch, they say that that they opposed to the bill but that they will let it go through. Some members will speak against it, and some principled members, like the member from Kitchener, will actually vote against it, but the leader of the Liberal Party will let this bill go through. It is absolutely appalling.

If the Liberals recognize that this is a completely wrong-headed approach to dealing with the crisis of underfunding in the immigration department, then they should have the courage of their convictions to stand in the House of Commons and vote against this bill. They should follow the lead of the NDP and the member for Toronto—Danforth and say that this is bad for Canada and that they will vote against it.

We know that will not happen because we have seen, over the past year, time and time again, the Liberal leader prop up and support the Conservative government on all issues, not just on immigration and on the budget, but on the security and prosperity partnership and a wide range of issues. On the war in Afghanistan, we saw the Liberals as simply an appendage of the Conservative government. That is just not good enough.

Members of Parliament are elected to stand in the House and vote. Members of Parliament are elected to take principled stands when we know a bill is bad for Canada and that it will harm this country and the approach we have had on immigration which has helped to build better communities across this country from coast to coast to coast. When we know a bill is bad it is our job to stand in the House and oppose it. The leader of the Liberal Party, however, will not oppose any Conservative policy that has a confidence vote attached to it. The Conservatives essentially have free rein.

In the few moments I have remaining, I would like to deal with some of the myths and misconceptions that the Conservatives have put out about Bill C-50. One of the things the Conservatives have said is that they have welcomed more people to Canada. That is not true. In fact, the landed immigrant status numbers have gone down.

However, what has happened is an explosion of temporary foreign workers, indentured servants, who are being brought into Canada on a temporary basis if they are on good behaviour with their companies. As we have seen in many cases, people are working 70 or 80 hour weeks with no overtime and are often being paid below minimum wage. They are not subject to health and safety standards. If they speak out about being paid minimum wage or below minimum wage they could get shipped back home. It is simply not true that the numbers have increased.

Bill C-50 contains nothing to deal with the fundamental mismanagement that we saw under the Liberal Party and now under the Conservative Party. It contains nothing to deal with the fundamental truth that neither of those parties are very good managers. It is for those reasons that the NDP will rise in the House and oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member has been punished by his Liberal leader for taking principled stands in the House of Commons. In no way should members of the Liberal Party be allowing Bill C-50 to go through. The Liberal Party should be standing with the NDP, as is the Bloc, to block the legislation. It is a question of immigration fairness.

Given that the Liberal Party has said it is opposed to Bill C-50, will the member press his leader to have Liberals in the House vote and stop this bill? If the Liberal Party votes against it, the bill is stopped.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member says that he does not agree with what I said, but what I said was pretty well true as the message relates to the immigration system. I am sure if my colleague across the way heard all I said and if we could be involved in a dialogue, I am sure he would agree with me.

I voted along with my colleagues on the citizenship and immigration committee against Bill C-50. I voted for the report. I expect I will do that again.

My positioning in the House, where I stand and sit, is exactly because I have voted the way I said I would on particular issues.

If some of my colleagues engage in strategic voting, then I guess the determination has been made by my party that they do not want to trigger an election on this issue because they think there is a more appropriate issue on which to trigger an election. I am really mindful and concerned of the political games that the government has been playing with this issue.

As soon as Bill C-50 came down, and I have said it publicly and in the press, I said that the government was looking to do a little immigrant bashing. The Conservatives saw what happened in the province of Quebec in the last provincial election. They saw the position advanced by the ADQ. They also saw the reaction to the reasonable accommodation debate in the province of Quebec. I believe the government made a conscious decision not to deal with legislation on immigration, but to take advantage of those feelings, hoping that it might win it a few more seats.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate on Bill C-50. I will look particularly at the issue as it pertains to Part 6, which deals with changes to the Immigration Refugee Protection Act.

I will preface that by saying immigration has been the lifeblood, continues to be the lifeblood and will be the lifeblood of our country. We know in the next five years 100% of our net labour growth will be met by new immigrants. This is where we will have to look for growth. It is important for us to be cognizant of the demographic challenge we face as a nation.

I will go back a bit in the historical perspective, because there are a lot of things that are wrong with the bill.

First, the very fact that such huge, major changes to the Immigration Act are in a budget implementation bill is totally wrong. We heard in the House and across the country that it was not the way to deal with the legislation, to the extent the finance committee referred that section of the bill to the citizenship and immigration committee.

The committee unanimously passed a motion saying that part 6 pertaining to immigration should be struck from the bill because the changes contemplated would be major and would really determine, in a very real sense, the future of our country, the future population make-up of the country.

I said I wanted to go back and talk a bit about history. I remember when we changed the Immigration Act back in 2001. The changes proposed and ultimately adopted were ones that the citizenship and immigration committee itself opposed at the time. The reason we did that was we ended up with a very elitist point system. It essentially meant that many of the people the economy actually needed would not get into the country because of our immigration policies in terms of people applying to our country as economic class immigrants.

I want to underline that those changes were driven by the bureaucracy. I suppose it made their jobs easier, but it did not address the needs of our immigration system. One of the real disconcerting things about that, and as I said the bill was driven by the bureaucracy, was that we developed an elitist point system, which focused on education and abilities to speak the language.

By education. I mean university degrees or the ability to speak French or English. Those were the primary drivers of that point system. Under that point system, people like Frank Stronach of Magna International would never have come to Canada. Frank Hasenfratz, chairman of Linamar, who employs well over 10,000 people, would never have come to Canada. John A. Macdonald, the first prime minister of the our country would not have come to Canada, nor would Tommy Douglas. Wayne Gretzky's ancestors would not have come to Canada. Mike Lazaridis, the gentleman who invented the BlackBerry, which all members of the House like to use, would not have come to Canada because the system was too elitist.

When the committee tried to deal with the issues, when we tried to deal with the backlog, when we tried to deal with applying the new point system to ensure did not apply to people already in the queue, we were misinformed by the bureaucracy. This should be a real concern. It was not until the Dragan v. Canada case in the Federal Court, which dealt specifically with the issue, did we find that only was the committee misled by the bureaucracy, but governor in council was misled as well.

There is a basic problem with the way we make decisions around immigration issues. I have been on the citizenship and immigration committee since 1998, and during that time there have been seven immigration ministers. With seven ministers, the committee really did not have an opportunity to learn the file. The decision was, for the most part, and this has been my experience, driven by the bureaucracy.

The proposal in the legislation is not being driven by the present minister because she is a brand new minister. Her record of achievement includes being the first minister in a decade to miss our immigration targets of 240,000 to 265,000 people. She is also the minister who has created a record backlog in the refugee determination system. She is also the minister who denied the reality of lost Canadians, saying there were hundreds of people involved. Then we found out there were actually hundreds of thousands of lost Canadians, which necessitated the legislation. It is under the present minister that the backlog has grown by huge numbers. There was not a large backlog under the previous government.

The bill would remove certainty from people wishing to come to Canada. It would change dramatically the rules of those who play by the rules and qualify for entry. Instead of saying a visa would be issued to these folks, the legislation would say that a visa may be issued to them.

There are problems in our Immigration Act, but they are all fixable. The way we are proceeding, under a budget implementation act, without the scrutiny it should receive, we will not make the right decision any more now than we did in 2001. We are making the wrong decision now and it will totally destroy some of the good things in our immigration system like transparency and objectivity. Our system underlines a premise that has been copied by Australia, New Zealand and England. The United States is looking at it now.

We have to develop a points system that would mesh with what our economy needs. Under the proposed legislation, carpenters, or electricians or labourers, who we need, would not get in the country. These jobs are available all across Canada.

I travelled with the citizenship and immigration committee three times across Canada in the last five years. One thing that has become clear is the fact that there is a real disconnect between what the economy needs and what individuals we allow to come in under the points system.

It would be impossible for me to outline all the changes that I think should be made. I agree with most of the witnesses who appeared at committee. We can make changes that are transparent. We can make changes that will deal with the needs of the economy. We can do this with certainty.

The system we are devising would make us dependent on thousands of temporary foreign workers, yet the people at the lower end of the skill set would be unable to bring their families with them. This is reminiscent of the time when the Chinese were brought into our country to help build the railway in the late 1800s. When the railway was finished, we tried to get rid of them. We do not want to go down that path again.

We need an immigration system that is realistic. We need an immigration system that not only reflects family reunification, but also reflects what our economy needs. We can also make better use of humanitarian clauses as they relate to refugees.

(The House resumed at 12:02 p.m.)

The House resumed from May 30 consideration 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 reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member but it being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-50 there will be three minutes left under questions and comments for the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government member, who has just spoken, a question about Bill C-50. Within Bill C-50 there are very comprehensive and dramatic changes to Canada's immigration laws.

In my community, which is a community of many different cultures now, people are coming from all over the world to live in the lower mainland of British Columbia. We presented the changes that are proposed by his government and they shared with us their concerns from a variety of communities, from the Chinese Canadian community, the Korean Canadian community, the Somalian community, all of whom have sizeable communities in New Westminster—Coquitlam.

They are very concerned about these changes. However, without getting into the detail of the changes that the government is proposing within the budget implementation bill, I want to ask the member this. He made some comments about performing in the House of Commons, doing things in the traditional way. It is not tradition to put massive immigration changes into a budget implementation bill.

Why would you be doing that and not allowing the immigration committee to have an opportunity to study and make recommendations for changes--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-50, the budget implementation act, and the amendments we put forward to try to bring some rationale to the situation and the future of immigration in this country.

I come from a part of the country which in the past may not have been the prime destination for immigrants to Canada, but over the last number of years that has changed quite dramatically. Immigrants are coming to communities throughout the Northwest Territories. In many cases they face completely different living and climatic conditions. They work really hard to integrate themselves into Canada and into the burgeoning economy in the Northwest Territories. We are grateful that people are coming to contribute to our economy, to live in the north, to work and to support the development of our territory. That is a great thing. In Yellowknife right now there are 27 different ethnic groups. Clearly this is a result of this immigration movement.

It is difficult for people as they have to fight their way through the process to get into the country. We seem to have created a system in which immigrants have to spend much of their time and energy on paperwork, rather than focusing on their goals as immigrants and accomplishing things, like reuniting their families in this country.

My constituency office handles many cases every year. Many of those cases reference the particular hardships that individuals have experienced in establishing their lives in Canada because they cannot get through the system. They cannot accomplish their goals within the system in a reasonable time. The bureaucratic structures are not adequate to give them the support they need to make proper representations in the immigration system. In many cases that leads them to the member of Parliament's office for assistance.

In the Northwest Territories there is only one immigration officer and that person has other duties to fulfill in terms of enforcing other parts of the act. That person cannot act only as a guide to the immigrants within the country who are trying to move forward with their lives. We suffer from a huge shortage of manpower required to make the system work better. That is the case in my riding where we have a total of 43,000 people. Community groups do their best to help out with the situation. We have a structure which I think in some ways is more amenable to supporting individuals, but the fact that this is the situation in my riding suggests to me that it is even more of a problem elsewhere in the country.

Therefore, when we want to propose changes to the Immigration Act, I think it is incumbent upon everyone to get all the evidence. This process that the Conservative Party has foisted on the House to deal with immigration is simply not correct or appropriate for making that happen. It is a back door approach to making changes.

It was outed very early once the bill came forward because of course these things are scrutinized fairly closely. It did not work quite the way the Conservatives wanted, but the opportunities to then work on this legislation were sorely limited because it was handled in this particular fashion.

The changes to the act that in many cases we find most repugnant as Canadians are that we are taking away the democratic nature of the system as it exists now. We are not trying to improve the efficiency of the system or properly build up the resources needed to make the system work.

As well, we are not dealing with the problems we have in many of our embassies in other countries. Rather than utilizing Canadians who are used to dealing with our system in the same democratic and useful fashion, we find that in many cases we are utilizing nationals from the countries where the embassies are located. In my time as a member of Parliament, that has noticeably impacted on the ability of immigrants to acquire visas and move forward in a smooth fashion through the many hoops and stumbling blocks that exist for people who are applying for a visa or trying to be reunited with their families.

These problems are not going to be solved by this bill, because it is going in the wrong direction. At the same time, when we stand to ask for these issues to be removed from this bill, we are by no means suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the Immigration Act. It is just that what is being proposed here does not fit the Canadian model. It does not address the resource issues that are quite clearly dominating many of the problems and leading to these huge backlogs in the system.

The Conservatives, in their few years here, have not been able to even make a dent in that backlog. In fact, the backlog has gotten larger.

Their solution, especially the idea that there will be yearly quotas and at the end of the year all the applications that are not part of the quota will be rejected, is a really bad thing. It will discourage people from coming to this country. It will discourage people from making applications. There will be constant intrigue in the department in regard to trying to find out where these different classifications or directions are going to go.

All of this is going to lead to a complete breakdown in the system and take us away from the values that Canadians have so much pride in. In fact, idealistically, we send our armed forces around the world to try to uphold those values in other countries.

What this bill is doing is creating an arbitrary, authoritarian potential within the department, although it does not necessarily have to be that way. We could argue that the minister could be a most altruistic and wonderful individual who would not use the difference between “may” and “shall” in many of these points to discriminate against applicants. However, human nature being what it is, I think we have found in Canada that the best way to avoid discrimination and maintain a democratic system is to have rules that match up to that.

It is a phenomenon that I see so much in Canada: we do not jump queues in this country. We take our time. We fill the time we have available to us--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the backlog that the government claims the bill will deal with and we look at these provisions in the budget and Bill C-50, it will not help anyone who is presently here. In fact, the government has admitted that.

The government says there is a backlog of 925,000. Earlier today it was calculated at close to a billion, but I understand that was corrected. We are talking about a backlog of close to 925,000 people. The government says that is the case and we will take the government at its word on that. The legislative changes will only affect applications submitted after February 27, 2008. It will have absolutely no effect, zero effect, on the backlog of 925,000.

Not only does this bill not help the people it purports to help, but the government has a problem with acknowledging there is a backlog and it is bringing in these changes to streamline the system. The government should have consulted with the people who know about the system and who work in the system every day. The government would have found that there are other ways of dealing with the backlog that would be less onerous and would actually open up the system and get the people we need to the places where they should be going.

As an example, there is a challenge here in Ottawa to find a family physician. We also know there are 500 foreign trained doctors right here in Ottawa. That study was put together more than a year ago.

The other rationale the government puts forward is that we need to bring in skilled labour, medical professionals, et cetera. Tell that to the people who are driving taxis here in Ottawa, who have their foreign credentials to practise medicine, but sadly they cannot because the government has not figured out how to streamline the system.

My point is that if the government is making the argument that it needs to streamline the system for the backlog, it is not going to work for that, and if it is for skilled workers, we already have the skilled workers here. What is going to change with the system for them? The government simply says it will get more of them in. What happens when they get here?

Until the government deals with that reality, this bill has no place in this place and it has not been thought out. Those provisions need to be removed. That is why these amendments have been put forward.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we have a very unified position in this party about this bill and about the need to remove these onerous provisions from it.

I want to speak about the backlog of applicants. Is it the reality that there is no backlog for student visas, temporary resident visas and temporary foreign workers visas In Canada? Will Bill C-50 take away the rights of these applicants to be given a visa even when they meet all the qualifications?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay spoke well and forcefully on some of the concerns he has about the budget and how it will affect his region and Canadians in general.

With our amendments to the implementation of Bill C-50, we have tried to put in front of Canadians exactly what is in the bill. It is important to recall that initially when the budget was put forward, Canadians found it was a bit thin, in terms of content, and that was remarked in the media certainly. This particularly had to do with the fact that the government had announced in its fall fiscal update over $50 billion in corporate tax cuts scheduled over the next couple of years. I think the government will regret that in the future, particularly when we look at the tight times in the economy. By the time it got to budget, there was not a lot of material to work with because it had essentially stripped the cupboard bare.

When the budget was introduced, people were looking at little finesses in it. Much to the people's surprise they found, I think, on page 106, of a document consisting of approximately 134 pages, the changes to the immigration act. Talk about non sequitur. The government has taken something that is absolutely critical, something that is the foundation of the future of Canada, and that is important facets of our immigration system, and has hidden them in the budget. We have been proud as Canadians to have had a fairly progressive immigration system.

What is so distressing about this is the government either is trying to be strategic to get this thing through and hope that no one will notice or it honestly does not understand how to make policy and where policy belongs in its formation.

If it were a case of trying to pull a fast one, the government clearly did not get away with it. If it were a case of the government wanting to take immigration changes and put them into the framework of the Department of Finance, hopefully it learned the lesson that it was not appropriate.

I will give the example of what happened when I brought forward the proposed changes to my community.

Soon after the budget was announced and it was discovered that the government was trying to pull a fast one, or maybe make policy through the Department of Finance, and either way we look at it, it is the wrong direction, in my opinion, I brought forward the proposed changes to members of my community. I called all the people who worked with immigrant communities, the Catholic immigration service in Ottawa, the OCISO, a wonderful group that deals with issues of resettlement, language training and foreign credential recognition, et cetera, the Jewish family services, which does an excellent job with integration and supporting newcomers, as well as other groups and individuals. I explained to them the proposed changes. The first question was, “Why didn't the government consult us?” I did not have an answer for them because the government did not consult anyone on the bill.

It was more than passing strange that the government would bring in such aggressive changes to the immigration act without consulting anyone. In fact, all it did was come up with this idea, its own brain trust, and popped it into the budget bill, the details of which I will get into in a minute.

However, let us stop right there and consider this. The government brings in these very aggressive changes to the immigration act without consulting the people who work day in and day out to ensure the people who are affected by issues of immigration and settlement will be represented. Many of them are volunteers and they do it because they care about immigration and settlement and want to ensure it is done right and done responsibly. It is more than bizarre. It begs the question, what is it the government is trying to achieve?

If we look at the provisions within the immigration changes that are in Bill C-50 and why we are proposing these amendments, we will find the direction of the government on immigration. The government wants to ensure the ability of the government to bring in temporary workers so that they can be used, and I use that word deliberately, for a short period of time and then get them out of the country.

We only have to hear the stories of people presently working in the tar sands, people who are working in agriculture in British Columbia and other places, people who are working in mining, to know that these jobs are extremely dangerous. They are ones that require robust health and safety provisions. They should have fair wages. What the government has been able to do is meet the needs, not of new Canadians, but of fairly substantive economic interests in this country that will benefit from cheap labour. They will benefit from the fact that the government will bring in people quickly, use them up and then not have them stay around much longer.

What is so distressing is that the government wants to make these changes, just after the government did what I believe is the right thing. We on this side of the House applauded the government when it actually made amends and apologized for the Chinese head tax. I remember well the speeches by members on both sides of the House, by the leaders and the Prime Minister. It was a good day for Canada. I remember going to the Yangtze restaurant in Ottawa's Chinatown. We had a great celebration party. I believe you attended that, Mr. Speaker, and I think you spoke in Cantonese. It was a great day.

It saddens me and it saddens the community in general that soon after that acknowledgement and apology, the government is replicating in the 21st century what was done in the 18th century, which is to bring in temporary workers simply to use them, and when it is finished with them to send them back. That is the problem with Bill C-50.

We have to consider what we could have done. Everyone would argue that we should deal with the backlog in the immigration system. People who work in immigration settlement will tell us to put more resources overseas to make sure that when people apply for landed immigrant status and go through the points system, they know exactly what the situation is going to be when they come to Canada. They will tell us to make sure that rather than having just websites, there be actual human resources deployed overseas to help people with the process. They will tell us to ensure that when people are applying for landed immigrant status, they have all of their background documents in place and to support them in doing that. That would shorten the time period. On the other side of the equation, we have to make sure that here in Canada we have the requisite resources to ensure that we can streamline the system.

As an aside, it is interesting that when the Minister of Immigration brought forward these proposals, strangely enough in Bill C-50, as this is the budget bill, she said that the government had made great progress in streamlining the application process. She said that the department was able to process 40% more of the applications. She said that on the one hand, but on the other hand, she said that the system is so bungled up and has such weight on it that extreme changes have to be made.

It does not balance to say on one hand that her department is making this great progress, lauding herself and her ministry, and on the other hand that things are so grave and awful that we have to make these extreme changes to centralize power in the minister's office. When we look at Bill C-50 and we look at this kind of doublespeak of the government, one has to look at what the government is trying to achieve here. It seems that the government is trying to achieve a fast one, as I said before.

In the end, these amendments we have put forward should be passed so we can make sure we have a fair system for all.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has very serious concerns about Bill C-50 and in the way it is being brought through the House.

The issue of an immigration policy and how we will move forward as a country is a crucial debate and discussion that needs to happen with all parties working together. It is not the kind of issue that can be slipped in through a confidence bill, in a budget bill, to basically stare down other members of Parliament, to try to sneak through, without proper scrutiny, and then to use the issue of the budget as a way to attack parties like the New Democratic Party, which is saying that this is an issue that needs clear and informed debate.

My family comes from the mining regions of northern Ontario and we were the multicultural society long before the urban centres were called multicultural. In those days, if a person was an immigrant, the person was brought over to Canada on short term work contracts to work the mines and to work the lumber camps.

It was well-known in the early days when my grandparents came from Scotland that they did not want to hire Canadian workers to work in the mines because of the accident rates and the pressures. They were having a 75% turnover at any given time in any of the hard rock mining communities, whether it was Kirkland Lake, Rouyn Noranda or Timmins.

During those times, short term work contracts were given to the Ukrainians, the Bulgarians, the Italians and the Croatians. These men were brought over separate from their wives. If they complained about conditions, they were deported. If they were sick because of their work in the mine, they were sent back to their countries to possibly die there.

The historic records in the north are heartbreaking stories of families, of men. The average life expectancy for a Ukrainian or Croatian man working in Timmins, Ontario up to the 1950s was 41 years of age. These men worked hard and they died.

At certain points in the history of the north, the immigration policies allowed some of the families to come over. We all understand that the immigrants who built this country played an important role, but it was their families who made Canada. It was the women coming over who actually built communities.

We have so many great people in our region. The immigrant women who came over could not speak English. Their kids went to school not speaking English or French, if they were in the Rouyn Noranda mining camp. However, they came here and learned the language. They became part of the community and they built the identity, the wonderful identity that we have in northern Ontario.

We have a long memory in northern Ontario of the exploitation that these families suffered. Anybody in Timmins will tell us about the mining widows, the women who were left basically destitute on the streets when their young husbands died in accidents. They were immigrants and could not speak the language. My grandmother, who was a mining widow, raised me and told me the stories of what they went through.

We are very concerned when we see a dramatic change to immigration policy in Canada that says we need to fast-track these temporary workers into Canada and get them into lower paid jobs so we can basically hyper-fuel an economy without a long term plan.

We all know that the government is here for one reason and one reason only. It is here to ensure that the Athabasca tar sands expands as fast as possible, as destructively as possible and with as much profit for the Texas oil companies as possible.

We are looking now at a shift where we are not talking about bringing in families and building immigrant communities that will actually develop the Canada of the 21st century. We are talking about the short term gain for the long term pain that our country will suffer and these immigrant families will also suffer.

We have a backlog of some 900,000 people who have followed the rules and who have gone through the process to prove they can be proud citizens like anyone else. These people will all be shunted to the side so that we can start to fast-track the workers coming into this country.

As an example, in my region, we are still very dependent on mining, forestry and long haul trucking. A trucker called me and told me that the federal government was bringing in foreign truckers, because with the rates they were being paid nobody could feed their family. Therefore, the government decides to create a special program and starts bringing in immigrant workers to undermine the long haul truckers in our country.

This is not the way we build an economy. It is certainly not the way we build community. That is how we undermine community.

We have seen the government use the threat of non-confidence again and again to bully its friends in the Liberal Party into submission, although I do not think it had to bully too hard. However, we will not bend on the issue of immigration. We will not simply roll over and play dead because the government huffs and puffs and tells us to.

There are so many fundamentally wrong things in the budget beyond this attempt to sneak the immigration bill through. For example, in my region I have two communities where there are no schools. We have a government that says “too bad”, that it does not have money to build first nations schools. This is a government that can buy helicopters to ship to Afghanistan. This is a government that can send money all over the world any time it wants. This is a government that when any of its friends ask for help, the help is there. Yet children of so many communities, whether it is Kashechewan, or Fort Severn, or Attawapiskat, or North Spirit Lake or Cat Lake, are going to schools that are held in former maintenance sheds.

Whenever I raise in the House, I always hear the chuckle of smug satisfaction from the Conservative members. They think it is absolutely absurd that this issue is raised, as though how dare we raise the issue of children in our country who are denied the most basic education rights.

Education is a fundamental human right. When I say it is a fundamental human right, it is not an airy-fairy concept. As defined by the United Nations, a country has to have a plan for education. Even third world countries have plans for education. Yet we see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's absolute disinterest in the issue of building schools. He cannot point to a school he has built. He has taken the money from the budget, a very underfunded budget for Indian Affairs, and spent it elsewhere. He tells 13 year old children that some communities are worse off than them, and that is supposed to be some kind of response.

That is not a response. A response is to say that there are 20, to 30, to 40 communities without schools and that we need a plan. That is what a leader does. A leader says how do we address this and a plan will be set up to do so, but not the government.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Laval because I know she holds the same views that we do on this bill, which is that it should be defeated. I know she speaks with compassion. I thank her for using the example of Insite as another example of how callous the Conservative government is toward people.

One of the disturbing things in Bill C-50 are the immigration changes and the way it escalates the use of temporary foreign workers.

Working with the labour movement, we in the NDP have been very concerned with the rate of exploitation that is taking place. People should be coming to Canada as permanent residents. A proper process should be in place.

The idea that the government is trying to deal with the backlog is not correct. What it is doing is shifting the system from the reunification of families and is creating a whole new class of temporary foreign workers, which makes it open season on exploitation.

I would like the member's views on that. I think it is something we need to monitor carefully. We know there are workers who have had a serious loss of rights and some workers who are being paid less than the minimum wage. We also know that some workers are being exploited by their employers and some workers have died because they are not aware of health and safety provisions.

This is a very serious situation that is taking place. It started with the former government and it is escalating with the current government. It is an indication of what is taking place in our immigration system.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that lovely compliment. It is rare to receive compliments in the House. I very humbly accept it.

It is my great pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-50, particularly part 6, which would introduce immigration measures that I find somewhat unusual because they would give significant additional powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The government is trying to bring in these measures as part of a budget bill. If we agreed with the bill, we could let it go through, no problem. However, we do not agree with it, because it does not meet our fellow citizens' needs. As everyone knows, the people asked us to request a number of things for Quebec, and we submitted those requests.

What is even more unacceptable is that the government is trying to include these measures in bills that are not intended to change procedures within various departments. That is what part 6 of Bill C-50 attempts to do: change the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act significantly. This bill would give the minister the power to give some people priority over others. The minister would also have the power to refuse entry to some people without having to justify his or her decision.

This is troubling, particularly since we have a government that is known for breaking its promises to people. It broke its promise to women on equity and equality; it broke its promise to seniors on the guaranteed income supplement; and it broke its promise to veterans. Spouses and widows of veterans do not all have access to various programs offered by Veterans Affairs Canada to returning war veterans. All in all, this government was elected because of promises it made on major issues—promises that, for the most part, it has not kept.

We have to wonder what would happen if these measures in Bill C-50 were passed. Imagine for a moment that the ousted minister of foreign affairs became the minister of citizenship and immigration. Who would he give priority to? Who would he deny entry to? Many worries come to mind, even more so given that the minister would not have to answer any questions or provide any justification.

Conservative Party members have also made disconcerting statements about immigrants of certain ethnicities. What would happen if one of these members were appointed minister of citizenship and immigration? I would be worried about giving a minister the sweeping power to decide the validity of an application from someone who wanted to immigrate to Quebec or Canada. I find that very serious.

I even find it a bit immoral that these measures were introduced as part of a budget bill, and I wonder how many others feel this way. At the very least, we know that all of the organizations involved with newcomers, be they refugees or immigrants, are opposed to these measures, and with good reason, I might add.

We know that the committee has also made its views known. It is important to remember that the committee is not necessarily against amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

But if amendments are to be made, they must be done properly, through the usual channels. This means introducing bills, having them examined in committee, and hearing witnesses in committee to explain different parts of the bill. This did not happen here.

This amendment to the Immigration Act was sneakily included in Bill C-50, in the same way that a censorship measure was included in Bill C-10 without anyone noticing. We can see the effect that one has had, and the shock waves it has sent through the film community, in terms of copyrights and so on. Members must remember all of that and be very careful before passing Bill C-50 if it contains part 6. Giving a single person the authority and power to determine who will have the right to enter the country is inconceivable. The same thing happened with the Minister of Health with respect to public safety and quarantines. The government did not even keep its promises to those suffering from Hepatitis C. People are dying every day without receiving a cent from the government. This is a right-wing government if ever there was one.

That scares me. When a government that is so far to the right wants to introduce such measures in a bill, I believe that there is more to it than meets the eye. I do not want to have any part of it and I do not accept it. My party does not want to say yes to that. We will definitely vote against the bill. We cannot allow ourselves to give such rights to a party that has already shown its bad faith and ill will.

That was the case for Insite, in Vancouver. They prefer to let people die rather than helping them to obtain services in a place where they felt safe, where they could make important contacts and get help. They would rather let people die. And now they would like us to believe that it would be a good thing to give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to decide who can enter Canada. They should not take Canadians or Quebeckers for fools. We see the government's game plan very clearly. We know that the only reason this government wants to introduce this amendment to the Immigration Act is to have even more power and to decide what kind of immigrants will build Canada.

Some 900,000 men and women have been waiting for years to become Canadian citizens. They have been waiting patiently. They have gone through all the steps. They are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect by a government that follows the rules, not a government that changes the rules to suit its ideology and philosophy or to please voters of the same bent.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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 reported without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[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.

Motions in Amendment

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member as she spoke about what she claimed was propaganda. I have not heard as much propaganda in as short an amount of time as I have heard from her.

Let me tell members about propaganda. She says the government, by stealth, is bringing in Bill C-50. But just before that she said that we were advertising in newspapers some of the changes we want to bring in. How could we be acting by stealth and advertising in newspapers? I guess that is NDP propaganda.

Also, this member and her party voted against every single budget this government has brought in: budgets that have helped seniors; budgets that have helped homeless people; and budgets that are helping veterans today. She and her party voted against low income Canadians. More than 600,000 low income Canadians have been taken off the federal government tax rolls. Yet, she and her party claim to be for the working class.

Yesterday, we were discussing her leader's bill. I believe it is Bill C-377. People working in the auto industry and people trying to earn a livelihood who work in the auto parts industry in my riding, including the CAW, are fearful of that bill.

We heard from witnesses from that industry at the environment committee who said that bill that her leader is trying to bring in is going to kill their industry, an industry that is already in trouble in our province. It is one of the hugest income generators in our province.

How can she say some of the things she is saying when in some parts of her statements she is arguing against herself? There are words for that, but they are unparliamentary. I would like her to respond.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to the report stage amendments of Bill C-50. I thank my colleague from the Bloc for bringing some of them forward because the NDP also supports these motions that would delete clauses 116 to 120 from Bill C-50.

The first point that I want to make is that it is really quite outrageous that here we are debating a budget bill, which of course is a core of any government's agenda, and within that government bill, that budget bill, there are significant changes to our immigration system.

There is no question that the Conservative government tried to quietly slip these major changes through the back door in a budget bill. I think they have been probably quite astounded by the reaction of Canadians and communities across Canada.

In fact, the Conservatives are so worried about the backlash that these proposed changes contain that they have now gone to the extreme of running advertisements in ethnic papers across the country even before this bill has been approved. That is something that is quite unheard of, to put out propaganda and information about a bill that has not even yet been approved.

I think it is very good evidence of the concern that the Conservatives have that the message that they hoped they were getting out there, that they were somehow fixing the immigration system, is very far from the truth. In fact, what we are dealing with in this budget bill are significant changes to the immigration system which will undermine the kind of process that we have had in this country for dealing with immigration and refugees.

One of the deletions that has been put forward for the bill today deals with clause 116. Under the current provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, subsection 11(1) currently says:

The visa or document shall be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.

With the changes in this bill, which we are now hoping to delete, it would now say that the officer “may” issue a visa even if the applicant has met all of the criteria as set out in the immigration regulations.

The same is true for clause 117, where under the existing process in regard to humanitarian and compassionate applications, it says that the minister “shall” examine these applications. Under the proposed changes it would say that the minister “may” examine these applications.

These are only two of many changes that are included in this bill. We think they are very substantive and we think it is quite shocking that these immigration changes would be contained within a budget bill. It should be part of a stand alone bill. It should have gone to the immigration committee. There should have been hearings through the immigration process so that people could comment on it, but none of that has happened because the government, by stealth, is trying to put these changes through in a budget bill.

I must say that I listened with some surprise to the Liberal member for Markham—Unionville when he spoke so vociferously against the budget bill and against these changes, and yet we know the Liberals are going to support it. How does one reconcile this?

The Liberals get out there and they hammer the bill and say how bad it is, and in committee when there is a chance to vote they vote with the government. Here in the House when the Liberals have a chance to vote against the government, they either sit on their hands or they do not show up and they do not bother to vote.

The same will now be true with these immigration changes. Is it any wonder that people feel so disillusioned about the official opposition members as they are about the government? Here they are hand in glove working together to get through these significant changes.

I am very proud that in the NDP we have taken a strong position, not only against the budget bill on the provisions as a budget bill but also because of these immigration changes that are included.

One of the things that we are most concerned about is that in Bill C-50 there is a shift in emphasis from family reunification, from bringing people to Canada on the legitimate process of a point system, to in effect a dramatic increase in the temporary foreign worker program.

We have seen more than a 100% increase in the number of applications and people being processed through this system. We have seen people brought to this country, who come here as temporary foreign workers. They are working in the tar sands. They are working in the agricultural industry. They have been working on the Canada Line in Vancouver.

These are workers who come here and often end up in terribly exploited situations. They have no rights. In some situations we have had cases where workers were being paid less than the minimum wage for the work that they were doing. It is only because of the advocacy within the labour movement that some of these cases have been taken up and brought forward before the B.C. Labour Relations Board.

Therefore, we are very worried that the changes in Bill C-50, including the immigration changes, are basically giving a signal of this very dramatic change in the way immigration will work in Canada.

Historically, we have seen an emphasis on family reunification. In fact, on the Government of Canada immigration website it was always listed as one of the key goals for our immigration policy. Somehow that has disappeared. It is not even on the website anymore, so this should be sending off alarm bells for people.

We know that organizations like the Canadian Bar Association are concerned. Stephen Green of the Canadian Bar Association said:

Bill C-50 would return Canada to a time when visas were given out on a discretionary basis, without sufficient objective criteria.

The YWCA in Toronto has called on the government to not proceed with these dramatic changes for immigration under Bill C-50.

I know in my own community of East Vancouver we have many people who are recent newcomers to Canada. They came through the immigration system. We have many organizations that work as advocates and help people with their processing for immigration. In a forum that we held just a few weeks ago people were very concerned about what these changes will mean and the fact that it will give so much discretion to a single person, and that single person being the minister.

Why would we want to have a system that allows that kind of power to be conferred on one person? This is something that we should be very opposed to and that is why we are standing in the House today making it very clear that we are opposed to these changes.

We have heard from the government today that this bill and the immigration changes will allow more people to come to Canada and it will be a responsive bill, as I think this is what the parliamentary secretary said. We are also told that somehow these changes will deal with the backlog of 900,000 people who are waiting to come to Canada.

However, the fact is the changes that are before us will only affect applications that are submitted after February 27, 2008. Therefore, in actual fact they will have no impact whatsoever on the backlog that the government claims it is trying to deal with.

We agree that the backlog is there and certainly the lack of support and resources for our immigration system and processing in the previous government created that backlog. That is not an issue. What is at issue is that these proposed changes will not deal with that backlog and will give enormous discretion to the minister which we think is patently undemocratic and unfair.

That is why we are supporting these motions today to delete these clauses in the bill. We will have other deletions as well later on today. We hope that the bill will be defeated. I would implore Liberal members across the way to rethink their position. They cannot go out and tell people they are opposed to these changes, they are opposed to the budget, and then come back to the House and vote for it, and give the Conservative government a majority in that regard. This is something that is quite unconscionable, so perhaps they need to rethink their position.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report stage debate on Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

What concerns me a great deal about the budget is its forecast. As recently as two days ago, the finance minister stood in this House and told us that he stood by the government's forecast for GDP growth this year of 1.7%. Never mind that exports are falling and manufacturing jobs are disappearing daily and never mind that the Bank of Canada revised, dramatically downwards, its own forecast. The finance minister is just going to bury his head in the sand and pretend the economy is doing just fine.

The finance minister is no Pierre Trudeau but he does have one thing in common with Pierre Trudeau. In 1972 some members may remember that Pierre Trudeau ran an election campaign on the theme “The Land is Strong” but he did not do that well. Now, the finance minister, in a similar vein, is saying that we should not worry because the economy is sound and the fundamentals are sound.

That does not surprise me because the finance minister is a person who is out of touch with Canadians. I imagine he could attend a news conference about a factory closure, puff up his chest and say that the Canadian economy is strong without batting an eye.

The problem is that while the finance minister can repeat that the economy is strong a thousand times, it just does not make it true.

Do members know what happened this morning? Statistics Canada released a growth estimate for the first quarter of 2008 which shows that the Canadian economy shrank by 0.3%. This is the first time we have had a quarter of negative growth in Canada since, I believe, five years ago during the SARS crisis.

We have the finance minister saying that the economy is strong and that we should not worry, but we get numbers showing that for the first time in five years, in the first quarter of this year, the Canadian economy shrank.

Do members know what else is interesting about that? The U.S. economy, in the first quarter, grew. The Canadian economy shrank by 0.3%, while the U.S. economy expanded by 0.9%. What does that do to the finance minister's story that his policies are so wonderful and his stewardship is so great that Canada is doing so much better than the United States? It is simply not true according to the numbers we saw this morning.

Indeed, Canada ought to be doing better and, in some respects, Canada is doing better. We have a large resource sector and oil prices are very high. We have people who are somewhat less risk-taking in the financial sector than down south. We do not have the subprime mortgage crisis. We should be doing better, and we are, in some respects, doing better, and yet the news this morning that the Canadian economy has shrank while the U.S. economy has expanded, sends a message to the finance minister--

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if these changes are so important, why are they buried in a budget bill? It is quite scandalous that when Bill C-50, the budget bill, came in, we suddenly found there were—

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I am pleased to rise to speak in absolute and sincere opposition to the proposed amendments to Bill C-50, amendments that would seek to effectively delete the government's proposed improvements, and I emphasize improvements, to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which are contained in part 6 of Bill C-50.

I note that the amendments originate with my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, but they are supported by my colleagues down the way in the NDP. Sadly, this is yet another occasion where the NDP, despite its rhetoric, will vote against crucial measures proposed by this Conservative government to help immigrants.

The NDP's track record on immigration is a sorry one at best. In this Parliament alone, the NDP has voted against $1.3 billion for settlement funding, after a funding freeze of 10 years under the previous government. The NDP also voted against the establishment of a foreign credentials referral office. It voted against cutting the immigrant head tax, which our government cut in half, despite the NDP.

The NDP has even voted against providing increased protections for vulnerable foreign workers. Its continued opposition to Bill C-17 is preventing vulnerable foreign workers, who could be subject to abuse and exploitation, from getting protection that they need and deserve.

Despite their talk, the New Democrats do not step up to help newcomers to Canada. This Conservative government, however, does and continues to do so with our immigration changes proposed in Bill C-50.

Our proposed amendments in part 6 of the budget implementation act addressed the legislative roots of Canada's broken and overloaded immigration system. Neither Canadians nor prospective newcomers to our country benefit from an immigration system that, due to its systemic deficiencies, forces prospective immigrants to wait for up to six years before their applications are looked at, let alone processed.

The current system is especially problematic, since by 2012 fully 100% of our net labour growth will come from immigration. The systemic flaws in the current immigration system continue to hinder our country's ability to meet the needs of newcomers and the social and economic needs of our country. Urgent action is required. That is why changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act were included in budget 2008.

“Advantage Canada” 2006 identified that Canada needed the most flexible workforce in the world, an issue that is critical to Canada's future. Without our proposed legislative changes, the uncontrolled growth of the immigration backlog will continue, the backlog we inherited, by the way, from the previous Liberal government, which currently stands at over 900,000 people waiting in line to come to Canada.

This backlog is unacceptable. Urgent action must be taken so the backlog can be reduced. A new and more efficient processing system is desperately needed, a system that is both responsive to the needs of the newcomers and the needs of Canada.

To move toward accomplishing these goals, the legislative changes contained in part 6 of Bill C-50 are absolutely essential. The fact is Canada faces serious international competition in attracting people with the talents and the skills we need to ensure our country's continued growth and prosperity.

Compared to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, we are the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen, code or prioritize skilled worker applications. Compared to other countries, Canada's system is simply not flexible enough. While Australia and New Zealand are processing applications in six to twelve months, if nothing is done, processing times in Canada will reach ten years by 2012. As more people submit applications and our current obligation to process every application to completion remains, the backlog continues to grow and Canada's labour shortages worsen.

If we do nothing to address the problem, we risk having families wait even longer to be reunited with their loved ones and we risk losing the people our country needs from other countries. Because those countries are in fierce competition with us for the skills and talents that newcomers bring, our government believes that without this legislative intervention the system is destined to collapse under its own weight.

It is important to note that the legislative changes contained within Bill C-50 are but one aspect of the government's approach to addressing the backlog problem. These legislative changes would prevent the backlog from growing, but let me be crystal clear on two key points about these proposals.

Contrary to the misinformation that is out there, we will not be placing any limits on the number of applicants that we will accept. Canada remains open to immigration and anyone can still apply.

However, under the proposed legislative changes, we will not have to process every application. Those applications not processed in a given year can be held for future consideration or returned to the applicant with a refund of their application fee. Individuals in this category would be welcome to reapply. The result would be that the backlog will stop growing and actually start to come down.

This flexibility in managing the backlog would accomplish three things. It would help reduce the backlog and ensure that immigrants have the jobs they need to succeed and allow our country to continue to grow and prosper.

Once these changes are implemented, the immigration backlog will stop growing and will begin to decrease the long lineup waiting news on entry to Canada through other important measures our government is taking.

Among other things we have committed over $109 million over five years to bring down the backlog.

Other steps that would be taken include: organizing visa officer “SWAT teams” to speed up processing in parts of the world where wait times are the longest; providing additional resources to these busy missions; helping build capacity to meet future levels and increasing demand; and coding applications in the existing backlog with the appropriate national occupational classification code and destination province where they are requesting to reside, so applicants with the skills we need can be referred to provinces for possible selection by provincial nominee programs.

Part 6 of Bill C-50, when combined with these non-legislative measures funded in budget 2008 and beyond, would act to control and reduce the backlog and speed up processing. Because immigration is so important to Canada's future, we need a modern and renewed vision for immigration.

These proposed changes are part of a vision that involves creating a more responsive immigration system, one that allows us to welcome more immigrants while helping them get the jobs they need and building better lives for themselves and their families, because their success is our success.

Urgent action is required. Part 6 of Bill C-50 and all of budget 2008 would deliver this much needed action.

I end by expressing my gratitude to my colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party who have so graciously helped our Conservative government ensure speedy passage of our budget legislation through the House. I am pleased the Liberal Party supports our proposed immigration measures and budget 2008. I am pleased the Liberal Party recognizes that budget 2008 and Bill C-50 are full of positive measures for all Canadians, those present now and those soon to be here as well.

I encourage all members of the House, especially my colleagues in the Liberal Party, to defeat these detrimental amendments to Bill C-50 and continue to work toward its speedy passage unamended.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

He said—Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the bill before us and the amendments I made to that bill.

First of all, I must apologize if my voice is a bit hoarse today. I am so shocked at the provisions in part 6 of Bill C-50 that I can hardly speak, which explains why I am having some trouble today.

But seriously, since this is a serious matter, part 6 of this budget implementation bill deals with immigration and will cause a major change in Canada's immigration system. We condemn the fact that this part has been included in a budget implementation bill when its clauses have nothing to do with financial considerations.

This is just a government trick to limit the debate on this major reform of immigration by burying these changes in a sort of omnibus bill that pertains to a number of completely different subjects. From a parliamentary point of view, we could see the absurdity of this manoeuvre by the government and how the work had to be done in committee. Since Bill C-50 is a budget implementation bill, obviously the Standing Committee on Finance was analyzing its content. But that committee did not have the necessary expertise, knowledge or time to study the immigration clauses.

We received a letter asking the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to study that part of the bill. We hastily looked at part 6 of the bill, but in the end, we had only a week to hear witnesses and make recommendations. We then had to forward everything to the Standing Committee on Finance, which did not take our recommendations into account because the Liberals abstained once again.

This shows that there was no debate across Quebec and Canada. When the witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, what we heard most commonly and systematically was criticism of making such a major reform without taking the time to properly debate or look at the consequences this could have on the immigration system and on Canada's image abroad.

The committee concluded that part 6, the entire part on immigration, should be removed from the bill. That is the focus of the amendments I am proposing this morning in this House. It is the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I hope that all the parties will agree with this recommendation, especially since the committee stated in its report that it was available to sit down with the government and the minister to examine the issue and work with them to develop a real document. A consensus might even be found if we took the time to work together.

The committee did this with Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, which had to do with Canadians who had lost their Canadian citizenship. There were talks and debates. Everyone worked together, a unanimous report was written, and then came the bill. It was passed very quickly in Parliament and everything went smoothly. I do not see why we could not do the same thing for such an important immigration reform. Obviously, the short term solution is to remove this part of the bill. The proposed measures will be detrimental to our system.

Basically, the bill provides that the minister may decide of his or her own accord and with the consent of cabinet, to change the order in which immigration applications are processed. The minister may even decide which categories of applications will be processed and which will not. Currently, although there are a number of priorities, the general principle—which is about to disappear—is first come, first served.

Under our existing immigration system, those who apply can be sure that their applications will be processed eventually. Valid applications will be accepted. Even though wait times are too long because not enough money is being invested in case processing, the system is predictable. Applicants know that they will eventually get an answer. Under the new system, people will submit applications that may never be processed though they wait their entire lives.

Naturally, that is unacceptable. The minister says that the new system was created to prioritize certain categories of workers in fields in which Canada has trouble finding workers.

On the one hand, the current points system for applications takes into account post-secondary study, master's degrees, and doctorates—which are all worth extra points—but does not put enough emphasis on the technical skills and trades where more workers are needed now. Even though the department processes these cases, people can be no more certain than before that they will be accepted.

On the other hand, there are already so many priorities in the system that nothing will really be a priority after this. I have compiled a little list, which I would like to share with you. With respect to vertical priorities, we have inadmissibility, application of the law, refugees, visitors, students, work visas, spouses, children, and the provincial nominee program. Now we are going to have another priority. Clearly, this system is not working. When everything is a priority, nothing is a priority in the end. We need something much better than this to fix the system.

Another provision in this bill is extremely problematic and involves people applying for permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. Under the current legislation, the department absolutely must review those applications and if the person is eligible, he or she can obtain that status. If they are not eligible, they will be refused, obviously.

The bill is intended to change the word “shall” to “may”. In other words, the department “may”, if it feels like it, if it is interested, review an application on humanitarian grounds. It is hard to understand how a right could become conditional on the will of the department. A right is a right and if, under the law, one is eligible for such an application on humanitarian grounds, one should have the right to have one's file reviewed.

If not, if the right is subject to the arbitrary decision of immigration officers, then it is not really a right. What is more, a permanent resident application on humanitarian grounds is often used by a refugee status claimant whose case has been dismissed with no chance of appeal before the refugee appeal division—since neither the Liberal nor the Conservative governments have ever implemented it.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill to that effect in order to correct the situation. The bill is currently before the Senate. We hope the Conservatives will stop obstructing it. They always complain about the Liberal senators obstructing work in the Senate; now they are doing it.

Nonetheless, I hope this bill will pass quickly in order to correct this shortcoming. In the meantime, people have been using this process to protect their lives, to be welcomed into Canada on humanitarian grounds, but the government is in the process of closing another door in their faces.

In closing, I hope at least that the parties who supported the report in committee will be logical and consistent and vote in favour of these amendments. Obviously I am counting on the support of the NDP, but more specifically of the Liberals who have been utterly inconsistent on this. They supported withdrawing this reform in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, but in the Standing Committee on Finance, they kept mum on the matter.

I hope they will have the courage to stand up and vote in this House.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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 reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Citizenship and Immigration — Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

The provincial nominee program is not directly impacted by the changes introduced through Bill C-50. We have, however, worked with the provinces. We're in the process of removing the caps on the number of nominees that each province can bring in to meet their individual regional needs. We believe that's very important. That's why we've expanded that program and are in the process of doing so right across the country.

The categories of priority processing under Bill C-50 will not affect the provincial nominee programs. In many ways, they complement them. Setting national priorities frees up capacity at the provincial level to identify specific needs for them. For example, if lab techs are in demand right across the country, provinces won't have to use their limited resources to each set those as a priority. They'll be able to expand their provincial nominee programs to other areas, other occupations where they do have specific needs that are local.

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

The former Liberal minister said that simply adding applications to a system that's backlogged is not the answer, and that an answer needed to be found. Unfortunately, over a period of thirteen years, he did very little to address that. Bill C-50 certainly goes in that direction.

When we talk about numbers, Mr. Bevilacqua will take issue with that. When you add the temporary foreign workers we've brought in and the foreign students, the number is approximately 439,000 newcomers to Canada, a number that's greater than any other number over the last 100 years. So we've certainly processed a great number of people in numbers that haven't been seen for a long time.

I agree with your statement that those who have jobs waiting for them are more likely to succeed and immigrate because they have a base to start from. You mentioned briefly the provincial nominee program. That's an opportunity for the provinces to say they need these types of people, as Mr. Telegdi was saying, in a particular area, in a particular region.

Will Bill C-50 recognize the provincial nominee program and what the provinces need for occupations? Will the funding that we have and the work that we do in some way assist or enhance the provincial nominee program?

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Liberal Party for supporting Bill C-50 in the finance committee. These are the only two parties that can really affect the lives of immigrants. Some critics of the ministry believe the solution is to throw more money at the department--throw more money at the backlog.

I would like you to please address this issue to be absolutely clear why this approach is not feasible--how the 2008 budget assists you in stopping the growth of the backlog and how the legislative changes and the budget allocated to you will help reduce the backlog. What are you doing with the resources and the estimates as a whole to improve Canada's immigration system?

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

Well, you must have been taking counsel on the point of order. But let me say that the present Prime Minister and the front bench of cabinet have used that term hundreds of times in the previous Parliament.

The other issue I have, Madam Minister, is that you missed the target for this year's landing, at 237,000, even though you bumped up the family class.

The other one is that you created a crisis in the refugee determination system. We have a record backlog. It was something that was previously fixed. We have a backlog of 45,000-plus, and it's going to hit 62,000 this year. This has all happened under your watch. The backlog before the Conservatives assumed office was under 20,000.

Minister, how do you expect us to believe you can tackle something as complicated as Bill C-50 and what you're planning to do when your record is, first, that you missed your target, and second, that you have created a record backlog in the refugee appeal division?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Historically, that information has not been kept, but, yes, we have started to enter that now, in terms of their qualifications.

If I might, I'd like to clarify a statement you made, that Bill C-50 is not getting support. In fact, we have had support from a wide range of ethnic community associations, and a wide range of national media have endorsed it—in places where we did not pay for advertising, by the way. And finally, as I understand it, the bill has been forwarded from the finance committee to the House of Commons with the support of the Liberal Party, and it will be going to the Senate soon.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it really is a problem that the officials don't have the numbers we are referring to. It really puts us at quite a disadvantage for having reasonable discussions.

The point is that there is no real content in these ads. They say, “We the Conservative Party intend to do this”—or the Conservative government—but in no way do they describe how they're going to do it.

Premium prices are being paid for these ads; I checked on this with some media. The government is paying way more than what I would pay if I went to advertise.

It seems to me that what the government is trying to do is to buy editorial support by giving out money for essentially useless ads. The Globe and Mail, in its editorial, referred to the fact that this is a waste of money, and there are other publications that would say the same.

It seems to me, Minister, that Bill C-50 is not flying in spite of the money you are spending on it. It's not flying; it's not getting support.

Since we're talking about that, Minister, and since there is a backlog of 925,000, with 615,000 in the skilled worker category, can you tell me if you or your officials have an inventory as to who exactly is in that backlog of 615,000?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Bevilacqua. Thank you for the support for Bill C-50--in committee, going to the House. I know there's been a lot of rhetoric by the Liberal Party, but in the end, they have supported it. Of course, obviously Bill C-50 is the bill that will help deal not only with the backlog but with stopping it from growing.

There's no doubt, Minister, that there are a number of labour shortage needs in our country. Employers need labour and newcomers need jobs. I've had the good fortune of attending some private colleges to extend the off-campus work permit. I've learned that not only are the foreign students pleased, because they can earn some money, but the universities or the private colleges are happy, because they get the students, and the employer is happy, because he has someone to fill a job that's really not fillable in many cases.

I know there are also the temporary foreign workers, as many have said across the country as we've travelled in our hearings, who would like to somehow become permanent residents of our country.

You have mentioned some innovative things we have done, in addition to Bill C-50, and the funding that's been invested in terms of helping them along. Perhaps you could elaborate on what has happened with respect to foreign students. Also, what is happening with respect to the Canadian experience class, and how might that help the labour situation in our country?

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

Thank you.

I have to congratulate you, Madam Minister. You've picked up some friends. At the finance committee yesterday the Liberal MPs agreed with the Conservatives to fast-track Bill C-50, and at the Liberal-dominated Senate, you got it fast-tracked again. We haven't even finished dealing with Bill C-50 here in the House of Commons, and right now, as we speak, the Senate is considering Bill C-50. It's quite amazing that you found these Liberal friends, even though they said they were against the bill. Having said that, I don't know how you managed to do it, but it's quite amazing.

The numbers don't fit. The budget in front of us says the main estimates this year are for $164,860,000 for the immigration program, which is a drop from last year of $18.9 million. In the ads you've been saying it's going to be over $100 million and it's going to deal with the backlog, etc. In your presentation you said there is $8 million for this year. I can't square that number, because what I'm noticing is that the immigration program will have to cope with a significant reduction in financial resources, a cut of 32% over two years. On top of that, I saw that in 2007 there was a decrease of another $2.6 million due to “cost efficiency savings”, so last year there were cuts already, and there are more cuts coming, cuts of 32%.

If there are fewer resources for the immigration department, that goes completely contrary to and in a different direction from what the ad seems to be saying, which is that there will be millions of dollars invested in reducing the backlog. Can you explain that?

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

Which practically is Bill C-50, the backlog.... I read your ads in a number of languages. This was targeted towards Bill C-50.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Part 6 of Bill C-50 was funded through interim supply.

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

My question is this. How much of that transportation and communication cost on page 56 was for advertising done by the department with respect to part 6 of Bill C-50?

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

Minister and your deputy, thank you for coming to the committee today.

I noticed that on page 56, under transportation and communication, you have spent $3,245,000. Does this figure include the advertising done by the department with respect to part 6 of Bill C-50?

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Bill C-50 provides the framework for the setting of an annual premium rate.

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

Yes, I am. Just give me a second; let me just find it. That can count into my five minutes.

Ah, yes, I found it: amendment 3514746. It's for page 98, to amend Bill C-50 in clause 121 by replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 98, which is the “Act...or that the Board is restricted”, by adding after line 38 on page 98, the following:

The Board may, however, make recommendations on matters related to the design, delivery, and policies of the Employment Insurance programs.

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

Mr. Chairman, initially you said there is already a motion that the entire Bill C-50 be done by the end of the day. Perhaps you can first tell us who moved that motion and when that was done.

Secondly, I want to speak against the motion in front of us. The reason I want to do so is that I believe closure even before we start the debate, in giving only five minutes per clause on such an important bill, is grossly unfair. The NDP had earlier put a motion to ask that this committee do joint travel to look at this bill and hear from people across the country. That was voted down.

We believe that in just one clause alone, for example, for part 6, clause 116, you cannot express within five minutes the kinds of amendments and the impact they would have. As you know, the New Democrats have only one member. That means our entire party would have five minutes at this committee to debate a clause that is of great significance.

If you're going to call a vote on this motion, I'm asking that this be a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I will call the meeting to order.

I want to start by explaining that we're here pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 10, 2008, 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. That's what we're here to do. We're going to go clause-by-clause today.

I remind the committee that we will be completing this today as per a motion of this committee that it be completed by midnight tonight. I remind the committee of that.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to have with me today Mr. Paul Thompson, associate ADM for skills and employment at HRSDC.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee regarding the proposed Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, or CEIFB.

The governance and management of the EI account has been an issue for several years. In 2005 the standing committee heard from stakeholders through the study, and subsequently reported its findings in “Restoring Financial Governance and Accessibility in the Employment Insurance Program”. Views have also been expressed regarding EI financing through annual sessions on rate-setting.

