Debates of April 3rd, 2008

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

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

Mr. Speaker, I would address that question by suggesting that the Liberals do no service to this country when, instead of standing up, taking a side and choosing a position, they either walk out, sit on their bums, or engage in historical precedent-setting abstentions. We saw in this House, for the first time ever in this country, I think, a whipped abstention. I think I have said enough on that point. I think the record holds.

What I really want to do is respond to my Conservative colleague's comments about people living with disabilities. This is not a laughing matter. This is a serious matter that has to be named for what it is. He is part of a government that has chosen to turn back immigrants who have been approved under the economic class, under the Manitoba provincial nominee program, because one of the members in their families is living with a disability.

These are kids. These are kids who have a lot to contribute to our society today. If he wants, I will give him all kinds of documents so he can see that these are kids who play basketball, ride motorbikes, vote, talk, and give to their society. When a society like ours in Canada, in a wealthy country like ours, says they are not welcome because they have a disability, what message does that send? Is it not like saying they are second class? Is it not like saying they are better off dead?

I will quote from an article by an organization that has written about this issue. The Canadian Association for Community Living says the following:

It is important to emphasize not only that prospective immigrants are devalued and their dignity offended by the pejorative stereotyping that underpins the excessive demands provisions, but also that Canadians with disabilities are given the message that persons like them are not welcome in Canada. Canadians with disabilities see themselves identified by 'impairments' and branded as a burden on the public purse, with no value attached to their role in society. The disparate and adverse impact experienced by prospective immigrants with disabilities also undermines the value placed on Canada as a diverse nation. By implication, the message given to all Canadians is that persons with disabilities are to be screened out as inferior, second-class members of society.

That is what is so repugnant. That is what has to be changed.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I think of my own family. Quite a while ago, we were immigrants in this country. Some of my family came in 1638 as economic refugees of Normandy and areas of France where they could not find work. They came with zero education. They did not come to accept research chairs at some university or come here with great skills. They came to take the stumps out of swamps and build dikes.

The other side of my family arrived in 1820. One member was an escaped prisoner of war at the time of the Napoleonic wars. He escaped from a prisoner of war prison in Halifax while building the highway with a pickaxe. He hid out for some 20 years and later became a Canadian citizen and a member of the provincial legislature.

I think what this country needs is people, people who want to come to Canada, and more of them. To limit ourselves to only a certain set, to only the people who meet the desires, needs and aspirations of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will not build the country as we have built it, with the Irish, the Chinese, the Ukrainians and all the other races that make up this great country.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, very briefly.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I obviously agree on this point, so I have a question for my dear Liberal colleague. If he feels as passionately as we do about this issue, will he stand with us, support the amendment and defeat the budget? Because that, in the end, is the only message that will stop the government on its path of negligent and destructive behaviour, which in fact selects immigrants on the basis of their race.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

We are going to have to end it there.

Before I proceed to resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, National Defence; and the hon. member for Malpeque, Archer Daniels Midland.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and would like to ask my friend a question. I know he is very passionate about issues such as this.

Indeed, as the member knows, I spent some time in a logging company some years ago in Alberta. I recently had a lumber company in northern Alberta close down as a result of obviously economic conditions that affect his province as well. That happened in High Prairie, Alberta, in my constituency, where I am going to be tomorrow and hopefully meet with some of those people who are affected by this.

As the member knows as well, Canada has one of the lowest gasoline prices in the world. It is probably because of the federal taxes that we do not apply that many countries do.

I wanted to let the member know as well that on my flight back here last weekend I had the opportunity to sit behind two full rows of people from Quebec. I flew here from Fort McMurray because that is my constituency. I had an opportunity to practice my French. There are many Quebeckers in my constituency and I am very proud of that. I represent them here today and I represent them in all the things I do.

Indeed, I wonder if the member is aware as well that of the 500,000 jobs in the oil sands that have been created in this country, 16% or 80,000 of those jobs are actually in Ontario and half of them are spread out across this country and contribute tremendously to our economy.

I am also curious as to my friend's comments in relation to the budget as far as it deals with immigration. The Winnipeg Free Press has said:

In the years 1993-2006, the immigration backlog grew from 50,000 to 800,000. Canadians, new and old, have been offered a clear choice: Conservative policy that will benefit Canada, or politics that will benefit Liberals.

