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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-50, the Budget Implementation Act, 2008, but specifically on the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina, which picks in particular our concern in this corner of the House for provisions that are included in the budget implementation act regarding changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Specifically, the motion that we are debating at this point in the debate reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House declines to give second reading 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, since the principles of the Bill relating to immigration fail to recognize that all immigration applicants should be treated fairly and transparently, and also fail to recognize that family reunification builds economically vibrant, inclusive and healthy communities and therefore should be an essential priority in all immigration matters.

I think that spells out very clearly what our concerns are with this provision regarding immigration in the budget implementation act.

We are concerned because a measure that changes our immigration law so significantly, we believe, should not be buried in a large budget implementation bill. We believe that this change to the immigration law is so profound and so important that it should be debated on its own merits in a separate debate.

It should have separate committee consideration as well and that it should be considered by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, not the finance committee which does not have the expertise that the citizenship and immigration committee does in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and immigration concerns from coast to coast to coast in Canada.

We believe that this piece of Bill C-50 is improperly placed and really should be debated on its own with particular reference to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

What does this proposal from the government actually do? We see that it gives major new powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to control the types of applications the minister accepts, to impose quotas, to dispose of current immigration applications, and to facilitate queue jumping.

We would say that it puts certain limits on the humanitarian and compassionate category which currently is the only channel for many who encounter challenges in the process of pursuing family reunification.

We believe that it gives the minister new powers to deny visas to those who meet all immigration criteria. We also believe that it further supports the current policy shift whereby immigrants are increasingly being understood and treated as economic units to be brought here through temporary visa arrangements, instead of the permanent residency program.

Those are all very significant concerns with this provision that is buried in the budget implementation act. That is why we believe that it should have a very thorough debate. All of these questions that we raise, we believe, should have a fulsome debate here in the House and in committee. By having it as part of a budget implementation bill and sending it to the finance committee will not allow for that.

It is not only New Democrats who are concerned about these provisions that would change the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are found in the budget implementation bill. Richard Kurland, who is one of the most prominent immigration experts in Canada and editor-in-chief of Lexbase, which is one of the key sources of information about immigration policy and procedure in Canada, has been very critical of this proposal from the government that is included in this legislation.

He notes that it took a long time and it was a long fight to establish clear criteria for the processing of immigration applications to establish the principle that anyone who applied should have their application considered, that anyone who met the criteria of the immigration program should have a chance at success of their application.

He has some specific criticisms of what this legislation would do. He notes that in the existing IRPA, section 11.(1) states:

A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. 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.

The important word there is that the visa “shall” be issued. Mr. Kurland notes that in the proposed legislation this same section 11.(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended to say:

A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.

There is a significant difference between the words “shall” and “may”. It opens up a huge opportunity for discretion and the operation of the minister's own biases. It is a real attack on the kinds of transparency and guarantees that exist in the current legislation, guarantees for the appropriate processing of applications that were fought for long and hard over many years.

Mr. Kurland further points out that the use of the word “shall” in IRPA's section 11.(1) gave all visitors, foreign students, foreign workers and applicants for permanent residence the right to a visa when they met the preconditions for visa issuance.

He notes that the use of the word “may” in the government's proposed change to IRPA's section 11.(1) takes away those rights. All visitors, students and foreign workers and applicants for permanent residence no longer will have the right to a visa, even when they qualify for the visa by meeting the required preconditions for visa issuance or renewal of their status.

Mr. Kurland additionally points out that under this proposal, applications for visas do not have to be accepted, applications for visas that are accepted do not have to be processed, applications for visas that are processed do not have to be given visas even when the person meets all the requisite conditions to the visa issuance, and applications for visas with the supporting materials and documents may be disposed of at any time.

Surely, those are all important compromises to the kinds of transparency and guarantees that have existed recently and that were fought so long and hard for in the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the addition of that kind of discretion to the minister or the department is a huge step backward in ensuring the appropriate processing of immigration applications.

The whole question of what this does to family reunification is a key one in all of this. It is something that we need to highlight when we are looking at the effects of current Conservative government policy when it comes to citizenship and immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to resuming my speech.

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.

[Ken Sy]

Number one, I would say that almost all the Chinese are against Bill C-50. They worry that the minister will have so much power. As far as they are concerned....

Take family sponsorship, for example. On average you have to wait three to five years to get the thing done. As well, for the skilled workers program, or if you apply independently from Beijing, you have to wait at least three to four years.

The biggest problem for them is the family reunion. That's the biggest problem for the Chinese community. They worry that the minister may defer the application and so forth.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Sy, you yourself come from the large Chinese community, and I'm not sure if we're going to have another opportunity to ask this of an individual such as yourself who has worked in the immigration field for a long time. There are proposed changes that are coming, especially Bill C-50, and I was wondering if you'd care to comment on that, please. How do the people of the Chinese community look at the bill and the changes it's bringing forth.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, could Mr. Komarnicki have e-mailed this to the clerk? We agreed that we were not going to entertain anything on Bill C-50. I think Mr. Komarnicki is completely out of order on this. He could have mailed it or given it to the clerk. He didn't have to make a grandstanding of it.

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

Before we start, I'd like to raise a point of order. As you know, we have three motions that have been filed: one by you; one by Mr. Karygiannis; and one by the critic, Mr. Bevilacqua, regarding having Bill C-50 come before this committee.

I've reviewed the three motions and would like to file one as well, for the record and for consideration at some point. It's fair to say that the bill itself is at the finance committee. I'm sure they will do a thorough review and investigation and will deal with it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good things for the north in the budget, but there are two problems.

One is that the Prime Minister promised two icebreakers to the north and has totally broken that promise. It looks like it may get one many years down the road. The second problem is in the budget implementation bill, Bill C-50, it explains that police and transit will be allocated on a per capita basis, with about $160,000 for each territory. How many policemen with their attendant costs could we hire? We could hire maybe one or two at most in a territory as big as any country in Europe.

Could the new EI fund invest in certain things? I have heard concerns about that. Will the member follow in what that fund invests? Also, now the Bank of Canada can have more liberal investments. Is she concerned about what those investments might be?

Does she think the government ever expects to get another vote from Ontario after owing it hundreds of millions of dollars, allocating it less seats than is fair in its allocation proposal, implying Ontarians are the little people of Confederation and suggesting that Ontario is the worst place in which invest? It is incredible. The Premier of Ontario is not the only premier to be upset. Other premiers are also very angry.

Finally, everyone admits, even the Conservatives, that there are major changes in immigration. Does the member think it is enough in the budget bill for the government to say it is changing the Immigration and Refugee Act to improve and speed up the application process? Everybody agrees that these major changes should have been explained to Canadians.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill. I will use my time to speak generally of my opposition to both the Conservatives' and the Liberals' policies since they appear to form a majority government as it concerns this bill. I am also going to take some time to identify some of the glaring gaps that I have seen in the bill.

As I listened to the debate last week, I was struck by the new Liberal MP for Toronto Centre's somewhat arrogant comments that New Democrats are against companies making profit. Maybe that is what he believed when he was premier of Ontario and that is what gave them the enormous success they had, or perhaps as a new member he is just trying to explain why he switched parties. Whatever the case may be, the comments made by the member certainly do not represent the beliefs of the NDP.

In my community of Victoria I have had the opportunity to work with a large number of young business entrepreneurs and established businesses. I have whole wholeheartedly supported and encouraged them in many ways to continue their successful initiatives.

We on this side of the House support responsible governance, offering a triple bottom line approach to government policy. That is largely absent from the policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives as is evidenced in this bill.

Tax incentives to large oil and gas companies like accelerated capital allowance have been an intrinsic part of the Liberals' and Conservatives' policies. What we do not support is the focus on corporate welfare that has characterized the economic policies of both parties.

When the Liberals say that contrary to the Conservatives they balance social and economic policies, how is it then that an estimated 3.4 million Canadians, about one in 10 people, now live in poverty? How is it that about 800,000 of them are children? Why is it that more Canadians each year are reduced to holding precarious jobs, sometimes two or three jobs at the same time just to make ends meet?

Other pertinent and pressing questions for Liberal and Conservative members of this House include why is there still no nationwide system of affordable child care in Canada? Why have university fees skyrocketed out of control since the early 1990s? Why has our environment continued to suffer degradation with the sharp increase in pollutants and toxins and a rise in greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer is that all these societal problems are the product of years of single bottom line thinking. It is not that the New Democrats are against corporate profits, but rather it is that we believe in a triple bottom line approach integrating social, economic and environmental factors.

I would also like to consider some of the specifics of this budget implementation bill. In giving $60 billion worth of tax cuts, mostly to large corporate interests, the Conservative government has robbed the cupboard bare. With an economic downturn lurking over our shoulder, the federal government has seriously compromised its ability to help Canadians weather the impending storm.

We had high hopes, for example, of seeing significant changes in the area of post-secondary education before the release of budget 2008. We are pleased to see that the government did establish the first Canada-wide student grant program. However, many fundamental structural problems with the current system of post-secondary education have not even been considered or addressed.

There is nothing to suggest that the government has acknowledged the crushing levels of debt faced by young graduates. As a result of the deregulation of tuition fees throughout the 1990s, many young students and graduates are disappointed that the government has not even reduced student loan interest by a token 1%, not even to give them the nod that this is a problem that is putting them in debt and seriously impacting their life choices as they set out in life and in their careers.

We are pleased, though, that this bill acknowledges the challenges faced by part time students and seeks in some small measure to remedy them.

We have also noted that the statements of student loan accounts will now be available online. However, this measure should never have been in question since it is the right of every borrower to have a clear statement of how much is owed. Interestingly, this has been denied to students. They have had difficulty finding out how much they owe.

Again on post-secondary education issues, although the bill deals with severe permanent disability, it still makes no mention of what has been acknowledged as a policy gap, something called “episodic disability”, such as mental illness or cancer, illnesses that are clearly debilitating but do not necessarily fall under the definition of “permanent disability”. We know that their lack of ability to access relief makes their difficulties even more severe.

There is also no mention whatsoever of a student loan ombudsman. This would have been an easy measure for the government to take, a position which the NDP and many student groups have been calling for.

In all, this bill provides a small measure of progress while neglecting some of the most important issues facing students today.

Another issue is housing. In my region housing prices have gone through the roof and have left many people under-housed or on the verge of homelessness. The gap in this bill with respect to housing is absolutely unexplainable. Cities are experiencing serious funding shortfalls in dealing with the lack of housing. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that it will take an injection of $3.35 billion annually to end homelessness, build new affordable housing units and rehabilitate and renovate existing units.

The federal government must be present at the table to discuss a long term national housing strategy. Otherwise, cities that do take measures to address their housing problems could find themselves overwhelmed by people from another region. This highlights the need for the national government to be at that table.

I would also like to briefly talk about the environment.

The federal government has adopted a business as usual approach to the most serious problem we have ever faced, that is, climate change. Carbon sequestration, which is mentioned in the budget implementation bill, is certainly part of the solution but it is simply not enough.

In this budget bill, the government could have established targets, for example, to retrofit thousands of homes and buildings to allow Canadians to make the necessary changes to adapt to current environmental realities.

It is not only a question of inadequate policies, but the government is taking us in the wrong direction. We have been embarrassed internationally by the government's inability to take up the challenge on basic human water rights. Canada emerged as the pivotal nation behind recent manoeuvres to block the United Nations Human Rights Council from recognizing water as a basic human right according to international observers.

That is where this government is taking us, and that is unacceptable. I hope that it will go back to the drawing board, listen to Canadians and come up with real solutions, which Canadians have been waiting for on these issues.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Davenport that the labour shortage in Toronto is important. That is exactly what Bill C-50 addresses. I also agree that there is a significant impact on the lives of immigrants. This bill will make that impact much better.

The Conservative government brought in the last remaining residents who would join their families. The Liberals did away with it. The Liberals also brought in the $975 landing fee and then they opposed the reduction of the same. Right now it takes skilled workers six years and if we do not change the regulation it will take ten years to come in.

They may not agree with the policies and they want to criticize them for the sake of criticism, but I thank them for showing their confidence in the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party by supporting all our budgets and everything else. However, how does the member justify keeping people in their countries so that they are not able to come to Canada? He may not care for them, but does he not at least care for the Canadian economy? Does he not agree that a 20% to 40% faster reunification of families is a good thing for the country? His own deputy leader agreed that the Liberals did not get it done on immigration. I would like to hear his comment on that as well.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the comments of the member for Malpeque and his assessment of what took place. It was extremely difficult to say what I had to say, what I thought was very important to my constituents and my city of Toronto when there was constant heckling from the government benches. In many ways it is an attempt to silence members of the House, to prevent them from saying what they feel is important to their constituents, the citizens of this country.

I said over and over again in my speech that the immigration policy being put forward by the government in Bill C-50 is being brought in through the back door. We need to have immigration reform. I am one of those who has always felt that there are things in the immigration system that need to be reformed. We do need a study of immigration policies. We need to hear from the public. I find it highly regrettable that the government has actually attached this to a budget vote and made it a vote of confidence.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating what should be two bills, a budget implementation bill and an immigration reform bill. First I will deal with the immigration reform bill and then I will continue with comments about the rest of this budget implementation bill.

The fundamental changes to Canada's immigration system that we are debating today are significant and important because they have the potential to affect the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of people.

The government has attached to its budget implementation bill, amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These amendments would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral authority to determine priorities for processing immigration applications and requests.

Make no mistake, this will be a very significant change to our immigration system.

Instead of visa officers following rules, procedures and policies, we will essentially invest in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to decide who enters Canada and who does not with no oversight or accountability.

The bill would penalize those who have played by the rules, those who have submitted their application, paid their fees and sat on waiting lists, in some cases, for many years. However, they now may see later applicants move ahead of them. This can only be described as queue jumping and will actually increase the time they spend languishing on waiting lists.

In the last election, the Conservatives made all sorts of promises to increase accountability and transparency for a better and fairer Canada. If anyone ever needed an example of the government doing the precise opposite of these commitments, Bill C-50 is that example. In fact, the bill actually removes the assurance that every application will receive due process before being returned.

These amendments attempt to create the perception that the Conservative government is trying to reduce the immigration application backlog which now sits at about 900,000. Although reducing the backlog and preventing future backlogs is a laudable goal, they would be better served by hiring additional visa officers.

The solutions offered in Bill C-50 would present numerous challenges for prospective newcomers to Canada.

I have received numerous letters from concerned citizens and organizations in my riding of Davenport expressing concerns about Bill C-50 for the city of Toronto and for the entire country. Many of them have brought to my attention the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would also be given the power to limit the humanitarian and compassionate categories under this legislation.

This is truly disconcerting for the temporary visa workers who come to Canada to fill labour shortage gaps and who, undoubtedly, would use this channel for pursuing family reunification. This is true for my riding of Davenport and for the city of Toronto, which is more than ever dependent on the immigration community to help with our labour shortages.

Morteza Jafarpour, executive director of the Settlement and Integration Services Organization, stated:

An immigrant here without his family sends his money home. With his family here, they have to buy groceries, goods and houses.

I could not agree more with this statement as it also demonstrates the common misconception that appears to be the belief of the Conservatives: that the family and humanitarian categories do not contribute to the economic growth of our country.

The Conservatives are once again playing politics by making these immigration amendments a matter of confidence by including them in Bill C-50, budgetary legislation. I firmly believe that these critical immigration reforms deserve to be fully debated as a separate matter from Bill C-50 so that it can be studied in Parliament through the appropriate channels.

I encourage the government to reconsider its approach to immigration reform. Action needs to be taken to renew our immigration system. However, if we are to be successful, we need to be inclusive. We need proper consultation and review. More than anything else, we need a system that is fair and based on the rule of law and upon policy rather than the whim of the minister of citizenship and immigration of the day.

However, immigration is not the only important thing at stake in this bill.

The greater Toronto area is the home of one in six Canadians. When we consider this reality, it is certainly of concern that the proposed changes do nothing to specifically recognize the unique importance of the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario.

As Toronto and Ontario struggle through a manufacturing sector crisis and the global economy faces a recession, we need the federal government to play its part in helping us meet these challenges.

The finance minister has responded to these challenges by consistently criticizing the Ontario government's financial policies. As with any challenge, the greatest chance of success comes not from confrontation and unnecessary verbal barbs, but from cooperation and mutual respect.

Not only does the bill fail to address Toronto's present economic concerns, it also hurts education, the key to our future economic success. Sadly, ignoring education has become a pattern of the government.

In 2006, the government walked away from the federal-provincial child care agreement. These agreements were a major step forward for families in Canada. They ensured that child care would be more affordable for all Canadians and certainly more available.

For the past year, students, parents and members of Parliament have been calling for the renewal of the millennium scholarship fund, an innovative and effective initiative of the previous Liberal government. The program set aside significant long term funding to help students pay for post-secondary education. Rather than renew this independent and long term program, the government has simply rolled it into a ministry program and committed funding for only a few years.

Perhaps most shockingly, the government is using the bill to strip the RESP program of recent Liberal amendments that would help families save for their children's education, much as they save for their retirement.

The contrast is clear when we review the facts. The previous Liberal government created child care agreements with the provinces to help Canadian families. The Liberals set up the millennium scholarship fund. The Liberals worked with members of Parliament from all parties to pass an important education tax credit that would have helped parents save for their children.

Liberals believe in cooperation, consultation and fair programs. The same cannot be said of the approach of the current government.

I must say that the content of Bill C-50 and the manner in which it has been presented to the House is becoming a trend for the government. It is a method of operation that does not lend itself to constructive review and debate. It is a manner of conduct that is, quite frankly, disrespectful to this institution and to our democratic traditions.

The bill's back door approach to immigration, disregard for Toronto and Ontario and failure to address education is a serious concern. Canadians deserve better than this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions.

First, every time I hear the Liberals talking about putting down markers, I get this image in my mind of an agitated stray dog. What is the good of all these markers if policies that are unacceptable, like those in Bill C-50, go forward?

Second, budget 2008 makes much of these tax cuts. However, as the member for Hamilton Mountain has said, tax cuts are not all that the government talks about. I would like her to comment on this so-called tax largesse in relation to some specifics.

At the committee for status of women, we discovered that 68% of women were below the lowest income bracket and, therefore, a significant number of low income women do not benefit from personal income tax deductions. Furthermore, almost four of ten women will get nothing from income tax deductions because they just do not earn enough in the first place, and, of course, non-refundable tax cuts are equally useless to those four of ten Canadian women.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the NDP did have the kind of power that the member talks about, because, frankly, if we had had the opportunity to pick the next government it certainly would not have been the Conservatives. It speaks to that really profound sense of entitlement that members on that side of the House still have.

The people of Canada decided to turf the Liberals out of office after the sponsorship scandal, after the Gomery inquiry, because they did not think they deserved to continue to be the government. It was not the NDP that turfed them out of office. It was the voters of Canada. The same voters of Canada, now in the majority, are opposed to the agenda of the government. They are looking to leadership from people in this House to vote against initiatives like Bill C-50.

The Liberals still believe they have the same sense of entitlement. They do not think they need to stand and be counted on votes. They do not think they need to stand up for their constituents but that their constituents should still re-elect them to government. It is absurd. The people of Canada know better.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in the debate on Bill C-50, the budget implementation act. As the name suggests, this is the bill that will implement the Conservative government's vision for the future of our country.

To date I have listened to the debate on both the budget and Bill C-50, and I know that many members, particularly on the Liberal side of the House, have decried the budget as having no vision at all. The Toronto Star echoed that sentiment in its headline of February 27, which said the budget was “devoid of big ideas”.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. This budget does have a vision. It is one of the most ideologically driven budgets in the history of this country. The problem is that it represents a vision that the majority of Canadians would categorically reject if they were to become aware of it.

That is why the Prime Minister muzzles his Conservative colleagues and scripts their every word in the Commons. Fortunately for Canadians, he forgot to muzzle his top dog. The Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Tom Flanagan, who remains one of the key advisers, let the cat out of the bag. He praised the Conservative government for pulling off “quite a performance”, achieving radical changes with successive revenue cuts without ever tipping its hand about what it was up to.

Flanagan described the Conservatives as “turning the screws on the federal government” and “boxing in the ability of the federal government to come up with new program ideas”. If that sounds familiar, it should, because the Conservative government has taken a page right out of the playbook of the Bush administration. It is simultaneously increasing the military's budget and cutting government revenue to set the stage for future cuts to social programs.

I can see the government members of the House starting to squirm. They loathe being compared to their Republican counterparts south of the border, not because they disagree with the Bush administration but because they know Canadians disagree with the Bush administration. They would just as soon implement their Republican ideas without being exposed for doing so.

Let us look at the facts. Just like George Bush, who also came into office with the so-called problem of huge budget surpluses, the Prime Minister is well on his way to achieving the neo-conservative objective of permanently hobbling government's ability to fund anything but the military.

Murray Dobbin published a brilliant analysis of this online on March 4. He points out that Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a dedicated Bushite, might well have been speaking for the Prime Minister when he said, "My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub".

Previously announced Conservative tax cuts will mean an annual loss of government revenues of $40.2 billion by 2012-13. Put differently, the tax cuts will cost as much as it currently costs to run the entire non-military side of Canada's government.

Programs that New Democrats are championing, such as a national child care program, a national housing strategy and a national drug plan, are all meant to become impossible dreams, and government revenues as a percentage of GDP are to drop to levels that existed before the establishment of key programs, such as medicare, so that these programs too will appear increasingly unaffordable.

For those people from Ontario who may be watching today's debate, this approach is eerily reminiscent of the Harris government in Ontario. All of us will forever remember John Snobelen's comments that he was going to create a crisis in education so that the Conservatives could then implement their own agenda. It is déjà vu all over again.

Once again, it is hard-working families and seniors who will be paying the price. They will be paying it directly through increased taxation and indirectly by losing government support for the programs on which their families rely.

Let us look at the taxation picture first. I would encourage everyone to have a look at page 201 of the English version of the 2008 federal budget and to take a look at table 5.4. It is also available online.