Bill C-50 addresses concerns expressed by a wide range of stakeholders representing workers, employers, experts, and elected officials regarding how the EI account should be managed.

As a small crown corporation working at arm's length from the government, the CEIFB will ensure that EI financing decisions are taken independently and separate from the government's responsibilities regarding benefit determination and payout.

The proposed Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board will be responsible for implementing an improved EI premium rate setting mechanism that will ensure EI revenues and expenditures break even over time; managing a new bank account, separate from the government's general revenues, where any excess EI premiums from a given year will be held and invested until they are used to reduce premium rates in subsequent years; and maintaining a $2 billion cash reserve as a contingency fund that will support relative premium rate stability.

In addition, the EI premium rate-setting mechanism will be improved so that any surplus premiums and income from investments from one year will be taken into account when setting the subsequent year's rate. This measure will ensure that premiums collected over time will not exceed benefits paid.

To contribute to the relative stability of employment insurance premium rates, the board will be limited to the extent to which it can change the rate by a maximum of 15¢ per year.

It is important to note the Government of Canada's contribution of $2 billion to establish a real cash reserve. This money, coming from existing government revenues, will provide a contingency fund in support of relative premium rate stability. If, in a given year, the EI premiums does not collect enough money to cover the cost of EI benefits to be paid that year, then the money in the reserve will be used to offset premium shortfalls that could arise as a result of the 15¢ limit in premium rate increases.

It is important to recognize that the $15 billion reserve figure mentioned in 2000 by the chief actuary was characterized as the amount required to avoid raising premium rates throughout a severe economic downturn, similar to that experienced in the 1980s. This is not a figure that is consistent with the government's approach, which aims to match program revenues and expenditures each year. Nor does this figure take into account changes to the EI program structure, size, and clientele, or today's significantly improved economic conditions.

With respect to the $54 billion notional cumulative surplus prior to 2009, this is simply a bookkeeping entry reflecting the difference in prior credits and debits in the account. We are improving the system going forward by creating a separate account with a real cash reserve. The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board will be run by seven part-time directors who have the necessary skills and expertise to effectively carry out the organization's mandate.

Qualified members will be selected, following recommendations made by a nominating committee that would include the commissioner for workers and the commissioner for employers, and will be appointed through governor in council.

Through this process, business and labour can be assured that the most qualified individuals are selected to manage decision-making on the financing of the employment insurance program.

It will be up to the board of directors to develop a corporate plan and a budget for consideration of the Treasury Board, and Parliament as part of the estimates process. The incremental costs of operation for the new activities and responsibilities of the CEIFB are expected to represent only a fraction of the additional returns on investment not previously realized under the old system.

I wish to emphasize that the CEIFB will have responsibilities related only to EI financing. HRSDC will continue to have policy responsibility--related to EI benefits and through Service Canada for program delivery--to ensure that the program remains responsive to the needs of Canadians and is delivered efficiently and effectively.

Our plan is one that looks to the future and ensures independent decision-making regarding the management of EI funds and making sure that these funds are used only to pay for EI benefits;

that premium rates reflect actual program costs and take into account investment returns so that Canadians pay the right premium rates, just sufficient to cover the cost of benefits received;

and ensures that the program is on a firm financial footing going forward, well positioned to withstand changing economic conditions.

Mr. Thompson and I will be pleased to address the committee's questions.

Thank you. Merci.

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

I certainly appreciate the testimony of those who came forward. Thank you very much for coming in and contributing to our final panel for Bill C-50.

For the committee's information, we will be going to clause-by-clause tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock and will be completing it before midnight, as per our motion.

Thank you very much for coming in.

We'll take a recess while we say goodbye to our witnesses, and then we'll deal with our motion.

[Erin Weir]

I think a great deal of emphasis should be put on training. I think the employment insurance program can be an appropriate vehicle to do that. There would be a lot more resources to do that if we recognized there was an accumulated surplus of $54 billion in the employment insurance fund, rather than saying we've only got the $2 billion to work with, potentially going into a recession. I think a major problem with Bill C-50 is that by putting so little money into the account there may not be the resources available to conduct the types of training we both agree are very important.

[Erin Weir]

I certainly agree with the question. Essentially what the government has proposed to do is to create a separate fund for employment insurance, but to take all the money out of it. The $2 billion is far less than the accumulated surplus of $54 billion in the employment insurance account. As you said, it's also far less than the $10 billion or $15 billion that the actuaries say is needed to maintain the program in a recession without premium increases.

In response to that, Mr. Whyte suggested in part that at least what's being proposed is no worse than the status quo. But I would quibble with that a little bit. The former government's position when employment insurance was part of general revenues was that if there ever were a deficit in the fund, it would be backstopped with general revenues. My concern is that now that it's being hived off from general revenues into this completely separate entity, the government may be abandoning its commitment to backstop the fund and to make sure that benefits continue without premium increases during a recession. So things could actually be getting worse as a result of the changes in Bill C-50.

I'd like to see, at the very least, the bill amended to ensure that the government continues to maintain its commitment to providing employment insurance benefits in the event of a downturn without raising premiums.

[Garth Whyte, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the 105,000 business owners we represent from every sector and every region of the country, I want to thank the committee for inviting us to provide comments on Bill C-50.

Small and medium-sized businesses play a major role in Canada's economic growth and job creation, accounting for almost 50% of the GDP and 60% of total employment. I ask committee members to refer to the first graph in the document we've provided. The first graph tracks the GDP to CFIB's business barometer, based on small business owners' expectations for their own business. This is used by the Bank of Canada on a regular basis and by the Department of Finance. As you can see, our members are cautiously optimistic concerning the economic downturn.

And some good news can be seen with the graph on page 2. Thirty percent of the small and medium-sized enterprises said they plan to increase employment in 2008, compared to 8% who plan to decrease employment. This is good news when considering future unemployment rates, EI premiums, and EI surplus.

We have included several surveys based on thousands of responses from business owners. I may not have time to go through the entire presentation. However, I thought it important for the committee to have this information. Perhaps we can discuss it with the questions afterwards. But if you look on page 3—this is about 10,000 responses—it identifies the high priorities for small and medium-sized enterprises, and you can see that Bill C-50 touches the top six.

Our immediate reaction to the budget is summarized in the report card we attached, which you also have in front of you. We'd be happy to answer the questions you might have on any of these issues, but I want to focus the rest of our presentation on the establishment of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

The overall message we are delivering today is that EI is a major concern for small and medium-sized enterprises, as you can see on page 3. They feel the EI system needs to be fixed because the rate-setting process is flawed; the EI surplus continues to grow; and the EI program does not address today's labour market needs. This concern is so high that we currently have over 20,000 of these action alerts signed by business owners sitting in our office right now. We'll be delivering them to HRSDC Minister Solberg in a couple of weeks and we'll deliver them to each MP in a little while too.

As you can see on page 4, of all the various taxes a business must pay, business owners identify payroll taxes like EI affecting the growth of their businesses the most. The graph on page 5 shows that reducing taxes and EI premiums allows business owners to increase wages, hire additional employees, and provide more training. Page 6 shows that our members, 74%, feel a good first step to fixing EI is to move the account from general government revenues to a separate fund. They also think there's a need to improve the management and governance of the EI account. Currently, only one-third of our members are satisfied with the federal government's approach to managing EI, as you can see on page 7. They believe EI premiums should be used exclusively for EI purposes.

Having said that, CFIB supports the creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. The rate-setting mechanism has been improved, while still retaining some of the positive aspects, such as a fixed date, November 14, to publicly announce the new premium rate, and limits to ensure rates do not fluctuate wildly from year to year.

We are very pleased that the EI operational surplus will no longer flow back to general revenues. The new reporting mechanism should ensure accountability and transparency. However, we do have some concerns and issues that should be addressed. For example, will there be significant operating costs that employers' and employees' premiums must cover? Will this be a truly arm's-length board, or will it be a partisan board, with members changing as political parties are newly elected? Will this board be able to address the issues of hundreds of millions of dollars paid by employers with EI over-contributions, an issue that's a high priority for our members, as you can see on page 8?

We are also concerned that the new system will create pressure to increase rates rather than to decrease rates because of the administrative costs and the limited EI surplus provided on top of the annual increase in the maximum weekly insurable earnings.

Finally, we're concerned that employers and employees must bear the risk of paying for economic downturns after having built up a $54-billion surplus. It's shameful and unfair. At the very least, the federal government should cover off any future shortfall on the EI account, if the need arises. However, it is a good first step to fixing EI.

We agree that the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board should not be involved in EI policy and programs, but that is where there's a dire need to fix EI. The EI system is failing. It does not address employers' needs.

In 2006, only 44% of EI premiums were spent on regular benefits, as you can see on page 11. The vast majority of the over 9,000 business respondents to the survey--on page 12--were unaware of, or did not use, EI programs such as the labour market partnerships, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships, and employment assistance services.

It's not fair that business, especially small business owners, continue to pay 60% of the EI premiums. The rate should be gradually moved to a 50-50 split, or 40-40-20 split for premiums, where government pays 20%.

Finally, the EI system needs to be fixed because it does not address today's labour market needs. With the aging population, many companies are begging for employees. The graph on page 14 clearly shows that as the unemployment rate decreased over the past decade our members' concern with the shortage of qualified labour has increased dramatically. This is not a coincidence. Both are linked to a demographic trend caused by an aging workforce.

The shortfall of qualified labour has steadily increased, and it is expected to increase over many years to come. In March of this year, CFIB released its “Help Wanted” report. The report looked at the long-term vacancy rate. As you can see on page 15, the long-term vacancy rate has almost doubled since we first did the study in 2004. Our study found that a 4.4% long-term vacancy rate meant there would be an estimated 309,000 long-term vacancies last year. Page 16 shows that there were long-term vacancies in every province, and page 17 shows that, not surprisingly, our members have told us it's getting harder and harder to find employees for the future.

Canada needs a long-term comprehensive strategy to deal with the labour shortage challenge. CFIB has been working with the provincial and federal governments in several areas to deal with this critical issue, such as education and training, apprenticeship programs, co-op education, business succession, and immigration strategies. However, EI policy is one area where little has been done.

EI policy can play a significant role in either alleviating or exacerbating the labour shortage issue. We are concerned that the current EI program is hindering rather than helping employers and employees deal with the labour shortage issue. As you can see on page 18, one out of five employers stated they had difficulty hiring people because some people would rather stay on EI benefits. In some provinces the people who would rather stay on EI are close to 40%.

We need to fix EI so it better meets the needs of employees and employers. It's too important a program to leave in its current state for another 15 years. The creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is a good first step, but more needs to be done in the near future.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Ian Russell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Investment Industry Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Ian Russell. I've come before the committee many times, but this is the first time I've been here in my capacity as president and chief executive officer of the Investment Industry Association of Canada to talk to you on the singular subject of tax-free savings accounts, or TFSAs. With me today is my colleague Barbara Amsden, who will be helpful to me in responding to a number of the questions that may come from the committee.

The IIAC is one of Canada's oldest and youngest associations. It was founded in 1916 as the Investment Dealers Association, which began as a trade association that over the next 90 years became increasingly a self-regulatory body. From 1996 to 2006, the IDA grew rapidly as a regulator, tripling in size. In April 2006 the organization separated its dual mandate, creating a single self-regulatory organization and a trade association.

The Investment Industry Association is the trade association for the Canadian securities industry. In that capacity we've been able to lobby effectively or advocate on behalf of our members, some 210 firms in the Canadian investment industry, for improvements in regulatory and tax policy to strengthen the capital markets in the Canadian economy and to meet the government's objective of productivity improvements. We've been better able to publicize what our industry does to promote the savings investment process and encourage capital formation.

As I said, we have 210 members. They range from very large, national, full-service investment dealers to small boutique operations, which operate as an institution with an institutional focus, and also as a regional focus, in all parts of the country.

The role of the Investment Industry Association of Canada is to promote the growth and development of the Canadian investment sector. The IIAC represents a strong and proactive voice that seeks to represent the interests of the investment sector and all market participants. Our corporate members range from regional companies employing few persons to major corporations that employ thousands of Canadians. Our members assist Canadian investors in building and protecting their capital to ensure their financial future and that of their families.

For our members to successfully begin offering TFSAs and to promote further savings by Canadians, we believe it is in the best interests of investors, governments, and TFSA providers that TFSAs be made as simple as possible to introduce and manage, and to this end that they be as similar as possible to and able to leverage the current RRSP framework.

A great deal of work needs to be done by our members between now and the January 1, 2009 start-up date. Technology changes don't just occur at the push of a button. We hope to have your help with legislative changes, as well as the help of the Department of Finance and the CRA on regulatory and administrative matters, to ensure a smooth launch and an excellent good-news story for the front pages of the first newspaper editions of the new year.

With your permission, I won't read the rest of my remarks, but I will touch on four problems and amendments that we suggest.

First, Bill C-50 limits TFSA offerings to a trust annuity contract or deposit, and excludes securities accounts. Interest and annuity rates have dropped since the early nineties, and more and more Canadians now rely on investments, rather than just term deposits and annuities, to finance their retirement. Requiring that brokers still resort to the trust structure of using third-party trustees to offer TFSAs adds costs and inefficiencies, and we believe it is really unnecessary.

Second, the CRA proposes more frequent reporting than for RRSPs, but based on the RRSP example, we believe this is not cost-justified, as material over-contributions to RRSPs are proportionately small, excess amounts are usually low, and penalties can be imposed to dissuade over-contributions. As for RRSPs, an annual report with contributions and withdrawals will enable the CRA to identify over-contributions, even if those are withdrawn in the same year in an effort to unfairly take advantage of the tax system.

Third, the treatment of TFSAs upon the death of the TFSA holder differs from that of RRSPs. Income or capital gains on the TFSA become immediately taxable at the time the holder dies, in contrast to RRSPs, where there is an exempt or transitional period after death, which allows for a period to learn of the holder's death and a process for deeming the disposition of assets and for resetting costs at fair market value, and various other points. As we know, the death of a family member means a difficult time for everyone, and treating RRSPs and TFSAs differently will lead to additional complications and frustrations at a time when complexity and administrative complications are particularly difficult for the bereaved.

Fourth, on implementation, Bill C-50 provides that qualifying TFSA arrangements must be entered into after 2008. This would prevent the opening of accounts with a zero balance earlier and would lead to a rush following the new year. Our members are already getting calls about opening TFSAs. This risks negative publicity for TFSA providers and the government, if there is congestion at the beginning of the year.

So we are requesting four legislative changes.

First, we recommend amending the legislation to allow brokers to offer TFSAs directly under an account agreement, and not just as a trust.

Second, for efficiency and cost-effectiveness—while leaving CRA's ability to manage the integrity of the tax base undiminished—we ask or recommend that you amend the legislation to require annual transaction-related reporting by TFSA providers to the CRA without a requirement for reporting transfers between the accounts of the same TFSA holder. This government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden and not adding to it. We believe that more frequent reporting will in fact cause more problems for investors and intermediaries than necessary.

Third, for simplicity, and given little risk to the tax base, we propose an amendment to standardize and simplify processing on the death of the holder, treating TFSAs like RRSPs, or in the same manner.

Fourth, for smooth implementation, we recommend that you allow TFSA providers to open accounts before the new year while still preventing contributions or transfers until January 1.

So those are the recommendations that we have before you, Mr. Chairman.

[Joyce Reynolds, Executive Vice-President, Government Affairs, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association appreciates the opportunity to present the views of the nation's restaurant and food service operators on part 7 of Bill C-50. I'm here today on behalf of Canada's largest hospitality association, which has 33,000 members right across the country. We represent a $59-billion industry with more than a million employees.

I have been before this committee many times on the subject of employment insurance. Because of the labour-intensive nature of our business, where $3 out of every $10 in sales goes to payroll, restaurant operators pay a disproportionate amount of taxes as payroll taxes.

Recognizing the burden artificially high employment insurance rates place on labour-intensive industries, CRFA is on record as objecting to the setting of EI premiums at excessively high levels and has argued against the use of EI funds for purposes unrelated to EI.

CRFA, long ago, concluded that the only way to ensure employment insurance premium rates were set on a break-even basis was to establish a dedicated trust fund that is separate from Canada's public accounts and operated at arm's length from government.

Over the last 10 to 12 years, EI premiums have been set at rates that consistently far exceeded program costs, resulting in the accumulation of a $54-billion surplus in the EI account. This has resulted in an enormous financial obligation to the employers and employees who exclusively fund the program.

In principle, building up a surplus during times of economic growth makes sense, so that premium assessments do not have to increase during a prolonged recession. In practice, the intention behind establishing surpluses has not been respected.

As far back as 1994, in a submission to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, CRFA expressed concerns about this approach. We said at that time:

Unfortunately, our experience has been that surpluses have been too irresistible for government, and have been diverted to other initiatives. CRFA cannot support the anti-cyclical financing approach unless there is a statutory guarantee that the surplus would be accumulated for an economic downturn only.

Our fears back in 1994 were obviously well-founded. Governments quickly became dependent on the funds in the EI account.

The 1986 directive of the Auditor General to integrate the employment insurance program into the overall finances of the government has been used as an excuse to justify the diversion of EI funds. It has been clarified many times by the Auditor General that it was never the intent of the Auditor General to have EI revenues as part of the government's general tax revenue stream, nor was it the intent to have them used for purposes unrelated to EI. The only reason for the directive was that back in 1986 the EI account was in a deficit and contributed to Canada's overall deficit, which in turn impacted the overall borrowing requirement of the country. As we all know, there has been an enormous improvement in federal government finances since then.

We also know there will always be pressure on any government to increase spending on a multitude of programs and activities and to lower taxes in a host of areas. As a result, we are very pleased that part 7 of Bill C-50 will no longer allow the EI program to be treated as a cash cow. Payroll taxes are profit-insensitive and regressive, and should never have been part of the government's general tax base.

A counter-cyclical approach to rate-setting was pointless, as long as the EI account was consolidated with general revenue, because government's accounting principles do not allow surpluses to be carried forward from year to year. Employers and employees were always vulnerable to premium rate increases when the unemployment rate went up, regardless of the reserve in the EI account.

CRFA recognizes that the $54-billion EI surplus is a notional account and, given fiscal realities, cannot easily or immediately be turned over to the proposed Canada employment insurance financing board. We could debate whether the $2-billion reserve to be provided to the new crown corporation is adequate. The long-term economic outlook suggests low unemployment levels and intensified labour shortages. This is in stark contrast to the double-digit unemployment rates during the 1981-82 and 1991-92 recessions, which significantly reduces EI reserve requirements.

In the case of a prolonged or severe recession resulting in a significant increase in EI expenses, CRFA would certainly expect the federal government to make up for the revenue shortfall. Given the $54-billion surplus, the federal government would be expected to respect its obligations to employers and employees even if it meant raising other taxes or cutting spending.

To conclude, CRFA supports the establishment of the Canada employment insurance financing board and a stand-alone EI fund to be administered at arm's length from government. This is the only fair and responsible way EI premiums can be set on a counter-cyclical basis. It also allows the program to be maintained on a sound financial footing without temptations for government.

CRFA believes that part 7 of Bill C-50 provides necessary statutory protection for employers and employees by removing the option of having their hard-earned premiums used for other purposes.

Thank you.

[Erin Weir, Economist, United Steelworkers]

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the general direction of the budget being implemented by Bill C-50 and then make some more specific points about the changes to employment insurance proposed in the bill.

Budget 2008 was formulated in the midst of some very serious national challenges. The manufacturing sector is in crisis. We've lost about 378,000 jobs since November 2002. That's about one in six of all the manufacturing jobs that existed in Canada in November 2002. The recently released census confirmed that employment earnings have been essentially flat over the past quarter century, and that the gap between the rich and the rest of us is growing ever wider. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, our public infrastructure is crumbling, and the list goes on.

Given these pressing needs for government action, I found it quite surprising that the government chose to unveil a budget with the least new public spending of any federal budget in more than a decade.

This severe lack of public funds for important purposes is a direct result of very deep tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and profitable corporations. When the tax cuts implemented by this government are fully in effect by 2012-13, the cost will be $14.8 billion of lost corporate income tax revenue, $14.2 billion of lost GST revenue, and $11.2 billion of lost personal income tax revenue. These numbers come to a grand total of $40.2 billion.

Interestingly, this exceeds the $40.1 billion the federal government expects to spend on the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer combined, in 2012-13. In other words, if the government had not implemented these destructive tax cuts, it could have afforded to double federal transfers in support of health care, education, and welfare.

My principal objection to Bill C-50 is that it implements a budget that does not address these pressing national challenges and that deprives future governments of the fiscal capacity to do so.

Moving on to employment insurance, Bill C-50 proposes to put that program into a separate fund. Over the past 15 years, when the Canadian economy was growing, unemployment was falling, and employment insurance premiums consistently exceeded employment insurance benefits, the federal government was quite happy to treat employment insurance as part of general revenues. Now we're in a situation where the Canadian economy is slowing down, unemployment is trending upward, and there's the possibility of employment insurance premiums falling short of employment insurance benefits, so now the federal government is saying that employment insurance needs to be in a separate fund, apart from its general revenues.

Philosophically we agree that employment insurance should be administered through a separate fund. Our concern, though, is that the government is proposing to put only $2 billion into that fund. That falls far short of the $54 billion accumulated surplus of premiums over benefits in the employment insurance fund. It also falls far short of the $10 billion to $15 billion needed to maintain employment insurance benefits without increasing premiums during a recession, according to the former chief actuary of the employment insurance fund.

If a recession occurs, the regime proposed by Bill C-50 could require either increases in employment insurance premiums or reductions in employment insurance benefits, which would be the worst possible response to a recession. I think it's very important to maintain employment insurance as an automatic stabilizer for the Canadian economy by providing adequate funds to maintain benefits during a recession without an increase in premiums.

A related concern is that Bill C-50 rules out improvements to employment insurance benefits. It's well known that the proportion of unemployed workers eligible for employment insurance benefits has declined dramatically. The $54 billion surplus is more than enough money to expand those benefits to cover almost all unemployed workers, but Bill C-50 takes this surplus off the table.

In addition to that, Bill C-50 proposes a new rule for the administration of employment insurance that would require new surpluses in the separate fund be used to finance premium cuts as opposed to improve benefits.

To summarize, the concern I have with the changes Bill C-50 makes to employment insurance is that this new fund will not provide adequate employment insurance benefits to Canadian workers who become unemployed.

Thanks very much for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have enough members at their desks to be able to hear witnesses. We have our witnesses at the end of the table.

We want to start the meeting. This is our last meeting with witnesses with regard toBill C-50. Tomorrow we'll be going clause by clause, starting and finishing it tomorrow. We just want to let the committee know that.

We'll start in order. I'll yield you the floor as I introduce you.

We'll start with the United Steelworkers. We have Erin Weir, economist. Erin, the floor is yours for seven minutes.

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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to direct any questions. I'll make some comments in my closing time.

I appreciate the strongly held views of the various witnesses, so I'm not about to challenge those views.

It seems to me that, looking at the legislation, refugee protection will not be affected by this legislation. The minister indicated yesterday, with respect to family reunification, that in the case of family-class applications Canada plans to accept approximately 70,000 applicants in 2008.

With respect to input in relation to the instruction, she said:

Prior to issuing the instructions, the government will consult with the provinces and territories, industry and government departments to shape the approach. And in consulting with the provinces, we will seek assurance that when say they need immigrants with certain skills, those immigrants can actually get their credentials recognized so that they can work.

And finally, ministerial instructions will be subject to cabinet approval, ensuring government-wide accountability for the decisions taken. And, to be completely transparent, the instructions would be published in the Canada Gazette, on the departmental website, and be reported on in CIC's annual report, which is tabled in Parliament.

The legislation indicates that, generally, the guidelines are that they must be something that would best support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada.

And we heard from the CFIB, I think it was, that full-time employment plans of the next 12 months would show there would be an increase of 30%; that shortage of qualified labour was one of the top three--either one, two, or three--in the priorities; that the long-term vacancy rate was increasing for the percentage of jobs vacant for more than four months; that in a survey, 68% thought it would be harder rather than easier to find employees in the future; and that some would ignore new business opportunities, up to 38%, because of the difficulty in getting skilled labour or labour they would require. And in the economic class, the skilled worker class, 61% brought their spouses and dependants with them.

There are those who believe there needs to be a change in our system to ensure we can meet those needs, and they're of the view that Bill C-50 accomplishes that. I know the chair raised yesterday whether any supported Bill C-50, and certainly a number of groups have said so. I know the Canada India Foundation, for instance, says “Bill C-50 is good for Canada and good for Canadian employers. By choosing to prioritize skilled labourers, while protecting family class...”—

[Pierre Gauthier, Refugee Outreach Committee, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church]

Thank you, sir.

As a committee devoted to assisting refugees who arrive in Canada--and some who need assistance to enter Canada--we are very concerned by both the process and substance of the amendments proposed to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained in Bill C-50.

We believe that Canada is a country that is welcoming to immigrants and refugees, and that our future as a country depends largely on a fair, open, transparent, and humanitarian selection and refugee protection system.

We commend the government's stated objective to clear the backlog in immigration applications. The slow process of H and C applications for refugees is equally deserving of attention. However, we are not convinced that the changes proposed in Bill C-50 will be effective or necessary to achieve the goal, since proposed section 87.3 only affects applications made after February 2008.

The inclusion of amendments to the IRPA in a budget implementation bill is an inappropriate means to modify immigration law. The government is playing politics with this legislation and limiting the proper scrutiny of this committee and other interested parties, and forcing Parliament to choose between poor immigration legislation and forcing Canadians into another election. It would be better to seek consensus from all parties and interested groups in a clear proposal of amendments that are subject to the scrutiny of this committee and interested Canadians.

We are deeply concerned by the arbitrary discretionary powers given to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in Bill C-50 to make important changes to the immigration processing and acceptance systems, by issuing instructions without parliamentary oversight or mandatory consultations. Granting such extraordinary discretionary power without any accountability is an affront to democracy and circumvents the rule of law, which requires that ministerial authority function within the limits set by Parliament.

We are equally disturbed by the discretion accorded visa officers in proposed subsection 11(1). The change allows an officer discretion in issuing a visa, even though the officer is satisfied that the individual is not inadmissible and meets all other requirements under the act. This allows for the potential refusal of a visa on the basis of that particular officer's prejudices.

Also troubling is the move to eliminate the right to permanent residence for applicants who meet the requirements of the act, and the right to have an overseas application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration examined.

In the introduction of proposed section 87.3, proposed paragraphs (1) to (7) are the most disturbing of all. This new section proposes to give powers to the minister to create categories of applications, and then to establish an order to processing requests: limiting or setting the number of applications by category, or otherwise, to be processed in a given year.

These are extensive, sweeping powers given to the minister with little or no constraints. There is a lot which is completely unknown. For example, what are these categories of applications? Are we going to categorize people by geography, race, religion, skills?

While it may be useful to provide expedited review of applications from those who are in a skill category necessary to Canada, it would be very harmful if we limited people coming from a particular racial group or religion. Why not simply spell it out up front instead of creating these sweeping discretionary powers that have the potential to be abused? Even if they were not abused under this administration, we would not want to create a system which could later be abused.

As a refugee committee that has had a sanctuary case, we are concerned that proposed paragraph 87.3(3)(d) of this section could also prevent an application process for these cases.

The government, or the minister, has made responses to some of these criticisms, and I would like to express a few comments.

To the allegation regarding fairness, the government has responded that it would still be subject to the charter. First, the application of the charter comes only after the fact. The goal should be to make a fair rules-based system upfront. If an individual has to engage in a charter challenge, there is already a problem. We want a fair system from the outset. Second, there are costs involved in a charter challenge that are often too much for newcomers to Canada with little resources to begin with, as well as little knowledge of our legal system.

Why don't we simply create a more fair and transparent system at the outset? This system would alleviate the backlog. It is questionable as to whether this is the best approach to achieve what is a good goal, the alleviation of the immigration backlog. However, as the amendments put a lot of discretion in the hands of the minister, it seems that this would be a more time-consuming process for the minister, reviewing all of these individual cases, than to have fair rules in place and allow immigration refugee officers to administer those rules.

The minister would offer guidelines to immigration officers. If the minister is going to offer guidelines to officers and not intervene on a case-by-case basis, then why not legislate this new review process and hold it up to the scrutiny of the legislature and the public?

In conclusion, we urge this committee to recommend that the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained in Bill C-50 be severed from this bill, and that a new bill be presented to Parliament where substantive changes could be made and implemented after a meaningful consultation process. This is too important a subject for Canadians, and the proper forum for the review of proposed changes to this act is this committee, where interested Canadians can make a meaningful review of what is proposed.

Thank you for your attention.

I want to offer my apologies for not having a French text of our observations. We received the invitation to appear before this committee only last Friday, and we did not have time to prepare a French text.

[Andrea Seepersaud]

Chair, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

My name is Andrea Seepersaud. I am the executive director of Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services. We are located in Mississauga. With me today is Pat Hynes, who is a work placement internship advocate in our enhanced language training program. He is the only person we know in the Peel region whose mandate is to advocate for the internship of internationally trained professionals in the business and private sectors. That's the specific program we run for internationally trained professions.

As settlement serving agencies go, ICNSS is a medium-to-large agency employing about 75 staff at any one time in four locations across the Peel region. It provides services annually to more people than it would take to fill the SkyDome to capacity. ICNSS has spend the greater part of 22 years--and I have spent all of my 14 years with this particular agency--conceptualizing, developing, and implementing programs and services aimed at individual capacity-building and the resettlement and adaptation of newcomers to Canada. The issue of reciprocity remains at the top of our list of priorities, and second to that is the importance of family reunification within the context of the social integration of immigrants.

The amendments to Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are included in Bill C-50 are of grave concern to us. If we understand the implication of the amendments, this bill would give the minister and visa officers the power to arbitrarily refuse applications by individuals for permanent residency, visitors' visas, work permits, and study permits, even when it is clear that all the requirements of the IRPA have been met. It would also shift the power into the hands of these individuals representing the Government of Canada to discard applications seeking consideration on humanitarian and compassionate grounds from individuals outside of Canada. As well, the minister and her representatives would be given the unequivocal authority to set quotas and criteria so that predetermined outcomes were achieved. Such authority would be absolute and would not require sanctioning by Parliament.

Our agency believes that these provisions will erode the very foundation of a system that individuals from around the world have found to be fair, compassionate, humanitarian, and friendly. Inherent in the current IRPA is the right of individuals to apply for and be granted entry into Canada under specific categories.

Statistics relating to immigration from 1997 to 2006 indicate that the main source of immigrants is the economic class, followed by family class, and then refugees. In 2006, for example, Canada accepted over 250,000 individuals. Of those individuals, 138,000 were under the economic class, which is equal to 54.9%; 70,000 were under the family class, representing 28%; and 32,000 were refugees, accounting for 12.9%. Under the amendment, these immigration class profiles that have remained steady over the last decade will dramatically change to reflect what the minister determines on an ad hoc basis to be the need and therefore the focus of our immigration drive in Canada.

As an agency serving immigrants and refugees for over 22 years, we can vouch for a number of things. Once economic-class immigrants, or the highly skilled and trained individuals, arrive in Canada they expect to restart their specific careers. This does not mean they are willing to retrain or are overly interested in upgrading their qualifications to ensure integration into their specific sectors. This does not mean that the regulatory bodies representing these sectors are willing to provide the information, advice, and assistance to facilitate the re-entry of these individuals into the Canadian labour force.

Two years ago, the Ontario Minister of Citizenship and Immigration proposed a bill, Bill 124, that sought to address these very issues with respect to regulatory bodies, internationally trained professionals, and fair access to professions and trades. Today that bill is law, and to our knowledge it is the only such legislation in Canada. In fact, that's what it takes to look after internationally trained individuals.

Again, within the context of our repertoire of services and experience as an immigrant-serving agency, we know today's economic class immigrants are not necessarily loyal to Canada. This amendment will focus on the economic class--in other words, the best and the brightest from around the world.

This class has been known to either stay long enough to educate its children and then leave for opportunities elsewhere or to leave one parent to settle and anchor the family in Canada while the breadwinner seeks his fortune elsewhere, which is most likely back in his home country. When the children become educated, they in turn are often enticed to return to run the family business, which of course is located abroad and has been thriving in the meantime.

Essentially, Canada accepts ITPs, internationally trained professionals—and I'm by no means speaking about all of them—who obtain citizenship but have not lived and worked for substantial timeframes in Canada but will retire in this country for many reasons, including the fact that we have an enviable health care system, are compassionate to our seniors, and are technically a safe, democratic country.

I'll ask my partner to continue.

[Elizabeth Lim]

I just think that how the minister is using the ads to say it's going to reduce the backlog does not reflect the statements in Bill C-50 in black and white. It does not match what it states.

Sure, everybody wants to reduce the backlog, but how she's going to do it does not make sense.

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

Yes, of course, and if the minister wants to fast-track workers from Mexico and not fast-track workers from Pakistan, even though it's the same type of work, let's say a cook or whatever, she could do so under this Bill C-50, and it really wouldn't violate the charter?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Good afternoon, everyone. I hope that everyone's interpretation is working. First of all, I would like to apologize on behalf of the members of the committee for the undignified spectacle that you were forced to witness. Apparently, there was a competition between Mr. Karygiannis and Mr. Komarnicki to see who could raise the most inappropriate points of order. At the moment, the contest is extremely close and I hope that it will be over as quickly as possible.

More seriously, I would like to know if each of your organizations was consulted in any way about the development of part six of Bill C-50.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Could we have you take your seats for just a quick minute? There's nothing more on the agenda, and I don't want to belabour this meeting at all. I just want to give you a little bit of information.

The Monday we come back, we'll be having one more panel. I believe we have five more guests who will come on Bill C-50, and then we'll be going to clause-by-clause--as to your motion--on May 27, and hopefully will be tabling this bill on May 28.

On May 28 we'll be going to our next priority as a committee, which is asset-backed commercial paper. Our proposal is to have a list of five witnesses. We haven't invited them yet; it will be subject to their availability. But we want to have some of the sellers of this product as well as the group who negotiated the agreement on asset-backed paper here as a panel. And then we would move on to discerning what further meetings we would like with regard to asset-backed paper.

I think what we'll do is have one panel of five. If there's no objection to that, we'll move forward that way. With the subsequent meetings, we certainly are open to whoever the committee would like to hear from.

Mr. McCallum has a suggestion there, I'm sure.

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

The question is very simple, sir.

Once we move into Bill C-50, parental sponsorships will go by the way of the dodo bird.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I want to thank you very much. Thank you for coming in and contributing to this part of the dialogue on Bill C-50.

I want to thank the committee for their questions today.

With that, we'll dismiss this part of the meeting. We'll suspend for two minutes as we say goodbye to our guests, and then we'll be back.

[Joseph Ben-Ami, President, Canadian Centre for Policy Studies]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, committee members, not only for the work you're doing here today and your ongoing work, but also for the invitation to come here to speak a little bit about the issue before us and to exchange some ideas and remarks.

My remarks today will be brief, not so much because of the constraints imposed by the rules, but because, quite frankly, in our view we don't find this issue particularly complicated.

We support the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act proposed in Bill C-50. We believe that the changes are necessary to fix a fundamental flaw in the current legislation and process that in our view undermines Canada's ability to meet its immigration objectives.

What are those objectives? We could talk a lot about being compassionate—and we are a compassionate country. We could talk about humanitarian desires, and these are certainly things that we want to fulfill. But these are not really objectives; they're characteristics.

Some people assert that our primary objective with immigration should be to bring into Canada a number of immigrants equal to approximately 1% of the population each year. We don't agree. I'm not debating the number here; I'm debating whether that should be our primary objective. In our view, immigration is primarily about people, not numbers. It's about assessing the needs of those people and trying to provide for them.

There's a lot of talk about how Canada needs immigration. And again, I don't propose to get into a debate about the validity of that statement itself; it's not the purpose of these hearings. What I would point out is that the very statement that Canada needs immigration is predicated on that belief that we all share, that Canada has needs and that our immigration policy should be meeting those needs.

One of those needs is to fill existing or emerging shortages in Canada's labour market with qualified workers and professionals. Right now, potential immigrants who apply to come to Canada as skilled workers provide information about their education, their work experience, their qualifications, etc., and their applications are assessed based on this and other information. And the application of a candidate is approved, if they have a sufficient number of points.

What's bizarre about all of this is that at no time is consideration given to the employability of the candidate based on the availability of jobs in Canada in his or her area of employment. Instead, he or she goes into the queue and waits, sometimes for years. The family's life is put on hold—sometimes for years. And when they finally get to Canada, if they haven't lost faith already because of the amount of time they've waited, and have gone to another country—which is happening in large numbers, by the way—there are no jobs for them in their area of employment.

We don't think that makes sense. We also don't think it makes sense that the skills and qualifications of successful candidates are not being used to prioritize the order in which successful applicants are processed after approval and are actually brought here to Canada. The result of all of this is that our labour market needs are never really filled.

I want to stress here, by the way, that we're not talking about family reunification. We're just talking about skilled workers; that's all we're talking about here.

In our view, the changes that are being proposed are the minimum necessary to make the skilled worker track fair and functional. They're sensible changes, without which we might as well get rid of this class altogether.

I want to address very briefly some of the objections that have been raised by people over the last little while regarding the fact that powers created by Bill C-50, as it pertains to immigration practices, will reside with the minister. I have to tell you that I'm really a little puzzled by the objections.

Some say that immigration issues shouldn't be politicized. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure what that means. If it means that we shouldn't have a vigorous public debate on the subject, then certainly we disagree. But public policy should ultimately be decided by the public, who have to live with the policy and pay for it as well.

Others are saying that the minister shouldn't have the ability to make the necessary adjustments to selection criteria to reflect changes in the economy or workforce.

Again, we don't share this view. It's difficult enough to get policy changes or adjustments done around this city, in the government, already, without having to add an extra burden of a legislative process every time we want to make small changes to policy that really should be regulatory changes.

I would argue that forcing any particular government--whether it's Conservative or Liberal or NDP or any other political persuasion--to always go through a legislative process doesn't enhance the accountability of the minister or the department. You guys are in a committee. You bring people here all the time to talk about these issues. It doesn't really make any difference whether you're changing things legislatively or not. It's really almost adding a whole new bureaucratic level to the whole process, which we object to in this area, because it's important to be able to respond fairly quickly to changes in economic circumstances and in the workforce.

I have just one other small observation, and then I'll finish. I want to also stress that although we're supportive of these changes, I think I share my colleague's view on the fact that there are really a lot of problems with our immigration system. I would argue that it's probably the most badly broken department in the federal government right now. We're badly in need of a comprehensive, coherent immigration policy. We really don't have that. If I were to go around the table and reverse roles, and I were to ask the question, I'd be willing to bet money right now that nobody here would be able to really say what our immigration policy is. You could point to various small facets of it, but you couldn't really say this is what our immigration policy is, because we really don't have one.

What we would say is that these are very good in the context that they're going to deal with, but I'd be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to say that I think what we really need is a serious look and a serious examination of our whole immigration department, our process with the idea that we're going to come up with some sort of a coherent, comprehensive policy.

Thank you very much.

[Elizabeth Lim, Lawyer, Lim Mangalji Law Group, Status Now! - Campaign in Defense of Undocumented Immigrants]

My name is Elizabeth Lim. I'm an immigration lawyer from the law firm of Lim Mangalji. I am speaking today on behalf of the Status Now! campaign, a group of community organizations and agencies who have come together to speak on the plight of immigrants, refugees, and non-status persons in this country.

On April 28 the minister made it clear in her address to the Standing Committee on Finance that the main purpose of the immigration amendments contained in Bill C-50 was to “keep businesses open for business”. With all due respect, we submit that this does not make common sense. It does not make sense that to keep businesses open for business we must give officers the power to be above the law, to refuse to issue a visa even if an individual meets all of the requirements under the law. It does not make sense that to keep businesses open for business officers should be given the power not to look at the merits of an overseas humanitarian and compassionate application. It does not make sense that to keep businesses open for business the minister should be given the power to choose, without parliamentary scrutiny and within any category she pleases, the persons who can come into this country.

Businesses already have the power to apply for workers to come into this country through work permits. These work permits can be issued almost instantly at the border, or through pre-approvals at visa posts. They can be processed within a few days or weeks. There are currently no limitations on the number of work permits issued by Canada each year. The backlog and the delays in the system, whether at Service Canada or CIC, can be easily resolved by hiring more officers to process these applications.

There are, however, many problems with businesses retaining workers that this bill does not address in any fashion. Business cannot by law retain low-skilled workers who are given only non-renewable, two-year work permits, and who are left with very few avenues of gaining permanent residence. These workers are told that they are not allowed to bring their families to Canada and should not expect to get permanent residence. In fact, many workers are turned away at the visa posts at great loss to their employers in Canada, simply because they are from an immigrant-producing country or do not have enough financial ties to their country of origin. Furthermore, businesses cannot retain undocumented workers, even though they may be key employees or even the owners of the company. They are often sent away from this country because they made a failed refugee claim and were not provided with a viable way of gaining immigrant status.

These issues form the crux of the problems experienced by business throughout Canada, from Newfoundland to B.C. Yet this bill does not in any way address these problems.

The minister has also said that this bill is necessary to address the backlog. There is no question that the backlog for permanent residence applications is a serious issue. The question is, how do we resolve this problem? Do we resolve this problem, as the minister suggests, by returning or throwing away applications of applicants who are qualified under the law, who relied on our laws when they applied, who have waited for years to have their applications processed, and who have spent thousands of dollars and countless hours preparing their applications? Or does it make more sense to help resolve the backlog by raising our targets, which are still at 1997 levels, to allow more persons to immigrate to Canada each year? We need their skills and presence in this country to help resolve our population decline and labour shortages as well as to reunite their families.

Ultimately, you must ask yourself: is it better to concentrate the power to decide who can enter and remain in this country in the hands of one person by attaching it to a budget bill and forcing its passage as a confidence vote, or would it be better to resolve this problem as a country together?

We submit that such drastic amendments to the immigration laws of this country to decide how people can immigrate and who can immigrate to this country should only come after extensive consultations with community groups, and when votes on this issue are not tied to an election. And as the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration with expertise in this area, you should advise the finance committee to vote against this bill.

Ultimately, immigration is not just about keeping businesses open for business; it's about community members and future citizens of this country. It's about my husband, who I had to sponsor through spousal sponsorship on a humanitarian basis, because at that time--ten years ago--under the occupation-based selection criteria, Immigration Canada said we did not need Canadian-trained physicians in this country.

It's about many of your ancestors who may have been fishermen, lumberjacks, factory workers, or construction workers, who did not have post-secondary degrees. They came to this country, worked hard every day of their lives, and dreamed that their children and descendants would grow up to be members of Parliament. Many of your ancestors would not be able to immigrate to this country based on our current laws, and under these immigration amendments, every one of your ancestors could be refused.

Immigration is not just about keeping businesses open for business. It's not just about politics. It's about keeping faith with our own immigrant pasts and making sure that our laws are fair, transparent, practical, and consistent with Canada's humanitarian tradition for the future of our country.

Thank you.

[Jon Garson]

Oh, I see. That is a really welcome change as encapsulated by Bill C-50, yes.

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

Are you familiar with the immigration agreement between Quebec and the federal government? When Minister Finley appeared before us, we asked her whether Bill C-50 would make changes to the agreement that already exists between Quebec and the federal government. She told us no.

Is that your view as well?

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

Thank you.

Mr. Ferreira, earlier you said you agreed that improvements had to be made to the system and to the reception given to immigrants so that they have more information and support in learning the language.

Do you believe we can make changes to the present act without them necessarily being those proposed in Bill C-50?

[Jon Garson]

The only reason our members access the temporary foreign worker program is that they cannot find workers in Canada. That is the whole point of the labour market opinion process.

We didn't address this in our remarks. We tried to focus on the proposed changes in Bill C-50. But we would strongly endorse the comments that have been made with regard to the point system. It is a significant challenge. If you were to change the point system or lower it, which is certainly a recommendation of the chamber movement, you should bear in mind that this would increase the number of applications.

We think a defining of the challenges and their priorities, in consultation with industry and the provincial governments, should be undertaken in connection withBill C-50. This is something we would be keen to see.

[Joyce Reynolds, Executive Vice-President, Government Affairs, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really appreciate the opportunity to provide a food service industry perspective on part 6 of Bill C-50, and to speak to you again about the number one issue facing Canada's $58-billion food service industry. Of course, that is labour shortages.

I represent a 33,000 member organization, governed by a 36-member board of directors representing every sector of the industry in every region of the country. For our members in western Canada the labour shortage is already a crisis. For the balance of the country, it is a growing problem, and it will get progressively worse over the next 20 years.

Low fertility rates and the retirement of baby boomers will create a labour shortage of unprecedented proportions. The numbers are daunting. The Conference Board of Canada projects there will be a shortfall of about a million workers by 2020 unless we do something to increase the available labour pool. The economic forecasting company Global Insight expects the labour shortage will reduce real GDP growth and cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars in lost output.

All industries will suffer from this labour shortage, but the outlook for the food service industry is particularly grim. The food service industry today relies on young people for our workforce. More than 483,000 of our employees are 15 to 24 years of age. Projections suggest that by the year 2025 the population of 15 to 24-year-olds in Canada will actually decline by 345,500. Over the next 10 years the food service industry alone will need to add 190,000 new workers. Demographics tell us that the situation the industry is currently experiencing in Alberta and B.C. is spreading across the country. We are already hearing from members in every part of the country who are having difficulty recruiting staff.

We recognize that the labour shortage is a complex challenge and there is no magic bullet. Businesses must be flexible and creative in their recruitment of workers, and they must place a higher priority on the retention of existing employees. Food service operators are increasing wages and benefits, and they are increasing capital investments in labour-saving devices, but opportunities to replace people in the service environment are limited. Restaurant operators are also putting more emphasis on attracting and accommodating under-represented groups, such as aboriginals and persons with disabilities. They are looking for new pools of talent, such as older workers, to entice into the industry. But these are not enough.

We can't overcome the demographic reality confronting the labour market. We need dramatic changes in public policy. Our employment and immigration policies were developed in an era when unemployment was the national challenge. The new challenge is finding workers. We are competing with every other developed country in the world experiencing the same demographic trends and labour shortage challenges. We can expect the international competition for workers to only intensify.

Our members are extremely frustrated by the four- to six-year waiting period to bring in qualified help. They will identify a top-notch international chef who is willing to immigrate to Canada. The chef applies for landed immigrant status. But long before his or her application comes up for review, he or she has successfully immigrated to Australia or New Zealand, where the wait times are a quarter or half as long.

CRFA believes that Canada's immigration policies must be more labour-market focused. We support part 6 of Bill C-50 in principle because we need a system that will reduce wait times and be flexible enough to meet labour market needs. That's provided it does meet the diverse needs of Canada's labour market.

The labour shortage is much more than a skills shortage. Our industry is experiencing a growing shortage of all workers--skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled. We need assurances that the ministerial instructions regarding the processing of certain categories of applications will apply to all classes and types of workers. We also need to understand the methodology and criteria that will be used to prioritize and quantify labour shortages and to receive assurances that guidelines will be applied transparently and consistently.

Modernizing our immigration system also means putting more emphasis on Canadian work experience and school credentials and less emphasis on foreign education and experience. A higher weighting of Canadian job experience would act as a bridge between temporary foreign worker programs and permanent residency, particularly for lower-skilled workers. It makes sense for Canadian employers to recruit international workers who have already demonstrated their ability to adapt to Canadian culture and successfully integrate into the Canadian job market.

Last month when I appeared before this committee, I indicated we were pleased the government had introduced the Canadian experience class as a new immigration stream, allowing temporary foreign workers to apply for permanent residency without leaving Canada. However, we are frustrated this new immigration stream is currently only available to workers in NOC codes A, B, and O and will not apply to the majority of temporary foreign workers in the food service industry. This, we believe, will limit the effectiveness of Bill C-50.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, Canada's food service industry has faced its share of challenges over the years, but nothing will affect the industry more than labour shortages. We are pleased that government recognizes the urgency of this issue and is taking much-needed steps to overhaul the immigration system. However, before we put the industry's full support behind the amendments, we need to be sure they include all classes and types of workers in Canada, reflect in-demand positions, and that the criteria for selecting occupations under pressure is well thought out, transparent, and consistently applied.

Thank you.

[Jon Garson]

The solution to the skills and labour shortage facing Canada is clearly to bring in more skilled immigrants. The chamber believes that the changes proposed by Bill C-50, part 6, are a long-overdue recognition of how serious the current and future skills shortage is, by recasting immigration with a view to balancing our economic and social goals as a country.

Many of our competitors throughout the world are actively recruiting young skilled workers. I know; I have looked through this process. Having come in as a family class immigrant four years ago, I understand the system very well. I've helped a number of people through it, and we think that as a general principle, the intent of Bill C-50 is certainly one that our members in British Columbia strongly support.

[Jon Garson, Vice-President, Policy Development Branch, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present the perspectives of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce's 30,000 business members. These members represent every size, every sector, and every region of our province.

This is a particularly critical issue for British Columbia and for our membership, so the changes proposed to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as contained in Bill C-50, part 6, is a significant issue for our members.

To be clear, my comments today represent a policy position that has been developed by our membership. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has a very clearly defined and well-structured policy development process. We ask our members to bring us their issues of concern. We then work them through a very significant committee structure. They are then presented to our entire membership at our annual general meeting, and only if they are voted on and adopted by two-thirds of the membership do they become our stated policy position.

That process in 2006 led to the adoption of a resolution that we have titled “Overhaul of the Canadian Immigration System”, and it is that policy position that forms the basis of our comments to you today.

The B.C. Chambers of Commerce have been the leading voice for almost a decade, calling for government at every level and the business community to realize the scale of the challenge facing the province, and more recently the country, through the looming skills and labour shortage that we're facing in every sector. This has been identified by the chamber in our “Moving Forward” report, by our “Closing the Skills Gap” report of 2002, and rather unimaginatively, our “Closing the Skills Gap II” report of 2008.

Until recently we have held the very strong position that these calls have not been heard and have not been heeded. With this in mind, we must congratulate the federal government for the role it is playing in addressing many of these issues of concern to business, particularly those in the west. Over recent months this action has seen the introduction of or the soon-to-be-introduced new Canadian experience class, a new expedited labour market opinion program, the overdue launch of the first phase of the foreign credential recognition office, and a significant expansion of the provincial nominee program that in British Columbia will see 15,000 high-demand occupations being taken in through this program by 2010-2011.

We are particularly pleased with all of these areas because the resolution that was passed by our membership in 2006--and I am going to summarize the recommendations for you--called for the overhaul of the permanent immigration system. It called for the immediate allocation of resources to offices overseas to assist with the processing of applications. It called for a shift of resources away from family class immigrants into the skilled worker class to cut the wait times that are currently being experienced, and it called for government to ensure that the process for bringing foreign workers to Canada is driven by a true reflection of supply and demand, rather than being process-driven.

The chamber believes that the proposed changes, as outlined in Bill C-50, go a long way to addressing many of these concerns that have been expressed by our members.

Bill C-50, we believe, brings the welcome elevation of economic priorities as a cornerstone of the changes that are proposed. The chamber believes the flexibility as a result of this must be enshrined in the system. The needs of the economy today will not be the needs of the economy tomorrow. As we have seen with the institutional refusal to undertake changes to the point system, without a more flexible approach we will almost inevitably return to a situation where the system quickly falls behind the needs of the economy.

Despite our support of Bill C-50, however, the chamber does have two reasonably significant concerns or reservations regarding the proposed changes. I would be extremely surprised if the committee has not heard the first, and that is the change to subsection 11(1), which removes the “shall” and inserts a “may” into the process.

From our perspective, if you are a prospective immigrant, you go through the application process, you put the paperwork in, you go through all the checks and balances. If you are successful in all of those stages, we do not see a situation whereby you would be removed or refused a visa to enter Canada. The structure that's put in place is very clearly defined. It is quite a rigorous one. From that perspective, if you go through that process, we believe you have the right to be issued a visa.

While the principles released by the ministry outline a commitment to identify the priority occupations--and the ministry has stated this will be based on input from the provinces, territories, the Bank of Canada, employers and organized labour--the manner of these consultations is neither mandated prior to the issuance of instructions, and we understand these instructions could be issued more than once in the space of a year, nor required for each set of ministerial instructions. As such, the chamber believes the ministry should mandate full consultation priority areas prior to the issuance of any ministerial instructions, no matter how many times they are issued in the space of a year.

Furthermore, the chamber also believes that these consultations should be made public and that the consultation material and feedback be tabled, along with the instructions that are part of the changes the minister will put before the House when the minister issues those instructions to her department.

I would like to give you a bit of a brief as to why this is such a significant issue for British Columbia. While the scale of the challenge facing Canada is indeed significant, it is particularly acute in British Columbia, and also in Alberta. We have gone through a process this year whereby we have reached out to our members to try to identify what are the priority areas for the business community. And from all of our member chambers who responded, the only issue that was identified by every single one of them was the skills and labour shortage. Transportation was obviously in there heavily, but the skills and labour shortage came up strongly as the single issue that needed to be tackled.

When we look at Canada, we see that the current estimates indicate that 100% of the net growth in the Canadian labour force will result from immigration by 2016. In B.C. we will reach that by 2011, so it is a more profound issue for British Columbia, in particular, than for many other jurisdictions. This is driven by an extremely buoyant labour market: employment in B.C. has risen by over 370,000 jobs since December 2001, and 90% of those jobs are full-time positions. Indeed, over this period, B.C. has had the highest employment growth rate in all of Canada. B.C. has an overall unemployment rate of 3.9%, as of February 2007. Seven out of ten of the top occupational categories have unemployment rates ranging from 0.5% to 3.3%. So structurally, as a province, B.C. is very close to, if not at, full employment, depending on which economist you talk to.

Further to this, it is estimated that over the period of 2003 to 2015, B.C. as an economy will create one million new job openings. It is important to note that this does not take into account the bump in employment that we will get from the 2010 Olympic Games. These are structural changes, through the growth of the economy, and don't take into account the Olympics.

During that same period, B.C. will graduate 650,000 students through the K to 12 system. Even if we were to keep all of those 650,000 students in British Columbia, it would still leave us with a shortfall of 350,000 job opportunities that cannot be filled by workers in the province.

Again, while the federal government and the province have made great strides with enhancements to the temporary foreign worker program, that is, the expansion of the provincial nominee program that we mentioned earlier, quite frankly, these changes are tinkering around the edges. In British Columbia, the need for workers requires structural reform to the immigration system. Quite simply, the current system is not capable of addressing the scope of the challenge. Fundamental reform is required.

I'd like to echo a comment made earlier that while immigration is looked at as the most significant means of addressing this, we do agree with the C.D. Howe Institute, for example, which has made comments that immigration is not the silver bullet or answer to our problem. But it is the most significant piece of the solution to the issue we actually face.

However, we must bear in mind that we are in a very competitive global environment for these skilled workers. Whether we look at that changes just introduced in the United Kingdom or the changes introduced in Australia, there are a number of jurisdictions that are making significant or fundamental reforms to their immigration systems, with a view to capturing the skilled, educated workforce essential to our success in the 21st century knowledge economy.

We would like to wrap up by saying that immigration can no longer be viewed as a domestic issue, nor can it be viewed, quite frankly, as a discussion of our role as a leader in humanitarian and refugee protection. We understand that the proposed changes will still enshrine our commitment in these areas. They are critical and essentials part of Canada's role in the world. But we are particularly pleased that the changes actually shift the focus of education or rather rebalance the focus of the immigration system onto the economy, as well as these other critical roles. We do feel that it has been missing.

If we look at family class reunification in British Columbia, there are just over 14,000 who were brought in here in 2007, compared with 16,000 skilled workers. We believe that shift or balance is not in the best interest of the economy, and we hope that through this process we can actually get into a situation of focusing on that.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

CFIB'S positions on issues, just so you know, is always based on feedback we get from our membership. We gather this feedback through a variety of surveys throughout the year. We then pass on these results to you, the decision-makers, so you can incorporate some of their ideas and thoughts and concerns into your own decisions.

Moving on to the next page, it is always important to remember that the vast majority of businesses in Canada are small. In fact, 98% have fewer than 50 employees. Small and medium-sized businesses employ 60% of all Canadians, and they represent about half of Canada's GDP or economic output. This makes them a major component of Canada's economy.

On the next page you'll see that, given their clout, getting their perspective on how their businesses are doing can help us to understand where the economy is going. You can see on this page the CFIB's business barometer, which is produced quarterly and tracks the business expectations of Canada's smaller businesses. This information is used by the Bank of Canada and by Bloomberg in their analysis of Canada's economy. This latest barometer, which you have in front of you, is from March 2008, and it shows cautious optimism among smaller firms, which seem to be playing it safe for the moment, given the uncertainties south of the border, the Canadian dollar, and rising input costs.