I wonder if the member is prepared to vote against such clear and decisive policy that is going to help Canadians, especially new Canadians and help our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, Athabasca is in my colleague's riding. That is where much of the oil sands development is located. I understand that he knows and can tell me where the workers in his region are from. He has told me in the past that 25,000 jobs still need to be filled in his riding. There is a shortage of the labour needed to develop the oil sands. The problem is that he is repeating what the Minister of Labour said to the citizens of his riding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, that is, that there are jobs to be had in western Canada. That is what he is doing and that is the Conservative way. He explains that jobs are being created elsewhere and, basically, he would not dare publicly say that perhaps people from Quebec should go there to work.

The goal is not to displace populations. That was already tried in previous centuries. We know that the forests will continue to grow and forest-based products will continue to sell around the world. What is important is to focus our efforts and to ensure that our businesses are modernized and able to compete on the market. This has been done in other countries, such as Ireland. This is achieved by helping businesses. The Conservative philosophy, however, as my colleague is trying to convey, is to tell people from other places to go work elsewhere in Canada. In his riding, some people come from Ontario and others from Quebec.

That is fine. All the better. But my goal in life is to ensure that the people who are in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean remain in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and earn a living there; that those who live in the Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel riding earn a living in that region; that those who live in the Pontiac riding earn a living there; that those from the Gaspé earn a living there. That is my goal in life and what I am working for here.

Every day, like all my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I am proud to rise here to defend the interests of Quebeckers and to try to ensure that wealth is distributed in a way that allows everyone to live comfortably in all areas of Quebec. My goal is not to rise here to tell people they should go work in my colleague's riding, in western Canada. That is not the objective.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and for the light he has shed on the measures that will be adopted and that are currently being debated.

Could he explain once again to this House how important it is for older workers to have access to a real assistance program after they have tried retraining measures? Could he talk about how important it is for them to receive government support so that they can retire with dignity and be compensated for their contribution to the economic development of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to say that the program for older worker adjustment, also known as POWA, was created by the federal government. Everyone will remember that it was abolished by the Liberals in 1996, but it was a good idea. When it was created, the Bloc Québécois did not exist, but it was still a good idea.

The problem is that the federal government now seems to have the money to reinstate this program and to enable all these workers who were not able to find work with another company to remain at home in their own communities, and to have a decent retirement. That was the purpose of the program for older worker adjustment created by the federal government. It provided a decent income for workers 55 and up until they reached 65 and could receive a pension, if they were unable to find a new job or to be placed with another company.

The goal was to enable these workers to stay at home, in their region, in their community. Today, the Conservatives are saying that Canada is big and people can move if they want to continue to work. That is the message they are sending. The Bloc will continue to speak out against this, every day, as long as we are able to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The budget includes, in my opinion, a slightly insidious measure, which would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration discretionary power. That is dangerous. That could lead to abuse because she could choose which immigrants are admitted into Canada and when.

Could my colleague explain what exactly the Bloc Québécois is worried about in this measure that we are unfortunately not able to debate more fully?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for that very pertinent question.

This has always been a dream of the Conservatives, and they are starting to try to make that dream a reality. I listened to what the Prime Minister said about immigrants when he was leader of the opposition and a member representing the Canadian Alliance. He said that the process would have to be controlled and that immigrants would have to be selected. Through the minister's office, he is trying to control who comes here, what they do and where they come from. He is trying to exert political control.

This control, the Conservatives' shameful way of wanting to control everything, is not surprising, coming from the Prime Minister. Even the members and the ministers are subject to this control. It should therefore come as no surprise that they want to control immigrants. The problem is that they cannot control everyone. In any case, they will not control the Bloc Québécois members, who will oppose these measures.

One thing that is surprising is that the Liberals seem very upset about this measure. I cannot wait to see how they vote. In theory, they should vote against this budget measure, but I have the feeling that they will once again find some way to remain seated, hide, lie down or do whatever. We shall see.

Once again, this is a roundabout way to get a measure adopted. This has been going on for several weeks. All the experts are saying that this clause should have been removed from this bill and placed in a separate bill that could have been analysed separately in committee, with witnesses and everything. The Conservatives chose to slip this measure into the budget. They knew the Liberals would let it through.

