Debates of Feb. 24th, 2005

The Budget

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a great deal about budgetary measures for aboriginals. I wished she had been with us this morning in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. The Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, was there to talk about her second report, of November 2004, on the education program and post-secondary student support.

Obviously, this reports identifies numerous flaws. In my opinion, the member should take off her rose-coloured glasses. This report shows that it will take another 28 years before young aboriginals can reach a level of education equivalent to that of the population of the rest of Canada. This is totally unacceptable.

I was reading the press release of the Assembly of First Nations, which condemns this federal budget. I do not know where she obtained her information that the budget contained good news for aboriginals. I want to hear her elaborate on this, since neither the Assembly of First Nations nor the Auditor General is saying this at all.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am evidence of the fact that first nations people can succeed, not because I was born rich or because I was privileged, but because I have worked hard and there have been opportunities given to me which I have taken.

There are many opportunities. It is not as if all first nations people are not successful. That would be a false perception to put out there. First nations have a legitimate complaint about there not being everything that they wanted in the budget.

We have this other process. I believe sincerely in speaking with my colleagues who have the responsibility for education, health, economic development, all of the different development areas. Through the policy retreat and the first ministers meeting with aboriginals we are going to show people that we can make the difference and that the difference can be made.

There are many first nations people like me who have dedicated their whole lives to working for their people. I do not like to be seen as a failure. I believe that for the 17 years that I have been here I have a reputation of working for my people. We delivered a good budget yesterday. Maybe not everything was in it, but we will succeed. I refuse to believe that we are not going to succeed. We will succeed.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the countless others in this House, including the previous speaker and the countless thousands of others around the country who support budget 2005.

I want to take the opportunity to congratulate our Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodale, on the work that he has done in crafting this--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The member must remember that he is to refer to the minister by title or by department, not by name please.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it will never happen again as I have just been told. However, I still want to correctly congratulate the Minister of Finance for the work he has done in crafting the budget. His name may not be Lois, but he is one heck of a guy doing one heck of a job.

This is the first minority budget delivered in over 25 years. Although I was not involved directly in the budget making process, I did find it a very interesting process. I do see the footprints of the other parties on this document, which I believe is a good thing. That is what Canadians want. Good things happen when people work together. The budget is a good statement of the priorities of Canadians.

I want to talk about the whole issue of sound financial management, prudent planning, responsible spending, and the careful use of the fiscal and monetary levers at the government's disposal. This is the eighth consecutive surplus budget tabled by the government. Approximately $61 million has been paid down in the accumulated debt of this country. The debt to GDP ratio has dropped from 68% to approximately 38%. Economic forecasts are good. The GDP is forecasted to be 2.9% this year, rising to 3.1% next year. We are the envy of the other countries in the G-7. We were the only country in that group to table a surplus budget in 2004.

Sound financial management will, as we have seen over the last eight to ten years, lead to lower inflation, which of course leads to lower interest rates. That helps the provinces that borrow heavily. It helps the municipalities. It helps the large businesses. It helps the smaller businesses. Most important, it helps the ordinary Canadians who borrow money for a mortgage, to purchase a car, or to purchase a refrigerator. Lower interest rates mean increased economic growth.

In last June's election this party campaigned on issues that were important to all Canadians: health care; improving and enhancing the equalization funding formula to the 10 provinces; making a new deal to provide federal funding for the infrastructure requirements of the cities, towns and communities of this great country; and one other matter, developing an early learning and child care initiative. These issues, and there were others, were central to the platform of the party. These issues, through the Minister of Finance, are issues on which we are committed to follow through. We are doing exactly that.

Only months into the mandate, the Prime Minister sat down with the provincial and territorial first ministers and devised a 10 year plan to strengthen health care. Federal government support for this health care accord will total over $43 billion over the next 10 years. The budget also provides a further $800 million in direct federal health investments over the next five years. That was done within 87 days of the June election. Those commitments were funded in yesterday's budget.

The government has also delivered on equalization, developing a framework that will see predictable and growing long term support. This will add in excess of $33 billion more over the next 10 years to give the provinces and territories the stability needed to be fiscally responsible. This goes a long way to place all Canadians on an equal footing for standard of living and access to quality services.

In the budget yesterday the government also committed to fund a new deal for cities and communities. A $5 billion share of its gas tax revenues will go to cities, towns and communities across the country. These much needed funds will bring sustainable infrastructure where it is needed the most.

In addition, as part of our commitment toward sustainable communities, a further $300 million is committed for green municipal funds.

Although no agreement has been reached with the provinces as of yet, the government has committed funding in the amount of $5 billion toward the early learning and child care initiative. This will give the youngest Canadians the best possible start in life.

These are some of the commitments the government made, and Canadians will see these commitments upheld. Simply put, the government is delivering to Canadians.

I want to speak specifically about some of the programs and initiatives that will directly affect Atlantic Canadians, including my home province of Prince Edward Island.

I am especially encouraged and pleased by the government's commitment to the findings in the Rising Tides report. I chaired the subcommittee that produced the report, and I know about the importance of investing in the Atlantic economy.

With a new $710 million initiative, the government has committed funding to our four Atlantic provinces to support economic development. This includes a $300 million Atlantic innovation fund to support research, commercialization and innovation throughout all four Atlantic provinces.

Other good news for the region includes a $30 million investment to create an Atlantic salmon endowment fund similar to the fund that presently exists in the province of British Columbia. This much needed fund will improve the sustainability of one of our most important resources.

The government has also committed $15 million to combat overfishing and to protect fish stocks and the livelihood of Atlantic Canadians. This is just one step in the whole process of illegal foreign overfishing. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government have made this a priority.

Although a wind power production incentive already exists, it will be increased by an additional incremental amount of $200 million over the next five years. This is very near and dear to the province where I live. We have some capacity for wind power right now, but we believe this capacity can be enhanced over the next couple of years.

I was very pleased with not only the environmental funding that was in the budget, but also by the government's commitment to provide funding for cities and to other groups, communities and organizations. This funding will go through an environmental lens before any agreements are concluded.

I would like to speak about the announcement that was made last week with respect to our Canada pension plan. I know this is not a budgetary item, but it is a sign of sound fiscal management. We have been told that our Canada pension plan is actuarially sound, and this is pleasing news for all Canadians.

The increase in the guaranteed income supplement and lower taxes for individuals and companies is well received by everyone in my area.