However, in the next slide you'll see that despite this cautiousness, hiring plans remain strong, and 30% still plan to increase the number of full-time employees in the next year. This is equivalent to numbers we saw throughout the last few years. In other words, even as the economy softens, hiring plans remain strong.

In fact, on the next page you'll see that one of the fastest-growing issues among smaller businesses has been a shortage of qualified labour. This is behind the issues of total tax burden and government regulations and paper burden. In fact, in some provinces this is now the number one issue. In Alberta it's ranked number one as the highest-priority issue. In B.C. and in Manitoba, it is ranked number two. In places like Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Nova Scotia this is the third-highest priority issue among our membership. This is not just an issue out west any more. It is definitely spreading across the country.

There is good reason for this growing concern, as you can see from the next page. In March we released a report that found that the percentage of jobs that have been vacant long term—when I say long term, that means they have been vacant for at least four months—has been steadily increasing since 2004. And while 4.4% may not sound like very much, this translates into almost 309,000 jobs that remained vacant for more than four months across the country. This is up from 251,000 in 2006. You have in front of you the breakdown by province. Every province saw increases, with the exception of Alberta, where it stayed at the very high rate of 6.3%.

While this is an issue that is growing right across Canada, you'll see on the next slide that most employers also believe it will only get more difficult in the future. This is an important point, because while there certainly are some concerns in particular sectors of the economy and in certain parts of the country, the overall trend, given Canada's demographic future, is for shortages to increase. You have to keep in mind that Canada is not the only country in this situation, and we will have to compete with many other countries to get the people with the skills we need.

How are smaller companies dealing with this issue? On the next slide you see that most are hiring underqualified people and are training them to their positions. You can see other methods listed there on that chart, but there are two areas that I want to highlight. The first is that 38% are ignoring new business opportunities. This is of great concern, because if more and more businesses forgo new opportunities, doing so could ultimately result in slower economic growth and even put other jobs in jeopardy. This should be a concern for all of us.

I also want to highlight that only 5% say they recruited outside of Canada, but this actually translates into about 52,000 employers looking outside of Canada for employees.

In the book you have in front of you are results from our survey, which also looked at those who were recent immigrants who were already in Canada but had only arrived in the last five years. As you can see on the next page, for the vast majority of small and medium-sized companies, that's where their experience lies--with people who were already in this country. Only a very small group, 16%, were temporary foreign workers or--9%--had gone through the official immigration process. We also know anecdotally--and we hear this almost every day in our offices across the country--that many more have tried to use these systems but have been frustrated by the slow process and have given up trying to navigate many of the complexities in the system.

Of course, for those who did use the process, by far the biggest problem they faced was the delays in processing.

If you turn to the next two pages, you will see the feedback we received from our membership on those issues.

So the fact is that delay in processing was by far the number one issue for those using the permanent immigration system, as well as those using the temporary foreign worker systems, which is on the next two pages. When you need someone with specific skills, you cannot wait years for their arrival. You need them to help grow your business and to move it forward. Complexity is also an issue that keeps many employers from attempting to try to recruit overseas.

Listed on those two pages are other issues that small businesses face, and we recognize that there have been some changes recently to help address some of those issues. Obviously, finding ways to deal with this backlog and the extensive wait times is of utmost importance to Canada's smaller companies.

But I also want to touch on one last problem related to this debate on the last few slides in your slide deck. As you know, 60% of all new immigrants are categorized as economic immigrants, and of those, only about 33% are designated as skilled workers. Of those skilled workers--this is the second to last slide--the vast majority of them coming to Canada are designated as professionals: 22% are designated as having skilled and technical expertise; 9% are designated as managers; 3% have intermediate or clerical skills; and none come with entry-level skills.

If you go to the very last slide, it compares the skills required for those occupations in highest demand among Canada's small and medium-sized enterprises, and it compares it with the skills being brought in through the permanent and temporary immigration system. As you can see at the very top, 42% of those occupations in demand among small businesses require people with skilled and technical training, but only 22% of those in the permanent immigration system have that skill. Further down, 65% have professional training, but only 7% of occupations among small and medium-sized businesses require that particular skill. Then we wonder why so many highly educated immigrants are underemployed in Canada.

This leads me to my last point, which is that we must create a more honest immigration system that does not build up expectations among those coming to Canada, because too many of them end up disappointed. We are fortunate that so many want to make Canada their home, so let's be honest with those who want to emigrate to Canada about the types of skills that are in demand among Canada's employers.

In conclusion, CFIB believes that something must be done to deal with the large backlog of applications, which causes long wait times for those who want to come to Canada. Whether part 6 of Bill C-50 is the best way to do this is difficult for me to say. But I can say that regardless of whether you support this part of the bill or not, I do hope that you agree that finding ways to reduce those wait times is essential and that we need to bring more honesty, flexibility, and employer involvement into Canada's immigration system, given the economic realities we face today and in the future.

[Peter Ferreira, President, Canadian Ethnocultural Council]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson.

Founded in 1980, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council is a non-profit, non-partisan coalition of national ethnocultural umbrella organizations, which in turn represent a cross-section of ethnocultural groups across Canada. The CEC's objectives are to ensure the preservation, enhancement, and sharing of the cultural heritage of Canadians, the removal of barriers that prevent some Canadians from participating fully and equally in society, the elimination of racism, and the preservation of a united Canada. While my notes don't suggest it, we have 32 member organizations, and they're all national organizations.

It is a cliché but one worth repeating: we are blessed to be living in a wonderful nation with such a diversity of people. They are our strength, and our diversity will continue to define us as we seek to build and bolster our economy. Canada's economy continues to be strong, but it is no secret that as our population ages we may be faced with labour market shortages that could slow this growth. In the past we have looked to immigration as an answer to this challenge.

Today's newcomers come ready to work but may face challenges that are more complex, as we move from a resource-based to a knowledge economy. Systemic barriers to full inclusion for Canada's ethnic and racial communities still exist. Language barriers, lack of training opportunities, and difficulties with recognition of foreign credentials are some examples of obstacles that impede immigrants' joining the labour force.

When these are overcome, lack of Canadian experience and even indirect discrimination still frustrate the creation of a fully-integrated workforce. Skilled immigrants are critical to keeping our economy healthy, and immigration has long been the main source of population growth in Canada. Tapping into the skills and the expertise of newcomers benefits just about every industry. As an immigrant myself, I see both sides of the coin, and I know that immigration is also good for those who choose to leave their countries of origin and come to live here. They may even sacrifice high-paying jobs to do so.

Can Canada do more to attract immigrants? Yes, and we will need to. We need to acknowledge that it takes a lot of courage to uproot a family and come here. I believe we need immigration reform that creates an even more welcoming environment, with reductions in lengthy processing times, enhanced language training, and anything else that will help ease the transition from newcomers to productive members of society.

In addition to competing globally for trade, Canada is competing with other countries for people. There is a lack of skilled workers worldwide, a trend that has been increasing for years. As an example, many of our member organizations have been telling the government since the 1980s that we need more people in construction and that immigration is one way to fill the gap.

Today the potential immigrants we could use in this sector from countries such as Ireland and Portugal, to name but two, are staying where they are because there is such a shortage in the European Union. We need to promote that coming to Canada is a more attractive option, and it usually is. Immigration is a win-win situation, both for those who choose to relocate here and for Canada as a whole. As a Canadian citizen, I'm pleased and proud that we have put out such a substantial welcome mat, and I hope that platform widens in the near future for even more newcomers.

The Canadian government is promoting its controversial bill by including, in part 6 of Bill C-50, immigration amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, promising that it will reduce our current backlog of some 950,000 applications, produce faster processing times, and make our system more responsive to Canada's labour market needs. To accomplish this, the government proposes giving the immigration minister unprecedented new powers. The government maintains that the minister needs these powers to cherry-pick applicants who are needed here on a priority basis.

Our current legislation states that the federal cabinet “may make any regulation...relating to classes of permanent residents or foreign nationals”, including “selection criteria, the weight, if any, to be given to all or some of those criteria, the procedures to be followed in evaluating all or some of those criteria...the number of applications to be processed or approved in a year”, etc.

The reality is that our current legislation authorizes the minister to set target levels and to prioritize certain classes of applicants without even a regulation being passed. I would respectfully argue that the minister has the power under our current legislation to make virtually any changes she wants, subject to the charter. The CEC is concerned with the passage of this bill, as we believe that the proposals set forth belong in an immigration bill simply because we have far too little debate on the kind of immigration program Canada needs.

If the bill passes as presented, this minister and others who follow her would be free to govern by decree and eliminate public debate on immigration policy. The publication of the minister's instructions in the Canada Gazette would be no substitute for an open debate.

The CEC proposes that the best way to eliminate the backlog and speed up the immigration process is by dedicating more resources to them, increasing the levels, and/or by simplifying the process. This bill does not address this, and it is simply a transfer of power from the cabinet to the minister.

Thank you.

[Corinne Pohlmann, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you for the opportunity to be here this afternoon to share with you the perspective of small and medium-size companies on Canada's immigration system. I hope this will help you in your deliberations on part 6 of Bill C-50.

You should have in front of you a copy of our December 2006 report, which talks about the experience of smaller firms with immigration, based on a survey that got about 12,000 responses. You should also have a copy of a presentation that I'd like to walk you through over the next few minutes. So could you just turn to the first page, which looks like this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I will call the meeting to order.

We want to thank our witnesses for coming and being able to present to the committee.

We are on Bill C-50, dealing with our budget bill. We look forward to what you have to present to the committee. Although some of the committee members aren't quite here yet, we have enough of the committee to be able to start.

We'll start with the Chinese Canadian Community Alliance. We have Tom Pang. Welcome to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We do have a quorum, a reduced quorum, in the room. I want to welcome you here today as we continue consideration of the subject matter of part 6 of Bill C-50.

For the first hour, I want to welcome on behalf of our committee John Garson, VP of the policy development branch of British Columbia's Chamber of Commerce. Welcome. From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have Corinne Pohlmann, VP of national affairs. Welcome also. From the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, we have Joyce Reynolds, executive VP of government affairs.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for taking time to be here today to give testimony on Bill C-50.

I think you know the procedure. We start off with an opening comment, maybe seven minutes each, and then we'll go to questions and what have you from our members.

You take it from here in whatever order you want to go in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you. In spite of your declaration that you knew very little about Bill C-50, you've provided some very good information for us.

Our meeting is adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I've only been the Bloc Québécois' immigration critic since the start of the year and I'm still not completely familiar with the point system. That's why I would appreciate getting a little more information.

BillC-50 does not deal with the point system. However, we're hearing that this legislative initiative must be adopted because the current system is not working. I'm trying to understand exactly where things stand at this point in time.

Mr. Chairman, could members please be quiet?

The point system is used to select immigrants whose file is then processed under the federal system. Immigrants selected by the Quebec government are therefore processed under this system. Is that correct?

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

Mr. Chair, I think we're getting into previous ways of trying to deal with the backlog, with the point system and how it was moved around, and with how the department at that point in time tried to manipulate the situation.

I think the point Mr. Telegdi is trying to bring to our attention is that the situation was manipulated. Certainly it could be the same thing right now; it could be, and I think we need to examine that. These were previous examples, for some of the people who were not here. When people did raise what was happening with raising the point system from 70 to 80, people were certainly characterized and certainly have been blown one way or the other way. This goes right to the heart of the matter, because it is not the minister who came up with the idea of Bill C-50; it was certainly the department that proposed it to her and the minister is following.

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

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Telegdi is venturing into a study of something else, and the minister indicated we certainly could study it, and perhaps it could be made the subject of a study. That's the point system, but it does not have anything to do with Bill C-50. It's a personal matter that Mr. Telegdi would like to venture into with respect to a court case and the point system.

I would say that would be out of order. I'm prepared to ask the members of the committee to consider that, and if necessary vote on that issue to have it resolved if the chair doesn't.

I think Mr. Wilson's point was well made, and I can see that the questioning is off target.

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

They've already indicated what they can't do. One thing they can't do is make comments on Bill C-50, which is what we're studying. I think Mr. Wilson's point is a good point.

[Daniel Jean, Associate Secretary, Senior Associate Secretary's Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, As an Individual]

Honourable Chair and members, I wish to thank you for your invitation today to discuss part 6 of Bill C-50. My name is Daniel Jean, and I'm an associate secretary with the Treasury Board Secretariat.

I joined the Treasury Board Secretariat in March 2007, first in the position of assistant secretary of international affairs, security and justice, and was appointed to my current position on October 29, 2007. Prior to that, I worked for almost 25 years in Canada and overseas in positions related to the Government of Canada's immigration program.

My last three assignments in Citizenship and Immigration Canada's headquarters were as director general of the international region from August 2000 to December 2002; as assistant deputy minister of the development of policies and programs from January 2003 to March 2006, where I replaced Joan; and assistant deputy minister of operations from April 2006 to early March 2007.

I am pleased to appear before this committee that I have worked closely with for so many years. Given my current responsibilities in a different department, I have not followed in any substantive way the issues related to Part 6 of Bill C-50 and accordingly, I do not profess to have any knowledge or expertise on the matter.

As a public servant, my duty is to advise the government on proposed policies and ensure the appropriate administration of current policies and programs. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the wisdom of proposed legislation from a policy standpoint.

That said, I am pleased to appear before you today and answer any factual questions.

[Joan Atkinson, Visiting Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Public Service Agency, As an Individual]

I'd be happy to go first.

I will have copies for members.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am happy to make a short opening statement.

My name is Joan Atkinson and I am the Visiting Assistant Deputy Minister at the Canada Public Service Agency.

It's a bit of a strange title: the fact that I'm a visiting ADM doesn't mean that I just visit and have tea, but I actually do work there. In my capacity as the visiting ADM of the Canada Public Service Agency, I'm responsible for talent management of the ADM community. I provide advice to deputy heads, to ADMs, and to the Clerk of the Privy Council on human resource measures as they relate to ADMs.

I was deployed to this position in June 2006. Prior to joining the Canada Public Service Agency, I was the assistant secretary to the cabinet on social development policy from September 2004 to June 2006. Prior to that, I was the ADM for socio-economic policy and programs at Indian and Northern Affairs from January 2003 to September 2004. And prior to that, I worked for almost 24 years in the immigration program in Canada and overseas, first as a visa officer and then in various positions in national headquarters and, starting in 1997, as the director general of the selection branch until June 2000, when I was appointed the ADM of policy and program development at Citizenship and Immigration.

While I'm pleased to appear before the committee, with whom I've worked closely in my public service career in the past, I feel that I do need to explain the limitations of my ability tonight to assist in your deliberations on part 6 of Bill C-50, given my responsibilities as a public servant. While I will always remain interested in immigration and citizenship, given that I left CIC almost six years ago, I simply don't possess any substantive knowledge of this bill and really can't provide you with any expertise or technical information on the bill, since I really don't know it.

As you know, as a public servant, my duties are to provide advice to the government in areas of my competence and responsibilities, and to ensure that once policy decisions are made, the policies are administered appropriately. It's also my responsibility to provide parliamentarians with factual information, technical details, explanations, and rationales for proposed legislation and other policies of the government. It's not my role to engage in a debate or a discussion on the merits of a particular policy or approach.

Given that I haven't worked in any capacity at CIC for several years, I'm afraid I really don't have the competence to be able to answer factual questions about part 6 of Bill C-50.

I have taken your invitation to appear before you seriously and that is why I am here. However, I trust you will appreciate the limitations imposed on my ability to respond to questions concerning the matter before you today, given my responsibilities as a public servant.

But I would be happy to be able to respond to other questions in any way I can be helpful to the committee.

Merci.

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

On the family reunification class, the minister has indicated and you've indicated that this portion of IRPA will be respected, along with the other two categories. The minister has just indicated that the intention for next year is 70,000. I think that is the number she used. Given those numbers, will the legislation we have here and the kinds of things you've talked about doing under Bill C-50 have the effect of processing family reunification more quickly than in the past?

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fadden, the colleague across the way asked a very legitimate question, and I will try to repeat that. Although we did welcome some 430,000 people, about 4% fewer people arrived as landed immigrants. Could you tell us why? And how would the legislative changes of Bill C-50 reverse the spiral, or will they reverse the downward spiral?

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

I'm happy to see it doesn't come off my time. That's a good decision.

There is obviously a concern by many that our system is not flexible and does not respond to the economic needs of the country, and with the current legislation the backlog has grown to be what appears to be, by anyone's estimation, almost unmanageable, 900,000-plus and growing. Proceeding through Bill C-50 by way of instruction as opposed to amendments to the act or regulations, in your opinion—either of you here—how is what's happening in Bill C-50 allowing the system to be more responsive? And would it be more responsive than the other methods or not? Would you care to comment on that?

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

You've indicated that the administrative decision could be subject to Federal Court review, and there's been some confusion from some of the witnesses about at what stage or point that would happen. But Bill C-50, as it relates to the immigration portion, has to be charter-compliant. Is it correct that they could bring a challenge on the legislation itself if they chose to?

[Richard Fadden]

I know, Mr. Chairman, that we referred to legislation before Parliament; I just don't know if we used the expression “Bill C-50”.

Here it is. I have it now, if you'll give me 30 seconds.

I do not see “C-50”, Mr. Chairman.

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

$1.1 million. Is the word “C-50” mentioned anywhere in there?

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

Well, we're going to get a lot of points of order here.

Mr. Fadden, you were asked, as well as the minister, to provide figures and facts for us of what the expenses were to promote Bill C-50, travel of different ministers, and I was wondering.... You did get that e-mail, I'm sure. Do you have those facts and figures?

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

On Bill C-50, then, if we are to send information in terms of instructions, why would we not do it through regulations?

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

So the entire $2.4 million is really targeted for Bill C-50?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Getting back to the backlog, in my presentation, I argued that moving someone to the front of the queue doesn't change the actual number of people in the queue or the average wait time. Obviously, the person who has been moved to the front of the queue won't have to wait as long.

Quite apart from the provisions calling for additional resources to be invested in the system, the measure set out in Part 6 of Bill C-50 is not designed to reduce the number of people in the queue, but rather to allow people at the back of the line to move to the front, in order to satisfy our economic requirements.

Is that not in fact the purpose of this provision?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We will try to resume our meeting as we continue with part 6 of Bill C-50.

I want to welcome the deputy minister again to our meeting, and also Andrea Lyon, assistant deputy minister of strategic and program policy, and Les Linklater, director general of the immigration branch. Welcome to all of you today.

I don't have to brief you on what the procedure is, so I'll just pass it right over to you, Mr. Fadden, Mr. Linklater, or Andrea.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

How are the changes contained in Bill C-50, combined with recent funding announcements from your department, going to improve the immigration system and help new Canadians succeed in this country?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I want to thank you for your presentation here in our committee.

I want to say in a nutshell that I have a very big problem with this bill. I'll give you an example. You say in your speech that there are some who are suggesting that this legislation will put too much power in the hands of the minister. The vast majority of the people who appeared in front of this committee believe that's indeed the case. There are not some people; there are many, many people.

The problem you have had right from the beginning is that in your communication you stated that this bill was in fact going to be implemented to deal with the backlog. The reality is--and it's a reality that has been confirmed by many people who have appeared in front of this committee--that your changes will not deal with the backlog. That's number one.

Number two, the manner and form in which you acted as a minister was not becoming of an individual who respects the parliamentary tradition here, or the process, with all due respect. There was no consultation. We had to literally beg that the committee actually study the contents of Bill C-50, as it deals with immigration. That should have been something you should have offered as a minister.

As well, there was a major concern about transparency, accountability, and the lack of resources that exist, and there is nobody who has said these reforms will in fact fix the immigration system. And you have not helped the debate. You have not helped the debate for many, many reasons, and one of them is that you've not been telling the truth all the time.

I'll give you an example. When it came to the issue related to the number—

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Very quickly, Minister, will Bill C-50 have any impact on family reunification and refugee applicants?

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

Minister, I noticed that actual spending in 2006 on the immigration program is $244.8 million, and in the main estimates in 2008, the immigration program spending is $164.86 million. That's a 32% drop.

Yet for the advertising program, $2.4 million has been put into the supplementary estimates. That's a lot of money for the advertising program. I think $1.1 million has already been spent on defending a bill that the House of Commons hasn't even passed...but that's neither here nor there.

I have listened carefully to all your interviews. You have said you do not want to process dead people, which we totally agree with. One way to not process dead people is to send a letter to all 925,000 people in the backlog and say, “If you don't respond in 60 days, obviously you don't want us to process your application any more.” Maybe a few of them are already dead; I don't know. But that's an easy way to deal with it. Why not do it that way?

Secondly, you have often said you want to get the doctors in, because we need doctors. I've heard that many times. I then looked up the temporary foreign workers program. This information comes from the employers. It specifies the kind of skilled labour they want. I have looked at the kinds of skills employers say they need most in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In Alberta, it's code number 6242. It's not doctors; it's actually cooks. In 2007, the employers from Alberta have requested 3,343 cooks. Nowhere on this list is doctors.

I then looked at British Columbia and Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Some are asking for maybe 200 doctors, but certainly chefs and cooks are at the top of the list.

So are we doing all of this in Bill C-50, part 6, in order to bring more cooks into Canada, or maybe kitchen helpers? I see that Alberta has requested 6,976 food-counter attendants and kitchen helpers. Next on the list are babysitters, nannies, and parent helpers—5,000 of them. There is a request for 4,000 light-duty cleaners.

Are these the people you're going to put at the front of the list—they're obviously in demand—instead of some other folks? I'm just looking at the documentation in front of me. They are obviously the people we need.

Am I correct in that interpretation?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

As I just said, the proposed amendments will not affect the Canada-Quebec Accord. I've discussed the changes with the department and with my officials and we all agree that they would have no impact. The Accord clearly sets out the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments with respect to immigrations and the reforms proposed in Bill C-50 will not affect these responsibilities in any way.

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

Minister, welcome to the committee.

So there's no misunderstanding as to what you and your deputy minister are saying today, I've e-mailed both of you a list of questions I was going to ask and some information.

I'm sure, Mr. Fadden, yours came through. Unfortunately, the minister's e-mail was full and it kept bouncing.

This is in regard to advertising. I want to read and put on the record a letter sent to me by your colleague, Mr. Michael Fortier, regarding advertising. He says the following:

My department is responsible for issuing government advertising contracts, managing the government's Agency of Record and that buys advertising space or time in the media, and reporting on the advertising activities of federal departments. In this regard, I can report that although government advertising media has declined by 72 % over the last four years, advertising in ethnic print media has declined by only 13 % over the same period. Reductions in government media expenditures have had an impact on all media, but less in ethnic media in terms of its share of overall government spending.

Minister, what is your department's budget for advertising on Bill C-50?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, honourable members.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-50 on budget implementation, which contains our government's proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As I said to our colleagues at the finance committee, I'm proud to serve as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a government that recognizes that immigration is as important to Canada's future as it has been to our past. Our country was built on immigration, and our future prosperity and success as a country largely depends on it.

To put things in context, by 2012, all of Canada's net labour force growth will have to come from immigration, but at this time there are over 900,000 people in the queue waiting to immigrate to Canada. Many of them have to wait up to six years before their application gets looked at, let alone processed. The stark reality is that if we do nothing to address the backlog by 2012, applicants will face a 10-year wait time to have their applications processed. The lineup of people waiting to get into Canada could reach upwards of 1.5 million people.

Contrary to the previous government, we do not believe the status quo is acceptable or sustainable.

If we do nothing to address this problem, we risk having families wait even longer to be reunited with their loved ones, and we risk losing the people our country needs to other countries, which are in fierce competition with us for the skills and talents that immigrants bring.

The current immigration system is broken and desperately needs repair. The status quo on immigration is simply unacceptable. The current system is unfair to our country and it's unfair to those waiting to come here. Because immigration is so important to Canada's future, we need a modern and renewed vision for immigration, a vision that involves a new and responsive immigration system, one that would allow us to continue welcoming more immigrants while helping them get the jobs they need to succeed to build a better life for themselves and for their families. However, to realize this vision, changes must be made.

In our immigration system today, anyone can apply. That is a good thing, and we will not change that. It reflects the fundamental commitment to fairness that all Canadians share. However, the current system leaves us little flexibility in terms of what we do with those applications.

By law, we have to process every single completed immigration application to a decision, even if a person has moved on to another country or is simply no longer interested in coming here. Our obligation to process every single application to a decision remains, regardless of how many people apply or how many were able to accept.

Furthermore, we are generally limited to processing applications in the order that we receive them. So quite simply, the current system, if left unchanged, is on track to collapse under its own weight.

In the current context, Mr. Chair, we must realize that other countries are not sitting idly by. The fact is that we face serious international competition in attracting the people with the talents and the skills we need to ensure our country's continued growth and prosperity.

Put simply, inaction on the backlog will result in the people we need going elsewhere as wait times to come to Canada continue to increase.

In Australia and New Zealand, where they have the kind of flexibility we seek, applicants get final decisions in as little as six months, not six years. It's important to note that when compared with the United Kingdom, Australia, or New Zealand, Canada is the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen, code, or prioritize skilled worker applications.

So compared to other countries, Canada's system is just not flexible enough.

Urgent action is required so that we can welcome more immigrants and their families faster while ensuring that the workers we need get here sooner. To accomplish this objective, Mr. Chair, our government has proposed a three-pronged approach.

Number one, we have committed to investing more resources—$109 million over five years. But more money isn't enough. We also have to do things smarter, better, and faster.

So we'll make administrative changes as well, such as centralizing our data entry to free up resources in our overseas missions for more processing. We'll also code applications in the backlog by occupation so that we can refer applications of interest to the provinces and the territories for processing under the provincial nominee programs.

As part of our administrative changes, we'll also send in dedicated teams to our overseas missions to speed up processing in parts of the world where wait times are the longest, and we'll transfer resources from busy to less busy missions. For example, in October, when we lifted visa restrictions on the Czech Republic and Latvia, we transferred resources to the Philippines to help with the backlogs there.

But increasing funding and improving administrative efficiencies is not enough. Systemic change is needed in order to fix the system. That is why we have introduced legislative changes to give us the flexibility and authority to both manage the backlog and set priorities that would match Canada's needs.

Our proposed legislation will allow the minister to identify categories of occupations—not individuals—for processing on a priority basis; that is, the proposed legislation will allow for the processing of applications based on our country's needs, not on one's individual place in the line. To make sure that we get it right, there are several checks and balances on the minister. First of all, the ministerial instructions will have to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our immigration system will continue to be universal and non-discriminatory.

The instructions will also complement the objectives of IRPA, that is, to support Canada's economy and competitiveness, reunite families, and protect refugees. These instructions will also require broad input.

Prior to issuing the instructions, the government will consult with the provinces and territories and industry and government departments to shape the approach. In consulting with the provinces, we will seek assurance that when they say they need immigrants with certain skills, those immigrants can actually get their credentials recognized so they can work.

Finally, ministerial instructions will be subject to cabinet approval, ensuring government-wide accountability for the decisions taken. And to be completely transparent, the instructions will be published in the Canada Gazette, on the departmental website, and will be reported in CIC's annual report, which is tabled in Parliament.

Mr. Chair, let me be crystal clear on two key points about these proposals. First, contrary to the misinformation that is out there, we will not be placing any limits on the number of applications we accept; Canada remains open to immigrants and anyone can still apply. However, under the proposed legislative changes, we will not have to process every application. Those applications that are not processed in a given year could be held for future consideration or be returned to the applicant with a refund of their application fee—and they would be welcome to reapply.

The result will be that the backlog will stop growing and will actually start to come down. The flexibility in managing the backlog will accomplish three things: it will help reduce the backlog; it will ensure that immigrants have the jobs they need to succeed; and it will allow our country to continue to grow and prosper.

That is what these proposed amendments would do, Mr. Chairman. However, I should also clarify what the proposed changes would not do.

There are some who are suggesting that this legislation will put too much power in the hands of the Minister.

For example, there's a myth out there that the minister would be arbitrarily able to cherry-pick applicants in the queue and override immigration officers' decisions on individual cases. This is simply not the case, as the minister is limited to designating priority categories, not applicants; nor will the minister have the authority to select an application for processing or reject an application that has been processed and accepted.

With respect to concerns expressed about the impact of the legislation on family reunification and humanitarian and compassionate cases, any instruction from the minister will have to respect the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which include supporting Canada's economy and competitiveness, supporting family reunification, and upholding our humanitarian requirements.

To be clear, the ministerial instructions will not apply to refugees, protected persons, or humanitarian and compassionate applications made from within Canada. We would also continue to establish clear target ranges for numbers of immigrants that we intend to accept in each category. In the case of family class applications, this means Canada plans to accept approximately 70,000 applicants in 2008.

The instructions must also respect our commitments to provinces and territories regarding the Provincial Nominee Program and the Canada-Quebec Accord.

I know that time is running out, Mr. Chairman and I am looking forward to your questions.

In conclusion, let me just say that our proposed changes to the immigration system are ultimately about people. It's about a vision for our country to make sure that people who have gone through so much to get here succeed at building a better life for themselves and for their family. It's about helping newcomers get the jobs they need to succeed, because their success is our success. And it's about ensuring the future growth and prosperity of immigrants and their families while building a better Canada. These proposals would achieve that vision and would help immigrants continue to contribute to the future of Canada.

I'd like to thank this committee for the fine work you did on Bill C-37, in reviewing that, concerning the “lost Canadians”, and also on the unanimous report you submitted on which that bill was based. I was very pleased and proud of you and your efforts when that bill received royal assent recently.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee.

I am now prepared to take questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Good afternoon. Welcome to all. On behalf of our committee, I want to welcome Minister Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to our committee meeting, and her deputy, Mr. Richard Fadden.

Welcome to both of you.

Just for the record, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering the subject matter of part 6 of Bill C-50.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Once you've done that, could you provide the committee with information on it?

Also, Mr. Flaherty, the action plan, besides reviewing all the contracts, of which your department has 67% more untendered contracts than other departments....

Clause 153 of Bill C-50 gives you, the finance minister, new powers to establish any advisory committee you want, to hand-pick the members, and then to pay them whatever the cabinet deems appropriate.

Were you involved in the decision to grant these additional powers to the Minister of Finance? What has made this unprecedented spending authority necessary for your office?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Minister, a provision in Bill C-50 has a certain connection to this: the Minister of Finance is given power to set up committees--advisory committees or other committees--in which the members of these committees can be appointed, bypassing Treasury Board rules. The minister can choose whoever he wants without any contracts, and the cabinet, through an order in council, can determine whatever salaries are to be paid. Your own officials confirmed this to me at the finance committee.

Would you share my concern that this might represent a problem in terms of doing indirectly what is now not according to the rules, by setting up a new mechanism that would allow Mr. MacPhie or somebody else to be put onto an advisory group at possibly a high salary and with no competitive bidding process?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today. I'll start by asking a brief and simple question that I've previously put to other panelists. I'd like to know whether your organization was consulted in some way during development of part 6 of Bill C-50.

[Hassan Yussuff, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

We will try to be as brief as we can, recognizing the time constraints of the committee this morning.

Let me thank the committee for allowing us to present before you on behalf of the 3.2 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, essentially coast to coast. But more important, we will submit a comprehensive brief to the committee. I'm sorry we didn't get it done on time, given the shortness of the request to present before the committee.

I will outline some of the key points we want to make, and hopefully that will generate some questions from the committee members.

The government argues that the proposed changes are designed to make our immigration system more flexible and responsive to Canada's labour market needs. However, the process the government is using to advance their planned changes and proposed amendments represents a significant change in Canada's immigration system. It raises serious concern about the fairness, transparency, and public accountability.

Immigration reform must not simply be about addressing labour market needs. Immigration is fundamentally about the welcoming, supporting, benefiting, and integrating of newcomers into Canada. Immigrants are more than a component of an economic agenda. Immigration reform requires thoughtful policy attention and building an inclusive, vibrant, and diverse society.

Significant changes in Canada's demographic profile are well under way. We have an aging population and a declining fertility rate. The country is largely dependent on immigrants for both population and labour market growth. Unfortunately our immigration system is also overloaded with applicants on the waiting list, and many have been waiting for years.

There are serious challenges that require broad public engagement and thoughtful and effective policy solutions. Embedding major immigration reform inside a budget bill is playing electoral politics with people's futures and is both a wrong-headed and unsound approach to transparency and policy development. We urge the committee to sever the immigration amendments from Bill C-50 and undertake a set of comprehensive national public hearings.

Let me outline some very quick points.

We think embedding the reform in the budget bill is wrong.

There has been a failure to conduct meaningful and inclusive consultations prior to the development of the initiative.

Arbitrary powers granted to the minister fail the transparency and accountability test this government has promised.

New process is not the best way to deal with the backlog. The process of simply asking applicants who have been in the queue for years if they still wish to have their application processed demonstrates that other ways exist to cut down the line. Competing systems are unlikely to lead to a streamlined process.

The inappropriate use of ads to sell the initiative after the fact and before the amendments become law is problematic.

To view immigrants as an economic unit and skew the role of employers to determining citizenship is wrong-headed.

Unclear process steps exist in how labour market needs or priority occupations will be determined and how many assessment and selection processes will operate. We're likely to see a rise in applicants in the temporary foreign worker category or CIC numbers. It is not a balanced immigration system.

And last but not least, the funding allocation for competing systems may not be adequate.

I'd like to make one last point here, and this is a fundamentally important point for us. Immigration is about building more than just the well-being of employers' interests. Immigration policy is fundamentally about building our communities, workplaces, and society in a thoughtful, inclusive, accountable, and democratic manner. The proposed amendments come in the context of and contribute to a disturbing shift towards the use of immigration primarily to meet Canadian employers' needs without regard for the broader Canadian interests. This includes the problematic increase in reliance on temporary foreign workers. Canada needs to consider immigrants as full participants in society, not simply as temporary or disposable units to fill current available jobs.

Thank you so much.

[Eric Szeto, Organizer, Voice of the Minority]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be straightforward as to what I would like to say.

The Minister of Immigration claims that she needs Bill C-50, the amendment to the Immigration Act, to reduce the backlog and give priority to the category of immigrant that Canada needs the most. Voice of the Minority, the group that I'm representing here today, supports this objective; however, we have serious concerns about the approach the government is taking with Bill C-50.

Bill C-50 will allow the minister to cherry-pick from applicants and simply discount others in a very unreasonable way by using the following provision in the bill: proposed paragraph 87.3(3)(b), which states that the minister may establish “an order, by category or otherwise, for the processing of applications or requests”.

And further, under proposed paragraph 87.3(3)(c), the minister may set “the number of applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any year”.

And in proposed subsection 87.3(4), “If an application or request is not processed, it may be retained, returned or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the instructions of the Minister.”

As we can see from the above provisions, the minister can set the priority and order for processing by category and very possibly by individual. And the applications that were not processed will be “retained, returned or otherwise disposed of”, according to proposed subsection 87.3(4), as mentioned. This is very unfair and very undemocratic to the applicants who will be discounted, because it replaces a well-defined rules-based system with an unclear person-ruled system that has no recourse for the applicants. Also, discounting those who were not picked simply by retaining, returning, or otherwise disposing of their application is not a reasonable way to deal with the backlog problem.

Worst and most worrisome is the amendment to proposed subsection 11(1), which changes “shall” be granted an immigrant visa to “may” be granted an immigrant visa. This one single word change from “shall” to “may” gives the minister the authority to cherry-pick once again by refusing to issue visas to those who have already cleared the requirements. This provision would not contribute in any way to reducing the backlog, as efforts would have been used in processing their file. Shutting the door for them to come to Canada even after they have successfully passed the bar, without any recourse, is very unfair.

Minister Finley has been defending Bill C-50 for the last couple of months but has failed to deal with the above-mentioned concerns from the public. She is often evasive by refusing to deal with the specifics of the bill we are concerned about. She sometimes double-talks and is often misleading.

She repeatedly told the Chinese media that Bill C-50 would not cap the number of applications and would not affect the family reunification class, as family reunification is a priority of the government. However, on April 28, at the Standing Committee on Finance, she admitted that Bill C-50 is intended to cap and restrict immigrants, and that if at a future point in time we decide that family class is the priority, they will be fast-tracked just like any of the worker categories.

This leads us to believe that the family class application is not currently a government priority. Ladies and gentlemen, if one category of applicants is designated as a priority, others would be a lower priority. And it's impossible for them not to be negatively affected. It is common sense. And how could the minister just write off our concerns?

The minister claims opposition to the bill is misleading, as she will only set the order by category and has no intention of setting the order individually. If this is so, then why do they have “by category or otherwise” in proposed paragraph 87.3(3)(b)? Why is “or otherwise” needed, if the order she intends to set is only by category?

I also noted that she dropped the provision to dispose of the unprocessed applications in her explanation on how to deal with the backlogs at the committee. Is it because she realized how unfair it is to simply destroy one's application in order to deal with the backlog? Why does the minister insist on not allowing any amendments to Bill C-50?

The minister further commented that

There are millions, literally millions of people, in China and India alone, who qualify for admission to this country. That doesn't mean we can accept them all.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is particularly important that when we have more immigrants than we can accept in this country that we have a transparent, rule-based system that respects democracy and equality for all of them. How we select immigrants to our country will define who we are in the world. We will be telling the world that we are abandoning our cherished values if we adopt the immigration amendment of Bill C-50.

I truly believe there is no conflict between having a fair, equal, effective, transparent, and rules-based immigration system and addressing the need of skilled labour for the benefit of our economy. If we need more resources to streamline our system in order to deal with the huge problems in our hands, then we must do this. What we must not do is give the minister such arbitrary power, as it diminishes our core values of fairness, democracy, equality, and the rule of law, which have made Canada a great country.

We must amend Bill C-50 to rescind the above-mentioned provisions.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing me to share our concerns with you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Tung Chan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs.

My name is Tung Chan, and I'm from Vancouver. I'm the CEO of SUCCESS.

By way of introduction, I want to say that SUCCESS has been around for 35 years. We currently employ 390 employees in 18 locations in the lower mainland of British Columbia. We provide settlement, employment, language training, and health care services to youth, adults, families, and seniors, and particularly to the community of new Canadians.

I want to thank you for inviting me to appear before you to talk about Bill C-50, in particular part 6 of Bill C-50. As an organization, we applaud the intention of the new legislation. We believe it is a good intention. We do need to speed up the processing of applications of immigrants whom we need. But we also would like to say that the legislation, particularly in its application, needs to ensure transparency.

Currently the wait time is far too long. We have been dealing with immigrants coming from offshore who say they have been waiting for way too long to come here, and that it makes it difficult for them to plan. Many of them, actually, before they came, when they applied, had a different set of economic and family situations than they have by the time they actually get approved to come. So it's important that whatever we do, whatever Parliament wants to pass, this be kept in mind.

As we heard earlier from Mr. Khaki, the most controversial point in the bill is clause 116, which replaces the word “shall” with the word “may”. We do, however, recognize that in order to achieve flexibility there is a need to have some discretionary powers. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to do anything if we simply stated everything. However, the point we want to make is that if we want to insert this kind of discretion and allow our offshore posts or the civil servants to exert that kind of discretion, then it is important that at the same time we put in place a very transparent, open, and clear reporting system so that when such discretion is being used, the public know, after the fact or before, how it will be used.

We understand that the minister, on an annual basis, gives a report to Parliament, so perhaps that would be a place where the reports should appear, in terms of when and how the discretionary power is used. Because as stated earlier by the previous witness, when people are allowed under the regulation to come in, but the bureaucrats may exercise the discretion and disallow people to come in, then any report from the department should contain that.

On a more general note, though, in terms of immigration we know that as a country we need immigrants. That's almost an established fact for most people; it is no longer an opinion. I've heard that assertion from different departments of the country, and we've heard it from different departments of the provinces.

The sad fact, though, is that the current points system causes a lot of false hope, particularly for the skilled-labour immigrants. So when you're done with studying this particular section, I would respectfully request that perhaps Parliament should look at totally reviewing the current points system as it applies to what is happening now. The points system has not only created false hope, but it's actually also creating a situation where we have a mismatch of the types of immigrants who will come in. When I say “type”, I refer to their economic background in terms of their skills.

We also note that as a country, the way we apply our immigration law is that we divide it into two basic doors. The one is economic and the other is humanitarian.

I'm glad to hear the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration say that this amendment applies only to the economic side. Nonetheless, on the other side, humanitarian and family reunion, I believe that we have to continue to make sure people can come in early, and that we should look at providing better information to people before they come and adequate assistance afterwards.

We've often seen in both the economic and humanitarian streams that people could have done a lot better had they been told in their home country what they could expect. It would be even better to provide them with orientation and integration training, telling them about the Canadian system, the Canadian culture, even the language. People can train and learn far better in a home environment than in a strange one.

We also need to look at improving coordination between the provincial governments and the federal government. I would suggest that the federal government and the provinces come together to form a national standard on immigrant settlement. I know that under our constitution immigrant settlement is within the realm of the provinces. However, that should not stop the federal government from imposing, or at least requesting, minimum standards in language training, employment training, and integration of services within the host communities.

As we become more and more a country of multicultural communities, it is not only the newcomers who have to adapt and change. I firmly believe that the host country also needs to adapt and change. Culture is not static. Culture is always dynamic, and that dynamic would be all the better if we could all learn from each other in creating a unique and inclusive Canadian culture—not just a one-culture or bicultural community, but a more multicultural one.

With respect to employment training, I believe that this bill is going to allow people in the economic classes to come in faster. But even more important, once they are here, we have to have a good program to integrate them economically into employment. Census data indicates that recent immigrants are doing far less well than Canadian-born citizens.

We could take a page from the Quebec government's book. Quebec has a very good program for integrating economic immigrants. They provide people with wage subsidies of up to $7,500 per person. They provide wage subsidies for supervisors of the companies—small and medium-sized enterprises—of up to $1,100. They also provide grants to those SMEs of up to $2,000, which allows them to adapt their workplaces, to find out how they can change and welcome the newcomers.

As I've said again and again, by the year 2011 the Canadian labour market net growth is going to have to come from new immigrants. It behooves us as a country to make sure that we have a good system to help to integrate those immigrants.

The other part of this is the foreign credential recognition program. The European Union is able to find ways to harmonize the 2,600 regulations that govern all the different professionals. If they can do that with so many countries, I'm sure Canada, if we have the political will, can find a way to resolve this issue.

Thank you.

[Aziz Khaki]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and members.

Once upon a time I used to be in Ottawa about ten days a month. Finally they got tired of me, so for the last five to six years I haven't been in Ottawa that much. But it's quite a pleasure to see nice warm weather here, coming from rainy Vancouver.

I'm the president of the Committee for Racial Justice. I'm also the vice-chair of the Muslim Canadian Federation, and I thought I should also mention that. I sit on a number of committees, but I won't go through that list.

Once again, thank you very much for inviting us here. I will start with my comments and then we can have the discussion.

Fifteen years ago the Committee for Racial Justice published a research paper entitled Control and Inadmissibility in Canadian Immigration Policy. It began with the following introduction, and I quote:

Traditionally, Canadian immigration policy has encompassed the dual function of admission and control, that is, its stated purpose has been to encourage the admission of immigrants while attempting to screen out those individuals who have been deemed undesirable.

Since the time of the Committee for Racial Justice report, changes to Canadian immigration legislation have progressively limited and restricted access to potential immigrants and refugees, with some exceptions. It appears that those individuals who have been deemed undesirable are an expanding group defined by the whims of a minister or a government-based decision with fundamental disrespect of the charter, on the whims of political expediency and agendas.

We maintain that changes proposed under Bill C-50, the budget implementation act, with respect to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act give rise to serious legitimate concerns and point to very troubling patterns. An ongoing erosion of access, transparency, and accountability is what we have seen. Without accountability or explanation or recourse, entire groups or populations may be deemed undesirable and excluded by the stroke of the minister's pen. The point system, when it was first introduced, removed considerations such as race or place of origin as consideration in the immigration process.

It would appear that Bill C-50 is an attempt to reaffirm arbitrary decision-making into the immigration system and to remove the predictability of the application process. Sneaking these controversial changes through the House of Commons via Bill C-50 is a backdoor-entry tactic. We are challenging the provisions of Bill C-50 concerning the reason of its implementation, its regulation, and the wider question of its relation to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 11 of IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, currently says that the official “shall” issue a visa if the applicant meets the requirements of the act. With the proposed changes, it will say that the official “may” issue a visa. Section 25 currently also says that the minister “shall” examine a humanitarian and compassionate application. Under the proposed changes the minister “shall” examine if the applicant is in Canada, but “may” examine the application if the applicant is outside Canada. So there's a change from “shall” examine to “may” examine if the applicant is outside Canada.

These proposed changes further limit access and undermine predictability and transparency in the decision-making process. There's a strong concern that some voices in Canada have been putting pressure on successive federal governments to stop recruiting immigrants from Africa or Muslim countries or other places in the global south.

Foreign workers have increased, while permanent residents have decreased. With poor working conditions, limited rights, abuse of their working ability, and the attitude of kicking them out when we are done with them, foreign workers are looked upon as disposable economic units. We have seen problems in Europe. European countries, to increase their prosperity, hired foreign workers. They want their cheap labour, but not the labourers.

With the introduction of immigration matters under Bill C-50, we would like to inquire what the intent of the government is. Is it to dismantle the Department of Immigration and make it operate under the Ministry of Finance as one of its functions?

The process of selection of immigrants should remain fair and transparent. The current status under Bill C-50 makes the minister and the government above and beyond accountability. There is a very clear erosion of our rights and liberties. When you look on human rights as favours you are granting someone, instead of as fundamental democratic freedoms, your intentions are underhanded.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's my presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Committee, we'll get our meeting going. Some of our members are a little bit slow this morning. And of course some of our members are on two committees, so it's not always easy to get a full complement at our committee meetings, because some members have dual responsibilities.

I want to welcome our witnesses today. Our witnesses are from Vancouver, and they never got in until about one o'clock this morning, so they're still feeling the effects of the jet lag.

Hopefully you got some sleep, and you're ready to give us some important information today. We welcome you.

We're doing part 6 of Bill C-50.

Our witnesses are Mr. Tung Chan, chief executive officer of SUCCESS; Mr. Eric Szeto, who is with Voice of the Minority; and Mr. Aziz Khaki, from the Committee for Racial Justice. Welcome, and thank you for being here.

We generally give you the opportunity to make an opening statement of roughly seven to ten minutes. You can all make individual statements if you wish, and you can do it in any order you want to.

Whoever wishes to go first, please go ahead.

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

—in here faster, family reunification faster, refugee protection that will not be affected by Bill C-50, and it will be carried on as it is. It's a question of policy, and policy is something that is set by government. The parties will have their opportunity to decide whether they support it or oppose it, and that's the bottom line.

Thank you.

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

I'd like to thank the witnesses for putting forward their points of view. There certainly have been differences of opinion throughout the day. I appreciate hearing everyone's point of view, but there are some statements that are not correct or in line with the legislation.

I think in fairness—at least to my mind I've established this--the legislation, Bill C-50, does not apply to refugees or refugee applications and protected people inside or outside of Canada. Notwithstanding that some witnesses thought it might, at least two and perhaps even three legal opinions have been offered that this does not apply to that, and some would make a lot out of it.

The other comment made earlier today, speaking generally, was that there is the race issue. I think the witnesses who were lawyers were very clear—and specific, Mr. Pang, to your appreciation and settlement on this issue—that the legislation itself, as it now stands, has to be subject to the charter and all the rights that are guaranteed in the charter, which would include the fact that it must be non-discriminatory. It cannot be based on race, religion, or ethnicity or it would contravene the charter and would not stand the test. It has to stand that test, and people have gone through it in the legal field to ensure that this is the case.

But not only that; this is legislation that proposes the instruction. The consensus as I saw it was that the instruction itself, when it issues, would need to be charter-compliant—not just the legislation, but the instructions flowing from the legislation. In fact, I think there would be a fair opinion that those who apply the instruction would have to apply it in an objective fashion, and again, it would have to be charter-compliant. You cannot issue or apply an instruction in a fashion that would be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think that came up very clearly in our discussions today. Yet some people seem to insist that there is an element of it in the legislation, when I would say there's not.

The other question is how you resolve the issue of the backlog. Even the former minister from the Liberal Party said you can't just keep taking applications and hoping the problem will resolve itself, because what will happen is that the backlog will continue to grow because of the limitation we have on the number of people who can come into the country through the year. Over the last decade, what has happened under the present system is that many people apply, not everybody gets in, and we have a backlog.

The people who apply aren't exactly aligned properly to the economies of the country. What this legislation has said...and some have even said the minister presently has powers to prioritize the applications to ensure that those best suited to the economic needs of the country can be processed in priority. If that's true, then there's no harm in saying it specifically in the legislation. It's trying to get the right people to the right place at the right time to ensure that they can succeed.

But having said that, ultimately Bill C-50 indicates that instructions must support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the government of the day. The government of the day decides what the policy is going to be, and the instruction must be in line with that policy.

When you think about it, ultimately, if legislation is passed or regulations are passed, the government of the day decides what that legislation or regulation might be, or in this case, the instruction. As one witness indicated, ultimately the government is responsible to the electorate of Canada, who can say, if we don't like the policy you're setting or the legislation you're setting or the regulation you're passing, you won't stand the term of office.

One thing we know is that legislation and regulation takes a lot of time. We've had at least a decade since the act was passed, and there have been no amendments, simply a backlog growing and increasing.

So this is an attempt to say that ultimately the government of the day will set the goals, and if the goal is to prioritize the application to ensure that the skilled or lesser skilled newcomers come into the country, that's the policy decision that's made. And ultimately, they'll have to stand on it.

It's included within the budget, because it provides $109 million over five years to deal with that. So it is a matter of confidence and we'll see whether the opposition will support it or not support it. That's the key question. If they're so sure of it, they need to decide where they stand on it.

[Roberto Jovel]

Well, it has been a challenge for us to get our analysis and our information and all of our sensitization materials across to the front-line workers, and to the users of the services, and to the public in general. It's difficult for an organization to have that outreach, and those means, to go as far and as deep as the government is currently intending to do with that $1.1 million, through the advertisements to be introduced mostly in ethnic media or third-language media, as they are sometimes named.

What I have seen so far, in terms of the information that the government is circulating--I've seen it in documentaries at the CBC, for instance, with Minister Diane Finley herself responding to questions--is, I think, incomplete, inaccurate. We keep on hearing that this is a solution to the backlog, which is not true.

The other day I was interviewed by a journalist from a particular community newspaper and she said, “I just spoke to the minister five minutes ago and she says that these changes are not going to affect humanitarian and compassionate applications, and they are only meant to affect skilled workers.” We were on the phone, and I said, “Open the web page with part 6 of Bill C-50 and we're going to read it together.” And we pinpointed the places where it said if you are in your country of origin applying on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, you may or you may not be dealt with properly. If you have, in the case of family reunification, a sponsorship application, you also may be submitted to particular instructions issued by the minister.

The journalist was asking me, “So are you saying that the minister is deliberately misleading the public?” And I was like, “I haven't said that.” So she asked me, “But do you agree with that?” And I said, “Listen, all I have is the messaging that's coming from the government and you and I, both of us, looking at what the proposed legislation says.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I may have two more minutes like my predecessor—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John P. Ryan]

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

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

[Imran Qayyum]

Thank you for the question.

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments that have been made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She can do so retroactively, right?

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

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

[David Cohen]

I'll take a stab at that.

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

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

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

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

[Warren Creates]

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

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

[Warren Creates]

I'll answer that.

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

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

[Warren Creates]

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

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

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Finn Poschmann, Director of Research, C.D. Howe Institute]

Good afternoon to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all. I thank the committee for inviting me. It is always a delight to appear before this committee.

Clearly I am here to discuss this budget bill, and there's a lot in that bill, so I'm going to restrict my opening comments to TFSAs and Bank of Canada powers, parts 1 and 10 of the bill.

Let me begin by repeating that there is a lot in the bill, and this point deserves emphasis. Members of the committee are keenly aware of the importance of the parliamentary process and may know that I believe MPs should have an opportunity to scrutinize legislation with the diligence it deserves. I will not second-guess the government's wisdom in bring forward omnibus legislation like this bill, but I point out that doing so and packing multiple issues together in one bill does make it difficult for any of us to give each aspect the scrutiny it deserves.

That said, there is much to like in this bill, and I do. I've made no secret of my support for tax-free savings accounts, and I'm absolutely delighted to see the idea appear in legislation. When Jon Kesselman and I first wrote about the concept in the Canadian context back in 2001, our focus was on expanding the range of options available for Canadian savers. We were concerned that, on the one hand, people planning their retirements did not have enough tax-recognized contribution in total. After all, the contribution limits on RRSPs were much lower then, and at the time had not moved much over many years.

We had two reasons for prescribing something other than just bigger contribution limits. We made the general point that people are better off when they have more options for how they can save. Sometimes, in anyone's life, it can make more sense to save out of pre-tax earnings, as with RRSPs, and others might be better off saving out of after-tax earnings, as with TFSAs.

I should add that we labelled them “tax-prepaid” savings plans, because we wanted to emphasize that the tax had already been paid on the earnings underpinning those savings. That reminder explicit in the tax-prepaid label was really aimed at future governments, because we were concerned that the plans would become very popular and large over time and that future governments would see the accumulated savings as a target for taxing.

That brings us to the second aspect of why I think the option of saving in TFSAs is good for Canadians. That is because RRSPs are not right for everyone. Consider an older worker, someone who perhaps immigrated to Canada late in life who doesn't have much savings or a workplace pension. This worker will almost certainly rely on the guaranteed income supplement when he or she retires and may be eligible for federal or provincial supplementary benefits. But what happens if she saves in an RRSP? When she retires and begins to draw down her RRSP savings, the withdrawals count to taxable income, but she must also count those withdrawals in establishing her GIS eligibility and will lose entitlements at the rate of 50¢ or 75¢ on the dollar for each dollar of private income, including from her savings. If she loses entirely her GIS ability, she'll lose access to other benefits such as provincial top-ups or subsidies that are made available to the people who qualify for the GIS. So some workers are no better off saving in RRSPs than if they don't save at all. In fact, they may be worse off if they do.

Some folks argue that low-income families don't save. In fact, they do. A few years back, GIS recipients had retirement savings totalling $37 billion, averaging about $25,000 each, but even if we thought saving was rare, policy shouldn't punish people for doing it. That's where TFSAs come in. I see them as beneficial for Canadian savers of all sorts.

For us to take advantage of them, however, we do have to see the legislation adopted and supportive regulations developed and published, because 2009 is not very far off, and if financial institutions are to roll out the new savings accounts, they need staff and promotional materials, they need to deal with their legal issues, and perhaps most important of all, they have to update their information systems. So all that has to be ready.

That implies two things. The first is swift action from the government in passing legislation and regulation if we are to see TFSAs as swiftly in place as I would hope. The second is that as we run through the regulations in particular, but the legislation too, we should see that, wherever possible, TFSAs be given provisions identical to those applying to RRSPs. This is a good example of where policy can usefully be guided by practice.

At this point, I would like to shift gears entirely while returning to the general issue of legislative scrutiny. Part 10 of the bill proposes broader powers for the Bank of Canada. Indeed, the C.D. Howe Institute published a brief last year stating that an updated Bank of Canada Act was due because the types of securities the bank was permitted to buy and sell no longer reflected the modern financial marketplace. That's a problem, because if the governor had to invoke emergency powers to respond to ordinary needs for short-term liquidity in support of otherwise solvent financial institutions, the announcement of an emergency would risk further aggravating the problems it sought to solve.

Bill C-50 would broadly expand the governor's powers, subject to the requirement that the governor establish a clear policy and publish it seven days in advance in the Canada Gazette laying out how those powers could be implemented. That's good for accountability.

What concerns me, however, is whether the bank, with liberalized powers to buy and sell assets as well as lend, is sufficiently protected from pressure to prop up failing institutions, exposing Canadians at large to risks and costs that should stay parked with those institutions themselves.

The Bank of Canada is very well managed and recognized around the world for its independence and reliability, but it is dangerous to assume that this will always be the case, and risky to lower the institutional barriers that protect that independence. After all, when faced with political pressure to act in a particular way, it is useful for an agency head to be able to say that the institution's governing legislation does not permit what the political leadership says it wants.

Again, I think the bank will handle these powers well, but I find the recent U.S. experience of grave concern. There, after all, the Federal Reserve has come under intense pressure to support financial institutions, and to do so in some novel ways. For good or ill, the Fed has provided such support, so I see there some evident justification for my concern.

What to do about it? One modification would be to look for a longer lead time—longer than seven days—with respect to policy changes in what the bank may do in the course of its market activities, and to clarify that changes will take the form of regulations requiring order in council approval. Another would be for the legislation to be more prescriptive and less open-ended with respect to bank powers. Those are some options.

With that, I think my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very much for your time.

[Imran Qayyum, Vice-Chair, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me start this afternoon by thanking the standing committee for its invitation to the society to present our views on Bill C-50. My name is Imran Qayyum. I'm the vice-chair of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. I'm here today with my colleague Mr. John Ryan, the chair and acting CEO of the society.

