Debates of Oct. 7th, 2004

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois to go back to his social worker's code of ethics. It states that we must respect the individual first and foremost in his choices. The people of Quebec have chosen Canada on several occasions. The members of the Bloc do not respect the choice made by the people of Quebec. In their most fundamental of choices, the people of Quebec have a dual identity. They are proud Quebeckers and proud Canadians who do not want to make a choice between the two.

Every time the Bloc members speak in this House, it is with the same thought in the back of their mind: to achieve Quebec sovereignty. I am sorry, but we cannot ever follow them in this. If they had anything positive to contribute, and if it were really part of an improvement of the living conditions of the Canadian people as a whole, then perhaps we could listen to them. Unfortunately, such is not the case right now.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary--Nose Hill.

I want to take a moment to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker. I must admit I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams that you would look so good in a robe. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker. You look very good up there. We are proud of your achievements as Deputy Speaker.

I would like to start out by saying that both of the amendments we are debating are possible additions to the throne speech. As I watch the debate unfold with our leader the other day to the Bloc leader and now to the debate that is happening in the House, it seems like many of the members across the way are starting to get some common sense.

They are looking at these proposals that have been put forward and are starting to realize that by having a minority Parliament it might be in the best interests of all Canadians that we work together, give and take a little bit, because that is what this Parliament is going to be all about. I am excited to feel the warmth in this place as we lead up to the vote this evening. Hopefully we will start to see that cooperation kick in.

Both the Bloc's subamendment and the amendment put forward by the official opposition are in the best interests of Canadians and do speak to the values that many of us heard about from Canadians during the course of the recent election. It would be fair to note that Canadians do not want to see an election happen sooner rather than later. I encourage all members to take an interest in what is being debated here and see that it is in the best interests of all Canadians.

I hate to be partisan and I do try my best not to be, but I must address some of the glaring problems in this Speech from the Throne. As we have heard from a number of speakers throughout the day, much of it is recycled promises. There is not much new. There is not much to give Canadians hope and that is why we put this amendment forward to help improve what is already there.

I would like to focus in on some of the promises in the Speech from the Throne that are recycled. At least 43 promises are repeated from Mr. Chrétien's throne speech of 2002. The promise of a national child care program dates back to the 1993 red book. After 11 years of inaction Canadians are still waiting.

The throne speech also promises a new citizenship act. This project was attempted previously by the Chrétien government and died on the Order Paper as we all know. I am speaking of Bill C-18. The promised legislation to crack down on child pornography, Bill C-20, dates back again to the Chrétien era. It died on the Order Paper twice.

This is the Prime Minister's second throne speech in five months with still no plan to implement any of these recycled promises. He simply does not want to govern. He wants to have a government and that is a theme we have been hearing over the course of the debate.

Millions of Canadians expected action on things like the gun registry, democratic reform and agriculture. Many of my colleagues have talked about the crisis with BSE. They wanted to see some movement on tax relief, a modernized and effective military and criminal justice reform. These priorities unfortunately have just been ignored by the government. We hope that within this minority Parliament we can start to move some of these issues forward as they are important to a lot of Canadians.

There is hope. I am happy to announce that the Leader of the Official Opposition has had the confidence to appoint me as the critic for infrastructure and communities. I plan to hold the government accountable, especially on this file and especially the new minister who will be handling this file. I plan to ensure that the government lives up to some of its commitments made in the recent election even though it has not gone into great detail on some of the commitments moving forward in this Parliament.

Infrastructure is an issue that is not only important to the people of Edmonton--Strathcona but to all Canadians right across the country as they drive around in their cities or rural communities. They have seen the challenges that many of our areas face when it comes to infrastructure.

Some people have asked me what infrastructure means exactly. It seems like it is so vast. They have asked how it can be categorized. I will take a moment to outline some of the areas that have already been outlined by a number of speakers addressing infrastructure about where it applies and how it can be broken down to get a greater understanding.

First of all there is structural infrastructure which is made up of roads, sewers, street lamps, et cetera, that we find in our communities. There is also the cultural aspect of infrastructure such as hockey rinks, museums, libraries, theatres, et cetera, all the different things that we enjoy that improve the quality of our life in our communities.

We also have recreational infrastructure that includes parks, recreation centres, pools, beaches, et cetera. Those sorts of things also help to improve our quality of life. Security infrastructure such as police, fire, and ambulance are important and vital aspects of our cities and communities. Physical infrastructure such as municipal offices and convention centres are the sorts of things that fall under that category. Social infrastructure includes subsidized housing, substance abuse centres, and we can think of a number of others that would fall under that category. Economic infrastructure such as airports, sea ports and a number of other areas would fall under that particular category. Finally, the special infrastructure category would include the Olympics, expositions, and waterfronts. They are the sorts of things that also help the quality of life but also help economic engines and help certain activities happen in and around our communities.