At the end of March, we finished what is called the 2007-08 fiscal year. Table 5.4 presents for all of us sources of government revenue or money coming in.

For personal income tax, tax paid by individuals, we see that the figure for 2007-08 is $112 billion. Two years from now, for the 2009-10 fiscal year, it will be up to $125 billion, which is a 12% increase. On the next line, we see corporate income tax, tax paid by corporations and companies here in Canada. For the same period, we see $42 billion today, but that goes down to $36 billion for 2009-10, which is a 14% reduction.

The table shows a 12% increase for ordinary Canadians and a 14% reduction for profitable corporations. Nothing shows more clearly that the gift the Conservatives are handing to their corporate friends will be paid for by hard-working families in my hometown of Hamilton and, indeed, right across this country.

How did we get to that point? It is not complicated to follow the trail. Last fall, with their usual fanfare, the Conservatives announced that they had the solution to the hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost in the forestry and manufacturing sectors. They were going to give out $14 billion in tax cuts.

There was one little problem for the Conservatives, who make themselves out to be the big experts on the economy. Most of these corporations did not make a profit last year, for the simple reason that after the government put all its eggs in the oil sands basket, the loonie soared to heights never before seen, making it increasingly difficult to export forestry and manufactured products. The more the Canadian dollar is worth, the harder it is, of course, to export.

Where did the so-called tax reductions go in regard to helping the manufacturing and forestry sectors? They have all gone to the most profitable sectors of our economy: the big oil and gas companies, which are the biggest polluters, and the banks, which are already making enormous profits.

Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector, which has lost 350,000 jobs over the last five years, continues to hemorrhage an additional 300 jobs a day.

As the member for Hamilton Mountain, for Steeltown, this utter disregard for the key engine of our economy is the most devastating impact of the government's misguided budgetary policy. The little bit of money for the auto sector for research and development, which the government did allocate in its budget, in no way amounts to an adequate strategy to help our manufacturers and exporters deal with the spiralling dollar in Canada.

Even Jay Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, is on record as saying that the Conservative government “doesn't seem to understand the seriousness of the problems facing industry in Canada today”. Where is the plan to deal with the high dollar? Where is the national “buy Canadian” procurement policy that most other developed countries use to boost their local products?

Where is the plan to balance our trade so we do not export all of our good jobs? Where is the green job strategy? Where are we positioning Canada and our economy for the 21st century? Simply, we are not.

To the Conservative government, people are there simply to serve the economy, when it should be the other way around. The economy is a man-made construct. Our economy must serve Canadians. In that way, the economy is a moral issue. It must be judged by how many people it leaves behind.

As the manufacturing sector is confronted with a tsunami of job losses, we must look at this in terms of its impact on workers. Older workers desperately need income support, yet the budget implementation bill offers nothing.

Employment insurance, which is funded solely by worker and employer contributions, is being denied to those who have faithfully paid their premiums. Why do Ontarians get an average $5,000 less in EI than those in other parts of the country? Why is it virtually impossible to access retraining benefits when disaster strikes?

Instead of reworking the EI system so that it is there for workers when they need it most, Bill C-50 sets up a crown corporation. Instead of greater benefits, workers got greater bureaucracy.

What happened to the $57 billion surplus that has accrued in the EI accounts? Why is the new bill setting aside only $2 billion for the new corporation? Where is the rest? It is legalized theft from working families.

Budgets are about priorities. They are about walking the talk. We know that the priorities of the Conservative government are about downsizing, getting out of services and getting out of the things Canadians care about most. Its priorities are about helping its friends: the big banks and the big polluters.

However, there are millions of Canadians who share a different vision for our country. They are asking the same questions that we in the NDP have been asking since the government took office.

Where is the national child care program? Where is the national drug plan? Where are the additional health care workers for the over five million Canadians who are still without a family doctor? Where is the wait times guarantee? Where is the national housing strategy?

Where is the plan for accrediting foreign credentials? Where is the money to reduce the immigration backlog in a fair and accountable way instead of allowing the minister to cherry-pick who gets to visit or work in Canada?

Where is the infrastructure investment to help our aging cities and to provide property tax relief for tenants and homeowners alike? Where is the increase to the OAS and GIS so that seniors can retire with dignity and respect? Where is the help for the building trades so they can accept temporary jobs away from their homes without suffering undue financial hardship?

Where is the assistance to make post-secondary education and training affordable for young people? Where is the concrete action on climate change?

Where is the vision that sees the federal government as an agent for positive change? It certainly is not in the 2008 budget and it is not in the corollary Bill C-50. For the Conservatives, that is by design.

However, the Conservatives have the support of only a minority of Canadians. The majority of Canadians know that we can and must do better. I am proud to stand in the House and represent their aspirations by voting against the bill. I know that my NDP colleagues and the members of the BQ will as well.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the Liberals will not. They talk the talk, but they refuse to walk the walk. There is so much at stake. This budget severely restricts the ability of any future government to undo the damage done.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with much of what the member had to say about the immigration component of Bill C-50. Newcomer communities right across the country are hugely worried about the impact that this hidden agenda in a budget bill will have for potential immigration patterns in this country.

I wonder, though, if you feel this strongly that we cannot give the government a blank cheque and that we cannot give the Minister of Immigration a blank cheque, can you commit today, for all of those people who are watching this debate, that you will stand up in this House and vote against Bill C-50?

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

I hear one more member of the attack pack from the Conservative Party chirping away. He is more worried about his own political skin than the people of Ontario, who he purports to represent.

I appreciate that the hon. member gets most of his briefing notes from Frank magazine, but it would be a bit more useful if he actually read his government's budgetary documents. I know he has no interest in the environment, but at least he could appreciate the fact that the budget is a rather important document and it will impact the people of Ontario.

I also direct the hon. member's attention to table 1.2 in which, after having inherited a $14 billion surplus, his government has basically shrunk it to a rounding error in this fiscal year to $2.3 billion and to $1.3 billion in the next year. I do not know whether hon. members opposite pay any attention to the “Fiscal Monitor”, but my guess is no. The member will notice that in the past issue it was very concerned the government was spending its way into a deficit.

It would be one thing to reduce the government's revenues and have some fiscal discipline about its expenditures, but in the period of time in which that lamentable government has been in office, it has increased its expenditures from $188 billion in 2009-10 to $218 billion, which is about a $30 billion increase or something in the order of about 15% as a rough calculation. This expenditure increase over a period of four years would exceed the increase in GDP. No household or individual can expect to spend that way and continue on to financial solvency.

First, Bill C-50 makes no provision for people like my friend, who is has deep serious concern with respect to the survival of his entity. Second, the government has almost spent its way into oblivion, and we are staring down the barrel of a deficit.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night I flew into Canada from the United States. On the runway approach into Toronto, we fly over literally hundreds, possibly even thousands, of manufacturing establishments. As the jet descended onto the runway, we cane closer and closer to a huge basis for Canada's economic well-being.

When I flew over these buildings on our approach to landing, my mind was cast back to a conversation I had with a friend on the weekend. My friend is an owner and president of a fairly significant manufacturing entity. It is a family business that he inherited from his father. It employs quite a number of people in the Mississauga area and it ships internationally. His primary business is in the domestic market, but it is also international. He uses wood products as the basis for his manufactured product.

The conversation was to the effect that he did not know how he would survive. He would have to make a fairly significant decision, in a very short period of time, as to whether he would de-camp from Mississauga, Ontario and from Canada and move his operation offshore. At this point, it is the only alternative he can see. This would result in an obvious loss of quite a number of jobs in the Mississauga area, which would have the ripple effect into the other areas of Canada from where he gets his base resources to build his product.

It was not a very happy conversation. It was a difficult one, one which he had done a lot of thinking. In some respects it was reflective of the difficulties that many people in Canada currently have and speaks to why Bill C-50 is such an inadequate document.

The previous speaker talked about “Advantage Canada”, and the Conservatives beat that drum every time. I raised with my friend some significant tax relief contained in previous budgets and he somewhat scoffed at it. He was not terribly interested in tax relief because he had no income on which to be taxed. We went through other initiatives that had been put forward by the government and said that there was really nothing there for him.

It is somewhat confirmed by the government's materials in the budget document. I would direct attention to chart 2.2 on page 31 of the budget plan 2008. It shows very clearly a significant decline in employment, both on a regional basis and on a national basis, with respect to those who are employed in the area of manufacturing.

Probably hardest hit in manufacturing is Quebec, although Ontario is neck in neck with Quebec. Although it may not be in the future, manufacturing is such a significant component of the economies of both of those provinces. It gives, in graphic terms, a classic illustration of the conversation with my friend over the weekend about the decision he has to make to lay off quite a number of people, close his business in Canada and move it offshore, with obvious losses all the way around.

This shows the indifference of the Conservative government to these difficulties. It also shows the indifference of the government and its lack of a plan to address these difficulties. We can see this directly in its budget documentation in Bill C-50.

This is a very difficult issue. We layer this on to the reality of manufacturing loses and the personal conversations and apparent hostility of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to the aspirations and desires of the people in the province of Ontario, suggesting to them, and indeed to the world, that Ontario would be the last place in which one should invest. I do not think that particular comment by the finance minister was appreciated by my friend. It has reduced his alternatives to try to keep his manufacturing facility in Mississauga. He could bring in a partner who would help him survive this period of economic turmoil in this country.

When the finance minister says that Ontario is the absolute last place in the world that one should invest in, we have to wonder what he is thinking about.

The House resumed from April 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will have 3 minutes left for questions and comments.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to join the debate on Bill C-50. First, I would like to state the position of the Bloc Québécois on this budget, which does not meet the conditions the Bloc set for giving its approval. You may have heard our position several times, but I want to state it for the people who are listening to us and watching us on television and who may not have heard it.

It is our position that the budget does not provide any direct, immediate assistance for the manufacturing and forestry industries, which are in crisis. It does nothing to help the workers and communities hit by the crisis. It contains no measures to reimburse seniors who have been shortchanged by the guaranteed income supplement program. It continues to take a polluter-paid approach rather than a polluter-pay approach, and it refuses to make a 180-degree turn on the environment.

Clearly, the budget makes no major investment in culture and does not undo the many ideological cuts made by the government in programs such as the court challenges program and the women's program. It also appears—the budget is clear on this—that the Minister of Finance is going ahead with his crusade to create a single securities commission for Canada. This plan has been criticized not only by the Bloc Québécois, but by the entire National Assembly and Quebec's finance minister, Monique Jérôme-Forget, who did not shy away from reacting publicly to the budget in the national media. And I am sure that she has made her views known to the Minster of Finance and the Premier of Quebec.

This bill covers a number of issues. As I have just 10 minutes, I would like to focus on areas I take a special interest in, such as natural resources. As a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, I paid special attention to this part of the bill.

The budget allocates $10 million over two years to help the forestry sector break into the international market as a model of innovation. The timing is good, because the committee has just completed a study of the sector. Many witnesses told us that $10 million is a nice gesture, but that it is not enough, given the crisis, and that more money is needed. We agree with the many witnesses who took the time to meet with parliamentarians during our hearings on the forestry crisis.

I am still wondering about this. We did not have a chance to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources because his agenda was too full to appear before the committee members and explain things to us. Apparently, however, he will soon come and tell us about the $300 million in the budget for nuclear energy, most of it earmarked for the new CANDU reactor and for safety upgrades at the Chalk River lab in Ontario.

Naturally, we would not oppose making a facility safer. You all know about what happened recently at the Chalk River lab. The reactor was shut down last winter for safety reasons. Unfortunately, that resulted in the president, Ms. Keen, being dismissed. The Bloc Québécois still believes that the minister engaged in political interference by removing her from her position on the eve of her appearance as president of the facility before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for a specific study.

As the natural resources critic for the Bloc Québécois, I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say and asking him questions. For now, we have no way of knowing how that $300 million is going to be distributed, how much taxpayers will be asked to pay for the development of the advanced CANDU reactor, or how much of the $300 million will be used to make the Chalk River site safer.

It is rather worrisome. They have started to think—and the Minister of Natural Resources comes right out and says so—that nuclear energy is an energy of the future, a clean energy. But my political party and I do not believe it is a clean energy. Although with this energy there are no greenhouse gas emissions, there is still work to be done before it can be considered clean, since it generates waste, and we are still unsure of the long-term effects of this waste, or how it will be managed.

It is natural that debates are being held in the provinces, since energy falls under provincial jurisdiction. The fact remains that the current Conservative government is promoting nuclear energy in Canada and all over the world. The Bloc Québécois and I do not think this is a good sign. We see that nuclear energy would perhaps cut down on greenhouse gases in the short term, but it also brings about major problems related to the management of nuclear waste, the safety of citizens who live near nuclear facilities, and the possibility that terrorists could use the waste to create weapons.

Now, I will talk about the environment. In the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we did a study on the oil sands and we came to understand the significance and size of such operations in Canada in terms of the future and the potential of these operations.

Obviously the oil companies, the explorers and the beneficiaries are investing a lot, but in exchange, they make huge profits. One thing is certain, people in my riding have written to me to ask why oil companies, which make huge profits by operating in areas such as the oil sands—the royalties, after all, go to the Province of Alberta—and which have received so much assistance from the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada, are receiving more assistance in order to generate less pollution.

I would point out that $240 million was allocated in the budget for carbon capture and sequestration pilot projects. I truly believe that oil companies and other producers of fossil fuels have the means to invest in green technologies. In fact, I believe that it is their responsibility to do so. It is not up to taxpayers to once again dig into their pockets. The budget already forces them to do that. The money in the budget is not government money but taxpayers' money. More taxpayer's money is being put on the table to help this industry develop green technologies. I believe this is a corporate responsibility they can afford.

In addition, in the last budget, there was a gradual withdrawal of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands operations. We would have preferred that this measure be eliminated altogether, but it was nevertheless a step in the right direction. In this budget, the allowance has been reinstated for carbon dioxide pipeline developers. That means more money in support of polluters, who make large profits, so they can continue their exploration.

This responsibility should be shouldered by producers.

In closing, I will say that the budget allocates $12 million to national parks. There is a federal wildlife reserve in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry which could use a great deal of money for its operations and to improve programming so as to become more accessible to the public and provide an appreciation of nature.

Unfortunately, programming for reserves was neglected. We would have liked to have seen a bit more financial support in the budget for federal wildlife reserves.

This bill ignores many groups and issues including seniors, older workers, the homeless, social housing and—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak in opposition to the budget implementation act, Bill C-50. New Democrats have been very clear that we feel the Conservative agenda fails working and middle class families, that this budget is taking Canada in the wrong direction and, in fact, will actually cause some grief for many Canadian working and middle class families.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in its alternative federal budget, clearly outlined some of the concerns. I want to quote briefly from its paper. It says that budgets are all about making choices. That is certainly true of this budget and previous budgets. It indicates:

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. Climate change is the most pressing planetary issue in terms of its potentially catastrophic environmental, human and economic consequences, yet the [Conservative] government's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been widely condemned as ineffectual.

It went on to say:

Canadians are working harder but 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 the government to get them through shaky financial times.

That is a very good summary of why New Democrats have been so strong in opposing implementation of the budget. I want to thank the member for Trinity—Spadina for introducing an amendment that would allow us to put a halt to this absolutely wrong-headed initiative.

My own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has been working very hard over the last several years to diversify its economy, but it is still heavily reliant on the forestry sector. Despite the $1 billion community development trust that was announced prior to the budget, this budget implementation bill and the economic statement before it, although it acknowledged the difficulties in both manufacturing and forestry, that $1 billion disadvantages B.C. in that it does not recognize the percentage of GDP that is reliant on forestry. The New Democrats have consistently called for a national forestry and manufacturing strategy. We do not see the kind of movement to make sure that those important sectors have the kind of support that is needed to keep them healthy.

On one hand, people talk about corporate tax cuts, but if a company is going into receivership, corporate tax cuts do not mean a darn thing. In my riding, just in the last two weeks, another company that makes products for the forestry sector has gone into receivership. That follows on two other forestry companies over the last couple of months that have closed their doors. This represents hundreds and hundreds of jobs in my riding. Yet the government is indifferent to the plight of working families in my riding and other ridings across this country.

I want to talk about housing for a moment. The budget failed dismally on the housing front. In a recent meeting of provincial housing ministers, the government once again failed to talk about a national housing strategy. In fact, the minister who attended for a brief period of time would not commit to extend some of those very important funding programs, and I will address that in one moment.

I want to mention a couple of numbers relative to my riding, from CMHC's statistics. This is a credible organization. It talks about trends. In Nanaimo apartment rents are rising and the vacancy rate is dropping. Many people on fixed and low incomes rely on rental accommodation for their living space. As rents rise, as vacancy rates drop and as no new units are being built, people are being squeezed out of their homes. For people who have lived in the same place all of their lives, it is unfair to tell them that they have to move now because they simply cannot afford or cannot find accommodation.

In the south end of the riding, in Cowichan, there was a study done on inadequate shelter in the Cowichan Valley from the fall of 2006. It reported:

No new rental units have been built in the Cowichan region during the last twenty years, therefore,the supply is scarce. Vacancy rates in private rental buildings in the City of Duncan and in North Cowichan have declined in recent years from 8.4% in October 2002 to 1.6% in October 2005.

In 2001 more than 6% of households in the CVRD, the Cowichan Valley Regional District, had incomes of less than $10,000 and an additional 14% had incomes of between $10,000 and $19,000.

Those kinds of numbers show that a significant proportion of households in my riding are paying far more than 30% of their income for housing. Housing is one of the social determinants of health. When people cannot access affordable accommodation, it impacts on every other aspect of their lives. In a country as rich as ours, we should not be asking people to pay more than 30% of their income for their housing. They should have access to safe, affordable, clean housing.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been highly critical of the government. It talked about the fact that there needs to be a national housing strategy. In its plan, Recommendations for a National Action Plan on Housing and Homelessness, it says:

Housing is a basic and fundamental issue affecting individuals and communities and an important determinant of health and well-being.

The federation went on to talk about the fact that it is not only a social issue, that it is an economic issue. If workers are not well housed, it is very difficult for them to go to work each and every day and be productive. In fact, people who are forced out on the street often lose their employment because they have no place to shower, no place to get adequate sleep, no place to store their work clothes.

Housing is a fundamental human right. We should not be having this conversation in this day and age in Canada.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has laid out a very concrete action plan. It has a five year target and specific things around ending chronic homelessness, expanding the stock of affordable non-market housing, reducing the backlog in core housing needs, preserving and modifying Canada's existing social housing stock, and extending and revising the residential rehabilitation assistance program to improve conditions in existing private stock and to rehabilitate 10,000 homes annually. That is some of the funding we are going to see disappear over the next couple of years. That funding has been absolutely critical for the economic and social health and well-being of our communities.

I want to briefly talk about transit. In my riding we have what we think is a jewel in a rail corridor with some functioning rolling stock. Although there was money announced in the budget around transit, there was no money targeted for Vancouver Island. Vancouver Island is growing by leaps and bounds.

The organization Our Corridor talks about the importance of investing in rail in our community. It can lead to sustainable economic development, reduce greenhouse gases, and support the efforts in terms of greening our transit systems. What it needs is some very specific federal attention.

This is an opportunity for the federal, provincial and municipal governments to come together in a very strong partnership to invest in rail on Vancouver Island. This initiative has been driven by municipalities and a number of businesses and first nations on Vancouver Island. I would urge the government to look at this very important investment.

In the time remaining I want to speak about first nations education. Consistently the Conservative government has talked about education as being a way out of poverty, yet the Conservative government has consistently underfunded education for aboriginal people. To put this in context, article 13 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.

States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected--

Article 14 states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages--

These set a context that although Canada did not support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, countries all over the world have supported this declaration. Canada must agree that education is not only an economic driver and an important way of culture, but it is also a fundamental right in terms of ensuring that first nations and Inuit people across this country have access to education.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am about to recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan on resuming debate, but I would like to advise the House that I have given her notice that on Bill C-50 we have now had five hours of debate, so from now on, speeches rather than being 20 minutes will be 10 minutes. She has the floor.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to participating in this debate. It is a debate that is extremely important for many reasons.

I would like to give the debate a bit of context as it relates to the immigration component of Bill C-50.

As Canadians know quite well, Canada today has an aging population and a declining birth rate. We are also faced with a skills shortage, of which people on both sides of the House, I am sure, are quite aware. We also live in a world that is extremely competitive when it comes to globalization and competing for economic well-being and raising the standard of living and quality of life of the people we represent.

Given that context, we have to wonder why the Conservative government, during an era when Canada needs people from all over the world, would reduce the number of landed immigrants allowed to come to Canada. In the first two years the Conservatives have reduced the number by 36,000. From an economic, social and cultural perspective, that type of measure simply does not make any sense.

When I heard the government would introduce a section on immigration through Bill C-50, which is a budget implementation bill, I thought perhaps it would come up with something that would speak to great financial commitments to immigration.

I was really surprised to find out that the budget bill only has a 1% increase in overall departmental funding. What is really odd about this is the fact that we are faced with a backlog of 900,000 cases, yet there is such a meagre increase in departmental investment when it comes to immigration. That is of concern to me as an individual who appreciates the great contribution newcomers have made to Canada.

It is quite puzzling to see the government trying to sneak this through a budget implementation bill. It is also puzzling that it will be reducing the number of landed immigrants in Canada by 36,000 and is not seeing immigration as an important pillar to Canada's future success.

There is a history here. We can go back to Diefenbaker, who attempted something very similar to what the present Minister of Immigration has attempted to do to deal with the present backlog. This attempt by Diefenbaker's government was pushed back by communities and members of the House of Commons, who felt that it simply was not fair.

The government's response to the global challenges we face and all the issues we have to deal with is found basically in three things that I will highlight, and I draw this from the budget bill.

The first change to consider is that of clause 11. Currently, the act requires that an immigration officer shall issue a visa to any person who meets the requirements set out in the act. If passed, these amendments would grant the minister the power to arbitrarily decide that a person no longer meets the requirements they once did. That person's application may no longer be processed and a visa may no longer be granted.