The board of directors at the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants supports the government's proposed legislation to streamline Canada's economic-stream immigration processing. Our support is based on the CSIC mandate to protect the public interest and the need to protect the interests of applicants seeking to come to Canada. It is our view that individuals and families waiting in immigration-processing backlogs face uncertainties and a lack of timely resolution that undermines the stability of families and brings the overall Canadian immigration program into disrepute. We need to be mindful that each of the 926,000 candidates currently in the immigration application backlog represents a husband, a wife, a mother, a father, sister, brother, and children—all of whom dream of making Canada their home. We need a system that provides Canada with the needed skills in a timely manner, and not in five to seven years from now.

Given the minister's testimony that the backlog, if not addressed, will balloon to an estimated 1.5 million--with a ten-year processing time--by 2012, the status quo is not acceptable. Of most concern to the society is a pattern of abuse we have identified whereby ghost agents accept money from unsuspecting immigration applicants. These agents promise quick processing of their application, only to disappear with the person's money, leaving the applicant in the breach, unrepresented and vulnerable.

The best traditions of Canadian immigration call for transparency and openness in the immigration processing system. The current backlogs and disproportionate immigration-processing times cause a perception that the system is unfair and not transparent. In our opinion, this situation severely harms the legitimate interests of both the Canadian public and the consumer. Further, the existence of backlogs fosters an environment in which unscrupulous ghost agents may prosper by preying upon applicants left increasingly vulnerable by an inefficient system.

CSIC understands that the policies the minister puts in place to implement the proposed new regulations will be crucial to the success of the process. CSIC expects these new economic-stream selection policies to be developed with great care and in keeping with the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the same time, the policies must respect the foundation objectives of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including universality, family reunification, and non-discrimination.

We believe the minister should be applauded for efforts to try to tackle this problem. While the proposed regulatory process may not be perfect, it is an initiative for which we are prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt and the flexibility she needs to develop fair and transparent policies to eliminate the backlog.

CSIC will be watching the policy development arising from the new regulations to ensure that the minister delivers on her promises, that the interests of consumers of immigration services will be protected, and that immigration applicants are treated fairly.

Thank you.

[Philip Mooney]

Bill C-50 changes that because it says that we're going to take your application. We don't know if we're going to process you, so a year from now, six months, two years, three years, we're going to come back to you and say, “You know what? We don't want you.”

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

And you're saying that exists under the current legislation. How does Bill C-50 impinge on that?

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

What Bill C-50 does is indicate that the minister doesn't have to, or the department doesn't have to, receive every application that comes in.

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

Thank you.

My question is to David Cohen. According to your opinion, this bill, Bill C-50, is going to affect the family class sponsorship. When they come to this country, how will the new skilled immigrants get jobs, when at present there are so many professionals, engineers and doctors, driving taxis and delivering pizza? Some of them are unemployed too.

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

And which provision of Bill C-50 says that?

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

But I heard today from a previous counsel that the relevant provisions of Bill C-50 that relate to prioritizing or categorizing do not apply to refugees and protected persons. Are you saying that Bill C-50 does apply to refugees and protected persons in any fashion?

[Barbara Jackman]

No, it doesn't address them specifically, but they will make applications under those provisions that are in Bill C-50.

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

Would you confirm for me that Bill C-50 itself does not relate to refugees or protected persons, either in Canada or outside of Canada? Would you confirm that fact?

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

Ms. Jackman, I gather you're a lawyer and have a legal background and have gone through Bill C-50 itself?

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

--on Bill C-50 and this crazy process where we condense everything, we would have had him here for a couple of hours.

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

Mr. Chair, I find it highly inappropriate to have one of the witnesses who made a significant number of statements with respect to legalities of Bill C-50 leaving before the round of questioning was finished. He should have been here at least until the end of this round.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for the excellent presentations we have received. I understand you're probably working a double shift because we have two committees looking at the same thing, something that perhaps could have been avoided with proper planning.

Then again, this has been the story of Bill C-50. They introduce amendments that actually don't deal with backlogs. The government, unfortunately, can't really be taken seriously about reforming Canada's immigration system, judging from the amount of investment they're willing to make in this field. This is all occurring at a time when Canada is facing an aging population, demographic shifts, as well as skill shortages.

There are a lot of inconsistencies, and this is the reason why ads have to be taken out in newspapers--even though they're not very clear--about what exactly the issues are. This is the reason why this process was, I guess, ill-conceived, as were the amendments.

I want to get to the bottom of a fundamental issue that is really puzzling to me. Why would a minister or government make such obvious errors in planning, in conceiving a piece of legislation, in not understanding they already have powers to deal with the issues they want to deal with, in thinking that they could somehow bypass Parliament in proper debate? How does this happen, and what essentially do you believe is the motivation behind this? We're all very puzzled by how all these errors could occur in one file. What's your point of view on that?

[Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you.

I am here today representing the Canadian Council for Refugees. We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Bill C-50.

As many of you already know, CCR is a coalition of over 170 organizations throughout Canada. We have tabled with the Committee a letter we sent to the Prime Minister on Bill C-50. This letter, or a similar one, was signed by over 40 organizations, including the three major provincial umbrella organizations, TCRI in Quebec, OCASI in Ontario and AMSSA in British Columbia. These organizations represent several hundred other groups.

First, in commenting on the amendments, there is wide agreement that there is a problem in the immigration system leading to backlogs. Having said that, we do not believe the proposed amendments are the best way to address the problem.

There are some concerns about the process. On the lack of consultation, the proposed amendments were introduced without the normal prior consultation with stakeholders. This means the proposal has not had the benefit of the full range of perspectives. Secondly, the amendments do not belong in the budget bill. They should be dealt with through separate legislation debated on its own merits.

On lack of explanatory information, discussion over the amendments has been severely hampered by the lack of adequate information to explain the proposed changes, leading to widespread confusion and uncertainty. For several weeks there has been confusion about whether the proposed new instructions apply to family class. They do. The government has not helped the situation by constantly confusing the powers actually in the bill and the government's intentions with respect to the use of these powers in the short term.

That brings me to my next point: intentions are not law. As parliamentarians considering whether or not to pass a law, you must ask yourself how the law might be used in the future, not just how the current government proposes to use the new powers. Expressions of current intention are no protection against future uses of the powers in very different ways.

Our recent experience with IRPA, section 117, shows the dangers of relying on ministerial promises. When IRPA was debated in Parliament in 2001, the then Minister Elinor Caplan promised that section 117, which criminalizes people smuggling, would never be used against humanitarians helping refugees. Despite those promises, in 2007, a church worker, Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, was arrested and charged with people-smuggling under section 117 for accompanying refugees to the Canadian border. Inevitably we must ask ourselves what would prevent a future minister from ignoring the commitments made by Minister Finley about how the amendments would be used and applying the new powers in very different ways.

Concretely--and briefly--I will list our major concerns with the new powers given by the bill.

These amendments gave the minister far too much discretion, allowing her to change the rules at will.

These amendments will allow the minister to issue “instructions“ without any parliamentary supervision or mandatory consultations. The fact that the rules for accepting immigrants can be determined and changed by ministerial fiat will create uncertainty, a lack of transparency and make the immigrant selection process vulnerable to inappropriate political pressure.

The amendments eliminate the right to permanent residency for applicants who follow the law.

The amendments eliminate the right to have one's application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds considered if it is made from outside of Canada. The legislation will allow for the return of these applications or for simply discarding them.

So why is the overseas H and C application important? To follow on some of the remarks of Barbara Jackman, I will list two situations where the law does not provide children with the right to family reunification and humanitarian and compassionate applications are the only recourse.

First, separated refugee children in Canada cannot apply for family reunification with their parents and siblings who are outside Canada. The only way for these children to be reunited with their parents and siblings is through H and C.

Secondly, the excluded family member rule, regulation 117(9)(d), keeps many children unfairly separated from their parents and separates spouses. The only way for affected families to overcome the exclusion is through H and C.

We recently published compelling profiles of families, many of them refugees, kept separate as a result of this rule.

The government has suggested that they would continue to examine all family-related H and C applications. However, this is only an expression of intention. If you pass this bill in its present form, a future government could issue instructions leading to family-related H and C applications not being examined.

It is also important to recognize that there are other compelling situations not related to family reunification where an H and C application is the only recourse. They might never be examined if this bill is passed.

In conclusion, the immigration program needs to value immigrants. The proposed amendments come in the context of, and contribute to, a disturbing shift towards the use of immigration primarily to meet Canadian employers' needs, without regard to broader Canadian interests. This includes the problematic increasing reliance on temporary work permits. Canada needs to consider immigrants as full participants in society, not simply as disposable units to fill currently available jobs.

This means recognizing the need for effective and efficient family reunification policies and practices so that immigrants can be with their families. Yet the government is not addressing chronic problems that mean some children spend years separated from their parents.

Finally, our recommendation is that the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be removed from Bill C-50 and dealt with as a separate piece of legislation.

Thank you.

[Amina Sherazee, Legal Counsellor, Canadian Arab Federation]

I too want to hear my colleague David Cohen. I understand he has some very interesting comments to make to this committee.

I have set out the basis for our organization's concerns with respect to this bill in our policy paper. I would commend the entire paper to you and would ask you to read it closely. I don't have the time to go through it, but there are very important points that need to be made, which will expand upon our reasons for taking the position we have with respect to Bill C-50, and in particular part 6.

There are ten parts to this bill, and nine out of the ten deal with fiscal matters, money matters. Then we have part 6. The rest of the bill deals with money matters, and we seriously question why it is that this government has disingenuously--and, in our submission, deceitfully--snuck in IRPA amendments to this bill that otherwise concerns money matters.

This leads us to our submission that, if you examine the provisions, if you examine the actual proposals, they neither give power that the minister doesn't already have with respect to....

I would respectfully request committee members to allow me to make my submission. I only have seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I call the meeting to order.

I'm sure the rest of our committee members will be along. Question period was over at three o'clock; I don't know why they shouldn't be here now.

We'll continue with our second meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of the subject matter of part 6 of Bill C-50.

We have witnesses today for the first hour. From the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants we have Philip Mooney, the national president. Welcome again. We welcome as individuals Lorne Waldman, immigration lawyer, and Barbara Jackman, immigration and refugee lawyer. From the Canadian Council for Refugees we have Janet Dench, executive director. Welcome again, Janet. It's good to see you all.

You're all familiar with how we proceed, so if you have any opening statements, you may make them in any order you wish.

I will go to Mr. Waldman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have the witnesses here and we have the committee members, so with that we'd like to call the meeting to order.

We'd ask that the cameras leave the room.

Today we have two panels--one taking us from 3:30 to 4:30, and the other one from 4:30 to 5:30.

We're dealing with Bill C-50, and on our first panel it's our privilege to have with us the Canadian Arab Federation. I will introduce you and then yield you the floor at the appropriate time.

I will start by introducing Mr. Boudjenane. I believe you have with you Ms. Sherazee. It's good to have you both here.

The floor is yours. You have seven minutes.

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

Then you would agree with me that this legislation, Bill C-50, is not an instruction; it just gives the ability for an instruction to occur. That's what we're talking about.

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

In effect, prioritizing skilled workers to come to the front of the line, if Bill C-50 does that, would be in agreement with that objective.

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

Thank you.

I have a couple of quick points.

Since coming to office, we've made over 100 appointments. So that's significant.

First of all, are refugees, protected persons, excluded from the effect of Bill C-50?

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

Now, one thing that Bill C-50 would do, as amended, at least going forward, is stop the backlog from growing. You would agree with that.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. Your comments are very interesting, particularly since you are here representing the Canadian Bar Association. I see you as representing the way laws are meant to be applied. You are concerned about Part VI of Bill C-50. Before tabling this bill, which introduces major changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, did the Minister or departmental officials consult you?

[Kerri Froc, Legal Policy Analyst, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Canadian Bar Association is very pleased to appear before this committee today on part 6 of Bill C-50, amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

You heard from the chair of the citizenship and immigration section of the CBA at the end of March regarding our concerns with the ministerial instructions contained in Bill C-17. Our written submission on Bill C-50 builds on this previous submission and has been circulated to you in advance.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association with about 38,000 members across the country. The primary objectives of the organization are improvement in the law and improvement in the administration of justice.

It is in this light that we have made our written submission and that we make our comments to you today.

I'm going to ask Mr. Green, who is a member of the executive of the citizenship and immigration law section, to address the substantive issues in the bill.

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

Would you also agree that Bill C-50, unlike the present system, wouldn't require every application to be processed from start to finish?

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

So would you agree with me that this particular portion would prevent someone who fails under the skilled worker class in Bill C-50 from making an application under humanitarian and compassionate grounds?

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

What Bill C-50 does, for an individual in that category, is indicate that he may apply, that the minister may consider the application but wouldn't have to.

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

With respect to the humanitarian and compassionate grounds applications outside of Canada--not within Canada, because I understand within Canada one or more applications can be made under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and that still would apply, given Bill C-50.... I know there has been some mention that if a person failed outside of Canada under a skilled worker class--let's say pursuant to an instruction under Bill C-50.... If Bill C-50 wasn't there, would you agree they could apply under humanitarian and compassionate grounds pre-Bill C-50?

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

I have a couple of points. When we left off, you were going to check the specific section to see if refugees or protected persons were exempt from Bill C-50. Did you come to a conclusion on that?

[Prof. François Crépeau]

In my opinion, that question will come forward and will be referred to the courts. They will have to decide, for example, based on what mechanism it is possible not to render a decision, because that is one of the mechanisms provided for in Bill C-50. Up until now, we have been able to either accept or reject an application. Henceforth, it will be possible to accept or reject, or render no decision whatsoever.

As was pointed out by the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, not rendering a decision means that there is no possibility of judicial review, since there has been no decision. Thus there would no longer be any avenue for appealing such a decision. It is possible that the courts will decide that, since they are the guarantors of individual rights, if no decision has been rendered two, three or four years later, one can assume that the decision is negative, such that individuals will have a right of appeal.

I think it is really too bad that, once again, we are leaving it up to the courts to do this work. I would suggest an amendment, which would be to delete that section and ensure that a decision is made and that all applicants thus have a potential avenue of appeal.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Given everything that you have said, would it be possible to amend Part VI of Bill C-50, which deals with immigration, even though it is not consistent with the protection of the individual rights you so aptly described?

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

I'm pleased to have you both here today.

As members of Parliament in high-density areas, we have a lot of immigration, and much of what you've told us we've experienced. However, I think your opinions are certainly more articulate than I could ever....

The problem I have with Bill C-50, and I'd like your comments on this, is the fact that it is turning more power over to the bureaucrats. When they say “minister”, we all know it doesn't mean minister; it means bureaucrats. I think most of us who have dealt directly with the bureaucrats have heard racist comments, and I'll even tell you a few of them.

I called about Jalandhar, and I was told the reason we have such a high percentage of people turned down in Jalandhar is because they were Punjabis, and Punjabis tended to lie more than others. Now, if that isn't just plain ordinary discrimination, I don't know what is. We have a lawyer in Hamilton who has talked about racist comments he's read from bureaucrats.

I'm not saying that bureaucrats are all racist. In fact, it's probably a very, very small percentage. However, on the refugee board...in The Walrus magazine, we've seen that there's been political intervention. And that doesn't mean intervention by politicians; it means intervention by bureaucrats, where there was definite bias against the Romas.

When we're dealing with giving more power to the minister, we're not, we're giving it more to the bureaucracy. When equality is ignored, the first victim is justice.

I would like to talk to Mr. Crépeau sometime about reasonable accommodation and have his opinion on that, because he's pretty fiery when it comes to assimilation and treatment of immigrants.

What I want to know is, do you think our charter has made politicians very lazy? We often pass legislation and say, “Well, the charter will take care of it if it's wrong”. When everyone who presents before us is of the same opinion as you, why aren't we doing it? What's the down side?

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

My understanding of Bill C-50 is that it does not apply to temporary foreign workers.

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

—exempted under Bill C-50 or not? Do you know?

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

And are you saying that refugees making applications within Canada are not excepted within this Bill C-50 legislation?

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

Let me just narrow this down. What you're saying is that refugees selected abroad are not affected by Bill C-50; Bill C-50 exempts the refugees or protected persons from its application. Agreed?

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

Then would you agree with me that Bill C-50 does not apply to refugees or other protected persons?

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

There are three categories under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: the economic class, or the skilled or less skilled worker class; family reunification; and refugees. It would seem to me that having more skilled workers coming in as a result of Bill C-50 would serve to reduce the number of temporary foreign workers. Would you agree?

[Dr. Jenna L. Hennebry]

As I read Bill C-50, there's no guarantee that they will be foreign workers or permanent immigrant applicants. My concern is that you have an increase in the number of people coming in as temporary foreign workers, with the promise of being considered for permanent residency, but you have nothing to say that this is actually going to take place.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it interesting. We were on the road studying temporary foreign workers and people wanted to get into the specific issue of Bill C-50; now we're studying Bill C-50 and people want to get into the issue of temporary foreign workers. It's an interesting process.

Ms. Hennebry, when we looked at legislation, the principal purpose behind the bill was to ensure that people with the skills we need could be brought in and processed more quickly. It would seem to me that this would mean fewer temporary foreign workers. Are you suggesting that there would be more, or do you agree with me that there would be fewer temporary foreign workers if we implement Bill C-50?

[Dr. Jenna L. Hennebry]

With respect to multiculturalism, there are a few key concerns with a continued increase in temporary foreign workers. As it stands right now, many of those workers find themselves in vulnerable situations. They don't have access to the settlement services that are in place for immigrants. They are largely excluded from Canadian society, and they find it very difficult to integrate, because they're not really supposed to; they're supposed to come here, do the work, and then leave. That's predominantly the case for all of the low-skilled foreign workers I'm talking about.

So that imposes significant problems already, without Bill C-50. With Bill C-50, my concern is that we'll see an expansion of that, and there would be nothing to address the present problems that are already a real concern and have been voiced by NGOs, migrants, and other researchers.

The other point is that with the discretionary powers, you have a situation where foreign workers don't have any particular path for permanent residency. Let's say they do apply. They are often without their families for prolonged periods of time. They're seen as workers, not immigrants or families--potentially not as people connected to others. I think for multiculturalism, if you have people staying in a country for two or three years or longer—in a seasonal agricultural worker program, the average is between eight and ten years to participate in the program; those people don't integrate into society. It creates more conflict, because you have groups that are basically outside the system. That's a real problem.

Also, foreign workers cannot sponsor their families, and there would be no obligation with Bill C-50 for the minister to consider that either.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we can just add one minute to my speaking time, so that Ms. Hennebry has time to be equipped with an interpretation device.

I was saying that I missed part of your presentation, because you were speaking very quickly and the interpreter had trouble following you. I am going to speak a little more slowly to give you an opportunity to follow as well.

You referred to the clause in Bill C-50 that is problematic with respect to multiculturalism. The fact is that, as regards multiculturalism, Canada is a country of refuge for a number of foreign communities.

If this bill were to grant the discretionary powers, particularly as regards the selection of temporary workers, why might this lead to conflict, in your opinion? Is there not already an issue with integration in Canada? Do you see certain problems arising as a result of a specific provision of the bill?

[Prof. François Crépeau, Professor of International Law, Centre d'études et de recherches internationales de l'Université de Montréal (CÉRIUM)]

I will be speaking French.

But I can answer questions and reply to comments in English, if you so wish.

I had an opportunity to read the letter addressed to you by the Barreau du Québec, as well as the one from the Canadian Bar Association. I am part of the Barreau du Québec's Immigration and Citizenship Advisory Committee. I was not involved in its work, because I was abroad, although I do share its concerns. Members of the Barreau du Québec will be appearing this afternoon, if I am not mistaken. So, I will let them address the specific points they raised.

Since you have invited me to appear as an individual, I will be making my own personal observations. I would like to talk about the context and principle associated with the rights of migrants. At the present time, there is a strong tendency for people to believe that foreigners have fewer rights than the rest of the population, and that their rights are not as deserving of respect as those of others. That applies, not only in Canada, but to most countries that receive immigrants. That strong tendency is apparent in government policies, the media and in society in general. I think it warrants discussion.

Foreigners have rights. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, foreigners have the same rights as other individuals protected by the Charter, except the right to vote, to be elected to office, to be educated in the language of the minority, and to enter and to remain in Canada. All the other rights apply to everyone, and that includes anyone in Canada, as well as foreigners. Foreigners are no less human than we are when it comes to protecting their fundamental rights. In that respect, the fact that they are not allowed to enter and remain in Canada does not mean that we can do whatever we like with their file. We cannot just treat them any way we like, because we are talking about immigration.

Since the 1950s, administrative law, which includes immigration law, has become so sophisticated that it is now at least as likely to violate fundamental rights as is the criminal law. When I was in school 30 years ago, we talked about the duty of fairness and procedural justice. The legal guarantees established in administrative law were intended to favour those subject to that law. With the coming into force of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1984, the concept of fundamental justice was introduced, a concept that obviously applies to the right to life, security and freedom for all, be they foreigners, citizens or permanent residents.

Under a progressive concept of rights and freedoms, we developed for ourselves, here in Canada, a set of individual guarantees that force the government to be accountable for its actions. They are the duty to give the reasons for its decisions, and the many forms of recourse provided under the legal system for all those who are subject to laws and regulations, either citizens or foreigners, so that there is an opportunity to review administrative decisions that affect them and affect their rights. Among other things, the Charter forces the government to justify each and every decision which is likely to impact the rights of those affected by them.

However, there is a tendency to feel that foreigners are not entitled to that treatment when it comes to immigration. There is a tendency to weaken and casualize their legal status. One notes that, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, immigration law is the only area of federal law where practically all the appeal mechanisms have disappeared. They're all gone. There is judicial review, but only with leave. Appeals by right on matters of fact have disappeared. Yet, where refugee protection is concerned, questions of fact are fundamental. Now there is never any possibility of review.

Under the criminal law, two levels of appeal are deemed to be perfectly normal, but under immigration law, not even one is available. The fact that the Immigration and Refugee Board still does not have an appeal division clearly illustrates that fact. There is no avenue of appeal on the facts, and yet this is the only decision in Canada that can result in the death, torture or arbitrary detention of a person. Over the last 20 years, it was not deemed to be a normal thing to create an appeal mechanism to ensure that the facts have been appropriately assessed.

Bill C-50 also contains a number of provisions along the same lines. One provision makes it possible to render no decision—either positive or negative—which, theoretically—we will see whether the courts go along with this—would have the effect of prohibiting judicial review. Because there would have been no decision, there could be no judicial review. It is felt that the affected party is not entitled to judicial review.

The same applies to the Minister, in terms of not rendering a decision on applications made outside of Canada on humanitarian grounds, and to the officer, in terms of not issuing a visa, for the simple reason that no decision has been made.

The Minister also has the option of issuing instructions that will establish priorities regarding the decisions to be made on individual files. However, these instructions will not go through the normal process of discussion and consultation—which is what occurs in your Committee, when it studies bills or regulations—put in place to ensure that such bills and regulations consider the public interest. So, these instructions will not be subject to the normal process of accountability.

Based on the premise that underlies all of these issues, a foreigner will not be entitled to the same guarantees as a citizen, is not worthy of the same protection as regards his rights, and can be treated in a discretionary, even arbitrary manner—one that we would consider unacceptable were it to apply to us. I am here to challenge that premise.

Foreigners have the same right to dignity as we do. When it comes to the processing of their applications, they should be entitled to the same procedural guarantees. Of course, they do not have the right to enter and remain in Canada. But, as regards the process for deciding to deport or remove someone, or refuse a visa application or refugee claim, they should be entitled to the same procedural guarantees that we would demand for ourselves in similar circumstances. Why? Well, because those procedural guarantees ensure the credibility of the system in the eyes of citizens and all those who are subject to it. People can believe in the system because it provides an avenue of appeal with respect to individual decisions, as well as a consultation process, such as this one, regarding instructions.

Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.

It is important to recognize that this is a matter of fairness, and not just administrative convenience, particularly since foreigners are already much more vulnerable because of their status and violations of their fundamental rights. My colleague referred to this earlier.

That was what the Supreme Court said in the Charkaoui case, after successive ministers had claimed that the provisions of the Act complied with the Charter. I think it's a shame, particularly where immigration matters are concerned—although this is not the only area—that we have decided to leave it up to the courts to remind us of the importance of protecting fundamental rights, as occurred with the Aboriginal people, inmates, gays and lesbians.

Today, the same applies to immigrants. The courts will be the ones telling parliamentarians and the government what they have to do. That projects an image of Canada to the rest of the world that, in my opinion, is extremely counterproductive and certainly inconsistent with the image it has had in the last 30 years.

If one sees democracy as a complex relationship between political representation, the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law—in other words, access to avenues of appeal—it is quite clear that immigrants, whether we are talking about temporary workers or illegal alien workers, do not benefit from political representation.

What do they have left? Protection of their fundamental rights and an avenue of appeal in a country that believes in the rule of law. If they are denied that kind of due process, as well as any discussion of instructions that affect them, that means there is no democratic guarantee in place to protect them. From that standpoint, I think there is a need to provide all of them, and particularly specific categories of immigrants who are vulnerable, a status that includes specific legal guarantees.

In reality, we have developed for ourselves a society that tries to increasingly abide by the rule of law. The Immigration and Refugee Board is the top administrative tribunal in Canada in terms of the number of cases it deals with. It is an important group. I find it very disturbing to note that, for a category that includes many people in Canada, we are establishing a form of treatment that we would not accept for ourselves in similar circumstances and which takes us back several decades in terms of our administrative law.

Thank you.

[Dr. Jenna L. Hennebry, Assistant Professor, Departments of Communication Studies and Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for inviting me here. Although I have a number of concerns that I want to bring up with respect to Bill C-50--in particular part 6, obviously--I'm going to focus on a population that I've spent a great deal of time researching and a on set of migration issues, focused on temporary migration. I want to do this because I believe Bill C-50 could have significant consequences with respect to temporary foreign worker programs and temporary migration in general. I have quite a number of concerns, but I will pour through them kind of quickly, and then we'll have a chance to come back to particular points I make, if you would like further information.

I believe the budget allocations for Citizenship and Immigration and the proposed changes to the IRPA do not address the backlog but instead encourage temporary migration. I see this taking place because the foreign worker program is a faster alternative to bringing in permanent immigrants, but it circumvents the points system. I believe this heightens the possibility for discrimination on the basis of race, country of origin, gender--since the majority of foreign workers are men--political affiliation, sexual identity, etc.

With Bill C-50, more employers may turn to the foreign worker program as an alternative, even more than they have in the last year or so. I'll speak to that in a minute. Employers, I think, will turn to this program instead of waiting, and they are already tired of waiting for the government to admit many high-skilled and low-skilled permanent applicants waiting in the backlog, as they have put it, many of whom are family members of immigrants who are already in Canada. I find it interesting, with such argued labour shortages, that we see the backlog as a problem as compared to a potential resource for the Canadian economy.

I think it's interesting that in 2007 we didn't meet our permanent immigrant targets, while our foreign worker program and the number of temporary foreign workers increased dramatically. We saw more than 150,000 foreign workers entering during that period of time.

I think what's disturbing, actually, is that there's no cap on the number of foreign workers admitted through the foreign worker program, and obviously there can be no backlog because it's employer driven. It's an entirely employer-driven program. According to Human Resources and Social Development Canada, we've seen a 122% increase in employer requests for low-skilled workers, as well as a 39% increase for high-skilled workers, between 2005 and 2007. We're going to see this pressure increase, and if we have a system that is basically pushing employers to look for foreign workers instead of waiting for workers to be processed, we're going to see that number increase.

I also believe that Bill C-50 enables increased private and economic interests driving policy in immigration. As I've mentioned, I think it encourages temporary foreign workers and therefore an employer-driven immigration system. It also creates the potential for a greater number of third-party recruiters and employment agencies, who already play a significant role for employers by locating foreign workers and setting up their contracts. There's a lot of concern about these agencies being unregulated and basically a potential for greater exploitation and criminal behaviour as well. In most provinces, these organizations are not regulated. Certainly, that is the case in Ontario.

There has also been much discussion about using the provincial nominee program in conjunction with the foreign worker program. Although this does provide a small window of opportunity for workers to gain access to Canadian residency, it does nothing to remove private interests from determining who will be Canada's immigrants. It also does nothing to regularize it, standardize it, such as providing a three-year period across the board for all workers. It does vary by program, but generally there is no direct path for foreign workers. This basically means that a foreign worker can be working in Canada for two or three years, and then at the point at which they conclude their contract and they want to stay in Canada permanently--maybe they have a Canadian spouse, or fiancé, as in my case, or they may even have a job offer--under Bill C-50 the minister would be under no obligation to even consider their application. I think that is problematic on a couple of levels.

I think Bill C-50 heightens the vulnerability of foreign workers because of that very problem where temporary foreign workers basically do not need to apply for permanent status because they may only be considered as applicants if the minister deems it so—this comes from my reading of proposed section 87.3, where it will be up to the minister to decide whether to consider that foreign worker or not.

I think it's important to note that many foreign workers apply for refugee status after working in Canada for a number of years, particularly the low-skilled foreign workers. Also, quite a number, if they don't receive any other status, we believe go undocumented or basically overstay, and this leads to a real problem, because we don't see appropriate monitoring and statistics and tracking, so we don't really know where this population is and the kinds of health risks this may pose. With respect to foreign workers, there are different procedures for evaluating health and health screening--with respect to temporary foreign worker programs--than there are for permanent immigrants. It depends on length of stay, and of course there's nothing to ensure that length of stay doesn't in fact turn into a much longer time than anticipated.

With respect to health, one more point I want to make is that really I'm concerned that the minister has not, or Bill C-50 has not, considered the impacts it might have on health screening of immigrant and foreign worker applications. I think it's important to recognize also that foreign workers, especially those in low-skilled categories, will have been foreign workers in many other countries prior to the point at which they enter Canada. This may be a different factor than immigrant populations, so you may be talking about a different set of health risks and a different set of health considerations.

I think, overall, Bill C-50 poses significant challenges to Canadian multiculturalism and social cohesion. As I've said, the foreign worker programs encourage a hierarchical system based on country of origin and often gender, and moving to a system that encourages more temporary foreign workers is problematic. I also think there are a number of challenges if you have a combination of populations working together, with foreign workers, immigrants, and Canadian citizens vying for similar jobs and having difficulty. If you have an immigrant wanting to sponsor a family member and not being able to do so, and instead they see a foreign worker coming in temporarily to fill jobs, I think that creates conditions ripe for conflict, ripe for racism, and potential problems for Canadian multiculturalism.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Maybe we will get started. It's a little after 10 o'clock. We do have a quorum.

We have our first group of witnesses--well, group is the wrong word; I don't believe two constitutes a group. We have with us today, Jenna Hennebry, assistant professor, departments of communication studies and sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University. Jenna, I think we met you in Toronto.

Also, we have François Crépeau, professor of international law. Mr. Crépeau was on our video conferencing last week and it didn't quite work out. Sorry about that. It wasn't your fault. I think the problem originated on this end. We don't even know yet how it came about. In any event, we're not anticipating any problems today--thank heavens.

Welcome to both of you.

It is Monday, and people travel on Monday, trying to get their flights and what have you. Some people might be a little late, but I think we can get started. We have a quorum.

I'll put it in your hands. I imagine you both have opening statements to make. Whoever is going first, please feel free to begin on consideration of part 6, Bill C-50.

Go right ahead.

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?

[René Roy]

To answer your question directly, sir, I would say no. It is not a waste of money to create this board; what it is, is a step in the right direction. There are a lot of things in this that need improvement. We have been battling the federal government on this for 15 years, to change what we have now. The status quo is not something we can live with. So let's take a step in some direction!

We want to improve Bill C-50 to have some power. But as my colleagues said, this board has to have something to do, there have to be employer and union representatives. If we start with that, we intend to fight to improve it, so that one day we will be managing the employment insurance fund together with employers. At present, we will take what improvements we can get.

To answer the member who spoke before, I would say that since the Conservative government has been in power at the federal level, the accumulated surplus isn't $2 billion, it is $5 billion or even a little more.

[Roger Valois, Vice President, Executive Committee, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

I am going to follow up on what my colleague was saying. There are several points in the bill that we find somewhat bizarre. Pierre Céré spoke a little about them earlier. The question of loans we can be made is somewhat odd. We are going to be lent money that has been stolen from us and on top of that we will be charged interest. We find that somewhat surprising, as we do the dirty hands theory that the government is trying to develop. When it introduced Bill C-50, it said it had dirtied its hands when it took the surplus. It wants to use this bill to wash its hands and take the position that the surplus now belongs to it. We do not agree with this.

We recognize one good thing about Bill C-50, which is that there will be a board that will receive premiums and will prevent the government from blithely dipping into the account. That is the only thing positive we see. The question of the 15¢ has already been settled. Mr. Céré was most eloquent on that point. We did not need Bill C-50 to implement what was already in the Act.

The fact that the board being established will not even have the power to make recommendations is what we find most shocking. It will not even be able to recommend anything to the government at all. We will be able to do it by demonstrating. In fact, we have done that. We are saying that there has been enough stealing from the account. The board that is to be created should at least have the power to recommend things to the government. The government is telling us, is telling premium payers, the employers and employees who pay the premiums, that it will reduce premiums to appease us. That's terrific, for employees. That will come to $30 a year. Thirty dollars a year, that's something you can live on, when you're on unemployment! When 10¢ is paid in premiums, the account has surpluses. If we give the 10¢ a week back to employees, they won't be able to buy anything with it at the end of the year!

The is smugly telling us that it is going to reduce the premium rate and give a bit back to the people who pay the premiums, the employers and employees. That makes no sense. That is not the reason for creating a board, I hope. We thought the board would at least have the power to make recommendations to the government and stop the stealing from the account. We start in the Supreme Court on the 13th. We and the FTQ and the aluminum union will be arguing that our money has been stolen.

The board that is being created is a step forward, because at least we are saying that premiums will be channelled and the government will be prevented from getting its hands on them. But we are concerned about this $2 billion. Once that amount is exceeded, what will they do with the money?

[René Roy, Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

We have 20 minutes! That will be enough to persuade the federal government to change its mind.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the committee for inviting us. We represent four organizations, although there is no CSQ representative with us today. The FTQ, the CSN, the CSD and the CSQ represent about a million workers in Quebec.

Because we are an umbrella group for four organizations, we have prepared a document that I am going to read to you calmly. I will then give my colleagues the floor. I thought we had only 10 minutes and I had started to make cuts here and there.

As union organizations, we are involved almost every day in supporting employees who, despite themselves, become unemployed when a plant closes down or they are laid off. In recent years, we have repeatedly called for improvements in the employment insurance scheme. The current program, which has been substantially amended since 1990, is increasingly poorly adapted to the new realities of the labour market and no longer meets the income protection needs of unemployed workers.

In Quebec, the overall rate of eligible workers has fallen from 81 percent in 1990 to fewer than 50 percent today. It is with that in mind that we have chosen to speak with one voice on behalf of all of the workers we represent, nearly a million people.

In its last budget, the government announced the creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. The bill being considered today provides that the objects of this new Crown corporation, which is to be independent of the government, will essentially be to set the premium rate, manage amounts paid to it under the rules provided in the Employment Insurance Act, and invest its financial assets with a view to meeting its financial obligations.

In addition, section 5 clearly provides that the Board shall not have any involvement in benefits and entitlement. In other words, it has no powers in relation to the design and delivery of the program. That responsibility will remain with the government, which also retains the power to intervene and set a different premium rate from the rate set by the Board, if it deems it necessary.

In order to carry out its objects, the Board will have to establish three committees: an audit committee, an investment committee and a human resources committee. On this point, we welcome the fact that the Board will have to produce quarterly financial statements and an annual report, which will be public. The Board's operating costs will be paid out of revenue in the employment insurance account and will thus be paid entirely by premium payers.

To begin with, we would point out that creating an Employment Insurance Financing Board as a Crown corporation, independent of the government, is certainly a step in the right direction. We have to applaud the government's commitment to creating a separate account and guaranteeing that premiums will be used exclusively for the employment insurance program. However, we believe that there are several important questions that remain unanswered.

Before we comment on the objects and purposes of the Employment Insurance Financing Board, we would like to make a few recommendations regarding the governance structure of the Board.

Under Bill C-50, the Employment Insurance Financing Board will report to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. Its board of directors will be composed of seven people, including the chairperson. Those people will be appointed by Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, from a list established by a nominating committee. The nominating committee is to be composed of a chairperson appointed by the Minister and the two members of the Employment Insurance Commission, the Commissioner for Employers and the Commissioner for Workers.

The Bill does not specify whether there must be formal consultations with employer and union organizations in preparing the list. We are in agreement with the financial and management qualifications. However, the bill does not mention that the board of directors must be representative in terms of premium payers.

Is it necessary to point out that the program is funded exclusively by the premiums paid by employers and workers? They should certainly have a say in the management of the employment insurance account. Bill C-50 therefore needs to be amended to guarantee fair representation for those who pay premiums into the scheme in the governance structure.

We are therefore asking that the board of directors be composed of a large enough, fixed and equal number of representatives of employer and union associations, and that they be chosen from lists supplied by their most representative respective associations.

The bill stipulates that the Board is to set the premium rate under section 66 of the Employment Insurance Act. This amounts to transferring a responsibility that is currently assigned to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. We are not happy to see the government taking advantage of this transfer to put an end to the obligation to receive submissions from the public when rates are set. Even though consultation often took place too late in the process and seldom produced useful results, it nonetheless gave us an opportunity to state our views concerning the premium rate.

That being said, the Board will start fixing the rate in 2009, but will have to follow essentially the same rules as have been used for setting the premium rate for the last three years. We have had occasion to comment on the flaws in the employment insurance premium setting process. We can only reiterate our disappointment that the government is persisting in taking an equilibrium approach. That principle requires that the actuary, who will now be appointed by the board of directors on its own authority, will have to determine a premium rate that will generate just enough revenue to cover the anticipated costs of the program for the next year, without regard to the current balance in the employment insurance account or future interest on that balance.

I am going to ask Roger Valois to continue.

[Pierre Céré, Spokeperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses]

On behalf of the Conseil national des chômeurs et des chômeuses, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and all the MPs from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It is not easy to finalize the list of invited speakers, but we have to thank you for this invitation.

Yesterday, Mr. Jackson and I appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance to talk about Part 7 of Bill C-50, the creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was not until the end of the meeting, at about 5:15, that I understood that Bill C-50 would probably pass in its present form, without amendments, because the government is making it a confidence issue. It sometimes takes a while to understand; that is how life is.

When I got up this morning, I almost wanted to sing along with Dalida, Paroles, paroles. But we have done our homework all the same, Mr. Chair. We have studied Bill C-50. And in particular, we have compared it with the current employment insurance legislation and found that there are not many differences. I am going to give you a few examples.

Paragraph 66(1)(a) of the current Act, which would be slightly amended, for example to include the Financing Board, says that the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue to cover payments that will be made. That is what the current Act has said since 2005. The intention is to balance revenue and expenditures by creating the Employment Insurance Financing Board.

Subsection 66(2) of the current law says that the annual variation in the premium rate may not exceed 0.15%. We sometimes think that it is the Financing Board that would impose that requirement. It is already the case. Subsection 66(3) says that the Governor in Council may substitute a premium rate if it considers it to be in the public interest. That is also already the case now. We could keep going with this list for quite a while.

There are not many differences. There is however one difference between the current situation and the planned establishment of the Financing Board: the creation of an independent account. That would mean that workers' and employers' contributions remain in the fund and can no longer be siphoned off and used for other purposes. This is a significant difference.

We know that from 1995 to March 31, 2007, the government confiscated $54.1 billion from the fund. That is the official figure. The announced establishment of the Crown corporation for the sole purpose of managing the fund and setting premium rates is not bad news in itself. The independent account is not bad news. Very little else has changed, however. Most of the provisions of the bill were already in effect and under the Commission's responsibility. It would even be possible to envisage — and I am not proposing this — the establishment of an independent account under the control of the Commission, and this would do the job. In either case, with or without the Financing Board, under the Commission's responsibility or not, this would still not solve all the problems. Some of these problems have been raised here.

What do we do about the $54 billion that has been diverted and confiscated, when it should have been used to protect workers? The employment insurance scheme was severely cut in 1995-1996 and before, and a necessary and unavoidable improvement has to be made.

We have no illusions regarding the proposals that might be made. Section 80 provides that if the Employment Insurance Account is in deficit, the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the government, could lend it money, which the account must repay with interest. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The government owes the Employment Insurance Account $54 billion, and Bill C-50 should provide that the Consolidated Revenue Fund owes the Employment Insurance Account $54.1 billion. In other words, if the Employment Insurance Account is in deficit, the government should not lend it money, it should repay it out of the $54 billion.

The primary, crucial and unavoidable issue, and the only one that deserves to be fought for, is the improvement that must be made to the employment insurance scheme.

A few days ago, we got the Monitoring and Assessment Report. One figure struck us right off: the beneficiary-contributor ratio. The way in which the government has assessed the coverage of the employment insurance scheme since 1940 is called the beneficiary-contributor ratio. At the moment, it is 46.1. In other words, out of every 100 workers who have paid employment insurance premiums, 54 will not be entitled to benefits if they need them.

This is the issue! It is eminently political. I invite parliamentarians to debate it. Either everyone closes themselves off in their own truths, their own discourse, their own way of seeing things, or we try together to find a solution we can all rally round to improve the employment insurance scheme and provide the workers of this country with better protection.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, but is the answer, really, that there should be more training, taking the funds from the EI to do the training, so that the unemployed manufacturing workers who are now on the street, or the forestry workers, can be retrained? That is number one.

Number two, should we not change the point system and actually allow some of those people to come into Canada? Right now the skilled workers, unless they have degrees and speak fluent English, are not the types of workers you necessarily are looking for. We need carpenters, for example. Carpenters don't have enough points to come into Canada.

So yes, we are all for changing the point system, but this is not what Bill C-50 is doing. Bill C-50 is basically allowing the minister to bring people and move categories of people up and down; it's not changing the point system. I don't see how that would necessarily make the system any better.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

Clearly, that's exactly the connection that we are seeing. If we don't do something to fix the system at the front end, we're going to have more people falling through the cracks, and then we'll have to devote more resources at the back end.

Today we read a press release, issued by Minister Stockwell Day, complimenting CBSA for arresting undocumented workers in a factory outside of the Greater Toronto Area. What we're seeing is that at the same time as we're deporting workers, our country is speaking out again and again on the need for more labourers to come in to provide for those shortages of the workers that we're deporting. Definitely we need to see the connection here.

Bill C-50 is going to bring more temporary foreign workers into Canada for a two-year period. After that time, they're going to fall through the cracks again, and we're going to exacerbate the crisis of undocumented immigrants.

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

I want to speak on two areas: EI and immigration. It's interesting that they do actually connect with each other.

With $54 billion, imagine the funds we could use to retrain workers who are unemployed in forestry, in manufacturing, in auto plants, in various areas of Quebec, older workers, young people who could get apprenticeship training. It's a phenomenal amount of money, and that dollar really belongs to the workers and the workers alone. It shouldn't be taken away.

It connects with the immigration piece, because what is happening is that we have more and more temporary foreign workers coming into this country and it's driving down the wages of ordinary Canadians. We are in fact seeing immigrant women, for example, earning 56¢ per dollar that is being earned by Canadian-born males. As more workers are not entitled to their EI benefits, as the jobs are paying less, as there are fewer manufacturing jobs, you are seeing more and more temporary foreign workers coming into Canada.

It is connected, and that is why tomorrow the NDP has an opposition day motion and we're going to spend the entire day in the House of Commons debating whether the House has lost confidence in this government, given that the government has failed to reform employment insurance to ensure that people who lose jobs are protected and trained. That's an area I wouldn't mind some comments on.

Since the last exchange, I thought I should ask Ms. Zerehi or Mr. Wong a question. Regarding temporary foreign workers or people with precarious status in Canada, if Bill C-50 generates more of those types of immigrants, would we see more people going underground and therefore have more people disappearing? The Auditor General said there were 41,000 so far. Will we get more people going underground, making it even harder for the Canada Border Services Agency to keep track of where the immigrants or undocumented workers are?

Perhaps Ms. Zerehi could answer the question.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

First of all, we're working on a campaign; the campaign's point of unity is opposition to Bill C-50 at this moment, and a regularization program that meets the needs of undocumented workers.

[Pierre Céré]

For every 100 salaried workers who have paid EI premiums, only 46 will qualify for EI when they need it. The remaining 54 will be out of luck. In most cases, we're talking about people who are in temporary jobs and who do not accumulate the hours of work required to qualify.

Our message is the same as the one we conveyed with respect to employment insurance. Creating an independent account is probably a step in the right direction. Never again must we allow the surplus to accumulate as we did for 12 or 13 years, as a result of premiums paid by employees, only to see the money misappropriated and confiscated. Quite aside from the creation of the Board, parliamentarians must seek a consensus on ways of improving the EI system. The benefit-contribution ratio of 46% makes no sense. The percentage needs to increase. Eligibility criteria must be eased.

That being said, I also realize that this has nothing to do with Bill C-50. However, parliamentarians must never forget that $54 billion in employer and worker premiums were misappropriated. I hope that the majority of members will refuse to allow this scandal to be swept under the rug.

Section 80 of the existing act and the proposed changes which would create the Board provide that if the account is in a deficit situation, an advance may be authorized from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. However, the Board will have to repay this advance, with interest. It goes both ways, however. The Consolidated Revenue Fund owes $54 billion to the employment insurance system. Obviously, we're not expecting a cheque for $54 billion to be cut next week, but this money should be accounted for somewhere. Each time the account experiences a shortfall, the money to make up the deficit should come from this surplus. The money is there.

[Amanda Aziz, National Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students]

Good afternoon, and thanks very much for the opportunity to speak here today.

We're obviously here to speak today about Bill C-50's implications on Canadian student financial assistance.

The Canadian Federation of Students is Canada's largest student organization. We represent undergraduate and graduate students at Canada's public universities and colleges, both small and large. Altogether, we unite over half a million students on campaigns for affordable, high-quality, post-secondary education.

One of our longest-standing campaigns is for a national system of student grants. The up-front financial barriers to post-secondary education play a major role in explaining the unacceptable participation gap between families in the lowest and highest income quartiles. Grants are a vital tool for giving students and their families the help they need to afford post-secondary education in the face of skyrocketing tuition fees and other costs. Perhaps more importantly, grants, unlike loans, provide that help without mortgaging the future of Canada's young educated workers.

Student debt owed to the federal government through the Canada student loans program is increasing at $18 per second, more than $1.5 million a day. In July this year, student loans owing to the federal government will surpass $13 billion. That doesn't include student loan debt owed to provincial governments, which could add at least $7 billion more to the debt, nor does it include debt from private sources such as banks.

In provinces where tuition fees are the highest, average student debt is more than $28,000, according to the Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission. This is an embarrassment for a country as rich as Canada.

Ten years ago the federal government created the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and endowed it with $2.5 billion. The size and scope of this investment should be recognized as a substantial and well-meaning attempt at reducing student debt and improving access to post-secondary education. Sadly, the foundation was a flawed mechanism for social programming and, by most accounts, failed to deliver much relief to Canadian students.

Provincial governments widely abused the funding from the millennium foundation, seeing it as a slush fund for their own experiments or tangential priorities. As an arm's-length and private organization, the foundation was never accountable or transparent, and it used this untouchable status for deeply political ends that in most cases ran contrary to its mandate to improve access to post-secondary education. It provided political cover for increased tuition fees, and it enriched former employees with lucrative contracts. It also paid out nearly $250,000 in subsidies to organizations that supported its renewal.

We could argue for hours about whether or not the government should have seen this coming, but I'm here today to suggest that the best intentions led to a failed experiment. This government was right to listen to expert advice and go in a different direction. The proposed Canada student grant program will avoid so many of the pitfalls of its predecessor and will serve as a predictable and stable funding source for Canada's students.

Students need non-repayable grants, and that's not the issue. As the government has recognized in budget 2008, the issue is how grants are administered by this government, and the record is clear. The Millennium Scholarship Foundation has failed in doing so, and there is a more effective way.

In the coming months and years we look forward to providing feedback about how to maximize the new grants' effectiveness and reach, but in the meantime I encourage all parties to implement budget legislation to wind down the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. I assure you, with an HRSDC-administered program in its place, students will not miss it.

In the last few minutes I have, I want to talk about something that this bill doesn't specifically address, but that should be among the top priorities in the debate on post-secondary education policy, and that's the need for this government to invest in education for aboriginal people.

The gap that exists between low- and high-income Canadians participating in post-secondary education is even more pronounced between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. Completion rates for high school, university, and to a lesser extent, college for aboriginal people lag far behind those for non-aboriginal Canadians. And while this gap continues to widen, the population growth of aboriginal people in Canada is skyrocketing. A study commissioned in 2006 found that over 30% of the aboriginal population is under 24 years old. Despite these demographics, funding for aboriginal students has not increased. In fact, funding for the post-secondary program at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has remained virtually stagnant since 1996, with an inadequate 2% annual increase cap.

The Assembly of First Nations estimates that more than 13,000 eligible students in the last six years alone have been denied funding to participate in post-secondary studies. Despite the recommendations in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development last June, budget 2008 delivered no new funding for aboriginal learners and continued the cap on funding increases in INAC's post-secondary program.

We recommend the federal government immediately remove the funding cap on the post-secondary student support program and explore opportunities to provide support for non-status and Métis students, who are currently not eligible for support under INAC's post-secondary education program.

In closing, I want to thank the committee again for the chance to speak today, and I'll introduce Ian Boyko, who is the government relations officer. Obviously there are many issues in the budget that the time limit didn't allow us to discuss, but I look forward to your questions.

Thanks.

[Pierre Céré, Spokeperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses]

Good day.

First of all, on behalf of our organization, the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well as all the MPs from the various parties represented on the Standing Committee on Finance.

Our organization represents various groups of unemployed persons, some of whom have been working for about thirty years informing people and defending their rights. We have been on the front lines of many public opinion campaigns criticizing the misappropriation of the employment insurance fund and above all, demanding a better employment insurance system.

I am here today to share our views on the upcoming establishment of the Employment Insurance Financing Board, as set out in Part 7 of Bill C-50.

We have done our homework and examined this bill very thoroughly. We have also compared it with the current Employment Insurance Act.

In our opinion, most of the provisions in Part 7 of Bill C-50 respecting the Financing Board mean very little in the way of changes to the current employment insurance legislation. I will give you a few examples and I urge you to check for yourself in the bill over the next few days. Section 66(1) of the current act provides for the following:

[...] the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue to cover the payments that will be made [...]

Balancing expenditures and revenues is the aim behind the establishment of the Financing Board.

According to section 66(2) of the current EI Act, the premium rate for a year may not be increased or decreased by more than 0.15%. The Financing Board will also abide by this provision.

Section 66.3 of the Act provides that:

the Governor in Council may substitute a premium rate if it considers it to be in the public interest [...]

Bill C-50 also contains a similar provision, even though this is covered in the existing legislation.

There is, however, one difference between the current situation and the planned establishment of the Employment Insurance Financing Board: the creation of an independent account would mean that workers' contributions remain in the fund and can no longer be used for other purposes. This is a significant difference.

As everyone here well knows, it was estimated that between 1995 and March 31, 2007, the government confiscated $54.1 billion from the fund and used it for other purposes. Appearing recently—I believe it was last week—before the human resources committee, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, Monte Solberg, acknowledged the surpluses and the fact that they had been confiscated and misappropriated. He stated that this must not happen again and we agree with him.

The establishment of the new Crown corporation for the sole purpose of managing the fund and setting premium rates is welcome news. However, as we stated before, very little has changed. Most of the provisions of the bill were already in effect and under the Commission's responsibility. Putting it another way, it would even be possible to envisage the establishment of an independent account under the control of the Employment Insurance Commission, which would carry out the mandate of the announced Employment Insurance Financing Board. Nothing then would change.

In either case, with or without the Financing Board, under the Commission's responsibility or not, the creation of this board does not mean that all problems would be resolved. Some problems are in fact not addressed at all by this initiative. In our opinion, creating the Employment Insurance Financing Board does not resolve the issue of the confiscation of the accumulated $54 billion surplus. Nor does it address the improvements needed to the employment insurance system in order to provide better financial protection for workers when they are between jobs.

On the first point, we propose that section 80 found on page 121 of Bill C-50 be amended so that basically, when the EI fund is in a deficit situation, the Governor in Council and the Consolidated Revenue Fund may authorize an advance to the account. However, the advance to the EI fund shall be repaid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, with interest.

This is already covered in the current act and this is the intent behind the establishment of the Financing Board. We are proposing that these would not be reimbursable advances, but rather non-reimbursable payments drawn from the accumulated surplus.

As such, we are proposing that Bill C-50 be amended to provide for the keeping of records on this accumulated $54 billion surplus with interest until it is fully reimbursed, and that this surplus be regarded as a debt. It works both ways.

Our institutions, laws and people must never forget what can be described as one of the biggest financial scandals in Canada in the 20th century: the misappropriation of billions of dollars in employment insurance contributions that were intended to better protect Canadians.

Let me explain what I means Mr. Chairman. Global political events can sometimes be instructive.The great politician Nelson Mandela taught us that reconciliation has a price, namely truth, and that reconciliation can only take place once the truth has been established. In other words, we are not showing your our fist, but rather extending to you our hand, in the hope that the truth will emerge about the amounts stolen from the EI fund.

Moreover, the addition proposed with clause 70.1 on p. 119 of Bill C-50 provides for a $2 billion reserve fund. This reserve fund is insufficient. According to the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, it should be $15 billion. We propose, therefore, that this reserve be increased or that provision be made to add future annual surpluses to this reserve without affecting the balance of accounts.

Still with regard to Bill C-50, we propose that the appointment process for the Board of Directors and for the Chairperson of the Board—clauses 9 to 13 of the bill—be subject to the approval of the Standing Committee on Human Resources. This would make the process more transparent and more democratic.

Finally, the main message we wish to send to the members of this committee is that the creation of the Employment Insurance Financing Board does not address the real problem. It means that over 50% of unemployed workers are not eligible for employment insurance benefits, according to figures just released by the department. This is the most important issue to us, the key issue and the only one that we truly should be fighting for.

Whether or not the Employment Insurance Financing Board is created, the employment insurance system must be improved. Sometimes in the course of history, we must all work together, even if only for a very short time, to make progress on a social issue such as the employment insurance plan which is designed to protect workers in Canada. This is a highly political issue.

Mindful of our responsibilities, we are appealing to parliamentarians and to the various political parties represented in the Parliament of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Victor Wong, Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chinese Canadian National Council is a community leader for Chinese Canadians in promoting a more just, respectful, and inclusive society. Founded 28 years ago, CCNC is a national non-profit organization, with 27 chapters across Canada. Our mandate is to promote the equality rights and full participation of our community members in all aspects of Canadian society. As a national anti-racism and human rights organization, we believe that legislation and public policies must reflect the democratic, humanitarian, and social justice values that are commonly shared by Canadians and that such policies should enhance the ability of everyone, including newcomers, to make an important contribution to the future of this country.

According to the 2006 census, there are more than 1.3 million Chinese Canadians living in Canada. We are the second largest racialized community in Canada. The Chinese Canadian community is a diverse community, with a rich though sometimes tragic history spanning 150 years in this country. Our community was subjected to racist immigration legislation in the form of the Chinese head tax, Newfoundland head tax, and Chinese exclusion act. It was also subjected to various exclusionary policies and programs and practices at the local level. It is this direct experience with exclusionary immigration legislation that guides us in formulating the following analysis and constructive suggestions for your consideration.

I'd like to speak specifically to the proposed immigration changes in Bill C-50. First of all, we must recognize that immigration is integral to nation-building. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently stated that the government favours an aggressive immigration policy, yet the government's approach to immigration has been less than inspiring. We need to be visionary as opposed to applying a just-in-time business model. Immigration is not about filling regional labour market shortages with just-in-time labour, and CIC is not a temp agency.

There are three key words I would propose that could guide us in our strategic vision on immigration: nation, dignity, and choices. We should be building a nation of active citizens.

Our first recommendation is that we need a comprehensive immigration plan, one that offers a clear path to legal status and citizenship. We know Canada's population is aging. More and more workers are retiring as the baby boomers turn 65 years of age, beginning in the year 2011. The birth rate is low. With the right vision, we can develop the proper plan based on an aggressive immigration policy.

The proposed immigration changes in Bill C-50 are not the answer. When these proposed changes were first introduced back in March, Immigration Minister Finley said they were needed to address the backlog in applications. However, when we carefully read the proposed changes, we found that they apply to applications received on or after February 27, 2008. In other words, these proposed changes do not apply to the existing backlog of applications. Therefore, these changes shouldn't even be in the budget implementation bill.

The government has suggested that these changes will help process applications more quickly, yet over the last three years Canada has by and large met its immigration target range. We've received an average of 250,000 immigrants every year for the last three years: 237,000 in 2007, 252,000 in 2006, and 262,000 in 2005. These applications were processed with the existing complement of staff resources. In other words, we're already at or near our capacity. Even if we are more productive and process our yearly target of 250,000 immigrants, let's say, within nine months of the year, we would have to stop processing applications because we would be at the limit of our target range.