The government has again presented a sound and balanced budget. This shows that the government can deliver on its promises. It also shows that we have a clear and strong vision on how to move the country forward.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the budget speech, what strikes us particularly is what is missing from it. I am referring to what I have just heard from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is a matter of great importance to the regions, particularly the Atlantic provinces, my riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, the coastal fishers and the like: the lack of specific measures to help the people in the regions, in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, his riding included in connection with small vessel port facilities.

Why is there nothing? Because the minister feels uncomfortable about this issue, knowing how important it is to the communities. You know as well as I that there is a need of close to $500 million if these facilities are to be repaired. That is the MFO estimate, and it is pointed out that the figure has risen from $400 million. The roof is leaking, or, in this case, the piers are crumbling, as at Percé, for example. The cost of repairs keep going up, but they have to be done. People need those facilities.

I would like to hear some more from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the total omission in the budget—apparently because there are other priorities, as concerns the armed forces, in particular—of any help for the communities of the Atlantic provinces and of Quebec, and the other coastal communities, on this important matter of small vessel port facilities.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member comes from a fishing area. I am surprised and shocked that he is not on his feet congratulating the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for the initiatives that were in yesterday's budget yesterday. I cannot overstate the commitment that the government has for fisheries on all coasts, including the north.

Briefly, I will summarize some of the initiatives in yesterday's budget, which obviously the member did not read or he glossed over. The Atlantic salmon enhancement was announced. A massive investment for the Coast Guard was announced. An investment of $15 million was announced, which again is just one more step for the foreign overfishing which will help fishers in all provinces through to Atlantic Canada. Millions of dollars were committed to battling invasive species.

There were many initiatives in the budget, and I am a little surprised at the question. I think the hon. member knows the commitment that the minister has to this portfolio. I think it was a great budget for all fishers in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment further to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. One thing we have worked hard on and worked toward over the last three years is a commitment to preserve Atlantic salmon and to invest in enforcement, habitat protection and the security of that stock. What we saw in the budget was a tremendous commitment by the government to do just that.

My office has been inundated today with e-mails and phone calls from people throughout Inverness County and along the Margaree River more specifically because this sustains that community. The health of the fishery and of that river is the essence of the tourism industry. When there are no fish in the river, there are no heads in beds. There are no people in the bed and breakfast. There are no people in the cabins along the Margaree River. This is just one part of Atlantic Canada that benefits from an investment by the government.

This is money that is wisely invested. Sometimes when we talk about the fishery, we tend to get caught up in the commercial aspect of it. For every pound of salmon caught commercially, we are looking at about $5 a pound. Looking at it from a recreational fishermen standpoint, it is about $300 a pound by the time they travel to the area, seek accommodation and entertain.

I would like to thank not only the Minister of Finance, but also the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the parliamentary secretary for their work. This is a significant investment in rural Canada and it is much appreciated by those along salmon rivers in Canada.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work he has done on this issue over the last couple of years. It is not something that started last month. I know he and other members in Atlantic Canada have been working on this for two or three years now. Perhaps the member, like myself, is a little disappointed it was not in last year's budget, but we are very pleased it is in this year's budget.

As the hon. member points out, this is greatly needed in order to protect the habitat and resource of the Atlantic salmon, which again is not so much a commercial fishery as it is a recreational fishery. However, it is very important to the economies of all four Atlantic Canadian provinces.

One thing I want to point out about the fund, which is important, is that these funds will go a lot further because of the leverage. There is a tremendous volunteer sector that operates the Atlantic salmon industry. It has worked very hard on the riverbeds and streams. This is basically seed money. I would suggest to the House that the money will go a lot further than many other investments the government makes in other initiatives.

I share my colleague's enthusiasm. I am pleased that it was in the budget. I am looking for the announcement to be made very shortly.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak on the budget. I have been chomping at the bit all day trying to hold back on these most curious developments that have occurred in the last 24 hours. What a bizarre day this has been. What an interesting turn of events.

Where do I begin? Let me start with the stark political opportunism of this document, this budget presented to Canadians yesterday by the Liberal government in its total betrayal of all the progressive voters that the Liberals lured to support them during the last election with now obviously false promises to invest in their future.

As we noted during question period today, it is not curious that during the last election the Prime Minister was galloping around this country luring progressive voters to vote Liberal because of that monstrous threat posed by the Conservatives? Now here we are, in the first really big moment in the life of this Liberal minority government, the presentation of the budget for 2005-06, and the only people smiling are the Conservatives. The only people happy with this budget are members of the Conservative Party.

[An hon. member]

The Liberals are happy.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, we know the Liberals are happy, as it is their budget, but what is so curious is the fact that the Liberals and the Conservatives have somehow managed to come together, and excuse the pun, in this most unholy alliance.

I am sure that there will be many interpretations of all of this. I think one might be in the context of the debate we have been having in the House on same sex marriage. Matrimony has been on the minds of parliamentarians in this past session, but none of us thought that the Liberals and Conservatives were about to end up in the bridal suite.

It has been so curious to see the Conservatives prepared to be lured into this trap to support the Liberals on this budget when they have been so critical and so damning of the Liberals up to this stage in the history of this minority Parliament.

We have had some tremendously interesting developments today. We have the Liberals, who are suddenly practising the most opportunistic, most crass political measures one could imagine, and we have the Conservatives, who are prepared to dance with the Liberals on a budget. For the first time in the history of this country, that we know of, Liberals and Conservatives are joining together with one voice in support of this budget.

Last night and today it was very interesting to watch Conservatives smiling and grinning over developments and over the fact that they managed to make some fairly significant inroads in this budget by way of incredibly significant corporate tax cuts.

[An hon. member]

Is the NDP against defence spending? Is that what you're saying?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals in the front row here just cannot stand to hear how the Liberals are in bed with the Conservatives and how in fact their luring of progressive voters has resulted in this most crass moment where in fact Canadians feel used and abused by that kind of treatment.

As I said in question period, those progressive voters who fell for it, who fell for that logic and the incredibly lame argument that people had to vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives and who now see the results of that with a Conservative budget out of this Liberal minority Parliament, would like to take their votes back. They would like a refund. They would like to be able to say, “We are sorry. We did not know the kind of double-cross we would have with these Liberals”.

It is very interesting to hear these Liberals bellowing from their seats. They ought to be embarrassed by this turn of events. They ought to be repentant about the kind of fraudulent behaviour they have perpetrated on the Canadian population.

The Conservatives ought to explain their behaviour in being able to manipulate the process to the point where they could get some goodies out of this budget, never mind their previous stance, never mind the difficult position they have put many of their members in.