Once again, this is not good for the future or for Canada's image. It is certainly not the image Quebeckers would project if they had their own country, Quebec.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2007 the Prime Minister said:

You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the member. I am not sure how he indicates that this is not receiving appropriate attention and is coming in the back door somehow. Obviously it is up for debate in this House, as it should be, in public and in the open where we can do that. It will go to committee. Not only will it be in committee to have further witnesses called and material presented, but it will come back to the House again for debate and, eventually, a vote.

The big question is how the member will be voting when the bill comes before the House. Will he be opposing it if he believes that it is inappropriate, given the fact that it was under 13 years of his government, six ministers and four terms in office that nothing was done to reform the system in all those years? Numbers grew from 50,000 to 800,000. Surely being 800,000 plus one coming into the system will not make it faster or easier.

What does he have against a system that will be more efficient and faster and which will encourage family reunification on a quick basis and bring skilled people to the trades that so desperately need them to build our country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association is quoted in today's Toronto Star as saying this about the amendments proposed in this bill:

We fail to see why these are necessary to achieve the government's aims....The system should be transparent. It shouldn't operate by ministerial fiat. And that's what we're talking about here, a kind of decree system.

Worryingly, the minister is out of ideas and is trying to centralize power in her own office, just like the Prime Minister has done with his cabinet. This is the wrong approach. It is in complete opposition to Canadian values.

One thing is clear. The Conservative approach of shutting the door on immigrants by simply reducing the number of applications the federal government accepts is the wrong way to address the immigration backlog. The minister wants to have the sole power to say who gets--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is very anxious to ask his question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually fascinated by the member's response, because he used the words “the need for fair and transparent”, yet that is in the NDP motion. We find that this backdoor attempt, as he talked about, to bring in this immigration bill under a budget is wrong. It is not how things are done. The NDP has put forward before the House a very clear issue to be debated. I was actually quite surprised earlier on when he accused the government of not having respect for democracy and immigrants and said shame on the government.

I do not know how he squares it with his constituents, but when I go back to my constituents, I tell them the reason that I get $150,000 a year, or whatever it is that we are being paid now, is so that I will stand up and vote on difficult issues. At certain times there will be issues that might not always be popular, but I will always be able to go back to my constituents. If my constituents believe strongly in an issue and want me to vote for or against something, I am here to represent them. I am not here to just sit in a seat and read whatever prepared text is handed to me by the Liberal backroom.

If the member has such problems with this, and if he says this is a shameful action, it does not respect democracy and it is not respectful of immigrants, then how can he sit there collecting a paycheque and support it? Does he not understand that being respectful of democracy is being respectful enough to stand up and vote against something if the member is opposed to it?

Will he support this motion--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton has one minute to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you check my previous voting record from 1993 you will see I work for my constituents. When they send me emails--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

How will you vote?

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

I do that all the time. I do that all the time when I am sent the emails and when the issues come up.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

How will you vote?

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

Have you checked my voting record? I am not like you. I do that all the time.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member has just expressed his experience in the House and has sufficient experience to know that when referring to other members, it is in the third person, not the second person. The only person who is addressed in the second person is the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here because I take great exception to this particular piece of the finance bill. First and foremost, I call this governing by stealth. This is a substantive change to the way that the immigration act is going to work. It is a substantive change in the process. This piece of legislation should have gone to the right committee. The right committee, with the expertise and the experience, is the immigration committee.

The bill could have come in the way bills like this one should always come in. This should come in as an immigration amendment, as part of the immigration changes being made by the government. It should be spoken to in the House and then go to the appropriate committee, which would be the immigration committee. The immigration committee, with all of its expertise, should talk to people around the country and find out how they want to deal with it.

Putting the bill in the House right at this moment and sticking immigration reforms into a confidence bill on finance is really the kind of thing that we have come to expect from the Conservative government. The government is all about stealth in changing things and about getting its way.

True, there is a little bit of money involved in this bill, so I want to make a second point. The minister is putting $30 million into the bill and expects us to believe that this is going to change the backlog of applications that the minister says she needs to deal with.

The Liberal minister of immigration in the previous government put in $700 million, a process and a plan just before the election. The minister had gone through with contracting out the process for the purpose of decreasing the backlog.

I have no idea what happened to that plan. It had already started. Much of the contracting had been done. It was accepted by cabinet and by the department. What happened to it? What happened to the $700 million? Now we hear that the $700 million has been replaced by $30 million and the government has no plan.