We cannot reduce the backlog unless we increase the immigration target range. Our recommendation is that we increase the immigration target range, which is 240,000 to 265,000, to be 300,000 to 330,000, which is around 1% of the Canadian population.

In conclusion, there's a lack of transparency around Bill C-50. This fosters the current climate of mistrust. The immigration department has had weeks to table a revised immigration plan so that we can track the impact of these changes.

Our recommendation to the finance committee is that you recommend or you make an amendment that these proposed immigration changes in Bill C-50 be withdrawn, and that the government instead issue a proper discussion paper and organize national consultations before drafting legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[David Stewart-Patterson, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Council of Chief Executives]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear.

I think the views of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives on budget 2008 as a whole are a matter of record, and I'm not going to go into them in great detail here. I believe that the budget as a whole did build on the October economic statement by adding some important measures that will have a positive impact on Canada's competitiveness at relatively low cost to the treasury.

I've just returned from Calgary, where we had a meeting of our members with all four of Canada's western premiers in turn, the premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. We also had a round table discussion on the state of the economy. Clearly the outlook in western Canada is pretty robust. In Ontario, Quebec, and parts of Atlantic Canada, it's considerably more troubling. I think the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States is clearly spilling into real estate prices, making it harder for businesses and consumers to borrow in that country, and it's clearly going to spill over into our country to some extent. All of that is simply to say it reinforces the need for a prudent approach to fiscal policy and to the management of public spending.

If I may, let me address three specific provisions in Bill C-50 that I think support the broad thrust of the budget: employment insurance, student aid, and immigration.

On the first, we strongly support the creation of the proposed Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. I think the business community has argued for many years that employment insurance premiums should be set by an arm's-length body on a break-even basis, and that the funds collected through these premiums should be managed in a segregated fund. We do have a continuing concern about the tendency to use the employment insurance system to provide benefits that might better be characterized as social programs. Over the longer term, we believe that money raised through employment insurance premiums should be focused more precisely on its core mandate of providing insurance against temporary job loss, and that other programs should be funded through general revenue. However, that said, the creation of the new board marks a critical step in the right direction.

Next let me speak to the issue of student aid. In an increasingly knowledge-based economy, we must ensure that every single Canadian is both able and motivated to participate and succeed in post-secondary education. Now, when I say post-secondary, that may be through university or college, it may be through apprenticeships, it may be through training and lifelong learning both within and beyond the workplace. The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation got off to a rocky start, but over time it found ways to work constructively with provincial governments, and I believe it became a catalyst for innovation in improving access to post-secondary education in this country. The government has opted to dissolve the foundation and replace its scholarships with a new and hopefully more robust approach to student aid. The design of the new rules is going to be critical in ensuring that the federal resources allocated to student aid are as effective as possible in overcoming the financial barriers to success in post-secondary education.

I also believe that government should move to preserve and build upon the research capacity developed through the foundation. Here, I would suggest passing its research mandate and funding to the Canadian Council on Learning, which I believe has become an important credible source of information about how Canada is doing in the field of education and what policies work best in enabling every Canadian to achieve his or her full potential.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me speak to the provisions of Bill C-50 that affect immigration. Canada is facing serious and growing shortages of skilled labour. These shortages are most acute in the resource sector, but they are affecting businesses of all sizes in every industry and in every region of this country. These shortages are only going to get worse as our population ages. Both Canadian employers and potential immigrants today face a huge frustration, a backlog of some 900,000 applications that under current rules have to be processed in the order they're received. The result is that a skilled worker ready to contribute to Canada's economy faces a wait of up to six years before even having his or her application processed. My understanding is that delay could grow to 10 years as early as 2012.

This legislation would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration some discretion to set priorities within the system. It would help in particular to speed the flow of immigrants with skills that are urgently needed in our economy. While any legislative provision for ministerial discretion may cause concern, the process outlined in this bill for issuing ministerial instructions does provide both transparency and accountability. The fact is that the current system is not working. It's not working for immigrants and it's not working for Canada. We need improvements now, and we cannot waste years more in pursuit of perfection. Whatever flaws anyone may see with the process proposed here, it does represent a clear improvement that will start to make a difference right away.

On all three of these issues, employment insurance, student aid, and immigration, Bill C-50 moves public policy toward better solutions. In each case there is more work to be done, but we support the intentions of the bill and we are prepared to work with the government to ensure that the resulting new programs and institutions achieve the best results possible for Canadians.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I will call the meeting to order. We have quorum.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward.

I also want to remind the committee that we have extended our panel somewhat. We had originally had five, and now we have seven. We've asked each one to limit their comments to seven minutes maximum; please don't feel compelled to use all seven minutes. Nonetheless, we'll try to move it along as quickly as possible.

I would also remind the committee that bells will start at 5:15 for a 5:30 vote. That's going to cut our time a little bit. I also want to leave five or ten minutes at the end for discussion with regard to our last meeting and the dialogue I had with the chair of the immigration committee with regard to Bill C-50.

With that, we will move right along. We want to first of all focus our attention on Bill C-50. That's what our witnesses are here to discuss with us.

First up is David Stewart-Patterson of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. I'll introduce the others as we yield them the floor.

Mr. Stewart-Patterson, the floor is yours for seven minutes.

[Jenna L. Hennebry]

Thank you very much.

Although I have many concerns regarding part 6 of Bill C-50 with respect to all immigrant categories, I'm going to centre my comments on a group that I think is often neglected but that I think is significantly impacted. That would be the foreign worker population in particular and the foreign worker program in general.

In the interest of time, I'm going to focus on some of the more pressing concerns I have with respect to foreign workers. Let me start by saying that I think the impacts of Bill C-50 are more likely to affect more adversely those in the low-skill sector, those with low levels of education, those from developing areas, ethnic minorities, and women.

I want to start by pointing out that the budget allocations for CIC and the proposed changes to the IRPA do not, in my opinion, address the backlog. Instead, they encourage an increase in temporary migration. This is already increasing annually. It's something that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and HRSDC have demonstrated. They will also tell you that it is an employer-driven program, which is something I'll talk about in a minute.

The foreign worker program is a faster alternative than bringing in permanent immigrants. It circumvents the point system, which heightens the possibility of discrimination on the basis of race, country of origin, gender--because the majority of foreign workers are men--political affiliation, sexual identity, and other areas. With Bill C-50, more employers will have to turn to the foreign worker as an alternative. Not only will they turn to this, they will do so instead of looking towards or waiting for the government to admit the many high-skilled and low-skilled permanent applicants, many of them family members of immigrants who are already in Canada waiting in what the government terms the backlog, queueing up to apply around the globe.

Importantly, with respect to the foreign worker program, there is no cap on the numbers. Annually, it has increased. It's more than 100,000 this year. They anticipate it rising significantly. There's been a 122% increase in employer demand for foreign workers, and I can see this rising. Instead of working on the many problems with the program, the money has basically been allocated to assist Service Canada and to assist employers in obtaining foreign workers.

Also, Bill C-50 enables increased private and economic interests that I think drive or are going to drive immigration policy and immigration itself. It encourages a more employer-driven immigration system, putting, I would say, nation-building in the hands of the private sector and not in the hands of governments and democratically elected officials.

There's also a significant problem with third party recruiters and employment agencies that already play a significant role for employers by locating foreign workers and setting up their contracts. This is not inherently problematic. However, there have been arguments about exploitation and problems with regulation. And they make it possible for employers to basically order workers, which involves more private interests.

These businesses are not regulated in most provinces, which is the case in Ontario, where the highest concentration of foreign workers is employed. I believe that the role of these third party recruiters will likely increase with Bill C-50.

Using the provincial nominee program in conjunction with the foreign worker program, which is something that's happened in a couple of provinces--in Manitoba in particular, for example--provides a small window of opportunity for foreign workers to access Canadian residency. But it does nothing to remove private interests from determining who will be Canada's immigrants in the years to come. In fact, it effectively hands over this power to employers while also giving further powers to the provinces, which may potentially undercut or circumvent the federal system.

Bill C-50 also does nothing, basically, to address or assist in the vulnerability of foreign workers in Canada. I think, in fact, it heightens their vulnerability. It heightens also the potential for undocumented migrants, I believe.

Interestingly, on my way here today, it was reported on CBC that Citizenship and Immigration apparently has no idea where large numbers of undocumented migrants are in Canada. There are more than 63,000 at this point in time. I think that's important, because Citizenship and Immigration does not keep track of when foreign workers leave the country, typically.

I would argue that, with Bill C-50, temporary foreign workers need not apply for permanent status. If you've been in the country working on a foreign worker visa, whether you're a post-doctoral student working at a university or you're a worker in a service industry, in the food service sector, if you've been doing this for 12 months or even multiple years, even if you apply after Bill C-50 is in place, the government has no obligation to consider your application. I think that is really problematic.

In addition, many foreign workers apply for refugee status after working in Canada for a number of years. This is often their only option for entry, and with Bill C-50, there'd be no obligation to consider these applicants.

In addition, Bill C-50 does not consider or address the fact that many foreign workers contribute to Canadian society. There are individual migrants with families they may also want to sponsor. Even if they were able to stay permanently, sponsoring their family members after their residency is processed would not necessarily be an option for that group.

I think the amendments give too much arbitrary power to the minister. For foreign workers, this translates into more precariousness and vulnerability. For example, if there's a foreign worker who's a union activist or has lodged complaints against employers or the government, there is nothing to prevent the minister from simply refusing to consider their application to enter or to stay in Canada as a foreign worker, refugee, or permanent immigrant applicant.

I have a number of concerns regarding health and safety, but in the interests of time I'm going to skip to the others, which pertain to challenges that I see for Canadian multiculturalism and social cohesion. I think foreign worker programs encourage a hierarchical system based on country of origin, race, ethnicity, and gender, and I think foreign workers are treated as interchangeable temporary workers. I see Bill C-50 exacerbating this situation. With Bill C-50, there would be increased numbers of foreign workers, because employers really do need to fill jobs, and we'd would have more residents and citizens disconnected from their families living abroad.

Bringing foreign workers instead of processing applications for family members or permanent residents and citizens can lead to anger, frustration, and conflict across Canadian communities. With increased foreign workers instead of permanent migrants, there are numerous increased challenges to managing a diverse workforce, and this includes a whole series of problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

For the benefit of the people who are here by video conference, my name is Norm Doyle. I'm the chair of the committee.

We will now begin consideration of part 6 of Bill C-50.

For the people here by video conference, we're going to have to break at about 5:15 for votes, which will occur at 5:30. We are probably two or three blocks away from the House of Commons, so we will leave at 5:15 for the votes at 5:30, and then we'll come back here to continue our study of Bill C-50.

We'll just interrupt this for a moment, as there is a point of order.

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

Yesterday, the session on Bill C-50 was cancelled. Sessions are scheduled for tomorrow, next Monday and probably next Wednesday. I know that we still have to hear from a number of witnesses. We have received a letter saying that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will report to us on the 16th.

As I understand it, therefore, we are going to keep hearing witnesses, and the clause-by-clause study will be done later, at the end of May or the beginning of June.

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

I have a question on Bill C-50.

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?

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

Thank you.

I agree, the reserve is not big enough. I still maintain what I said to my committee colleagues earlier.

In 2005, this committee—which was comprised of different members, but which still had the same valiant clerks and advisors—had made unanimous recommendations. One of these recommendations was that there should be a reserve fund equivalent to one year's worth of benefits. At that time, the amount was between 15 and 16 billion dollars. I remember that the decision was unanimous. Based on the testimony we heard here, and on the way the fund and the situation had evolved since, I still maintain that position.

As for using the fund to pay for training or other social measures, we would have to study that option. Wasn't there some confusion when the name and the identification of the fund itself were changed from unemployment insurance to employment insurance? Some witnesses, including Mr. Hanson, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Atkinson, said that the fund should help people who had lost their jobs, namely those who were unemployed. The change to "employment insurance" was done for a reason. Today, the fund pays for training to help workers re-enter the labour market. I think we agree on that, but we will have to see whether that is the best way to go about it.

I find it interesting that Bill C-50 is compelling us to engage in this debate which, I believe, is timely. The debate is about how the money from the fund should be spent. So we are now engaged in a debate. People have referred to Denmark and its system called "flexisecurity". Under this approach, all income support contributions to the government go into the same pot. That's the opposite of what we have just been talking about. For instance, when someone is not eligible for employment insurance benefits, which are paid for by the federal government, welfare kicks in, which is paid for by the provinces.

Have you ever really thought about that? If so, what do you think about "flexisecurity"?

[Bruno Gagnon]

We see that there's still a pro-cyclical system in Bill C-50--the rates increase when unemployment increases--and we are not comfortable with that. Even though you can repay over more than one year, we're still not comfortable with the fact that premium rates will increase. It's the worst time for increasing premiums.

[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.

[Bruno Gagnon]

We think what is proposed in Bill C-50 could lead to greater transparency than what we have under the current system. We think the gain in transparency and independence would offset any possible decrease in efficiency.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to thank you for being here this morning. What you had to say was very instructive. I also think it will help us decide what recommendations we should make regarding Bill C-50. Earlier, the chair was saying that you were a little concerned about politicians. I understand that, particularly in light of what happened to the $54 billion.

My first question will be to you, Mr. Kelly-Gagnon.

I was rather surprised to hear you say that the Conseil du patronat du Québec had given up recovering the $54 billion, which you described as a notional amount. When employers paid 1.4% of salaries and wage earners paid money into the fund too, there was nothing theoretical about it. It was real cash.

Why do you say this was a notional fund? Is that not somewhat pernicious?

[Bruno Gagnon, Chairperson, Task Force on Financing of Employment Insurance, Canadian Institute of Actuaries]

Good morning, honourable members. I will speak partly in French and partly in English. I hope it doesn't bother you too much. If it does, please let me know.

My name is Bruno Gagnon, and I thank you for inviting the Canadian Institute of Actuaries to share our views on part 7 of Bill C-50 with regard to the creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. As actuaries, our area of expertise is basically insurance, which includes social insurance, which in turn includes employment insurance.

Our profession holds our duty to the public above the needs of the profession and its members, and it is in that spirit that we made public our December 2007 report on EI financing and that we are appearing before your committee today.

The initiative outlined in the budget has the potential to create an excellent system. However, there are several elements of C-50 which, unless they are changed, could cause significant problems for workers, businesses and government.

We are very pleased that beginning in 2009, a system will be introduced that guarantees the premiums will track program costs. That will be a very positive outcome. However, it is our opinion that the requirements of the CEIFB to set rates based on estimates of the revenues looking forward only one year is seriously flawed and could cause problems.

The one-year pay-as-you-go approach is flawed, from our point of view. In our notes we have a scenario where we assume that a recession hits Canada. You probably all know that recessions do happen from time to time. The major problem with recessions in our current time is that no two recessions are identical; no two recessions have exactly the same causes. So a recession may hit Canada at some time. If you read the news, according to Warren Buffet the U.S. is now in a recession. So a recession can happen.

Let's assume that a recession hits Canada and unemployment levels rise to 8%, which is not that much; it's not unheard of. The payment to out-of-work Canadians increases by approximately $3 billion. So the $2 billion reserve of the board is depleted and the EI account has to borrow $1 billion from the government, even though we already have this $54 billion to $56 billion in the current notional EI account. So the EI account is forced to borrow $1 billion, and unemployment levels are rising and may rise even further. What happens then? We borrowed $1 billion so we have to repay $1 billion. We have to replenish the $2 billion reserve or cash balance, and we have to increase rates to take into consideration the higher unemployment level to repay the $2 billion reserve and the $1 billion loan.

In this situation we might have to raise the premiums above the legislated limit of 0.15%. Consideration of applying the 0.15% would fall to ministers. It would not be a very easy decision, because if you applied the 0.15% ceiling you would run a deficit and the deficit would accumulate. The impact on Canadian businesses, which pay nearly 60% of the cost of employment insurance, would be huge, because at exactly the same time, profits would be lower and limited. Cashflows would also be lower. Workers would have to pay 40% of the cost when they were already at risk of losing their jobs, and businesses would need to find money somewhere.

So even during an economic downturn that was not very deep--an 8% unemployment rate is not that deep--the one year going forward would necessitate raising premiums on each occasion. We believe this is significantly pro-cyclical, and as actuaries we are not comfortable with a pro-cyclical mechanism and the one-year-going-forward basis.

Under the proposed system, premium rates could vary irregularly from one year to the next, even if nothing unusual happens, simply to offset the errors made in forecasting.

The $2 billion reserve has no preventive effect, because it has to be replenished each year. No financial burden is imposed on the government, because the board's operations are fully consolidated with those of the government. That makes us feel rather uneasy.

There are also a number of restrictions in Bill C-50 that run counter to the promise of independence made by the Minister of Finance in his February 26 budget.

We think it would be preferable to determine premium rates over a five- to seven-year period, which is closer to an economic cycle.

If Canada had kept to an insurance model with a typical actuarial process similar to what we are recommending, the EI system would currently have a $15 billion reserve, not a reserve over $54 billion. So we recommend that premium rates be set taking into account a five- to seven-year period. We recommend that Bill C-50 be amended to allow the chief actuary and board considerably more latitude in the assumptions and projections used to develop the premium rates, taking into account once again the five- to seven-year time horizon. Finally, the institute reiterates its position of principle that the existing surplus belongs to the EI system and its contributors and should be addressed clearly once and for all.

As a final closing comment, if we had applied a typical actuarial process to this whole thing, we would currently have a $15 billion reserve in the EI account, and the remainder would be something else.

[Yves Giroux]

Our role is not to convince you, but to explain the provisions of Bill C-50. I apologize if you expected me to convince you of something. I can do my best to explain it to you, but to convince you... That is why I am not in politics, I am not good at convincing people.

[Yves Giroux]

I had prepared for a discussion of Bill C-50, but I have not memorized all the figures that go back to the 1990s. If I remember correctly, it was in 1993, or at least in the early 90s.

[Yves Giroux]

To the best of my knowledge, that's totally accurate. If there were to be a surplus after Bill C-50 receives royal assent, if it does, I can't see any way a surplus in the EI program would be used for any other purpose but for paying the benefits first and reducing the premiums. I don't see any other way.

[Yves Giroux]

It started accumulating after the recession of the early 1990s. I don't have the precise figure. I was prepared to speak to Bill C-50 more than the historical background with respect to the notional surplus, but it went back to the early 1990s.

[Yves Giroux]

If I may, Canadians will be better off in the sense that Canadians are premium payers—at least those who contribute to the EI program—and they will have the certainty that if there is a surplus, it will be returned to them as premium payers through lower premiums, if there is such a thing as a surplus going forward.

With respect to the benefit rate, it will still be for the government to decide the rate of benefits, or any changes to benefits. So the crown corporation will not change the benefits; it will only have the power to set the rate. If there's a surplus, Canadians can have assurances from the moment Bill C-50receives royal assent onwards that the premiums they pay to the EI program will not be used for other purposes, towards reducing the debt for example. It will be used solely to pay for EI benefits, and if there's a surplus, it will be returned through lower premiums.

That's the big benefit to Canadians, in my opinion.

[Yves Giroux]

I mean briefly.

You are saying that the Employment Insurance Account should be reimbursed this $54 billion. You also appear to be saying that there is a dichotomy between the amount loaned and advanced to the Employment Insurance Account and that this amount, according to Bill C-50, should be reimbursed.

For explanatory purposes, I think that we should set aside this $54 billion. I can tell you what Bill C-50 will enable us to do in the future. Two billion dollars will be funnelled into the Employment Insurance Account. If surpluses are created, we will account for this in setting the premiums for subsequent years. If there is a surplus, it will be returned to the workers and employers in the form of lower premiums. Similarly, should we unfortunately incur a deficit, the new employment insurance board will advance money through this $2 billion and this amount will have to be reimbursed over subsequent years through higher premiums.

Why not transfer a higher amount? Why not use part of this $54 billion? You stated that this would be a good question to put to the minister and I can only agree with you on that matter.

[Yves Giroux, Director, Social Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

I would like thank you for the opportunity to explain the changes to the management and financing of the employment insurance program as set out in Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill.

The creation of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and a new premium rate-setting mechanism as set out in budget 2008 addresses the expectations of Canadians with regard to employment insurance and the premium rate. It also affects necessary changes to the program at a time when the Canadian economy is entering a period of relative uncertainty. As such, we are entering this period with a position of relative strength, compared to most of our partners.

The government remains committed to ensuring that the right policies and programs are in place to help Canadians, as demonstrated by the numerous measures in the budget that will certainly help weather these uncertain economic times. Within this context, the proposed Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board will help ensure that the EI program is well positioned to withstand changing economic conditions.

As noted by my colleague Monsieur Beauséjour, the new board represents a significant improvement in the management and governance in the EI account. An independent board of directors will have the responsibility each year for setting EI premium rates, using a new mechanism that will ensure the program breaks even over time. The board will be responsible for managing its own bank account, and it will maintain a real cash reserve in that account.

In our view, Canadians can have confidence in the fact that the employment insurance program will be managed on a purely cost-recovery and go-forward basis, and that the premium rates will not be higher than what is needed to pay benefits.

My colleague Tamara and I would be pleased to answer any questions from honourable committee members.

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

I simply wish to repeat that I will be voting in favour of the motion, amended or not. We did however state that we would give priority to commercial paper. First of all, there is Bill C-50, then commercial paper, which is an absolute priority. After that, there could possibly be other issues to study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

All right, we're back in session.

We have before us four quick motions. We want to start with the budget.

We had entertained a motion to accept the budget for the witnesses coming forward on Bill C-50.

[Mark Carney]

As a point of clarification, certainly I welcome the offer, but the proposed changes in Bill C-50 are the alpha and omega of our—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We are now at about 25 minutes before four o'clock, so I think we will begin our meeting.

On behalf of our committee, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I want to welcome a group here today, the German-Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group of the German Bundestag.

Welcome to Canada, ladies and gentlemen. It's a real pleasure to have you here. We sincerely hope your stay here in Canada will be very productive and very enjoyable indeed.

I haven't had the pleasure of visiting Germany. I haven't been at your Parliament, but I do believe we have some people on our committee who have visited your Parliament. I think Mr. Telegdi has been there, and Mr. Wilson has been in Germany. It would be very interesting to have our committee visit Germany to see how you deal with immigration matters as well. Maybe today you might be able to let us know what the immigration challenges are in Germany. We have challenges of our own.

We recently finished a cross-Canada tour and talked about the Iraqi refugee problems that we have, and we're going to have the UNHCR here shortly after you leave. We heard 52 panels of people right across Canada, dealing with temporary foreign workers, dealing with the Iraqi refugee problems, and dealing as well with the immigration consultants.

Over the next four days we will initiate a study on Bill C-50, which is a bit of a controversial bill in our Parliament. It involves changes to the Immigration Act. There's some controversy among opposition members about that particular bill, so we'll be studying Bill C-50 for a few days. We also had the issue of lost Canadians, which we did a report on and submitted to Parliament.

We're a very busy committee. I think committee members would agree that we are very busy.

Perhaps I'll just go to you. I wouldn't even attempt to try to pronounce the names because I know I wouldn't be accurate. Perhaps I'll leave it to your leader, the head of the delegation, Mr. Klaus-Peter Flosbach, to introduce your members.

Thank you.

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

Not only Bill C-50, but also the reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We could do Bill C-50.

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

Mr. Chair, may I suggest that the members read the report on the consultants. We were eager to make sure we got something out of the travel that we could file as a report. I think you'll probably find that we can deal with that fairly quickly.

The steering committee should meet, Mr. Chair, to schedule some extra meetings so that we can do justice to the preliminary report on Bill C-50. It's important we show people that we're going to make good use of the extra time. It would be good if we could get that done.

The reason we said that is that in case there is an election, we don't want to see everything we did on the cross-Canada tour go down the tube. In terms of the consultants, it seemed as if we could get fairly easy agreement. That was the feeling. So if everybody could read the report on the consultants, that might be one thing we could deal with.

We probably won't be able to come to agreement on the other stuff, but with this one, there is a possibility of getting it done. At least we'll have something on record for having taken the tour.

Does that make sense?

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

No. If we look at Bill C-50, that will take us a bit of time from now until May 16, I think. I suspect we will not be able to deal with any reports or motions on other issues. Even though the consultants issue is very important, I suspect we would not be able to deal with it until we have dealt with Bill C-50.

I'm wondering if I could make the very friendly suggestion that we deal with all of issues that are in front of us only after we have finished Bill C-50.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question concerning the study on Bill C-50 that we have agreed to undertake. I think it would be important for the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to draw up a list of witnesses that could help us with our study. I do not think it is up to us to come up with a list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

What you're doing here is literally a nightmare. I can't see how we can deal with this in this fashion. I don't intend to, because this is just too confusing for me. I don't intend to deal with this in this way.

We had our meetings out in Vancouver, and everyone wanted to study Bill C-50 instead of the three items we had on the agenda. We agreed that when we got back here we would study Bill C-50. It seemed like a fairly simple thing to do. We've been given the authority, if you will. Finance doesn't want to do it. They're putting it off on us to study Bill C-50.

Procedurally, this is a nightmare. The clerk can't keep track of it. I can't keep track of it myself. What's going on here is just terrible. It would have been so much simpler to deal with one motion--Mr. Khan's motion, for instance, mirrored just totally and completely, and we could get on with it. This is something you just have to shake your head at. I can't deal with it.

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

The finance committee was seized with Bill C-50 and this provision. They gave it to this committee conditionally to study it and report back on May 9. The only way it came here was in that fashion. This committee can do what this committee wants to do, but we can't amend what finance wants to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You mean after we write our preliminary report on Bill C-50.

[Andrea Lyon]

While I certainly agree with you that the 925,000 is a problem, I don't know that I would necessarily agree with your depiction of officials' work on it. But it is an issue that we need to address, because as I mentioned earlier, and I think as the minister pointed out, it is having a serious impact in terms of the efficiency and the effectiveness of the overall system.

One of the primary problems with the system as it exists right now is the obligation to process all applications. Canada is a very attractive and popular place, and every year we receive far more applicants than we can reasonably absorb--by absorb, I mean having the capacity to ensure appropriate integration--so we're obliged to establish certain targets in terms of the number of people we accept each year.

I agree with you that the problem has been long-standing and that it's growing. But from an official's perspective, we believe that the investments and the amendments that have been proposed in Bill C-50 will help us grapple with the problem and gradually bring down the backlog so as to ensure that we're as competitive as some of our other immigrant-receiving counterparts.

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

It is that, as promptly as possible the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration consider the subject matter of part 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, convey its preliminary report to the Standing Committee on Finance—

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

Through you, Chair, I've had a chance to look through Bill C-50 and through all the materials the ministry has provided. I've heard Ms. Chow say it, I've heard members of the Bloc say it, I've heard members of the Liberal Party say it, and I've heard obviously not just Ms. Chow but other members of the NDP Party say that this part of the bill is built on Conservative ideology. I wonder if you could tell me where in this document you as ministry officials put those two words. I can't find them.

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

—to ask this of people who've just done that. But if it were in the context of a joint tour, perhaps, with the Standing Committee on Finance, it would give other people the opportunity to do that travelling and to hear the important concerns about this particular provision in Bill C-50.

So that's another important addition that we need to consider when we're looking at the plan for whatever motion eventually comes before this committee.

[Andrea Lyon]

That's generally the process.

I must apologize, I'm not an expert on the IRB. I thought we were discussing Bill C-50.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you received a letter from the Standing Committee on Finance calling on this committee to examine that part of Bill C-50 which concerns immigration. I believe they want an answer from us as soon as possible. A study would address some of the concerns raised during our round of consultations. Until now, all we have done is talk about this issue. Now that we have received a formal request in line with Mr. Khan's motion, I think we should debate the motion and get back to the finance committee as quickly as possible. That would demonstrate our interest in this issue.

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

I thought you wanted to be impartial. So in that impartiality, sir, I ask you to stay impartial. There are motions that have been coming, and I would say to you that we should look at these motions in the order of date that you have received them.

There are motions from me, Mr. Telegdi, and Mr. Bevilacqua, and motions that different members have put in, and they go back to early April and the end of March. With due respect, Mr. Khan's motion came to you on April 24, so in good spirit, sir, I would say to you that we should deal with the motions you have in front of you, on Bill C-50 or anything to do with IRPA, by the date they arrived.

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

Before we deal with that letter, I think there is a variety of motions on Bill C-50 that have been made by different members of this committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Well, thank you on behalf of the committee for your presence here today. You gave some very interesting testimony. Of course we're working on our draft report, and I'm sure your testimony will be very useful to us when we consider the recommendations we will be making.

Thank you again. We'll take just a minute for you to move away from the table, and we will get on to our next item on the agenda.

While that's happening, maybe as a matter of courtesy to some of the members who are here, like Mr. Siksay, Mr. Obhrai, Mr. Dosanjh, and other people who couldn't make it to our meetings across the country, I'll tell you that we travelled across the country to nine provinces and we held hearings on Iraqi refugees, immigration consultants, and temporary foreign workers. We heard 52 panels. Some of the members, in their wisdom, in the middle of that, wanted to deal with Bill C-50, and we couldn't at the time because we felt we wanted to do these three. So we said we'd get on to Bill C-50 at another date, and hopefully that's coming right now.

I believe you have before you a letter from the Standing Committee on Finance. It passed a motion at its meeting that, as promptly as possible, its chair write a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration asking that committee to consider the subject matter of part 6 of Bill C-50 and to report by May 9, 2008.

Does everyone have a copy of that?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for joining us today. I wasn't ready when they came to us before, but I have a few questions for you today.

Are there any changes you would recommend, from a staff perspective, to anything in Bill C-50, since that's what we're actually here to discuss? Are there any minor changes at all that we need to implement to achieve what we are trying to accomplish? Is what's in the implementation bill satisfactory to the staff's requirements to make that happen?

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

We are not studying any aspect of Bill C-50 here today. We'll have an opportunity to do so, and the question can be put at the appropriate time.

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

Since you're going to do that, could you also provide for us how much money the minister spent on advertising Bill C-50 in the last month?

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

Minister, this request in Bill C-50 is all about expanding your discretionary power, yet with the IRB, and under your watch, you have increased the refugee backlog by something in the order of 300%, from about 20,000 up to 60,000. You've reduced the number of judges available. At one point, there was a backlog of about only 10 appointments, and now it's up to around 60 appointments. To no one's great surprise, therefore, the processing times have gone up exponentially.

Then, in a blatant political move, you substituted your own political discretion for the advice of the advisory panel, and a week later the advisory panel quit en masse. Then you come to this committee and say, “Trust me, I want to have more discretionary power.”

My question is quite simple, Minister. Given your track record with respect to the IRB, where you reduced appointments and increased wait times, and in effect substituted your own political decisions for those of the advisory panel, why should we trust you with respect to this increased discretion?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the minister, one part of all of this, and it's been alluded to a few times, is that there are millions of dollars involved in this year's and next year's budgets and in subsequent budgets. There is up to $37 million a year in increased funding to try to deal with the backlog and to try to address the issues you've outlined here today. One of the important parts of that I think is to understand the changes to IRPA in part 6 of Bill C-50 and exactly how those funding increases will assist you, and more particularly, assist those working within the ministry, to do some of the work you've outlined in the bill.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'm sorry, that has nothing to do with what's being discussed here today. I thought we were here to address Bill C-50. I didn't realize that my riding activities were part of the debate of Bill C-50.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

With these proposed changes, the Conservative government seems to be asking Canadians to give you, the minister, sweeping new powers. But it seems to us, to many people, that you have tried to bury these provisions in Bill C-50. As my colleague Mr. McCallum showed, you actually misled the House on the number of immigrants, and the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board actually resigned after you brought in increased ministerial discretion.

So how can Canadians trust you with such sweeping powers when it seems you have back-doored a number of things so far?

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

You have ads out there saying that you're doing all this because of the long wait. These ads are deceptive. Bill C-50 won't have any impact on the 925,000 applicants who are backlogged. Even if this bill passes, it won't affect those who applied before February 27, 2008. There's no backlog on student visas or work permits. Yet Bill C-50 says your department will have the right to reconsider these applications. Even if they qualify for a visa, you are taking their right to a visa. There's no backlog. Why would you change this rule so it affects everybody else? It doesn't make sense, and these ads are deceptive.

The community is saying it's damaging, it's dangerous. Yesterday, I heard another D word, which is “dumb”. So you have your three Cs and the community has three Ds. That seems to be the comment out there.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our former GG Adrienne Clarkson's father came from Hong Kong, the same place my father came from. Under Bill C-50, his application probably would not be processed. It would be returned every year. He could apply, but his application probably wouldn't even be considered, because you now have the right to pick winners and losers. Losers include people like Tommy Douglas, who was voted the best Canadian.

In your definition, what are losers? Why are these people losers? You're going to have winners and you're going to have losers, and sometimes losers are people like Tommy Douglas and Adrienne Clarkson.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak on the immigration provisions of Bill C-50, The Budget Implementation Act 2008. With me today are my Deputy Minister, Mr. Richard Fadden, and my Assistant Deputy Minister, Ms. Andrea Lyon.

Mr. Chair, I am proud to serve as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a government that recognizes that immigration is as important to Canada's future as it has been to our past.

Our country was built on immigration, and our future prosperity and success as a country largely depends on it. Because immigration is so important to Canada's future, we need a modern and renewed vision for immigration. By 2012, all of Canada's net labour force growth will come from immigration. The stark reality is that if we do nothing to address the backlog, by 2012 applicants will face a 10-year wait time to have their application processed and the line-up of people waiting to get into Canada could easily reach upwards of 1.5 million.

Now, contrary to the previous government, we do not believe the status quo is acceptable. We are facing real and serious international competition for the talents and the skills that we need to fill the jobs that are waiting to be filled here in Canada. Whereas Australia and New Zealand are processing applications in as little as six months, it can take us up to six years to even begin looking at one's application, let alone to process it. The result is that there are approximately 925,000 people now in line waiting to immigrate to Canada, with almost 600,000 of these people applying in the skilled workers category.

When we compare ourselves to the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, we are the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen applications. This weakens our ability to select applicants who will be best placed to succeed in our labour market, and as a result, only 10% to 15% of skilled workers admitted here have a job arranged when they arrive, compared to over 80% of similar immigrants going to New Zealand.

This means two things. First, that we risk losing talented people to other countries, talented people that we need, right here in Canada. And second, the current system is preventing immigrants from getting the best possible start in their new lives.

This is unacceptable. It's unfair to our country, it's unfair to immigrants, it's unfair to those waiting for a response to their applications, and it's unfair to the families here. So it's time to act. We have a problem and we need to address it, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Currently we are required by law to completely process every application regardless of how many people apply or how many we're able to accept. And under law we are obliged to process applications in the order in which we receive them, with just a couple of exceptions.

The current system, if left unchanged, is on track to collapse under its own weight, so the system needs fixing. Urgent action is required so that we can bring more immigrant families here faster and more skilled workers here sooner.

To address these challenges, we're taking a three-pronged approach. First, we've committed to investing more money to address the backlog--$109 million over five years. This funding will allow us to hire and train more visa officers to speed up processing in parts of the world where wait times are the longest. But increasing funding alone is not enough. We need to do things smarter, better, and faster.

In addition to increased funding, we're making administrative changes to increase both our efficiency and our effectiveness--sensible things like centralizing processing, improving and enhancing computer systems, sending in SWAT teams to tackle local backlogs where we believe they can make real progress on them, and transferring files from very busy to less busy missions.

Third, through Bill C-50 we've introduced legislative changes that will give us the flexibility and authority to both manage the backlog and set priorities that will match Canada's needs. Our proposed legislation will allow the minister to identify categories of occupations--not individuals--that will be processed on a priority basis, based on our country's needs and not on one's individual place in line.

To make sure we get these categories of occupations right and fair, we're placing several checks and balances on the minister. I like to call these controls the three Cs--the charter, consultations, and cabinet.

The ministerial instructions will, of course, comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They will maintain a system that is universal and non-discriminatory. And these instructions will also require broad input.

We will be required to consult with the provinces and territories, industry, and government departments to shape the approach every step of the way. Our consultations with the provinces will include getting reassurances from them that if regulated professions are on their list, they will have commitments from their provincial regulatory bodies that these individuals will be allowed to work in their chosen fields once they get here.

And finally, ministerial instructions will be subject to cabinet approval, and I can assure you from previous experience that that is not a rubber- stamp process.

Some are suggesting that this legislation will put too much power in the hands of the minister, without sufficient accountability. For example, there is a myth out there that the minister will be able to arbitrarily cherry-pick applicants in the queue and override visa officers' decisions on individual cases. This is simply not the case. The legislation will not allow the minister to override or reverse decisions made by visa officers to admit people. Our immigration officers will continue to make decisions about individual applications.

As to concerns being expressed about the impact of this legislation on family reunification and humanitarian and compassionate cases, any instruction from the minister will have to respect the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These objectives include supporting Canada's economy and competitiveness, supporting family reunification, and upholding Canada's humanitarian commitments.

So to be clear, the ministerial instructions will not apply to refugees, protected persons, or humanitarian and compassionate applications made from within Canada.

The instructions must also respect our commitments to provinces and territories regarding the provincial nominee program and the Canada-Quebec Accord. And to be completely open and transparent, these instructions will be published in the Canada Gazette, on the departmental website, and reported on in Citizenship and Immigration Canada's annual report, which is tabled in Parliament.

But a key change, Mr. Chair, is that under the proposed legislative changes, we will not have to process every application. Those applications not processed in a given year could be held for future consideration or returned to the applicant with a refund of their application fee, and they would be welcome to reapply. The result, Mr. Chair, would be that the backlog will stop growing and will actually start to come down.

Some have rightly asked why these immigration provisions have been included in Budget 2008. It's because our government recognizes the critical role of immigration in the Canadian economy. Our government underlined the importance of immigration in our government's blueprint for economic growth and prosperity, known as Advantage Canada, in Budget 2006. The immigration provisions included in Budget 2008 build on what we said we would do in Advantage Canada in Budget 2006.

Advantage Canada acknowledged that people are key to having an economic plan that will make Canada a world leader today and in future generations. That's why we included amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as part of the budget implementation provisions. Doing so serves the best interests of immigrants and their families, Canadians, and our economy.

So to sum up, Mr. Chair, our proposed measures will give us the flexibility to choose the skilled workers that best fit our needs, without affecting our objectives regarding family reunification or refugee protection.

Ultimately, the measures our government is proposing will ensure fairness by helping us to make decisions on cases faster while meeting the immediate requirements of Canada's labour market.

Our goal, Mr. Chair, is simple: to give Canada some common-sense tools to reduce the immigration backlog; to do it in a way that meets our needs; and to do it in a way that is fair and that respects our laws. It's about a vision for our country that makes sure that people who have gone through so much to get here find the opportunities to build their families, contribute to their communities, and excel in their chosen fields. It is a vision that will allow Canada to develop a system with the flexibility to supply our economy with the people we need to support our growth.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. We would now be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Order, please.

It's 3:30. We have our witnesses with us and we have the members here, so I will call the meeting to order.

With that, we'll ask those who are from the media to leave the room. I appreciate that.

We want to thank the minister, the Honourable Diane Finley, for being here with us. This is our second meeting on the budget bill, Bill C-50. We want to thank her for taking the time to be here and to answer the questions of the committee.

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--

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for being here today. This is my first day on this committee and I've learned a lot.

Given the comments Ms. Wasylycia-Leis made about health care workers, I hope we can count on their support for Bill C-50, an immigration bill. That is one way of bringing in technicians and nurses.

[Yves Giroux]

In the case of the Mental Health Commission, these are research projects to determine the best approaches for dealing with mental health issues. This is something that Senator Kirby looked into. He identified major deficiencies in that regard. Under the new budget, the Mental Health Commission has received or will receive $110 million, subject to Bill C-50 receiving Royal Assent, to conduct research projects in five centres. Those funds are not intended for direct service delivery. Rather, they are meant for developing innovative mental health practices for clienteles defined as being at risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It's Madam Folco's position that what the parliamentary secretary says is wrong, but Bill C-50 is going to be the subject of another hearing, which will begin on April 28. So I'm not going to get into too many arguments between people across the floor from each other here. One says it's right and one says it's wrong. It's a disagreement between two honourable people here.

Monsieur Carrier, you will wrap up?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I want to make the point that in the new bill that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has presented to Parliament, Bill C-50, it would not be possible for somebody outside the country to ask to get into the country on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. I just want to make that point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Well, it wouldn't affect the assets and liabilities, but it would affect the income and expenses. So I guess the questions I'm asking are, in fiscal year 2008-09—if in fact Bill C-50 passes—will the $2 billion come out of the revenue account and get passed over to this new entity; and should the anticipated surplus of $2.3 billion, or whatever the number is, actually reflect that movement of $2 billion?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the officials. I don't think we actually realized how many officials are here today. Mr. Dykstra and I were just talking about the amount of effort that has probably gone into preparing for this. So thank you for your efforts.

I have a very quick question, two questions, and then I'll hand it over to Mr. Dykstra.

This is to Finance officials, referring to parts 8 and 9, where we're dealing with payments to provinces and territories, and payments to certain entities. Whoever this question may go to, first of all, where does the funding come from?

Secondly, we're in a minority Parliament. We keep hearing threats of elections. We'd like to get this through as fast as possible. What happens if we don't get Bill C-50 passed before this House rises?

[Andrea Lyon]

I think Minister Flaherty addressed the question of the inclusion of immigration or IRPA amendments within Bill C-50. He referred to the linkage between competitiveness of the Canadian economy, which appears in Advantage Canada, and the desire to ensure that Canada has the right people at the right time in terms of our ability to respond to labour market demands.

[Andrea Lyon]

The amendments being proposed to the act are indeed a portion of Bill C-50.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Thank you.

Welcome, Minister. I have a couple of things that I am a bit curious about.

I am curious about the provisions on immigration that are included in Bill C-50. Many people have asked whether this doesn't turn immigrants into economic commodities. Why is this included in this bill?

[Bill James, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Social Development]

With respect to the proposed reserve in Bill C-50, it's correct that it's proposed as $2 billion. That's an amount the government feels is appropriate vis-à-vis the rate stability provisions in the legislation.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, thank you for being here.

In Bill C-50, an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act makes a sudden appearance.

Do you agree with me that it would only be proper to refer that part of the bill to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in order for that committee to consult experts in the field, members assigned to that file, not just members of the Standing Committee on Finance?

[Jeremy Rudin, General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you.

I understand that you'll have hearings in more detail on this, and since it's quite a technical issue I won't take a lot of time.

I think the key points to make in this regard are that the possibility, the treatment in regulation, that there might be conditional or unconditional commitments was recognized worldwide; that the rules that OSFI had in this regard, the differential treatment between conditional and unconditional treatment, were well aligned with those of other regulators; and that the transactions involved were not necessarily under the purview of OSFI. That is to say that a number of the financial institutions that were providing this conditional liquidity support were regulated by their home regulators, not by OSFI.

We could go into more detail, but that will take us far from Bill C-50.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Before you go too much further, I am not necessarily overly concerned, but I do want to remind the committee that we're on Bill C-50. It's not estimates, where we have the ability to ask any questions. So I want to be careful that we not get too far on this one. But go ahead and ask it, and we'll see if the minister answers it.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you and the members of the committee to discuss Bill C-50, which as you know, is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008, which is the third budget of our government.

I am pleased to meet with you and the members of your committee today to discuss Bill C-50, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008.

This year's budget builds on the decisive and timely action taken in the October 2007 economic statement to support the economy. The economic statement provided an additional $60 billion in broad-based tax relief for Canadians. Since coming to office, our government is providing nearly $200 billion in tax relief in this and the next five years.

Now, reducing our overall tax burden at the federal level is providing a terrific shot of adrenalin for the national economy. Actions taken by the government since 2006 are providing $21 billion in incremental tax relief to Canadians and Canadian businesses this year. This is significant and substantial economic stimulus, equivalent to 1.4% of Canada's GDP. We have been ahead of the curve, managing the economy prudently and responsibly.

I note for the committee that the IMF World Economic Outlook, released last week, praised the Canadian government for its pre-emptive and ongoing measures, and I quote from the report: “A package of tax cuts has provided a timely fiscal stimulus...” and “... the government's structural policy agenda should help increase competitiveness and productivity growth to underpin longer-term prospects”. So clearly our tax reductions have helped place Canada in a position of strength and allowed us to respond more effectively during this period of economic uncertainty.

This includes historic business tax reductions announced in the October economic statement that will give Canada the lowest statutory tax rate in the G7 by 2012. It will also give Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7, a goal that we will reach by 2010.

Budget 2008 also builds on the government's record of strong fiscal management. By 2012-13, total debt reduction by the government since coming into office will be more than $50 billion—that's five zero.

Commitment to sound financial management and debt reduction is never easy, but we are committed to eliminating generational inequity. We will not leave our children and grandchildren with the burden of paying for the excessive spending of the past. This bill reflects that commitment.

Budget 2008 also builds on the government's record of strong fiscal management. By 2012-2013, total debt reduction by the government since coming into office will be more than $50 billion. Commitment to sound financial management and debt reduction is never easy, but we are committed to eliminating generational inequity. We will not leave our children and grandchildren with the burden of paying for the excessive spending of the past. This bill reflects that commitment.

Mr. Chairman, with the limited time available to me today, I will only focus on a few of the key provisions in this bill.

Before I do that, I would like to mention Bill C-253, which is the private member's bill that proposed changes to the registered education savings plan, a proposal that could cost the government more than $900 million annually. I note that this cost estimate is a conservative one, as we have recently seen other estimates, like the one by Don Drummond of TD Bank, that the cost could be in the vicinity of $2 billion annually. Bill C-253 is a fiscally irresponsible measure that risks putting the federal government into deficit. In a time of global economic uncertainty, this is a risk our government is not willing to take. I would also note that a vast array of stakeholders, including prominent student groups such as the Canadian Federation of Students, have come out against this legislation. That is why Bill C-50 also includes language to protect the government's fiscal plan from the effects of Bill C-253.

Let me stress, however, that this government is supporting post-secondary education in many ways that are fiscally responsible and effective. It is in this spirit that our government has taken action in the past two budgets to improve RESPs by expanding the program and making it more flexible and more available to students. Budget 2008 also builds on past action to help students pay for their education by committing $123 million over four years, starting in 2009-10, to streamline, modernize, and improve access to the Canada student loans program. Secondly, it supports students with a $350 million investment in 2009-10, rising to $430 million by 2012-13 in the new Canada student grant program. This new program will be easy to use, transparent, and broad-based, providing certainty and predictability for Canadian families and their children.

Let me now turn, Chair, to the main measures in budget 2008 that are incorporated in Bill C-50. As I noted, budget 2008 builds on the actions taken in the October economic statement in a number of significant ways. It helps Canadians save with a new tax-free savings account. It provides further assistance for Canada's manufacturing and processing sector. It supports small and medium-sized businesses by improving the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. These measures, which I will now address in some detail, are just a few of the actions we are taking to help improve Canada's productivity, employment, and prosperity.

On the tax-free savings account, Canadians now have more money in their pockets as a result of our tax reductions. This is money where individuals, families, workers, and seniors can spend, invest, or save. To help Canadians realize even greater benefits from saving, our government is creating a new tax-free savings account, or TFSA. Christened a tax policy gem by the C.D. Howe Institute, the TFSA represents the single most important personal savings vehicle since the introduction of the RRSP in 1957. It's the first account of its kind in Canadian history. It is a flexible, registered, general purpose account that will allow Canadians to watch their savings grow tax free.

This is how it works. First, Canadians can contribute up to $5,000 every year to a registered tax-free savings account, plus carry forward any unused room to future years. Secondly, the investment income, including capital gains earned in the plan, will be exempt from any tax, even when withdrawn. Thirdly, Canadians can withdraw from the account at any time without restriction. Better yet, there are no restrictions on what they can save for. And finally, the full amount of withdrawals may be recontributed to a tax-free savings account in the future, to ensure no loss in a person's total savings room.

To make it easier for lower- and modest-income Canadians to save, there will be no clawbacks by the federal government. Neither the income or capital gains earned in a tax-free savings account nor the withdrawals from it will affect eligibility for federal income-tested benefits such as the guaranteed income supplement.

I'll say a few words about the manufacturing sector. The Canadian economy remains strong, yet we are mindful of the challenges before us: global uncertainty, volatile markets, and the difficulties confronting some of our traditional industries such as forestry and manufacturing. In budget 2007 we brought in a $1.3 billion temporary accelerated capital cost allowance. This initiative allows manufacturing businesses to fully write off investments in machinery and equipment over a two-year period.

In budget 2008, we extended this initiative for three years, on a declining basis. This will provide the manufacturing and processing sector with an additional $1 billion in tax relief. Manufacturers asked for this extension, and we delivered.

Through the community development trust, the government is also investing $1 billion to support communities and workers affected by international economic volatility. We are now working with each province and territory to identify priority areas for action and to seek their public commitment to support communities, consistent with the objectives of the trust.

Through the community development trust, the government is also investing $1 billion to support communities and workers affected by international economic volatility.

We are now working with each province and territory to identify priority areas for action and to seek their public commitment to support communities, consistent with the objectives of the trust.

I note the Province of Ontario has been particularly appreciative of the trust and their share of this funding of over $350 million. Indeed, the Ontario government has recently outlined its plans to spend all this money in their provincial budget, including programs to provide up-to-date training for Ontario's unemployed workers who require skills upgrading.

Our government made a commitment in budget 2007 to help promote research and development. In budget 2007 and in its science and technology strategy mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage, the government committed to identifying opportunities for improving the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, including its administration.

Budget 2008 proposes to enhance the availability and accessibility of the financial support for R and D to small and medium-sized Canadian-controlled private corporations. Specifically, Bill C-50 proposes to, first of all, increase the expenditure limit for the enhanced scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit; and secondly, extend the enhanced scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit to medium-sized companies by phasing out access to the enhanced benefits over increased taxable capital and taxable income ranges.

This proposed action will help Canada stay at the forefront of R and D, which in turn will help Canada continue to be competitive.

Mr. Chairman, these and other initiatives in Bill C-50 clearly illustrate our government's commitment to deliver results. Budget 2008 reflects the stability and responsible leadership that Canada needs for these uncertain times. It builds on efforts we have taken since 2006 to reward Canadians for their hard work, improve standards of living, and fuel economic growth.

Budget 2008 reflects the stability and responsible leadership that Canada needs for these uncertain times. It builds on efforts we have taken since 2006 to reward Canadians for their hard work, improve standards of living, and fuel economic growth.

I now welcome any questions you may have about this bill. I am joined, of course, by officials from Finance Canada, who I'm sure will be of assistance to fully respond to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 10, 2008, we are dealing with 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.

We have with us this afternoon the Minister of Finance, Mr. Jim Flaherty. We want to thank you for coming and getting to the committee as promptly as you have. We have you for an hour, and we don't want to waste much of that time, so we want to get right into your dialogue, and then we'll move on to questions.

I want to remind the committee that with the minister being here, the questioning is a little bit different. We'll start with the opposition members first, seven minutes each on a round, and it will go all the way down through to the NDP and then to the Conservatives. That's according to the rules of this committee. With that, we'll proceed.

Yes, Mr. Dykstra.

[Gerry Mills]

I've tempered my comments and kept away from Bill C-50--but I really wanted to.

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

We're not going to help them at all. It really wouldn't help the economy here. They keep applying for the temporary foreign workers, which is not good for the workers and not necessarily good for the tourism industry. It just results in a glut.

It actually does connect with Bill C-50 in some ways, because it's connected with the temporary foreign workers program.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll police myself, but I'm absolutely not a good policewoman—not of myself.

Let me say, Mr. Wyman, that I entirely agree with what you have said about the arbitrary powers of the minister, and so on. I won't go into the details. All I wish is that what you have presented to us this morning, you will let as many people know as you can across Canada, and particularly in your own province and within your own network, that this is how you feel about this, and this is how some other members of Parliament feel as well, including me and my colleague, Mr. Telegdi, from the Liberal Party. That's all I want to say about it.

It's a bad bill. There are all sorts of things one could say. We are in agreement with you on this. Please, we do our own work: I'm doing work in Montreal, which is my home base, and I hope you will continue to do your own work in Halifax.

Having said that, and for what it's worth, I'm not sure that the whole question of bringing in low-skilled workers as opposed to high-skilled workers, which Madam Mills referred to, was really a political way of winning votes, if you like, which is what I think you were suggesting. My take on this is that there was a need for this. Where we went wrong, whichever government it was, is that once these people came in, we didn't allow them, for the most part, to actually practise the jobs they came to Canada for. Obviously, I'm thinking of doctors and engineers.

There's a joke among us, or the people who are involved with immigration, that the best place for a woman to have a baby is in a taxi, because the chances of the taxi driver being a doctor are very high, and she will immediately get fantastic service and aid from the taxi driver. It's a joke, but it happens to be partly true as well.

So I think the mistake was in not making sure that once these people came in, with their high skills that are required here.... God knows, we need doctors. I come from the province of Quebec, where we need doctors in a big way—not just doctors, but also other people in the medical professions. But we're not doing anything, either the provincial governments or the federal government or the corporations, to make sure that once these people get into the country, whichever province they come to, they actually have a job to go to, which is what they were expecting when they got here. That's one aspect.

Regarding the low-skilled workers, when the huge wave of immigration came in after World War II in the fifties and sixties, practically all of the people had low skills. In Montreal, it was the Italians and the Greeks who built the roads. Because we had a new immigration policy, which said that when people came in they had the right to bring in their families, it allowed these people to bring in their families. We now have, as a result, a second and even a third generation who are totally Canadian.

I won't even refer to the horrible policies we had as a Canadian government regarding the Chinese railway workers, or the Hindus who were turned back, the Sikhs in particular, the Jews, or whomever. We've learned from our mistakes. But obviously, it seems that we have not learned enough from our mistakes. When temporary workers come in here and then have to leave, it is definitely wrong.

I wasn't part of the western part of the trip, but definitely in the Quebec and eastern part of the trip, if there's one thing this committee has learned, it's that people like you have made it very clear to us that the temporary foreign worker program has gaping holes in it, and it has to be looked at as a real program.

I say this because the question that arises from what you and others before you have said, Madam Mills, is the following: we have a new kind of labour market, where people can move around very easily and very quickly, not only across Canada but also from any country. If we're now bringing in people from Sri Lanka to work here for three or four months, it wasn't possible a generation ago. So we have a new type of labour market. We have new types of communications, whereby people see on their televisions in Sri Lanka, for example, that there are jobs in Canada.

So what can we do to protect our own Canadian workers? That has to be done too, and that is the government's responsibility as well--first of all, to protect our own workers and make sure that where there are jobs, they can go to these jobs, know about these jobs, and are paid well, but also to make sure that these people who come across will come across to the right jobs.

We know there's a lot of abuse in this program, and I think that contrary to.... I won't go back to Bill C-50, in our jargon, the new bill, but the whole temporary workers program has to be seen inside a larger program, which is the labour management program within Canada. I'm not talking about immigration here; I'm talking about labour management in terms of what's happening in the 21st century. I think this is what we really have to look at.

I know my chair is motioning to me, but that's the comment I wanted to make.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

For the benefit of everyone, including our witnesses, we've had some disagreement as we've gone along, simply because our mandate was to study these three things: temporary foreign workers, immigration consultants, and Iraqi refugees. We have been a little bit lenient when people have gone into Bill C-50.

For the benefit of our witnesses, again, we have agreed, as a committee, that we're going to study Bill C-50. It will be the subject of hearings on April 28, actually. So Bill C-50 won't be rushed through or glossed over. We will be having full consultations on Bill C-50.

Anyway, let's try not to get too heavily into Bill C-50. Let's try to confine our remarks, as much as we can, to these three topics we've been mandated by the House of Commons to study.

Now, as chair, I'm not going to bring the hammer down on people who wish to make reference to Mr. Wyman's remarks. Everyone will have an opportunity, including the parliamentary secretary. But let's not make Bill C-50 the subject of this hearing. It is temporary foreign workers, Iraqi refugees, and immigration consultants we're looking at here.

With that comment, I would ask members to police themselves. Don't have me interrupt and bring the hammer down every time, because that's not the purpose of the meetings. We don't want to do that. Police yourselves, please, and be as judicious as you can be in your comments.

Go ahead, Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Wyman and Madam Mills.

There's so much to say, and I don't want to repeat myself on some of the things I said earlier this morning.

On Bill C-50, Mr. Wyman....

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To clarify, there will be an opportunity for debating Bill C-50. There will be a committee to hear that. I think we all understand the agenda for the meeting, and we need to stay within that. It's not a question of limiting it; there's a different occasion and time for that.

Mr. Carrier indicated that in some circumstances there will be a need for temporary foreign workers. We need to deal with the issue in relation to that. I know different segments of the country are experiencing an economic boom, if you want to call it that--for example, in my province and in some of the western provinces. I think everyone agrees that we should find suitable Canadians or permanent residents to fill the jobs we can. We should do training and have programs. We have to ensure that happens. But the truth of the matter is that there are some jobs that are unfilled.

