Debates of April 4th, 2008

Budget Implementation Act, 2008

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have to put myself in the shoes of an immigrant because I am an immigrant myself to this country. I appreciate all the experiences I have had to deal with the changes that occur to the life of an immigrant, so the member can rest assured I am very sensitive to those concerns.

The reality is, even if we were to apply those changes, the changes the hon. member is advocating, which I do not support, they do not apply to the backlog. That is something the hon. member, I am sure, understands quite well. That is one of the reasons why this piece of legislation is deeply flawed.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know, and government members know, that there is nothing in the current legislation that limits the power of the minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer the act. She has that kind of power. There is all the power that the minister could possibly have, except that it is transparent.

Maybe we need to have a little definition about what we mean by immigrant. I was one. I came here in 1957 as a child. I was very much involved with immigrant communities in the city of Toronto as a volunteer. Let us see, these are people who apply to come to Canada as permanent residents. Once they are approved, they arrive here. They have a residency card. After three years they are eligible to apply for citizenship. Then they become full participants in our social, economic, cultural and political life, and the infrastructure of Canada. They become an inherent part of our nation and participate in the future building of our country.

That is pretty clear, I would think. Nonetheless, the government insists on saying, or as the minister just corrected a few minutes ago, that we have allowed in the country 429,649 new Canadians. In my view, in all of my 30 years of volunteerism in the community, new immigrants means new Canadians. They are still immigrants who come to settle here.

However, that figure is not really true because in 2007, only 236,689 were actually given landed status visas, and the previous year it was 262,000, so actually 36,000 less came.

The number is being inflated we know now by foreign students, foreign workers and all kinds of visitors visas, et cetera. Some of these people are coming here to assist with work and some are coming here to study. They are not immigrants, people who are fighting to come to this country. The government is purposely misleading Canadians, purposely fudging the numbers, intentionally to confuse and complicate the whole thing.

I am quite insulted by all of that. Having worked with immigrant communities for decades in the city of Toronto, I find this totally offensive and so will many people.

Let me tell the hon. members opposite how reform of immigration is actually done. When the former minister of immigration, the hon. Lucienne Robillard, decided that we needed to upgrade the Canada Immigration Act and the Refugee Act, she actually commissioned a study. Then the minister, the bureaucrats and other members of the House travelled across this country of ours and consulted with Canadians to determine what kind of Canada they wanted to see, the kinds of rules they thought were needed, and the kinds of changes that should be made to the Immigration Act.

Open and transparent legislation was placed in the House of Commons. It was debated at committee. The rules and regulations were gazetted for a period of, I believe, 90 days, so that again we could have feedback from Canadians as to whether those rules would have unintended consequences or cause problems. It was a transparent and open process administered by a minister who was open and worked with Canadians. That is how we change the situation.

The present government, unfortunately, is doing something altogether different. First, it has not tabled a proper bill in the House. It has tacked it after the fact to the budget bill, which is totally insulting to not only the House but Canadians of different backgrounds and all citizens in this country.

The government is trying to excuse itself by saying that we have 900,000 people backlogged in the system and that is why we have to do this.

First of all, the powers for the minister to decide at the last minute to change categories, changing which category comes in, more or less, whether it is the family class or not, the minister may decide to reduce these numbers and nobody would know.

To do all of these changes, none of those things will affect the backlog. She can cherry-pick a few people or change the categories, but it will not change the backlog. What would change that is if the government had followed through on $700 million of monies that had been allocated to address the problem of human resources at the immigration department.

I have said for many years that one of the problems of the immigration department was that it did not have enough human resources to deal with the applicants and deal with the work that it had.

But no, the government chose to cut that back and now it is trying to say it is dealing with a backlog to which it has been a partner in increasing for the last while and that is supposed to resolve the problem. The minister in private quarters, somewhere invisible, unobserved and unchecked by anyone, is going to change things and decide when, where and who gets to come to this country.

There is right now, for instance, a point system. If the minister really and truly decides that we need to have more skilled labour, that is fewer university graduates and more skilled labour because that is where the shortage is, she is free to change the point system.

She is free to publish that in the Canada Gazette openly and for people to comment. The minister has all the powers under the current legislation to act and adjust if she needs to. She does not have to totally eliminate that part and have the government give her the kinds of powers where she can do as she pleases behind closed doors.