I listened today. I saw some faces of glee. I saw some people who looked like the cat that swallowed the canary. Then I saw some other faces of worry and concern, faces of Conservative members, especially those who represent rural areas and the agricultural communities, like the member for Haldimand--Norfolk and the member for Wild Rose, who are definitely not with their leader on this issue and seemed to be beside themselves with the kind of decision that has been taken by the leader of the Conservative Party. They in fact stood up in the House today and said they would not be supporting the budget.

We have the leader of the Conservative Party saying that the Conservatives are generally happy with the budget and they will not stand in the way of the budget, they will not let the Liberals be defeated by the budget. Then we have some members on his own benches who are deeply concerned, who are frightened, scared, worried about the outcome in terms of the constituents they represent.

What will this mean in the end? What will those Conservatives do? Will they do what the leader wishes and stand up and vote with the Liberals? Will they leave for the washroom during the vote? Will they be split? What will be the result of this kind of dilemma facing the Conservatives? It is a very strange set of developments that we are still trying to figure out.

I do want to say that the New Democratic Party members in the House who are very surprised at this turn of events are not celebrating this budget with the Liberal-Conservative cabal that produced it. We were surprised at the turn of events. Given the message that Canadians sent to this place and to the Liberals, which was that the Liberals did not deserve a majority government, and given the fact that they returned a Liberal minority government to this place, we expected in fact that the first opportunity the government had to reflect those sentiments and to adequately represent those constituents would have been to present a budget that was in tune not only with the wishes of Canadians but with the promises made by the Liberals during the past election.

We did not hear the Prime Minister in the last election stand up and say “we are going to give a $4.6 billion corporate tax cut”, did we? Did anyone hear that? In fact, during the election the Prime Minister said there would be no new tax cuts until the cuts had been restored and until Canadians' needs had been served. He made that promise. He made that pledge. The first chance he gets, he reverses his position, takes advantage of Canadians and brings in a tax cut that was not promised, was not wanted and double-crosses all Canadians.

We are going to keep speaking up as loud and as hard as we can, just like we have been doing for the last 10 years in the face of Liberal majority budgets that cater to corporate interests and do not represent the needs of Canadians. We are optimists by nature. We do not face this kind of 10 year hold on Canadian politics, with its so damaging consequences, without being optimistic. Certainly we are going to continue to put the needs of Canadians ahead of the corporate elite represented with such consistency and determination by the Prime Minister and his party over the past decade.

That optimism made us hopeful that Liberals would have taken their rebuke at the polls in last year's election seriously and presented a different kind of budget, a budget about Canadians' priorities: affordable housing, accessible education and meaningful strategies to address problems of unemployment and urban youth.

Today, in the aftermath of this budget, shock waves have gone out across the country. We are just beginning to pick up those reactions to this budget. At first blush, people were thinking it does not sound so bad, that there is a bit of help here and a bit of help there. Then people started to realize. They ask, “What are we dealing with?” What we are dealing with is a tax break for low income people that will benefit those low income families to the tune of $16 a year.

How do I go back to my constituency, which has some of the highest levels of poverty and low income people anywhere in this country, and tell them the Liberals are bringing them a gift of $16 next year to help deal with making ends meet?

It is just impossible to imagine reactions other than those of anger and disbelief from Canadians across this country. And they are beginning to react. Let us look at the results in the last few hours. We are hearing from the student federations across this country and the university professors. We are hearing from people who work on the front lines in health care. We are hearing from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities. We are hearing from women's organizations. We are hearing from the National Anti-Poverty Organization.

We are hearing from all of those organizations that work with Canadians on a day in and day out basis and are trying to help people make ends meet and keep their heads above water. They know that this budget was a betrayal of everything that was promised and everything that was needed.

It will not be easier after this budget is passed. Life will be just as hard, if not harder, because this government took away valuable resources. This government took that money and put it into areas that will once again help those with the most. It will help those who are at the top end of the income scale. It will help those large corporations that are taking Canadians' hard-earned dollars and pensioners' security and investing it offshore, outside the reach of this country, often in precarious situations where pensioners could be completely abandoned and Canadians could see their hard-earned dollars lost forever.

We heard the Prime Minister and the finance minister repeatedly promise over the months leading up to this budget that the Liberals would deliver on their election promises to Canadians before bringing in any of these new tax cuts that I am talking about. When someone borrows $10 from someone else, is it called paying off the debt when only $1 is given back? I do not think it is. I know it is not, but apparently the Liberals are different from the rest of us.

The scattering of what the Liberals call “down payments” to child care, the gas transfer to municipalities and Kyoto, these do not qualify as paid up promises. They are merely deposits. There is no “paid in full” stamped on any of the Liberal promises addressed in this budget.

So where does that $4 billion in corporate tax cuts come from? Where do they come from? Yes, it is another broken promise, this one double-parked with all the other broken promises. The Liberals chose to not even make a down payment on some of their other promises.

The Liberals took billions out of the provincial transfers for education in the 1990s. University and college budgets were hurt and, to help make up the loss, student tuition costs have risen by over 100% since the Liberals took power.

Do members know what the Prime Minister promised during the heat of last year's election campaign? He promised to finally do something about it. He promised that if the Liberals were re-elected they would create a dedicated education transfer with an increase of $7 billion or $8 billion.

What did we get in this budget for education? Zero, zip, except if a student has a loan and dies. The government will forgive a student's loan if the student dies. Is that not wonderful? There is not even a hint about this broken promise or an acknowledgement that the promise was made and not kept. What does that mean to the thousands of students trying to access a university education and trying to pay for it without being bankrupt for the rest of their lives?

The Canadian Association of University Teachers says, “Sadly, there was nothing in the budget that provides any relief to students and their families struggling with record high tuition fees and record high debt”. The result is a lot of sadness on the part of Canadians, and certainly on the part of New Democrats in the House, but it is sadness mixed with outrage that the Liberals have once again taken for granted the education needs of Canadians.

In drafting this budget the Liberals claim to have consulted Canadians, the finance critic of the Bloc and, of course, myself as the finance critic for the New Democratic Party. I think we each had one meeting which, obviously, did not amount to very much. None of the demands we presented to the finance minister were considered. However, on the basis of a meeting with the Conservatives, enough of their demands are in the budget to make them want to support it. It makes one wonder what has been going on between the Conservatives and the Liberals over the last month.

I jokingly told the media in my area that all I got from the Minister of Finance was a one night stand. I thought the Liberals were serious enough about building support in this minority government situation that they would want to consult on a more regular basis. However I have a feeling that the finance critic for the Conservative Party had a weekend rendezvous with the Minister of Finance.

