Bill Siksay

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for York South--Weston mentioned values that are common to people who enter the institution of marriage in Canada. I would like to ask him exactly which values gay and lesbian couples who seek to be married do not share with other Canadian couples who seek to be married in Canada.

It seems to me that the gay and lesbian couples who are seeking to be married in Canada do so because they strongly believe in the institution of marriage. They are willing to fight to have access to that institution. It seems to me that we were raised in families where the values of marriage were passed on to us by our parents who entered into those married relationships, and we saw how those relationships were of importance and had value in our families and in our society. It seems to me we were raised in churches and other organizations that valued the institution of marriage and taught us those values and led us to want to share in that institution.

So exactly what values does he see gay and lesbian couples not upholding when it comes to marriage in Canada?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the charges the member has again levelled against the process in the committee. He has done this consistently throughout the committee hearings and again today in his speech.

He says that witnesses were not given enough time to prepare. We have known that this has been on the public agenda for many months and many years. I do not think there was one organization in the country, which was interested in the whole question of gay and lesbian marriage or same sex marriage, that was not well prepared at a moment's notice to appear and make its feelings and understanding of these issues known.

Most of the groups had websites up and running with all of their statements gathered there ready to go. There is no question that people were aware the debate would be happening and were aware of the timing of that.

More than that, the Conservatives on the committee agreed to the timing of hearing witnesses. There was unanimous agreement on the committee about the timing of our hearings. There was unanimous agreement about the number of witnesses that we were going to hear. In fact, the committee bent over backwards to hear extra witnesses from the Conservatives' list of proposed witnesses.

We went out of our way to deal with that. We had fair and open hearings. I read the work. I did the homework and was prepared to question the witnesses as they appeared.

Did the member not agree to the timing of the committee hearings? Did he not agree to when we would hear witnesses? Was he not part of that agreement at the committee, as we all were?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question was in all of that.

As I explained in my speech, there are significant protections for religious freedom in Canada. The charter has not been proven deficient in this area. In fact, it has been proven vigorous in this area. Even the witnesses appearing before the committee could not point to any place where religious organizations or religious officials had been discriminated against on that basis.

One of the greatest examples is that religious organizations like the Catholic church have different standards when it comes to, say, the access to certain jobs by women within that institution. The ordination of women is not contemplated in the Catholic church. Yet no woman has been able to take the Catholic church to court to sue to be ordained in the Catholic church.

When I raised the issue of why that has not happened with one of the legal experts who was called to testify before the committee, one of the legal experts who was not supportive of Bill C-38, he said that it was unlikely that any lawyer would take such a case because the protections available under the law for religious institutions to make that kind of decision based on their beliefs, their theology, their doctrine were so strong that the case would not succeed.

I have every reason to believe that the same is true for the protections guaranteed around religious marriage. It is very different from civil marriage, which is what we are talking about in the bill. I believe those religious protections are there.

The hon. member in his long comment said that the Prime Minister was the one who had forced the debate on Canadians. I disagree with that too. The debate is before us today because gay and lesbian people in this country sought full equality in a key institution of this society, that institution being marriage. It was not brought upon us by politicians, by the Prime Minister or by activist judges. It was brought about by people who care about their full participation in our society and who care about the institution of marriage, and who believe in that institution and respect it fully.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate at report stage of Bill C-38.

I want to remind the House that this bill is a cause for celebration among gay and lesbian Canadians. It is a time when our relationships are being recognized, when our fight to be included in a key institution of Canadian society will finally be resolved.

This is not a new fight for gay and lesbian people in Canada. We began this fight over 30 years ago when Richard Vogel and Chris North took their fight for a marriage licence to the marriage office in Winnipeg. They were denied a licence at that time but later found support with the Unitarian Church. This fight has gone on for over 30 years because gay and lesbian Canadians, like other Canadians, believe in the institution of marriage. Many gay and lesbian Canadians want to be married because they believe in the commitment and responsibilities that are implied in marriage. That is why couples have fought through the courts to see their ability to be married recognized.

This has not happened because of some errant or wilful judge who wants to upset the apple cart in Canada. It has happened because there are couples who want their relationships recognized in exactly the same way that heterosexual relationships are recognized in this country, and who want access to the important institution of marriage. They do it because they believe in the institution of marriage and they want to be accepted into that important institution in our society on the same basis as other Canadians.

This is an important equality issue for gay and lesbian Canadians and indeed for all Canadians. It is important that our relationships are recognized, that we have the access to the stability that that recognition will offer, and that our children have access to stable families as well. It is also important that when our relationships fail we have access to the mechanisms of our law that allow us to deal fairly and justly with the dissolution of that relationship.

