Judy Sgro

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to talk about the estimates. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

We all know that these debates are very important. For the benefit of the many Canadians who are watching at home, I would like to begin by explaining that this evening we are debating estimates. We are talking tonight about the money that is being spent, but we are also going to talk about the money that is not being spent. I expect we will hear that clearly from that side of the House by the minority Conservative government.

It is important to remind Canadians that the Conservatives inherited from our great Liberal government the best fiscal situation in the history of Canada. Back in 1993 when the Liberals took over as government from the Conservatives, what we inherited to the great surprise to those who were elected at the time was something like a $42 billion deficit. The country was almost at a point of bankruptcy for a variety of reasons. Certainly fiscal mismanagement was a big part of that.

We made a lot of commitments of things that we had wanted to do. Then we got into government and found out that it was impossible. It took years of constraints, of having to cut programs and for Canadians having to cope with all of that while we attempted to get the government out of the deficit position it was in. It was a difficult time.

In contrast to the Conservative government of today, when the Conservatives got in they found an $11 billion surplus. That is a very different thing. They had lots of money to throw around in a lot of places. That is part of the reason for the discussion tonight about some of the areas into which I would like to have seen them put some more money.

Unfortunately, the minority Conservative government has preferred to cut many of the important programs, those that were Liberal, and they will reintroduce them under the Conservative name. Whatever they are called, they were good programs. A lot of them are being reintroduced under the Conservative logo because they were good programs. We knew what the needs of Canadians were. We were out there with our full intention to meet the needs of Canadians and to give Canadian individuals and communities the necessary tools.

Many of the funding cuts made by the Conservatives, in spite of the surplus that the Conservatives had, targeted women in particular, students, many people who are in need of affordable housing and other groups for which the Conservatives have traditionally shown very little concern.

Some $5 million was cut from Status of Women Canada. This is an organization that was established by the Liberal government just a couple of years ago, in order to give women more opportunities to be advocates for the needs of women in Canada, and to make sure that women's voices were being heard loud and clear.

There was $45 million cut from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs. This was done at a time when we are hearing more and more about the needs for affordable housing throughout the country. We had a minister of housing under the previous Liberal government who was working with the provinces to ensure that affordable housing would be built throughout our country. We had committed around $675 million to the province of Ontario alone to build affordable housing and $45 million was cut from that.

There was $10 million cut with the elimination of the support for the Canadian volunteerism initiative. That is a really difficult one, given that volunteerism is such an important part of Canadian society today. So many people volunteer the utmost amount of hours. If we had to, we would never have enough money to pay people for all of what they do.

There was $10 million cut with the elimination of the international youth internship program. This was a wonderful opportunity for young people to travel abroad to learn more about other countries and the rest of the world.

The Conservatives cut $6 million from the Canada Firearms Centre. They cut $18 million from youth employment initiatives. We are hearing about that through the summer employment programs. There is a great need for youth employment initiatives to provide opportunities for our young people to talk about careers and focus on where they will go in the future.

There was $18 million cut from the literacy skills program. It is unbelievable the number of people who still cannot read and write in Canada. If we truly want to see people in Canada aspire to be a successful citizen, they need to be able to read and write.

To cut the money out of programs that are the fundamental basics that we need to have a successful country frankly was unbelievable.

The court challenges program, another $6 million, was looked upon as not necessary. If it was not for the court challenges program we probably would not have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms today. These cuts are from programs that are very important in the lives of Canadians.

Let us talk about child care and all the spaces that were not produced. What is early learning all about? Early learning is not about child care. Early learning is about investing in our youngsters from the very beginning so that we can plan a positive future for them. That came out as a result of a lot of work that was done across this country through a variety of agencies talking about how to ensure that our children can compete with those in countries abroad that are investing a lot of money in their children. That was the first social program specifically geared to early learning and child care that was going to put our children at a real advantage over many of the others.

A lot of evidence has proven that early learning contributes immensely to the development of children and helps to give children the best start in life. Canada needs a high quality early learning and child care system, and I am not talking about a babysitting system. Early learning is very important for our precious children to get the best possible start. They need the highest quality early learning opportunities that we can provide in order to ensure that our children can grow and prosper.