One of the most interesting things about the budget is the way in which the government has pumped the money that is available for certain programs into trust funds and foundations. We will end up with a great surplus this year of some $9 billion and about $6 billion of that will be put into trust funds that are beyond the reach of Parliament's scrutiny, out of public oversight, away from the eyes and ears of parliamentarians and the public and the Conservatives are not speaking about this. The Conservatives who squawked and squawked about the sponsorship scandal are not saying a peep in light of this kind of money being pumped into foundations and trust funds.

The money we are talking about will make the sponsorship scandal look like a picnic. We are probably talking about some $30 billion tucked away in trust funds and foundations. The Conservatives, who screamed bloody murder about the sponsorship scandal, are supporting the Liberals at a time when the scrutiny of Parliament has never been more important and when it is absolutely critical for Parliament and opposition parties to hold the government to account and bring in the measures the Auditor General has requested.

This budget contains no new money for affordable housing despite the clear priorities. I will tell the House about my own constituency. We have an area with older neighbourhoods, old housing stock. We desperately need the federal government to be involved in ensuring we have money for renovations, renewal, new housing stock, social housing and cooperatives. What did we get? We got zero in terms of housing. I should say that there is some money for helping aboriginal people on reserves but not nearly what is required according to the Auditor General. However there is nothing that will help my riding or the ridings of others address the difficult situation of housing in urban communities, especially communities to which many aboriginals have moved after leaving the reserve.

When all is said and done, what the government has offered in terms of those basic issues that take people out of poverty, that give them a boost and that help them use their talents to the fullest so we can grow the economy and ensure a future for generations to come, and so we can bring down the debt because of that kind of investment, amount to very little. We are left with a budget that is nothing short of a betrayal for all Canadians.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member, I must admit, is very entertaining, but I want to be very clear that is all she is because she is wrong about the budget.

The Prime Minister made a commitment and followed through on the commitment. All the hon. member's self-styled, self-serving sensitivity and assignment of blame is wrong.

I want to quote from the mayor of Toronto, who is a New Democrat. He is a fine gentleman, working on behalf of the City of Toronto. He said:

This is groundbreaking. This is the first time I know of that the federal government has committed to a sustained funding program for municipalities.

The Minister of Finance was dealing with the hon. member on the budget. It is no wonder they could not come to any agreements on things; the hon. member would not be happy no matter what she received.

I will refer to the part of the budget that dealt with municipalities. Municipalities will receive $9 billion over five years. I will repeat that the mayor of Toronto, which is the biggest city in Canada, said that this was groundbreaking. Quite frankly, I agree with the mayor of Toronto and I disagree with the hon. member.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that none of this is intended to be entertainment for members on the Liberal side. We take these views very seriously and the process very seriously. We speak for Canadians who are devastated by the government's disregard for the kinds of crises and difficult situations they are dealing with and living with on a day to day basis.

I want to try to graphically present the concerns we have, not with my own words, since the member does not like to listen to my words, but by quoting a member of our esteemed media who wrote an article in the Winnipeg Free Press today. It reads:

Imagine that Federal Finance Minister...is an emergency room doctor, and a patient comes in requiring 100 stitches to close a vicious wound. "Well, closing this wound is a real priority," [the Minister of Finance] says. "Without stitches you'll die. So, we'll do 10 stitches this year, 25 next year, and by year five of this treatment, we'll have that wound totally closed up”.

No one would tolerate this kind of behaviour in an emergency room. Why should Canadians tolerate this when it comes to something as important as child care, a clean environment, stopping pollution, basic affordable housing and access to a university where tuition is reasonable enough so that all people could pay for it?

We are not exaggerating. Those are the realities. They are so real that the hon. member's government made promises to address the issues in the last election. The only problem is that the Liberals have totally ignored those promises. When push comes to shove, all that matters is crass political opportunism, getting through the budget and not having an election. We have two parties in the House that are prepared to put political opportunism ahead of any kind of ideals and principles.

We do not want an election any more than they do but we are not prepared to say that at all costs. We are not prepared to support the budget if it means more pollution. We are not prepared to support the budget if it means more children going hungry. We are not prepared to support the budget if it means more congestion in our urban centres. We are not prepared to support the budget if it means more people dying on the streets because they cannot get access to shelters.

It is our obligation to speak up for those Canadians because they need and deserve the support of government. They do not want or deserve the kind of betrayal that we have seen from the Liberals in the House or the collusion that has been offered by the Conservatives at this critical juncture in the history of this country.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member alluded to the fact that somehow the Conservatives were in collusion and that they were supporting the budget. I want it to be very clear and on the record that what we have said is that we want to ensure the survival of this Parliament because we believe the vast majority of Canadians do not want an election at this time.

I would like to know from the member what her constituents say. She says that she wants to be taken seriously and that she wants to act responsibly. How can she and her party want to see the government and this Parliament fall forcing another election, which would be two elections in one year? How many of her constituents are telling her that they want an election?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents want Parliament to respect their wishes. They want a minority Parliament to give them a budget that is different from 10 years of Liberal majority budgets.

Instead of more money going to the well-off, the rich and corporate entities in our society, they want money that will put a roof over the heads of their families, money that will provide the groceries their families need, money that will send their kids to university and money that will clean the air we breathe. They want the support of government, not the denial of everything that means anything in terms of quality of life for themselves and their families.

We do not want an election either but we are darned sure not going to ignore the wishes of our constituents and Canadians from one end of this country to the other just because it is convenient for the Conservatives and Liberals to avoid an election at this point.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, it being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 2, 2005, consideration of the motion that Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, be be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in this debate to speak in support of Bill C-283. This is the last hour of debate on this bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Newton—North Delta. This is a bill to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, and it has been moved that it be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I am speaking in support of this bill because it would permit the sponsorship of a foreign national who is not a member of the immediate family or a relative, neither close nor distant, but someone who had already unsuccessfully applied for a temporary visitor visa.

The beauty of this is that amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would, for instance, allow individuals previously denied entry, but whose sponsor can vouch for them, to come and visit. This could involve a person coming from a country like China.

We know it is not always easy to get to know people in a visit of only a few days. Because I lived there myself for a few years—there are people from all over the world who ask to come and meet us in Quebec, establishing more ties of friendship lasting longer than a visit of just a few days. So, the person who stands as guarantor would have that responsibility.

I would like to give a brief history of Bill C-283 of the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. It was first presented to the House a few years ago, in 2002. Then it was broadened a bit in 2003 and brought back to the House again, as often happens. The bill is essentially the same today.

