Mr. Speaker, today we are debating what should be two bills, a budget implementation bill and an immigration reform bill. First I will deal with the immigration reform bill and then I will continue with comments about the rest of this budget implementation bill.
The fundamental changes to Canada's immigration system that we are debating today are significant and important because they have the potential to affect the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of people.
The government has attached to its budget implementation bill, amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These amendments would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unilateral authority to determine priorities for processing immigration applications and requests.
Make no mistake, this will be a very significant change to our immigration system.
Instead of visa officers following rules, procedures and policies, we will essentially invest in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to decide who enters Canada and who does not with no oversight or accountability.
The bill would penalize those who have played by the rules, those who have submitted their application, paid their fees and sat on waiting lists, in some cases, for many years. However, they now may see later applicants move ahead of them. This can only be described as queue jumping and will actually increase the time they spend languishing on waiting lists.
In the last election, the Conservatives made all sorts of promises to increase accountability and transparency for a better and fairer Canada. If anyone ever needed an example of the government doing the precise opposite of these commitments, Bill C-50 is that example. In fact, the bill actually removes the assurance that every application will receive due process before being returned.
These amendments attempt to create the perception that the Conservative government is trying to reduce the immigration application backlog which now sits at about 900,000. Although reducing the backlog and preventing future backlogs is a laudable goal, they would be better served by hiring additional visa officers.
The solutions offered in Bill C-50 would present numerous challenges for prospective newcomers to Canada.
I have received numerous letters from concerned citizens and organizations in my riding of Davenport expressing concerns about Bill C-50 for the city of Toronto and for the entire country. Many of them have brought to my attention the fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would also be given the power to limit the humanitarian and compassionate categories under this legislation.
This is truly disconcerting for the temporary visa workers who come to Canada to fill labour shortage gaps and who, undoubtedly, would use this channel for pursuing family reunification. This is true for my riding of Davenport and for the city of Toronto, which is more than ever dependent on the immigration community to help with our labour shortages.
Morteza Jafarpour, executive director of the Settlement and Integration Services Organization, stated:
An immigrant here without his family sends his money home. With his family here, they have to buy groceries, goods and houses.
I could not agree more with this statement as it also demonstrates the common misconception that appears to be the belief of the Conservatives: that the family and humanitarian categories do not contribute to the economic growth of our country.
The Conservatives are once again playing politics by making these immigration amendments a matter of confidence by including them in Bill C-50, budgetary legislation. I firmly believe that these critical immigration reforms deserve to be fully debated as a separate matter from Bill C-50 so that it can be studied in Parliament through the appropriate channels.
I encourage the government to reconsider its approach to immigration reform. Action needs to be taken to renew our immigration system. However, if we are to be successful, we need to be inclusive. We need proper consultation and review. More than anything else, we need a system that is fair and based on the rule of law and upon policy rather than the whim of the minister of citizenship and immigration of the day.
However, immigration is not the only important thing at stake in this bill.
The greater Toronto area is the home of one in six Canadians. When we consider this reality, it is certainly of concern that the proposed changes do nothing to specifically recognize the unique importance of the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario.
As Toronto and Ontario struggle through a manufacturing sector crisis and the global economy faces a recession, we need the federal government to play its part in helping us meet these challenges.
The finance minister has responded to these challenges by consistently criticizing the Ontario government's financial policies. As with any challenge, the greatest chance of success comes not from confrontation and unnecessary verbal barbs, but from cooperation and mutual respect.
Not only does the bill fail to address Toronto's present economic concerns, it also hurts education, the key to our future economic success. Sadly, ignoring education has become a pattern of the government.
In 2006, the government walked away from the federal-provincial child care agreement. These agreements were a major step forward for families in Canada. They ensured that child care would be more affordable for all Canadians and certainly more available.
For the past year, students, parents and members of Parliament have been calling for the renewal of the millennium scholarship fund, an innovative and effective initiative of the previous Liberal government. The program set aside significant long term funding to help students pay for post-secondary education. Rather than renew this independent and long term program, the government has simply rolled it into a ministry program and committed funding for only a few years.
Perhaps most shockingly, the government is using the bill to strip the RESP program of recent Liberal amendments that would help families save for their children's education, much as they save for their retirement.
The contrast is clear when we review the facts. The previous Liberal government created child care agreements with the provinces to help Canadian families. The Liberals set up the millennium scholarship fund. The Liberals worked with members of Parliament from all parties to pass an important education tax credit that would have helped parents save for their children.
Liberals believe in cooperation, consultation and fair programs. The same cannot be said of the approach of the current government.
I must say that the content of Bill C-50 and the manner in which it has been presented to the House is becoming a trend for the government. It is a method of operation that does not lend itself to constructive review and debate. It is a manner of conduct that is, quite frankly, disrespectful to this institution and to our democratic traditions.
The bill's back door approach to immigration, disregard for Toronto and Ontario and failure to address education is a serious concern. Canadians deserve better than this.