These are all important things that are covered in Bill C-38. This is a reason to celebrate. This is an important step forward for our society and for all Canadians. I do not want to lose that important aspect of this legislation. This bill on civil marriage will ensure that gay and lesbian Canadians have access to this key institution of our society on an equal basis.

The bill before us at report stage has been amended and further amendments are being proposed. Let me just say that we in this corner of the House do not support the amendments we are debating in Group No. 1, because these are amendments that seek to essentially gut the legislation and change fundamental aspects of it. We will not be supporting the amendments in Group No. 1.

Let me say as well that the bill before us was amended at committee. We have heard from other speakers this morning about the large number of people who have spoken on marriage over the past two and a half years. Over 450 witnesses appeared before the justice committee in the last Parliament on this issue, and almost 60 witnesses appeared before the legislative committee in this Parliament on this current bill.

In the legislative committee a vast majority, over two-thirds, of the witnesses we heard were people who had concerns about this legislation. They had a hearing at the committee. They were not always agreed with, but they were always listened to with care and with respect.

The bill was amended at committee in ways that provide greater reassurance. Those are not amendments that I thought were necessary. I thought the bill in its original form was clear in its intent and was clear that it protected religious freedom in Canada, but we heard regularly at the committee that more reassurance might be helpful, so the committee did accept several amendments. One is an additional preambular clause that states:

Whereas it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage;

That is an important addition to the bill, even though preambular clauses are interpretive clauses. They help us understand the intent of the legislation, so that was an important addition and one which the committee made willingly. I did not think it was necessary, especially given the other clauses in the preamble which make the commitment to freedom of religion very clear.

As well, for greater certainty, another interpretive clause was added to clause 3 of the legislation. Clause 3 states:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The committee in its wisdom decided to add clause 3.1 to add even greater clarity on that issue. That clause reads:

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

I do not know what could be clearer in terms of interpreting this legislation to guarantee religious freedom in Canada and to guarantee the freedom of those religious organizations which do not, for whatever reason of their beliefs or theology, feel that they would be able to solemnize the marriage of a gay or a lesbian couple. It is very clear; it was clear previously, but it is now absolutely crystal clear. We have gone out of our way to make this absolutely well known in this legislation. The amendment introduced by my colleague from the Bloc goes even further to grant that reassurance.

One of the things we heard at the committee hearings was concern about the charitable status of organizations, religious organizations in particular. The amendment proposed by my colleague from the Bloc goes some way to offer reassurance on that score as well. Let me read it again:

Section 149.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6.2):

(6.21) For greater certainty, subject to subsections (6.1) and (6.2), a registered charity with stated purposes that include the advancement of religion shall not have its registration revoked or be subject to any other penalty under Part V solely because it or any of its members, officials, supporters, or adherents exercises, in relation to marriage between persons of the same sex, the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are very clear with this amendment as well. There is no threat to the charitable status of religious organizations because they hold a different view of marriage than the one put forward in the civil marriage act.

This legislation has taken great care to offer reassurance on the issue of freedom of religion. At the committee I do not think anyone expressed doubt or fear about the guarantees of religious freedom provided by the charter. I know of no witness who was able to provide an example to show that any religious institution had seen a failure in that protection of religious freedom. They could give us no explicit example of where the guarantees for religious freedom in the charter had failed in the past. There is no expectation on my part or on the part of others that will be the case in the future. The guarantee of religious freedom in the charter and in the Canadian Human Rights Act is solid. Equality rights do not necessarily trump religious freedom as we have heard from time to time.

We need to be very clear that religious freedom is important in Canada, but it cuts the other way as well. There are religious organizations in Canada that seek to marry gay and lesbian couples and want to do it in exactly the same way they do it for their heterosexual members. Currently that is not possible in some provinces where the court decisions are not in effect and they cannot legally marry gay and lesbian couples. This is an important issue of religious freedom from that side of the coin as well. Religious organizations that do support same sex marriage should have the ability to follow through on their belief and their doctrine in that regard and solemnize those marriages. This is important legislation for those organizations as well.

We have had a lot of debate on this issue. The justice committee toured Canada and heard from over 450 witnesses. Debates have been held in the House. Debates have been held in society from coast to coast to coast. There was a very thorough hearing of Bill C-38 by the legislative committee.