It makes it possible for a resident, a citizen, to sponsor a visa applicant, subject to a deposit or guarantee. It is important to say something about the deposit; it is a form of guarantee, a condition for admission which is not given to all comers. In brief, the sponsor can be a permanent resident who is not a member of the family, a citizen for example, as often happens.

The practice has been seen in other countries such as Australia. The members of parliament are inundated with applications to bring in people they know. To facilitate the process, however, Australia instituted a reform in 2002. A system was established, and a bill similar to the one before us today was introduced. After four years, they noticed that more than 26,000 visitors had come to the country, had found it to their liking, and afterwards, not right away, applied again.

That means, in fact, that they were not only tourists but visitors of economic significance. For the economy of Quebec or Canada or any country at all, that is very fortunate; that is very good. It is not just an exchange of post cards, it is an economy in action.

And that is part of what this bill would do. The Bloc Québécois sees it as an interesting initiative to ease some of the congestion in the immigration system. Often the power is given to the minister. The minister has many powers, many decisions to make, and the officials in Citizenship and Immigration Canada also have many responsibilities.

With this new initiative, the measure applies only if the foreigner has made an application in the preceding 12 months and has been refused; that is the beauty of the thing.

There are other criteria. You will understand that a bill such as this cannot be based simply on the strength of someone we see and consider appealing. Foreign nationals cannot work, study, apply for a visa extension or for permanent resident status during their stay. They must leave the country when the period comes to an end. This is a protective mechanism provided in the law, one that has more than one advantage.

The individual must report to an officer or other representative of the Government of Canada outside Canada within thirty days of leaving Canada before the guarantee will be reimbursed. The guarantee is a very important item, being an amount determined according to certain very precise criteria.

The sponsor is answerable for the foreign national. This means that it is in the best interests of whoever is sponsoring another to ensure that the person is respectable in every way. That is part of the beauty of this bill, and also of its subtlety. The person is responsible for the other's actions and cannot make another application for five years if all conditions are not met.

The amount of the guarantee is determined according to criteria set out in the present legislation, that is to say according to the financial resources of the individual or group, the obligations relating to the conditions imposed, and the costs that would likely be incurred in locating, detaining, referring for investigation or expulsion the person or group of persons.

There are, as you can see, even costs involved in administering the guarantee. So that is what my colleague's bill is about. The system has proven itself in Australia, and there is no reason it would not be the same in Canada and Quebec, or indeed any other country with a concern for opening itself up to others.

The Bloc Québécois believes that there are sufficient guarantees in this to justify our being in favour of it in principle. We feel that it is a measure that will enable people who do not have immediate family members in Canada to obtain a visa after they have been refused one. Often there is no other recourse or process for appeal

This is a worthwhile measure and one that the Bloc does not find abusive. It supports openness to others, and also makes monitoring of people's exiting the country easier. That is one very useful aspect of such a bill.

Visitors will not be allowed to study or work. This measure is for those travelling for pleasure. But these visitors could also be potential investors coming to visit. Often, in a country's history, people travel, go somewhere and watch visitors while abroad. Travelling creates this opportunity to meet people and say, “Where I come from, we have extraordinary resources which we would be happy to share with you”. So, while providing all the proper guarantees, this bill would allow for this kind of adventure in the host country.

It will also circumvent the problem with the minister's broad discretionary powers. The Minister of Immigration has a lot on his plate. He has many matters and cases to deal with. There are many cases; there are thousands. This bill empowers individuals, by allowing ordinary citizens to sponsor someone they have come to know over the years. They may have met in Vietnam, China or somewhere in Japan, but let us bear in mind that there is always a possibility of meeting others and there might even be economic interests at stake.

In other instances, there might be health considerations involved, such as people who cannot visit their relatives because of poor health or because they are far away. Relatives who were denied visas will be able to come back with this opportunity to visit.

All in all, Bill C-283 gives a better chance to visa applicants. It curbs the discretionary power of Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials, and empowers individual citizens.

The Bloc Québécois may have some concerns and reservations. Will it be possible to sponsor one or more persons at a time? That has not been specified. Very pointed questions could be asked about that during the clause by clause study. Why not the family? Why not include couples? All this to say that there are concerns and some reservations. Can the enforceable guarantee vary from one person to another? If so, what would be an appropriate way to calculate? It can get pretty complicated. We will have questions to ask about that sort of thing.

This measure will require greater control over flows and arrivals. We know that Citizenship and Immigration Canada already has difficulty staying on top of the many applications it receives. Is this not going to clog up the system a bit? There are a few concerns, but they are rapidly compensated for by the numerous advantages in the bill introduced by my colleague from Newton—North Delta.

I had mentioned Australia's experience. In fact, the legislation is similar. Already, after four years, it is clear that it is a solution, because some temporary visitors to Australia later settled after applying to stay. They liked the country they were visiting. It is word of mouth. Here is a very positive economic solution for this measure we are applauding.

In closing, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-283, and I will paraphrase a great singer and poet, Gilles Vigneault:

Inside my four walls of iceI set my time and my placeTo make a fire, the placeFor the people of the horizonAnd the people are of my race

This bill draws its life and inspiration to some extent from the spirit of this piece.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-283 is a private member's bill which seeks to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The bill intends to allow a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant to provide an enforceable guarantee or post a bond while sponsoring a visitor.

Sponsorship would provide stronger evidence of the potential visitors that they would return to their country of origin before the visa expires. The Canadian sponsor guarantees with money that the visitor would abide by the conditions of the visitor visa and would return home before the visa expires.

This bill arises in response to a big problem. While the government and the immigration department acknowledge problems, they are not prepared to do anything to improve the situation. I make that assertion because I have been complaining about these problems since I first arrived in this House after the 1993 election.

Since then, completely new legislation has been introduced for this department, but the basic problems remain. The system is not competent to figure out who should be allowed to visit and who should not. The bill attempts to add an additional dimension to the existing rules and processes that are in place to protect Canada from any abuse from visitors.

Canada must have an efficient and effective visa system that is able to handle temporary visitors. The bill would not minimize a minister's permit or inject political interference into the system. It would enhance fairness, not diminish it.

I would have hoped that the government speakers on the bill would have accepted more positively the spirit of creative problem solving which the bill's sponsor intends. The bill would essentially allow Canadians or permanent residents over 18 to apply to be an additional sponsor guarantee for a visitor from overseas by posting a bond provided that they have not sponsored an individual within the last five years who has failed to abide by the terms of his or her visa. That sounds reasonable, does it not?