Individuals who fulfill all the requirements and who have been waiting patiently for years to have their applications reviewed may all of a sudden be advised that their applications category is now being denied. That can be done in a very arbitrary way, just because. That is unfair.

It is simply not justice that, at any point in time, one individual's whose application category may have in fact been accepted is now not accepted any longer because the minister decides that is what she wants to do today. Tomorrow she can change her mind and change categories and requirements and do as she pleases without really debating the issue. Everything becomes effective immediately when she wants it to become effective. That is unfair. It is not following due process.

The claim is that all this is to deal with a backlog. When we do a bit of research, what happens? We discover that does not make sense either. When we go to the departmental website, we find this quote:

Once passed, the new measures will apply to applications received on or after February 27, 2008. Those who applied prior to February 27, 2008, will not be subject to the new measures and will be dealt with fairly under the existing rules.

If these rules are not applied to the backlog, then how will they help the backlog? Exactly what does “will be dealt with fairly under the existing rules” mean? Am I being told that the new rules are unfair? Is that what the minister is telling Canadians? Is she saying that anybody prior to February 27, 2008 will be dealt with fairly, but after that they will not be dealt with fairly?

These are quotes that concern me a great deal. I am sure these quotes concern the hon. member for Beaches—East York, with whom I am sharing my time, and she will also elaborate on all of these points.

This is unfair legislation. It speaks to a total disregard by the Conservative government to the immigration community, to immigrants who have helped build our country. It is time the Conservatives come clean with their agenda. They need to explain to Canadians why, in their first two years in government, they have reduced landed immigrant landings by 36,000. There have been 36,000 fewer immigrants allowed into Canada. Why is this happening? Why is the Conservative government shutting its doors on immigrants?

The Conservatives can fudge the numbers. The government can talk about over 400,000 people who have been allowed into Canada. They are not talking about landed immigrants. They are talking about student visas and other permits that are given.

Then we look at clause 87. There is a new concept called “Instructions” that does not exist in current legislation. This allows the minister to cap immigration applications, set categories of applications to be considered, deny the processing of certain application categories. The danger is that these instructions can be issued at any time and take effect immediately. They will not be required to be pre-published or debated. This process, if passed, would lack fundamental transparency and ensure accountability.

In this day and age, when Canada requires the help of immigrants from across the globe, the people who have helped build this country, we cannot stand still in the House of Commons and accept from the Conservative government an agenda that shuts the door on immigrants in a very arbitrary way simply because the government feels like it.

The government also tries to fool Canadians by saying that it is serious about reducing the backlog of 900,000 applicants. What did the government do? It increased the departmental budget by a mere 1%. The parliamentary secretary knows the job will not be done with $22 million.

When the minister says she is going to eliminate the backlog, she knows she is misleading Canadians. She knows she will be unable to deliver. She knows she will not get her job done.

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.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I must say, first of all, since this government has been in power for over two years now, it is time he stop talking about the 13 years of Liberal government and blaming everything on the Liberals.

That being said, Bill C-50 poses a problem: it gives far too much discretionary power to the minister. It is a bad solution to a real problem. This real problem is the backlog of applications. The secretary said that 850 applications were delayed. According to the information I have, 24,000 applications have not yet been processed.

The problem is not that the minister does not make decisions quickly because she lacks sufficient power to make them. The problem is that there is a shortage of commissioners at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This government has not appointed the necessary commissioners. As I said earlier, there are 156 vacant positions. More correctly, there are currently a little less than 50 vacant commissioner positions out of 156.

Two reasons account for this gap. First, the government has slowed the pace of appointments. Since coming to power, it has appointed only 27 commissioners. Furthermore, it has renewed almost none of the terms of commissioners whose terms have expired. Since February 2006, the mandates of only seven commissioners have been renewed. That is the real problem.

The government should perhaps begin by appointing all the commissioners that should be appointed. Then, if that solution does not work, it could perhaps give greater discretionary power to the minister or come up with other solutions—because giving greater discretionary power is not necessarily a solution.

Some people believe that the Conservative government does not want to appoint new commissioners because it cannot find enough people who share the Conservative ideology on immigration.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my committee chair for his encouragement, especially since we are from different parties.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak about implementing the budget. By implementing the budget, we will skirt several major issues for all Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois has been expressing specific demands since January. Those demands have been very clear, and we will see that not one of them has been met in this budget.

The budget implementation bill aims to put in place various measures that were announced when the federal budget was presented on February 26. This bill has 10 different sections that amend various Canadian laws. Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act in order to create tax-free savings accounts, increase the number of years an individual can contribute to a registered education savings plan, increase tax deductions for northern residents, increase the tax credit for medical expenses, modify the eligibility requirements for the registered disability savings plan (RDSP), extend the mineral exploration tax credit by one year, modify the rules surrounding tax credits for charitable donations, readjust the tax threshold for corporate dividends and put in place various legislative provisions to prevent implementation of the Liberal Bill C-253, which would allow RDSP contributions to be tax-free.

Parts 2 and 3 of the bill amend the excise tax legislation to adjust the tax on various tobacco products and make certain medical services GST-exempt. Part 4 dissolves the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Part 5 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the Canada Student Loans Act to modify the system and increase the number of students who are eligible for assistance. Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the minister to give priority to certain applications and refuse others without having to provide justification to the applicants.

Part 7 creates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. The board's mandate is to set the premium rate and manage a financial reserve. In other words, employment insurance will be managed independently and any surpluses will no longer be paid into the government's consolidated revenue account. Parts 8 and 9 authorize payments to be made out of the 2007-08 surplus to various organizations and programs. This part of the budget implementation bill includes the payments for carbon capture in Saskatchewan and the $400 million fund to recruit new police officers. Part 10 amends various acts.

I want to reiterate the Bloc's position. This may seem like a good budget, but it has next to nothing for Quebec and Quebeckers. Clearly, the Conservative members from Quebec have done nothing to defend Quebec's interests. Obviously, a member of a party that defends Alberta, cannot defend Quebec's interests at the same time. Members will see this as I go along, and I will come back to this point at the end.

Budget 2008 may seem like a good budget, but it does not comply with the demands the Bloc Québécois made public on January 23, 2008. First, it does not provide any direct, immediate assistance for the manufacturing and forestry industries, which are in crisis. Tens of thousands of jobs have now been lost in Quebec, and this government has done nothing and does not intend to do anything in this budget.

The budget does nothing to help the workers and communities hit by the crisis. It contains no measures to reimburse seniors who have been shortchanged by the guaranteed income supplement program. It continues to take a polluter-paid approach to the Alberta oil companies, rather than a polluter-pay approach, and it refuses to make a 180-degree turn on the environment. The budget makes no major investment in culture and does not undo the ideological cuts made by the Conservative government. It reiterates the government's intention of creating a single securities commission.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois is against this bill and will vote against it.

Let us talk about the problem with immigration. The minister is giving herself discretionary power. Bill C-50 offers far too much discretionary power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in determining who can and cannot enter Canada. The minister is arguing that we have to be able to clear the backlog as quickly as possible in order to give priority to those who could alleviate the labour shortage in Canada and Quebec. She will be able to determine which persons will have priority to enter Canada based on the individual's training or occupation. The Conservatives are saying that training and occupation can negatively affect a person's chance at entering Canada. If persons applying to enter Canada have the misfortune of not having the training or occupations in demand in Canada, they may have to wait much longer than other immigrants to obtain a visa to enter the country.

Although the Bloc Québécois supports the idea of reducing the backlog, it is opposed to replacing the existing transparent and objective immigration system. The government might say that we have to be fair. The goal of any good legislation is to prevent things from getting out of control. Bill C-50 gives far too much power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This can open the door to abuse because there is nothing to counterbalance the minister's discretionary powers.

The Bloc Québécois prefers an immigration system based on a system that is fair, transparent and equitable for everyone. By comparison, in order to accelerate the contract awarding process, would it be acceptable for a minister to have discretionary power to offer contracts and circumvent the call for tenders system for the simple reason that waiting times need to be shortened? The answer is self-evident.

The Bloc Québécois is also deeply concerned about the fact that the federal government would no longer be required to review applications for permanent residency, on humanitarian grounds, from foreign nationals applying from outside Canada. In the absence of a real refugee appeal division, the option of entering Canada on humanitarian grounds is often the only alternative available to refugees. This is proof that the Conservatives are insensitive to the suffering endured by some people in the world. We have a humanitarian obligation to at least consider their requests.

Rather than completely overhauling the system and getting rid of a transparent system, there are other ways for the government to speed up case processing. It could increase staffing in foreign countries, and it could speed up the appointment of commissioners to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Since coming to power, the Conservatives have slowed the commissioner appointment process down considerably. Delays in case processing in Canada are due primarily to staff shortages, to a shortage of commissioners. The Conservatives are partly to blame for this problem.

With Bill C-50, the Conservatives are trying to fix a problem that they themselves created. Since the Conservatives have formed the government, the selection committee has recommended some 60 qualified individuals to fill the vacant commissioner positions. When the Conservatives came to power, there were five vacancies at the IRB. Currently, there are just under 50 vacant commissioner positions out of 156.

There are two reasons for that gap. First, the Conservative government has been making fewer new appointments. Since coming to power in February 2006, the Conservatives have appointed just 27 commissioners. Moreover, they have renewed very few of the commissioners whose terms have expired. Since February 2006, only seven commissioners' appointments have been renewed.

I should explain that a commissioner's term lasts three years. What usually happens is that one-third of the commissioners are appointed every year to compensate for terms that expire that year. The problem is not a shortage of candidates. When the former chairperson of the commission, Jean-Guy Fleury, appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, he said that the minister had a list of 80 candidates when Mr. Fleury left his job on March 16, 2007. The government is taking its own sweet time appointing commissioners.

Because there are so many vacancies at the IRB, case processing is slowing down again. The waiting list is starting to get longer. At the end of 2006, there were 23,495 applications pending, an increase of 3,000 applications over the previous year at that time. In the past year, the average application processing time has increased from 11.7 months to 14.3 months. These delays have resulted in three major problems. The Government of Quebec has to pay for social services until refugee claimants get an answer.

Thus, the longer it takes to complete the process, the more it costs the Quebec government.

In the case of family reunification, it is the families that must pay while awaiting the decision. The family must meet the needs of its family members who are applying to stay in Canada. Thus, the longer it takes to complete the process, the more it costs the families.

Some refugee claimants are denied status based on a criminal record or shady past. Thus, the longer it takes to complete the process, the greater the risk of security problems.

Experts are accusing Stephen Harper's government of delaying the appointments because the candidates proposed so far do not share the Conservative Party ideology.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed nice to be the first one up on this Friday morning.

It is with a heavy heart that I am participating in this debate on Bill C-50. For years the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been struggling to keep up with the number of applications submitted from people who want to come to Canada. However, it would be worthwhile to take a historical look at this department over the last two decades. It has always had its difficulties; however, in the last two years it has been totally dysfunctional. Conservative minister after Conservative minister has tried to resolve the problems they are facing, yet they are finding themselves in more trouble.

I am not going to say that under the Liberals the department was perfect. It had its challenges. However, in the last two years, the department has become the challenge.

When the Liberals took office in 1993, we inherited a country that was in total chaos and almost bankrupt. The inflation rate was running amok. The deficit was $42 billion and we had a debt to the tune of $600 billion-plus dollars.

We had such a bad credit rating at that time that it drove international investors and creditors away in hordes. Not only did it drive creditors and investors away, it also deterred prospective immigrants from wanting to apply to come to Canada. In 1993, we had an inventory of almost 50,000 applications from people waiting to come to Canada.

However, over the years the situation in Canada changed and times became better. The annual deficit was no longer around. We started paying down the debt. For the first time in a few decades, Canada started having surpluses and the good times were here again under the Liberals. Our credit rating went up and investors started investing in Canada again.

As Canada started attracting investors and money from overseas, we also started attracting new immigrants and more applications, applications by the thousands. Canada became a destination of choice for most immigrants. Many immigrants could have chosen to emigrate to the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany or Australia, just to name a few. However, many of these people chose Canada.

The rest is history. Our inventory application levels increased. Waiting times started to become longer. People had to wait a few years in order to come to Canada and start their new lives. However, people waited patiently, and even to this day people are willing to wait a little longer in order to come to their first choice of destination.

Just recently, a few weeks ago, I travelled to India and met with many people: university students, professionals and business people. They expressed to me that their first choice of place to emigrate was Canada. Although it would still take a few years before they could emigrate to Canada, they told me it was still worth the wait.

Let us fast-forward to today and examine the department under the Conservatives, especially under their two ministers. Under the previous minister, we had a department that came under a lot of strain when the crisis in Lebanon occurred. The then minister of citizenship and immigration and his counterpart, the then minister of foreign affairs, totally botched the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon.

Then the Conservatives started fearmongering that we were evacuating people who had no business to be evacuated, and that these people, although claiming to have residency in Canada, returned to Lebanon as soon as things were good again. Reports were slipped to the media about thousands of people who returned to Lebanon, people, they said, who should not have been evacuated.

The real truth, however, was the fact that the protocols developed in the departments, under the Liberals, to look after Canadians and their loved ones abroad when a natural or a man-made disaster occurs were completely ignored and misplaced. The Conservative ministers were running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off and did not know what to do.

During the Liberal regime, there were protocols in place such that should there be a natural or a man-made disaster, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was ready to respond. Let us look at some examples. Under the Liberals, when the tsunami struck in South and Southeast Asia, family class applications were expedited and placed at the front of the line. Similarly, when the earthquake struck in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, these protocols were put in place, and again family class applications were expedited.

However, when the man-made disaster occurred in Lebanon, the Conservative ministers were slow to react and the tested protocols were shelved and ignored. The Prime Minister even went to Cyprus to pick up a few stranded Canadians. If someone were to ask me, this was an expensive photo op.

Then we had the disaster of the lost Canadians. The minister and her department's officials mismanaged that particular file.

They even went so as far as to mislead the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. When the minister and the deputy minister came in front of the committee, I asked them if they had advertised about Canadians who might have lost their citizenship. Both the minister and the deputy minister went on to mislead and outright distort the truth by saying that they had advertised in different media outlets on this matter. When a few days later they were pushed to reveal facts and figures, the minister and her deputy sent a letter of explanation to the committee admitting that they had given us false information about advertising.

The mockery of this department under the Conservatives continues even today. A few months ago, I asked under the access to information about the real figures in inventories and waiting times since the Conservatives took power. The real nightmare was then exposed. The question posed was:

With regard to Immigration Applications for each Canadian High Commission, Embassy and Consulate around the world, present and for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, in actual numbers:

(a) How many Spousal Sponsorships, Parental Sponsorships and Independent Applicant cases are or were in inventory;

(b) What is or was the length of time required to process these applications--Spousal Sponsorships, Parental Sponsorships and Independent Applicants?

The Conservative government had assured parliamentarians that processing times would decrease. Instead of seeing an overall decrease in processing timelines, what I discovered was an overall increase.

I was able to determine a decrease in processing times and the number of cases in the regions of Europe and South America, but a dramatic increase in processing times and the number of cases in the regions of the world such as the Middle East, East Asia and South Asia.

Close to 50% of our total inventory of applications comes from seven countries. To be exact, Beijing contributes 6.45% of our total applications; Colombo, 1.29%; Damascus, 5.27%; Hong Kong, 6.66%; Islamabad, 6.16%; New Delhi, 18.87%; and Manila 1.7%. Exactly, that is 46.51%.

During the last two years of the Conservative regime, the number of cases decreased by 1.93% and the time processing has increased by 20.79%.

Here are some of these nightmares. For Colombo, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 53.65%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 36.36%. While the processing timelines in Colombo have gone up overall by 20.83%, the amount of processed cases has dropped by 1.74%.

Beijing is the real nightmare. Skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 36.17%, spouses' and partners' processing timelines increased by 25%, and dependent children's timelines increased by 33.33%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 4.07%. Parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 54.54%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 29.68%. Overall, in Beijing the processing timelines increased by 40.78%, while the amount of cases processed dropped by 48.05%.

For Damascus, skilled workers' processing timelines have increased by 20%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 11.76%.

For Hong Kong, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 25.45%, while applications dropped by 6%. Parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 28.57%. In Hong Kong, while the processing timelines went up by 10.28%, the processed cases dropped by 28%.

For Islamabad, skilled workers' processing timelines increased by 43.18%, and parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 8.1%.

For New Delhi, skilled workers' processing times increased by 38%, and spouses and partners' processing timelines increased by 66.66%, while the amount of cases processed has dropped by 10%. For dependent children, processing timelines increased by 66.67%, while parents' and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 21.62%. Overall in New Delhi, processing timelines increased by 11.45%.

In Manila, parent's and grandparents' processing timelines increased by 51.85%. Overall, processing timelines increased by 5.88%.

Finally, the minister finally had a revelation. She noticed that the train had run away and that she needed to do something. What to do? What to do? Let us ask the bureaucrats, it was decided, and here comes the nightmare: some bright individual wanting to have a quick passage of the legislation placed it in the budget and called it a motion of confidence.

Let us examine what this piece of legislation, Bill C-50, will do specifically. I will be very brief, because other people before me have examined what is in store for us under this legislation.

This legislation has amendments that would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral authority to determine priorities for processing immigration applications and requests.

Bill C-50 puts too much power in the hands of the minister to cherry-pick the kinds of immigrants that the Conservative Party would find acceptable. It eliminates the right of every application to be given fair review and consideration, regardless of background, country of origin or skill set. The amendments put no limit on the minister's new discretionary powers to make them consistent with existing federal-provincial immigration regulations.

The minister would have wide-ranging new powers allowing him or her to give the following instructions with respect to the processing of application requests: establish categories of applications or requests; establish an order by category or otherwise for processing; set the number of applications or requests by category or otherwise to be processed in any year; and provide for the disposition of applications or requests, including those made subsequent to the first application or request.

In addition, immigration and refugee officers shall comply with ministerial instructions before processing or when processing applications or requests. Applications not processed may be returned, retained or disposed of in accordance with the instructions by the minister. This does not constitute a decision not to issue a visa or other document, or grant the status or exemption in relation to which the application or request is made. Instructions shall be published in the Canada Gazette. Nothing in this section limits in any way the power of the minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer this act.

These amendments essentially give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration carte blanche to decide which applications to process, which to hold, and which to return without even processing. Particular immigration categories will be adversely affected, such as the family class and permanent resident status made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, H and C grounds.

The amendments will reduce the incentive for the government to do what it should do: dedicate the necessary resources to increase departmental and human resource capacity to process the number of applications received each year.

However, the bright individual on the government side decided to go a little further. The bright individual decided that the government would take this piece of legislation out of its regular place and refer it to the finance committee.

The place that this bill should be debated is specifically the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where both the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the minister responsible for CBSA can be invited. Also, community groups, stakeholders, lawyers, immigration practitioners and others would have an opportunity to testify and give evidence on whether they would be in favour and/or against this ill thought out piece of legislation.

However, that will not be the case this time. The Conservatives have decided to circumvent all of this, put the bill in front of the House, declare it a motion of confidence, and get it passed in order for the minister to look after the backlog of immigration cases, so she says.

I have news for the minister. Whether she will open her ears and listen, however, is another story. This piece of legislation will be challenged in court and struck down. This piece of legislation is not charter compliant, although she claims it is.

I would like at this time to refer to a few famous Conservative quotes on citizenship and immigration. Maybe my colleagues across the way will open their ears and listen.

The first quote is as follows:

You have to remember that 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 who are not integrated into Western Canadian society.

Who said that? The present Prime Minister.

The second quote is as follows:

Well, I've always believed that we have to be a lot tougher with undocumented refugee claimants. Whether the best thing is to send them right out of the country or simply detain them until we get more information, we can look at either, this is a problem that does need to be fixed. Particularly post 9/11, we can't take these kinds of security risks.

Who said that? The current Prime Minister.

If members were to take a look at www.oneconservativevoice.ca., they would see another quote, “Another potential threat to domestic security is Canada's refugee determination”.

When the Prime Minister was the chief policy officer of the Reform Party, his party platform stated that “immigration should be essentially economic in nature” and should not “be explicitly designed to radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada”. This was stated in the Platform and Statement of Principles of the Reform Party of Canada dated August 14, 1988.

I have another quote: “Multiculturalism policy has been an abject failure...immigration continues to change the country's face more extensively than at any time since the turn of the century”. Who said that? The member for Kootenay—Columbia as reported in the Calgary Herald.

The Canadian people simply do not trust the Conservatives to deliver on immigration and, frankly, neither do I, so I will be voting against this misguided legislation.

The House resumed from April 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-50 the budget Implementation act, 2008. Specifically, I will be addressing the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained therein.

At the heart of Canadian immigration policy is the idea of family reunification. This concept is based on the belief that Canadians should have the opportunity to be close to their families, regardless of their country of origin. About half of the residents of my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton were born outside of this country. Immigrants are proud Canadians who made the decision to come to our great country to start a new life.

They have made their homes here and naturally want their families to share in their success. I am a proud immigrant, having come to Canada in 1975 as a member of the family class.

The amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act contained in Bill C-50 threaten to dismantle the immigration system that has made Canada the diverse and prosperous nation it is today. By giving the minister the unilateral ability to cherry-pick desirable applicants from the immigration queue, this bill rejects the principles of compassion, fairness and equality on which our immigration system and society as a whole is based.

The public knows that this government does not take seriously the challenges facing recent immigrants to Canada. The government is $100 million behind on its payments under the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement. It also scrapped its plan to create a Canadian agency for assessment and recognition of foreign credentials, instead establishing an office which does little more than refer new Canadians to provincial offices where the real work happens.

This legislation does nothing to address the needs of recent immigrants struggling to find work in their fields of expertise. What is the point of accepting more skilled immigrants if they are barred from finding work in their fields when they get here?

The minister claims these changes are necessary to reduce the existing application backlog, but immigration lawyers, rights advocates and ordinary Canadians are skeptical. Based on past statements from members of the government, they are right to be suspicious of the motives behind these amendments.