The majority of Canadians want us to get on with this legislation, whatever their views are on Bill C-38. They want us to get to the other issues that are before Parliament and move along. We have had a long debate with respect to Bill C-38.

As I said, we in this corner of the House cannot support the amendments in Group No. 1. However, we are glad that the bill is back on the agenda of the House and look forward to its passage in the very near future.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be here this evening to participate in this important debate on the situation with Devils Lake and the degradation that the diversion of that lake could cause if it is diverted into the Red River and Lake Winnipeg and indeed the whole Lake Winnipeg watershed. That affects so dramatically the central part of this continent and our country.

People in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas are somewhat removed from Devils Lake and from Manitoba, but they are concerned about this issue as well. I have heard from a number of my constituents who know the importance of this issue and know the very important points that are at stake in this whole discussion. There are the ecological concerns, the environmental concerns, but also the concerns around international relations and how our relationship with the United States works, and the importance of respecting the International Joint Commission and its processes as well.

In British Columbia we have waterways that travel across the border. We know the importance of this situation. It is something that demands our attention right across the country, not just the folks in Manitoba.

I listened with care to the member for Provencher. I heard him talk about the need to have a respectful discussion with our American neighbours about this issue. It seems to me we are getting to a crunch point in all of this. The spigot was going to be turned on on July 1, and I gather that has been delayed for some reason. I appreciate the need to be respectful. He said that sometimes we come across as just critical, but it seems to me it is possible to be both critical and respectful at the same time.

I want to ask him, is there not some urgency now to see this situation resolved? Do we not need to be a little clearer and perhaps more direct in our search for a lasting solution to this very important question?

[Petitions, June 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to table today petitions signed by over 15,000 Canadians from all over the country who call on the government to ensure that American war resistors who have conscientious objections to serving in the United States armed forces in the illegal war in Iraq be allowed sanctuary in Canada as refugees or through some other provision.

These petitioners strongly urge the government to maintain its commitment to opposing the illegal war in Iraq by refusing to return these conscientious objectors to the U.S. where they can face incarceration, persecution or possibly the death penalty.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the hon. member's comments, although I hope I will not be as patronizing as he has been. I understand that the last issue he raised has been addressed by a committee of the House and that there is a report prepared on that issue that goes some way to addressing those important issues. I acknowledge that those are important issues.

I do not need to be lectured by the hon. member about aboriginal housing. The NDP does address the issue of aboriginal housing and includes aboriginal housing needs in the proposal that we made and negotiated. I recognize that is a crucial thing.

The amount of $295 million in the original budget does not go a long way to addressing the third world conditions that exist on reserves in this country. We need a far more significant commitment to that. I am glad that in negotiating $1.6 billion for housing that we included the needs of aboriginal Canadians within that as well.

It is with some unmitigated gall that a Conservative member would stand up and lecture a New Democrat about deficit financing, given the Conservative record in this country. Given the Mulroney government of deficit after deficit, it added to the debt that we are still trying to pay off in this country. It was not the New Democrats who were responsible for that debt; it was the folks in that corner of the House who piled up those years of deficits in this country. For them to suggest that we do not understand the importance of financing, and that we do not understand the importance of a balanced budget, is the absolute height of hyperbole and unmitigated gall.

I will not take any lessons from that corner of the House on how to finance government because over many years New Democrats have shown that we clean up the messes left by the capitalist parties in this country. We put things in order and we restore people's confidence in government financing in this country.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-48, which in this corner of the House we refer to as the NDP's better balanced budget bill. I want to stress that we take the balanced part of that short title very seriously.

Nothing in this budget bill, proposed by the NDP, will do anything to further the federal deficit in Canada. In fact, we are very committed to the balanced budget aspect of the legislation. We will not see a deficit resulting out of the investments proposed in the legislation, and that is the NDP way.

We have a strong tradition through our provincial governments and through other municipal governments of maintaining balanced budgets and caring about deficit financing. We do not go that way and that is our history, unlike in the federal House where years of Conservative and Liberal deficits have put us in the debt position we are in today. That is not the NDP legacy in Canada. We are not prepared to go that route with this legislation either.

In my own community of Burnaby, the NDP municipal party, the Burnaby Citizens Association, has been in power for almost two decades. It has maintained that tradition of no deficits in that period as well. In Burnaby we are known for our record of responsible financial leadership. That is what the people of Burnaby have come to expect from New Democrats and that is what they continue to get, even with the legislation before us.

This money will come from surpluses. Last year we saw a predicted surplus of $1.9 billion turn out to be a surplus of $9.1 billion. Given that kind of surplus and given that kind of inaccuracy in prediction of the surplus, I am very confident that the financing in the bill will go ahead without any problems.