Giving unprecedented power to a minister to make decisions that override the process, that break all the rules and that have no accountability, is an absolutely atrocious way to conduct government. It is undemocratic. It ignores Parliament and the parliamentary committees that have the expertise. It ignores information on the issue that might make it work if, as the minister says, her objective is to bring down the backlog. This bill does none of that.

This legislation removes the current process entirely. We do not know how the minister is going to choose people, and she does not have to tell us. She can make choices about who comes into the country and who does not come into the country, and she can do this with a sweep of a pen. She has no requirement to tell anybody her reasonings. This is kind of sad, which is the best word I can find.

By the year 2011 Canada will be dependent on immigration for 100% of its net labour force. Why? Because we are not having babies. Canada's birth rate is negative. Our aging population is well over 65 and no longer in the workforce. Canada can never be a productive and competitive nation if we do not have people available to work.

It is obvious that immigration is of seminal importance to the economy of this country and of seminal importance to the future of this country, its whole social infrastructure and the way that we have always set values in a country like ours. Canada was built on immigrants, other than the aboriginal people who were the first peoples of this nation and who opened the doors to immigration, against their better judgment.

We came from every country of the world, originally from Europe. Many people came here seeking a better life, seeking to fulfill their dreams of freedom. They wanted their children to grow up in a country of opportunity. They came from everywhere in the world and built a nation. We continue to build this nation on the backs of immigrants, which is an appropriate thing to do, because we are a new world nation, so to speak.

Many of the first wave of immigrants who came here from Europe should feel concerned about the bill. They will remember that they were denied entrance into this country on fairly basic reasons, like the region they came from, where they originally belonged and that their values were different from certain European values.

The Chinese will tell us that for 25 years they were a bachelor community because they were not allowed to bring over their wives and children. We heard a member of the House talk about the Komagata Maru. We heard another member speak to the St. Louis, which was turned away because the Jews from Europe tried to come here, seeking to flee Nazi Germany, and they were turned back on a whim, on an ideology.

We no longer live in that kind of country. We live in a country where there must be clear and transparent rules so people who wish to come to this country know those rules and know when they can and cannot come here. They need to know whether they fulfill the requirements, based on a hope that they can pass the security requirements, to come here. They did come and they have continued to come to build a nation.

It is true that many of our new immigrants come from Asia and Africa and they, too, are bringing with them expertise. Fifty-one per cent of our new immigrants have post-secondary education and a diploma. However, only 22% of Canadians who were born and live in Canada can boast about having a post-secondary degree or a diploma of any kind.

We are bringing in people who can contribute to this country because we need a workforce for our productivity and competitiveness. We need to remember that this country was built by immigrants who were seeking to contribute to it and to have a better life. They brought with them their families because families create stability. A nation is built when people put down roots and a nation continues to be built, not by temporary workers, but by people who come here with their families and who invest their hopes, their dreams, their hard work and their loyalty in Canada. Our great nation has become what it is today because of those people.

I do not understand how we can give the minister the unprecedented power to decide who will or will not come here without having to give any reasons. The minister is asking us to trust her because she will do the right thing.

We have seen time and time again that we cannot trust the government. I would say that most cynical Canadians would say that they cannot trust any particular government, but that is not the point. The point is that this is why we have bureaucracies, processes and clear ways of doing things.

At the same time, this would close the door to our newest immigrants, those who have come from Asia and Africa, on a whim, and it would close the door to their bringing in their families. Only letting people in for economic reasons seems, from the beginning of time, to be the Conservative ideology. Mr. Diefenbaker did that a long time ago and Mr. Mulroney wanted to change immigration so that it would only be economic migrants coming here.

To build a nation we need to bring a mix of people into this country to put down roots and to work, but they need to bring with them their families. If we decide to only bring people here because of the work they can do and ignore their families, we will be back to what the Chinese remembered.

We have heard the government apologize and give redress but when we apologize and give redress we are supposed to have learned a lesson and will not do it again. If we put in place all of the protocols that would make that happen again, then we have learned nothing and the redress and the apology become hollow.

I am suggesting that we need to debate the issue of changes in immigration in the appropriate bill and in the appropriate place, which is the immigration committee, and not to run it through under the radar screen as the government is trying to do. I call that governing by stealth.