In 2007 the Prime Minister said:

You have to remember that 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.

Even worse, in the Reform Party's 1988 election platform, the Prime Minister wrote that immigration should not “radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada”.

Finally, the Conservative member for Calgary Northeast has been quoted by the Canadian Press as saying, “Immigrants are choking welfare systems, contributing to high unemployment, and many cannot read”.

These are shocking and ignorant statements that shed light on the Conservative government's true beliefs about immigration. It would be unthinkable to give such extraordinary powers to an immigration minister who refuses to reject these views.

This bill pairs the government's lack of respect for immigrants with its rejection of Canada's democratic traditions. The government's attempt to pass these amendments in secret is just the latest in a series of anti-democratic tricks, including instructing committee chairs to walk out of meetings to block votes and proposing a seat redistribution formula that cheats Ontario out of half of the seats it should receive based on its population. The government clearly does not respect Canada's democratic norms and neither does this bill.

The changes proposed in this bill go against the core principles upon which Canadian immigration policy is based. Immigration policy must be predictable, compassionate and fair.

By amending section 11 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to say that an immigration official “may” issue a visa to an applicant if the applicant meets the stated requirements, instead of that the officer “shall” grant the visa, the door would be opened for the minister to issue directives to reject visas to applicants from certain groups, regardless of whether or not those applicants are indeed qualified to visit or immigrate to Canada.

Under the proposed changes to section 25 of the act, the minister would be given similar power relating to applications made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The right of applicants to have their applications processed would be removed and, as a result, so would the right to an appeal: if an application is not processed, then there is no decision to appeal. If the minister decides not to process applications for members of a certain group, they would have no right to appeal that decision even if they applied on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

However, the most worrying part of these proposals is the amendment to section 87, which establishes the concept of instructions. This amendment would grant the minister the ability to declare new rules for visa applicants and prospective immigrants without advance notice or public debate.

The minister would be able to create new categories of applications, which would then be given priority or rejected outright. The way in which these amendments have been presented to the House raises worries that instructions from the minister would be given in a similarly secretive fashion. There would be nothing to stop the minister from publishing sweeping changes in the Canada Gazette under the cover of darkness, with the government hoping no one notices until it is too late.

The amendments contained in Bill C-50 would severely damage Canada's immigration system and lay waste to our tradition of family reunification as a key part of immigration policy. These amendments would do nothing to improve the lives of new immigrants who are unable to find jobs in their fields despite having all the necessary skills and qualifications.

Finally, the way in which these changes have been brought forward and the unnecessary powers they would grant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration make a mockery of the idea of accountability and transparency in the government's decision making process. Rule by decree is not compatible with Canada's democratic tradition. Neither is the government's attempt to bury these changes in a budget bill instead of proposing them for debate as a separate immigration bill.

People from around the world want to live and work in Canada because of our reputation for tolerance and democracy. The government has shown that it does not respect Canada's democracy, and with this bill has proven that it does not respect immigrants either. Shame on the minister and shame on the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in this House on behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, on the subject of Bill C-50, the Budget Implementation Act, 2008.

When a political party sets about analyzing a budget, it always does so responsibly. That is what the Bloc Québécois has always done in recent years, in considering the various budgets that have been introduced in this House. The position we take as our guide, and in fact what has always been our one and only position, is whether the budget presented in Ottawa is in the interests of Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois has no ambition other than to stand up for the interests of Quebeckers in this House, every day, and every time its members rise to speak. And Quebeckers have rewarded us well for that work, because since 1993 a majority of the representatives of Quebec here in the House have been Bloc Québécois members.

Once again, we have analyzed this budget and its history, because this most recent budget in fact has an extraordinary history. As far back as we can remember, the crisis in manufacturing and forestry that has hit Quebec, and also Ontario—Quebec is not alone—is one of the biggest crises that those industries have experienced in their entire histories.

It is huge. I recall that 150,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec in the last five years, 70,000 of them in the last two years, since the Conservatives came to power. Thus, when governments are investing or preparing a budget, they need to make an effort to tackle that crisis or problem.

In terms of the brief history of this budget, we have to remember the prebudget episode when the Conservative government decided not to deal with the forestry and manufacturing crises in the budget. In fact, that was clear in the prebudget consultations initiated by the Minister of Finance.

The political pressure brought to bear on the government by the Bloc Québécois, for one, but also by some other parties in this House, prompted the government to decide to create a trust fund even before the budget was introduced. The fund consists of $1 billion taken out of last year’s surplus, the surplus for 2007-08. That surplus was originally $11.2 billion, and now stands at $10.2 billion.

Unfortunately, this money is not allocated based on the percentage of job losses by province, but on a per capita basis. This was the introduction to the Conservative philosophy. In other words, while this crisis affects Quebec and Ontario, the money for solving this problem was not allocated as it was for the mad cow crisis at the time. In that case, the money was given to the provinces where farmers were affected, primarily in western Canada. But no, this time the government decided that the money would be allocated on a per capita basis. And thus, when we consider population numbers and the minimum amount to be paid to each province, Alberta received more money than Quebec.

When each province receives a minimum of $10 million, since Alberta has fewer people than Quebec, the per capita amount is higher. So more money per person was paid to Alberta than to Quebec or Ontario. Lastly, it has been shown that this crisis was not overestimated. Although the crisis was acknowledged, the government said that it was not just taking place in Quebec and Ontario, but that jobs were being lost elsewhere as well. So it tried to minimize the crisis by allocating the money this way.

And the terrible thing is not just how the money was allocated but that it was made conditional on the passage of the budget. The Conservatives took it one step further. And this is recent history; it happened in the last three months.

We saw that pressure from the Bloc Québécois made them back off. As it turned out, the condition for passing the budget was no longer a condition, except for the fact that it paved the way for the budget.

It should have come as no surprise that the budget did not include anything else for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, except for a few small adjustments to tax deductions that I will read out later on.

Among other things, the budget includes accelerated capital cost allowance for equipment purchases. When businesses are allowed to amortize a larger portion of their assets, they have less net income and therefore pay less income tax. That is how these measures end up being tax cuts. However, for a company to accelerate its capital cost allowance or to use these deductions, that company has to have made a profit. But the problem with the forestry and manufacturing sectors in Quebec is that nobody made a profit. So it turns out that the only thing the Conservative government put on the table was its $1 billion trust divided by the number of residents, which means that Quebec will receive $216 million—$71 million per year—to make up for the loss of 150,000 jobs in the past five years. That is nothing, nothing at all considering the size of the problem.

The Minister of Labour was talking about a piece of steak and how people had to be able to eat it. Watching him talk about it was quite something. Let us eat this piece of steak. Except that what he said he wanted to do with the money was diversify the economy. The Conservatives are quite a sight to behold when they get going.

Trees will keep on growing, but jobs will be created in industries other than forestry. That is more or less the message he was sending, the same message he sends us every day: the government wants to diversify the economy.

Municipalities are watching their mills close and their forestry and manufacturing businesses shut their doors. All of these people have acquired skills and experience over the years. Many of those who lost their jobs were 50 years old or older. It is not easy for people to retrain and get new jobs in a diversified economy. Often, these people are coping with difficult family situations in monoculture regions where the forest has always been there. I repeat, the trees will keep on growing.

Once again, what the Conservatives are proposing is that the entire segment of the economy called the forest disappear. They will do other things, and one day, it will reappear. There is no short-, medium-, or long-term strategy. Sorry, they do have a short-term strategy: they are trying to win an election. They want to become a big strong government, a majority government with a lot of power. Having that power but not being able to help our citizens facing problems accomplishes nothing.

I look at the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the member for Pontiac. Six plants have closed in his riding. But he has a lot of power; he is an important minister, a very important minister. They want to create all kinds of jobs, except that Pontiac is a bit like part of my community, where more than 45% of jobs are in the forestry sector. They will try to transform all of that. Into what, I am not sure. They will create call centres; they will transform the economy.

I said it earlier, the trees will keep on growing, and forestry should continue to be the economic mainstay of Pontiac. They should be able to modernize and adapt businesses, help them to become better in order to face international competition. The trees in Pontiac, like those in Papineau and many other regions such as Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, Mauricie, the Eastern Townships, Bois-Francs, and all regions in Quebec, will keep on growing. They deserve to be managed responsibly and put on the market with added value. We should be able to sell our products worldwide.

But, that is not what the Conservative government wants to do. No. They are diversifying the economy. They are not trying to strengthen these businesses. With these employees who have all of this experience gained from generation to generation, they will change everything and they will try to diversify the economy. They will inject $71 million a year into Quebec, a total of $216 million, and that will solve all of the problems. How nice.

You will not be surprised to hear that we are voting against this budget. It is a budget that lacks vision for the medium and long terms and completely abandons the manufacturing and forestry industries. The government has not completely turned its back on the manufacturing industry. It is still generous to the manufacturing sector called the oil companies. It grants the oil companies accelerated capital cost allowance. It is in the budget. The government is helping those who are making exorbitant profits and does not care about the rest. It is terrible and not very subtle, but that is their way of doing things.

Right now, they do not care about anything. They are just trying to get support from those who make money. Currently the oil companies are making money every day to the detriment of taxpayers by selling fuel for more than it is worth. That is the reality. We have been fighting for years in this House to have a strong competition bureau to prevent this collusion, which, since the Conservatives have been in power, has made gas more expensive than ever. The oil companies have never made so much money and there is no end in sight.

Every time a budget is tabled—we see this in the environment—the Minister of the Environment wants to introduce measures to give the oil companies credits because they are going to make great efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is not the oil companies, but the taxpayers who should pay. Those poor companies do not have any money, they are going through tough times and if we want them to stay, we have to do something. Canada is the only country in the world that does not regulate its natural resources.

These oil companies are exploiting a resource that belongs to the public. The oil in the ground does not belong to them. It is public property that should belong to the state. However, once again, the Conservatives have decided to give the oil companies everything they want and allow them to exploit this natural resource. They can do what they want with it. They can even sell it to whomever they want. It is quite surprising to realize that out of everything that is produced in the west, absolutely nothing is sold to Quebec. Because of the Borden line, not a single gallon of gas or a single litre of oil from the west is sold in Quebec, which imports fuel from other countries. That is the reality.

Once again, Quebeckers pay 25% of all the tax credits granted to the big oil companies that exploit petroleum in the rest of Canada, and for which they receive no economic benefit because the oil is not sold here in Quebec.

That is the reality and that is the Conservative way of operating. Like us, some people are not surprised because that is the history. Obviously, the Conservatives have always been like that. They let free enterprise have its way; they let the markets take over and they say that things will right themselves. It is not important that segments of the economy are disappearing. Some day, these will come back. They do not know how. They, in particular, are the ones who want to know how it will work.

As far as the manufacturing and forestry sectors are concerned, it is very important to look at what was in the budget. For the manufacturing and forestry sectors, the first measure is an extension of accelerated depreciation for production equipment and rolling stock. That is what I said earlier. Depreciation is an expense that can be entered on a balance sheet; it is an accounting expense that is not necessarily money. Someone bought equipment, but the expense cannot be written off in the same year because the equipment will be used for a long time. It used to be depreciated over 10, 15 or 20 years, but now it can be depreciated more quickly.

Here, again, they add an expense that reduces income. This all very well when you are making a profit. One can increase expenses with write-offs, which will reduce income. However, that does absolutely no good when a company does not produce income, as is the case for most of the forestry companies and many manufacturing companies that we have seen close their doors. It does not help.

It would be rather difficult to make depreciation refundable since it is a company expense. However, if they were given a tax credit that could be refundable, that would be quite different. The company would then be entitled to a tax credit. If it had no income, it could not reduce its expenses and pay less tax; and if it was decided since they had not made a profit to issue them a cheque to refund that tax credit, that would be interesting.

That is not how the Conservatives do things. This is probably because they only deal with lobbyists who have lots of money, while those who do not are of little interest. That is the reality.

I want to turn now to the second measure in the budget. Some $250 million will be available over five years to subsidize investments in research and development, but only in the automobile industry. There has evidently been an economic downturn in Ontario. And so there is a measure to invest $250 million. I am not an Ontario member and so I will leave it to the Liberals who represent many of the Ontario ridings. Even if they wanted to try to challenge the budget, they would not have the strength to rise and vote against this. That is the reality and we will have to live with it. It is up to them to judge this $250 million for Ontario. One thing is clear though: there is nothing to help the manufacturing and forest sectors to modernize and do some research and development. It is specifically for the automotive sector.

The third minor change is a tax credit for research and development. Once again, the government is increasing the ceiling, but these famous tax credits are strictly for companies that are making a profit. The government is allowing an increase in the tax credits. This means that the more money a company makes, the less it pays in taxes and the more research and development it can do. There is a problem though: many forestry and manufacturing companies did not make a profit last year and therefore cannot benefit from tax credits. If a company does not make money, tax credits do not do it any good. If the tax credits were refundable—as the Bloc Québécois has always suggested—things would be different. Even if a company did not make money and did not have any profits, it would still be entitled and would get a cheque to allow it to invest in research and development. But once again, that is not how the Conservatives do things.

There is also $10 million over two years to promote Canada’s forestry sector as a model for innovation on international markets. This is the only direct assistance for the forestry sector in the budget, only $5 million a year. That is the reality.

The Conservatives wanted to get $250 million out of the budget for the automotive sector—$5 million a year—and $10 million for the forestry sector. The rest was in their famous $1 billion trust negotiated before the budget. It was conditional, though, on the budget being passed. That was their first threat: if we wanted to help people, we would have to pass the budget.

The Bloc brought the necessary pressure to bear and the government finally backed down. So what did Quebec get out of it? The money was divided up not by the number of jobs lost per province but by the number of inhabitants. Everybody knew it was Quebec and Ontario that were suffering. Their premiers said so over and over. Mr. Charest and Mr. McGuinty loudly proclaimed that they were most affected. But no. The Conservatives were squarely opposed and decided to distribute the money on a per capita basis, with a minimum amount for each province.

I will say it again because it bears repeating: As a result, Alberta received more money than Quebec because there was a minimum of $10 million per province plus so much per inhabitant. Given that Quebec's population is greater, Quebec was given less money per capita than Alberta.

That is strange. At the time of the mad cow crisis, money was distributed where the problem arose. The western provinces were affected and no one from the Bloc stood up to say that all the money was paid out west. That is not true. We asked that a portion be paid to Quebec because the crisis affected the sale of culled cows in Quebec. Therefore, we asked for some compensation. We did not protest because all the money was going out west. That is not true. There was a crisis and it had to be dealt with. We were always very fair.

However, when the Conservatives are making the decisions, it is not the same. When Quebec and Ontario are involved, things are never the same. They have to be able to give something to everyone. It is impossible for Quebec to receive more money and so forth.That is really something. When we try to ask the question, even of the Quebec ministers, they simply answer that Quebec has the equalization formula and that the fiscal imbalance has been resolved.

The fiscal imbalance and equalization apply to all provinces and not just Quebec. Equalization is entrenched in the Canadian constitution: wealthier provinces will support poorer provinces. The Conservatives have impoverished Quebec over the years by eliminating Quebec's automotive industry and concentrating it in Ontario. They are doing the same thing with the aerospace industry. When I first became an MP, 62% of the aerospace industry was in Quebec; that has now dropped to 51.5%.

The Conservatives are steadily transferring all the good jobs to other provinces with the result that Quebec will be perennially impoverished. That is the reality. After the fact, Quebec is criticized for having equalization. There should be no equalization. They should not get more. Let us leave and we will do just fine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to catch my breath because we have just seen a political spectacle that is absolutely unbelievable, Liberals rising to kill their own legislation and trying to explain it. They are killing the legislation to save it. It is absolutely bizarre.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-50 which would kill what the Liberals were promoting a few weeks ago. I would like to comment on what the Conservative government is doing now that it has been given essentially a blank cheque by the leader of the Liberal Party to do whatever it wants to do in the House of Commons. We saw it with the SPP, the security prosperity partnership going on behind closed doors, allowed by the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I am splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North. She will be equally tender, I think, to members of the opposition who are being hypocritical.

We have seen with climate change the refusal to take any meaningful action on the environment supported by an appallingly weak Liberal leader. There is the tax cut agenda. Corporate tax cuts were just shovelled off the back of a truck, billions and billions of dollars, when there are crucial crying needs in Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast that are not being met, again supported by the Liberals.

Now we see with Bill C-50 that because the Conservatives have a functional majority, a blank cheque from the Liberal Party to do whatever they want, they have decided to tuck in to a budget bill substantial changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They are substantial changes that are going to have an impact on communities throughout the country. They are doing it because of the acquiescence of the Liberal Party.

Normally a bill of this nature would be brought to the House of Commons. It would be debated if members of Parliament agreed that it should continue on. Very clearly in this case because the legislation is so appallingly bad, members would say no. But if there were agreement in principle on the legislation, it would go to committee for close scrutiny clause by clause so that we could be absolutely certain that the legislation actually did an effective job. Then it would come back to the House.

However, because the Liberal leader is so appallingly weak, the Conservatives just threw in this legislation and they are expecting the leader of the Liberal Party and every single Liberal member of Parliament, who even though in oral questions they will raise questions, are refusing to vote against the bill. The Conservative government is expecting that the Liberals are going to adopt the legislation. There will be no scrutiny. There will be no parliamentary hearings. There will be no scrutiny of substantial changes that turn back the clock on our immigration process.

We have already seen over the past decade what Liberal and Conservative cuts have done to our immigration system. In fact, in the last two years alone, the waiting lists have grown from 700,000 to 900,000 because the immigration system frankly has broken down. It is like a hospital; if we do not adequately fund it or bring in nurses and doctors, the system is not going to work.

The immigration system, I can say from personal experience representing Burnaby—New Westminster, has broken down. The system is not working in the interests of Canadian families. It is not working for new Canadians. Everyone in Canada is paying the cost of that negligence.

I represent a community where over 100 languages are spoken. It is the most diverse part of Canada. Indeed, it may be the most diverse part of the entire planet. Over 100 languages are spoken. There are substantial centres of faith, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish, Baha'i and Hare Krishna. Throughout our community we have attracted people from all over the world. We have a substantial community of people of Chinese origin, from both mainland China and Taiwan and also Hong Kong, an Indo Canadian community from the Tamil south but also from the Punjab north of India.

Historically we have people from Scandinavia, England, France, Germany and eastern Europe as well. It is immigration, wave after wave, that has created our community. Issues about the immigration system and how those families abroad are treated are of fundamental importance to our community.

Now we have these amendments that have been thrown in by the Conservatives only because of Liberal acquiescence, only because of a lack of Liberal backbone that will mean profound changes and that the system will even get worse. What are the changes the Conservatives are proposing?

They are proposing changes that simply give new powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a system that is already dysfunctional, to simply make decisions on the minister's own around deciding, for example, the types of applications that are accepted and disposing of current immigration applications. That is important because the Conservatives have tried to pretend that they have dealt with the mess that was left by the previous Liberal government, but they have not.

As I mentioned earlier, the waiting lists have grown by 200,000 and only in two years. Now we see a political situation where the solution by the Conservatives will simply be to strike off those legitimate applications. They will simply do what they did with the softwood lumber sellout. The Conservatives killed the softwood industry in order to save it. We all remember the Minister of International Trade saying that essentially the softwood lumber agreement was going to save the softwood industry. What we have seen since is the death of thousands upon thousands of jobs and the closure of dozens upon dozens of mills across the country.

If that was the solution to the softwood lumber crisis, we can imagine what these Conservatives are going to do to the immigration system. They are simply going to erase applicants. These changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act permit them to do that.

They will also put in place queue jumping measures that simply are not in keeping with the impartial access system that we have, that allows the best of applicants from around the world to come to Canada.

There are also limits on humanitarian and compassionate categories. This is an extremely important element. This is perhaps the most egregious element of what the Conservatives are introducing with Liberal support. It is important to note that the Liberals and Conservatives are working together on this issue. They are simply giving the minister additional powers to deny visas to those who meet all the categories, the immigration criteria. This is no longer subject to legal appeal.

By putting in a budget bill a few lines on the immigration act what they are essentially doing is eliminating the legal avenue that people have when the immigration ministry screws up. It screws up enormously because of underfunding, because of Liberal cuts, because the Conservatives have simply not addressed fundamental management issues. They are not very good at management. They are only good at corporate tax cuts it seems. They have done nothing for the health care system, nothing for the lost manufacturing jobs. I could go on and on.

Essentially, the Conservative Prime Minister learned his administration from a book. He had never actually administered anything when he became the leader of the Conservative Party. As a result of that we can see how poorly they act in public administration.

If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the ministry are incapable of handling appropriately a legitimate file, there is no longer any legal appeal on it. This is of fundamental importance. What the government is doing is removing that legal avenue when it screws up. I can say that not only in this area, but in a whole host of other areas there have been screw ups. For example, in the case work that I deal with in my riding with the Canada Revenue Agency, that agency makes mistakes. There has to be a legal appeal.

When the ability for individuals to go through the legal system when the government screws up is taken away, we are eliminating one of the fundamental rights of democracy. That is exactly what the government is doing here. It is eliminating that legal appeal.

These are not small changes. It is a testament to Liberal hypocrisy that even though the Liberals are speaking in this House against this bill, they are prepared to vote for it. They are prepared to give the Conservative government a blank cheque when it comes to these fundamental changes in the immigration system.

This bill is not going to improve our immigration system. This is not the prudent and smart approach of rebuilding the administration that was gutted under the previous Liberal government. This is essentially giving political direction to the Conservative government to eliminate folks the Conservatives do not like, to eliminate lists they do not like, and to ensure that there is no legal avenue for those who are appealing bad decisions by the government.

We would not want to see this in immigration. We would not want to see this with Revenue Canada. We would not want to see this in any sector of public life, because the reality is when government screws up, we need to have those legal methods of appeal.