However, it does nothing to water down the current rules and protections that we already have in place. What it does is support the process and adds additional levels of trust, predictability and surety. The Liberals are wrong when they claim that the bill would make it easier for more people to visit this country. It would just help enhance the screening to ensure that the right people visit this country and fewer of the wrong ones do.

Many of us have friends or relatives in far flung parts of the globe. We often think about them and wish to see them, especially at times of crisis or family celebration. The same is true for many of our constituents who are often forced to leave behind loved ones, close friends and business associates when they choose to put down roots in Canada.

We know that these people, if they came to Canada, would not abuse a visitor's visa, but often they cannot get a visa because the system is poor, overstressed, sometimes biased and fraudulent, or just not capable with the available manpower to perform its screening job properly. Change begins with the recognition that a problem exists.

Canada's visa offices routinely issue some 500,000 temporary resident visas each year in addition to processing many other types of applications. By comparison, about 100,000 or more applications on average are rejected each year, suggesting that there are in fact compelling reasons to do so. Well, that is the government line.

However, talk to constituents and users who pay for this system and they will tell a different story. The system defenders say they are deeply troubled by aspects of this bill. Their main problem is that they might lose some of their complete and final control, and that the thought of community engagement, community accountability, and community reference is just outside the box of how system bureaucrats think. It is beyond them to think that a Canadian might know a lot more about who should come and visit than a foreign embassy worker who is often a foreign national employed by Canada just looking at a file.

Just because the department could not run a bond system before does not mean that the idea is unworkable. It is fairly safe to say that bonds alone do not provide safety. That is not what the bill is about. The bill is created in full light of the fact that we have a world where individuals are willing to pay smugglers tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a chance to come to Canada to find a better life.

For a bond to be effective it would have to be high enough to prevent smuggling, but it also places demands of transparency about who is posting the bond and for what kind of an individual is wanting to visit. The bill does not seek to eclipse all the other factors which go into the balance of probabilities mix for a decision.

Bonds were said to discriminate against families with low income. The system already does that by making sponsors provide back copies of income tax returns to show that they have sufficient funds to support an invited visitor. The system already requires applicants to demonstrate sufficient financial status to show strong ties to their country of origin.

The financial game is much of what the system is all about. Consequently, complaints of financial discrimination from a Liberal just do not wash. That party is the origin of the great historical discrimination stories in Canada, and the current poor immigration system is one of the Liberals' recent design.

The claim that Bill C-283 would require more resources to deal with and investigate each sponsorship application to ensure that the financial resources were not linked to organized crime is absolutely spurious. It was said that it would require more resources to assess a sponsor's credit worthiness and to confirm his or her identity and status in Canada. It was said that more resources would have to go toward processing applications and that Canada would have to introduce an exit control system to ensure that persons complied with the bonds.

These arguments admit a lot about the poor system. If anything, providing additional levels of confidence by locals who are willing to put a lot of cash on the table helps the over-burdened system, not weight it down.

One of the most stupid arguments I have heard from a Liberal goes like this: “The bill creates an apparent lack of regard for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's international obligations under UN conventions. Clause 5 would add a new subsection to the immigration and refugee protection regulations stipulating that a foreign national who comes to Canada under the terms of a visitor visa bond must leave the country at the end of that period authorized for that stay, even if the person applies for refugee status while in Canada. Such a clause could mean that the person would have to leave Canada before his or her refugee claim had been assessed on the merits of a fair and impartial tribunal. Such a provision appears contrary to section 7 of the charter which talks about the risk of harm to the person if he or she goes back and therefore the need to follow through on a refugee application. Moreover, it could lead to violations of Canada's obligations under UN conventions not to return anyone to a country where the person faces torture or where the person has a well-founded fear of persecution. We would therefore be in complete contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

What an argument. I must make the point that anyone who has a visa must obey its rules, which already says that the person must leave before the visa expires. That is already part of the rules and there is no charter violation. If someone makes a refugee application, it does not matter whether that person gets here legally or illegally because Canada has said that it will abide by the UN convention, and many legitimate refugees must come to Canada illegally in order to make their legitimate claim.

How many times have I heard Liberals mislead the House by saying something like the following, “Our present system works well and processes requests in an expeditious, fair and reasonable manner, but all of us still say we could do a lot better; we know we could do better”. That kind of talk is so disingenuous in view of the administrative history I have observed since 1993.

The next typical argument to facilitate doing nothing is that the change is piecemeal. This piecemeal argument is similar to what we hear about Senate reform and many other things. It goes like this: “We cannot cherry-pick pieces and fix the system by fixing the cracks. The way to solve the problem is to look at how we can make the whole immigration system, and the parallel system of refugee processing, work better. We have to look at the whole system and make that system more effective and efficient. Cherry-picking does not allow for that to happen”. I have been hearing that kind of shibboleth for years, but nothing changes.

The major problem with the bill is it reveals that the Liberals cannot manage even a basic system. The system defenders will never adjust because it would open the door to all the rest of the rot in the system.

We have to start somewhere. The first step down the road of repair and reform would be to pass the bill dealing with this narrow section and requiring the system to accommodate it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-283, introduced by the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

I want to start by reading a section of Bill C-11, an Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. Unfortunately, I only have the English text with me. I want to read subsection 24(1), which states in English:

A foreign national, who in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time.

I draw this to the attention of the House because in my opinion, the private member's bill that is being presented cannot be supported in that there are already mechanisms in place to allow visitors to enter Canada under the normal criteria. Let me deal with a few of the objections that I have with the bill.

The first one is that the bill discriminates against those who do not have the means to post a bond. Let us face it; the kind of bond that would have to be posted would have to be important enough in terms of money. We are thinking $20,000 or over. Anything under that would not be a deterrent for anyone. Who could afford $20,000 or more if that person was from a developing country and wanted to come and visit a member of his or her family here? The posted bond would have to be very high, $20,000 or more, and in case of default how would this money be collected?

More important, this is the beginning of what we on this side of the House see as a two tier system for immigration. God knows we have tried hard enough on this side of the House over the last 50 or 60 years to actually reform the immigration law in this country to make the immigration law as non-racist and as non-discriminatory as possible and as non-discriminatory against people who have little or no money.

This is a bill that discriminates for people who have money or who have a sponsor who has money. This would be a two tier system.