I remember a time, which was before my time, but I do remember history, when southern Europeans were not allowed into this country. There were very few Italian Canadians or southern Europeans who came and only worked on the railway in the northern part of the country. They were not necessarily allowed to bring their spouses.

We know what happened to the members of the Chinese community with the Chinese head tax. We also know what happened to Italian Canadians during the last world war when they were put in military camps and declared enemies of the state. We know what happens when there is too much power and it is not transparent.

We live in a modern democracy. We are not a backward third world country and Canada's history is not unblemished. Obviously, in the past, with the kind of policy that existed, my family and I would never have been able to come here because we are from the Mediterranean part of Europe.

Therefore, these changes scare me. I find them offensive. I think they are extremely destructive and anti-democratic. I believe that the government needs to review its reasons for doing what it wants to do. The numbers are clear. I think it is time that the government stop purposely misinforming the public and the House with its numbers.

When the minister proudly stands up and says 429,000 new Canadians, they are not new Canadians. They are not here to stay. A student is here to study and will most likely leave unless in a year he or she applies. Some individuals with work permits come here on a temporary basis unless they apply.

Immigrants are people who have decided to make their life in this country on a permanent basis, to commit for the rest of their life to this country. That is a new Canadian and they are not visitors either.

This is highly unacceptable, highly insulting, and I would hope that the government members will review their conscience and get out of the gutter that they have been in with respect to their former Reform situation because that is where they were.

When I listened to some of the members from the Reform Party when I was in the House and the racial slurs that they used to throw across the floor at that time, it made me worry about the kinds of policies that they would bring forward.

I think today I have seen it. I have seen what they can do and this is exactly what it is: secrecy, behind closed doors policy, no transparency, no democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member runs out of facts, she tries to fearmonger and throw out various innuendoes, but the fact of the matter is that the process is open. The member is allowed to speak in this House. All members are allowed to speak to the bill. It will go to committee. There will be an opportunity for witnesses to be called, for this issue to be directed, and it will be brought back to this House for further debate. It is an open process. The instructions will be published in the Canada Gazette. It will be in the annual report to Parliament. It will be charter compliant.

The member remarked that we should take some lessons from the past government in terms of how to reform the system, but the past government actually caused the backlog to balloon from 50,000 to 800,000 so it is not something I would say we should take into account.

The hon. member's party has voted against $1.3 billion in new settlement funding for newcomers to Canada. The Liberals voted against a foreign credential referral office to help newcomers. They voted against our cutting the $975 immigrant head tax.

I am asking the member, will she support this particular reform that will actually allow more people to come in faster and become landed Canadian immigrants, or will she oppose it? Will she follow her leader's orders or not?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member's contention that this is a transparent process is a joke. If the Conservatives wanted to have a debate on immigration in this country, which I think we ought to have, then this should never have been attached to the budget after the fact. This suggests to me that they have no intention of making it a real discussion.

Further, if they wanted it to be a transparent situation, they would not have put forward a bill that gives extensive powers to the minister. It is obvious those kinds of powers are not transparent. Quite frankly, the hon. member when he is talking about backlogs yet again, the powers the minister is being given have nothing whatever to do with eliminating the backlogs. They could do that in many other ways. I ask the hon. member to do the right thing.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns. I believe this bill is riddled with all sorts of poison pills. They go against the spirit of progressive legislation and progressive direction. They are contrary to what I think are solid Canadian values, values which most Canadians support, to have a fair and transparent system.

It is indicative of the government to play a bit of a shell game when it comes to policy, as the member mentioned, by tacking this on to the budget bill and the Minister of Finance becoming proprietary of it because of that.

I was heartened to hear one of her colleagues in his speech today say that he would be voting against the bill. We on this side of the House have been clear that we will stand together and vote against the bill, unless the whole thing can be changed, and I do not see that happening. However, we will fight the good fight on it.

At the end of the day I accept the member's analysis. I think the bill is the wrong way to go. I am wondering if she will join her colleague and vote against this bill.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make that decision when I see whether or not the government decides to separate the bill. This issue needs to be debated across this country. It needs to be separated from the budget bill because it has nothing to do with budget per se at this point.

If the government chooses at some point to show some respect for immigrants in our country and for all Canadians and for the development of public policy, this belongs at the immigration committee where the expertise lies for a proper debate on this issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

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

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

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

The legacy of this minority government is one of neglect: the Conservative government has failed to address some of the most pressing issues of our time. Climate change is the most pressing planetary issue in terms of its potentially catastrophic environmental, human and economic consequences, yet the [Conservative] government's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been widely condemned as ineffectual.