That is just one of the very many reasons why the NDP, in this corner of the House, is not just going to be talking about this bill, but we are actually going to stand up as members of Parliament and we are going to vote against this budget bill when the time comes to vote for or against it. That is our responsibility.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for York West for her extremely important and enlightening comments in her capacity as former minister of immigration and a very diligent member of Parliament on this file. She continues to remind us that it is extremely important for us to declare to Canadians why these changes are being made on the fly through a legislative piece that was brought back as a ways and means motion, a motion that I would suggest really is about covering the Conservative agenda with respect to important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that you be in the chair today because I am on my feet not only because of this bill but because of what the bill is attempting to do.

The will of the House of Commons was expressed very clearly on March 5 of this year. This was after a ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, made some two years ago, but which was obviously lost on Conservative members, including the Minister of Finance. He assumed that once a bill was votable that it might have an impact with respect to lessening of tax that he should not consider this, not just once but in two separate budgets. He completely and utterly ignored and threw away prudent fiscal understanding of the implications of various bills which should have been routine and instead worked with several other people to try to suggest that my bill, Bill C-253, which would give a chance for families to save in a very real way, to save for post-secondary education, by making RESPs income tax deductible and completely forgot the principle of the importance of a decision made by the House.

The bill is nowhere near dead. As we know, the bill is before the other House and is now at second reading there. I hope it is given the equal consideration and time it takes to have an important piece of legislation passed.

It seems to me that when we are talking about the future of this country we may have differences of opinions as to how this country ought to be led and how it ought to be managed but the one thing we cannot disagree with are some of the imperatives.

Students face an incredible amount of debt. Over 50% of students right now face incredible crippling debts as they leave post-secondary education, long before they are able to pay any type of debt down. It is difficult enough for them to try to find a job.

In 10 years from now we know that the average cost of education, with four years in residence, will be $100,000. Given the average income of families, I do not see how it will be possible under the current regime to have a situation where so many people will not have access to the skills that come with higher education and the training that the global economy demands in order for Canada to remain competitive. It is a reality that we all as members of Parliament agree with.

I have spoken to several members of the Conservative Party who over the years supported this bill. Dare I say that they probably voted against the bill at the final reading, although the will of the House was expressed in much greater numbers, because they were jealous? They knew this was a policy that was good for the future of this country.

I have letter after letter and members of the House on all sides received letters from their constituents asking them time and time again to not kill the bill.

I am pleased to report that those rumours of the death of my bill, which were pronounced in some of the media and greatly exaggerated in some editorials, were only rumours. The same editorials also suggested, and I am hoping some of those editorialists are listening to this, that the bill was passed by stealth, that it required a royal recommendation. I will not benefit the author of several stories in one particular paper, but it was someone who actually thought that what had been done here by parliamentarians was tantamount to what happened in 1840, which is why Lord Durham had to be brought in.

There was no revolution here. There was instead a recognition and understanding that in a minority Parliament, in a setting where Canadians expect more from their parliamentarians, members of Parliament, backbench members of Parliament of all parties worked deliberatively, not for a day, not for a week, not for a month and not through gamesmanship, but over two years to ensure that a piece of legislation on RESP deductibility would in fact be put forward.

I am speaking today to the fact that the bill, far from being killed, is the subject of Bill C-50, which I will refer to as the killer-hunter bill proposed by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance's own riding of Whitby—Oshawa is one that I represented and I know that the Minister of Finance will know that this is so popular an issue if this is in fact going to be an election issue, which it could very well be. I know full well that it is something that I am prepared to take to the door of his riding, a riding I once represented. I can tell the House that anyone who has families, anyone who has children, anyone who wants to live the dream of this country will know that this legislation is not only timely it is supportable.

A decision made by this House of Commons, by these members of Parliament in the majority, is simply thrown away because someone has suggested that somehow it will put the country into fiscal danger.

Who put us there?

The Minister of Finance has an obligation, quite apart from his pathetic critique of the bill on RESP deductibility, which many of his members support, to explain to Canadians how it is that he took a $13.2 billion surplus and blew it away overnight.

The member from British Columbia is looking this way.

What happens if we have another forest fire in that region of the country or floods in Quebec? What if we have a national disaster of some proportion that will cost us several hundred million dollars?

When we see that amount of money that could potentially put the country at risk, we have put ourselves in a very precarious financial situation and we have not planned for the future.

We know that south of the border the federal reserve chair, Mr. Bernanke, is suggesting that we are teetering on a recession. There is no doubt that there are implications for my province and for provinces across the country. This government did not plan. It had no plan. It is extinguishing the hopes and aspirations of young people to get access to a better job, to pay the kind of taxes, to grow the kind of country and to recognize that with an aging population we need to get this right and we need to get it right now.

This bill is not the be all end all. The bill that I proposed on the RESP, which this bill, Bill C-50, proposes to kill at some point down the road, is in fact decidedly a bill that is designed to use the issue of confidence before anything that the government disagrees with.

Yes, the hon. members will probably ask us whether we will be supporting this or not. That is still a few months off, perhaps even a few weeks off, but the one thing that is clear is the idea with respect to the RESP bill is something that we cannot ignore.

I am glad to hear the NDP members cat howling in the corner but they supported this bill. They have stood, and I applaud them for doing that, to support this bill because of its importance. The Bloc also supported this bill.

They know full well that it is very important for the future of our country that students have the opportunity to get an education regardless of cost. We also have an opportunity to help the provinces, which will give students more money to invest in their futures and to go on to universities, colleges or apprenticeships.

We must not fail the next generation. Universities that want to increase their capacity for investing in infrastructure, human and physical, will not need to go cap in hand to the provinces and say that they want to raise tuition fees. There is a greater certainty now that this vehicle addresses what ordinary average families have been looking for.

In one fell swoop, with this particular legislation, the Minister of Finance and the House leader crafted a bill to try to kill this. We can talk about the gamesmanship today, but what we have is an attempt at vandalizing and compromising the future of this nation.

We have a higher obligation to serve the interests of our constituents and to help somehow, in some way, to build a stronger nation, a stronger nation where people can get access to the kind of opportunities that this generation, many of us, have been blessed with.

Previous members who have come here have always tried to build a better House and to find ways in which we can come together to find more creative means to ensuring Canada can meet the challenges of tomorrow.

I am saying this because if we were to sit down and talk to grandparents, parents and people in our communities who are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet, we would hear that there is a real and effective understanding of what they are trying to do, which is to achieve a better future for their children.

I would implore the Conservative Party, which has quietly said that it loves this bill, to actually take the time to consider what it has done. It has actually tried to reverse a position taken only a month ago by this Parliament which is widely popular with Canadians.

There will be critics either way but I would ask the Conservative Party to reconsider what it has done because I think it is in everyone's interest, partisanship aside, to ensure that good legislation, whether it is passed by backbenchers or passed by the government, does in fact have the ability to proceed.

I call on all members to work together cooperatively. This is for our future, for our children and for our Canada.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my response by saying how important immigration is to Canada. To continually find ways to improve our legislation should be on the top of the list for all of us in the House.

The reason 800,000 people are on lists is because many of those people are no longer alive, or many of them no longer want to come to Canada for different reasons, or many of them were fleeing countries because of economic issues but some of those countries are now in a much better state.

It is not a question of our immigration system not working. Many people want to come to Canada. We need to look at how we are handling application forms. Our current system does not allow us to say no. We have to take all applications as they come in. There are a variety of things that could be done by regulation.

All of us have an interest in seeing our immigration system to be the best that it can be. That is a natural interest for all of us. If that is the case, then why are we trying to sneak reforms into our immigration system through a budget implementation bill? Why is the issue not going to a special legislative committee?

If we do not want Bill C-50 to go to the current citizenship and immigration committee, then we all have to agree to is to send it to a special committee where we could spend a month or six or seven weeks going over it to make sure that it is the best that it can be. Why would we be afraid to debate it?

We have lots of opportunity to work together on this bill, but we cannot do that by sending it as part of a budget bill to the finance committee. It is irresponsible to send it there and expect finance committee members to suddenly become experts on immigration issues. We all know the complexity of the issues in and around immigration. I remind the House how important it is for us to do this right.

If there are going to be reforms, then let us do the reforms. The bill should be sent to committee so we can all work on it together.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, things have quietened down a bit now and I am happy to participate and offer my comments on Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

Imitation is often mentioned as the highest form of flattery, so Canadians are now experiencing a strange sense of déjà vu with the minority Conservative government's 2008 budget.

It seems that the Conservatives lack any ideas of their own and instead have decided to present a watered down version of our Liberal policies.

Perhaps if the finance minister was not so busy bashing his home province and my home province of Ontario, he would have had more time to come up with more original policies, some of his own policies, rather than recycling ours and trying to pass them off as new policies.

Some of the many excellent Liberal initiatives that the finance minister repackaged are: making the gas tax transfer permanent, as we had committed to in February 2007; providing direct support to the auto sector, as we called for in January 2008; creating jobs and improving public transit through additional investments in infrastructure, as we called for in February 2008; providing funding to hire more police, as we committed to in March 2007; reversing some of the Conservatives previous cuts to university granting councils and the indirect costs of research programs, which would have grown substantially under the Liberal economic update of 2005; replacing some of the funding from the Liberal 2005 update for student grants; and modernizing the Canada student loans program.

That is quite a list of Liberal accomplishments. I could go on further with more Liberal achievements and more of our exceptional policies, but I will go back to minority Conservative government's budget implementation bill.

I am glad the Conservatives really and truly appreciated those policies and those ideas that we had and went forward to implement them because they could see they were very good policies as well.

I certainly would have preferred it if the Conservatives had not already spent the cupboard bare with their previous budgets and fall economic and fiscal updates, leaving a razor thin surplus to protect Canada's economy should it continue to falter.

The next six months will be very important in Canada's economy and we can only hope that Canada will come through this without finding ourselves back in a deficit position again.

All the Conservatives are looking for is a boost in their poll numbers, continuing to demonstrate to Canadians what their priorities are. By focusing on the election that it is so desperate for, the government has again showed its incredible shortsightedness and total lack of ability to build our great nation.

Everything is built on polls and more polls. There is no planning for next week because everything is being done on the fly. The Conservatives have wasted a major opportunity to address Canada's infrastructure deficit by not acting on the Liberal proposal to use $7 billion of this year's debt paydown to fund infrastructure projects across the country. The investment of that $7 billion in infrastructure across Canada could clearly have protected us against what many of us fear is a possible recession here in Canada.

Nevertheless, we did not vote against this budget as there was nothing in the budget that warrants an election that Canadians clearly do not want, particularly at such a difficult time for the Canadian economy.

People that I speak to tell us to be patient and give it more time and that they are watching what everybody is doing. Clearly the polls are showing that because frankly nobody is going up and nobody is going down.

However, now that the minority Conservative government has very sneakily slipped legislative changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act into the budget implementation bill, it really gives us cause for concern.

These changes would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral authority to determine priorities for the processing of immigration application requests. These measures could potentially reduce the number of new immigration applications that the federal government accepts each year, particularly in the number of family class applications.

All of us need to be concerned about family reunification, as well as the whole issue of filling the needs through our skilled trades and economic requirements.

We have never seen any compassion from the government and I am certainly not expecting it to start now by exercising humanitarian and compassionate grounds on any application, but I am also appalled at the Conservative approach of shutting the door on immigrants by simply reducing the number of applications the federal government accepts.

Does it really think this is an appropriate way to address the immigration inventory? This bill puts far too much discretionary power into the hands of the minister to cherry-pick the type immigrants that the Conservative Party would like to enter Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada's mission is to build a stronger Canada. Let me read the mission statement for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It states:

Developing and implementing policies, programs and services that:

Facilitate the arrival of persons and their integration to Canada in a way that maximizes their contribution to the country while protecting the health, safety and security of Canadians;

Maintain Canada’s humanitarian tradition by protecting refugees and persons in need of protection; and

Enhance the values and promote the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

That is a very important mission statement and I am not sure the minister has had time to read that herself. Perhaps the immigration minister should take a few minutes to try to familiarize herself with that because the mission statement very much clarifies and illustrates exactly what Canada is all about.

Possibly she is too busy selecting what immigrant she is going to fast track as she moves forward or perhaps she shares the view of the Prime Minister when he wrote in the 1988 Reform Party platform that immigration should not “radically or suddenly alter the ethnic makeup of Canada”.

Using the budget implementation bill is an outrageous way to deliver promises made by the Reform Party 20 years ago. Immigration reforms should simply not be buried in a budget implementation bill.

If the government wants to table these changes, it should put them forward as a separate piece of legislation that can be studied by the appropriate House of Commons standing committee, as any other critical piece of legislation would be.

If Parliament is to work effectively for all Canadians, regardless of the fact that we are in a minority situation, we must have a full and honest debate on all critical issues, certainly including immigration reform.

I consider immigration to be critically important. It is a part of moving Canada forward. It is very important that we have an immigration system in Canada that will help to build our country in a positive way. I believe that requires all of us, not in a partisan approach, to sit down in a committee, maybe a special legislative committee if the government does not want to send it to the current citizenship and immigration committee. We need to have an opportunity to fully debate the reforms that the minister is talking about.

There are areas that I am sure we would all agree on to move forward and there are other areas that possibly we would not but on something as important as immigration in Canada, I do not believe we should be doing it while it is buried in a budget bill.

It has been suggested that we are having a debate today but it is not. We are dealing with a budget implementation bill. We need to spend many hours going over exactly what it is the minister wants to achieve. It should be done in a non-partisan manner at either a special legislative committee or in some other manner, where people with experience in dealing with immigration files could come forward. We could work together to bring forward some reforms to the immigration bill that would benefit all Canadians and not simply be done in a partisan manner in a budget implementation bill.

That is not the way we do things in Canada. I do not believe it is the way that we can build a country any more than I believe we should be pitting one province against another. I continue to see the politics of division happening across the way by the government. It is pitting communities against each other and provinces against each other. That is not the way to build a nation.

While the government is so busy throwing the “nation” word around, clearly that is not how to build a country. I call on the government to work much more cooperatively with us as we try to move our great country forward.

Many other issues were mentioned earlier, things that Liberals are concerned about. Picking and choosing who comes to Canada is not the Canadian way, nor is it the way that we should be moving things forward.

I want to thank the House for allowing me the opportunity to comment on Bill C-50. There are many issues in the legislation, but the immigration one concerns us on this side of the House a lot as we move forward to build a strong country together.

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.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Yukon, not only for his question but also for being one of four members of Parliament who actually showed up to a technical briefing to discuss Bill C-50. I applaud that. The member is obviously concerned for his constituents and wants to know the impact and benefits that will come from the budget implementation bill that we are presenting today.

It is actually a delight to get a technical question and if the hon. member will please forgive me, I will make sure that I am very concise on this.

It is because of the turbulence in our financial markets and in the markets of the United States that the Bank of Canada Act, we realized, needed some improvement, some flexibility. We have made sound improvements that would provide more liquidity and flexibility to the Bank of Canada to react in what may be continuing turbulent times.

We are very confident. These changes came from discussions with the Bank of Canada. They are positive and are well supported by the industry. I thank the member for raising that question.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing the debate back to a reasonable level.

First I have a comment and then a technical question on the Bank of Canada.

The member pointed out one of the flaws in the budget related to the territories when he explained that the funding for public transport and police was on a per capita basis. As he knows, we do not have very many per capitas so that turns out to be roughly $180,000 for the territories which are somewhat bigger than every country in Europe. We get in the order of one police person and expenses, which is not significant and not sufficient.

Because the member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, my question is more of a technical question relating to the changes in Bill C-50 in relation to the Bank of Canada.

The bill provides more flexibility for the Bank of Canada in its investments or more modernization so it can use new tools. I would like the hon. member to explain to the public, which would always be worried if our finances could be invested more liberally, what protections these new changes would bring to the Bank of Canada to ensure these investments would still be safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us hope we can bring some order to this House and quiet down the debate to some reasonable and realistic comments.

I rise to speak to the amendment put forward by the NDP to effectively and substantially delay second reading of a very important piece of government legislation.

First, I must express my dismay with the NDP for defending the enormous immigration backlog in this country. The NDP members stand in this House and say that they stand up for immigrants, but they actually are putting forward an amendment that will delay a process which will actually improve and speed up the immigration process.

The backlog, of course, is keeping families apart and is denying Canada the much needed talent and skills that we require to improve our competitiveness and ensure our long term economic prosperity. By extension, that backlog is threatening Canada's quality of life and the strength and the integrity of the social safety net that the NDP claims to champion.

The NDP members, along with their Liberal and Bloc friends, say they support a vibrant 21st century economy. They offer no solutions to address the serious labour force challenges that our country is facing. They fail to recognize that Canada is in fierce competition with other countries to attract the skilled immigrants who have the talent and the training to meet these challenges.

My hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, spoke at length on the need to proceed with these valuable and much needed reforms. I am going to speak to some of the other important measures that these political games are delaying. They are delaying benefits to Canadian families and businesses. We will make it loud and clear to all Canadians that it is the NDP members, along with their Liberal and Bloc allies, who are to blame for these delays.

Bill C-50, as with all our previous budget bills, is primarily about making a positive impact on the lives of Canadians, who for too long were overtaxed and poorly served by their federal government. We committed to changing that and we remain committed to delivering positive results for Canadians.

I know the NDP is never happy about Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money, but I can assure members that Canadians certainly are excited about the tax-free savings account or, as we call it, TFSA. With the tax-free savings account, budget 2008 provides Canadians with the most important savings vehicle since the introduction of the RRSP. This flexible, registered, general purpose account will allow Canadians to watch their savings grow tax free. The reaction has been almost overwhelmingly positive in support of this TFSA.

I ask members to listen to the words of Finn Poschmann, director of Research at the C.D. Howe Institute. He said:

This tax policy gem is very good news for Canadians, and [the finance minister] and his government deserve credit for a novel program.

Budget 2008 also provides for an increase in the northern residents deductions of 10%, effective for the 2008 tax year, a move with broad positive support, even from the NDP.

Let us listen to the words of NDP member for Western Arctic, who said that it is a positive first step. I note for that particular NDP member the disappointment that his constituents, in the form of a recent Yellowknifer editorial, have already indicated in regard to his first vote against the budget:

Considering the NDP won't form a government at any time soon, it would have been best had [the NDP member from Western Arctic] swallowed the pill and voted with the [Conservative] government.

Let us imagine how much more disappointed they will be in him once they hear that their member is now trying to delay this positive step.

I hear on a daily basis from the NDP that the government is not paying enough attention to the challenges faced by our students. Budget 2008 is a generous budget for students and goes a long way to address the neglect they suffered under the previous Liberal government.

Through Bill C-50, the government is committing $123 million over four years, starting in 2009-10, to streamline and modernize the Canada student loans program and expand online services for students, enabling them to manage their student loan accounts online.

It would provide further support for Canadian students with a $350 million investment in 2009-10, rising to $430 million in 2012-13, in a new consolidated Canada student grant program that would reach 245,000 college and undergraduate students per year when it takes effect in 2009. That is almost 100,000 more students than the previous program that we are replacing.

One can imagine students' disappointment once they hear of today's delays.

We recognize that small and medium businesses are the backbone of our economy and our government is committed to fostering an environment that enables them to thrive.

Budget 2008 would benefit small and medium-sized businesses by improving the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program and easing the tax compliance burden by reducing the record-keeping requirements for automobile expense deductions and taxable benefits.

We believe that Canadians share our desire to see more of our seniors maintain their independence for as long as possible. This government also recognizes that our seniors will have a valuable contribution to make to our economy, which is why we are investing $60 million per year to ensure that low income seniors who work can realize greater benefits from their earnings through an increase in the guaranteed income supplement exemption. This is one of the most innovative and promising initiatives put forward in budget 2008 and addresses, head on, a serious challenge faced by Canadian society.

Through Bill C-50, we will invest $110 million in the Mental Health Commission of Canada to support five innovative demonstration projects across the country to develop best practices to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

The protection of its citizens is one of the most important responsibilities of a government. We are committed to following through with the resources to show Canadians we take that responsibility very seriously.

To back up our commitment, Bill C-50 provides $400 million through a third party trust for provinces and territories to support their efforts in recruiting 2,500 new front line police officers.

This government believes we can never fully enjoy the benefits of our hard work and unique joys of being fortunate enough to live in a country like Canada if we do not protect our environment as well. Clean air, clean water and clean land are not only what Canadians deserve, they are the bedrock ingredients of our long term prosperity and success as a country. That is why our government has made, and will continue to make, substantial investments in protecting our environment.

Bill C-50 allocates $500 million in 2007-08, through a third party trust, on a provincial-territorial per capita basis, for public transit infrastructure and sets aside $250 million for a full scale, commercial demonstration carbon capture and storage in the coal-fired electrical sector.

As we can see, Bill C-50, the first budget implementation act for 2008, is filled with positive news for Canadians, news that I would have thought the NDP could support and should support. It contains targeted and timely funding to address many of the challenges that our country is facing while, at the same time, introducing the tax-free savings account, one of the most innovative and welcomed savings vehicles to come along since the RRSP.

I encourage the NDP and all opposition parties to put aside petty partisan wrangling and support Bill C-50. If they cannot see their way to doing that, they should at least get out of the way and stop delaying such important legislation.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, we are discussing Bill C-50 and the amendment to Bill C-50 put forward by the NDP. I know there is some latitude usually given on second reading, but we are talking about the budget implementation bill. I ask the member to get on topic and on point and debate Bill C-50.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is being debated in the House. It will be referred to committee and there will be the opportunity to call people to make representations. It is open and transparent.

I can say this in answer to the member's first and third questions, what this bill does is it makes it a confidence matter. It is a time to be tested. It is a time to find out whether the Liberals stand up for Canadians and want to be counted, to have an immigration system that is more efficient, an immigration system that will reduce wait times, one that will meet the economic needs of the country and build Canada. It will be a test.

The Liberals can stand up and oppose it, and if they do, we will go to the Canadian people and find out who is right and who is wrong. I say we have Canadians on our side. If the Liberals have the intestinal fortitude to do that, there will be that opportunity.