I also see a great danger here, namely the danger that consortiums, immigrant and refugee smugglers will take advantage. How? Money is put aside and a person who wants to come here, but was previously refused the possibility of coming to Canada, is smuggled in. Once the person arrives in Canada, he is forced to reimburse his sponsor with interest. And how would this reimbursement be made? It would be through years of poorly paid labour, as we have already seen. We saw it several years ago when a large number of people came here illegally by ship from southwestern China. These people just dropped out of sight. They arrived in Canada and were never seen again, even though money had been deposited. This sum will have to be high enough. At that point, it is the sponsored person who has to reimburse it, and at what price.

Another point is that people who have money and who have been refused, and I emphasize the point that they have already been refused entry into Canada, would be able to enter regardless of any reason for which they had been refused as long as they had the money. I refer to this two tier system which I mentioned before.

There are already a number of possibilities which are available to people wishing to enter Canada as temporary visitors. I have just mentioned section 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but that is done without a bond. That can be done without the person asking for money.

In the case of a family emergency, a marriage or a baptism, or tragically there may be a sudden death in the family, I am chair of a caucus where we have made a number of simple recommendations to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration so that these requests can be quickly dealt with and people can arrive in good time for the ceremony for which they have asked to come to Canada. There are ways for these people to come without having to post a bond.

There is no reason to deny a request unless there are real serious reasons for it, and the bill does not even touch this matter. There may be some cases, and there are cases, where when a tourist wishes to come to Canada he or she is refused because there is not a strong attachment shown to his or her country of origin and the officials are afraid he or she might not go back. There are sometimes some very real reasons that person cannot enter Canada. Certainly this bill does not even touch this particular aspect.

Clause 5 of the bill adds subsection 7 to section 183 of the act and reads in part:

Despite any other provision—

(a) may not work or study while in Canada

(b) may not apply for an extension of their authorization to remain in Canada—

When tourists arrive in Canada and have a tourist visa valid for a few weeks or months, there is a real possibility for them to apply for an extension of their visa, not once but twice. In this bill, though, it would be impossible for these people to extend their tourist visa.

I would like to mention, notwithstanding anything that a member of the opposition might have said, that this bill really does run against the Geneva convention, the protocol on refugees of 1956. It is very important. Some of the people opposite might think that our charter is not important. They might think that the Geneva convention is not important, but on this side of the House we think it is fundamental.

Canada would be forced to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the UN convention for the protection of refugees and to return individuals to their countries because of the bond stipulated return. What would happen if while that person was here as a visitor to Canada a conflict erupted in his or her home country, as has been the case in Chile, Honduras or Iran? Does that mean we would send that person back to his or her home country in spite of a non-conflict over there? This is totally against our rules and regulations. This is against the kind of commitment that Canadians have made to those people who come and are on the international scene.

I would like to bring members' attention to some very recent changes to the immigration policy which show that the Liberal government has been very open to immigration and continues to be. The government is very open to the kind of difficulties that families may have when they want a family member to come here to visit. On February 18 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration changed the policy to allow family class members to remain in Canada while their applications are being considered. How could anyone say that we are against immigration? This is something that makes it even easier for family class members to be sponsored. This will go a considerable way to reduce any backlog and deal with administrative concerns.

Of course there is a large number of people who want to come, but through these recent changes the backlog will be reduced.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the fact that, in order to be eligible under Bill C-283, the applicants would have to have been refused entry into Canada. The reasons for this refusal would have to be examined first before these people could be told: “You have money, you can enter.” In no way does this bill analyze the reasons for the refusal.

Canada is a country to which people gain entry by having money. There are a certain number of neutral criteria.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to enter into the debate on private member's Bill C-283 put forward by my colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta.

I will begin by thanking my colleague for bringing the bill forward and allowing us the opportunity to speak to this subject in the House of Commons.

I think I speak for most members of Parliament when I say our MPs' offices are inundated with this problem on an almost daily basis. If we need any evidence that it is urgent issue, we need look no further than our own MP offices. Our staff are more than likely dealing with one of these cases as we speak because that is how frequently they come up in my office.

Canadian citizens or other landed immigrants are being denied visitor visas for loved ones, friends and family members who may wish to visit Canada for a perfectly legitimate reason, but have not been granted these visitor visas, and they go to their MPs' offices looking for help. If there is anything we can do to alleviate the backlog, this is the right time and place to do it.

A second issue needs to be addressed and that is the whole issue of ministerial intervention. By the government's own figures, as many as 12,000 of these visas or ministerial permits are granted per year. Those are just the lucky people who manage to reach the minister to ask for special consideration. What about the people who come to a riding like mine, an opposition MP's riding, where there is no access.

We believe the ministerial visas are being granted more to Liberal ridings than they are to opposition ridings. Let me say it plainly. We have good reason to believe this and, therefore, it is an abuse of the system in that it is an uneven application of ministerial intervention.

I believe what my colleague from Newton—North Delta has put forward is a reasonable idea to give some avenue of recourse to families who have been unable to obtain a visa by the conventional means, a visitor's permit. Money will change hands, yes, and it is a fairly complex idea, yes, but it is not an insurmountable problem.

None of the things my colleague from the ruling party just raised are insurmountable. They can be dealt with at committee. If we allow the bill to pass at second reading and go to committee, I believe that none of the problems identified so far are insurmountable or things that we could not address through amendment in committee.

Yes, there will be money changing hands. I put it to the House that there is money changing hands already and it is at the foreign missions and embassies where some of the local staff are taking money to grant special privilege and access to certain visitor visas. I do not say that lightly and I am not accusing civil servants of anything dishonest, but we know for a fact there is corruption and bribery going on in the granting of visas at some foreign Canadian missions. If money is going to be changing hands, let us do it in the light of day instead of under the table where people buy entrance or access.

The dollar figure has been raised as a problem. I agree that the last thing we want to do is set up a system where if people have enough money, they can buy visas, but if they do not have enough money, they are out of luck.

I have already talked with the architect of this bill. He is willing to entertain a friendly amendment that would perhaps introduce some sliding scale that would accommodate income. There are many ideas.

There are other jurisdictions that we could look to for guidance. I believe Australia has recently introduced a similar program. We need look no further than other commonwealth countries that are faced with the same problem for reasonable answers to those problems.

I am excited by this idea simply because, for pure self-interests, it may alleviate some of the workload in my inner city Winnipeg MP office where immigration has become the overwhelming majority of what we are called upon to do.

The backlogs for visitors visas and permits from places like Manila in the Philippines, New Delhi and Nairobi are unbelievable. The foreign missions are buried with these applications. Some 600,000-odd visitors visas are in fact issued. We are doing a pretty good job as a welcoming nation. If 12,000 ministerial permits are being granted, that gives us some idea of those who are being turned down. We believe many of those are being turned down for arbitrary reasons.