It went on to say:

Canadians are working harder but are struggling to afford the basics: housing, child care, post-secondary education. There has been nothing in the previous two Conservative budgets to address these issues. Canadians have not been able to count on the government to get them through shaky financial times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article 14 states:

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

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

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague across the floor with respect to housing and affordability.

One of the issues in my riding, which is equally very needy, is an issue that I come up against day after day. It is the issue of foreign credentials and having those foreign credentials brought into the mainstream of acceptance within Canada's workforce.

It appears that the government is attempting to expand the list of people who could come to this country and deal with the waiting list. The government said that it would establish an agency that would deal with the issue of foreign credentials. However, we have 300 referral offices across the country and we still have no resolution to this issue, much to the frustration of thousands of immigrants who are here and cannot practice their trade or profession.

I wonder if the member would address that as I think it is a concern and it is not being dealt with in the bill that has been presented.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the years, New Democrats have taken a strong role in talking about foreign credentials and recognizing the skills that new Canadians bring to this country.

Many times, we actively recruit people from overseas who have particular skills but then we do not allow them to work in their particular profession, which is a huge loss of human potential. Far too many people, whether they are engineers, physicians, nurses, physiotherapists or computer technicians, are not working in their professions because we have failed to recognize their credentials.

We need to work with our provincial partners to ensure that people who come to this country can work and contribute to the Canadian economy.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member concerning affordable housing and homelessness.

Is she aware of the $270 million investment in our homelessness partnering strategy to help those in vulnerable communities that have more poverty?

I also want to know if she is familiar with the housing trust, which is a $1.4 billion investment?

This government, working with the provinces, has invested over $1 billion in affordable housing. The member's province will benefit from all these programs.

To suggest that we are not meeting our commitments on affordable housing is misrepresenting our government. We have done exactly that. Annual funding for affordable housing and homelessness has never been higher than it is now.

The member might check her facts to get a better understanding of how much this government has done for those who are homeless and those who are looking for affordable housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, the NDP worked hard through Bill C-48 to ensure that there was money for housing.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities said:

The main impediment to expanding these efforts is the scheduled expiry of all federal social housing funding programs in March 2009. This will mean the termination of $2 billion in funding available in the 2007–09 period. At the same time, ongoing federal subsidies for existing social housing are already expiring, and in the next 10 years, annual spending on assisted housing will decline by an additional $500 million.

The Conservatives are failing to implement a national action plan on housing and homelessness. They are playing a shell game with the money. They are using money that was often already allocated. They are not demonstrating leadership on this very serious issue.

We have been sanctioned by the United Nations special rapporteur on the housing crisis in Canada. This government's failure to act means more people will end up on the street or in inadequate housing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to the budget but I did follow the debate and some of the issues fairly closely and I would like to make a couple of comments with regard to the housing issue that was just debated among members here.

Most of the homeless data and research is done in urban centres. A research study, which was actually funded in large part by the Government of Canada, was done on homelessness in Toronto. As the member has raised this issue, I tried to reflect on some of the numbers, which I think would exemplify why it is important for us to get the facts and to know them, rather than present issues as very simplistic and having simple solutions.

In the Toronto situation, and I think it was from the Anne Golden report, 35% of the homeless were people who suffered from mental illness. If we provide some sort of accommodation, whether it be a rent supplement or rent geared to income, they will not take it. A lot of this happened because we are not providing the mental health facilities for a very serious problem in Canada, and that is mental illness.

Twenty-eight per cent of the homeless in Toronto were youth on the street who had been alienated from their families. It was found that 75% of those youth who were on the streets of Toronto had suffered from physical or mental abuse in their homes. This does not have a lot to do with economics. It has to do with a serious social problem, and that is family issues and dealing with our youth. In fact, when 75% of these youth on the streets are suffering from physical or mental abuse, the problem is much more than providing a little box somewhere for them to live. We need to deal with the problem at the beginning.