Is this popular? I have travelled across the country and I can say that employers are frustrated, newcomers are frustrated, Canadians are frustrated, because it takes too long to come to Canada. We are not competitive. We are not efficient. The majority of Canadians are saying it is time for some action. They want to see action. They are getting action.

This is the opportunity with Bill C-50 before the House. It is time for the Liberals to decide where they stand on this issue. Canadians will support us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Trinity—Spadina has not only heard me ask her a question but I will address some of her concerns as I speak for the next little while. The minister has spoken in the House of course, and she will hear from not only me and the minister but from all Canadians if this matter is put to a test because Canadians want us to be doing what we are in fact doing for immigration.

It is not a matter that is hidden. There is absolutely no limit on debate. This matter can be debated here and it will go to committee where further representations can be made. It is a fine time and finally time to deal with this matter in a positive way.

I am happy to speak to the New Democratic Party's ill-conceived amendment that seeks to stifle debate on Bill C-50, the government's budget implementation act. I say this because the NDP allegations in this motion are baseless, misleading and completely unfounded. We would see more immigrants coming in, more quickly and in a more efficient fashion than we have seen in the past.

However, we should not be surprised with the NDP, or the Liberal tactics for that matter, when it comes to immigration. When they cannot win a debate based on facts, they resort to fearmongering, but that will not wash. It will not happen.

Let us call it what it is. The NDP is playing politics by tabling this motion today. It is doing it to embarrass the Liberals, plain and simple. It is, quite frankly, shameful. While the NDP plays its petty little games, it is holding up vital legislation that is necessary for the socio-economic well-being of our country.

Before I address the NDP amendment itself, this debate on immigration needs to be put into context. Last year, under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada welcomed the highest number of newcomers in our history, 429,649, surpassing the previous high set almost 100 years ago. There will be continuing increases in the numbers we bring in.

This record number of immigrants admitted to our country is a reflection of our government's unequivocal and strong commitment to immigrants and immigration. Our government recognizes that immigrants and immigration are critical contributors to the socio-economic well-being of our country. Our government wants newcomers and their families to succeed. We want more immigrants and newcomers to come to Canada. We also want newcomer families to be reunited faster and skilled workers to come here sooner.

That is our priority but it is becoming more and more difficult, thanks to the massive backlog in immigration applications inherited from the previous Liberal governments. Successive Liberal governments stood by and watched the backlog balloon and mushroom from 50,000 to more than 800,000, and growing. Liberal neglect of the immigration system has resulted in a situation where those applying to come to Canada are waiting, on average, four to six years just to have their application looked at. That is not acceptable.

Canada is losing out on talented immigrants who are choosing to go to other countries such as Australia where the wait time is six months, not six years. It is unconscionable. Canadians expect better. Canadians will get better in this new proposed budget bill that we are putting forward on immigration.

Canada is losing out on talented immigrants. In fact, it comes as no surprise that other countries can claim that their best marketing tool is to attract immigrants because of Canada's long wait times. Put simply, our amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would reduce the backlog created by the Liberal Party of Canada and result in shorter wait times for immigrants to come to Canada. By accusing us of shutting the door to immigrants, the Liberals and NDP are not only misleading Canadians and would-be immigrants, they are practising a low level shameful type of politics.

To mislead those who trust politicians and to prey on the fears of immigrant families is, simply put, not acceptable. Rhetoric and fearmongering aside, immigrants and Canadians deserve to know why the Liberals and the NDP want to keep families waiting for longer periods than they already are.

Canadian businesses deserve to know why the Liberals and NDP want to prevent them from getting the skilled and unskilled workers they so desperately need. As we travelled across the country, business people told us that they were frustrated. They are frustrated because they cannot meet the needs, they cannot progress and they cannot build and develop this country because they do not have the people resources they need so desperately. They are looking to us to do something positive and they say that finally something is being done.

On this side of the House, our position is clear. The minister has said on numerous occasions in this place, and it bears repeating, that our government is taking urgent measures to clean up the Liberal mess, so that more families can be reunited faster and more skilled workers can get here sooner.

The claims of the NDP and the Liberal Party that we are shutting the door on immigration is completely without basis and without fact. It was the Liberals who closed the door to immigration by letting the backlog balloon to unmanageable levels. Without our actions, wait times would rise to 10 years by the year 2012. This is completely and totally unacceptable. That would be an indication of a system totally in chaos and not functional.

One of the goals of this legislation is to respond to Canada's labour market needs, but let me be clear. These amendments will not apply to refugees and are not intended to affect family reunification at all. We want families to be reunited faster and we have made it a priority. Family reunification cases are now being done 20% to 40% faster than under the previous Liberal governments.

However, we want to do even better, and so in budget 2008 we have invested $22 million for two years, growing to $37 million per year. This funding will help us speed up the application process for those seeking to come to Canada.

These important steps are just some of the things we are doing to help newcomers. We have also cut in half the tax on immigrants that the Liberal Party implemented. We have invested $1.4 billion into settlement programs that help newcomers with language training and help finding a job after the previous Liberal government had effectively frozen funding for almost a decade. We cannot bring newcomers in without having the support bases and the infrastructure to ensure that they can become what they can be and that they can succeed when they come here.

While the NDP and the Liberal Party claim they represent the best interests of immigrants, their track record speaks for itself. Both parties have voted against virtually every initiative we have taken to help newcomers come to Canada.

They opposed us cutting the Liberal immigrant head tax in half. They opposed us providing $1.4 billion to help newcomers to Canada integrate and settle in our country. They opposed the establishment of the foreign credentials referral office, and the Liberals, while they were in government, allowed the backlog to balloon from 50,000 to over 800,000.

Now, incredibly, the Liberals and the NDP are opposing the very changes that would reduce wait times and allow more newcomers to come to Canada and reunite with their families. Canadians are not with them on this issue. Right across the whole spectrum of this country, people are not with them on this issue.

I have heard the NDP and Liberals suggest that we should simply devote more resources to processing applications. As I stated earlier, our government is indeed doing this, but money alone will not resolve the problem because the system itself has built-in inefficiencies. Foundational changes need to happen for it to be successful.

As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said yesterday, it is not enough just to throw money at it and put ourselves back into deficit, as the Liberals would have us do. We need to do better. We need to do it more efficiently. We need to do it smarter, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Under the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we are generally required to process applications in the order that we receive them, and each application must be processed to a final decision. This undermines our ability to adapt to changing economic and labour market conditions.

For example, Canada might need medical technicians, pipefitters, plumbers and many other trades, but under the current system we cannot ensure that they can reach our labour market in a timely fashion, that we can get the right people to the right place at the right time. The system is failing us. The system is failing Canadians. The system is failing newcomers. The system is failing and we need to give it attention.

This is not fair to immigrants who want to come to our country, to those who are waiting for loved ones to join them, and to employers who want to hire skilled and unskilled workers. It is not in Canada's interests. It limits our ability to select people the labour market needs the most and it discourages many newcomers from applying.

The skilled and unskilled workers that Canada needs will not wait. They will go elsewhere and they have gone elsewhere. We must change our attitude and our legislation to ensure that does not continue. Our amendments would help bring the backlog under control and restore public confidence in the immigration system. Canada's immigration system would become more competitive with those of other countries.

Another fearmongering tactic that the NDP and the Liberals have been using is to accuse us of having an agenda to discriminate against newcomers based on their race, religion or ethnicity.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The minister's instructions will be charter compliant as the charter applies to those who would apply through the process. The minister's instructions will also be consistent with the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, referred to as IRPA. IRPA's objectives include: supporting Canada's economy, reuniting families, and providing protection to those who need protection. Our proposed amendments will not change that.

To be clear, our approach to immigration will continue to be universal and non-discriminatory. There will be no discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity. Any assertions or allegations to the contrary are simply unfounded.

With respect to the criticism that too much power will be vested in the hands of the minister, let me be clear. The minister has said and she will consult with provinces and other key stakeholders prior to publishing instructions. The minister's instructions will be open and transparent. They will be published in the Canada Gazette. They will be reported in the annual report to Parliament and published on Citizenship and Immigration Canada's website.

Ultimately, at election time, the minister and this government will be held accountable to all Canadians for the decisions they take and I say that Canadians will be supporting these decisions.

If the Liberals are so opposed to improving our immigration system, they will have an opportunity to vote against the Budget Implementation Act and these provisions, but the fact is that no one takes the Liberal Party seriously because when it comes to backing up their own rhetoric by voting against our measures, they are either not found here or they do not vote.

They are interested primarily in self-interest, self-preservation and not the best interests of Canadians. If they truly believe their own criticism, they would do something about it because the reality is that the Liberals' prime objective is not to do what is right for the country but to obtain power. They will stop at nothing to avoid their responsibilities in order to preserve their best interests.

In this regard I would like to quote from the March 17 article by Angelo Persichilli in The Hill Times. In this article he states:

--however, what we don't need are lectures from the Liberals on this issue because, again, according to the numbers, not the demagoguery, they too badly mismanaged this issue for political reasons.

The difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is that the former are handling immigration by trying to get results; the latter to get votes.

Therefore, the NDPers and Liberals can fearmonger all they want. The fact of the matter is our plan is getting strong support right across the country from ordinary Canadians, from newcomers, from stakeholders, from business, and I would challenge them to test that.

Let me quote from a March 15, 2008, editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. It states:

What the Conservatives propose is common sense...This is good policy...For the Liberals to exploit this, however, not only ignores the national need for the party's own political advantage, but also ignores the ugly truth that it was the Liberals who created this problem...Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

A March 24 Vancouver Province editorial had this to say about our proposed amendments:

Reform of Canada's immigration laws is long overdue. [...] What the Tories are proposing is to bring order to the current chaos, while allowing immigration patterns to match national priorities. Surely, that's to the benefit of all Canadians, immigrants included.

A March 17 Globe and Mail editorial had this to say:

Now, the Conservatives are proposing a bolder reform...But it stands to benefit our economy. Immigration policy...should first and foremost fit Canada's needs... he Tories surely anticipated how their opponents would misrepresent their policies. That they are pressing on regardless shows a strong commitment to this country's interests.

Time will tell when we look back to say that this was a historic moment, with the changing of the immigration policy, that ended up serving the needs of all Canadians and building this country to what it can be.

James Bissett, the former director of the Canadian Immigration Services and a Canadian diplomat, had this to say: “I entirely agree with the minister. It is a long overdue and badly needed fix of a system that's needed fixing for a long time. You can't keep people waiting for up to six years to get a visa to come here after they've met the requirements and have paid the fees. It's unfair and the minister is absolutely right in trying to step in and correct the situation”.

Other immigrant stakeholders also expressed support for our plan. In an article in today's National Post, it states:

Wojciech Sniegowski, president of the Canada-Poland Chamber of Commerce in Toronto, said he's come to the conclusion there is no inherent danger in the proposals and that they are designed merely to give the minister flexibility to respond to labour shortages.

“The most important thing is that, if nothing is done, by 2012 the backlog will be such that people will be waiting 10 years for their applications to be heard. I'm glad to see the government doing something,” he said.

It stands to reason. The article goes on to state:

Tom Pang of the Chinese Canadian Community Alliance in Toronto said the bill is good legislation. “It has everything to do with skills and it will bring the right type of people into Canada. Unfortunately, some people in the community think it is designed to stop people of certain ethnic backgrounds from coming to Canada but that is not what it is about,” he said.

He is absolutely right on that point.

Contrary to what the Canadian Bar Association will have us believe, we are also getting support from various individuals in the legal community. An article dated March 31 in the Calgary Herald states:

Edmonton immigration lawyer Shirish Chotalia said it's the start of creating a fairer system, because the government will be more forthcoming about what types of immigrants the country needs instead of giving people false hopes. “They want to consult with employers and target special skill sets as we go along,” Chotalia said.

Another immigration lawyer, Warren Creates, told the CBC: “This is a very clever landmark change, I would call it, in overhauling the immigration program...it makes a minister accountable for explaining it and reporting to Parliament and therefore to the Canadian public”.

David Garson, an immigration lawyer with Guberman, Garson, Bush, said the following, with respect to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: “She's a tremendous individual and very pro-immigrant”.

With respect to the NDP motion at hand, I must reiterate that nothing in our proposed amendments will take away from our commitments to family reunification and refugees. Our government recognizes that immigration is more than just economics. That is because our government understands the importance of families and the aim of reuniting them as quickly as we can.

As I said earlier, we have reduced by between 20% and 40% the processing times for those immigrants in Canada who are seeking to bring their family members to Canada from other countries. In fact, 80% of the applicants from sponsored spouses are now finalized within eight months.

Our government continues to embrace Canada's proud history of providing protection to those in need. We are a model to other countries. We will continue to be the model to other countries because of our generosity and compassion.

That is why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recently announced that we would double the number of Iraqi refugees we accept this year and, among other things, has also made commitments to bring in several thousand Karen refugees from Myanmar and refugees from Bhutan, two places that do not get a lot of media attention but where people are suffering nonetheless.

The changes we propose also would affect those in Canada seeking humanitarian and compassionate consideration of their applications to stay in this country. They can continue to make those applications and the legislation would not affect them.

Our proposed amendments would ensure that Canada's immigration program carefully balances its economic goals with its family reunification and refugee protection components.

Family reunification and refugee protection remain priorities for the Government of Canada and key components of our immigration program. Nothing in our proposed amendments will change that.

In closing, let me say that it is most unfortunate that the NDP are holding up desperately needed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, changes that would make the immigration system more fair and more transparent.

Ultimately, the NDP and the other opposition parties will have to be accountable to the Canadian public for their attempts at preventing vital changes to the immigration system.

This proposed change will stand the test of time. This proposed change will dramatically reform immigration and make it more efficient, more acceptable, and in line with the Canadian public's views.

I urge all members of this place to oppose the NDP's obstructionist tactics and vote against this amendment.

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

Yes.

With consultants overseas, there are outright shysters who we have absolutely no control over who never set foot in Canada. I've looked at advertisements in Florida: “We can get you into Canada”. There's no bloody way, but they collect the money, and it's a scam.

But it seems to me the more complicated we make the rules, the more we're making an opportunity for consultants or fraudsters or whoever to victimize some people.

Bill C-50 is going to create an interesting kind of situation, because we're going to give more power to the bureaucracy, if you will, and it has its own problems, as we have found out over the years. Never mind consultants who might be ripping off the system or the people; it's going to be people working as locally engaged staff, who sometimes are civil servants, who will be a problem.

It seems to me the more complicated the rules and the harder it is to get into the country, the more people will be taken advantage of. So the more we can simplify it, I think, the better off we are.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-50, the budget implementation act. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill because it voted against the budget. Since then, the government has given us no reason to believe that it is even aware of the significant economic downturn or that it should be using the tools that would enable our economy to cope with these new realities.

Last fall, the Bloc Québécois held consultations throughout Quebec. A number of important facts emerged, and at the time, we told the Conservative government that it should change its stance on economic intervention. The Conservative government makes its decisions based on the premise that the market will sort everything out and decide how things should work. If plants close and economic disaster hits communities, the communities and the companies will just have to cope and regroup. According to that philosophy, we, the state, do not have a role to play.

This approach was inherited from the American right, which has been trying to impose its point of view for the past 25, 30 or 40 years. The American right has been pretty successful in the United States, and is trying to achieve success in Canada through a minority government, but Quebeckers and Canadians will not fall for it. Right now, if there is one thing they do not want, it is a majority Conservative government, because we have seen just what it can do as a minority government. Imagine what it might do if it had a majority. That much is clear.

The analogy I used earlier with respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is apt. The Conservative government is behaving just like the captain of the Titanic. Worse yet, the Minister of Finance wants to go sailing in waters where he was not elected. Let me go back to the Titanic analogy. The Titanic was supposed to be an extraordinary ship, just like Canada's economy. It was supposed to be able to sail through any storm. Unfortunately, its builders were a bit too arrogant, a bit too proud, and we know what happens to people like that.

I am afraid that if the Government of Canada does not make some adjustments, Canada will suffer the same fate as the Titanic. This morning, the U.S. federal reserve confirmed that the United States is in a recession. The International Monetary Fund has forecast growth of approximately 0.5% in the United States over the next three years. This is very bad news for the Canadian economy and especially for the economies of Quebec and Ontario. When the Americans have less purchasing power, as they do currently, consumer spending goes down. Companies in my riding are having difficulty selling their products in the United States, and this is true throughout Quebec and across Canada.

The Conservative government has taken the stand that it cannot intervene. That is the rule of market forces, which is a little like the divine rule. But we know that there have been other serious economic crises in the past. We know—and people are starting to say—that during the great depression in the 1930s, when the Republicans in the U.S. were saying that the government should not intervene, it took the Democrats under Mr. Roosevelt to do something and make a difference.

What we are saying is that when the economy slows down, the government must invest to boost the economy. The Conservative government does not want to take that route. It is stubbornly insisting on keeping its rose-coloured glasses on, even though since last fall, and even since last year, there have been very clear signs—such as the increase in the value of the dollar and the bank paper crisis in the United States and its impact on consumers—that the government needs to be much more aggressive.

Here is the worst example of the Conservatives' inaction: they used the $10 billion surplus as of March 31 to pay down the debt, even though Canada has the best debt to GDP ratio. Canada is already in good shape on this front. The government did not use this money to help the manufacturing, forestry and tourism industries acquire the tools they need to offer competitive products.

I am not talking about subsidies. Businesspeople in my riding are in serious trouble, but they are not asking for subsidies. Workers are not asking for subsidies for the companies where they work. They are asking the government to put in place a fiscal framework so that these companies can be productive and competitive.

For example, let us talk about the money from the latest cut to the GST. Instead of lowering the tax, the government could have kept that margin to award refundable tax credits to businesses that are not generating much profit, as is unfortunately the case for businesses in the manufacturing and forestry industries in various regions throughout Quebec. The same thing is going on in Ontario and the rest of Canada.

The government should have implemented a suitable support and assistance program for businesses. It should have reinvested in the Technology Partnerships Canada program, which made it possible to develop new products with the help of new technologies. This is the type of attitude the government needed to move forward. But we have not seen it in the budget or in this bill. The government still seems to be headed in the same direction.

The government thinks it is improving the overall economy by systematically cutting taxes for large corporations, which means that oil companies pay lower taxes. But now there is a domino effect: the bank credit crisis has spilled over into the consumer sector, and the last sector affected will be natural resources.

The parts of Canada that think they are immune to this slowdown are mistaken, because American consumption will decrease in all sectors, and there will be consequences. This is not a preordained situation where we cannot do anything. The government can get involved, but it is not. That is why we would have expected the government to take constructive measures and implement an action plan for our communities, for our citizens and for the workers in our regions.

But the opposite is happening. For example, in terms of regional development, this bill would decrease the budget of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec—talk about unbelievable—by $107 million for the current fiscal year, a year when we will more likely need even more money to help businesses.

The minister now feels obliged to justify his actions. He says the government no longer really has the means to fund businesses that were receiving financial support to back the overall economy of a region and that their funding should be withdrawn in order to be able to allocate enough assistance to businesses. What we needed, however, was both. We have the means to help businesses and to develop new products. Any business that has the tools to do research and development will use that to create new products, thereby becoming more competitive and selling products elsewhere. It is not about accepting subsidies to offset lost productivity. It is about ensuring the competitiveness of those businesses.

Furthermore, we would have expected this government to eagerly seize such an opportunity for sustainable development. In the current economic climate, the most important tool would be to make the most of the opportunities provided by the creation of new products for sustainable development.

Consider the carbon exchange, for example. In my riding, a company had developed a product and was waiting for the carbon exchange to be implemented, since revenues from the sale of credits on the carbon exchange would have been assured its profitability. However, because of the government's delay and its decision to not establish absolute targets, the carbon exchange is not yet up and running and this is delaying the development of these products, which would be beneficial not only for the environment, but also for economic development, new product development and, therefore, sustainable development.

One could say that the government has neglected its responsibility to create prosperity, as though creating prosperity were the responsibility of the private sector alone. Its method for distributing prosperity is even borrowed from that of the private sector. Indeed, they are trying their best to avoid distributing wealth. Thus, the government is still following the American right-wing model. A perfect example of this is the creation of an employment insurance board.

The Bloc Québécois and I, as the human resources critic, have been waging a battle over this issue for several years. I have seen the contribution made by seasonal workers go towards deficit reduction without them ever obtaining a return on their investment.

This year, the Conservatives decided to follow through on the idea of establishing an independent employment insurance board and that is a good thing. However, it is unacceptable that, having paid $54 billion towards the deficit, the workers and employers will not get any return on their investment.

The screws have been tightened. Workers need more hours of employment to qualify for employment insurance and, in the end, they receive fewer weeks of benefits. This system was place for 10 years. Once the government's economic and financial situation stabilized, all the efforts made were forgotten. It was as though it had never existed.

However, major corporations have had their taxes cut. That is also the case for the middle class, but it is fair that there should be a return on investment on that side.

What is unfair is that those who pay into the employment insurance program and need this program do not have access to it. In our regions, not all workers have employment year round; some are seasonal workers.

Over the years, a special system has been set up for seasonal workers through pilot projects, but without amending the legislation. There has been some improvement. We would have liked the government to show some common sense and give this new independent fund a portion of the surplus it used to finance the deficit reduction and current government operations. However, that is not the case.

With regard to the manufacturing and forestry sectors, the message was sent to the House this week. A motion by a Bloc member, the whip, in fact, was adopted by this House. According to this motion, the government should have a forestry strategy. It does not have one and the consequences have been devastating.

In my riding, there are some companies that are very solid financially and very solid insofar as the quality of their forestry management is concerned. Nowadays, though, the heads of these companies are coming to see us and saying that they have reached the end of their rope and will have to shut down for three months. In one of the companies, an approach has been developed for which employees should be congratulated: wages are tied to the price of wood. This helps save jobs. Employees have been paid less for a while, but they hope to weather the crisis in fairly good shape.

These employees and employers would have liked to see a program to help older workers. When someone has put everything he has into finding a job or loses his job in a sawmill at 56 years of age, he cannot become a computer technician overnight, even though he has been one of the best at grading lumber for 30 years.