Where we make ground on this was to remove from the corporate tax cuts to large corporation that were proposed in the government's original budget bill. No one was expecting those. The Liberals did not campaign on that. No one was promised those in the last federal election. Canadians did not vote for those billions of dollars of corporate tax cuts in the last election. Therefore, that is something easily removed from this budget.

We know as well that corporate profits are away up in Canada in the past year. Even in this current quarter, they are up significantly, 10%, 15% over last year. Last year they did pretty well. Some analysts have said that the large corporations in Canada are awash in cash. Clearly, another large billion dollar corporate tax cut is not necessary in Canada.

We recognize the importance of small and medium business to Canada. That is why those corporations and corporate interests are not affected by this tax cut. We are saying that the large profitable corporations are in good shape and they do not need this extra corporate tax cut.

Where will we spend this extra $4.6 billion in investment? On the issues that the NDP campaigned on in the last election and on which I campaigned in Burnaby—Douglas.

Bill C-48 proposes to invest $1.6 billion toward increasing affordable housing for Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians. That was an area of almost complete deficiency in the original Liberal government budget. When the budget came down from the finance minister, the New Democrats were shocked to see nothing for affordable housing.

In a community such as mine, affordable housing is an absolutely crucial way of addressing issues of poverty. It is a way of addressing issues of health in my community. The fact that there was nothing in the Liberal budget was a huge deficiency.

I am glad that our leader seized the opportunity to seek some improvements to the Liberal budget to get that included.

There was nothing in the original Liberal budget for post-secondary education except debt forgiveness should a person die. The only way a student could get assistance was to pass away. That is slim comfort I am sure to the students who are in massive debt and who have faced tuition increases of 160% over the last 10 years. We are glad that we have managed to secure $1.5 billion in additional funding for post-secondary education and training to cover that deficiency which existed in the original Liberal budget.

There is also $900 million for the environment, including an extra one cent per litre in the gas tax over the next couple of years. That money will go to public transit and an energy retrofit program for low income housing.

Again, we know that the Liberal commitment on the environment was not what it should have been in the last budget. The Liberal commitment on Kyoto is lacking. This goes toward improving that commitment and improving public transit in our cities. We know that public transit is a significant way of reducing smog. We know it reduces congestion. We have traffic problems in a community like Burnaby. Lots of commuters transit through Burnaby to get to the downtown core of the city of Vancouver. Increased public transit will go a long way to solving those problems.

Also there is about a $500 million increase in foreign aid to help push us toward the target of 0.7% of GDP for foreign aid. We know how crucial it is to help our neighbours and our brothers and sisters around the world with some of the very severe problems of poverty and with development.

That is a commitment the Liberals made. They needed an extra push and we are happy to have provided it.

Housing is a crucial issue in my riding. The high cost of housing on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and poverty in my community are also an important issues. Almost 27% of people in Burnaby--Douglas, which is a fairly well-to-do, middle class, suburban community, live in poverty. It was a surprise to many of the folks living in Burnaby because it is so well hidden. These folks live in substandard housing and pay far too high a percentage of their income for it. That means they have to cut back on other things like food and other requirements for healthy living.

We need affordable housing in Burnaby--Douglas. We know that Burnaby--Douglas many years ago did very well with the cooperative housing program, which was a significant boon to our community. It set up some very interesting and successful communities where people of mixed incomes lived very well together, communities like the Norman Bethune Co-op. The co-op is almost 30 years old and is in danger of collapse. It cannot get the assistance it needs from the federal government to do the repairs that are necessary to its aging building.

There are problems with the mortgage and there is no help from CMHC which seems more intent on acting like a major financial institution rather than an institution dealing with housing concerns. These people are struggling to maintain their community and a very successful small co-op in my riding. They are getting very little help from the federal government.

I hope some of this money will go to alleviate problems for co-ops, problems like those of the Norman Bethune Co-op. If we could free up and shake loose some of the huge amount of money that CMHC has socked away, we could put it back into solving some of the problems of housing and co-ops, like Norman Bethune.