Sometimes the local hires at these foreign missions make judgment calls about people which are not really based on the strict criteria set out in the act. They are judgment calls made by some bias or prejudice they may have against that person, their family, their race or who knows what. We do not believe there is a fair application of access for the purposes of visitors visas.

It is heart-rending to be the person at the front desk of an MP's office who has to listen to some of these stories. These are often very personal events, family events, weddings and funerals. In certain cultures weddings are more important than others.

I was talking with my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas who worked in an MP's office in Burnaby—Douglas for 18 years. He said that he had to keep a box of tissue at his desk because so many of the applicants who came to him had such heart-rending stories, and it was very emotional. People were breaking down and wondering why they as new Canadians were being treated as second class citizens and being denied visitors visas for their family members on such a widespread scale.

My colleague has brought forward an issues which is very pluralistic. It speaks to the efficacy of our immigration system as it pertains to visitors visas. It speaks to the issues of basic fairness and access to services about which new Canadians tell us they are frustrated. It speaks to the volume of immigration work that has been off-loaded from CIC to the offices of MPs. Whether it was due to budget cutbacks or the sheer volume of cases, for some reason the offices of MPs have turned into mini-immigration offices. We can barely keep up. We are treading water trying to keep our head above it with the volume of cases.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta has come to us with a reasonable proposal. I urge my colleagues not to cast this aside out of hand. This proposal warrants serious consideration at committee. It is at the committee that we can fine-tune some of the irritants that have been identified.

If my colleague from the Liberal Party is worried about the dollar figure that may be assessed, then we should put his mind at ease. We can deal with that at the committee. It is rare that in the House of Commons we set the fees associated with any legislation. Usually that comes after the legislation is passed. At the regulatory stage, fees, the per diem or whatever the cost are set. We do not have to worry ourselves with those, other than to be guided by the basic principles and values that we do not want to shut anyone out based on ability to pay.

Once the NDP caucus is comfortable that our colleague from Newton—North Delta understands this and is committed to that principle, then we are comfortable in saying our caucus will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. We welcome the opportunity to help our colleague fine-tune the bill at committee. We think he has put forward a very worthwhile and legitimate idea.

The one element I should raise, as was raised as a caution with me by our immigration critic, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, is we will have to amend section 193.1, I believe, of my hon. colleague's bill which deals with the refugee status; that a person would not be able to claim refugee status while they were here on one of these permits. I do not think we can do that. I know my colleague is aware of the possible problems associated with that. He has expressed a very generous willingness to accommodate a friendly amendment in that regard.

I again want to thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for his efforts to make our job simpler and his efforts to implement an element of fairness to the immigration system as it pertains to visitors' visas.

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-283, a private member's bill. The bill touches all of us as members of Parliament and, indeed, as Canadians. All of us have heard the stories of individuals who purport to want to visit Canada but have trouble getting the necessary visa.

The bill before us today is essentially designed to help out in such cases where an application for a temporary resident visa has failed by allowing a Canadian or permanent resident to sponsor the applicant by posting a bond or guarantee.

The court challenges would likely come from many directions. Bill C-283 restricts access to the refugee determination process for this class of visitors, which could lead to violations of Canada's obligations under international law. It may also be contrary to section 7 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which grants everyone on Canadian soil the right to life, liberty and the security of the person. On one level I therefore find it difficult to understand why we, as a group of responsible legislators, are debating this item.

Today, the mechanisms we have in place that allow foreign nationals to visit, allow Canadians to be reunited with their loved ones from overseas for a brief time or allow people to welcome business associates or other visitors all work very well.

Canada's visa offices routinely issue more than 500,000 temporary resident visas each year in addition to processing many other types of applications. By comparison, just 150,000 applications on average are rejected each year, suggesting there are likely compelling and good reasons for doing so.

The central premise behind Bill C-283 is that these failed applicants could and should be allowed to obtain visitors' visas on the strength of a bond or guarantee that would also ensure they comply with all the terms of their visa and leave, as promised, when it expires. I find this logic flawed, at best. At worst, it could result in a system with excessive administrative costs and complexities, few benefits and new court challenges, judicial reviews and charter cases.

Under the terms of Bill C-283, any Canadian or permanent resident over the age of 18 would be allowed to apply to sponsor a foreign national as a visitor to Canada by posting a bond or guarantee, a bond or guarantee in an amount yet to be determined. It applies to cases where an application for a temporary resident visa has failed within the previous year and the sponsor has not posted a bond for a foreign national who subsequently failed to comply with the conditions of their visa within the previous five years. Such a system would require security checks, financial auditing, identity checks, exit control systems and much more.

Past experience, moreover, clearly demonstrates that bonds are not an effective deterrent to flight in today's world of human smuggling and highly organized crime syndicates. For example, back in 1999, four boatloads of illegal immigrants arrived on the British Columbia coast from the Chinese province of Fujian. Most of the immigrants from the first boat were released after guarantors posted bonds to ensure they would report for the hearing process. All, and I repeat all, subsequently fled and forfeited their bonds. What is also interesting is that all the bond guarantors virtually disappeared and everybody was been left holding the bag. It is believed, and investigators suspect, that most made their way to the U.S. with the help of human smugglers.

There is a very interesting new introduction to this. It perhaps introduces a likely opportunity for criminal elements to involve themselves in getting into this business. They could create businesses, bonding agencies, that would allow them to provide these guarantees and the moneys to bring these people into the country.

If they disappear into the Canadian or North American climate, what happens to the individuals who put up the collateral, whether it was their houses, or their personal holdings, or even worse, indentured themselves for labour purposes or illegal opportunities, or even sold their daughters into prostitution or white slavery, is something that concerns us. The implications of this bonding scenario has wide-reaching impacts.

We on this side of the House fully support the idea of making it easier for legitimate visitors to come to this country and bask in the warmth of our Canadian hospitality. The mechanisms currently in place help us to ensure that this is done in a fair, sustainable and balanced way.

I and, I would assume, a number of members on my side of the House are therefore opposed to Bill C-283 or any special provision that runs counter to our legal obligations as well as these principles.

Contravention of the charter, likely court challenges, the possibilities of indentured sweatshop labour and even criminal involvement, and an immigration policy that may favour the rich or even criminal influences, is not something we want. Is this the type of legislation that our friends on the other side would like to have passed today? It has not been well thought out. In fact, it should not even go to second reading and to committee for consideration.