Finance Committee on May 12th, 2008

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Mr. Waldman for the answer that he was ultimately able to finish.

Second, I would like to tell him how much we agree with his interpretation. In fact, since the beginning of this saga concerning the portion of the bill that deals with the immigration budget, we have always clamoured that the main problem is the discretionary power that it would give to the minister. There is an excellent and very simple way of illustrating this. We are in the process of changing the word “shall” to the word “can”, whereas before, provided the objective criteria were respected, people had the right to obtain citizenship. Now, everything hinges on discretion. It is this increase in discretionary power that he is denouncing, and rightfully so.

I would also like to ask the witness to give us more details on one aspect of his testimony, because I and some of my colleagues wanted to ensure that we understood correctly. He is not saying that Bill C-50 changes the current agreement that governs immigration matters in relations between the federal government and Quebec. If I understood correctly, he is saying that given that there is no limit on the directives that the minister could issue, then she could issue directives that would change these relations, even with Quebec.

Did I understand correctly?

[Lorne Waldman]

As I said, as long as there's no....

I regret that I don't speak French.

If I did, I would embarrass you, so I'll speak English.

As long as the legislation does not put clear limits, the discretion of the minister, as it now stands, is not fettered, and it would allow the minister to make changes that could affect the agreement with Quebec. Now, Quebec could then challenge that constitutionally, but that would be a lengthy process, which may or may not be successful.

If the minister is saying they have no intention of doing these things, then it should be clearly set out in the act what powers the minister wants and doesn't want. The minister could agree to an amendment that states that nothing in the legislation allows the minister to issue instructions that would have an impact on provincial nominee programs or the Quebec-Canada immigration accord, and nothing in the legislation would allow the minister to make instructions with respect to individual applications.

This is what the ministers have been saying, but it's not what the legislation states.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

We agree with you on that one, as well. That's precisely the type of amendment you'll see being proposed. But as you can see, there is an attempt to railroad this thing and take advantage of the extreme weakness of the Liberal Party.

I wanted to ask Mr. Cunningham a question. You gave two examples of the increased danger of the products derived from illicit transportation, manufacturing, etc. You said, for example, that there are no longer any warnings on the packaging. I think you'll agree with me that someone who buys 200 cigarettes for $6 does not really care whether there is a warning label on the packaging or not. On the contrary, it reassures him.

You also referred to safety a little bit more explicitly as concerns the fire hazard, but has anyone checked what this product contains? Canada, for example, makes it mandatory for manufacturers to explain what they put into their cigarettes. Clearly, no one has provided a detailed list of what is added to these products. Has anyone measured or checked what these products contain? I am convinced that people will not be overly altruistic in their decision as to whether or not to buy a contraband product. Perhaps if we can convince them that it is harmful to them, in certain cases, their personal interests may come into play.

[Rob Cunningham]

There is a Health Canada regulation that obliges manufacturers to report all the ingredients contained in their cigarettes. Naturally, smugglers and illegal operations do not respect this obligation. There are not many tests done, but in general, cigarettes, whether they are legal or not, taxed or not, kill. They cause tobacco-related diseases, but it cannot really be said that they are more dangerous than cigarettes that are taxed. There is a common perception that, because it is aboriginal, it's more natural, and thus less harmful, but that is not true.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

So no one has taken the time to check, and unlike duly licensed manufacturers who are obliged to provide the information, the others have no obligation.

If I still have a bit of time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bédard a question. I would like to come back to the question of funding EI. When people talk about sustainable development, often it is from an environmental viewpoint, but here, literally, you are warning us that we are perhaps handing the problem on down to future generations. If we do not do something quickly, they are the ones who will pay for our mistakes. As soon as there is an unavoidable fluctuation in the economy, it is our young people who will have to pay.

Is that a valid interpretation?

[Michel Bédard]

There is not much I can add: you have understood the situation clearly. The rates will fluctuate erratically and increase at the worst possible time, when there is a recession.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time for the C.D. Howe Institute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We appreciate the testimony and we appreciate the questions. Thanks again.

The meeting is adjourned.