I have also been contacted by the McLaren Housing Society and JoAnne Fahr, the executive director. She talks about the housing problems that are faced by many people living with HIV in the Lower Mainland. I just want to quote from her note. It says:

Please understand that here in the Lower Mainland I have a wait list of 250 HIV+ men, women and children in critical need of adequate, affordable and safe housing. This wait list has grown by 50% in my three years on the job. Many of these folks are living in deplorable conditions having to share filthy bathrooms and having no kitchen facilities in which to cook nutritious meals, so important to their health. McLaren Housing Society was Canada's first housing program for people coping with HIV and began in 1987. Since then it has grown from one 5 bedroom house to multiple programs which currently has enough funding for 94 clients. Still, 250 people wait. And I have to tell them to continue waiting whilst they impose on friends and family or worse, couch surf, live in a vehicle or in the worst Downtown Eastside hotels you can imagine.

You can assist in this basic determinant of health by recognizing how important social housing is and applying money to this critical shortage. Please put housing first. We should not have a homelessness issue in Canada.

I am happy the NDP has fought hard to see there is something in this year's budget for affordable housing to assist people like the people that Ms. Fahr describes, who are living with HIV and who require decent housing, and to assist them not only in living a happy and productive life but also in living a healthy life.

A recent survey indicated that homelessness had tripled in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. That is just not acceptable in a society like ours.

I am proud that this budget has increased investments in post-secondary education. Simon Fraser University and the B.C. Institute of Technology are in my riding. and students need that kind of support to pursue the education that will help them be successful and productive in their careers.

I am glad that the NDP negotiated, fought hard and worked hard to seek improvements to the Liberal budget. I look forward to voting in favour of this important bill in the very near future.

[Foreign Credential Recognition Program, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the debate today on Motion No. 195 which was introduced by the member for Brampton—Springdale. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should create a secretariat responsible for overseeing the foreign credential recognition program, which would work with all stakeholders and provincial representatives to coordinate and collaborate on activities, implement processes and assist in the research and development of national standards that recognize foreign training credentials in Canada.

We had one round of debate on this on March 10 and I am happy to be part of this second hour of discussion. I believe the motion does contribute toward resolving the whole question of the recognition of international credentials. We know it is a serious issue in Canada. Many newcomers to Canada face incredible difficulties getting work in the fields in which they were trained and with their educational backgrounds. We know the frustration and anxiety that causes them and what a terrible brain waste that is.

The motion would clarify where responsibility for international credentials lies within the government. With 10, 12 or 14 federal departments having an interest in the whole issue of international credentials there is an important coordination task to be done within the federal government.

The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has some responsibility in this issue. In the Prime Minister's first cabinet the parliamentary secretary was given explicit responsibility for foreign credentials. When we looked down the list of parliamentary secretaries we could see there was one who had explicit responsibility for that issue.

The second time around that explicit designation disappeared and was replaced by a letter of mandate that I understand the parliamentary secretary requested from the Prime Minister. It is not as obvious now where the responsibility lies. I know the parliamentary secretary is working on that file but it was a bit concerning to see that explicit responsibility disappear even in the listing of parliamentary secretaries.

We need to have clear lines of accountability and establishing a secretariat would assist in making it clear who in government is working on this issue and that it is not coming off the corner of various people's desks or is not the responsibility of some ad hoc interdepartmental committee. We need to be very explicit about this responsibility given the importance of this to so many people in Canada, given the importance of resolving the whole question of international credentials and given the importance of it to our immigration system.

I am not supporting the motion because I believe in bigger government. I am supporting it because I believe our structure of government needs to show the clear lines of accountability. It needs to show exactly where the work is getting done and who is responsible for it, which is why I like Motion No. 195 as it was introduced.

I am a little concerned about the member's intent with Motion No. 195. It seems to me that in the first hour of debate the commitment came into question when the member allowed an amendment that would gut her motion. She agreed to an amendment that, instead of establishing a secretariat with very clear lines of responsibility, would direct ministers responsible for overseeing the foreign credential recognition program to work expeditiously with all stakeholders and provincial and territorial governments. That is a huge change in the intent of the motion. I must say that I was glad when the House voted it down overwhelmingly on March 23.

I believe the amendment, which was proposed by members of the Liberal Party, gutted the intent of the member's original motion. It removed the secretariat and merely called on ministers to work together to solve this problem. We went from tangible, concrete action to something that was very fuzzy indeed.

A serious question was raised by the actual amendment. I think the amendment belied a lack of confidence in the government ministers working on this issue. Why would a government member propose an amendment calling on government ministers to work together on an important issue? Why not do something more tangible? I was concerned about the intent of the amendment and was glad when it went down to defeat. I think the unamended motion goes some way to doing something concrete in this important area.