As we all know the Ministry of State for Infrastructure and Communities was created by the government in June. The underlining reason for the Liberals to make this a cabinet level position was to promise the new deal for cities that was often referred to as the cities agenda.

I would like to take a moment to turn back the clock, especially when I start talking about the fuel tax. I believe you remember, Mr. Speaker, that about a year and a half ago there was an opposition motion that dealt with making the commitment to communities by giving them a portion of the fuel tax. I believe that all members of the House voted for that motion.

I am happy to say that the action for that issue was led by the opposition, which is why I remember. We kept hounding the government to at least consider giving communities a portion of that tax given the increase in the cost of fuel. The amount of excise tax that is collected on fuel should be a dedicated tax that should go to them. The reason why it was initially levied was that it would go into highways and roads, and a portion of that could be spent by the municipalities. The provinces could use the money for long term programs of infrastructure management so that they would not have the problems that they have now and where in some parts of the country they are in a major crisis.

It is unfortunate that the government has managed that extra tax in the general revenues and it seems to disappear.

I do not have to remind the House, but I mention the issue of the gun registry, sponsorship scandal and a host of other areas where we know the government has failed Canadians when money was collected specifically to go into things like infrastructure, like roads and highways. That is why we have problems today.

As we know, the big city mayors were meeting here recently. They still raise concerns that this particular plan that the government has does not go far enough. It does not kick in fast enough. It does not provide enough resources to attack some of these huge problems of infrastructure.

I can understand their frustration because they have been waiting for something like this for years and years. As I said, because of the fact that we have been pushing that issue, we are finally getting movement by the government.

In the short time that I have left I want to say that we are still waiting. As much as I will applaud the government for going down this road and adopting an issue which was an opposition thrust to have this fuel tax returned to the communities, there is still no indication of how this is going to work. There are no details of how this is going to go into the communities.

This is something that we need to start discussing now. We need to figure out how that is going to work because it is going to take the coordination of three levels of government. It is going to take a long term plan in order to ensure that many of our structural challenges and problems are going to be taken into account in a way that all levels are working together. We need to see more detail as it comes forward from the government.

In my discussions with the minister on this particular file, we still do not know whether the money is going to go directly into the municipalities, whether it is going to be coordinated under existing programs, or if it is going to be delivered directly to the municipalities.

In certain areas we know that there is an advancement of those levels of government working together. For instance, in Edmonton there is the Greater Edmonton Authority within the capital region that works together on many projects. It looks at the long term plans for infrastructure and how it will tackle them with all the municipalities together.

Those are the things we are going to be pushing forward as this debate continues. We wish we could have seen the action of the fuel tax going to communities sooner because we have had this debate for some time.

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. Coming from the Fraser Valley, I know people are very happy about that.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question about priorities as he might see them in the throne speech. I have spent a great deal of time on the issue of illegal drugs in this country, trying to prevent a lot of money being spent on that issue. I find the government now supporting an injection site in Vancouver and also tentatively starting to support what it calls an inhalation site which is a place for crack smokers to smoke up in safety.

I wonder if my colleague could speak on the issue of priorities within the government. I am having trouble fathoming how it is possible for a government to spend multi-millions of dollars on injection sites and smoke inhalation sites for people. and not on the kinds of issues the member was talking about.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question specifically speaks to the different areas of infrastructure that I outlined and the fact that we as the government must set some guidelines as to how we will work with these different levels of government to create the priority in order for the money to get into areas that we know are more crucial.

The policy of the official opposition is to give priority to projects which require capital reinvestment, such as pre-existing buildings and structural infrastructure rather than new areas in the social area or other areas that I outlined.

The question is a valid one and one that we hope the government will show some leadership. Clearly it has not demonstrated any leadership on how this is going to function and that priority will be given to these sorts of structural investments and infrastructure.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first acknowledge your presence as our Deputy Speaker, and congratulate you and all those who will be sitting in the Chair over the weeks to come.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the people of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale who have entrusted me with this great honour to represent them in these hallowed halls and in the House. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of my wife, Andrea, who is with me in Ottawa this afternoon.

With respect to the speech given by the hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona, I can only wholeheartedly agree with the member's analysis of the throne speech as being simply a recycling of previous Liberal promises. Could the hon. member, with more experience in the House, explain to me why it is that the Liberal government continues to resort to this tactic of recycling promises?