Of the homeless in Toronto, and I am sure in Winnipeg, Manitoba it would be about the same, 12% were aboriginals off reserve. It is kind of interesting. A very significant number of aboriginals who are living off reserve are a significant number of the homeless in our country. This is a shame. I must admit that when the Kelowna accord was brought forward I thought there was hope for aboriginals, with the leadership as a starting role, to bring the dignity and assistance that was needed in our aboriginal communities, but the Conservative government decided that Kelowna just was not of interest to it.

Ten per cent of the homeless represent abused women on the street. We can only imagine that there are a lot of circumstances where women, who have been the provider for their families in terms of caring for the family homes and the children, do not have the economic independence maybe that their spouse has after a divorce or after a break-up because of abuse.

Therefore, what happens to women? Some in the shelters do their job but there is the mental duress of having a breakdown and of being an abused person. I know, having spent five years on the board of my own shelter for battered women, that there is a great deal of mental stress and duress with regard to that. We have people on the streets and just saying that we will give them a spot to live in a subsidized social housing unit or something like that will not solve the problem.

Finally, about 10% of the homeless were actually on the street for economic reasons.

Putting it all in context, it would appear that the solution to homelessness in Canada, particularly as it relates to urban centres, is not to provide subsidized homes to people. We need to deal with the root causes. When we approach problems, we need to demonstrate first that we understand the problem and then, second, apply solutions that deal effectively with the root causes of the problem.

If we take that as an approach to legislation and to budget making, if we look carefully at this budget, we will find that it has not identified a problem. It has not defined a problem. It has not identified a priority or an objective.

This budget has presented Canadians with a litany of gimmicks. It is trying to look attractive to a bunch of different disparate groups. It is called trying to appeal to voters that one wants to get for the next election.

Governing is not just about spending taxpayers' money to get votes, or buying their vote with their money which is what it really is all about. Why I can say that is because when the Liberals took over government in 1993 it inherited from the Conservative government a $42 billion deficit in that fiscal year. That was $42 billion more spent than what was brought in.

We could not just cut some expenses somewhere and get rid of $42 billion of overspending. It took some time. It took three years. It was not until 1997 that the Government of Canada finally boasted of a balanced budget. It was a lot of pain for everyone in the country. Cuts were made to things as fundamental as health care, social services and the operations of the Government of Canada itself took the biggest hit of all.

The good news was that after about three years the fiscal position of Canada was at least back in a balanced position. Then, with strategic initiatives, with investment in infrastructure, which we started in 1993 with the investment in science and technology and research and development, we invested in our future, and very slowly surpluses started to be developed.

Members will know that we paid down over $100 billion worth of debt. When we started, 42¢ or 43¢ of every $1 that was being paid by Canadian taxpayers to the Government of Canada to manage had to go to pay down the interest on the debt that we were carrying.

It was nothing like that any more. All of a sudden, as the fiscal health became stronger, more surpluses were being developed. It was not a matter of just paying down the debt. As we earned it, as Canadians earned it, as our economy started to grow, as we started to get more efficiency in the operations of the government, more and more dollars were there to put back into health care and into other issues that were the priorities of Canadians.

We had 10 years of balanced budgets. When the government across the way took over in January after the election, the House of Commons started the first session of the current Parliament in April. The year end of the Government of Canada is March 31. Therefore, before the government even did a thing, we reported for that last year a $10 billion surplus, which the Conservatives like to take credit for.

I do not care who takes credit for it but the fact is the Conservative government inherited a very healthy fiscal position. We had cut taxes and we invested in the economy. We invested in people and in our health care and in the services they needed. We believe that governments have a role to play in the lives of people, particularly those who are not in a position to help themselves.

Therefore, it was really important to get the fiscal house in order. It led to the appropriate investments. We took the opportunity to get our fiscal house in order and Canadians have been the beneficiaries.

Where are we now? The government is forecasting no more big $10 billion surpluses that can be invested or used to pay down debt. What is it talking about now? One SARS or one unforeseen circumstance will put this country back in deficit.

The bottom line is that the budget that the Conservatives have presented to Canadians has no vision and has no purpose other than trying to buy votes with Canadians' own money. It is bringing us back down to the old days of being back in deficit financing. That is what Canadians have to look forward to with another year of Conservative governing.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, we should review and analyze. After 10 years of doing work in homeless situations and visiting shelters from coast to coast and throughout the United States, the most commonly accepted numbers of homeless people who are in the shelters and the conditions and reasons for being there are: approximately 25% because of addictions; 25% because of severe mental illness; and fully 50% because there is not affordable housing for them.