Ever since the election of the minority Conservative government, child care and early learning have suffered immensely. The Prime Minister's so-called universal child care plan is not child care. It is an allowance, much like the baby bonus that people used to receive, and it is a meagre one at that. It is taxable. It is unaccountable. Certainly it is not a plan, by any means.

The Prime Minister promised to provide funding for 125,000 new child care spaces. I can still hear the Prime Minister to this day saying how the Conservatives were going to produce 125,000 child care spaces. I have not seen one created yet. Once he got into power he so desperately wanted to cut the funds to child care. The Conservatives have not created one space that they can talk about.

The previous Liberal government had committed to give every child a good start in life. It invested $5 billion over five years for the creation of a Canada-wide system of early learning and child care based on the principles of quality, universal inclusiveness and accessibility, all very important principles.

Ten provinces had signed bilateral agreements to increase investments in early learning and child care. As a nation we were moving forward with our plans to create a new national system. Just getting 10 provinces to agree on something like that was a huge amount of work and something that we all desired. We had to give it time to come to fruition and we also had to have the money. It took that long to get it all together and organized. Sadly, the Conservative government cancelled all of the agreements and undid all of the good work that had been done.

Cutting literacy programs, as I indicated earlier, is another heartless act by the government. Literacy reaches far and wide. To foster a healthy, vibrant economy, we must ensure that our population has strong literacy skills. If Canada is to maintain its place in the world, we must improve literacy skills, especially for our most vulnerable citizens.

How can the Conservative government justify cutting $17.7 million in funding from the adult learning and literary skills program? I have not heard anybody justify it yet. The Conservatives simply say they are reinvesting it differently, and so on and so forth. I have not seen them produce a specific program to indicate they are helping adults who are suffering from literacy issues.

One of the Conservatives' targets is the Status of Women Canada which I mentioned earlier, which has long been on the hit list of social Conservatives. They cut the Status of Women's budget by $5 million, compromising the agency's ability to do important work and to allow for the advocacy of women and women's issues. The minority Conservative government's decision to close 12 regional offices of the Status of Women Canada leaving only four to serve Canadian women is reprehensible.

Canadian women are still only earning 71¢ for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. More and more women are living in poverty and we are still waiting for the government to create child care spaces. The Conservatives stood here and argued with us and said they were so proud of the 125,000 spaces they were going to create. I am looking forward to hearing, and we may hear it tonight in this discussion, where those spaces are and when we can see the official opening of those spaces.

With the closure of the regional offices of the Status of Women, the government is taking away one of the very few remaining resources for women to get the kind of assistance that they need. It will also take away the government's ability to be aware of what are the issues facing women today and what is the government's role in ensuring that women have full access to opportunity.

That is the reason these 12 offices were created across Canada. These offices were established to assist women in advocating for equality. Clearly, the Conservative government is against that goal of equality just by the kind of cuts that it is making.

This year we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, something that I believe every one of us in this House is very proud of. The Conservatives have undermined the charter at every turn. Clearly, by cancelling the court challenges program and the Law Commission of Canada, by endangering judicial independence, and by trying to stack the courts, I do not think they believe in it at all.

A Liberal government would reverse the steps the Prime Minister has taken to weaken the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which we all stand by, which is there to defend each and every one of us.

The charter is the centrepiece of Canadian democracy. Its legacy is too precious for us to remain indifferent to those who would seek to undermine it. The Liberal opposition will not permit the charter to be weakened by a federal government not committed to keeping it accessible to the Canadian people.

We will continue to fight the cuts to the court challenges program, as there are other groups clearly doing the exact same thing because they understand the value of it. It had been cut some years back by the previous Mulroney government and I gather after about five years of protests the Conservatives reinstated the program because they realized just how important that was. For such a small amount of money of $6 million it delivers a huge amount of opportunity for people to be able to get their points across.