We try to find him another job, but it is not easy. From the standpoint of employers, hiring an older worker means that their health benefit and occupational safety costs might increase. In their eyes, an older worker is riskier and they are reluctant to hire him. So when the older worker’s employment insurance runs out, he is left with nothing. He worked full time for a company for 25 or 30 years and never drew employment insurance, but once his 45 weeks are up, the next stop is social assistance.

This is a social measure but it could also be seen as an economic plan in connection with a very necessary industrial strategy. It is always good to have a program that gives people some income support until they qualify for their old age pensions. At the same time, this plan would make it possible to keep younger workers in the forestry sector. Forestry will not be in decline for the rest of time. There will be an economic recovery and an upswing in construction. We are going to need workers, but the youngest will have been lost because they are most affected by layoffs. They will find work elsewhere, and when the recovery comes, they will no longer be available.

We would have expected the government to drop the kind of approach it took in the budget and adjust instead to what people were telling it. It is the first time in my 15 years as a member that I have seen such a thing. During the week following the tabling of the budget, the Standing Committee on Finance agreed, with the support of some Conservative members, to reconsider the entire section on manufacturing and forestry. It adopted a motion telling the Minister of Finance to get back to work because the government had not done enough for this sector. But the government is still refusing to bend.

The Minister of Finance is hiding behind general tax reductions for the people who make lots of money; but he has used just one part of the strategy that is available to him. It is as though he had a pair of crutches and only used one. He had the means to implement a much broader initiative. It is good to reduce taxes by a few points, but we must also have targeted approaches to support research and development, to provide assistance through tax credits that lead to the development of new products, and to provide help to older workers. There is none of that in this budget and there is nothing in the program now before us. It is no longer a matter of productivity, but a matter of fairness.

In Quebec and in Canada, for about 15 years, the guaranteed income supplement has been paid to a few of the older people who were entitled to receive it. A person had to apply in order to receive it. There was no automatic enrolment, and each year it was necessary to apply again. This scandal came to light about seven or eight years ago. At the time, a Bloc member, Marcel Gagnon, worked very hard to find those people, to enable them to apply for the guaranteed income supplement. We found thousands of them. We also recognized that there was a terrible unfairness in the law.

Let us look at the example of a 78-year-old woman whose husband has died. Her children review her financial situation with her. They suddenly realize that she has not been receiving the guaranteed income supplement. They submit an application and learn that she can only claim up to 11 months in arrears. Even though this woman was entitled to receive it from the age of 65, she cannot claim any more than 11 months.

Compare that with the behaviour of the government when someone owes income tax. In that case, it can go back as far as it wants. It can claim as many years as it wants. However, the older person cannot claim more than 11 months in arrears. No member in this House can contradict that. Older people have been entitled to amounts going back two, three, five or seven years, and the government had the means of paying such claims with no difficulty. In any case, about 95% of that money is quickly returned to the economy. People do not get rich on old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. They only provide a minimum to make ends meet every month.

I am particularly sensitive to this because in my region, in eastern Quebec, 52% of seniors living in the regional county municipality with the highest income are receiving the guaranteed income supplement. That means that for every two seniors you meet, at least one of them is receiving the supplement. In the poorest regional county municipality, we are talking about 79%, three people out of four, and in many of the villages the rate is 100%, four people out of four. For a long time, our seniors worked for employers that did not provide pension plans. Today, in a society that calls itself one of the richest in the world, we are unable to provide these people with a minimum income that would let them live out their days with dignity.

This is blatantly unfair. When we measure the effectiveness of a society like ours, we have to take these things into account. Creating wealth is all very well, but we have to see how we are creating it and how we are distributing it. These two main points are how a government can be measured when it comes to finances.

In the present situation, our government is withdrawing from the entire field of economic development, and saying that the private sector should look after that; it will not create the conditions that must be present in order to continue developing products; it will eliminate programs like Technology Partnerships Canada because there may have been a few excesses when it came to a few companies, minimal as that was; the regions are now going to have to fend for themselves. And for next year, it will be eliminating $107 million in investments in Quebec. This is the kind of thing the Conservatives are doing when it comes to creating wealth in Canada; they have decided they are not responsible for it anymore.

And then, when it comes to distributing the wealth, they always give as little as possible, and they do not recognize the contribution that people make to our society.

There is one thing in the budget that I consider to be terrible. That is the provision for a senior to be able to receive $3,500 in non-taxable income. Do you know what that means? It means we are encouraging people who are 68 or 70 or 72 years old to go knock on the door at Dunkin' Donuts or Wal-Mart or some other employer, to earn a few pennies. Do you not think that our seniors deserve a better fate than that, and that in our society we might have the resources to provide them with what they deserve?

It has been calculated that we would need to add about $100 a month to the guaranteed income supplement to give people an income that comes up to the minimum threshold for them to be able to get along, to meet their basic needs. They could have addressed part of that out of last year’s budget surplus, and included it in the budget for this year. It could have been done. They did not do it.

So we can see that there are many reasons to vote against this budget and the budget implementation bill. The Conservative budget is fundamentally at odds with the needs expressed by Quebeckers during prebudget consultations. We submitted these needs to the minister, and we are waiting for his cooperation.

If there had not been problems with the official opposition, we would be in an election now and the Conservative government would be severely judged for the choices it has made. I hope that the result could be more in line with what citizens want, especially those in Quebec. This government gives the impression that it is open to the province; but in practice, when it comes time to take concrete action, it pulls back and does nothing. We saw it again yesterday with the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

I hope that the government is taking note of this message, because if there is no change within a few months in terms of economic policy, the public will pass an even more severe judgment about the fiscal issue.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech very carefully. I agree with a number of the concerns that he raised, particularly with respect to the impact of Bill C-50 on matters related to immigration.

I and my caucus had hoped that those matters would be brought before this House in a separate bill so that we could debate them fully, that we could have deputations on that matter, and that we could deal with it and hopefully dispose of that bill in a separate manner.

As the member rightfully points out, the bill gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to impose quotas, dispose and discard immigration applications and facilitate queue jumping. I think there are thousands of people who are watching the proceedings today who would be disgusted that that item has found its way into the budget bill.

Similarly, that part of the bill limits the ability of ordinary Canadians to be united based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Those cases come into my community office all the time. The same is true for visa applications.

I have to say that when the member then says that what really matters is that we are here to give voice to the concerns of newcomers to this country so that their voices are heard in this chamber, I would suggest to him that it is even more important not that just their voices be heard, but that they be actually fully represented. The best opportunity for that representation is during votes in this House.

I and my colleagues will be voting against Bill C-50, in large part because of the immigration measures that are part of Bill C-50. I would like to ask the member whether he too will be standing in his place to oppose Bill C-50, to stand up for newcomers to Canada, to stand up for those who are hoping to come to Canada, or will he simply give voice and thereby play immigrants for fools?

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few words on Bill C-50 , and I will frame my remarks in three sections.

First, I have a few comments to make on part of my hon. colleague's speech across, which he covered off in one sentence at the end of his presentation. Obviously the government is somewhat embarrassed about how it has tried to bring in crowbar changes to the immigration act.

Second, I asked a number of Canadians if they would like to participate with me in this talk this morning. I have a few comments from people across the country, which I am very happy to read into the record.

Third, I have a few comments as well on the financial implications of the budget and Bill C-50 and where the government and the sad excuse for a finance minister seems to be taking us today.

I stand in the House to speak on behalf of all Canadians on the issue of immigration. Canada is a great nation. We have a reputation around the world for openness and compassion. People want to live here, and I do not blame them. I have a constituency that is literally teeming with new Canadians. They are so welcome in our community all the time.

The Conservative government wants to change the attitude that Canadians have had toward immigration for a long period of time. I do not think the government really wants people to come here, at least in the quantities they have been. I believe Conservatives want to roll the clock back to a sad time of what I would call Reform Party isolationism. They want to change our immigration policy, not make it more efficient, and that is clear, not fund it properly and reform it to make it less effective.

I think the Conservatives want to limit the number of immigrants who are accepted into our country and slam the door on the rest. Shame on them. It is slamming the door on families that wish to be reunited. It is shutting the door on people seeking a better life for themselves and for their children. It is shutting the door on people who love our country and legitimately want to be part of it. Canada is a beacon that is held up to people around the world.

Canada has a proud history of immigration. Our country was built on it. Perhaps we all saw the report on television last night that more than 5 million Canadians are now visible minorities. That has doubled the number in the last decade or so.

Conservatives now want to wipe out this proud tradition. Not only that, they are trying to force the bill through, placing these measures in a budget bill. That makes it a matter of confidence. It is a bunch of bullies across the way saying that they want us to make their day once again, that they are going to roll everything into a bill and make the opposition members roll the dice. To the Conservatives, it is all or nothing. We cannot debate this or have a proper discussion on it.

That is typical, it is sad and its shameful. These immigration reforms should be removed from Bill C-50, taken out, stripped away, brought into the light of day where we can examine them, as we are supposed to in this place, go through the proper channels so they can get the appropriate amount of due diligence needed to ensure that the interests of all Canadians current and those who look to come here and be Canadians will be met.

We on this side of the House have made it clear. There is nothing in the budget which is even worth defeating. Right now we do not think this is the issue on which Canadians really want to be pushed into an election. There are many, but the budget is not it. It is so tepid, so worthless and so inconsequential that it is not worth it.

However, the immigration issue is something of more substance. It was brought in at the last minute, and that concerns us a lot. Should these reforms remain in the bill, it really is incumbent upon Liberal members of the Standing Committee on Finance to review the measures within the budget implementation bill, hear from Canadians, have hearings, call witnesses and understand it in more detail and explain to Canadians why this is bad legislation.

The Liberal Party has always promoted a progressive immigration policy. We see Canada as a country that welcomes immigrants of all backgrounds and abilities. It is a cornerstone of our party's policy and I believe it represents the feelings of most Canadians. As such, any review of this will have to be looked at in detail and in perspective. We need to ensure that any change to immigration reflects our collective Canadian values and not just those of the governing Conservative Party.

One of the reforms would put unprecedented power into the hands of a single minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. She would be able to pick and choose immigrants she would deem worthy of being accepted, according to the current beliefs of the Conservative Party. The minister would be given the right to establish categories of applicants and then use these categories or other means to play with the order in which applications would be processed. Does that not strike members as being dangerous? It certainly strikes me and my colleagues that way.

I see my hon. colleague across the way agrees. This is a dangerous precedent. We no longer give people the protection of our laws of Canada. This effectively gives the minister free reign to decide which applications will get processed and even which ones can be returned without even having been processed. Of particular concern to Canadians should be the ability of these reforms to adversely affect categories such as family class and permanent resident status that are made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

I said a minute ago, I have a riding that teems with new Canadians. Many constituents in my riding and ridings across the country have families abroad, families that hope one day they will be united with their loved ones. However, the Conservatives do not think reuniting families is good for Canada. They believe these classes do not contribute to our economic growth. If we listen to the pronouncements of the Conservative Party, it is clear it plans to focus resources on the economic class of immigration to the expense of other classes and at the expense of families and those that need our help and our compassion.

This should be of great concern to us in the House and to all Canadians. I, for one, do not trust the Conservatives to use these new powers without a little of their ideological Reform Party ideals.

My colleague says it is the Reform Party isolationism and anti-immigration bias, which we all have seen and we know is there, Fifteen years ago I was a Progressive Conservative. In the 1993 I campaigned hard against exactly the kind of principles that sadly are now instilled in the new Conservative Reform Party.

These will effectively destroy the right of every applicant to be given a fair review and to be considered regardless of background, country, ethnicity, origin, skill-set. The amendments put no limit on these discretionary powers and make them consistent with existing federal-provincial immigration agreements. In fact, it might be a big problem in the province of Quebec, considering its unique jurisdictional authority over immigrant selection.

The Conservatives are saying that these measures with help with the backlog of applications. However, I noted the parliamentary secretary did not even try to justify anything about the inclusion of these changes in the budgetary bill. I think he is probably pretty ashamed at the fact they tried to shoehorn these things in at the last minute, hoping Canadians would not notice. However, they have, they will and they will speak out against them.

The reforms reduce any incentive the government has to do what it should do, which is to increase the immigration department's capacity to process the number of applications it receives each year. The Conservatives say that they are not trying to decrease the number of immigrants into Canada, but the record tells a different story. They throw around numbers in their press releases, media releases, scrums and in those horrible 10 percenters that they flood the country with, which are completely illegally and break every rule we have in this place, and they should be ashamed that. In those messages they say that they have increased the number of immigrants, but that is not the case.

Last year and the year before the Conservatives issued approximately 251,000 permanent resident visas. Of those issued in 2007, only 236,000 visa holders had arrived by year's end. In comparison, more than 262,000 permanent residents were actively admitted to Canada by the previous Liberal government in 2005.

Canada obviously needs more immigrants, not fewer. We are already facing critical labour shortages that will rise to an alarming rate unless we find new people to help us, people who will put their shoulders to the wheel to build this country. We have an aging population. We have a demographic time bomb in our midst. We need immigrants. We need people who want to be in Canada to build this place.

I said a moment ago that I think my hon. colleague opposite and his fellow Conservatives want this to go through without people noticing. It is not going to happen. I would like to read into the record a couple of comments from some of the people from across the country who overnight last night asked me to read some of their comments into the record. I said I would.

David Bakody from Nova Scotia said:

This is the prime example of “Do as we say not as we do”. It was just a week ago or so [the Minister of Finance] stood [and] stated to the media that the RESP [the passage of it by Parliament] was an American style tactic. (untrue) It was as have many before and will be “A Budget Amendment” fully open to debate. This Immigration Bill is a long time Reform idea hatched by [the Reform Party] and now about to be forced down the throats of Canadians that is truly a classic case of...Republican Style in your face plans to remove all rights that democracy has achieved in lives of brave soldiers and peoples in two world wars.... Even all those ungrateful Reformers now hidden in Conservative uniforms who sit and plot behind closed doors. Shame--

I asked him to make his remarks addressed to you, Mr. Speaker. He has great respect for your position. David from Nova Scotia said:

Shame Mr. Speaker, please ask each and every MP to look to the right, look to the left, look across the aisle and ask yourself what did mine and your family bring to Canada a couple of hundred or so years ago? Most will say hope? Hope for a better future for our children, and now that hope is about to be removed.

I asked another commenter, a fellow from Toronto, what I should say when I stand to speak to the bill in the House of Commons. He suggested:

I would [use] this quote from an April 2, 2008...article with respect to its latest polls that demonstrates a waning momentum for the Conservatives and by contrast, a building for the Liberals, as more and more citizens are awakening to the deceptive methodology that seems [to] underlie every single movement taken by this [Conservative] government, with questionable “ends-justifies-the-means” ethics employed right back to the birth of that party.

He said:

I would draw a parallel to the unprecedented powers that Republicans gave their President to overrule Congress and [the] long history of habeas corpus in the accumulated foundation of the Common Law, and how this new Conservative law too would short-circuit existing checks and balances [that we have in our government]. Then identify where such subversion of the checks and balances has been a general theme of this government through such things as dismantling of [the] Court Challenges Program, this being a further progression of that theme.

He recommended that I should conclude this speech by saying:

...that when the momentum has built for the Liberals to return to leading government, contrary to the Conservative government where words and action with respect to accountability and ethics do not jive--word will be [the] bond--they will rescind the subversive travesty against honest and proper procedure. Along with the rescinding of tactics will be a rescinding of the unprecedented ministerial power that is so open to abuse.

K. Murphy of Alberta said:

I recall a comment made by Stephen Harper sometime prior to the 2006--

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to lead off this second reading debate and speak on behalf of our Conservative government 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.

Bill C-50 reflects the responsible leadership provided by our Conservative government at home and abroad, leadership that gives Canadians good reason to be confident about the future, despite the economic uncertainty beyond our borders. In fact, we have the strongest fiscal position of any G-7 country.

That position has allowed the government to take important action in support of our long term economic plan entitled, Advantage Canada, a plan that was introduced in 2006 that benefits Canadians today and for the years ahead.

For example, the fall 2007 economic statement took important steps to jump-start the plan by providing broad based tax relief for individuals and business, vitally important measures totalling $60 billion, prudent measures taken at the request of the finance minister and our Prime Minister in anticipation of impending global economic turbulence.

It is important to recognize the actions taken in the economic statement that have been recognized by a wide range of observers as extremely important in the maintenance of Canada's solid economic fundamentals. Observers, like BMO's economist, Doug Porter, who said:

It was brilliantly timed. Just as the economy was running into serious heavy weather we had some serious fiscal stimulus.

The Conference Board of Canada noted that:

The Canadian economy will weather the storm of uncertainty....

...recent changes, such as tax reductions announced by the federal government...will maintain the momentum.

A recent Calgary Herald editorial praised the Conservative government for using the economic statement and stated:

...to strengthen consumer demand, notably the one per cent GST reduction....

...for once a government seems to have been ahead of the curve.

Additionally, we took further action through the $1 billion community development trust, a program that assists workers and communities experiencing difficulty due to international economic volatility.

Budget 2008 directly builds on that important action. It confirms our commitment to strong fiscal management by reducing the federal debt by $10.2 billion in 2007-08. It reduces taxes to the lowest level measured as a share of the economy since the Diefenbaker government. It invests in the future of Canada.

Budget 2008 will support Canada's economy with a plan that is real and one that is committed to responsible spending. Unlike the reckless Liberal opposition that would plunge Canada into a massive $70 billion deficit, our Conservative government is committed to a balanced budget.

We have also made a commitment to Canadians to reduce taxes and we are proud to say that we are keeping that commitment. We are reducing taxes for all Canadians and we are proud of that.

To date, our Conservative government has taken actions that will provide nearly $200 billion in broad based tax relief and $140 billion of that relief will benefit individuals directly. These are permanent reductions that hard-working Canadians will see each and every time they file their income taxes. Taxes will continue to decline thanks to our government's tax-back guarantee. This represents our commitment to dedicate the effective interest savings from federal debt reduction each year to permanent and sustainable personal income tax reductions.

Moreover, I am privileged to be part of a Conservative government that introduced one of the single most important personal savings vehicles ever introduced, one which the C.D. Howe Institute described as a “tax policy gem”: the tax-free savings account. This groundbreaking, flexible and general purpose account will allow Canadians to watch their savings grow tax free. It is an historical first for Canadians and here 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 portions to future years.

Second, the investment income, including capital gains earned in the plan, will be exempt from income tax, even when withdrawn.

Third, Canadians can withdraw from the account at any time without restriction. Better yet, there are no restrictions on what they can save for.

Finally, the full amount of withdrawals may be recontributed to their tax-free savings account in the future to ensure no loss in a person's total savings room.

The new tax-free savings account will help Canadians save for whatever is important to them. I would encourage Canadians to visit www.fin.gc.ca to find out more about this innovative new program. There is an on-line calculator that will help them deal with this. This will demonstrate just how Canadians can save by investing in this tax-free savings account.

Let me share with my colleagues that the savings can be substantial. For example, assuming a modest 5.5% rate of return, a person contributing $200 a month to one of these new accounts for 20 years could enjoy a tax savings of $11,045 compared to saving in an unregistered account.

Of course, not everyone is able to save each and every year. Those who cannot contribute $5,000 in a given year will be able to carry forward their unused contribution room to future years.

Saving can be difficult, especially for some low and modest income earners, which is why an important component of this proposed legislation is that there will be no clawbacks. This means that neither the income nor the capital gains earned in a tax-free savings account, nor the withdrawals from it, will affect eligibility for federal income tested benefits. As a result, the tax-free savings account will be of tremendous benefit to all Canadians.

The praise for this initiative has been almost universal. 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 added that “it was an inspired measure”.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce heralded the measure, saying it will “encourage savings, a measure which the Chamber has sought for many years” .

Bill C-50 has an important measure to benefit Canada's seniors, measures that build on earlier actions we have taken. Many seniors in Canada are living on a fixed income. This can sometimes make it difficult to make ends meet.

To help those Canadians, our Conservative government has taken action that provides about $5 billion in tax relief each year for seniors and pensioners, including doubling of the pension income amount of $2,000 and increasing the age credit amount by $1,000.

We have also increased the age limit for maturing RPPs and RRSPs and, for the first time ever in Canada, introduced pension income splitting for seniors and pensioners.

We are continuing on that path to supporting seniors in Bill C-50 by increasing the guaranteed income supplement exemption to $3,500 from the current maximum of $500. This means that seniors can earn up to $3,500 before having any GIC benefits reduced. This measure will benefit low and modest income seniors who chose to continue working.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons commends our Conservative government for “listening to many of its recommendations over the years and taking steps in the right direction”.

The Conservative government is also committed to making Canada an even greater place to create and expand a business.

Last fall we set out a long term plan to reduce the federal corporate income tax rate to 15% by 2012. This initiative will give Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G-7 by 2010 and the lowest statutory tax rate in the G-7 by 2012.

As the Canadian Council of Chief Executives declared, and I quote again, “The federal government clearly has done everything it can to reduce tax rates within the boundaries of prudent fiscal management”.

We are also taking targeted action to assist Canada's manufacturers as they face challenging economic circumstances. For instance, in budget 2007 we brought in a temporary accelerated capital cost allowance. This measure is helping Canadian manufacturers make the investments needed to build modern facilities here at home to take on the world.

Budget 2008 proposes to extend temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for three additional years. This extension will provide the manufacturing and processing sector with an additional $1 billion in tax relief by 2012-13.

Bill C-50 contains proposed measures that will provide additional benefits to businesses in Canada. For example, small businesses can face challenges in accessing capital to finance research and development investments.

That is why an enhanced scientific research and experimental development, or SR&ED, with the investment tax credit of 35% will be available to small Canadian controlled private corporations on their first $2 million of qualified expenditures.

During the prebudget consultations many stakeholders noted that access to the enhanced SR&ED investment tax credit is phased out quickly once the taxable capital threshold of $10 million is reached. They suggested that medium-sized businesses should have access to some enhanced benefit. In addition, many suggested that the expenditure limit has not kept pace with technological innovations that have made startup research and development investment more costly.