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his election to the House. It is great to see such a wide range of diversity now represented in the House. We are all better off for it.

I do appreciate his question because that is the frustration that many Canadians are feeling. There has not been the type of leadership that we would have liked to see. During the election many will remember that we tried to put forward a debate on a whole host of these issues, but what happened? It was one of the nastiest campaigns we have ever seen in the history of the country.

That was unfortunate because we would have liked to hear new ideas. We would have liked to address a lot of the issues that Canadians want this place to deal with. We have not been able to do that. We have seen the same old ideas come forward from the government because it is not really willing to listen.

Here is why I make that plea today. As the official opposition, given the framework of this new Parliament, we have tried to put forward very responsible amendments to the throne speech in order to give some vision and some direction that represents more Canadians. Hopefully it will take us out of the hole that the government and its lack of leadership has put Canadians into. We want to bring an open, honest, and transparent debate to this place. We hope the Liberals will take heed and listen to Canadians.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that your constituents in Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon are very proud of you. They never thought they would see you in Ottawa wearing a gown, but you look good in it.

I would also on behalf of the people of Calgary—Nose Hill, the people I represent, pay tribute and extend condolences to the loved ones and the comrades of Lieutenant Chris Saunders and to those who were injured in the line of duty on the HMCS Chicoutimi . We all grieve with them and our prayers are with them.

I would also like to take this opportunity with my first speech in the House of Commons in this new Parliament to thank the voters of Calgary—Nose Hill for their wonderful support for me over the years and for returning me to the House of Commons. I take my responsibility to represent them, to listen to them and to work on their behalf for our great country very seriously. I want them to know how much I appreciate their trust and support.

My reply to the Speech from the Throne today will focus on immigration issues because I am the Conservative Party senior critic for citizenship and immigration. Two main immigration issues were highlighted by the government in the Speech from the Throne. One was the recognition of foreign credentials. The other was changes to the Citizenship Act.

I want to begin by telling the House about my constituent, Matthew Bijak. He was sponsored by the Polish government to study medicine in Italy. He was so successful in his studies that he graduated cum laude and decided that he did not want to return to Poland after he obtained his medical degree. He then spoke with the Canadian embassy, where officials encouraged him to come to Canada. They told him the more education he had, the better for being accepted as an immigrant to Canada. He came to Canada, but then the story changed.

He prepared to practise his medical skills, but the dean of one of our largest medical schools told him flat out that we have enough doctors in Canada. That is what he was told, and that he would never get a medical residency. Still, Mr. Bijak persevered. After discussions with the Medical Council of Canada, he pursued his goal, but in spite of glowing references from medical mentors here in Canada, he encountered only roadblocks from Canadian authorities. The rules and regulations seemed to keep changing. All this time Mr. Bijak was taking odd jobs to support his family, never going on welfare or EI. Today, 15 years later, someone who graduated cum laud from medical school in Europe now works as a computer technician.

There are 168 doctors at least in Alberta alone in that very same position. All of these people received their medical training in English. Language is not a barrier. They had fine training. They came to Canada because they were told their skills were needed, only to find that they cannot be given the opportunity to practise medicine in this country. One man who was a doctor in Hungary for 14 years is working in Canada as a cook.

Mr. Bijak tells me that if it had been made clear up front to him that he could not practise medicine in Canada, he would have accepted that as being fair, but in fact he was given the opposite assurance. He was told that we need people with medical skills here. He was encouraged to come on that basis. He said something very interesting. He said that he left a corrupt system. He believed he was coming to a country where opportunity would be based on merit.

A friend of his who went to the U.S. instead of to Canada has been practising medicine there for years. This friend graduated with Mr. Bijak in the very same class in medical school in Europe. He was been practising in the U.S. for years. But this man who chose to come to Canada is not allowed to practise. Canada has failed Mr. Bijak. Our country has turned away a fine potential physician with desperately needed skills.

This story is multiplied thousands of times over to the shame of the Liberal government. Newcomers with solid training and skills, with experience, with enthusiastic hopes and dreams for the future find themselves on a treadmill of low paying survival jobs instead of on the path to success that they believed would be open to them. The Conference Board of Canada tells us that over half a million Canadians would earn another $4 billion to $6 billion if their experience and credentials were recognized in the Canadian workplace, but they are not.

Back in 1994 the Liberals promised that they would develop “a national clearing house to assess foreign credentials”. That was in 1994. What a surprise; they failed to follow through on that commitment. In almost every throne speech, including this one, the Liberals keep tossing out that same old promise because they know how critical it is for hundreds of thousands of people and their families in this country.