The member refers to the Anne Golden report for the city of Toronto. That report was done over 10 years ago. It identified the simple fact that singles housing had been torn down, removed and never replaced. It was identified, and the fact remains today. Singles housing is the largest need of those who are in the shelters. With affordable singles housing, the number of homeless could be drastically reduced.

The point being that over 13 years, the Liberal legacy is that the number of homeless people in the shelters is at a record all time high. Would the member explain why, after 13 years of Liberal management on the homeless file, the number of homeless is higher than it ever has been in the history of Canada?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, the homeless are not in shelters. As the member knows, they have shelters for abused women. If he wants to provide statistics on abused women, that is fine, but I was not talking about that.

Therefore, I will not talk any further about the issue with the member other than to say there are root causes of homelessness, which involve all levels of government. The federal government also has a role to play.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of what my talked about was the priorities of the government in the budget. Our party happens to believe its priorities are wrong and are taking the country in the wrong direction. Working families are not going to be helped by this, particularly those who are being squeezed from what we have called the prosperity gap.

However, I want to get to where the Liberal Party is at. We had a debate in the House about corporate tax cuts. It seems to me that the Liberal line for today is that corporate tax cuts are good things because eventually the benefits will trickle down and there will be more jobs created and there will be a green and pleasant land.

What I am trying to understand from the Liberal Party, and maybe he can help me, is we changed the budget in 2005 to provide $4.5 billion in investments for infrastructure in cities, for housing and for key investments. We had to get the Liberals to change the budget because they wanted to give out corporate tax cuts. They seem to now believe that is the wrong direction, that corporate tax cuts are the way to go, and they support the government on that. We had the debate in the House on this.

I am confused because by the same token they take offence to the Conservative government pointing the finger at the Government of Ontario for not cutting corporate taxes further. I am trying to understand this. Do they believe in sweeping corporate tax cuts or key investments in our infrastructure?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no one who would have a responsibility to govern a country would say, “Do you want this or that?” The recipe for governing is to balance the needs of the nation based on the priorities and be dynamic enough to move forward.

Last October the leader of the official opposition gave a speech in which he said that tax cuts were important. Let us at the content of the speech. He was talking about providing R and D incentives to companies so they could invest in green technologies, just like Dupont, the company he and I visited that very week before. We found that by changing to greener technologies in the processes of its business, it was saving $300 million a year on fuel alone.

Again, as I said in my speech, we do not look at things in a linear basis. Everything we talk about has much more information. Let us inform ourselves and make right decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This responsibility should be shouldered by producers.

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but she has already mentioned that I gave her notice.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to mention that in 2006 the oil and gas sector paid over $5.5 billion in corporate taxes. Therefore, she should not tell the House that it has taken more from the government than it has given. It has given a great deal through corporate taxation.

The member brought up seniors issues. She also brought up the tax dollars that we are to guard. Retroactivity is something we have looked at carefully and it cannot be done for seniors. However, we have done more for seniors than any other government in history. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement by 7% and we have increased the earned exemption. These are things that were asked for by the House and delivered.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a quick reminder: the last tax cuts that the government gave will benefit oil companies and will prevent the government from redistributing several million dollars to various programs like social housing and homelessness. For instance, there is no amount actually set aside in the bill to address homelessness.

I am not sure if you are aware, but the HPI program will be ending soon, in March 2009. There is no money set aside, no vision in this budget that would indicate that the Conservative government is concerned about homelessness and that it has a vision for the future and a plan to help the homeless.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-50, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will have 3 minutes left for questions and comments.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Criminal Code

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today we again bring before the House further discussion and debate on a bill dealing with animal cruelty. It has been a long journey. In fact, between the House of Commons and the Senate, this legislation has been debated over and over through different bills for more than a decade.

We are really dealing this afternoon with Bill S-203, a bill that was presented in the Senate by Senator Bryden and which I introduced in the House some weeks ago. Basically we are dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code in sections 444 to 447.

The debate of this has been long. It has affected many people. In fact, many members of Parliament are receiving emails from different groups who stand on different sides of Bill S-203.

Today, I would like to present my argument in terms of the bill that has come from the Senate, a bill that reflects the need for changes in the Criminal Code which would place greater emphasis upon animal cruelty and to those who might be accused or involved with cruelty to animals.