We know that the whole area of international credentials is a huge problem here in Canada. We have a 60-40 split. Every year 60% of our new immigrants to Canada are skilled workers in the economic class. They are generally the ones who have the difficulties having their international credentials recognized. The other 40% of our immigrants are in the family class or refugee class and that is of the 225,000 to 240,000 immigrants who arrive in Canada each year. To have a significant number of skilled workers coming to Canada and not being able to work in their field calls into question our whole immigration program and the whole skilled worker category.

As has been said before, we do seem to be losing out to Australia and the United States in this regard. Australia has a centralized system run by its federal government to help people work toward the recognition of their credentials and find positions where they can work in their chosen fields even before they arrive in Australia. It is certainly a system that inspires much more confidence in potential immigrants to Australia.

We need to ensure that Canada's system invokes that kind of confidence. Right now, I am afraid that it is not doing that. We could easily lose out on potential immigrants to Australia and the United States in this regard.

Our system awards people points toward being able to immigrate to Canada for their education, professional skills, and work experience, but then does not allow that to pan out into actual work when they arrive here in Canada. That is a huge problem with our immigration system. We need to ensure that the point system corresponds with the ability to work once a person arrives in Canada.

This situation causes unhappiness, frustration, anxiety, and now we are hearing from immigrant and refugee serving agencies about the anger among newcomers to Canada. It is totally uncalled for. It is a terrible waste, a brain waste. Not only is this a frustration to our newcomers to Canada, it is a huge cost to the Canadian economy. Some studies show that this situation causes a loss to the Canadian economy of $3 billion to $5 billion. We cannot stand by while both that human and economic waste happens here in Canada.

The government so far is talking about some minimal things to help work toward this. It is talking about a web portal to give people better information. That is a good idea, but it is a very limited one. Unfortunately, it is often touted like one of the few things that the federal government is tangibly doing on this issue. Not everybody who is immigrating to Canada has Internet in order to access the web portals. Without a direct person-to-person encounter about the possibilities in Canada for someone, one cannot always get the best information off an Internet page.

The parliamentary secretary keeps talking about building relationships on this file, building relationships with professional organizations and with the provinces. That is all well and good. I have told the parliamentary secretary that building relationships is a good thing, but there comes a time when we actually have to consummate some of those relationships and ensure that the system is working. It is not clear to me that we have reached that stage yet.

We have had this promise to deal with this issue in three throne speeches, but there are still doctors driving cabs, university professors working at convenience stores, and nurses working as hotel housekeepers. That is just not good enough. We need to see some action where these people are actually working in the fields where they were trained. We know that they would be happier here in Canada and that the frustration level would go down.

This is not the only problem with our immigration system. Yesterday a cross-Canada group called Sponsor Your Parents had demonstrations. They were calling on the government to address the whole delay of parental and grandparental applications.

We know that often people who immigrate to Canada under a family class sponsorship do better. They are happier, they settle into Canada more quickly because they have the support of family members. However, the fact that they are not able to sponsor their parents and grandparents later is a huge factor of frustration for them. One that calls into question the whole commitment about the reunification of families that is supposed to be a key cornerstone of our immigration policy. So, that is sort of the flip side of this foreign credential issue.

When I was speaking at the demonstration in Vancouver yesterday, we could not get through that whole demonstration without the issue of foreign credentials also coming up because it is such a major frustration for immigrants to Canada.

We need to deal with both these problems. We need to restore confidence in our immigration system. If people get points for their professional education, they should be able to work in Canada. We need to ensure that the commitments of family reunification are borne out by the ability of new immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents.

We need to ensure that those promises we make to newcomers when they are choosing to come to Canada are kept once they get to Canada. Our immigration system, on which we depend for our economy and for building this nation, must remain in good repute around the world as well as here in Canada. Those are the reasons why I will be supporting Motion No.195.

[Justice, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the B.C. federal NDP caucus made a statement on the beating and humiliation in Richmond, B.C. of an Indo-Canadian youth.

This young man reported that he was assaulted, had his turban knocked off and his hair shorn. We deplore in the strongest possible terms this shocking attack. We are deeply concerned about the apparent racist nature of the attack. Our sympathy and thoughts are with the victim and his family.

The Indo-Canadian community has contributed much to our region and our country through its hard work and generosity and the richness of its faiths, languages, and culture. When someone from the Sikh community is attacked, we stand in solidarity with the victim and the community.

The Richmond RCMP has vowed to track down the people responsible and we support its call for any information from the public that will help bring the perpetrators to justice.

We call upon everyone in the lower mainland and indeed all Canadians of every origin and faith to work together to achieve a society where racist attacks no longer occur.