In response to these concerns, Bill C-50 proposes to increase the expenditure limit from $2 million to $3 million and to increase the upper limit for the taxable capital phase-out range from $15 million to $50 million. The upper limit of the taxable income phase-out range will also be increased from $600,000 to $700,000. Increasing these limits will encourage small and medium-sized Canadian controlled private corporations to grow.

Canadians spoke and this government listened.

Budget 2008 includes new measures to strengthen and ensure the effective implementation of our government's plan to ensure a cleaner, healthier environment for all Canadians.

To that end, Bill C-50 proposes to commit $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects. This will allow for harmful emissions to be stored underground rather than released into the atmosphere.

Public transit is one of the keys to achieving a cleaner and healthier environment. That is why our government, under the leadership of this excellent environment minister who is here with us today, has made significant investments in public transit infrastructure.

Bill C-50 goes even further by proposing an additional $500 million to make further investments in public transit capital infrastructure. These are measures to encourage Canadians to leave their cars at home and assist Canada's municipalities.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association called this support, “a major boost to future access and mobility in Canadian communities”. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities called it, “good news for cities and communities”.

Canadians want a clean environment in which to live. They also want healthy and safe communities. To help ensure that safety, Bill C-50 proposes to build safer communities and put criminals out of business.

Speaking of putting some out of business, I want to take a moment to mention how damaging yesterday's NDP motion would have been had it passed. It would have put legitimate Canadians out of business. We do thank the Liberals for supporting and recognizing that it would have put Canadians out of work, and we do appreciate that support.

Most of all we do appreciate the fact that the Liberals did come and vote last night, but most of all, to support us. I look forward to seeing them in their place when it comes time to vote in favour of Bill C-50 as well.

The bill proposes to provide $400 million to hire 2,500 new front line police officers over the next five years. Support recognized an important step in helping “address the much needed resources for tackling crime”. That was said by the Canadian Police Association, who added that they were also very happy with the commitment that was in budget 2008.

Mr. Speaker, as you are no doubt starting to notice, this is a very comprehensive bill. Time does not permit me to describe all of the details of the measures in Bill C-50, but I would be remiss if I did not mention certain initiatives in it that would help Canada prepare for the future, our youth.

First, in recognition of the importance of education in our future, the bill proposes a new consolidated Canada student grant program to take effect in the fall of 2009. All federal grants will be integrated into one program, a program which will provide more effective support to more students for more years of study. In doing so, this will assist Canadian families who struggle with the cost of higher education.

Bill C-50 proposes an investment of $350 million in 2009-10, rising to $430 million in 2012-13. Additionally, Canadian students and their families also need simple, effective, financial assistance programs. That is why budget 2008 commits $123 million to streamline and modernize the Canada student loans program.

Measures will be put in place to improve service for students in a number of ways, such as: a new service delivery vision that will expand online services; more equitable supports for part time and married students; a new in-study, interest free period for reservists; and an enhanced flexibility for those students experiencing difficulty in debt repayment as well as including those with disabilities.

Canada's students responded enthusiastically to budget 2008. Groups like the College Student Alliance said, “It showed that the federal government is keeping an eye to the future and our future leaders of tomorrow”, or the Canadian Federation of Students who thanked the government for responding to “a longstanding call by students and their families”, probably a call that has been out there for 13 long years.

In order to ensure a strong and secure future for Canada, our immigration policies need to be closely aligned with our labour market needs. That is why our government is also making important new innovations in immigration, including changing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In doing so, we will improve and speed up the application process.

Summing up, this Conservative government has taken care to strengthen Canada's economic fundamentals. The bill is prudent, focused and responsible in order to ensure Canada is well positioned to weather the uncertainty of today's global economy.

The Liberal Party of Canada's continued support for our Conservative government is a clear indication that we are getting the job done. We are on the right track for all Canadians, and on behalf of the government, I thank our Liberal friends for their consistent support of our initiatives, redefining the official opposition, and we congratulate them for that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Komagata Maru Incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The shore committee raised over $22,000. One can imagine that amount of money in that era as an installment for chartering such a ship. It also launched a test case to test the legality in the name of Munshi Singh, one of the passengers.

On July 7, the full bench of the Supreme Court of Canada gave a unanimous judgment, and we have heard that in the House from the Conservative speaker earlier, that under the new orders in council it had no authority to interfere with the decisions of the department of immigration and colonization.

The Japanese captain then was relieved of his duty by the angry passengers, but the Canadian government ordered a tug, the Sea Lion, to push the ship out to sea. On July 19, the angry passengers fought back with the only weapons they had. They were not armed. The quote from the The Sun in Vancouver read:

Howling masses of Hindus showered policemen with lumps of coal and bricks...it was like standing underneath a coal chute.

The government also mobilized the HMCS Rainbow, a former Royal Navy ship under the command of Commander Hose, with troops from the Royal Irish Fusiliers, 72nd Highlanders. In the end, only 24 passengers were admitted to Canada since the ship had violated the exclusion laws and the remaining passengers did not have the required $200 funds. As we know, that was an exorbitant amount of money in that day.

The ship turned around and departed for Asia. When it arrived in Asia, in Calcutta, on September 26, it was met by a British gunboat and as we heard before, it was diverted to Budge Budge, where the British intended to put the group on a train to Punjab. The passengers did not wish to go and when they proceeded to explain that, a riot broke out, and some 20 people were killed.

Today, the lessons from this dark period of racism seem to be lost on the current government. Its move to control immigration, as embedded in Bill C-50, I feel, has the same hidden exclusion as at the turn of the century.

We hear the Liberals assail this bill as being discriminatory and having the hidden agenda of exclusion, but will they defeat it? We hear the rhetoric. We will wait to see the vote and once and for all who stands up for new Canadians and their families in this country.

As for Motion No. 469, members of my party and I are proud to stand in support of this motion, as we will stand and oppose Bill C-50 when it comes before us.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

This committee is looking at a vast array of different issues, but one of the things we have been focusing on most is the labour shortage that currently exists in Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan now. Our economy is on the verge of a boom like we've never seen before. The growth potential in Saskatchewan is limitless, and I talk about that with great pride, but right now, in terms of the backlog.... The Liberals grew the backlog in immigrants from 50,000 only a few short years ago to between 850,000 and 900,000 people today, so that's the bottleneck we're looking at.

Today we've had groups of people before us who are desperately looking for specific skilled workers. We've also had groups before us looking for semi-skilled workers. A gentleman from Tim Hortons was here talking about the fact that he cannot find people to pour coffee for $10 an hour in his Tim Hortons. This is a desperate state of affairs right now.

I'd like you to comment a little bit on what you see. You're seeing the federal government going through some efforts toward legislation right now with Bill C-50 to try to end this bottleneck, to be able to satisfy the labour needs, to be able to fill those needs as appropriate. We know we need doctors and nurses. We also need construction workers, welders, and tradespeople. We desperately need truck drivers here in Moose Jaw. We need semi-skilled workers, as I have referred to as well.

The current wait list is six years. It's projected to be 10 years by 2012 if it's not addressed now. We are trying to take immediate steps right now to flip it around and start to change the whole pendulum, so instead of the waiting lists getting longer, they get shorter. That is going to mean that the government will be able to pick and choose based on the needs for employment here in our country, which makes perfect sense to me. If we need truck drivers, we're going to go out and get truck drivers. If we need doctors, likewise. If you have a doctor who is number 300,000 on the list, who is an obstetrician/gynecologist, maybe that person would soon then become number 300 on the list, because we need that person in a certain community to perform those activities.

I'd just like to hear both of your opinions as to what our government is doing in terms of trying to address specific labour needs that are desperate right now.

I want to add, before you respond, with your indulgence, Mr. Chair, that we're not at all talking with this proposed legislation about affecting anything to do with refugees or family reunification efforts—nothing—but we are going to try to pick the labour that is required and expedite that process, because it's out of control and it's getting worse and worse. In Australia, six months is the processing time for immigrants; in Canada it is six years.

I wonder if you could comment on that.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-50 rips the heart out of Canada's immigration system by cabinet orders exercised in secret. Bill C-10 is the ideological censorship of film and video productions by cabinet orders imposed in secret. Now there is Bill C-46, a sneak attack on the democratic rights of farmers to control the Wheat Board, again by cabinet orders imposed in secret.

Why does the government, which ran on accountability, have so much dirty work being done in secret?

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

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will realize that it's frustrating to have somebody yelling “point of order” at him.

The point I want to make, Mr. Chair, is we're on travel. Bill C-50 does very much come into play, and I have absolutely no problem with the parliamentary secretary's getting answers on Bill C-50 because we're not necessarily going to have these witnesses available to us at the point in time when we are talking about Bill C-50. So, Mr. Chair, there's absolutely nothing wrong with talking about Bill C-50. I think the parliamentary secretary brought it up; let him continue.

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

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Komarnicki should use the example he chose in the way he spoke on Bill C-50. Although he's not mentioning the words “Bill C-50”, he's dancing very much on Bill C-50.

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

I want to save a few questions for Alex.

With respect to Bill C-50 as it relates to immigration, you've gone through the provisions there and you made reference to the minister using her discretion--

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe my first question sufficiently demonstrated that there was a link between Bill C-50 and undocumented workers. That is why I asked that question, and Mr. Stojicevic's answer was quite eloquent.

I'm nevertheless going to go back to his presentation on immigration consultants. Perhaps I'm wrong, and that's what I would like to know. Are there any other areas where someone who is not a lawyer, or even a notary in Quebec, can provide legal advice? If I have knowledge of some issue unrelated to immigration, can I provide legal advice to people and be paid for it without being a lawyer?

[Alex Stojicevic]

Well, let me make it easier for him. I really don't think it's appropriate for me to answer that question. Our bar has no position on whether the government should stand or fall based on Bill C-50. Our position as far as Bill C-50 is concerned is that it raises some issues of the immigration act that should be debated. It's as simple as that.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I'll stop you because I'm going to ask you a final question on the subject which you may consider somewhat odd. I understand you oppose these provisions of Bill C-50. Do you think all members who are opposed to these provisions should vote against it? Is this important enough for the committee to reject these provisions?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I'm going to go quickly to leave some time for Mr. Carrier.

Mr. Stojicevic, with regard to Bill C-50, even though that's not our subject as such, if people outside Canada have less trust in our system because they consider it more arbitrary, doesn't that risk encouraging illegal workers to circumvent it on the pretext that it is unreliable? Isn't that a danger?

[Alex Stojicevic]

If I may, and I'll try not to comment on Bill C-50 within the parameters here, but Bill C-17 is effectively wrapped in the same language. Mr. Chan talked to you about 45 workers who didn't get visas from the Canadian consulate in Shanghai. He raised that in his testimony. What he didn't say is that the minister's office intervened in that case and had 20 permits issued. I know this because this is a case out of my law office. I'm not suggesting for a minute that this government and this minister aren't sensitive to specific issues where there are ministerial instructions or where there are laudable objectives from both ministerial instructions and/or a change that would give more discretion over which categories are going to be processed. But that's an example of the minister—under the current act, the current legislation, and the current framework—assisting in the facilitation of a visa, of a series of visas, where there was some element of controversy.

So to suggest the system now isn't responsive to those kinds of problems is simply incorrect. And that begs the question, from our perspective, of why you need this legislation then. This minister has made it abundantly clear that she will entertain full public consultation, etc., on any changes, but who's to say that the next minister won't?

To me, to the member's point, that's actually the problem. From the perspective of the end-user who doesn't read the Canadian media every day, this system becomes a lot less transparent and a lot less objective. If we're relying on the minister's staff and on the department officials to continually update information, you're making a system that is complicated right now that much more so.

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

Let me finish my point of order, and then you can disagree with it.

We said there were three things we were going to study here, and Bill C-50 was not one of them. There is a committee that will study Bill C-50, and it will be dealt with, and there will be representation. I know this member wants to get into it, but he should stay within the general confines of the area we are studying. There will be a time to study the other one.

I know the Canadian Bar Association representative chose to indicate his comments about Bill C-50, and that's fair, but that's not what we are embarking on to study, and I'm going to raise that because there will be a time that's appropriate for that and there will be appropriate representation. I think this member should stick to what we're dealing with specifically.

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

Let me first raise the point of order, and then perhaps the chair can decide; that's his job.

Number one, I know Bill C-50 is much on the mind of Mr. Telegdi. That bill will come before committee and will be studied, and there will be representations made by various parties.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the delegation.

The previous delegation was talking about decency, justice, and dignity that should be afforded to temporary foreign workers. Having listened too often to the same story over the past 10 years, I really have to wonder at times what kind of system we have. I think the gentleman from S.U.C.C.E.S.S. very correctly said that the system is broken. Unfortunately, as was mentioned regarding Bill C-50, it is the wrong fix, and we're going to end up in a bigger mess.

We spent undue amounts of time on “strippergate”, if you will, not because it's a problem but because the government perceives it as good politics. When I look at what we are doing with Bill C-50, I see that we're taking a system that has some guarantees by law and we are changing it and making it into a capricious lottery.

For somebody to decide that they want to be an immigrant to this country—

[Alex Stojicevic, Chair, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, about some important issues that you are travelling across the country to study. I've heard some of the discussion that occurred before us here, and you certainly have a lot of lively issues that you're considering.

I don't envy you your task of balancing a lot of different regulatory or legislative changes and their impact, as well as conflicting priorities that you're being asked to look for here.

I speak to you as chair of the citizenship and immigration law section of the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA is a voluntary association of approximately 37,000 lawyers, notaries, law teachers, and students across Canada. My section has approximately 900 members who practise immigration law across the country. Our mandate includes seeking improvement in the law and administration of justice, and that's the lens through which I am speaking to you today.

I would like to address specifically two of the issues you have raised, although given the liveliness of some of the other things you've talked about, I have views also on the live-in caregiver program and other programs. But I'll leave that for the members.

In any event, the two issues in particular—and you have copies of my speaking notes—are the impact of Bill C-17 on temporary foreign workers and the issue of undocumented, as well as licensed, immigration consultants.

We've raised our concerns with the government about both of these issues. We do have existing submissions to the minister's office on both.

Our concern with Bill C-17 really flows from the broad and relatively unreviewable powers it gives the minister, which, in our view, risk eroding the rule of law, plain and simple. We think the existing measures within IRPA and the existing regulations and processing procedures can be used more effectively to meet the government's objectives. In many instances, including as far as Bill C-17 is concerned, in terms of the stated goal, which was to protect certain workers such as strippers from being exploited, it can be done in other ways that don't require Bill C-17. Ministerial instructions are too severe and too unnecessary an approach to take when, instead, strong guidelines from the minister's office would likely achieve the same goal.

Also, we wonder if it's necessary to have a system of ministerial instructions centralizing power in the minister's office when we have a handful of these stripper visas issued to begin with. I've heard conflicting reports of between 4, 18, and 20. It seems not very many to really have to change a law. If that's the principal motivation, we question that somewhat.

The existing act and the existing procedures provide for transparency and objectivity that we feel Bill C-17 erodes. We have some of the same concerns on the government bill that was put forward, I'm told, in the House today, Bill C-50. If you take a system that's already difficult for the end user, that at least now has some rights accruing to the end user by the use of such words as “shall” be issued a work permit, or “shall” be issued a temporary resident visa or permanent resident visa, and if you erode that objectivity by changing the language to “may” or by having a scheme of ministerial instructions, you make it that much more complicated.

That's the danger of eroding the language in the act, as far as we're concerned now, even though we recognize that there are some really legitimate public policy objectives that inform some of these two bills. Certainly, we applaud the government for moving forward on those objectives. It's just that I'm not sure legislative changes, especially the ones that are being contemplated, are necessary for those objectives.

We ask that you recommend that the government use the measures that exist in the act, rather than the issuance of ministerial directions, to fulfill these legitimate public policy directions.

The cornerstone, in our view, of the proper administration of justice is transparency, and our concerns with the direction the government has taken with Bill C-17 and with a number of legislative initiatives, including the other one that I alluded to, Bill C-50, is to sacrifice clarity and transparency for the sake of giving more direct control over processing issues to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This trend, in our view, will have the net effect of centralizing authority over processing in the hands of the minister and the department, rather than where it exists now, which is within the body of the regulations.

It is a very interesting line that we're taking. The minister has gone on public record today as saying that any changes she puts forward in these ministerial instructions, under both bills, will involve consultation with stakeholders and will also be pre-published and gazetted. As far as that's concerned, we applaud the minister, but what about the next minister or the minister after that? Once these powers—the ministerial instruction power under Bill C-17 and also, potentially, under Bill C-50, the ability to pick and choose which immigrant visa categories that are already provided for in regulation can be moved forward.... We are concerned that this centralization isn't necessary for the government to meet its immigration objectives. What's more, it causes a risk of abuse down the road from either the department or from a future immigration minister, if not this one, using it in ways that are fundamentally undemocratic and that will not allow immigration changes to be properly debated, in this body or any other, but rather will involve senior government officials talking to other senior government officials to make policy.

We recognize the need for flexibility, and we recognize that the minister and the government are dealing with some very complicated and challenging problems, balancing numerous different and competing policy goals. This has been the reality of our system for as long as I've practised immigration law. It's not an easy balance to maintain.

Certainly building a system that's responsive to both Canada's current economic needs and long-term economic needs as well as its humanitarian objectives is a challenging one. Despite the fact that this goal requires a certain degree of flexibility to adapt to economic changes, it must not be at the price of a system that uses objective criteria. This risks the use of arbitrariness, upon which I've already commented, and essentially allows the minister to override objective criteria that are already contained in regulations, and this, we feel, is wrong. Canadians want transparency.

Another issue I want to address today is immigration consultants. I have a lot of personal knowledge of the history of this brief in particular. It was the Law Society of British Columbia that brought forward the Mangat case in the late 1990s, which resulted ultimately in the Supreme Court of Canada deciding that there was a role for immigration consultants to play if they were regulated. What we have is the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as a result.

I want to address two issues there. First, the Canadian Bar Association has some concerns that at the moment CSIC appears to be poorly funded to handle disciplinary measures. It is at least worth investigating how good a job they are doing so far in terms of disciplining their members. Do they have the budget to do it?

Immigration

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given Canadians' negative reaction to the Conservative government's proposed immigration reform, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I wish to request an emergency debate on the issue of immigration, specifically the immediate threat posed to Canada's global reputation as a nation that encourages immigration and welcomes immigrants.

This situation is critical. The Conservative government plans to reduce the backlog of visa applications by restricting the number and types of applications accepted. The measures in Bill C-50 would reduce the number of new immigration applications that the federal government processes yearly.

The amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that were tabled on Friday, March 14 were introduced in a manner that limits the study and examination of the proposed package.

While the inclusion and important changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Budget Implementation Act may be politically expedient for the Conservative government, it does a disservice to Canadians who want Parliament to deal with the issue of immigration in a serious and thorough manner.

Canadians understand the challenges that our country faces. An aging population, a declining birth rate and skills shortages in a globally competitive labour market all point to the need for intelligent analysis and not politically motivated manoeuvring and posturing. If Parliament is to work effectively for all Canadians, we must have a full and honest debate on this critical issue.

The bill puts too much discretionary power into the hands of a minister by allowing instructions to be issued as to the types of applications that are processed, the establishment of categories of application and the number of applications or requests accepted on a yearly basis. It should not be allowed for these controversial provisions to be forced through Parliament as a budgetary measure and stifle debate on the importance of immigration to this country's labour market needs and nation building.

Over the past two years under the Conservative Party's administration, 36,000 fewer landed immigrants have been allowed into Canada. We cannot afford to shut the door on immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, I trust you will give this request due consideration and I hope a positive response.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To the witnesses, as you know, we have some exciting times going on in Parliament with this whole issue of Bill C-50. If you got part of a debate that you weren't particularly happy about, I apologize, but we will hear all the witnesses who came before that.

I have had a great number of problems with the whole issue of undocumented workers.

The reason is that when we changed the Immigration Act in 2002...I would love to say we did it because the minister came out with a vision of how things should go, but we essentially did it because the bureaucracy came up with a plan to cut the 800,000 people on the waiting list. What they essentially ended up doing is barring people this economy needed, such as was mentioned: construction workers, other folks. They could not come in as immigrants because they would not qualify under the new point system, which was set by regulations. If you didn't have the language, if you didn't have the education, you would not get in. The fact that we needed construction workers...well, that was too bad, and I think we saw a growth in the undocumented worker category. So there was a mismatch created by the Immigration Act to what the economy needed and what we got. That's a real concern.

The other concern I have, and maybe you can address it as well, is more and more our reliance on temporary foreign workers. We've had farm workers who have been coming to Canada for 30 years, and some even for 40 years. They come here without their families, and then they have to go back. They keep coming back. I have a worry that I see the number of temporary foreign workers rising. I'd rather have people who come to Canada and decide that this is the place they want to live, raise their families, and become Canadians. I don't think it's healthy to have a high population of single folks.

It reminds me of what happened when Canada built the railways. We brought in the Chinese, and then when the railway was finished, we wanted to send them back. We changed all that, where we had an open immigration program. Now I see an analogous situation. We want to bring in people to help build the tar sands or help build the Olympic facilities, and when we're finished with them we're going to send them back.

I wonder if Mr. Collacott and Mr. DeVoretz could respond to those points.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

These hearings are not about the Immigration Act. They're about three matters that we agreed to and that I went to the liaison committee about. That is an all-party committee of the House of Commons, and I had to get approval to travel for those three items.

It's not about Bill C-50.

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

Mr. Chair, I said when I started that I had two points. We dealt with one, and I'm going to go and make a phone call on that to find out, because I think you are misinterpreting the rules.

But regarding the second point I was going to raise—and again, it's a procedural point, not a substantive point—the fact of the matter is that before this House adjourned for the two-week break, without this committee knowing anything about it, the government tabled Bill C-50, in which they brought major changes to the Immigration Act, an incredible change in the Immigration Act that would take away a right to—

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)