How shameful and how sad that the same party that showered a quarter of a billion dollars on sponsorships of dubious value cannot get serious about this issue of credentials recognition, an issue that would clearly make such a great difference to so many people. The Liberals talk a good game about the critical shortage of doctors and nurses, about the need for skilled workers to revitalize an aging workforce, but their real lack of commitment is evident. They have had over a decade now with the reins of government in their hands and have barely made it out of the starting gate on the recognition of foreign credentials. Shame on the Liberals.

A Conservative government would ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience. This would be a major priority under the Conservatives and I look forward to that change.

Since the government has yet to introduce its changes to the Citizenship Act, I cannot comment except to say the Conservative Party of Canada will absolutely oppose the revocation of citizenship by politicians behind closed doors and will oppose citizenship being denied on any vague and undefined grounds. We will uphold Canadian values of due process and certainty in the law.

There are many other key issues in the immigration portfolio that were not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I urge the government to pursue resolution of these other issues to the benefit of our country. They are: settlement program funding; more attention to the needs of children of newcomers; the backlog of applications; the frustrating difficulty in obtaining permission for family and friends to visit in Canada; the serious need for further reform of the Immigration and Refugee Board; the current inaction on visa overstays, which leads to disrespect for our country; the dysfunctional removals process for those illegally in Canada; the incredible security lapses in our missions abroad, where valuable paper repeatedly ends up being sold on the street; and a clear plan to coordinate operations with the Canada Border Services Agency.

There are other issues, but these nine are critical and I hope they will not fall by the wayside under this Liberal government as the credentials issue has done for a decade.

It is an honour to be given the responsibility for citizenship and immigration in the Conservative shadow cabinet. I fully intend to carry out our constitutional responsibility to hold the government to account for better management and fair policy in the dynamic nation-building exercise of immigration.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition, and I believe that you will find unanimous consent of the House to amend the amendment to the amendment so that it reads as follows:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following paragraph after the word “continental”:

“and we ask Your Excellency's advisors to ensure that all measures brought forward to implement the Speech from the Throne, including those referred to above, fully respect the provinces' areas of jurisdiction and that the financial pressures some call the fiscal imbalance be alleviated”.

I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we on the government side are prepared to give our consent to the changes made to the amendment to the amendment, as set out by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I too have had discussions with the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the Prime Minister. Our party will consent to these changes.

I would like to say that these were productive discussions that we had. From time to time our rhetoric may become overheated, but I think this is a demonstration that this minority Parliament can work in the interests of all of us. I thank the Prime Minister and the leader of the Bloc.

[Ed Broadbent, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our leader who was also a party to the discussion, I give the consent of the New Democratic Party.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment to the amendment to the amendment agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Calgary—Nose Hill for her comments and her work on the immigration and citizenship committee. The issue that she talked about as it pertains to accreditation and citizenship is on the point.

Too often in Canada we talk about the brain drain and not often enough about the brain waste. This is exactly what the Conference Board of Canada has identified. When someone in Canada is underemployed because of a refusal to recognize their credentials, then we have a problem and the national economy suffers as a result.

The other issue that she mentioned deals with citizenship. The position that she takes and that her party has taken is one that this House should adopt in legislation.

My question for the member is very simple. It would seem to me that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the legal section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should apply to all Canadians, no matter if they are born here or born elsewhere. Would the member please comment on that?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the saying that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. The member is right. We have wasted the considerable abilities of many of our citizens, especially our new citizens, due to the inaction of the Liberal government.

In answer to his question, I would confirm with him that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to all citizens of Canada, regardless of whether those citizens were born in Canada or they came to Canada later on in life. In fact the hon. member was telling me earlier today that 39 members of Parliament were not born here in Canada. I am not sure if I have the number correct but quite a large number of members of the House were born elsewhere. We certainly would want them to have, and they do have and are glad to have, the same rights and privileges of all Canadians.

Our actions here in the House and the actions in government legislation must reflect the fact that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, that rights and privileges apply to all and that none should be deprived of those charter rights except by due process of law and within the framework of the charter.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the undocumented workers, is the member aware of the breakdown of the numbers that we are talking about? What provisions might occur with regard to those who still do not come forward because they would not be able to pass the review in terms of background checks, et cetera?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada tells us that for over half a million Canadians, if they were able to use their skills and experience to the fullest extent, would earn an additional $4 billion to $6 billion. That is a substantial number of people in this country, most of them Canadian citizens. It is also a substantial loss to other Canadians who would be benefiting from the purchasing power of individuals should they earn what they really could be earning.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it carried on division?

[An hon. member]

On division.