Many people are affected. In fact, when we looked at other bills in terms of Bill C-10 and so forth, we began to realize how broad our constituency was in dealing with those involved and affected by animals. We found in fact that one of the largest jurisdictions is with people who have family pets, but of course the livelihood of many people involved in farming is also affected by what we might do in the House in terms of legislation.

We found that universities and university researchers, and those involved in research for humans dealing with animals, have great concerns of what legislation might produce. We have minor groups such as those who maintain zoos and those who are involved with circuses. In the previous legislation, we were also involved with fishermen because fish became part of the debate on previous legislation.

Above all, we have hunters and trappers, many people in our first nations communities who historically depended upon wildlife for their livelihood.

When we look at all these different groups, we look at what proposals come forward, what animal rights groups say to us, what pet owners say to us, and above all, those in our farming communities. It is interesting to note that in terms of pets, many Canadians have tremendous affection for the cats, dogs, horses, birds and those pets which they maintain in the vicinity of their homes.

When we look at American statistics, this industry, the industry of providing health resources to pet owners, approaches $40 billion U.S. a year. So it is a growing industry. We have to respect and certainly pay great thanks to those who love their animals, those who care for them, those who maintain them, and those who are so interested in any legislation which the House and Parliament would provide.

I am not sure that the Criminal Code is the right place. Probably in future parliaments, we will see special legislation outside the Criminal Code. In terms of animals and cruelty, and respect for animals, the care for animals, we also have our provinces who have a vested interest in some of this because in terms of our wildlife, most wildlife species are protected under provincial legislation.

However, I would like to answer a few of our critics who have called upon some members of Parliament not to support Bill S-203. I personally have some difficulty with that logic because Bill 203 does not preclude the necessity or the fact that further legislation could be brought to the House which would improve upon this legislation. It would tend to see that the various groups that I mentioned are not seriously and adversely affected. It would indeed demonstrate that all of us as Canadians can enjoy the fact that we as a Parliament and as a nation can see that our animals are properly protected and that we can find joy, warmth and comfort in the relations that we have with them.

Bill S-203 basically deals with any person who kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle, or kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose.

If people were to commit offences under the Criminal Code with that description of it, they could be charged with an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years. That is a very serious penalty for those who would be convicted. Furthermore, if the court should decide it is not an indictable offence, there could be fines of up to $10,000.

This cruelty, in section 445.1, says that anyone who wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird or anyone who assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds, or promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money in such circumstances, can be convicted of an indictable offence and receive up to five years in prison.

Section 446 goes on to state that anyone who, by wilful neglect, causes damage or injury to animals or who is involved with a domestic animal or a bird or an animal, whether it be wild in nature or in captivity, who abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care, would be committing an offence.

Furthermore, Bill S-203 also attempts to preclude from ownership of animals people who are guilty of these offences. The court, under section 447.1, may make an order prohibiting the accused from owning, having the custody or control of, residing in the same premise as an animal or bird during any period that the court considers appropriate, but in the case of a second or subsequent offence, a minimum of five years.

What I am advocating today is that the House could approve at report stage and third reading this legislation. I know it is not perfect, but it is a tremendous improvement upon the present legislation which was put in place almost a century ago.

There is another bill, in fact, that is before the House. It is further down than my own. However, there will be an opportunity in the future for another government or another member to bring a private member's bill before this assembly that can be debated.

I hope that as time progresses we as Canadians can develop legislation which is valuable to all, protects our animals, birds and fish and, above all, does not cause harm or unjustness to our farmers, fishermen, and those who rely upon these species for their livelihood.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill S-203, a bill introduced by Senator Bryden that would amend the animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code. Bill S-203 has passed the other place and has been reported back to the House by the justice committee, without amendment, and is now before this House for report stage and third reading.

We have before us a private member's bill that has one simple objective, improving the law's ability to deter, denounce and punish animal cruelty and make offenders take greater responsibility for their crimes.

In stating my support for Bill S-203, I recognize that some hon. members have expressed the view that they cannot support the bill because it does not address some limitations in the current law. It is true that Bill S-203 does not amend current offences or create new ones. However, as members well know, none of the bills introduced by the previous government over the course of about seven years ever pass both chambers.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak to two motions to amend Bill S-203, which were recently tabled by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

The first motion proposes to delete the long title of the bill. This motion is irrelevant to the objective of Bill S-203, which is to increase penalties for current offences. Therefore, I will be opposing the motion.