I know we had Tim Hortons presenting in one of our committees. Notwithstanding the remark about how stupid it is to try to get somebody flown in to work at Tim Hortons, the reality is that in some places you can't buy a cup of coffee past a certain hour because the place is shut down. That's the reality. You'd like to have somebody working, but they close. And some of the employers do pay a significant sum to get people over here to work.

But having said that, there is the question of need. Would you agree that there would be some need to protect the vulnerable temporary foreign workers from certain employment practices and to set certain standards? Would you agree with that?

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

Thank you.

While we are here speaking to you, the minister and the staff of CIC have been travelling around and have been in Ottawa, Vancouver, and Toronto giving presentations about temporary foreign workers. I have these documents, and from one of them I want to read to you two paragraphs specifically about the temporary foreign workers program.

One of them, the backgrounder, says:

Improvements have been made to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to make the process of hiring temporary foreign workers easier, faster and less costly for employers when they are unable to find Canadians to do the job.

The 2007 budget committed $50.5 million over two years to increase processing [of these workers].

Then there is a PowerPoint presentation that talks about a growing demand on the temporary side, from 100,000 work permits in 2005 to 130,000 in 2007.

That's a 30% increase. It's 30,000 more. This legislative amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is to deal with this and to address the pressures and modernize the immigration system.

It also said that it would allow CIC greater flexibility regarding the type and number of applications to be processed. What you're hearing is that there's going to be flexibility to deal with the whole notion of getting more workers into Canada on the temporary side.

I think the whole drift is that there is a federal legislative change, Bill C-50, which you mentioned. It's 130,000 in 2007. It is going to grow dramatically, and you're going to see more resources funding, more staff energy, and a lot more flexibility to have a lot more of these temporary foreign workers coming into Canada. That is basically my interpretation of what is in front of Parliament right now.

Your recommendation said that we should go back to the 2002 level--stop expanding it, get it fixed, and not use people as cheap labour. Given that, how do you think labour unions or ordinary workers are going to deal with this legislative change, because instead of stopping it, apparently we are about to massively expand it?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today. We've travelled a lot in Canada. We've talked about a lot of things, and from a fairly broad perspective. Yesterday once again, I had the opportunity to talk a little with the people from New Brunswick about how they integrate their francophone immigrants. I had a chance to speak with the people from the Fraser Institute about the economic imbalance in Canada. I had the opportunity to talk about the policy of accepting refugees in general and the immigration policy in general. The only taboo subject in this committee is Bill C-50. That defies understanding. That's probably because the government wants to wait to do its advertising in order to propagandize and indoctrinate the public before parliamentarians have the time to talk about it. It's paradoxical that the government finds it inappropriate to talk about Bill C-50 in the context of immigration policy, but considers it entirely normal and appropriate to talk about it in a fiscal policy context. That's ironic to say the least.

I was really lucky to be able to say all that without Mr. Komarnicki rising on a point of order.

That said, going back to the subject of your presentation today, you talked about worker protection. This subject has been coming back again and again since the start of our consultations, as has the issue of closed visas for temporary workers, in particular. A worker is assigned to a single employer, which gives that employer a disproportionate advantage. If the employment relationship is broken, the worker, to all intents and purposes, must return to his country.

It seems increasingly clear that that will have to change and that, in our report, we'll have to recommend an open visa, but restrict it to a specific employment area and to a specific province. We have to give workers the choice of changing businesses along the way, like any other workers.

That said, employers have told us that, when they bring in foreign workers, they have a certain number of expenses. They have to pay a recruitment firm, for airline tickets and so on. It also seems clear to me that, if we allow foreign workers to change jobs along the way, we must require new employers to compensate the first employer for the expenses he has incurred.

Do you think that would be a good compromise, a good solution, that would help workers, while respecting employers? My question is for both witnesses.

[Rick Clarke]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I've pretty well talked about the issues on Bill C-50 as it is, but I do want to point out that to date the determination of labour market needs as demonstrated within the list of occupations under pressure are being made without labour union participation. The labour movement and our unions are well placed to be able to provide information on areas of labour market shortfalls as well as recommendations on how to address the shortfalls in ways that do not create large pools of precarious workers who are left vulnerable to abuse.

The changes that are being proposed under Bill C-50 are of such significance and importance that they should not be buried within the budget and should be removed so that there's full public debate on these issues, because they open the door more or become a faster slide for the temporary foreign worker program.

We do have some recommendations. We believe the temporary foreign worker program should be frozen and returned to its historic pre-2002 purpose and process until a real debate can be conducted. Employers should be restricted by all levels of government to ensure that temporary foreign workers are used only as a last resort where real shortages exist. Where temporary foreign worker programs are utilized, these workers should have the same rights as any Canadian worker; in particular, they should have the right to fair wages and safe workplaces, the right to join a union, and the right to remain in Canada and apply for citizenship, independent of the wishes of the employer that brought them here. Additionally, all workers employed within Canada should be afforded the rights of permanent immigrants.

Labour unions must be consulted and given the opportunity to fully participate in determining labour market needs, as well as finding solutions to meeting labour market shortages. Employers should not have the ability to choose the country of origin from which they intend to bring workers under the temporary foreign worker program or through any other employment program. Employers should not have the ability to discriminate by country of origin or nationality when hiring any worker.

Under our human rights act, if they tried to select or reject a particular nationality of worker within Canada, they'd be in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and they shouldn't be allowed to do it under this program.

We believe we should introduce a full and inclusive regularization program to give all workers on temporary visas as well as non-status people living in Canada the opportunity to acquire permanent residency. Without such a program, non-status people and temporary foreign workers are left vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Workers who enter Canada under the temporary foreign worker visas or any other program should have the opportunity to apply immediately upon entry into the country for permanent immigration status.

Policy options should be utilized to ensure that the huge numbers of displaced workers from manufacturing and resource sectors are retooled and redeployed to relevant areas where skill transfers and application is viable. Additionally, comprehensive job training programs need to be implemented in order to retrain these workers, as well as workers from other demographic sectors, such as the large aboriginal workforce, newly landed immigrants, people with disabilities, women, and youth, who are underutilized within the labour market.

The federal government should fund an arm's-length temporary foreign worker advocate office in each province to assess temporary foreign workers with work-related and immigration complaints. Services provided by this advocate should be provided at no cost to the temporary foreign workers, and these advocate offices should be established with collaboration from the trade union movement. Split the budget implementation bill, Bill C-50, to remove all changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in order to allow separate debate on those proposed changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm sure that will happen. We have agreed to study Bill C-50 at a later date, and that's fine.

Rick, I'm not going to restrict you from making some comments on it. We're not going into a full-fledged study of Bill C-50, but we have been fairly wide-ranging over the last couple of weeks in comments that are made about Bill C-50. I'm not restricting any of our witnesses from making some comments on Bill C-50. It's been fairly informal and laid-back.

I know this is not the forum in which we're going to be studying Bill C-50. We're talking about temporary foreign workers, Iraqi refugees, and immigration consultants. But I'm sure Mr. Clarke's presentation is not concentrating on Bill C-50. Most of his remarks have been confined to the temporary foreign worker program, and that's fine.

So I think we'll just move on and go to some questions after you've finished your presentation, Mr. Clarke.

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

I have a point of order.

I know this witness is giving his views, and I guess the federation's views, or his organization's views, on Bill C-50. There will be an opportunity for that to happen. This is not that. This is on temporary foreign workers and undocumented workers. I know his views are interesting and certainly have application to a study of Bill C-50, but that's not what we're doing here. I think the witness should restrict his remarks to what we're dealing with here and to what the study is.

[Rick Clarke, President, Nova Scotia Federation of Labour]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Good morning. My name is Rick Clarke and I am the president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour. You've been in other provinces, so you know the structures of the federation. We're part of the Canadian Labour Congress, an umbrella organization. In Nova Scotia we represent, through affiliated unions, in excess of 70,000 workers.

We were founded on the principle of justice and dignity for all. It's always been front and centre in our struggle for a just and fair society.

Our federation works on many issues together with other federations. The presidents of the federations of labour across the country meet regularly on common issues. One of those issues brings us before you today. We welcome the opportunity to be here to talk about the undocumented and temporary workers.

Although the use of temporary foreign workers may not be as prominent a concern in Nova Scotia as in other provinces--such as Alberta, with what we're seeing in the tar sands--I want to assure you it is a growing concern in this province.

As I stated, the use or abuse of the temporary foreign worker program may not be a really high-profile matter, but we believe that's because of efforts of employers and, to a degree, both levels of government to maintain as low a profile as possible. But it's also coupled with the fact that the numbers, or the volume, of workers who came to Nova Scotia under this program are generally very small compared to a lot of the larger provinces.

I want to assure this committee that the abuse of this program and of these workers is a very serious concern and a growing issue within our federation, and it's an issue that's gaining a growing public profile.

We are aware that you've received a number of presentations from labour organizations, such as federations across the country, so I'll try not to repeat a lot of what you're hearing about the general program in other jurisdictions. We also know you will very shortly be hearing a presentation from the Canadian Labour Congress. They're our parent body, and we want to state that we are very supportive of the position in the presentation that they'll be making on this very important Canadian social and human rights issue.

We believe the work of the Alberta Federation of Labour and the six-month report on their temporary foreign worker advocate project speaks volumes about what's happening to workers in this project in a lot of workplaces. I was going to bring copies, but I knew it was before the committee.

Because of their report and some of the stories we're hearing, we believe it reflects clear reasoning why this program should not only not be expanded but should be discontinued in favour of a true immigration strategy that meets the needs of workplaces and the hopes and dreams of workers and their families.

We realize there's also an ongoing debate about whether or not there are actual skill shortages or if this program is in place to enable employers easy access to workers at the lowest cost and with minimal benefits, rather than attracting workers through competitive wages and benefits.

The original concept of the program may well have supported the notion of shortages of skilled workers, as it was primarily focused on highly skilled workers such as professionals--engineers, accountants, professors, and specialized technicians. Generally, that category of workers we were attracting were in a better position to fend for themselves in the labour market.

However, a lot of this has changed to the downside. With the unveiling of the government's now infamous “occupations under pressure” paper, we now have scores and scores of occupations on this list: from the hospitality industry, such as hotel and restaurant workers; to the agriculture industry; to manufacturing. In fact this very hotel, given our most recent information, was using this program for workers in the housekeeping sector. In past programs bringing in temporary foreign workers, this type of work would never have been approved. We would have been out searching for workers locally or within the province or the country to fill those positions.

Previously, employers could use the temporary foreign worker program only for a narrow range of workers. Only after proving that they had made every effort to find workers already residing in Canada to fill positions were they granted the right to use this program.

Although there are some examples of the temporary foreign worker program being used in Nova Scotia for skilled workers and some fairly specialized skills, the majority of workers now being brought in under this program fall into the semi- or low-skilled categories.

The use of temporary foreign workers is not new to Nova Scotia or to me. Before becoming president of the Federation of Labour, I worked with and within the shipbuilding industry. Our employer at that time was allowed to seek workers offshore to meet skill shortages within the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, but only after they had advertised and recruited from one end of the country to the other for these skills.

These workers were fully integrated into our workplaces and communities. They contributed to our local economy. Many of these workers became new Canadians and brought their families over to be with them. Today, some of these workers are among the most senior employees at the shipyards, while others have moved on to take up employment with other employers. Others are now enjoying their retirement in Canada, watching their grandchildren grow.

Unlike today's temporary foreign worker program, this was an immigration program and strategy that worked. It met the short-term needs and the long-term planning of employers; it provided employment and future opportunities for these workers; and in the process, the opportunity to become a new Canadian seemed a lot less burdensome than under the current temporary foreign worker program.

Also, through the improvership program.... I should explain what that is, because it's unique to our industry. We started it because of the skill shortages. We had a lot of entry-level and young workers who had basic skills, but because of either academic or age restrictions, we weren't able to get them into an apprenticeship program. With support from the federal government, the union and the employer at the shipyards developed an in-house training program. We taught basic skills, and then some such as blueprint reading, welding, burning, those types of operations.

We mentored these new workers as an “improver”. We couldn't call them apprenticeships, so it was an improvership program with journeymen at that time. They had incremental increases, probably every nine months. They had training and criteria they had to pass, and they worked a lot with some of our new Canadians or new workers who had come in. So the skills we brought in under the previous program were passed on to these new workers. A lot of these workers obtained journeymen status within our industry. Many of them went on to work in the federal dockyard, because the skills they learned and carried are transferable to other industries.

The program of that day was very beneficial because it met the shortage needs, but it also helped with long-term planning and continuation of skills to other workers.

Today's program is not an immigration program. It's not fair to the workers being brought in; it's not fair to our economy; it's not fair for those being bypassed because access to this program by employers is far too open. It takes away the responsibility of employers to plan and train for the future. It undermines efforts to establish training, educational opportunities, and programs for displaced workers and youth at risk, amongst other groups.

Further, the program, as it now stands, marginalizes temporary workers and creates a precarious workforce without the full rights of other workers in this country, and it opens them up for abuse by their employers.

What has been most galling about the changes in the temporary foreign worker program is that these changes have been made without public debate. No party ever ran on a platform of promising easier access to cheap, exploited foreign workers. There was never a debate in Parliament. Instead, it appears that the business community asked for changes to this program and those changes were made.

If I sound a little bitter, it's because we've had a rash of plant closures at manufacturing sites in this province, as there are in provinces across the country.

This program almost seems like it's for employers who can't benefit from the trade deals by moving south of the border and sending the product back, as it benefits those employers by being able to bring in low-wage workers to provide their products in-house in this country. So it's almost bringing a version of the free trade agreements, undermining our economy within our country now.

On the immigration amendments under Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, we--you have heard the same from others--are very concerned that the proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are contained within Bill C-50. Having major changes to an immigration act contained within a financial bill, such as the budget implementation bill, Bill C-50, is a back-door way of making changes to Canada's immigration system without proper consultation with appropriate bodies, including your committee, the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The purposes of the Immigration Act contained within Bill C-50 that are very concerning include the major new powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to control the types of application it accepts. It imposes quotas and disposes of immigration applications, puts limits on humanitarian and compassionate category—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

For the committee's information, we had a steering committee meeting prior to this. We will be starting on Bill C-50 on Wednesday, hearing from the minister again, and from another minister the following Monday. Mark Carney is going to be here on the April 30.

I don't want to presume anything, but Bill C-50 should take our attention for the foreseeable future on our calendar. So I'll just give you that information for now.

Thank you.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.

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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It being 3 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-50.

Call in the members.

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

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Ms. Osmani, Ms. Ouar, we are taking note of your seven recommendations for live-in caregivers. They are all the more important since, as we know, the population is aging virtually across Canada. There's also the work that you do with students. You very often babysit children. That's very important, and we are taking note of the seven recommendations that you've made here today.

We're not promising you that we'll solve the problems, but I do promise that I won't be like Ms. Folco. In 10 years, I won't be telling you that we'd think we were still at the same point. I hope we'll be able to do justice to your work.

As for my other friends, I hope we'll be able to make them understand more clearly what Bill C-50 is. Ensuring that someone who works here no longer needs to leave the country to file an immigration application, reducing the cost of an immigration application by half, making the matter easier through all kinds of ways, these are major challenges. There are nearly 500,000 undocumented workers in Canada. These people have nothing, no references; they do not exist, but they are here. As you'll understand, we have to do some housekeeping. I'm obviously not talking about sending them back to their countries, but about regularizing the situation. That's an important challenge, and it's with you that we have to work. You are our partners in this matter. We've come to see you here today because we are aware of the problem. We have to work together to advance this. I take note of that and I want you to be aware of that.

Mr. Henaway, you made some comments. I understand them, but I would like to be able to sit down with you and to explain to you properly what is going on, what our aim is. If my Liberal colleagues and those from the other parties don't agree, they can vote against this bill and defeat it, since our government is a minority government. Everything we're telling you is thus conditional on the bill's passage. I would appreciate that the truth be told everywhere, and that's the situation.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I very much appreciated your speech, Ms. Osmani, after that of my colleague Mr. Harvey. We're talking here about people who are exploited by our country. There are approximately 500,000 undocumented workers, as Mr. Telegdi mentioned, and we are taking in an increasing number of temporary workers who have no rights. That's what you emphasized, and you mentioned that that's what we must really attack if we are a responsible government. That's what the clause at the end of Bill C-50 refers to. That's really what is critical. I'm going to work so that we can achieve a result.

Going back to the question of live-in caregivers. In other provinces, we were told more about that. Someone pointed out the problem, for families living in a province that does not have an adequate child care system, in having to depend on this kind of worker to provide partial child care.

From a statistical point of view, or based on what you know, is there less demand for live-in caregivers in Quebec, since there is a good child care system there?

[Lisa Montgomery]

As to what types of reprisals people are having, well, they lose their jobs. They're facing racism in the workplace. They're having all kinds of problems with CSST or workmen's compensation. We have cases of women who have injured themselves in the domestic workers program who can't claim CSST, because to whom are they going to complain?

There's real difficulty for these people in accessing the system. It is our belief that if it continues...and with Bill C-50 there's going to be an absolute exacerbation of these problems.

[Mostafa Henaway]

To answer some of those questions, one, there was a motion on the table, and why it wasn't supported.... Maybe people would call me too radical or whatever, but I think it's common sense. I don't get what there is to actually study in Bill C-50. It's bad. There's nothing qualitative that you have to weigh. It's bad.

So if people are saying it's bad, then it should be scrapped immediately. I think there is popular opinion, and I think the most shameful elements of Canadian history back why Bill C-50 should be scrapped. The worst moments in Canadian history back why Bill C-50 should be scrapped immediately.

If people want to move forward on the issue of the temporary foreign worker programs and regularization--I think they're tied--that has to be brought immediately into Parliament. There are so many people whose lives have virtually been put on hold because of it. I think there is no time to waste. To actually put an immediate moratorium on deportations, as a first step to a full regularization program, is completely possible, reasonable, and doable.

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

Thank you.

You know that last June, in 2007, the motion that I moved and that this committee supported went before the House of Commons. Three parties, at least, supported it in the past in the House of Commons. We're still waiting for the Conservative Party to implement it, make it real, get it done.

In the past we have said, or at least the NDP have said, that we need to stop treating people as economic units and see them as human beings—they have families, they have lives—and need to stop expanding the temporary foreign workers program. At the bare minimum, we should bring the workers in with a visa for their jobs, not an employer-specific visa. Better still, we should have them in as landed immigrants so that they're not subjected to abuse and a complete imbalance of power.

That being said, you've talked about Bill C-50, and unfortunately—I didn't raise this the entire day, Mr. Chair—yesterday our Liberal friends did not support my motion. At 3:30 there will be a vote in the House of Commons, and it will get to second reading passage. It will pass today at second reading. After that—I assume the Liberals will support it again, unfortunately—it will then go to committee. It will go to the finance committee. We will push for hearings at the finance committee, so that the finance committee can hear what you have to say.

At this committee, I believe the parliamentary secretary has a motion to study it. The motion is going to be in front of us April 28. Hopefully the finance committee won't have finished with it. You wouldn't want to have it finished and have passed the House of Commons when we study it; that wouldn't be fair. Hopefully we will be able to have a real dialogue about the fundamental changes that are in Bill C-50. In many ways, it prioritizes classes of immigrants and separates them: some are more important than others. I thought human beings were all important, but some seem to be more important than others.

All of you have made very good recommendations. My question is that knowing all that we do, how can we move forward and work together to make sure that the Conservatives, and it was the Liberals before them, hear what the communities want? Perhaps after the consultation, the Liberals will also say, “Well, maybe we don't like the changes in Bill C-50, and we'll vote against it.”

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Mr. Henaway, I checked with the clerk, who tells me that this meeting was never going to be held in Côte-des-Neiges, so I think perhaps you have this committee confused with another committee. However, as it stands, just as we are representing the people—I represent the people of Laval—Les Îles, and am an elected member—I consider that you, Mr. Henaway, represent a number of voices, just as everyone sitting around this table does. So although it would have been perhaps fantastic to be in the middle of an immigrant community of Côte-des-Neiges, this isn't what this committee is about. This committee is about hearing a few people who represent thousands and thousands of people. The fact that you're able to present your voice on behalf of hundreds of people of Côte-des-Neiges and elsewhere is to me very satisfying.

Secondly, I would like to speak to Madame Malla on Bill C-50. Needless to say, I'm a Liberal and I absolutely agree with you, and I know that my colleague Mr. Telegdi also does. We both have talked to our Liberal colleagues on Bill C-50. This bill cannot be allowed to pass. Without going into the detail here, because I know I'm not going to have the time for it, and I'm quite willing to do it at another place and another time with you, there are a number of strategies that we have started putting in place right now. The other parties are doing different things, but we're doing certain things to make sure that Canadians across Canada are aware of what Bill C-50 is about.

I can tell you that I held a meeting in Montreal a few days ago, and I know that other parties are having meetings across Canada as well. We are working against Bill C-50. There are different ways of doing it. Those things you mentioned about Bill C-50, such as the discretionary and discriminatory powers of the minister, I'm absolutely against. They give too much leeway to an individual, when we all know that what is important in Canada is not the individual but the rule of law. The individual translates the rule of law, but it is the rule of law that predominates.

The fast-track application also worries me a lot, because it means that somebody could always drop to the bottom of the line and wait forever before his application is received. In fact, we know, because I've talked to the civil servants on this bill, that if Bill C-50 passes, part 6, which has to do with immigration, would mean that Immigration Canada would no longer be obligated to receive the immigration request of a person who asks to immigrate to Canada, which now must be accepted by Immigration Canada in whatever embassy across the world. In other words, if I were to go to, I don't know, the office in New Delhi and say that I want to be an immigrant, right now they're obligated to at least take my request. Under Bill C-50, once that backlog is done, they are not even obligated to take it. They can say, “We're sorry, but there are too many people already. Forget it. We'll see you in a couple of years.” This is really what it means.

So as far as Bill C-50 is concerned, I'm entirely with you, and I would strongly urge you to get other people who are like-minded--people like you and the other people around this table--to speak up against Bill C-50. We're doing it in our own way, which will not be the same as yours, obviously, but there's a meeting of minds.

I would now like to go back to Ms. Osmani, if I have any time left.

Ms. Osmani, you and I have known each other for a long time. Twenty years ago, I worked with the group of domestic workers from the Philippines. The problems you talked to us about are the same as those we tried to solve 20 years ago. I almost feel like I've gone back to that time.

Without going into the details, the problem that troubled us 20 years ago concerned the disposition of the provincial jurisdiction relative to the federal jurisdiction. In the short time remaining to you, Ms. Osmani or Ms. Ouar, can you talk to us about federal jurisdiction? What can we do to help you?

[Anna Purna Malla, Representative, Solidarity Across Borders]

My name is Anna, and I'm going to speak on behalf of Solidarity Across Borders. We're a network of migrants and allies here in Montreal.

I want to speak a bit about Bill C-50, which I'm sure you've all heard of. On March 14 the Conservative government introduced a series of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, buried in this bill, a 136-page budget implementation bill. This fundamentally undemocratic move sneaks in critical changes to Canada's immigration policy without proposing any of those changes before Parliament.

Basically, by making it a matter of confidence, the government forces opposition parties to either accept them or call an election. As I'm sure you also know, this already passed its first reading yesterday.

This series of amendments, by putting more arbitrary power in the hands of the immigration minister, reproduces a history of explicitly racist and anti-poor immigration policy in Canada.

Under the existing section 11 of the IRPA, anyone who meets the already stringent criteria to enter Canada as a worker, student, or visitor, or to become a permanent resident, shall be granted that status. But under the proposed changes, despite meeting the already established criteria, the minister will have the discretion to arbitrarily reject an application.

Basically, Diane Finley can just make that decision based on her not wanting people from that country to come, based on whatever it is she decides. She has the power to do that.

This unprecedented modification of IRPA would risk putting in place covert equivalents of the explicitly racist immigration policies that characterized much of Canadian history, including the Chinese exclusion act of 1923; the order in council of 1911 prohibiting the landing of “any immigrant belonging to the Negro race”; and that of 1923 excluding “any immigrant of any Asiatic race”.

These are not crazy links to make. These are very, very real links. I want you to all think really hard about that.

An additional power given to the minister under these proposed modifications is that of deciding the order in which new applicants are processed, regardless of when they are made. So if someone made an application three years ago but Diane Finley decides she likes someone who applied yesterday because they're a middle-class worker and they're going to fill the gap in the labour shortage we have, she can make that decision.

So the new sections would allow the minister to simply hold on to, return, or throw out a visa application and deny any opportunity to review that decision in court. That is really scary.

The Conservatives argue that these changes are necessary to “modernize” the immigration system and reduce the existing backlog. However, the true objective is clear from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s comments that the government seeks a “competitive immigration system which will quickly process skilled immigrants who can make an immediate contribution to the economy” .

It is clear that the priorities will be middle-class people applying under the skilled worker program, wealthy investor class applicants, as well as increasingly vulnerable temporary migrant workers.

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

Thank you very much.

One of the issues I want to touch on is that the whole issue of temporary foreign workers is about importing disposable labour. It's not all that different from what was done with the Chinese when we brought them in to build the railway. Now this is the new kind of way we're going at it; we don't call it slavery, but it comes close to it. We have indentured workers and we really have no respect for the folks with lower skills.

I just want to point to Frank Stronach, Magna International; Frank Hasenfratz, chair of Linamar Corporation; Mike Lazaridis, who makes the BlackBerry. None of them would get in under today's system. This just points to the silliness of the whole system.

In my mind, if you wanted to deal with some temporary foreign workers who have a lot of power because their skills are really in demand.... They don't have a problem; the people who have the problem are the people at the bottom end.

In terms of regularization, the previous government was working on it and was very close to coming forward with legislation. The government fell and the bureaucrats went back to their stance under the previous government and gained control of the issue. The point I'm making here is that a lot of this stuff is driven by the bureaucracy. To the extent we've had seven ministers of immigration in the last 10 years, it points to it. In a lot of cases, we've been fighting the bureaucracy in trying to get something done.

I hope that when Bill C-50 comes along, you will all come out. It's going be here soon, as it's surely the big elephant we're going to be dealing with next.

In terms of the refugee system, the problem is that we have now created a crisis. The backlog was down to 20,000, and we finally had the system fixed, and then Jean-Guy Fleury ended up quitting because of political interference. And now the backlog is up to over 42,000; it's going to hit 60,000 by the end of the year; and we have a shortage of something like 58 adjudicators. So the crisis was created when we already had the system fixed. By politicizing it, it really created a crisis.

I think the public has to be made aware of what is going on in immigration, because I don't think they are, and we must not let it be exploited for political purposes, such as getting votes.

I'd like your quick comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague for his speech, which was excellent as usual.

However, my colleague said that there are problems and that the Conservatives are profiting from the Liberals' internal problems. I would go even further and say that they are profiting from the Liberals, but that the Liberals do not actually have any principles. People must have principles in life, and they will have to have them this afternoon at 3 p.m.

Our colleague has sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for a number of years. He has worked hard on the employment insurance file, since he hails from a region with seasonal workers. I believe that he has worked hard on that file, I will give him that. This afternoon, what will my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals will join with the Conservatives to legalize the theft of $55 billion from the employment insurance fund? That is exactly what will happen if Bill C-50 is passed.

Does he really see a difference between these two parties that have been in power for years? Be it one or the other, the Liberals of yesterday or the Conservatives of today, does he see a difference between these two political parties with respect to workers, ordinary people and people who need the government's support? Does he see a difference between these two parties?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-50. I have already spoken to the bill in general and now I am speaking to the amendment for which the debate will end this afternoon. This budget bill generally did not satisfy the Bloc Québécois or Quebeckers because it does not include any type of support for the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

Over the past few days, we have seen that this crisis has nothing to do with the managers. In Quebec, Beauce, which is known as a region that is a major business supplier, is going through a very difficult time. Thousands of jobs have been lost, but we all know that Beauce is not to blame for this downturn. Beauce had a very strong manufacturing sector. I remember that the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology made 22 unanimous recommendations to the government over two years ago to help the manufacturing and forestry sectors. However, the government has decided not to carry out those recommendations.

Today, this region of Quebec, which is a jewel of Quebec entrepreneurship, is losing jobs by the thousands. Young workers and young couples whose future was secure, are seeing it all collapse. It is not just a result of nature, it is the result of significant changes in the market, including the higher dollar, for example. We could see this coming for quite some time and we would have expected the federal government to come forward with an action plan and a strategy for industry. It is not as though the government had not been informed. The Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology made 22 unanimous recommendations, but the government only carried out one, or one and a half, of those 22 recommendations. The Standing Committee on Finance then sounded the same alarm and informed the government, which then had a motion adopted in this House on that matter. There is still no action plan in the budget. That is one of the reasons the Bloc Québécois cannot vote in favour of this budget.

At a time when the regions need additional support, the budget cuts $107 million from the budget of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. This is terrible. After the election, the minister responsible said that there would be the equivalent of a Marshall plan, which he now refers to as the Blackburn plan. Today, as a result, thousands of jobs are disappearing across Quebec and also across Canada, because Ontario is also being affected by the manufacturing crisis. In addition to taking a laissez-faire approach and having no industrial strategy, the government is slashing the programs and funding that have been in place for several years in these regions that could have used more assistance. I believe that this is reason enough to vote against this budget.

My colleague also spoke earlier about the whole issue of the program for older worker adjustment. This is an important social measure that provides people who have worked for a company for 25, 30 or 35 years with bridging income support until they receive their pensions, if they lose their jobs at age 57, 58 or 60. It is also a measure that should be part of an industrial strategy. This is what happens in a sector like forestry. Jobs are cut, the younger workers leave and the older workers sometimes manage to keep their jobs. Eventually, though, as the crisis continues, they also lose their jobs, but they have no income to tide them over until they receive their pensions. At the same time, the younger workers have gone elsewhere and will no longer be available when the forestry industry recovers.

In my opinion, the federal government should come out of its shell. The government thinks that the market will take care of everything and that the government has no responsibility to act. In my opinion, Quebeckers and Canadians expect the government to create conditions to develop prosperity and enable everyone to create wealth and distribute it appropriately. There are dark clouds on the horizon. A major economic slowdown is on the way. This is just about the worst type of government we could have to deal with this sort of situation.

Unfortunately, this is perilously reminiscent of what happened just before the Great Depression in the late 1920s and early 1930s in the United States. The Republicans in power said the government should intervene as little as possible. Fortunately, the government changed at that time, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democrats implemented good policies to stimulate the economy.

We would have expected a similar attitude on the part of the government, but that is not what we are seeing. A program to help older workers would not have cost billions of dollars. Implementing such a program would have cost less than $100 million and would have allowed hundreds and thousands of people who worked their entire lives, who supported their families, to have a sufficient, minimal income to get by until they receive their pension.

Unfortunately, as soon as I was first elected in my current riding in 2004, I saw firsthand the consequences of a major closure, when the Whirlpool plant in Montmagny closed. We are still feeling the consequences today. This does not mean that it is not a dynamic, productive region or that it is not creating any jobs. What it means, however, is that when 500 workers are laid off, 150 or 200 of whom are older workers, a large number of them will definitely not be able to find other employment, for various reasons, no matter how hard they try. This government should have done something for those people, although we are seeing no such efforts on the government's part.

For Quebec, this budget contains a very clear, distinct and unacceptable provocation: the desire, the obstinate insistence and the obsession of the current Minister of Financeto put in place a single securities commission in Canada. It seems that he is reliving his past as the Ontario Minister of Finance or perhaps he is aspiring to become the Premier of Ontario. We have demonstrated that Quebec has an efficient securities commission that has worked well and offered useful services. The Conservative minister's obsession is unacceptable.

This budget does not have what Quebec wants, what Quebeckers told us they wanted in our pre-budget consultations. Beyond the words, beyond the fact that the government adopted a motion on the Quebec nation, now that the time has come to provide some substance and to indicate what that means for Quebeckers, the Conservative government has given us nothing. There is nothing in this federal budget to that effect.

We would have liked to get some answers to these concerns from the federal government. For example, there is not the level of investment in the cultural sector that our society deserves. Yet this is a nation's form of expression. The Quebec nation needs federal support to continue to make itself known throughout North America, and to obtain and expand on the success it has achieved. We need tangible measures to develop this nation. They are not found in this budget.

There is also a cultural difference, at least between the Conservatives and Quebec, when it comes to the distribution of wealth. In the past, Quebec has implemented programs such as the parental leave program and the child care program. Because of the values Quebec society deems important, these programs were implemented and money was set aside to do so. The Conservatives, however, do not take the same approach. One of the areas most affected is social housing. But they could have killed two birds with one stone. Money invested in social housing creates a need for construction, which in turn creates jobs. At the same time, it would help people get out of poverty. Often, when people are experiencing problems with poverty, it is because they are forced to spend 50%, 60% or even 70% of their income on housing. They are not left with enough money for other things.

So we can see—and I will end on this note—that there are some people who are particularly outraged at the action of the Conservatives, in particular about the budget. These people are women. Quebec women and Canadian women were stripped of an important tool to win legal cases. The Conservatives have chosen an approach more appropriate to a private company than to a government.

For all these reasons, I think that this budget is bad for Quebec and bad for Canada. We want the Conservative government to heed at least some of these messages. We shall see. Now, the Conservatives are taking advantage of the fact that the Liberals have problems within their party, but in practice, this is a bad budget. It is a bad situation, and it does not at all correspond to what Quebeckers and Canadians were expecting from a minority government. The government seems to be acting as if it were a majority government. It is making choices that would not have been made by Quebec.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this matter. I want to welcome my colleague from Vancouver Quadra. Now that I know her better, I hope the 2010 Olympic Games will be held in her riding and that she will participate in the figure skating events because I think she has the required skills, having skated around the questions she was asked the way she did.

When one is against something, one does not vote in favour of it. We may possibly never form the government, in fact we will certainly never form it. Our goal is not to form the government; it is to reform it. It is not true to say that we are going to compromise our principles. The Bloc Québécois is voting against Bill C-50. We could have said to my colleague from Vancouver Quadra that there are very many possible arguments for voting against this bill. I will give just a few, as I seem to have only 10 minutes.

Take agriculture for example. As far as agriculture is concerned, this budget provides only $72 million over two years. A number of sectors in our country, in Canada, are currently dealing with an agriculture crisis. In the nation of Quebec, the agriculture crisis is present every day. Some $72 million over two years for all of Canada is certainly not enough. This government has not been listening to the demands of the farm workers.

Then there is employment insurance. I do not want to repeat the arguments of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who gave many arguments on the employment insurance fund. The only thing I want to say to him is that he had better get back to his riding as soon as he can in the next few hours because his junior team from Acadie—Bathurst is going to have a hard time making it to the playoffs, let alone winning. Things are not going well right now, just like with employment insurance.

This government decided to create the employment insurance financing board. The government can go ahead and create whatever board it wants, but we want to know whether it will return the $57 billion it stole from the employment insurance fund, and that it stole from workers. This started under the Liberals. I understand why the Liberals will vote in favour of Bill C-50; it is becoming clear. They will have to deal with the problem if, by some misfortune, they return to power in the next few decades. The Liberals could end up dealing with the problem of returning the money they stole from workers.

I do not want to repeat what the member for Acadie—Bathurst said, but we could have done so many things with the $54 billion to address the terrible economic crisis going on in some regions in Canada, particularly in Quebec and Ontario, in the manufacturing and forestry industries. Obviously, this does not affect Calgary very much.

The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec tells us that if there are not enough jobs in Quebec, all a person has to do is go work in Calgary, because there are jobs there. Try saying that to someone who is 55, 56, 57, 58, who has 12 years left on his mortgage, who works in Béarn in Témiscamingue or in Clairval in Abitibi. This person would say that he spent his life working in a sawmill, that he started at 18, and that he thought he was entitled to a decent retirement.

The employment insurance fund could have helped create a program for older worker adjustment, or POWA, which the Bloc has been calling for for over four years. I have been here for four years, and I have been hearing about it for four years. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are able to, want to, or have the political will to create a POWA. It would not be expensive. The Conservatives could have included it in the budget. But they put nothing in the budget about employment insurance and nothing about assistance for older workers.

Older workers will remember this. And so will seniors, whose situation is even worse.

The employment insurance fund has been stolen. I very much like the comment made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst who said that at 3 p.m. today, thanks to the Conservatives with the support of the Liberals, the $54 billion theft will be legitimized. It is worse than the great train robbery. That is exactly what we will be doing by creating the new employment insurance financing board. That will be the end of the employment insurance fund. It will be gone, but will those who paid into it be reimbursed? No, no. That money was used to buy helicopters that barely fly, submarines that sink because they do not work very well, and rifles and guns. That money was used to invest $1 billion a year to go to Afghanistan, even though we have no business being there. I hope everyone will remember that.

All things considered, the worst theft is still the election promise the Conservatives made to seniors. I remember it; I heard it. They promised that, if elected, they would give the guaranteed income supplement retroactively to seniors. As soon as they were elected, they reneged on that election promise.

The Conservatives could have included that measure in the budget. They had the money to do so, with their $11 billion surplus. It would have cost less than $1 billion to help our seniors get by. I am saying this for the benefit of everyone aged 70 and older, particularly my mother, who lost $12,000 because of the Conservatives and their ridiculous promise. They would have been better off not to make a their stupid promise to give seniors full retroactivity on the guaranteed income supplement. Many seniors lost $4,000, $7,000 or even $12,000. They were entitled to seven years of retroactivity, but they are being given only one year's worth.

On the other hand, when someone owes the government money, I guarantee it can go back as far as five years and demand retroactive payments. The Conservative Party in power, however, decided to grant retroactive payments for only up to 12 months. Yet the Conservatives owe seniors the money that was stolen from them. Will they pay it back? No. That is another reason why will vote against this bill.

I am the Bloc Québécois aboriginal affairs critic. I have heard some good ones in my time. I do not want to bring up the Kelowna accord, like the Liberals, who turned it into their pet issue. I just want to say that the government could have helped and had the money to help aboriginal peoples deal with the terrible crises they are up against right now. Not far from here, just 165 kilometres north of Ottawa, in the community of Kitcisakik, people are living in 18th century conditions. They do not have running water, a water system or a sewer system, and they live in hunt camps.

The government promised to fix the problem, but it did nothing for aboriginals. The government will argue that it is spending $660 million over two years—$330 million per year—but aboriginal communities in Quebec alone need 10,000 housing units. Nunavik and the whole far north shore have to be totally rebuilt because of the melting permafrost.

Unfortunately, I have just a minute left. I have a lot more to say about this, but what I really want to say is that the government would not even have had to put more money into its social housing budget. The funds could have come from CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has an astronomical surplus. The government could have invested $1 billion from that surplus— which would not even have made a dent—to help with social housing. Yet the government has shunted that file aside and refuses to talk about it.

This government made so many promises that it did not keep.

At 3 p.m. this afternoon, the members of the Bloc Québécois will not be afraid. We will stand up and vote against this budget.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my colleague from Vancouver Quadra and compliment her on her thoughtful remarks in what I believe was her maiden speech in this House of Commons.

I am sure her constituents benefited from the consultation that she did on some of the negative aspects of this bill and the subterfuge that is being foisted on Canadians by slipping these immigration amendments into the budget bill.

We in the NDP have dwelt at some length on how we find fault with the immigration section of Bill C-50 and we came to the logical conclusion that what we intend to do is vote against the bill because we disagree with the bill. It follows logically that when we disagree with something and follow our principles, we vote against that.

As my colleague is new to the House of Commons and since this will be perhaps the first challenge of its type that she will have the opportunity to vote with, I can give her perhaps some guidance and ask her a question.

The way it works here is that if members believe in something they stand up for it, and if they disagree with something, they vote against it. Those are the basic tenets of being a public officer or a public servant. The member's constituents expect that she will come here and vote her conscience on what she really believes and, on those things she opposes, she will vote against.

Therefore, will she or will she not stand up with those of us who oppose Bill C-50 and vote against it at 3 o'clock today, two hours from now?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

As a new member of Parliament representing the constituency of Vancouver Quadra, I again thank the residents of Vancouver Quadra for their confidence in me. The people of Vancouver Quadra are educated, engaged and informed citizens whom it is an honour to represent. I intend to advocate tirelessly for their interests in Ottawa.

The Conservative government included many Liberal programs in this budget bill, albeit in watered down versions, for example, post-secondary education. Many of the people who work and study at UBC live in my riding and the quality and accessibility of post-secondary education is an important priority for them as it is for me.

Past Liberal governments were known for their many investments to benefit universities, students and research. Billions of dollars for these purposes in the Liberal budget update of fall 2005 were cut by the Conservative government. I note that due to the work of the Liberal leader and members, the government in this budget has sprinkled back some of those post-secondary investments.

The previous Liberal government left this country's finances in a strong position but Bill C-50 underlines the mismanagement by the government that has drained the fiscal gas tank of our nation. This is entirely consistent with the abysmal record of past Conservative governments, including the Mulroney government and the Ontario provincial Conservatives, whose finance minister, now the federal Conservative finance minister, helped leave the incoming Liberals in Ontario a landmine: a whopping $5.6 billion deficit.

Most unacceptable in this bill is part 6 and it is to that section to which I will address my remarks.

Part 6 consists of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These amendments are substantive, are bad public policy and are of deep concern to new Canadians in my riding and across Canada and to their overseas family members. These amendments should never have been buried in this budget implementation bill.

The Conservative government cannot be trusted, especially when one considers the past comments the Prime Minister has made about immigration. For example, in 2001 he stated:

...west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society.

What did he mean by that? Was he referring to my riding of Vancouver Quadra? Is he someone who can be trusted to amend immigration laws?

The Liberals, in stark contrast, have long been supportive of immigrants to Canada and their unique contribution to our multicultural landscape. I am proud to continue that tradition as the member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra. This is an issue of great importance to me as an immigrant myself.

The Minister of Immigration cannot be trusted. She has already misspoken in the House by claiming that last year about 430,000 new Canadians were welcomed into Canada under the Conservative government, more than under the Liberals. That is not true. She later had to retract that claim and essentially confessed that it was inflated by including students and temporary workers.

Actually, 36,000 fewer permanent residents have been accepted since the Conservative government came to power 27 months ago. Will the door continue to close arbitrarily to immigrants under the government's proposed amendments?

The type of changes to the very foundation of Canada's immigration policy that the government is proposing must be considered in the open and not slipped into a budget bill through the back door. The government is seeking to make changes that would close the door to immigrants, but even more concerning is that the amendment would give the government the power to be prejudicial in their implementation.

The Conservative government has already demonstrated its meanspiritedness over and over by cancelling the court challenges program that supported the most vulnerable Canadians, by weakening the infrastructure helping women advance our equality in Canadian society and by voting against a motion to lower the Peace Tower flag on the day a Canadian soldier is killed overseas. This is meanspirited.

In part 6, section 11(1), for example, by changing one word “shall” to “may” in the regulations, immigrants who meet all the requirements may find Canada slamming the door in their face. That is meanspirited.

As well, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would have the power to make arbitrary and unaccountable decisions, which would enable her to pick some immigrants over others, send some to the back of the line to start all over again or slam the door shut altogether. We do not know whether applications will be denied due to an immigrant's country of origin or some other factor.

According to Naeem Noorani, the publisher of The Canadian Immigrant, as quoted in the Toronto Star on Tuesday, “This sets a dangerous precedent for a healthy democratic system”.

It is precisely because of past Conservative insensitivity toward Canada's immigrants that it is not appropriate for the government to have that power. The measures the government is seeking to introduce stand in contrast to the fairness, transparency and welcoming of new Canadians under past Liberal governments, a welcoming that has led to Vancouver becoming a thriving urban region underpinned by the contribution of new Canadians.

My riding of Vancouver Quadra has welcomed more than 40,000 immigrants to Canada. Many are long-time residents now, which others have arrived more recently. Vancouver Quadra community members who have self-identified in the census as being a visible minority include Chinese, South Asian, Korean, Japanese, West Asian, Filipino, Black, Southeast Asian and Arab, among others. This diversity contributes to the richness of the community in so many ways.

Of note, more than 23,000 residents of Vancouver Quadra are of Chinese origin, whether from Hong Kong, Mainland China or Taiwan. These new Canadians make important contributions to the social, cultural and economic life of Vancouver Quadra and Canada.

Just 10 days after I was elected, I organized a round table discussion to hear from 20 leaders in the Chinese community, my very first public consultation as a member of Parliament. The changes the government proposes could prevent their family members from joining them here. The changes the government proposes could prevent those working in a particular field from becoming part of Canadian society. Through one stroke of the pen, the minister could place specific countries at the bottom of the list. In reality, we really do not know who will be acceptable to the Conservative government, a government that cannot be trusted to be fair.

The government hopes to change Canada's immigration laws so that at a minister's whim people who aim to come to this great country to make a better life and a better Canada could be prevented from even being considered. These are substantive changes that should be discussed openly and accorded a full debate.

I am against part 6, the section of this budget bill that deals with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Part 6 should be considered separately, not as a part of Bill C-50, and part 6 should be rejected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-50. I am not pleased to see Bill C-50, but I am pleased to be able to talk about it. In this Bill C-50, the government is establishing a crown corporation for employment insurance.

For years the NDP has been calling for an independent employment insurance fund that is separate from the government's consolidated revenue fund. In 1986, the Auditor General suggested putting funds from employment insurance into the consolidated revenue fund. After a number of years, as the surplus in the consolidated revenue fund increased because of employment insurance, it became apparent that the EI fund was the government's cash cow.

The government said that workers depended on the employment insurance fund. It soon became apparent that it was not workers who depended on the EI fund, but the government. The government started to run zero deficits and balanced budgets with the money it stole from the EI fund in the consolidated revenue fund. This was the biggest heist the country has ever seen. It was like an old movie where the protagonist robs a train full of money.

The previous government stole $57 billion from the surplus in the EI fund. The fund generated some $57 billion. This afternoon, that theft will be legalized in Bill C-50. It is not unlike stopping at a bank to steal money and instead of going to jail, seeing a bill passed to legalize bank robbery. That is what is happening this afternoon: money that workers have worked so hard for is being stolen.

The most surprising thing is that a crown corporation is being created and that is different than an independent fund. A clear explanation is needed. We asked for an independent fund. People might wonder what we are crying about today since we will get an independent fund. There is a difference between an independent fund and a crown corporation. An independent fund would be a fund separate from the government's consolidated revenue fund and would only be used to deposit employment insurance premiums into the employment insurance fund. A crown corporation is a separate, independent corporation, like Canada Post, Radio-Canada or the CBC.

When we stand up in the House of Commons to ask questions about the employment insurance fund, the government will say that it is a crown corporation and that we should go ask it. We will not be able to ask any more questions in the House of Commons about it. The same thing will happen when we rise in the House of Commons to ask questions about Radio-Canada or the CBC. The government says it is at arm's length, that it is a crown corporation and that we should go see the president. The government will wash its hands of the whole thing.

Moreover, the Auditor General has always said that there should always be a $15 billion balance. In this crown corporation fund, it will be just $2 billion. This afternoon at 3 p.m., during the vote in the House of Commons, $55 billion will be stolen with the help of the Liberals. Either they will vote for Bill C-50 and make the theft legal, or they will not vote and just let the theft happen. That is exactly what will happen this afternoon.

What might we do instead to help workers? People often talk about POWA, for example. Manufacturing and forestry companies in Canada have closed their doors. I remember POWA and PWAP in New Brunswick. When the fish plants closed, people had PWAP, a retirement program for fish plant workers, for women, when the groundfish fishery collapsed. These programs helped working men and women at the time. Employment insurance was there to help people.

Today, employment insurance is there to help the government, not workers. Employment insurance is insurance that workers and employers pay for directly. I am concerned, because the only thing the Conservative government is worried about is reducing employment insurance premiums and making sure employers do not pay premiums. We do not often talk about the workers who pay premiums. According to the government, if employers did not have to pay premiums, they could create jobs.

Once again, I have never seen a company hire more people because it is turning a profit. Companies do not hire people because they are making a profit; they hire people because they need them to produce. I therefore do not believe that Canadian companies have gone bankrupt because they were paying employment insurance premiums. On the contrary, a good employer is not afraid of paying employment insurance premiums, because the employer hates to have to tell an employee not to come in on Monday morning because there is no more work for him.

Employment insurance existed so that these families would receive benefits to help them. In 1996, the Liberals decided to make a sweeping reform of employment insurance, following on the reform that began when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. The first signs of reform were seen in Inkerman, New Brunswick, in my riding. The reform continued until 1996. A $57 billion surplus built up, and now the government is starting to want to wipe out that surplus. At 3 o'clock this afternoon, it will be wiped out, with the support of the Liberals who carried out the reform in 1996 and the Conservatives who are spearheading this reform in the House of Commons by introducing a bill to create an independent crown corporation to avoid any further questions about the surplus, because they get embarrassed when they are asked about it. They have even told us to stop asking questions in committee, because the money is not there anymore. They have asked us to stop pestering them with questions. Meanwhile, individuals and families are in need, and this government is completely ignoring them.

What could be done with this money? First of all, the government could do away with the two-week waiting period. It is not people's fault if they lose their jobs. I have said this time and again in the House of Commons, and I will keep on saying it.

Why do we penalize these people by imposing an unpaid two-week qualifying period when their employer announces that there will be no work for them next week? Who wants to lose two weeks' salary? Who ends up being penalized by this unpaid period? Why does the claimant lose two weeks' salary? This measure penalizes the family that needs to pay the electricity bill at the end of the month and to buy groceries for their children. It penalizes the family that needs to pay its mortgage. That is the end result. This afternoon, the government is preparing to carry out the largest theft in the history of Canada by legalizing the transfer of the $57 billion surplus from the employment insurance fund. That is what will happen this afternoon in this House.

We could keep the 12 best weeks to give people a chance to receive a decent benefit. We should not forget that those on unemployment receive only 55% of their salary and that 55% of minimum wage is not very much. In fact, it is less than welfare. We could therefore make some changes to help these people and to ensure that benefits are based on their 12 best weeks. Furthermore, new claimants should be able to qualify after 360 hours rather than 910 hours. Next week, we will be tabling a bill in this House to make this change and we will debate it. Once again, the Liberals did not support this measure in committee but rather backed the Conservatives by agreeing to take money from workers who are losing their jobs.

The government is hitting people when they are down. It is a terrible experience to lose one's job as I have been told by people who have called my office. People call me to tell me that they have just lost their jobs and that they need seven to eight weeks to qualify. There is no money in the system to pay the public servants to get the job done.

It is not that the public servants cannot do their job; there just are not enough of them. The money does not go to the right places.

Having a program such as POWA to ensure that those 55 and older can live comfortably until they retire at age 65 is one of the good things that we could accomplish.

Therefore, we will be voting against Bill C-50 even if the government falls, because it is a vote that should be—

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, which also includes the amendment to the immigration act. I will focus my debate on the immigration act.

I represent the riding of Richmond, an island city just next to the city of Vancouver where the Vancouver International Airport is situated. The riding is composed mostly of immigrants. It has a very booming economy. We have the privilege of having a farming community. We have a dike that is very close to the city. At the same time, we have the convenience of the metropolitan facilities.

Richmond has a very low crime rate and a booming economy. The lifespan of our citizens is one of the longest in Canada. Therefore, we can demonstrate from our experience in Richmond that immigrants contribute a great deal to the lives of Canadians.

The Conservatives have said that the new immigration policy is aimed at reducing the backlog of immigration applicants. They have said they want to expedite selected classes of immigrants and focus their resources on desirable immigrants, but their methods will not work and they are wrong.

The amendment tabled would destroy a democratically based immigration system, which has been hailed as a model for other countries to follow, and replace it with dictatorial system, allowing the minister to cherry-pick who is allowed to come into our country.

The amendment to section 87.3(4) states:

If an application or request is not processed, it may be retained, returned or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the instructions of the Minister.

Giving the minister the discretionary power to dispose of applications is an illogical way to reduce the backlog of applicants. The government is implying that if we have a huge backlog, we should give the power to the minister to hand-pick a few and then outright reject everyone else. To me, this is not only unfair, but illogical.

The amendment allows the minister to unilaterally and arbitrarily dispose of applications without any recourse, so applicants would be unable to appeal their cases. This is very unfair. The proposed amendment to section 81.3(c) states, “The Minister may set the number of applications or requests by category or otherwise to be processed in any year”.

Along with the fact that unprocessed applications can be disposed of, this amendment would allow the minister to set a cap on applications.

Capping the number of applicants only superficially reduces the backlog by temporarily not allowing potential immigrants to make their application. How will forcing applicants to pay for re-applications year after year help reduce the backlog? These are situations which senior officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration agree would happen.

Reducing the backlog is not about prioritizing some and ignoring others. The Conservatives' rhetoric seems illogical. They have said that they can set priorities, but does that not mean there will be lower priorities? Even so, how does this reduce the backlog? Just because we focus on cleaning up the kitchen first, it does not mean the rest of the house gets any cleaner any sooner.

However, the worst and the most worrisome change that the Conservatives are pushing for is the change of a single word, from “shall” to “may”. As it stands right now, if an immigrant passes the bar, then it is clearly stated in section 11(1) that he or she “shall” be granted a visa. The amendment would change this so that someone who has already fulfilled the requirements only “may” be granted a visa.

Why is the Conservative government trying to subvert the immigration process? If a reason is found as to why a visa should not be granted, then make it a part of the evaluation. If immigration applicants cannot be certain, even after they have passed all requirements, why should the apply and how will this help reduce backlogs?

Time and effort would need to be spent in the processing of their applications. I see this as yet another opportunity for the minister to cherry-pick again, even after the applicants have escaped the first round of cherry-picking by the minister.

None of the proposed amendments are aimed at clearing up the backlog or reducing wait times for applicants. It is about letting the minister choose who is and who is not a desirable immigrant. Again, this is an unfair method.

The Conservatives' cherry-picking in the darkroom, dictatorial approach will destroy our well hailed rules based democratic and transparent immigration system. This will lead us down a very dangerous path.

A senior immigration official was quoted on Wednesday in the London Free Press saying, “There is no right in the law—and there never has been a right in the law—to come into Canada”.

This is wrong. It is because of this kind of attitude that led our forefathers to create a racist immigration act, better known as the Chinese Exclusion Act. After the Pacific Railway was built with Chinese labourers, they were no longer desirable. A head tax was exclusively applied to Chinese immigrants. When that did not stop Chinese immigrants from coming to Canada, they were totally excluded.

Yes, being allowed to immigrant to Canada is a privilege. However, we must apply that privilege fairly, respecting the core values of democracy, rule of law and equality. The bill eliminates the rights to equal opportunity for every application to be given fair review and consideration, regardless of background, country of origin or skill set.

Even after Paul Martin Sr. amended the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1947 to allow ethnic Chinese to become Canadian citizens, in general, we Chinese still cannot have the privilege to come to Canada. It was not until the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson changed the Canadian immigration system into a race free, transparent, point based system in 1967 that most Chinese could come to Canada.

This continuing and worrisome trend by the Conservative government must be stopped. Canada's race free and transparent immigration point system is hailed as a model for other countries to follow. It should not be tossed aside so lightly.

The Liberal government committed $700 million in 2005 to cleaning up the backlog, which the Conservatives cancelled after becoming the government in 2006. After ignoring the problem for more than two years, they now claim to have allocated $100 million to fix the problem. It is far from enough.

We must not allow the Conservatives, under the excuse of solving the backlog problem in our immigration system, to lead us away from fundamental Canadian core values of democracy, the rule of law and equality. I will vote against it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-50, the budget implementation act. I would like to speak on two aspects of the bill. One is the significant changes to the immigration system that are included in this bill and the other is the priorities of the bill that we are debating today.

I represent Vancouver East, a riding that certainly reflects the multiculturalism of Canada. It is a community that is built on immigration. Vancouver East would not exist in terms of its economic vitality and the people who live there, if it were not for many waves of immigration beginning in Strathcona and moving throughout all of Vancouver East and indeed Vancouver as a whole. Immigration is a very important part of our community. Immigrants and new Canadians are people we welcome into our community.

It is very alarming to me to see that the budget bill we are debating these days in the House contains such dramatic and significant changes to our immigration system. It concerns me that those changes are in a budget bill. One would expect that changes to the immigration system would be contained in legislation pertaining to immigration and that the legislation would then go to the immigration committee.

The Conservative government has brought in very significant changes to the system through the back door. The Conservatives are trying to hide them under the cover of the budget bill and hope that no one notices. Luckily, there is a growing debate in my community and across the country about the impact that these immigration changes would have if the budget bill is approved.

The immigration changes that are contemplated would give major new powers to the minister to control the types of applications she accepts. It would impose quotas. It would dispose of current immigration applications and would even allow queue jumping. There would be new limits put on the humanitarian and compassionate grounds category which often is used by many families for the purpose of family reunification. It would even give the minister the power to deny visas to those who meet all of the immigration criteria. This would confer enormous, and I would say very dangerous, powers on an individual, a powerful minister and it is being done through the back door.