The second motion is to delete clause 1 of the bill. The bill only has one clause and so that obviously is not warranted either.

Thus, the combined effect of both motions would be to completely gut Bill S-203 of its title and substantive provisions. I, for one, support Bill S-203 and anyone who does obviously will not support either motion.

Hon. members are well aware that if Bill S-203 is passed by this House with any amendments, the amended bill will have to go back to the other place for reconsideration. The report stage amendments tabled by the opposition are an obvious tactic to obstruct or delay any progress that we can make in strengthening our animal cruelty laws. I really have to question the logic and intent of this.

Let us face it, Bill S-203 is a step in the right direction, which in no way prevents any future legislation from being brought forward.

Again, I have to question the motives of anyone who would want to prevent us from moving forward and strengthening our animal cruelty provisions today.

Sending the bill back to the other place raises the prospect that it will join a long list of previous formulations of animal cruelty amendments that were not supported by both Houses. This is unproductive and unnecessary.

Some hon. members of the House have voiced criticism of what Bill S-203 does not address. It is important to consider whether the increase in penalties in Bill S-203, coupled with the current animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, would provide more protection to animals than if the bill had not been passed. I believe the answer to this question is a resounding yes. Moreover, increasing penalties with regard to animal cruelty has been one of the issues that all proponents of stronger animal cruelty legislation have been able to agree upon over the years.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides a number of distinct animal cruelty offences. Some offences prohibit very specific forms of conduct and others are more general in nature. The offences are set out in sections 444 to 447 of the Criminal Code. The two most frequently charged offences are those of wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal and causing pain, suffering or injury by neglect.

These types of actions are in fact what most Canadians think about when they think about animal cruelty. Cruelty can be intentional, meaning the result of conduct that a person knows will or would likely cause harm, or it can be the result of gross negligence or severe inadvertence.

With respect to maximum available penalties, all offences, except those concerning cattle, are summary conviction offences only. This means that the maximum sentence an offender can get is six months in prison, a $2,000 fine, or both. This maximum applies no matter how heinous the act of cruelty may be.

By contrast, offences in respect of cattle are pure indictable offences and subject to a ma maximum of five years imprisonment.

One question raised by the law and addressed by Bill S-203 is whether this distinction is still justified. I will return to this point in a moment.

The Criminal Code also contains what is called a prohibition order. This mechanism allows a judge to order a convicted offender to refrain from owning an animal for up to two years.

Prohibition orders are mostly preventive; they actually work to keep animals away from animal abusers. In this way they are aimed primarily at preventing future cruelty toward animals. Prohibition orders are imposed relatively often in animal cruelty cases. The courts clearly feel that the prohibition order is a valuable tool at their disposal in dealing with the people who abuse animals.

Bill S-203 proposes three changes to the current animal cruelty regime, all in the nature of penalty enhancements.

All of the measures address concerns that have been identified with the existing law. There is strong agreement across all sectors that the low maximum penalties for cruelty are inadequate, both to denounce animal cruelty as unacceptable and to punish acts of cruelty when they do occur. Bill S-203 responds to this concern and does so in the following three ways:

First, Bill S-203 would increase maximum terms of imprisonment. It would make all offences hybrid, meaning that the prosecutor may choose to proceed by way of summary conviction procedure or by way of indictment, depending on the seriousness of the case.

Currently, all the offences, except those in relation to cattle, are straight summary conviction offences. These would be hybridized by Bill S-203.

Bill S-203 makes the distinction between penalties for two categories of offences: one for injuring animals intentionally or recklessly; and the second for injuring animals by criminal neglect, to which I have already alluded. This is an important distinction. Some people commit cruelty on purpose. Others commit cruelty by extreme neglect.

Under traditional criminal law principles, knowingly or intentionally doing something is more blameworthy than doing the same thing by gross neglect.

Bill S-203 would introduce a new power to allow the sentencing judge to order the offender to repay the costs of medical care and other forms of care that another person or organization spent caring for the animal that was abused. This new power would be a means of holding the offender financially responsible for the costs of their crime.

Those are the three principal amendments. Unfortunately, I was not able to elaborate on the second major one, but together they constitute a significant improvement to the current law and one with which all Canadians would agree.

I encourage all hon. members to support Bill S-203 and to oppose the two motions currently before the House.