The most significant change is that it is supporting what has already been a policy shift wherein our immigration system is increasingly being understood as a system that looks at immigrants as economic units. For example, these changes would allow applications to be disposed of and put aside, but it would allow a further dramatic increase in what is called the foreign worker program or the guest worker program, where people are treated as cheap labour from foreign countries. We have seen it in Alberta and in B.C. where there has been a massive influx of foreign workers who are often exploited and abused by employers. It is very hard to track what is going on and whether or not they are able to avail themselves of their rights as workers.

This is something that is incredibly alarming in this budget bill. We are seeing this dramatic policy shift in our immigration system that would displace families. It would do nothing further in terms of reunification and would place a greater and greater emphasis on foreign workers who come to this country on a temporary basis. They have no adequate rights. They are not treated as permanent residents. They do not have an opportunity to become citizens.

It is something that we have seen in Europe. We have seen the kind of instability, both politically and culturally that it fosters, where there are two tiers of people. There are citizens and workers who have no real status, who are never protected in the society to which they are major contributors. That is the kind of thing we absolutely should not be accepting in Canada. I am very afraid that is what would happen under these changes.

There are other very concerning things in the bill.

A couple of days ago the homelessness count in metro Vancouver was released. This count is done every few years. It was conducted by over 700 volunteers who literally go block by block, alley by alley, shelter by shelter and endeavour to get, and indeed do get, a very accurate count of people who are homeless, whether they are in shelters or on the street.

That count was done on March 11 and the results were released on April 8. It showed that overall there has been a 19% increase in the number of homeless individuals found in metro Vancouver. That is a 19% increase since 2005 when the last count was done. It is a 131% increase since the one previous to that was done, which was in 2002. This should cause enormous concern.

In my community of Vancouver East, particularly in places like the downtown eastside, the visibility of homelessness, the number of people on the street, those who are destitute and those living so far below the poverty line with no resources or hope for the future, causes enormous distress. It causes illness and mental distress not only to the individuals who are in that predicament but also to the community at large.

The latest figures from the homeless count should be setting off alarm bells. One would think that over the years there would have been a concerted effort to address this as a grave human tragedy. In a country as wealthy as Canada, nobody should be sleeping on the street. Nobody should be without shelter. Everybody is entitled to a living wage and decent, safe, appropriate and affordable housing.

Yet, when we look at the budget, there was no new money for housing. A number of local advocacy groups in the downtown east side, including Pivot, United Native Nations, DERA, the Carnegie Community Action Project and Streams of Justice, recently released a report that showed there were 10 new low income housing facilities that have either closed or will be closing for a further loss of 448 units.

My community is facing a very grave situation where people are either already homeless or are on the verge of becoming homeless. Yet there was nothing in this budget to address those issues.

I read a quote from the minister allegedly responsible for housing, where he dismissed the idea that we needed a national housing program. I have heard the minister say that the government is spending more money on housing than any other government in the history of Canada. He is talking about mortgages. He is talking about existing projects, some of which were built 20 years ago. No new co-ops or social housing units have been built. Even the homelessness programs that exist are in jeopardy because it is not yet clear whether they will continue.

All of this creates incredible anxiety both for the organizations that seek to assist those who are homeless and certainly the people on the street and in shelters who wonder whether they will ever have a roof over their heads or have a place they can call home.

To me, this budget is about priorities. I find it shameful. When we look at the $50 billion in corporate income tax cuts that are contained in this budget and the former economic and fiscal update that was presented last October, when we look at the corporate tax cuts that are laid out from 2007 all the way to 2013, we are talking about $50 billion that has been lost from public revenue.

Let us think about what could have been done with that amount of money. It could have provided 1.14 million child care spaces. It could have provided 74,000 hybrid transit buses. It could have provided 12 million units of non-profit affordable housing. It could have assisted 11 million students with their undergraduate tuition, or another two million graduates with their student loans. It could have put a much greater emphasis on dealing with climate change. None of these priorities were addressed in the budget.

To add insult to injury, when people in my community read that VANOC, the Olympic committee, received another $45 million yet housing receiving nothing, they knew that they were at the bottom of the list.

This is a very bad budget and it is the reason—

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week I spoke about Bill C-50. Due to the amount of time that each of us is given, we cannot always delve into all the details of a bill, but we can be certain that Bill C-50 deals with the implementation of the budget.

This week I spoke about the type of society we would like to live in, and I highlighted the very conservative philosophy that underlies this budget. I spoke about oil companies and banks that seem to be receiving numerous tax credits, while in the manufacturing and forestry industries companies cannot benefit from these tax cuts because they are not making any profit and are systematically closing down.

Today I would like to focus on an aspect of the bill that falls under my responsibilities. I took a long look at the military contracts that are inherent in this budget. Since the Conservative government came to power, we have seen a clear trend towards militarization and an American-stye military philosophy. Some American and Canadian companies are really hitting the jackpot because of the Conservative government's major shift in direction.

Defence contracts will be worth roughly $20 billion over the next few years. What is even worse is that there has been almost no discussion of this spending. It would practically take experts to investigate the ins and outs of all these contracts and how they came about. Normally, the government should follow a specific procedure when it purchases equipment worth more than $20 billion.

First, it is very important to have a foreign policy that describes Canada's place within the international community and clearly establishes the responsibilities Canada intends to take. This forms the basis for a defence policy and possibly an international development policy under CIDA, as well as a number of other things. Certainly, nothing has been done since 2005, when the Liberals updated a policy or policy statement.

As a result, today we are faced with announcements and the signing of contracts worth more than $20 billion, but we have no word on the foreign or defence policy. Normally, in such a case, discussions are then held to determine what military equipment we will purchase to meet the requirements of our defence and foreign policies.

For the past year or two, the government has promised us a defence capabilities plan and a defence policy. Not only have these failed to materialize, but Canada is taking a piecemeal approach to military procurement, issuing more than $20 billion in contracts. The risk is that, once all these contracts have been signed and the goods purchased, Canada will tailor its foreign and defence policies to what it has purchased. The government is unlikely to create a policy that says Canada does not need C-17s or strategic or tactical aircraft when it has just purchased $20 billion worth of such aircraft. The government's approach is therefore somewhat dangerous. In my opinion, the government is going about things backwards, because it should have drawn up a plan, from which a policy and a defence capabilities plan would have followed. Then the government could have determined what equipment it would need.

What we are dealing with here is an inconsistency, and Canadian and Quebec taxpayers are the ones who are going to have to pay the price.

I have the figures here. Those C-17 strategic aircraft cost $3.4 billion. The worst thing is that there are two parts to military contracts: the cost to acquire the equipment and the cost to maintain it over 20 years. That is the department's new approach.

Many Canadian companies are saying that at least Industry Canada is responsible for the purchase cost and that companies will benefit from the economic spinoffs of all of this. Unfortunately, that is not what happens with many of these contracts, like the contract for the C-17 strategic aircraft. The government will be giving Boeing $3.4 billion, and there will be next to no economic spinoffs for Canada. All of the maintenance support for 20 years will be done in the United States. We can try telling Boeing to invest money in Canada and Quebec, but really, the company can do whatever it wants. We cannot be at all sure that there will be $3.4 billion in spinoffs.

The same thing is happening with tactical aircraft. We just found out that the government signed a contract for a $1.4 billion portion of a $4.9 billion contract to buy tactical aircraft from Lockheed Martin. In this case, Canada will be getting only a portion of the $1.4 billion acquisition cost back in economic spinoffs from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin has decided to give back $843 million in reinvestment in Canada and Quebec.

This is all very unfair to Quebec. Quebec accounts for 54% of the aerospace industry. In the Lockheed Martin contract, Quebec will have to be satisfied with only approximately 28% of the spinoffs. This is unfair, considering that the Atlantic provinces, which account for just 4.6% of the aerospace sector, will reap 28.7% of the economic spinoffs. The Atlantic provinces, with 4.6% of the industry, will get over 28% of the spinoffs, while Quebec, with 54% of the industry, will get 28.5% of the spinoffs. The Atlantic provinces will be getting more than Quebec in terms of spinoffs.

That is a gross injustice. I could go on at length about this. The Chinook helicopters from Boeing represent an investment of $4.7 billion. That investment was just announced. The Canadian contract will take priority over others that were waiting to get Chinooks. An agreement was probably reached with the U.S. president in Bucharest. Once again, we do not know for sure if the maintenance will be done in Canada. Nor can we be sure of the potential spinoffs from this contract. Furthermore, the government renounced its prerogative as signatory of these contracts to tell them where to invest in order to ensure economic spinoffs for Canada. That is their laissez-faire policy and Quebec comes out the big loser.

Supply vessels are another example. We are talking about $2.9 billion. Transport trucks represent $1.2 billion. Search and rescue aircraft represent $3 billion. As an aside, however, search and rescue aircraft are actually very useful to Quebeckers and Canadians. When there is a problem in isolated or mountainous areas, that is the kind of equipment used to help Quebeckers and Canadians. Yet it is at the very bottom of the list right now, as we speak. It is not a high priority. It is at the bottom. I met the air force commander this week and he said that things were going at a good pace. Yet we are far from where we should be in the contracts at this time because they have almost all been signed.

Thus, this is a gross injustice. At a time when people in the manufacturing and forestry sectors need help with employment insurance and seniors need help with the guaranteed income supplement, it is unfortunate that over $20 billion is being invested in the military sector. This is completely unacceptable for the Bloc Québécois and one of the reasons why we will vote against the bill before us here today.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-50, the 2008 budget implementation bill, which contains many of the measures set out in the government's budget.

After over two years of lavish spending, the government decided, wisely, to be a little more fiscally prudent with this budget. We have heard many times before in the debates that this is indeed the first Conservative government to have a balanced budget since Robert Borden's government in 1912.

The only reason why the government has not plummeted into deficit is the sound fiscal inheritance of the previous Liberal government. When the Liberal government left office there were billions of dollars in surpluses. Also, the Liberals managed with eight consecutive balanced budgets. Canada had the best fiscal record in all of the G-7 economies.

This year the title of the budget was “Responsible Leadership”. It is rather ironic, I would think. We have heard from many that we are indeed on the cusp of a deficit.

The government went on a foolish spending spree when times were good. It made irresponsible tax cuts, taking $12 billion out of the fiscal framework with the two cuts to the GST, and now that the economy is beginning to slow, our financial situation becomes more precarious. Responsible leadership and sound economic management, I would say, are certainly questionable.

When the government delivered its budget speech, it appeared like a straightforward document, only for the government to deceive Canadians with the bill before us, which contains what I would call a zinger clause. With the budget implementation bill, the government has imposed upon Canadians immigration measures that would give the minister unprecedented power: unprecedented power to pick and choose, unprecedented power to determine who gets in and who stays out, and unprecedented power to play favourites.

What the government is saying yet again is “trust us, we know best, we will make the rules and you will be better off”, a pattern we have seen with the Wheat Board and the government's manipulation of processes and numbers. We have seen it with the censorship activities of Bill C-10 and with the lack of consultation on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the list goes on.

In this case, the government wants to be trusted, trusted to decide behind closed doors if one's mother, father or children can come to Canada, again with no consultation, with no input from those most affected on any of the impending changes, whether they are families, settlement groups, employers or provincial governments.

Just this morning in committee, the Auditor General was before the committee and spoke to the importance of consultation in the development of any policies of government. The government wants us to believe that it will meet its goal, as articulated, of reducing the backlog with an increase in the budget of approximately 1%, and it is asking for trust.

Immigration needs to be taken out of the bill and properly studied in committee. A few years ago, I was part of the committee that revamped the immigration bill. The consultations were widespread. The chorus was not unanimous by a long shot, but everybody had an opportunity to put forward his or her position and the consequences of decisions taken and decisions not made, and I would say that we have to do that again this time.

The government plays mind games with Canadians. It talks about being tough on crime, yet it stalls its own justice bills in the House and uses them to play petty partisan games when they get to the Senate.

When I look at this budget, I have somewhat the same reaction that I did to last year's budget. A little money was spent, with a sprinkle here, a dash there, a pinch for this and a pittance for that. Once again the government tried to appeal to everyone, but has spread its funds too thinly. One of my constituents calls the Conservatives' style of government and budget making “fast-food government”.

We know that our cities and communities are in vital need of investment. We have all heard about the billions of dollars of deficit Canadian municipalities face with respect to their infrastructure. We have also heard from the finance minister that potholes are certainly not his responsibility.

My own city of Winnipeg, like other cities in members' ridings, has significant financing challenges and yet there has been no recognition by the government of these challenges faced by cities. What the Conservatives did finally incorporate was the step the Liberals promised, and that was to make the gas tax permanent, and I commend them for that.

Budget 2008 provided $500 million for public transit out of the 2007-08 surplus. However, within days of that, we learned that $108 million of it was going to restore a train service to run through the minister's riding. Nobody had asked for that and no advice had been given on it.

The government has refused to answer questions about Manitoba's infrastructure program. We know that the floodway for Manitoba is non-negotiable. We know how important it is.

It was over a year ago when funding for the floodway was announced under the Canada strategic infrastructure program. A month later, it was decided to allocate the funding under the building Canada fund, which, I might add, is full of moneys committed by the previous Liberal government. This would shortchange the province of Manitoba by $170 million in infrastructure funds that could well go to a host of other issues.

I also want to talk about Lake Winnipeg. We heard grant announcements on what we in Manitoba call “our beloved Lake Winnipeg”. We heard that an additional $11 million would be headed toward the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg, bringing the total, with moneys committed previously, to $18 million.

Examination of several websites, coupled with conversations with many researchers and scientific experts on the restoration of the health of the lake, show that few funds indeed have been forthcoming to date. Again we have heard empty words and hollow commitments.

The Conservative government continues to treat the women and children of Manitoba and this country as an afterthought. Many of the issues of importance to women have largely been bypassed. The programs that most women talk about as important and transformative, such as housing, child care, education, health care, unemployment insurance, and legal aid, are of limited interest to the government.

We hear members opposite espouse family values and talk about children as the future. We also hear members opposite talk about skill shortages and the need for skilled workers. However, social programs go hand in hand with economic programs.

I have spoken many times here in this House about the need for quality child care. What about it? Nothing is forthcoming except that cheque through the mail. Where are the promised spaces? In my riding, there are huge waiting lists. Parents are forced to leave their employment. Parents, and particularly single mothers, do not have the necessary supports.

In the last few months, the waiting list at one day care in my riding has grown from 300 to 400 children. It receives five to ten inquiries a day about spaces. The government has not made the connection on the availability of child care spaces to economic growth.

Although I do not have time to read for members an email on this, I will take another opportunity to do so. I received an email that listed all the parents with respect to that child care facility, the jobs they do, and the contributions they make to the economic growth of the city of Winnipeg. Coupled with that is the desperate need for space in their day care.

I wanted to talk about the government's shortcomings with respect to aboriginal people, whether it is in education or in how the government is ignoring them in the consultation process on the repeal of section 67. We heard in committee this morning from a group of aboriginal women who have very grave concerns about the matrimonial real property legislation, which I look forward to reviewing.

However, we know that the government has not addressed the needs of aboriginal peoples except in this piecemeal, cherry-picking, fast-food manner of a little bit here or a little bit there. We will see what we can do.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-50, it is important to see the context in which this budget bill has come forward and the economic policies of the government that underwrite it. In that regard, it is important for us to look at the policies the government has implemented since it has been in power, and in particular the Conservatives' absolute obsession with their ideology around the importance of tax cuts to move economic development forward in this country.

We saw the process kick into high gear in the fall of 2007, when we saw the governing Conservative Party and in fact the Liberal Party bidding each other up as to how much in corporate tax breaks and corporate tax cuts should be given to the large corporate sector in this country. Those cuts went ahead fully supported by the Liberal Party to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

The cuts were to be concentrated in the oil and gas sector and the finance sector. In the finance sector the banks alone were earning an annual profit in the $20 billion range. Those corporate tax cuts gave that sector an additional $2 billion. The oil and gas sector received similar types of benefits from the government.

We see the consequences in the budget. The budget is very close to being balanced. Depending on revenue this year, it is not beyond the pale that we would fall into deficit. It is very clear that at the very least a number of programs that are sorely in need of assistance from the government will not be funded because of those decisions.

By hollowing out the ability of government to pursue valid social policy programming by this type of tax cut, we ensure that on an ongoing basis governments are not going to be able to protect their citizenry and develop all of their potential as individuals in our society. That is what is going on here. That is the context in which we see Bill C-50, the current budget bill.

I want to address the consequences to the auto sector. I come from a community where the auto sector is the dominant industry. It is rather interesting to watch the conflicts that go on between the finance minister and the industry minister, but the finance minister and the Prime Minister say that they cannot pick winners or losers.

That is not accurate. The government is quite prepared to intervene in the market. I am going to quote some statistics from a group that is not particularly friendly to the NDP, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. These statistics were printed in this morning's newspaper.

During their first fiscal year in office, the Tories paid out $25 billion in grants, contributions and subsidies. Here is where we are into this inaccuracy on the part of the finance minister when he says they are not prepared to pick winners or losers. That included $350 million to Quebec based Pratt and Whitney Canada and $47.5 million to the Mont Tremblant ski resort, again in Quebec. In the spring of 2007, the government announced a $900 million fund for the aerospace sector.

Where is the auto sector? The auto sector creates at the present time 140,000 jobs in this country. The aerospace sector creates 75,000 jobs currently. The number in the auto sector is dropping dramatically. The aerospace industry is stable at this point.

It is interesting that the industry minister at that time, now the foreign affairs minister, said we needed that $900 million fund “for the defence of the aerospace industry”. The auto industry is in much worse shape and in much greater need of defence than the aerospace sector is.

My party repeatedly speaks about the need for assistance to the auto sector, and we heard the same this week from the Liberals, but what do we get? We get the platitude from the finance minister and to a lesser degree from the industry minister that they do not support winners or losers. That is simply not true.

The government has made a very clear decision in its economic policies and it is reflected again in the budget, in Bill C-50. It has made very clear decisions that it is going to support certain sectors of the economy and give them preference and priority over other sectors. Oil and gas, finance and aerospace are all getting preferential treatment. There is direct assistance and subsidies in the form of tax cuts or direct dollars going to those sectors and nothing to the auto sector.

In the auto sector in my community alone, in direct and indirect jobs over the last three to three and half years, 17,000 jobs have been lost. That is in a total population of less than 400,000. It has the second highest unemployment rate in the country and this budget does nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing to assist the auto sector.

I want to make a point and perhaps it will be of particular concern to the finance minister since he comes from a riding that is immediately adjacent to Oshawa, a major auto sector dependent community. Windsor is at the very forefront of these losses and devastation in the auto sector, but his community is not far behind, nor is Oakville, St. Catharines or London. They will be facing the same kinds of problems that Windsor is facing.

The problem is that, either because of its obsession with tax cuts based on that very warped ideology that has been proven not to work around the globe or because of its desire to support specific sectors like oil and gas, aerospace and finance, the government is unwilling to help the auto sector. This is reflected by the absolute absence of any assistance in this budget to the auto sector.

There are a great number of programs and policies that could be put into place within the auto sector and then funded to some degree by the government. The NDP has been working on a green auto policy, for instance, for well over five years now, with very specific, detailed proposals as to how we would put that into place. We need to understand that this budget totally ignores any of that. This is not just the NDP speaking. It is the auto sector, the major corporations that produce and sell cars in this country and, of course, the labour unions that work in those plants.

It is a cohesive policy. It is one that has very little disagreement within that sector of what needs to be done, the roles that all of the participants in the sector need to play and the need for a partnership from the federal government in order to be sure that policy can be put into place and the results of that work deployed into the economy generally so we create many more jobs while saving a great number of jobs as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

A clarification from the chair is that on Monday we have an already scheduled meeting. After that, it will likely be Bill C-50, and then the priority will be this motion.

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

We should give priority to Bill C-50 which was referred to us by the House of Commons. The rules require us to study it. Apart from that, our priority would be the ABCP.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

On a point of clarification, Mr. Crête, Bill C-50 would be the priority and then this would immediately follow that? Is that correct?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased and honoured to have spoken last week about Bill C-50, Budget Implementation Act, 2008. I spoke about various aspects of this bill. Let me begin by putting things in context. This may seem like a good budget and it may work for some, but there is nothing in it for Quebec. Quebec's Conservative members were not able to meet a single condition that the Bloc Québécois set down on January 23 on behalf of the majority of Quebec ridings. At that time, the Bloc Québécois presented Quebec's immediate and urgent needs. I will list them for you, but first, I would like to remind you that these needs were identified by Bloc members during our prebudget consultations, not only in Bloc ridings, but in other ridings as well. You will note that one very important, very urgent need was not included in the budget, and that is direct and immediate assistance for the manufacturing and forestry industries.

Nor did it include any assistance for workers in the manufacturing and forestry industries. Yet Quebec and Canada have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs because of this manufacturing crisis. As you know, Quebec and Ontario have been particularly hard hit. The Bloc Québécois members are here to defend the interests of Quebeckers, and we condemn the fact that the budget contains no measures to resolve the current crisis in Quebec's manufacturing and forestry industries.

The dozen or so Conservative members elected in Quebec two years ago now have not followed through on their promises. These members were elected based on big promises: they asked to be put in power in return for millions. And I am not talking about the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, who even had the courage to say something. Courage is not the right word, but I would not dare use the word that comes to my mind right now. It is certainly not courage, perhaps it would be gall, to use a slightly nicer word than the one I am thinking of. So, he had the gall to promise a Marshall plan, with billions of dollars and called it the “Blackburn plan”. I apologize for using his name, but he said it himself two days ago in the House of Commons. He then spoke about another plan called “his name II”.

First of all, when I heard this, I had little hope that his second plan would be any better than the first, since his first plan was a bust. He spoke about the “his last name II” plan, which made me think about Star Wars—we started with the fourth episode, before seeing the first three. Second, we realized that it was not the [his name] II plan, but the “Blackout II plan”. In short, there was absolutely nothing in his first plan or in the second one.

The Conservative government gives absolutely nothing to Quebec in this budget implementation bill. The Conservative MPs from Quebec were absolutely incapable of obtaining anything. I imagine that they have no power in caucus. Nothing has changed for Quebec and that is why the Bloc exists. Federalists have been elected and sent to Ottawa. Since 1993, that has happened less and less. A minority of Conservative or Liberal members are sent to Ottawa because Quebeckers understand what goes on. Conservative members who have promised to defend Quebec's interests and wield power get elected. Some will become ministers and will sit with the other Canadian ministers in cabinet or in their caucus. And there they do nothing, absolutely nothing. They very seldom are able to obtain anything for Quebec. The Conservative ministers scurry on all fours to collect the crumbs thrown by the cabinet.

The same thing happens with the caucus: it throws some crumbs to the starving Conservative members who keep quiet and ask for nothing in public. They do not speak up publicly because they are told to keep quiet in the name of party discipline, in the name of Alberta, which does not need money but receives it nevertheless, because that is where the stronghold of the Conservative Party is. These Conservative members are incapable of doing anything for Quebec. This budget before us is ample proof of that once again.

I promised to list the Bloc Québécois's demands made public on January 23. We asked for direct and immediate assistance for the troubled manufacturing and forestry sectors, as I explained a little earlier. There was no help in this budget for the workers and communities affected by this crisis. We have been calling for an older worker assistance program for a long, long time. Again, there is absolutely nothing in the budget for that. And yet it is precisely that kind of program that could help the workers get through the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

I want to take a few moments to explain POWA. It is a program that gives working people generally over 55 years of age an income roughly equivalent to employment insurance. It actually does fall under the employment insurance umbrella. This income helps them bridge the period between becoming unemployed, for example at 57 or 58 years old, and the moment they qualify for a government pension at 60 years of age. It covers a year or maybe two, or sometimes just a couple of months. In most cases, it helps these people avoid having to resort to welfare. POWA provides very parsimonious benefits to people who cannot easily change jobs and find themselves in what I would call desperate straits.

Some of us were lucky enough, of course, to be born with the gift to learn things quickly and easily all our lives. Others find it more difficult. They get close to retirement and for them to learn about computers at that age is just too big a mountain to climb. We need a program like POWA for people who find themselves in a difficult situation and cannot easily learn new skills. That was one of the Bloc’s demands.

We also wanted compensation for the seniors who were swindled out of the guaranteed income supplement. This program was a scandal under the Liberal government and the scandal continues under the Conservatives. I remind the House that it was the Bloc Québécois that exposed the GIS problem. Hundreds of thousands of seniors were entitled to benefit from it and receive annual payments of as much as $6,000 to add to the meagre government pensions they were already getting. It afforded them an almost decent income and raised them over the poverty line.

For years, though, the Liberal government of the day did all it could to ensure that seniors did not find out they were entitled to this supplement. The Liberals did all they could. The call centres were real labyrinths where people could never actually reach anyone. We know how difficult it is for the average person to deal with an answering machine and can only imagine what it must be like for someone who is older. In addition, the people who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement are usually among the poorest and have the least education. Often they have difficulty speaking one of the two official languages, or even both, and are also ill and isolated.

The guaranteed income supplement was one of the Bloc Québécois's demands. A few improvements were made to it, thanks to the Bloc. When we in the Bloc say we are helpful, there is no need for any more proof. Assistance for older people, thanks to the guaranteed income supplement program, is another specific accomplishment of the Bloc Québécois.

My time is running out, unfortunately, because I still have a lot to say. The Bloc Québécois will vote against the budget implementation bill, therefore, because it fails to meet our minimum demands. I did not have enough time to mention the environment, culture or a single securities commission, but these issues were also included in the Bloc’s minimum demands, which the Conservative government failed to meet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the committee make non-bank asset-backed commercial paper its priority in the coming months, while of course respecting our obligations to study Bill C-50 that deals with implementing certain provisions of the budget. I so move. Since this is on the agenda, I do not have to give 48 hours notice. I hope that I can get unanimous consent from the committee on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about an issue that has caused my constituents great concern and fear.

In fact, in the time that I have served as the member of Parliament for Newton—North Delta, my office has never received this kind of reaction from the people in my riding. The issue that I am referring to are the changes the government is proposing to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Over the past few weeks, Canadians have been told that these amendments would make the system more efficient and improve the way that immigrants are welcomed into this country.

The facts do not support these claims and the government is misleading Canadians. Since this government took power, the application backlog has grown by over 100,000.

The simple fact of the matter is that Canada's immigration system is severely understaffed. We need more immigration officers, more consulate officials, and more branch offices across the globe. These are the simple adjustments that must be made if we have any hope of overcoming this backlog. I will tell members something else we need more of, and that is immigrants.

Two-thirds of Canada's population growth between 2001 and 2006 was fuelled by immigrants. According to the 2006 census, Canada is on track to becoming 100% dependent on immigration for growth. By 2012 immigration is expected to account for all the net labour force growth. The Conference Board of Canada estimates a shortfall of three million skilled workers by the year 2020.

These statistics are the reality of our country's future. Canada's growth, both in population and in the economy, will collapse without a steady flow of immigrants.

The new powers that are being proposed for the minister would have the potential to allow great abuses of the system. The minister would have the ability to pick and choose which immigrants she decides are acceptable. The minister would also be able to cap the number of applicants by category. Family reunification and permanent resident applications could be slashed.

The scariest proposal is to allow the minister to reject applicants who have already been approved by immigration officers. This minister is bringing politics into the immigration system. No one person should have the power to choose who gets into Canada and who does not.

How can Canadians be sure that the government will not favour one class of immigrants over another? With these new ministerial powers, there are no guarantees that people and businesses would be treated objectively.

Every day I speak to residents in my riding who are very fearful that if this bill passes their family members are going to be ignored and their business are going to suffer.

There are thousands of my constituents who were once immigrants themselves and who have built a life that contributes to the betterment of Canadian society. These Canadian citizens are desperate to be reunited with their families, and they have gone through all the proper channels to make this happen. However, with these changes, the rules would not matter any more.

At times, I wonder if this government understands what immigration really means, beyond a raw economic cost-benefit analysis. Does the government even understand the religious and cultural heritage that immigrants bring to our country?

This Sunday is Vaisakhi, the celebration of the birth of Khalsa. It is one of the most important days in the Sikh nation heritage. I congratulate the Sikh nation on this most important day. Hundreds of thousands of Sikhs and their fellow Canadians will celebrate peacefully and inclusively for the well-being of everyone in the world.

I am proud to say that the largest celebration of Vaisakhi, the birth of Khalsa, in North America takes place in my riding of Newton—North Delta. I encourage my colleagues to take part in these ceremonies in their communities and celebrate Sikh heritage.

I am an immigrant to this country. My family members have joined me in Canada since I arrived over two decades ago. There is one thing in which I always had faith. I never had a doubt about the fairness of our country and its immigration system.

Canada represented new opportunity, a better life for my family and, most important, equality, meaning that everyone was assessed in the same way. If these amendments pass, that expectation of opportunity for all will disappear, so too will Canada's reputation as a welcoming country for immigrants.

I want to conclude by asking a simple question. If the government feels these amendments will improve the system, why is it hiding them in a budget bill? The budget should be voted on by itself. These proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are too important to be hidden. If these changes will make a positive impact, then the House should be able to consider them on their own.

I encourage the government to remove the proposals from the budget bill and allow all members to voice their opinions without the threat of an election. This is what I mean when I say that politics is being put ahead of good policy. This is a matter that should not rushed through in isolation. If the government believes in transparency and accountability, it will allow an open and honest debate. We all know the record of the government on transparency and accountability. Conservatives talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk.

Once again, I want to repeat the desire of my constituents to allow the House to consider the immigration act on its own. Governing is about making choices. In an age where we have billions of dollars in surplus, there is no reason why immigrants should be turned away. We have the resources to speed up the immigration process. We have the ability to increase the numbers of immigrants we let into our country. We have an obligation to ensure that fairness continues to be a guiding principle in our decisions.

Now is the time that we, as representatives of the people, must stand up for Canada's best interests. I will stand up to vote against Bill C-50. I am grateful for this time to speak and I am ready for any questions my colleagues might have for me.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think this motion is out of order. We are in the middle of a debate. Members in the House are ready to speak to Bill C-50. I do not know where this motion comes from, but debate on this bill is continuing. A number of members are here ready to debate this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-50, the budget implementation act, and outline some of the reasons that New Democrats will be opposing the legislation.

On any number of fronts, the bill fails to provide for working and middle class families, but I want to address specifically first nations, Métis, and Inuit. On these fronts, it fails to provide adequate housing, safe drinking water systems, education and, unfortunately, the list does go on.

I want to put this into some context. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in its alternative federal budget document, did a very good job analyzing some of the challenges facing first nations, Métis and Inuit. In its document, it talks about the fact that government figures confirm that first nations received approximately $6 billion from the federal government in 2006-07. This funding was for all services, services that other Canadians receive from all three levels of government, which would include the federal and the municipal governments.

It goes on to say that the 2% annual increase in first nations' budgets is less than one-third of the average 6.6% increase that most Canadians will enjoy through Canada health and social transfers in each of the next five years. When adjusted for inflation and population growth, the total budget for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada decreased by 3.5% between 1999 and 2004. As a result of the 2% cap, it is estimated that the accumulated shortfall through 2007-08 is $774 million. This has an impact on all aspects of first nations, Métis and Inuit, whether it is their ability to join the labour force, to live in clean housing or to access clean drinking water.

There are on reserve and off reserve Inuit in the north. When we talk about off reserve, I want to touch briefly on the plight of Indian friendship centres. The friendship centres have been chronically underfunded for any number of years and yet we know they deliver a vital and important service in urban communities where there are large numbers of first nations, Métis and Inuit.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have two very good friendship centres, Hiiye'yu Lelum and Tillicum Haus. Both of those friendship centres have been forced into the kind of fundraising that we would not expect of any other organization delivering services. I would agree that it is important to look for partners but these organizations have such limited core funding that they are always lurching from funding crisis to funding crisis, despite the very good services they deliver in their communities.

I want to talk briefly about the funding and the fact that the budget implementation act does include funding for child protection services. However, in the alternative federal budget it states that the current funding formula drastically underfunds services that support families and allow them to care for their children safely in their homes and communities. As a result, for first nations the removal of children from their homes and communities is often the only option considered, not the last option.

I have spoken to this House before about least disruptive measures and how we actually pay for foster care off reserve at prices that, if we were to put that money into the on reserve community for least disruptive measures, we would actually close the gap around education, housing and the poverty that is a daily living condition in many first nations communities.

The alternative federal budget estimates that rather than the $43 million over two years that this bill would put in place, $388 million should be allocated over three years. The sad reality is that the Assembly of First Nations and other partners have had to take this complaint about the chronic underfunding for child protection services in this country to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

In December, this House stood and supported unanimously my private member's motion on Jordan's Principle. I do not want to repeat all of the stories but Jordan was a little boy from Norway House Cree Nation who died in the hospital. He had spent four years in a hospital and two of those years were because of a jurisdictional dispute between the federal and provincial governments.

In a recently released report called “Reaching for the Top: A Report by the Advisor on Healthy Children and Youth”, a recommendation was made that when there is a jurisdictional dispute between the federal and provincial governments that the federal government step forward and demonstrate some leadership and pay first. It has mechanisms to recover those payments once those jurisdictional disputes are completed.

We simply should approach this from a child-centred approach and say that children come first in this country and we will put the resources where they are needed.

The Norway House Cree Nation, where Jordan lived and where his parents gave him up to foster care in order to get him care, there are 37 children right now with complex medical needs. The parents of these children may also need to surrender their children to the provincial foster care system in order to get their children's needs met. This is happening because of a funding problem from the federal government perspective.

I will now touch briefly on the issue of violence against women. British Columbia has a highway called the Highway of Tears that runs between Prince George and Prince Rupert. From 1989 to 2006, nine young women either disappeared or were murdered on that highway and all but one of them were first nations women.

Working with community partners, the provincial government has stepped forward and funded some forums and a number of key recommendations came out of them.

However, once again the federal government has failed to demonstrate leadership when it comes to aboriginal women and violence. There have been many pleas for the federal government to step forward and help with the funding of some coordinator positions in Prince Rupert and Prince George. People are calling for a highway transportation feasibility study that would look at community safety. They are also asking for funding for some of the important recommendations that came out of the community forums.

We have wide documentation on violence against aboriginals and the federal government could step forward and support some of the initiatives that communities have put forward.

I now want to turn to education. Article 15 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in education and public information.

Sadly, the federal government has failed to support a number of articles in the UN declaration and, in fact, actively lobbied not to support the declaration. It is playing out right now in first nations education across Canada.

Many people in this House will be familiar with the Attawapiskat situation where the community is resorting to tools like YouTube to get its message out across this country. Attawapiskat is not the only school in this country that is suffering. The parliamentary library did some research for us and found that 39 schools were currently on the list for construction or renovation projects, and those were only the ones that we could identify. The parliamentary library estimated that it would cost $350,833,000 to construct or renovate these 39 schools.

We have seen surplus after surplus and yet we continue to have schools to which not one of us would send our children. Reports have shown many safety hazards with respect to these schools, such as doors not closing properly, mould, and roofs in danger of collapsing from heavy snow, and yet we still cannot get the kind of movement that is required from the federal government. A school in northern Saskatchewan burned down in 2004 and still has not been replaced.

This is not just a problem in Attawapiskat. Unfortunately, because of the lack of transparency within the government, we have not been able to get a complete list of all the schools on the list so we could let Canadians from coast to coast to coast know how many first nations and Inuit children are unable to access the kind of education that we say is a fundamental human right in this country.

We often try to present ourselves as champions of human rights and yet we have citizens in this country who do not have access to the things that we think are fundamental human rights.

I would encourage members of the House to oppose this bill unless it can be amended to include some of these important measures that would ensure the quality of life for first nations, Inuit and Métis is equal to that of other Canadians.

The House resumed from April 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-50.

Call in the members.

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

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

Regarding Bill C-50, will we hear experts from the department next Wednesday?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Witnesses? I would suggest if you insist on witnesses, get them in quickly, because clause-by-clause will happen very quickly. By Wednesday we will be on Bill C-50.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

There is one other issue, which is that it appears Bill C-50 is going to pass the House. It will likely be here next week. My suggestion to the committee would be to put Wednesday's meeting off to do Bill C-50.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand again in Parliament and speak about the types of issues that the Conservative Party brings forth within a budget.

We have an amendment now in front of us dealing with Bill C-50 to separate some of the immigration issues that are extremely important to Canadians right across the country and in my riding as well.

We think it is absolutely imperative that the heavy-handed legislation that has been introduced through the budget process be taken out.

For myself and the constituents I represent, the situation with immigration is horrendous. The backlog means loss of productivity and loss of sense of identity for many people across the country. We need to change that, yes, but to change it as it is proposed, where we could arbitrarily choose those we wish to reward with the benefits of a properly working immigration system is really wrong.

We need to keep it democratic and we need to keep it fair across this country. That is why we have put this amendment forward and that is why we will continue to not support this bill as long it contains this type of effort.

Having said that, I would like as well to talk about the budget and the budget implementation bill. In reality, I have actually been harangued by many in the Conservative Party about my position to not support the budget. So, I would like to explain that to people and get it on the record.

The other day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the member for Macleod, claimed that my constituents were extremely disappointed with me for not supporting the budget. I do not understand why he would say that, but he continued by saying that a member from the Northwest Territories who did not support a northern residents tax reduction was really failing his constituents.

When we look at the record, we will see that for the past eight years I have been fighting, in three elections, to put forward the concept that fairness within the northern residents tax deduction needs to be addressed.

In this Parliament, I have been consistently bringing this issue up and putting it on the order paper. I have worked with my constituents across the Northwest Territories and in the other northern territories to raise petitions and to bring attention to this issue.

It is nice to see that the Conservative Party has picked up on the issue, but it did not get the job done. A 10% increase to the northern residents tax deduction is simply a convenience to the Conservative Party so that it can say to the electorate “We did this”, when in fact what was required and was asked by all my constituents, whether they be labour, whether they be the chambers of commerce, or whether they be the legislative assemblies, was a 50% increase just to keep up with inflation for the past 20 years.

The Conservative Party did not get the job done in this budget with the northern residents tax deduction and it should be ashamed to try to fool Canadians into thinking that it did.

The Prime Minister was in my riding, in Yellowknife, a number of weeks ago. What did he do? He stood and harangued me for not supporting the budget. The Prime Minister took the time to tear into the member for Western Arctic because I did not support the budget. The Prime Minister used the northern residents tax deduction as a convenient tool to try to increase the electoral chances of his party in my riding. What a shame-faced effort that was by the Prime Minister.

That is the kind of common approach that I see this Conservative Party taking on so many issues for the north. It talks big about what it is doing for the north and yet everything it does has a hidden touch to it; it turns out to be less than what is expected.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development came up north the other day and talked about what he had done for crime prevention, with the new fund he set up for police procurement in the north. He is offering up $800,000 over five years to the Northwest Territories, an amount which the minister of justice in my territory admitted was only 70% of one police officer position.

In a territory that has extreme problems of distance, the cost to move police services across a vast area the size of one-sixth of the whole country of Canada, the government has offered up 70% of a police officer over the next five years to answer our needs. After the kinds of incidents in the north of over the last year with police, the troubles policemen have had, having to act on by themselves because they simply do not have the resources to implement the proper procedures used in normal situations and we this is what we get. Once again, the Conservative Party brags about a program that really amounts to nothing.

Then we go back to previous budgets wherein the Conservative government brought forward a new formula funding agreement, which at the time it touted as being very progressive. Once again, it was established that the funds would go to the three northern territories, not on what it would cost to provide services in the north, but on a per capita basis. Costs in the north are rising daily. The expanding economy in western Canada is driving up the costs to everyone to a great degree.

After the wonderful work the Conservative Party did with the new formula financing agreement, the territorial government now says it is $135 million short. It will have to cut positions and very particular things that it needs to do to provide decent services within the Northwest Territories. Therefore, we have a problem right now.

When we talk about the Northwest Territories, it is an area where money is being made. We in the Northwest Territories want to see devolution. We want to see revenue sharing from resources, which is an important thing for us, but we do not want to be shorted on that as well.

When the Conservative government announced that it would continue the $500 million socio-economic fund to be set up for the pipeline, what did it say about it? It said that the fund would not be available until the pipeline was guaranteed and that the fund was okay because it would come out of the royalties that would be accrued to the Mackenzie gas project. That is not a subsidy. That is simply giving us the money that should be ours.

If the Conservative Party is providing this fund to the north to mitigate socio-economic activities will come as a result of industrial expansion that will favour southern Canada, it should take that money out of the revenues that accrue to southern Canada, not the ones that come to the Northwest Territories. That is unfair. Once again it shows the nature of the Conservative Party when it comes to funding the north and giving it a fair share.

What about the Norman Wells project? Oil has been pumped through that pipeline from Norman Wells for some 20 years. Right now, the federal government will not put it on the table in devolution. It will not put the revenue from that project on the table. The Conservatives say that it is their money, that they traded royalties for ownership of the pipeline, that they own 33% of the pipeline and they will not share it with us in the Northwest Territories. They say that they will not give us our fair share. What kind of deal is that? What kind of respect for the Northwest Territories is that from the Conservative Party?

Would the Alberta MPs who sit in the House be satisfied with this kind of arrangement for their provinces? I do not think so. I think they would be up yelling like I am right now.

When it comes to the diamond mines, when the original environmental assessment was set up, the benefits the Northwest Territories were to receive were employment and business opportunities based on a certain rate of production. Some of the mines are exceeding their production by 50%. Do we see the government standing up for our interests in this? No. It continues to let it go, with bigger profits and bigger taxes that will accrue to the federal government. Where does that leave the people of the Northwest Territories?

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

Tonight the House is having a vote on Bill C-50. Obviously we're not going to be there. I want Bill C-50 to pass tonight, because if it were defeated tonight, there would be no debate on Bill C-50. I think it's important to get that bill debated as much as possible.

We're going to have the debate both in this committee and the budget committee and in the House of Commons. If that bill were to be defeated tonight, there would be no debate. I just want you to be aware of it.

I myself, if I were in Ottawa, would have supported the passage of this bill, because I think we need to get it into committee so that we can expose the shortcomings and have people come in and talk about the implications of this bill.

When Bill C-50 goes through third reading, I will vote against it.

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

Thank you very much.

I'm really glad to see all you folks here.

Sima, I remember we were battling under the Sossa family. I think it's an opportunity to let my colleagues know and let the record show that the Sossa family came from Costa Rica. Their children were doing exceptionally well in school. Immigration officials went into the school and held the children hostage to try to lure in their parents so they could pick them up and deport them. It was just reprehensible. I took that back to the House at the time; I raised it in the House. Anyway, the minister said that no more of this will be happening.

I point this out because here we have again a bureaucracy in action that tends not to be accountable and really points to the need of having good political accountability, transparency, and oversight. We spent a lot of money and effort in getting the Sossa family out. Their kids were doing great. They were established in the community. The father was a foreman on a construction site in this city and the wife was working very hard at another job, I think. It was cleaning or something like that that other people didn't want to do.

It seems to me that here we have the perfect candidate to come to Canada. So what do we do? We ended up sending him out of the country and then we ended up bringing him back. So a lot of money, time, and effort was wasted going through this exercise. There are undocumented workers like this all over the place. It would have been so much simpler to go through a regularization process. As mentioned before, we have people living in the shadows. Do a regularization, which the previous government was on the verge of doing but they got defeated. Then you know what happened: the bureaucrat said, oh, here's our opportunity to put this off again, because we're against it; essentially, these people are the result of the mistakes we made by changing the point system on the Immigration Act in 2002.

I mention it to committee members because it's a perfect example of how we could have saved a lot of money. We could have saved a lot of effort. We could have saved a lot of heartache. We could have dealt with some more of the backlog but instead we chose to expend our moneys in this way.

Ms. Chen, I agree with you in terms of what you're talking about in Bill C-50, because what we end up doing is giving more control to the bureaucracy, taking away even oversight from the courts as well as from the politicians, from this committee, from the minister, which makes the whole thing very dangerous. So when you say that, yes, we racialize our migrant farm workers, it's certainly the same thing we did with the Chinese. We brought them in, they built the railway, and we got rid of them under the Chinese exclusion act and put on the Chinese head tax.

You guys are doing a remarkable job on probably not a very popular topic. How do you keep going? I really want to know. I commend you for what you're doing, but how do you keep yourselves going, as advocates?

[Louise Thibault, Independent, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I plan to talk about the whole issue of the amendment, but I will also take this opportunity to speak on Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill, and share some more general but, I believe, nonetheless very important thoughts.

Coming on the heels of a budget that is timid, to say the least, Bill C-50, Budget Implementation Act, 2008, confirms this government's vision and essentially incorporates a bill on immigration that is totally unacceptable in terms of both its content and the way it is being introduced.

On reading budget 2008, I felt that seniors and the poor were the big losers. I voted against this budget largely for this reason. Now, by adding immigration clauses, the government has done something totally unacceptable, in my opinion. These clauses give the minister absolutely extraordinary discretionary powers. There will be other big losers if we accept this. If this goes through, all newcomers to Canada, especially people who want to sponsor family members, will have a hard time living with the new reality of arbitrary decisions.

I want to talk about more general issues, as I said previously. In this Budget Implementation Act, 2008, regional economies—an issue I feel strongly about and one that will always be close to my heart—and environmental concerns are really given short shrift. The measures in the bill are too timid to give clear, targeted help to the thousands of people across Canada with urgent, pressing needs. It is shameful that, once again, the government has not chosen to act for the common good and redistribute wealth when it can.

The government has chosen to use $10 billion to pay down the debt instead of looking after the people for whom it is responsible and redistributing wealth. Because it has decided to pay down the debt, the government is using smoke and mirrors and more often than not presenting us with budget measures spread over two years—measures it is not giving much attention to. Sometimes, the figures look quite promising, but when they are cut in half, they are much less attractive.

Very few people are fooled by this scheme. As I said last fall in criticizing the economic statement, it is precisely because, quite frankly, there was not much to it and nothing substantial for seniors and businesses in our region that I obviously decided to vote against the statement, as I did against this budget and as I will continue to do against this budget implementation bill, which I find unacceptable. It is only logical.

Today, the government is implementing some of the claims regarding provincial jurisdictions. We had questions about the elimination of the millennium scholarship and the creation of an independent employment insurance commission. All these steps taken by the government are baby steps and their significance should not be exaggerated, as it is quite limited. The people in our regions want to see real, detailed changes, which they do not often see from this government.

The people who need help from this government, people in my riding and throughout Quebec, are truly being left out in the cold by this budget and this budget implementation bill. I am talking about seniors and forestry workers in particular.

As far as seniors are concerned, this government recently had the opportunity, as many in this House will recall, to take a look at our least fortunate seniors and study the entire issue through the motion I presented, which, I am happy to report, was adopted by a majority vote. The only members who voted against the motion were the Conservative members.

The government thus had an opportunity to address the issue, to do things differently, to try to eliminate poverty among our seniors, those who built our regions, our country, our nation of Quebec and the rest of Canada. It had an opportunity to lift these people above the poverty line.

My motion did not ask for much. In it I asked that our seniors be lifted above the poverty line and be allowed to work 15 hours a week at the minimum wage established by their province of residence without being penalized with respect to the guaranteed income supplement. It was not much, but it was well-meaning. We know what this government decided to do.

The Conservatives have taken some measures. No one can be against the good things or against virtue. They announced $13 million to fight violence against seniors; that in itself is important. Furthermore, they announced the creation of a TFSA, that special account. This is good, if the seniors have any money. My main focus was help for poor seniors. If seniors can save a maximum of $5,000 per year in a special savings account, good for them.

But before helping those who have resources and pensions, the government's responsibility and obligation is to take care of the people who need it most. In this case, I will continue to hammer home my demands, the demands of the people, of seniors and of those who fight for seniors' rights and needs, because they need more than what the government offered in its budget.

I will not have a chance to discuss all the sectors of the Quebec economy, but there is one in particular that affects everyone, at least on this side of the House: the manufacturing and forestry sector.

It is completely unacceptable that despite the creation of a special fund intended to help these regions and sectors where many manufacturing and forestry companies are experiencing a crisis, there are still huge job losses. The government had the opportunity to help these foresters and to give them a boost.

In my region and in Quebec in particular, I am thinking about private woodlots and the foresters who own them, who cultivate our forests, who look after them competently, successfully taking environmental concerns into consideration. The Conservative government completely forgot about them. It completely ignored the reality in the forestry sector, and particularly the private forestry sector, in Quebec and elsewhere.

For all the reasons I mentioned—and I am sorry I must stop, because I could have talked for 20 minutes—it is clear that I cannot support this budget implementation bill, and will vote against it.

The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Marie Chen, Staff Lawyer, African Canadian Legal Clinic]

I have an oral statement only, as I didn't find out about the standing committee until last week.

In the short time I have, I am planning to speak to two issues--temporary foreign workers, specifically the seasonal agricultural workers program, and also immigration consultants. I'm not sure how these issues have been bifurcated, but I can't be split in two, and I'm here today, so I'll talk about both things.

I will be speaking from the experience of my work as a staff lawyer at the African Canadian Legal Clinic. We are a specialized Legal Aid Ontario clinic. We have a test case mandate to address issues of systemic racism impacting on the African Canadian community in Ontario. We litigate and advocate on behalf of African Canadians to protect their human rights. In our advocacy work we receive calls from African Canadians on a daily basis regarding immigration-related issues. I'll be speaking from that experience.

I'll start with the immigration consultants issue. At the African Canadian Legal Clinic, we've seen our fair share of clients who have been taken advantage of or exploited by immigration consultants to whom they have gone for help. We've seen people who have paid huge sums of money, but the work was not done or it was done badly. We've seen people whose chances of being accepted were dashed by the incompetence of the consultants they hired. We've seen people's chances of a future ruined. We've seen people who have been given false hopes when they really do not have a viable case, yet they have forked out huge amounts of money.

These stories are commonplace in many immigrant communities. It's not an issue that these incidents happen; the issue is what the Canadian government should be doing about it. What is truly needed is a system of accountability that works. The fact is that the current self-regulating system by the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants does not work. It is weak, has numerous loopholes, and in fact there is no accountability. Immigration consultants act with impunity.

In terms of our proposal as to what can be done, with respect to the provinces where the law societies are currently regulating paralegals, we propose that the federal government work with their provincial counterparts to ensure that these law societies also regulate immigration consultants. Immigration consultants do work that's akin to paralegals. There is absolutely no reason why the law societies that already regulate paralegals should not be regulating immigration consultants.

The problem is that not all law societies regulate paralegals. In Ontario we have paralegal regulations, but it's not consistent across Canada. Alternatively, our proposal is that the federal government look into setting up a licensing scheme with respect to immigration consultants, whereby standards of competence are set and there are regulation mechanisms.

As part of that regulatory mechanism, there needs to be an arm's-length complaints system through which victims of exploitation can seek recourse and can file complaints without fear. That's why we're proposing an arm's-length system, because many people have no status, and if you have a government agency, they're not going to come forward. There will be no hope of people coming forward from the get-go. It has to be an arm's-length system.

Also, to make sure that complainants do come forward and they're not excluded by fear, you should allow for third party complaints. Organizations, councils, or people who have come in contact with victims can file those complaints.

With respect to the temporary foreign workers, the seasonal agricultural workers program, I am going to be talking specifically about it. I will touch on some of the problems that are faced by the workers. I would also speak to some proposals to address those problems that the federal government can implement.

I would also like to draw attention to the racialized aspect of this program. The history of the program is rooted in the Caribbean. It was started in 1966 with workers from Jamaica. Since that time, it has drawn workers mostly from the Caribbean.

Currently all workers in the program are racialized. They're from the south. We have workers from Mexico and the Caribbean mainly. Approximately 40% of the 20,000 workers are now from the Caribbean, from countries like Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados, and the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. About 80% of these workers work in Ontario.

Because of their status, migrant farm workers are highly vulnerable to exploitation and mistreatment. Their vulnerable situation also allows for abuses to go unchecked. As racialized people, they experience racism not just from the employers but also from the communities, the people in the communities they work in. These workers are mostly placed in rural, predominantly white communities.

We've also heard of workers complaining about the poor working conditions they have to work in. Caribbean workers, for example, have compared their working conditions to modern-day slavery. They experience extreme social isolation. A lot of these workers come here for extended periods of time, up to eight months. A lot of them come up year after year. They are separated from their communities and their families for extended periods of time. This is extreme social dislocation. There's no opportunity to be reunited with their families while they're in Canada.

They also can be sent back very easily, repatriated. If they stand up for their rights, they can be repatriated. They live under this constant threat. They have no choice but to remain silent and endure unfavourable work conditions and treatment, if they are victims of that.

What can we do about this? What can the federal government do about this?

Let me be clear right from the get-go. These migrant farm workers provide much-needed labour. They are a benefit to Canada. They fill a labour gap and contribute to Canada's economy. They do the long hours and the long days, the hard back-breaking work that Canadian workers do not want to do.

On average, migrant workers work 6.7 days per week, 9.5 hours per day. There's no question that Canada has benefited and profited from this program. Indeed, it's part of our history that Canada has benefited from migrant labour, from the Chinese railway workers who built the railways to the manual farm workers who cleared and settled the west.

But with benefit comes responsibility to protect the human rights of the workers we bring in and we profit from, to provide the rights and protections that are due to them under Canadian law.

The federal government should work with its provincial counterparts to ensure that these rights are protected. For a start, it should work to provide accountability for employers who mistreat workers and it should create avenues of redress and recourse for workers who have been mistreated. In this respect, we support the UFCW's call for the creation of an appeals process for repatriation cases.

The federal government can provide funding and support for advocacy services to these workers—for example, advocacy services and help for workers who are being repatriated or who have worker's compensation claims or appeals.

The federal government can also work to improve the living and working conditions of these migrants by helping to set minimum standards of living conditions and setting up regular inspection and monitoring mechanisms.

The federal government can allow these workers to apply for permanent residence status, by setting up a special program such as the one for domestic workers, whereby workers can apply for permanent residence after having worked in Canada for a certain period of time and shown an ability to successfully live and work in Canada permanently. Currently workers experience indefinite temporary work. Year after year, they're here temporarily with no chance of success of applying for permanent residence.

Canada should also sign on to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, the migration workers convention in short, which contains protections and rights to prevent workers from being exploited. Currently Canada is not a signatory.

We have heard that the reason for Canada not signing is that we have a superior immigration system, where people can come in and apply for permanent residence and citizenship. This does not apply to migrant farm workers, who live here on a temporary basis. They're completely temporary, and the avenue of applying for permanent residence doesn't apply to them.

I would like to close by saying that it would be remiss of me not to mention Bill C-50, because it does fundamentally affect everything we're talking about today. I know that the committee has set down the work in these categories, but it really does affect what we're talking about fundamentally.

I agree with the concerns that others have raised about the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the sweeping powers that will be given to the minister, and the cutting out of humanitarian and compassionate applications. I won't speak to the substance of those concerns, but I would like to speak to the process.

These changes are sweeping and fundamental. In a democracy like ours, we should be debating this, truly, just as we are doing here. It needs to be worked through the legislative process, and not through the back door by a budget bill. So we would ask that a full and open public debate, with a full consultation process, be held to discuss this issue.

Also, I would like to comment that this hearkens back to the good old days where, you know, who decides whom is good for Canada or which immigrants are desirable? The history of Canada is replete with examples of groups—to which many of us here belong—that were considered undesirable. The change from an objective system, which the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has with respect to checks and balances between subjectivity and objectivity, to an arbitrary system is going to affect fundamentally the way that immigration is dealt with in Canada, and it deserves full and public consultation.

Thank you.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you.

To the parliamentary secretary, sometimes I have to go out of the room to talk to the media about something we're not talking about here, which is Bill C-50--and also to say good things about our chair compared with other chairs in Ottawa.

It seems to me we could be solving a number of problems with the shortage we're having right now. It doesn't make any sense at all, from a policy perspective, to spend a lot of resources chasing after undocumented workers so we can now deport them out of the country. We'd be better off trying to regularize those workers, because really, they're the result, to a large extent... There has been a huge growth since the new Immigration Act was put in place in 2002, when we said that people with trades and people who want to work hard need not apply because they cannot get in. So what we did was to drive up those numbers.

My community has a lot of university professors and what have you, so we have a pretty high level of education in my community. But when I go around the community, I dare say that 95% of the people who came here as immigrants would not be able to get into this country now if they wanted to get in on this point system. That includes people like the parents of Mike Lazaridis, Frank Stronach, Frank Hasenfratz, and the list goes on.

We really made a huge mistake. We'd be much better off to make up for the mistake that the bureaucrats talked the government of the day into because ministers, unfortunately, did not know what they were doing--then as now. We could use those numbers to correct it, because it was the shortage of workers that drove the people who are in the precarious class of being not documented or not being in status at the present time.

I agree; there isn't a restaurant I can go to in Waterloo region where people aren't complaining that they're really having trouble getting people. It's all a function of totally perverting the point system and totally changing the way that Canada used to do immigration.

Do you have any comments on this?

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

Mr. Chair, had you let the question be finished we would have dealt with it a long ago, and it probably would be over to the Conservatives now.

The point I'm going to make is that never have we gone on tour--and this is my third tour with the citizenship and immigration committee--that we did not bring in other issues, if the member so desired to raise them. There's nothing in the Standing Orders saying that's the only thing you can talk about, number one. Number two, had we been aware, had the committee been aware--they approved the travel--that Bill C-50 was coming forward, I dare say they probably would have asked us to study nothing but Bill C-50.

Mr. Chair, in that role, you cannot determine everything that might be 100% relevant to a particular issue. So had you been a little looser, we wouldn't have had the problem. But the point is that Bill C-50 is the most important piece of legislation before us. The parliamentary secretary asked the committee to try to expedite the matter--and I underline that--in the hearings to Bill C-50. So any information we can gather would have helped that process, but it didn't.

I just want to have that reflected in the record. That was my point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Hopefully we can continue this meeting in an air of cooperation.

The chair is aware that we are on three different topics here. We've been given orders by the House of Commons to hear these three different topics. We all know what they are: temporary and undocumented workers, immigration consultants, and Iraqi refugees.

During the course of our travels the chair has been lenient in allowing some leeway with regard to questions on Bill C-50. That's when there was an air of cooperation between all members to proceed in that way. That air of cooperation is apparently gone, so I'm going to be fairly strict in where we go with questions on Bill C-50.

At the same time, the chair has already stated that we don't mind being in the periphery of that. We don't want to see Bill C-50 dominate the debate and get us off the topics we want to discuss, that we have been ordered by the House of Commons to proceed with. We have recommendations that'll be made to the House of Commons on these items.

We will be having a hearing on Bill C-50, and all members will be given the opportunity to call witnesses and hear testimony from these witnesses on Bill C-50. Nobody is trying to shut down Bill C-50; it's just that we've been given an order by the House of Commons to do three items, and that doesn't include Bill C-50. So the chair has to be fairly strict in that regard.

I hope members will continue with the air of cooperation we developed since Vancouver and allow us to proceed in the manner we're supposed to proceed in.

On questions, I don't know who was last.

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

Let me finish, please. It's a point of personal privilege, and you, sir, are obliged to hear me out. Allow me to finish, please.

Yesterday you allowed a lot of leeway. Questions were asked, and I pointed this out to you a few times. Leeway was allowed. I don't see what the difference is today. On a point of personal privilege, sir, you also allowed Mr. Komarnicki to table a motion, to grandstand in this committee, when he wanted to say that Bill C-50 should be sent to this committee. Bill C-50 originally was something that we were not supposed to speak on, but you, sir, have allowed a lot of leeway.

I don't understand what makes it different now versus yesterday. Is it because the press is in this room and because the minister made comments yesterday that you do not like to hear?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

There are no different rules. We have an order from the House of Commons that we are obliged to comply with.

The chair has been quite lenient in allowing certain.... You know, we've had leeway with members mentioning Bill C-50. But if we're getting into specific questions on Bill C-50, which we already have some time set aside to deal with, then we're getting away from the intent of the committee in travelling.

Mr. Karygiannis, one moment, please.

We're getting away from what our original intent was, which was to study temporary and undocumented workers, immigration consultants, and Iraqi refugees. We have that order from the House of Commons, which we are obliged to comply with. It simply says:

By unanimous consent, it is ordered,--That, in relation to its studies on Iraqi refugees, temporary foreign workers and undocumented workers, and immigration consultants, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to Vancouver, British Columbia, Edmonton, Alberta, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, from March 31 to April 3, 2008...

to hear references to these particular items.

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

Thank you. And if you'll allow me, Chair, to finish my question, you will see that this is very relevant.

When consultations were done about the creation of CSIC, the minister at the time consulted--not consulted, but they got hold of you, talked to you--and everything else. Are the consultations happening now versus the consultations that happened back then different? Have you been consulted about changes now? If you have been consulted about changes now, how does that differ from the consultations that were done then? Did the consultations then fail? If they failed then, and you have CSIC today, or if it didn't fail then, how do the consultations that are happening today on Bill C-50 mirror those consultations? And where to you see Bill C-50 going?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

We are not dealing with Bill C-50 at this meeting. We are dealing with temporary and undocumented workers, immigration consultants, and Iraqi refugees. The order from the House of Commons was for the committee to deal with these three different items. I have the order here in front of me. It's the order from the House of Commons that we deal with these three items. In the meantime, we have had agreement among members of the committee that we will be holding hearings on Bill C-50.

Again, I'm cautioning members to stay within the realm of these three items that we're talking about and have been mandated by the House of Commons to hear evidence on.

Mr. Karygiannis, back to your questions, please.

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

My point is that there was agreement around the table from all the groups to deal with Bill C-50 when we have people in front of us. As I said, it was the parliamentary secretary who raised this issue.

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

Mr. Chair, my point of order is simply that we're dealing with three topics while the elephant in the room is Bill C-50. I made this same point when we started off the tour. At that time we said we weren't going to talk about it, but since then, Mr. Komarnicki has also filed the motion that he wants Bill C-50 to go to committee and to have the committee issue a report after about three meetings.

Now, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure how we can meet those kinds of deadlines, but I do know that if--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Would you please wait, Mr. Telegdi, until I'm finished speaking--and you also, Mr. Karygiannis? Please wait while I finish.

We made the ruling a few minutes ago that we won't get into Bill C-50, that Bill C-50 will be the subject of hearings. I'm simply asking members to police themselves on this.

I'm reluctant to take points of order that will interfere with members' times, but we are saying that Bill C-50 is the subject of a different set of hearings. We agreed to this prior to coming on the road: we are here to examine three different items. I would caution members to take that into consideration.

I go back again to Mr. Karygiannis....

Mr. Telegdi has a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

--but it seems to me we're getting into the realm of Bill C-50 again.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This will create two streams. Therefore, the backlog will get even longer. The lawyers have said that Bill C-50 will not stand the court challenge. As you are the regulator, and we're looking to engage you further on, do you foresee that what the lawyers are saying will be correct, or do you have another opinion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

And I would discourage that. I'm hoping members won't get into Bill C-50. If they do, of course the chair will have to rule it out of order. But we got on the periphery of this yesterday.

It's not a point of order. Yes, I should correct myself there. It is a point of order, but I want individuals to police themselves on that, please.

So one last question, Mr. Karygiannis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, I allowed some latitude yesterday, and of course that's the danger when you allow latitude. You're getting into the realm now of talking about Bill C-50, when we're really into three items: immigration consultants, temporary farm workers, and--

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

I hesitate to do that, because we've been drifting astray on Bill C-50 quite a bit. We're here to deal with immigration consultants. In fairness to them, that's where the question is directed, not to Bill C-50. It's the governance and the operation of that. Mr. Karygiannis has gone way afield, I think, and it's inappropriate at this hearing. There will be a hearing for Bill C-50, and he can get witnesses to come in; he can question them about that then. This is not that.

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

I take your answer as a no.

Let me ask a further one, if I may. We're going to have two streams, one on Bill C-50 and one on the backlog. Unless the minister agrees to allow more people in--more than 250,000 people--the backlog and Bill C-50 will be competing for that number. If you need the best and the brightest--as the minister is saying, they're going to get the first to come--that backlog of 900,000 right now--

[John Ryan]

In my role today, Mr. Karygiannis, I am before you as a regulator, not as an immigration consultant. I am sure other groups today may want to get into Bill C-50 with you, in terms of what you're after. But I can tell you that from a consumer protection review the backlog is simply untenable.

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

Mr. Ryan, you've been an expert. You've worked in this field as a practitioner for years. To your best ability, to your best knowledge, to your guesstimate, will Bill C-50 get rid of the backlog?

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

Do you think Bill C-50 will get rid of the backlog?

[John Ryan]

I think I will only comment on the portion about the injustice, because as a regulator we are involved in the protection of the consumer. On that point, we have publicly taken a position on Bill C-50, only in the protection of the consumer, in terms of the need to reduce the backlog. Simply, people are putting their lives on hold for nine years, and the anguish and the trouble are simply not in the interests of the consumer. Those people being stuck in the backlog in the processing area now, because of those people and 900,000, is not in the interests of the consumer.

So as a regulator, we hope the minister and this committee will find ways to reduce that backlog so we can get back to normal processing and everybody is serviced properly.

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

Yesterday the minister made the comment that's it's not a right to come to Canada, it's a privilege. I understand that if you're at the port of entry, that is a privilege. However, I believe that it's a right to apply. However, it's not the minister's right for her to refuse the application, as Bill C-50 is moving to. I see you shaking your head, and I thank you for that.

Yesterday officials of CIC were telling folks, “Well, you can keep reapplying for 50 years. And thank you very much for applying. Every time you apply, you're going to be paying money to consultants, you're going to be paying fees. We don't know if these fees will be returned. There will be a processing fee.” So somebody who really wants to come to Canada could be applying for five or ten years, and that's an injustice to that individual.

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

Have you been consulted by the minister on Bill C-50?

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

Is there such a move in Bill C-50?

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

Perhaps you could finish describing that, because I know you ran out of time.

Right now the minister seems to be saying that she would like to honour the agreements with the provinces and territories regarding the provincial nominee program, or temporary foreign worker. In the case of Quebec it's the Canada-Quebec accord. What that does is it actually allows the provinces to bring in whatever numbers they want. If the employers put in the applications, they are most likely going to get the numbers they want. There isn't really any upper target number.

In Alberta alone, as we've heard, already 100,000 people have applied for temporary foreign workers. According to the Alberta Federation of Labour, it's 100,000 so far, and maybe 50,000 of them have already arrived here, I don't know.

There is a massive expansion of the need for temporary foreign workers, partially because a lot of the workers we need are not able to come to Canada through the permanent resident program because of the point system. They just don't have enough points to come.

So first, yes, fix the point system, but with these agreements should there be an upper limit? Should they be contained so that we would no longer expand this temporary foreign workers program?

If not, what's happening is that with Bill C-50, they're going to leap up in front of the line. They're going to come in, in a massive number, as quickly as possible, because the minister is going to give priority--you can tell from what she's saying already--to all the temporary foreign workers because the workplace has said they need them. As they say, you ain't seen nothing yet: there will be huge numbers of cases of this kind and some of the tragedies that you are describing.

I would invite your comments.

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

You mentioned a couple of issues that the committee had made recommendations on, one of them being the moratorium on deportation of undocumented workers. The other one was having the immigration appeal division implemented. That's something this committee, over the years, has spent a lot of time talking about and has made motions on. Obviously, it got ignored by the powers that be--be the ministers at the time Liberal or Conservative.

One of the arguments used in the past about implementing the immigration appeal division was that the backlog was too high--once they dealt with the backlog, they would implement it.

A couple of years ago the backlog was under control and was at its lowest number. This past year, because of the failure of the minister to appoint a full complement of IRB members--missing something like one-third--the backlogs went to a record level, and they're growing.

We've created a crisis at the Immigration and Refugee Board. As much as the committee jumps up and down about it and makes noises, we manage to get ignored by the ministers. But I dare say that in most cases it's the bureaucracy, because the ministers really don't know how to run the department. They rely too heavily on the bureaucracy.

The changes proposed in Bill C-50 will give almost absolute control to the bureaucracy. When you give the minister power, let's not kid ourselves, it's not the minister who's going to do it, it's the bureaucrats. So we have the bureaucrats having created a crisis with undocumented workers by changing the point system and having the various ministers go along with it. Now we have the same situation applying to the backlog of refugees. Of course, Bill C-50 would ultimately finalize their control.

My question, my challenge to you is that you're really going to have to go forth in your community--and it has to happen across the country--and expose this plan around Bill C-50 . We need to have big debates, and people need to be made aware. I don't want to see this turn into immigrant bashing, which is what I sense coming from this government. We have to have the debate across Canada. Ultimately, if I had my way, we'd bring down the government over it. But first of all we need to have that debate.

My challenge to you is to make people in your community as aware as you possibly can. If we don't do that, like I said, we're giving de facto control to the bureaucracy.

Are there any comments?

[Zenia Castanos, Intern, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto]

Thanks for inviting us here.

It is difficult to establish an accurate figure on the number of non-status immigrants residing in Canada. Based on anecdotal information provided by service providers, employers, and unions, estimates range from 20,000 to well over 300,000, with a majority of them living in Toronto.

Their length of residency in Canada without documentation is also known to range from a few months to over twenty years.

For many, the act of staying is in effect an act of survival and the need to seek refuge from deteriorating conditions in their own country through poverty, military conflict, hunger, or to escape domestic violence, physical and psychological abuse, or state persecution.

Non-status immigrants live in constant fear of arrest, detention, and deportation and are most likely to live in extreme poverty and under exploitative conditions. Their situation is further marginalized by their lack of access to social programs and services. The irony is that not only have non-status immigrants directly contributed to the Canadian economy, but through the taxes they pay, they help to fund the very programs they are ineligible to receive and the institutions that will not accept them.

Non-status people endure many hardships and sacrifice their rights and safety in Canada for fear that things would be much worse if they were to be sent back to their home country. For these reasons we believe that a full and inclusive regularization program is required to give all non-status people living in Canada the opportunity to acquire permanent residency. Without such a program in place, non-status people will continue to be vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

While not explicitly recognized, regularization programs are a part of Canadian immigration policy. These programs have been favoured and adopted by governments and parties of all political stripes in response to the failures of immigration policies and the realities of residents without status.

This has occurred consistently over time. Since 1960, federal governments have introduced regularization programs that have granted over 230,000 non-status immigrants permanent residency status. One of the most successful regularization programs was the administrative review and the backlog clearance program that took place in the 1980s. This inclusive program resulted in approximately 160,000 applicants accepted. Any future regularization program that is created must be inclusive and accessible for all non-status people for it to make a true difference.

A regularization program also makes good economic sense. The financial and human resources required to apprehend, detain, and deport the thousands of non-status people currently living in Canada would cost much more in the long run than to establish an inclusive regularization program.

With many industries currently experiencing chronic labour shortages, the supply of available workers would help to alleviate this need.

Recognizing the critical role that non-status workers play, the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association and the construction recruitment for external workers services submitted regularization proposals to the federal government in 2003.

Just last year Parliament showed its support for non-status immigrants by passing a motion calling for a moratorium on all deportations for non-status people until immigration policies are revamped. However, the federal government, dismissing the will of Parliament, has failed to take any action on the motion.

In conjunction with regularization, we urge the federal government to act on this motion by introducing a moratorium on deportation until immigration policies are reformed.

In addition to a regularization program, other important related policy changes are needed. At present, the point system excludes many applicants despite the recognized need for their labour in Canada. Instead of revamping the point system to be more inclusive, the federal government in recent years has turned to an increased reliance on temporary migrant worker programs.

Between 2000 and 2006, the demand for temporary migrant workers has increased 110%, from 79,000 to 166,000. These programs give disproportionate powers to employers, offer workers little or no protection under Canadian labour laws, and for many provide no access to permanent residency.

We are also concerned with the impact of the proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained in the current federal budget, Bill C-50, and urge members of the committee to reject this recent move.

The backlog of immigration cases is best addressed, as it has often been in the past, through a transparent regularization program rather than the individual decisions of a single member of Parliament.

In closing, we thank the committee for hearing our submission. We urge you to take action on regularization, as so many of your predecessors have done in the past. It is time for a new regularization program in Canada.

Thank you.

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

Okay.

Now, just to clarify about the little girl you mentioned, I'm reading the proposed amendment in Bill C-50, or the portion relating to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and it says, as I read it, that the minister may, on her own initiative,

or on request of a foreign national outside Canada, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligation of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations

I'm asking you: you could make a humanitarian and compassionate application, and it may be considered an appropriate case on those bases. Would you agree with me?

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

Yes? That's pretty straightforward.

I just want to say one other thing. Thank you for bringing those heart-breaking, beautiful cards. It is really quite amazing.

Let me see whether I can clarify, then. Under H and C grounds for refugees, you would not be able to sponsor someone who has been excluded. In the past you could do so on H and C grounds, and now you cannot. That's a problem with Bill C-50.

The second one that I've heard, other than the wait times, is that if an employer wants to sponsor someone to bring them here to work, if it's turned down at visa, they have the right to appeal to the Federal Court. But not any more, because the regulations are now going to be changed, if Bill C-50 goes through, from saying the visa “shall” be given out if all criteria are met to the visa “may” be given out. So there's no appeal to the Federal Court.

Am I correct in those two assumptions? I see two lawyers here.

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

Those are good points.

All day we've heard the following recommendations. I just want to hear, yes or no, whether there's a consensus:

—Change the immigration point system so that people with lower skills, i.e., the plumbers, can come as landed immigrants, not as temporary foreign workers.

—Allow those temporary foreign workers who are here a chance to apply, even those with lower skills, for landed immigrant status, so that there is a sense that they can bring their families here eventually, to give them some hope if they want to stay.

—Make sure that the CIC settlement funding is extended to assist temporary foreign workers who are here.

—There should be a comprehensive regularization program for the undocumented workers.

—Increase the immigration target numbers to 330,000, as we just heard.

—Lastly, support my amendment in the House of Commons and defeat Bill C-50 so that we don't have to go backwards. We should go forward with these recommendations, not go backwards.

These are what I've heard so far all day—plus accept more Iraqi refugees into Canada.

Is this something there's a consensus on, that everybody here believes is the route we should take?

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

I agree with you, but I'm going to run out of time.

Mario, just quickly, yes or no: should the immigration thing be debated before Bill C-50, let's say, is defeated.

[Raj Dhaliwal, Director, Human Rights Department, Canadian Auto Workers Union]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

It should be debated--not only debated; it should be defeated. I can show you that many people in public are strongly opposed to this, although there are others who are trying to create confusion.

This is going back many years. I'm going to pick only one example. I'm one of those who immigrated to this country under the point system. There used to be a point system in the 1960s and early 1970s. Ten points, on suitability, were left in the hands of the immigration officer, and were put into practice in any way that person felt like looking at it. That was creating a lot of litigation.

What happened later on due to those problems was that legislation was clear on the point system. Although I'm not in support of the point system, at least we'd be following the proper procedures. Then, based on that....

I just want to say finally that the current system under the new Bill C-50 is basically giving more control to the bureaucrats, and that means immigration officers under the name of the minister will be discarding applications of many. Some of them may be the ones who may not be the right people in the minds of the immigration officers, and of course the minister too.

[Geraldine Sadoway]

Yes, I'd be happy to speak on that.

One of the provisions in Bill C-50 is that humanitarian applications made from outside Canada may not be dealt with.

I have with me today pictures--cards, actually--sent by a little girl to her father. Her father is an excluded family member because her mother did not include him when she was being selected as a refugee to Canada. I'd just like the members of the committee to look at these pictures. Can you pass those over?

The only way that this girl can be reunited with her father in Canada--this little girl, a seven-year-old from a refugee camp in Kenya and a refugee from Ethiopia--is if on humanitarian grounds her father is allowed to come by a visa officer after applying from outside Canada. There's no appeal. We would've liked the old system, through which there was an appeal when there was an excluded family member due to misrepresentation, and the whole story could come out.

This is just one example of the terrible tragedy that happens when a family is broken up. Yes, the mother made a mistake, and she did it. We have explained why she did this. She did this believing totally that she was doing the right thing to get herself and her child to Canada.

I'm just saying that I think the immigration changes in Bill C-50, which allow for this kind of exclusion and will potentially mean that the minister doesn't even have to answer the humanitarian application--

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

Thank you very much.

I've been on this committee for about ten years. We have issued many good reports which, for the most part, have been ignored by government. One of the simple conclusions I've come to over the years is the bureaucracy really has run the system, is running the system, has messed up the system, and now wants total control in terms of how they continue to mess up the system, lacking both transparency and accountability.

We have a vote coming up on Bill C-50, and it's a budget vote. If we defeat that budget, then we're into an election and we're not going to be talking about Bill C-50.

Right now the situation is that Bill C-50 will be talked about in the budget committee, but we have motions from everybody now to make sure that the citizenship and immigration committee talks about it. I think what we have to do is take the time in those discussions to make sure that Canadians across the country appreciate what's contained in Bill C-50, what the challenges are, and what the draconian proposed solutions will be.

What I'm putting out to you is this: would you want us to defeat Bill C-50 before we talk about the immigration stuff, the amendments, or should we talk about and study the implications on the immigration act? That's the question I'm putting out to you. I think we have to engage Canadians coast to coast to coast. They really have to wake up to what the implications of the amendments to the immigration act really are.

Can I start with you, Ms. Sadoway?

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

It's the bureaucrats who drove the change in the points system that created a crisis. The system is not working. Now the bureaucrats say the system isn't working, so the way to fix this system is to give them total control. It's shameless what they're doing. They're saying , “Give us total control, and we're going to fix it.” That's the problem.

In terms of the vote, for us to be able to debate Bill C-50, we're going to try to debate Bill C-50—

[Philip Mooney]

The point system does not address what we'll call--I shudder at the words “human capital”, because that says people with low skills aren't human.

What we need is a “capital” model. Frankly, with regard to Bill C-50, we've had extensive consultations on the CEC. We had no consultations on Bill C-50, and I'm talking about the CBA, our association, and AQAADI in Quebec. Last week we asked the senior diplomats in CIC why there was no consultation; the answer was, because there wasn't.

[Victor Wong]

Yes. We recommend that the government withdraw the amendments to Bill C-50, instead issue a proper discussion paper, and then organize community hearings before drafting legislation. This has been the process when we made changes to immigration law in the past. You don't stick it into a budget implementation bill and then pass it.

I would urge all parliamentarians to bring that back to their caucuses and hope that the government will withdraw those amendments.

[Victor Wong]

There's a lack of transparency with what's happening with Bill C-50. The legislation was tabled late on a Friday afternoon. The government has had three weeks to advise Canadians of the impact of these changes. The minister talks about adjusting categories, and so on. Well, you can start with your 2008 plan. You have all these categories with different ranges and different numbers. How will Bill C-50 change this plan on a go-forward basis?

In the best scenario, that these changes are great, they will be easily implemented, and there will be a smooth transition, what will be the change? Who will be the winner? Who will be the loser?

I think we deserve an answer on that. The government hasn't provided those answers, so they've left themselves open to this current climate of mistrust from some of the community groups that are concerned about the possible impact of C-50.

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

Mr. Wong, there has been a lot of discussion about wait times. There is a proposal in front of Parliament right now, about to be voted on tomorrow at 5:30, Bill C-50. Basically, there are already 900,000 people on the wait list. That bill does not actually deal with the 900,000 people who are on the wait list; it deals with whoever comes after the bill's introduction—February 27, I believe.

Do you think it would really reduce wait times, from what you've said? Without the funding, the $22 million, the existing funding has basically dealt with the target of 250,000, so far. Unless the target is expanded to somewhere from 300,000 to 330,000, then really the wait times, especially for families, especially from Beijing, for example, will not decrease. In fact, they may increase.

Am I correct in that assumption? This is subject to a big debate as to whether it would increase or decrease.

[Victor Wong]

Thank you for your question.

I think what the government should do is withdraw the amendments to IRPA that are in Bill C-50. They should issue a proper, separate discussion paper--we did it in the past, we'd have a discussion paper on immigration--and then bring in the legislative changes that they propose.

[Philip Mooney]

You understand, Jim—I'm sure you do, because you've been in the system long enough—how CIC reports processing times. They report the average processing time. If they only have 10 cases, the average is eight cases; if they have a million cases, the average is 800,000 cases. So really, they're not processing actual processing times; they're saying on average, the cases that we have been processing are taking this long.

It's like driving down the 401 looking in the rear-view mirror and trying to steer. It's okay if the lanes go straight and there's no traffic in front of you, but it sure as heck doesn't help you drive down the 401. That's exactly what it is.

All I'm saying is that what's going to happen, in our opinion and in our position on Bill C-50, is that those same people who have been waiting in line and have seen their processing times—we have clients in many visa posts—get longer and longer, not because there are more people who are the same as them, but because other people keep butting into the front of the line.... They keep being moved in front, and now we're going to have a whole class of CEC people moved in front of these people. Then we're going to have all these files the minister wants to bring out of the backlog, because they're needed, move in front of the same people. We're going to get processing times of 10 years and 15 years.

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

Thank you.

Welcome to the great riding of Scarborough—Agincourt.

Mr. Wong, you brought some facts and figures, especially for the Chinese migrants. You also mentioned that we should take a look at and examine Bill C-50 very carefully.

I'm just wondering, sir, if you are familiar with the timeline for waits and the increase in that timeline, especially in Beijing and Hong Kong in the last two years.

[Victor Wong]

I'll just give my last recommendation.

The government has had more than three weeks to properly advise Canadians of the impact of these changes.

Our final recommendation is that the government should withdraw the amendments in Bill C-50, the amendments to IRPA, and it should instead issue a proper discussion paper and organize community hearings before drafting legislation.

Thank you.

[Victor Wong, Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council]

Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chinese Canadian National Council is the community leader for Chinese Canadians in promoting a more just, respectful, and inclusive society. We are a national non-profit organization with 27 chapters across Canada, and our mandate is to promote the equality, rights, and full participation of our community members in all aspects of Canadian society.

As a national human rights organization, we believe that legislation and public policies must reflect the humanitarian and social justice values that are commonly shared by Canadians and that such policies should enhance the ability of everyone, including temporary foreign workers and others without permanent status, to make an important contribution to this country.

According to the 2006 census, there are more than 1.3 million Chinese Canadians, and we are the second largest racialized community in Canada.

Our community is diverse, with a rich though sometimes tragic history spanning our 150 years of continuous community in this country. Our community has been subjected to racist immigration legislation in the form of the Chinese head tax, the Newfoundland head tax, and the Chinese exclusion act. We have also been subjected to various exclusionary policies, programs, and practices at the local level. It is our direct experience with exclusionary immigration legislation that guides us in formulating some suggestions for your consideration.

Immigration should be central to a nation-building agenda. So far, our approach to immigration has been less than inspiring. We seem to be working around the edges to solve our problems. We need to be more visionary. There are three key words that could guide us in our strategic vision: nation, dignity, and choices.

We're currently moving down the wrong path. Immigration is not about filling labour market shortages with just-in-time labour. CIC is not a temp agency. We should be building a nation of active citizens. Temporary foreign workers and non-status residents deserve real choices that include a clear path to permanent status and citizenship.

There are about 120,000 temporary foreign workers in Canada, and this number is on the rise. Unfortunately, we have not provided support to this group of workers, who are vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, landlords, and others. Last year, two temporary foreign workers from China died and four others were injured in an industrial accident in Alberta. Another group of temporary foreign workers from China complained about the excessive fees charged by a consultant hired by Maple Leaf Foods, based in Manitoba.

Temporary foreign workers are at risk through precarious work. They experience the impact of family separation, not unlike the Chinese who were separated from their loved ones during the Chinese exclusion act period. Their tenure in Canada is tied to the terms and conditions of their visa, and there will be an impact if they change their employer or get sick or injured and cannot work.

So our first recommendation is that the settlement programs that CIC funds should be available to temporary workers, international students, refugee claimants, and non-status residents.

Some temporary foreign workers experience barriers to permanent status and citizenship. The Canadian experience class only targets international students and higher-skilled workers. It excludes the lower-skilled workers. Are these people not worthy to become Canadians?

As Canada ramps up its reliance on temporary foreign workers to meet labour market shortages, we run the risk of turning our two departments, CIC and HRSDC, into one big temp agency. We should be nation-building instead.

So our second recommendation is that there should be a clear path to permanent status and citizenship for all temporary foreign workers.

With regard to non-status residents, there are anywhere from 50,000 to more than 200,000 residents without status in Canada. They include people who have overstayed their tourist visas and refused refugee claimants who have exhausted their legal avenues.

Not everyone stays in Canada. Actually, only those with the strongest desire choose to stay in Canada. They are left in a situation where they cannot get a driver’s licence, credit card, OHIP card, or apply for a bank loan. They live at the margins of our society. The enforcement of removal orders is ad hoc, expensive, disruptive, and only serves to amplify the unfairness in the system. We need a comprehensive regularization program.

Former Conservative MP, the late Douglas Jung, was instrumental in convincing the Diefenbaker government to introduce the Chinese adjustment program, which allowed thousands of “paper sons” to regularize their status in Canada. In 1994, Liberal Minister Sergio Marchi introduced the deferred removal orders class, DROC, which allowed refused refugee claimants who had not been removed three years after they had exhausted their legal avenues the opportunity to make application for permanent status. This was the last comprehensive regularization program. Of course, there have been a couple of smaller-scale initiatives involving the Somalian and Algerian communities.

Our third recommendation is that we need a comprehensive regularization program, one that offers a clear path to legal status and citizenship. Such a program could be based on residency in Canada--for example, three years of residency. Non-status residents with less than three years residency should be able to apply for a work visa to acquire the three-year residency requirement.

Finally, we would recommend that removal letters still be issued, but that the CBSA refrain from initiating deportation actions, which involve arrest, detention, and forced removal from Canada. Applicants for this program would still undergo the usual medical, security, and criminal checks.

I'd like to make a couple of comments on Bill C-50. The proposed immigration changes in Bill C-50 will not adequately address the backlog unless the immigration targets are significantly increased. Over the last three years, Canada has received an average of 250,000 immigrants with the existing complement of staff resources.

There are disparities that exist in the visa offices. For example, an applicant from the U.S. might wait one year to have his application processed, while the same applicant from China, India, or Pakistan may have to wait three years or longer. Those disparities need to be addressed. The $22 million in extra resources allocated in the last budget to address these disparities should be properly allocated to resource our visa offices. That said, we are within our target of accepting 250,000 immigrants every year. Therefore, the extra staffing resources will not reduce the backlog unless you significantly increase the target range in the 2008 immigration plan.

Our fourth recommendation is to suggest that the government increase the immigration target range from the existing 240,000 to 265,000 to a range of 300,000 to 330,000, which is 1% of the Canadian population, in order to address the backlog.

The other thing is that CIC has not issued a revised operational plan, nor has it provided a transparent update on the impact of the proposed changes in Bill C-50. If there's no increase in the immigration targets, then how will these changes impact on the numbers for the various categories—economic, family class, refugees, temporary foreign workers, and students?

[Philip Mooney, National President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I represent CAPIC, the largest association of authorized immigration consultants in Canada. Every year our members help tens of thousands of individuals come to Canada, to study, to visit, to live or work. We also assist those inside Canada to exercise their rights before the federal tribunals, such as the IRB and IAD. At the end of most processes, we happily help them apply for Canadian citizenship.

In our presentation today, we'd like to offer our understanding of the sources of undocumented workers, to offer practical solutions that can be implemented immediately, and to sound a warning about the future.

What are the sources of undocumented workers? We need to understand the sources, because the remedies will be different in each case. We believe that undocumented workers come in four main streams.

First, we have individuals who have come to Canada and claimed refugee protection and, in the process, have exhausted their appeals. Rather than leave Canada, they go underground.

Second, we have individuals who enter Canada illegally, bypassing inspection at ports of entry, or who gain entry through the use of fraudulent documents.

Third, we have a growing group of individuals who are allowed to be in Canada but who cannot work. This group includes the children of individuals who have valid work permits; inland spousal applicants waiting for approval in principle; spouses of work permit holders, where the work permit itself does not allow them to work; and some individuals who are caught up in the long processing delays involved in the issuance of work permits.

Fourth, and probably the most typical, are individuals who have entered legally but who are now working after their status in Canada has expired, due to a variety of factors.

What are the solutions for each type of case, in our opinion? In the first case, namely, failed refugee claimants, the answer is very clear. They have had the benefit of being able to state their case many times and will not be forced to leave Canada until it has been determined that it is safe to return to their home country. We can endlessly debate how to change the refugee determination system and process, but we must respect the rules of the system while those discussions occur.

In the second case, that of illegal entries, these individuals have demonstrated that they do not respect Canadian laws, and they may even be a threat to our national security. The government must ensure that sufficient resources are available to deny entry to those who try and aggressively pursue those who get through. Even in the sad cases involving human smuggling, where the entrants are more victim than participant, these individuals also have access to Canada's refugee system and agency processes.

The third case, that of individuals who are in Canada legally but are barred from working, is rarely talked about, but it's a growing problem as more temporary foreign workers come to Canada with their families. Parents of a 16-year-old high school student are asking why their children can't work at McDonald's, especially given the recent evidence from high-profile events in major cities of gang activities and what happens to youth who have too much time on their hands. Further, those who work anyway are at severe risk of exploitation, as their parents' right to work in Canada could be at risk if the young worker complains about wages or working conditions.

For the in-Canada class applicants in the spousal class, the wait to be able to work has increased substantially in the last few years, and if their cases are referred to local offices, their cases can stretch to two to three years, adding substantial hardships for the families.

The obvious remedy would be to make all of these individuals eligible for work permits at the time of application for permanent residence or at the time of entry for work permit holders. We have proposed such remedies for several years now, and after discussions at the highest levels of HRSDC and CIC—some occurring as recently as last Friday—we have not been able to effect a change.

Finally, there is the issue of those undocumented workers who entered Canada legally but who stayed and worked illegally. We maintain that one of the principal causes of this is the lack of responsiveness of Canada's immigration system to the urgent needs of employers. The minister herself has confirmed this assessment in her recent justification of Bill C-50. Where there is an urgent and overwhelming demand, market forces will seek to meet that demand. Conversely, if there were no work, there would be no undocumented workers.

The solution in this last category is to have employers offer employment to those working for them without documents, using current procedures. Applications for work permits would then be sent to the home countries of the workers to enter at the back of the work permit queue—not the permanent resident queue—and if there were no security or health concerns, workers could obtain work permits without the need to leave Canada. Of course, individuals who had criminal records would not be allowed to stay or re-enter. Applicants would receive an automatic minister's approval to re-enter Canada.

In this first instance only, and save for the next 12 months, the length of overstay would not be a factor. After that date, the time limit for regularizing the status of such individuals would be set, perhaps at 12 months after their original status expired instead of the current three-month period. This would deal with the problem on an ongoing basis.

The other need is to reduce complexity and eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic complications by amending the regulation that requires that HRSDC approve all jobs. This would effectively exempt all occupations where the demand clearly exceeds the supply. This concept is already being proposed by HRSDC to deal with the situation in western Canada.

Finally, what about the future? As serious as this problem has been in recent years, in our opinion it's about to get much worse, according to the studies by the Bank of Canada, the Conference Board of Canada, and the science of demographics.

CIC has recently implemented a new program allowing employers to bring in unskilled workers for two years, following which the workers must return to their home countries for four months. It is not unreasonable to presume that some of those workers will seek a way to stay in Canada, rather than leave when their work permit expires or if they should suddenly lose their employment.

CIC steadfastly refuses to consider any program that would allow these workers to have a path to permanent residency, including refusing to include them in the new Canada experience class, which will be introduced later this year. Instead, they prefer to simply hand over the problem to the provinces.

We believe that Canada must have a single program with well-understood rules, rather than a patchwork of different programs. Failure to have one will inevitably make the problem of undocumented workers much worse in the years to come. To let you know where the hands of the clock are on this ticking time bomb, the first individuals who gained entry through this program will have their work permits expire in the next six months.

We would also like to bring one very serious concern to your attention. The Immigration Act has severe penalties for employers who hire illegal workers, even though, because this is Canada, the provisions are rarely enforced. However, if an employer actually assists a worker to gain the proper documents but then refuses to comply with the terms of the agreement—even such things as the rate of pay—the worker has no recourse whatsoever to any remedy except the civil court. We're seeing more and more cases of such abuse.

Finally, our members, being professionals in the business and involved on a day-to-day basis with all of these issues, would like to offer a helping hand to any other group concerned about the issues before this committee by way of volunteering their knowledge of the immigration system to advise and assist these groups to better serve the needs of their constituents.

In our experience, a lack of detailed understanding of the current system can cause possible remedies to be missed while groups focus on proposing impossible means to achieve unattainable results.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

Just to set the committee at ease, Bill C-50 is not going to be voted on tonight. Today is an opposition day. There is not going to be any vote on Bill C-50. We've already checked the Journals Branch. It's on the Budget Implementation Act. Let's forget all about that.

Are there any comments here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I will point out that Bill C-50 will not be voted on tonight.

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

I do want to thank the witnesses for coming to the great riding of Scarborough--Agincourt. I also have a quick question.

These hearings are on undocumented workers, Iraqi refugees, consultants, and everything else. There's a bill in front of the House tonight, Bill C-50, and it's a motion of confidence. If we were to vote on that bill, certainly all these hearings would go to waste, and all the work we've done would go to waste. Bill C-50 would spark the election, and there wouldn't be a full hearing.

Would it be more responsible to kill Bill C-50 or would it be more responsible to make sure we have full hearings--

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to share my time with Mr. Carrier.

We will have to vote on Bill C-50 today or in the next few days. Personally, as an elected representative, I attach considerable importance to the votes we hold and in which I take part. That is probably our first duty as legislators.

I'm convinced that the provisions of this bill are too serious and too harmful for us to let them continue through the legislative process. For that reason, I believe we should vote against them immediately and close the debate. What is being proposed is unacceptable. That's my opinion.

I would like to have the opinions of each of you. What would you do if you were members of Parliament? Are you recommending that members vote in favour of this bill, vote against it, or abstain?

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

Thank you very much.

The issue of undocumented workers was on the verge of being solved before the last election was called. A lot of the growth in the undocumented workers class was driven by the 2002 changes to the act and the point system. It really denied entry to people the economy needed. One of the reasons we're going through with Bill C-50 is that the people the economy actually needed were not able to access Canada under the old point system.

There's a vote on Bill C-50 tonight in the House. I want to make it clear that having examined Bill C-50 in the context it's being voted on, if it doesn't go on to committee we won't be studying Bill C-50; we'll be going into an election without the problem being solved. I think we need to very rigorously debate Bill C-50 and make the country aware of its implications.

Mr. Mannella, you mentioned you had a talk with the minister and she seemed sympathetic. I hate to disabuse you, but she parrots what the bureaucrats say. I'll tell you exactly what the bureaucrats want to do with undocumented workers: they want to get them all out of the country because they represent the mistake of their previous decision. Make no mistake, they're the ones who drove the changing of the point system. You're going to get precious little relief from that area.

If the minister or the Conservatives wanted to do it, the regularization was in place, but it came to a quick, screeching halt when this government took over. It's important that you as a community, particularly in Toronto, are very aware of what Bill C-50 is about, because it would remove the objective nature. The parliamentary secretary will say something else, but it will remove the guarantees for qualified people to get into the country--that's one problem.

We also need to make sure the point system gets fixed so the people the economy needs can get in here. The other problem is to make sure undocumented people are dealt with.

[Alfredo Barahona, Program Coordinator, Refugees and Migrants, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives (KAIROS)]

Good morning. On behalf of KAIROS, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this dialogue.

KAIROS is a partnership of 11 churches and church-related agencies. We work to promote human rights and social and economic justice in Canada and abroad. KAIROS promotes the rights of refugees and migrants within the context of the human rights of all people.

KAIROS believes that migrant workers and undocumented people are a hidden workforce whose role is invaluable to Canada, yet they're excluded from the basic justice provided to Canadian citizens.

KAIROS is also part of a migrant justice network in Canada, which brings together the concerns of live-in caregivers, seasonal agricultural workers, non-status migrants, as well as the evocative experiences of migrant organizations, faith groups, unions, community activists, and university researchers.

I come before you with mixed feelings, because while l truly welcome the opportunity to present our concerns and recommendations, at the same time I cannot help but experience a great sense of frustration and disappointment with the recently proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act through Bill C-50. These changes will give the minister the power to narrow processing of immigration applications. Concentrating the power of decision in one person to decide who gets in and who doesn't sets a dangerous precedent for a healthy democratic system. Regrettably, these changes confirm our concerns that current policy changes are increasingly treating immigrants as an economic unit to be brought here through temporary visa arrangements.

The focus of today's meeting, of course, is to talk about undocumented and temporary migrant workers in Canada. While we are not opposed to bringing migrant workers to help our economy, we strongly advocate that it should be done in a way that sets a clear path that allows for permanent resident status and family reunification.

KAIROS believes these are key components of a successful immigration strategy for the future of Canada. We are extremely disappointed that Canada, a country that won the Nansen medal in 1986 in recognition of the country's hospitality and welcoming immigration policies, especially for its work to protect refugees, is moving farther and farther from a system that grants permanent residency and settlement opportunities to the people we need in order to keep up with economic and demographic pressures.

In any dialogue on immigration issues, we need to remember that Canada is a country built by immigrants. Statistics and surveys show us time and time again that Canada depends on immigration to maintain economic and demographic growth. Canada needs immigrants. Why not provide migrant workers access to permanent resident status? Workers are human beings and not commodities to be traded across borders.

It is necessary not to consider these issues only in the context of an economic and labour shortage. All these issues of temporary foreign workers and undocumented people in Canada are intertwined and they have very important human dimensions that must not be overlooked.

Migrant workers and their families are currently paying an enormous human cost to participate in Canada's temporary foreign worker program. I urge you to consider the impact of our immigration policies and programs on families and children.

I am sure most of us in this room can relate to what migrant families go through to survive. For example, when we go away for work reasons, even if it's just for one night, we know how this will impact on our spouses and our children. We would not be there to pick up children from school, help with homework, help put them to bed, say good night. Imagine what it's like for families who are separated for years at a time. Imagine what it's like for parents and children who don't even know if and when they will see each other. That is what undocumented workers and migrant workers go through even as we speak.

Canadian churches wish to add their voices to advocate for just and fair immigration policies that truly benefit all stakeholders. We are called to advocate especially on behalf of those who are more vulnerable than we are because they have different citizenship and immigration status. Migrant workers, non-status migrants, regardless of their legal status, deserve just wages and fair treatment. No migrant workers should be required to perform forced or compulsory labour beyond labour standards. Migrant workers, regardless of their status, possess an inherent human dignity that should be respected. Their basic human rights and their basic needs must be protected.

KAIROS calls on the Government of Canada to sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

We call on the Government of Canada to undertake a full review of the immigration system to genuinely reflect Canadian labour and demographic needs, including needs for caregivers, agricultural workers, and others whose skills are currently unrecognized or inadequately recognized.

Grant migrant workers equal access to permanent residence, equal access to the services accorded to permanent residents, and equal access to family reunification in recognition of their human dignity and the significant contributions they make to Canadian society.

Monitor and--

[Amy Casipullai]

Yes, certainly. That's why we asked for a discussion of Bill C-50, for example--for the standing committee to have the opportunity to look at it. I think our goal is to look for legitimate means.

But the problem is that legislation also needs to consider the situation, let's say, of the family class, who are also workers who bring skills to Canada. Just because they don't come under the skilled worker class doesn't mean they sit around and do nothing; they are part of our communities and economy. Right now IRPA has far too many gaps that don't address these situations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just a couple of points.

We took this committee, and it was to study undocumented workers, temporary foreign workers, and Iraqi refugees. We said we'll be studying Bill C-50 at another committee hearing, starting after we conclude this, and it'll also be looked at by finance.

I can say that after thirteen years of Liberal government, six ministers, four turns in office, many of them majorities, they've caused the immigration backlog to go from $50,000 to $800,000-plus, totally inept—

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you very much for being here.

I won't speak at length about Bill C-50 because the Bloc Québécois isn't in favour of its immigration provisions and will vote against it. The NDP will do the same.

I find it somewhat curious that the Liberals are so scandalized by those provisions. If they find them so scandalous, they should merely vote against them, and we wouldn't need to debate this in committee. We would simply reject the negative provisions and we could move on to something more constructive.

At some point, being political men and women, we have to go beyond political show and be consistent with our convictions. When the time comes to rise in the House, let's rise and say that these provisions are unacceptable, and then live with the consequences of our actions. Politics is more than show.

That said, I want to go back to your address. Mr. Rico-Martinez mentioned the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. He said that, for the moment, it wasn't easy to exercise real control over immigration consultants. That's not the case of all immigration consultants, but some of them, who are not very scrupulous, simply exploit individuals who are fighting for survival or, at least, to improve their lot.

I'm an engineer, and I belong to the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, a professional association regulated in Quebec. It doesn't have a mandate to see to the welfare of engineers, but rather to that of the public. Above the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec is the Office des professions du Québec, which oversees all professional associations and intervenes when an engineer is at fault. However, there is no structure of that kind for immigration consultants.

Would the public be better served if the profession of immigration consultant were regulated by provincial governments, which already know how to go about ensuring that the professions regulate themselves properly, instead of leaving that up to the federal government, which clearly has neither the jurisdiction nor the knowledge, nor even the desire to intervene in this field in order to establish truly effective regulation?

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

Thank you. I'll make it very quick.

The minister yesterday, in the House, stood and said that we have decreased the reunification time by 40% and we're bringing families into Canada sooner. That is total hogwash. Instead of decreasing it, they're increasing it. In the year 2007 there was another increase of 7.62% in the length of time it takes to process applications. The number of people coming into Canada between 2005 and 2007 dropped by 25,547 people.

Indeed, we have this piece of legislation, and the parliamentary secretary yesterday, in this committee, did some grandstanding, if you want—and we certainly clapped for him—and said that we should have this brought to the committee and studied until May 7. This committee goes back on April 28. It has four sitting days.

My question to you, as stakeholders, is this. Can this committee invite petitioners, invite lawyers, invite the ministers and study Bill C-50 in four days?

Your comments?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

I have been working with immigration refugee agencies in Canada for almost 19 years. What you see in Bill C-50 and what you see in Bill C-17, and you hear presentations about it, is basically the dream come true of the bureaucrats. It is the position we have been listening to from the bureaucrats of Immigration Canada for the last 18 to 20 years. They want to have power to reject applications. They want to have power to not accept them, ignore them, screen them, whatever.

I am repeating what you said, but that is basically the position of the NGO sector. We are basically receiving, in the form of a bill, the position of the bureaucrats of Immigration Canada every time, and now we receive Bill C-17 and Bill C-50, or whatever.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We wanted to talk about Bill C-50. We wanted to tour on it. We proposed a week ago Monday that we talk about it, and the Conservatives strenuously objected that it was not the purpose of this tour. I am glad to see they changed their mind on this issue.

We have a horrific problem. Under Bill C-50, the minister gets all the power. But don't kid yourselves--I've been here ten years on this committee, and we have had seven ministers--when you say the minister has the power, you say the bureaucrats have the power. The proposal as to what they're going to do—take an objective system and totally turn it on its head—is totally unacceptable in the kind of society we have built.

It reminds me of the time in our history when we brought in the Chinese to build the railway, and then of course, when the railway was built, we were going to get rid of them. We're doing the same kind of thing with temporary foreign workers who are low-skilled and who come here indentured, and the problems go on and on.

I know you have a great deal of expertise on the issue of undocumented workers; I have worked with some of you folks in the past on that. The reality is that we had a point system that was changed, that essentially barred people the economy needs. It drove the need for undocumented workers. It drove the demand. You said 500,000. I think that is probably the correct figure versus the 200,000.

Essentially it's the result of the screw-up by the bureaucracy, because it wasn't the minister who changed the point system; it was the bureaucrats who changed the point system. The ministers allowed it to happen because they didn't know any better.

We've really got to come to terms with the undocumented workers, because we're spending resources, which should be spent on processing, rounding these people up and getting them out of the country. The regularization was being put in place. Had the previous government not fallen, we would have dealt with that issue.

This government comes in and listens to the mantra of the bureaucrats, which is “We don't reward cheaters”, and then proceeds to spend good money to get rid of undocumented workers when we could be regularizing them. They already fit. We see the ones who are being deported getting booted out of the country. And then what do we do? We spend a lot of money to bring them back again. This doesn't make any sense. I think we really need to have political will around it. It will take education, because the bureaucrats will repeat the mantra, “We're not going to reward cheaters”. It was the bureaucratic screw-up that caused the demand for those undocumented workers.

We're going to come back and debate Bill C-50, because I think it so significantly alters the whole characteristics of what we finally got to, having an objective system that is not racist, that does not allow the government to differentiate, and goes back to the dark period of our history, if you will.

Comments?

[Kirpa Kaur]

That is no problem.

We mobilize immigrants, refugees, workers, trade unionists, students, activists, and community members to demand justice and dignity for all immigrants, migrants, and refugees.

We continue to fight against the Conservative government's ongoing attacks on migrant communities. The last year has seen unprecedented targeting of refugees in sanctuary. Asylum seekers have been arrested in schools, workplaces, and even hospital beds. Families have been torn apart. Over 12,000 friends, family, and community members have been deported in the last year.

We continue to mobilize against deportations. We outreach to students, workers, and community members about the need for a full, inclusive regularization program. And we join in solidarity with our allies to fight against poverty, the exploitation of workers, and the conditions that cause displacement, such as war and occupation, corporate terrorism, plundering, and economic market hijacking.

We have forced immigration enforcement out of Toronto district schools and inspired front-line community workers to take up the struggle for access without fear. We have fought for and won a full “don't ask, don't tell” policy in many community agencies.

Today I'm here to speak on the alarming discriminatory, racist, and violent amendments being made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act through Bill C-50. As Eva Mackey has stated in The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada:

Nationalism often depends upon mythological narratives of a unified nation moving progressively through time--a continuum beginning with a glorious past leading to the present and then onward to an even better future. These mythical stories require that specific versions of history are highlighted, versions that reaffirm the particular characteristics ascribed to the nation. In Canada, nationalist myth makers draw upon particular versions of national history to explain the nation's “fairness” and “justice” today.

It is the responsibility of the decision-makers of the present--that's you--to reflect insightfully upon Canadian history and make sure that mistakes are not made again.

The series of amendments being made through the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Bill C-50 will allow the immigration minister absolute, subjective, and arbitrary power to reject and/or deny any migrant applications. Currently, the act states that anyone who meets the myriad discriminatory and class requirements shall be granted status. However, under the proposed changes, regardless of whether or not you meet the requirements, you can be rejected, no questions asked, and have no appeal. I am speaking here to proposed subsection 11(1).

Further, the bill will allow for official quotas to be implemented on how many migrants Canada wants, from which category of application, and from which country. The stats since the 1970s, since the implementation of the NIEAP, the non-immigrant employment authorization program, already show that there have been fewer and fewer migrants granted immigration status versus increasing temporary worker status or no status at all. Now with official quotas being put in place, this legitimizes this process. So instead of a system in which we have each and every individual application regarded within an unbiased and humane framework, we'll be looking first at which country this person is applying from, checking then that they make the cut-off line, and then cross-checking that they are not one too many in the category in which they are applying for status. This process allows for racism and classism to be organized under the neat titles of logistics and economic strategy.

As has been stated in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees handbook, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it is important to note that most people who are seeking to migrate from around the world today are doing so because they are being pushed to leave their homes for survival. They leave their communities, families, histories, friends, and lives behind not in pursuit of more opportunities but of an opportunity.

For many and most, it is a matter of simple survival, and this situation, ladies and gentlemen, is inherently tied to the reality that it is our Canadian corporate companies that are forcing themselves upon the lands and homes and economies of these people. We do house the greatest and largest mining firms in the world. If they are leaving their homes, it is because of us.

It is in the case of war that millions of refugees have had to flee countries, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. These are just three recent examples of the Canadian hand in displacement.

[Macdonald Scott, Immigration Consultant, As an Individual]

I'm here to speak briefly about temporary foreign worker permits and temporary foreign workers, and then my colleague Kirpa Kaur will be tying that in as well with some critiques of Bill C-50

Currently temporary foreign work permits, as you're probably aware, are available in a variety of areas. Most involve the obtaining of a labour market opinion from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, except in a few areas mainly relating to higher-skilled jobs, like jobs under the NAFTA agreement, the GATT, IT jobs, etc. The exceptions in the lower-skilled jobs right now include the live-in caregiver program and the seasonal agricultural worker program. The low-skill program that we had for a while is basically dead at this point.

So essentially you end up with permits in low-skilled jobs being available only where there's a job shortage, with not enough Canadians to fill the position. I'll tie this into Bill C-50, but I think this is going to become more and more a common practice--the issuing of temporary foreign work permits under the Conservative government. Our problem with temporary work permits is that because workers are not permanent residents their rights are greatly diminished. If they complain about their employer, the employer can fire them. They can apply for a new work permit while in Canada, but that can take up to four to six months, and in the meantime they can have their status revoked and they can be removed.

In my firm we've had a number of recent cases, and I'd like to draw just anecdotally the case of Ashok and Navin, who came here to work for a religious establishment as cooks. They're working 12-hour days, being paid less than minimum wage. When Ashok actually burned his arm while on the job, from a grease pan, he was kept on the job, had to work with just basically a rag wrapped around his arm. Their passports were held by their employers and basically they were forced to make...I wouldn't say a false refugee claim, but basically a refugee claim without merit because they had no other way of keeping their status once they left their employer, and that's what we're looking to in the future.

As the Conservative government issues more temporary foreign work permits, what we're going to see are more people in these situations where they can't complain.

Now, we do have the exception. We have the live-in caregiver program, where of course live-in caregivers can apply for permanent residency after fulfilling two out of three years working in their area, but even there we see terrible situations. We have clients come to us all the time who have had to leave an employer because of terrible situations of sexual abuse. They haven't been able to get a new work permit for four to six months. When the three years are up, they don't fulfill the 24 months, they don't get their permanent residency, and the Federal Court and CIC have offered very little leniency in these situations.

So we're looking at a situation, I think, with Bill C-50--and again. Ms. Kaur will speak more about Bill C-50--where essentially what we're going to be doing is creating two different tiers of immigration. We're going to be creating a situation--and this is also with the Canada experience class, I would add--that allows you to apply after two years in Canada working in a high-skilled job for permanent residency. We're going to be offering permanent residency with all its commensurate rights, privileges, and access to services to those who come from middle and higher classes, upper classes, and preferably from north countries. Then we're going to be offering a sort of serf status, almost, to those who come to lower-skilled jobs, those who come from south countries, those from poor and working classes in other countries.

I would just put this to you. Is this the kind of Canada we want to create: a Canada where there are two classes of people; a Canada where we have an underclass of people who have no rights on the job, suffering through terrible positions like Ashok and Navin suffered through, and then a Canada where we have people in higher-skilled jobs who have rights, access to services, access to status? I would put it to you that this is the direction we're headed in, and I think this committee needs to intervene and make sure this is not the direction we end up in.

I'd turn it over to my colleague.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez, Co-Director, Faithful Companions of Jesus (FCJ) Refugee Centre, STATUS Coalition]

Good morning. It's always a pleasure to be in front of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I will basically touch base on two issues that are going to affect the work we do with non-status people and temporary workers. The first one is about immigration consultants, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. We have a serious issue there, because this organization is a non-profit organization, and there is not a creator of status, so they don't have any power in court or anything. Basically, the decisions they make and the investigations they make are not enforceable.

The situation we have inside the CSIC is terrible. We just want to ask the committee to take a look seriously about the creation of a creator that is in the law and has the powers to regulate inside Canada, outside Canada, and people who are not only members of the association.

Most of the people we serve in our communities have been destroyed by immoral consultants, and we don't have any resources to deal with that. By the way, the RCMP, the police, CBSA, and Immigration Canada don't do anything to stop this situation. We report the cases directly to them, and they don't do anything because they believe that is not the priority.

The other situation you will have to deal with, if you deal with non-status people and temporary workers, is the situation of the immigration consultants overseas. This is the main issue for temporary workers: the people are agents who aren't scrutinized, and they have contacts with the embassies and everything, and they corrupt the system of immigration to Canada on a temporary basis or any other basis.

We make a very small point about the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. We have been asking the government to take a look at the society, and it doesn't do anything because it's not a priority. Maybe the standing committee can really do something to scrutinize and do an audit of that society, even though it is non-profit and they go behind that; they protect themselves from that particular situation.

The other thing that is necessary to mention is that we want to ask the parliamentary standing committee on immigration issues to use its wisdom and maturity to do something about Bill C-50. We believe you did the right thing, calling meetings for consultations about every issue you take care of, because you want to have different perspectives. It is, in our opinion, very sad to see how the other changes are changing the whole shift of Immigration Canada and destroying the criteria in the law. It's going to be, may be legally passed, and the committee is not going to have anything to do. I don't know if the committee can call and ask to analyze this bill in their hands. You have the expertise in the area.

Let me finish by saying that we realize Bill C-50 is going to affect non-status people. It's about the backlog. The backlog is related to the people we have inside Canada. They are not dealing with humanitarian applications inside Canada; they are not dealing with any situations of non-status people applying for temporary work inside Canada. Basically what they are creating is this: the backlog is going to increase, because the issue will be that more temporary workers are going to apply to come to Canada. Now we have 500,000 applications for temporary workers. We're going to have maybe double that, and we don't have the resources to deal with that situation.

So please intervene and do whatever is necessary to stop this bill from happening.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas will still have two minutes when we return to the study of Bill C-50 and, of course, five minutes for questions and comments, which I know he is looking forward to.