No wonder Canadians do not trust this government. From politicizing the public service and cancelling the court challenges program to stacking the judiciary, and undermining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this government's ideological attacks are designed to reshape Canada to fit its narrow neo-conservative views.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be able to join and participate in this debate tonight. It is important. Every time we talk about budgets, they are important to all of us, not only as parliamentarians but as Canadians. There is always a fair amount of benefits to the country when those budgets are there and it is important that we move forward.

[Clean Air Day, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to inform the House that today is Clean Air Day, which is held each year during Canadian Environment Week to celebrate environmental action as part of a healthy lifestyle.

Sadly, on this Clean Air Day, Canadians have little to celebrate. After two ministers and lots of hot air, the Conservative clean air act was dead on arrival in this House.

However, thanks to the hard work of the opposition parties, the clean air act was rewritten and transformed into an aggressive plan to address climate change. The Bloc and the NDP put aside partisanship to agree with the proposals of the Liberal leader and united with the Liberals to amend the flawed government bill.

We look forward to seeing the overhauled clean air act return to the House as soon as possible for debate and a vote. There could be no more appropriate time than today, Clean Air Day, to do just that.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all of us who have been doing work in our ridings or elsewhere know this is a problem. It seems that the more laws we bring into play, the more people there are who find ways to get around them.

It is important that we move forward as legislators to ensure that our judicial system has the kind of laws required and that the laws have teeth. People who get involved in the exploitation of our temporary workers in whatever category need to know that there are severe penalties and that they will have to pay for doing that.

More important, we have to make sure that people have all the information they need prior to coming here, know what their rights and their opportunities are, and know what to do if they face a clearly exploitive opportunity by someone else.

We need to continue to work together all around the world on these things. We need to help countries like Romania and elsewhere, where there are a lot of issues, to make sure that their economies are strong so their own residents are happy to stay there because they know they can raise a family and earn a good living. It is up to us to take care of our own issues here and find our own labour workforce opportunities for people.

We must remember that these are legal businesses that are asking for workers to come to Canada. As long as they are legal companies and licensed establishments, they have the right to apply.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, once temporary foreign workers arrive in Canada, they are subject to the same kind of protection that other workers are subject to. When individuals are applying with a visa officer to get a temporary work permit, it is important that they be given both verbally and in a pamphlet form or booklet form information outlining their rights in Canada.

They must be informed that they have the right to say no to things that are over and above what they clearly understood their job to be. They must be informed that they have the right to go to HRDC and seek out an alternative employer. That is very important once they arrive in Canada.

Far too often people are unaware of their responsibilities and their rights. Employers must understand that they cannot ask an employee who is here under a temporary work permit to carry out various things. They have the right to say no.

People are desperate to come to Canada. They get here and then are asked to do things they did not intend to do. Language is a problem. Fear is a problem. It is important for us on this side of the border to do more for those workers who wish to come to Canada.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, clearly these are issues that matter to a lot of us. Bill C-49 covered off an amazing amount of the issues when it comes to human trafficking that many of us care about. The whole issue of exploitation of temporary foreign workers is something that is very important to everyone in my party on this side of the House. I assure the member that there is no division.

We all want to make sure that legislation is strong, effective, and accomplishes what I believe both the hon. member and myself and others want to see happen. My concern, and I would expect that of my colleagues, is that it accomplish what the intent is and does not simply turn around be a band-aid solution on something that we all consider to be an important issue.

Let us not forget that the reason many of the people that are applying for temporary work permits in a variety of categories are coming from poverty-ridden countries and are looking for an opportunity to make some money to feed their families. Hence, that is the reason we do not want to penalize the very people who need the help.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some comments on Bill C-57. Certainly it is an issue which I know a fair amount about and I am glad to have the opportunity to comment on it.

Bill C-57 is about a page and a half long. It makes an amendment to our immigration laws. Certainly on the face of it, it should not take very long for any of us to deal with it, whether we are debating it at length or not. Part of our role in Parliament is not just to take something at face value and say that it looks good, it is an area that many of us care about and that we would like to see some improvements to strengthen it. Parliament is about debate and discussion to make things better.

For a bill to pass without our having a full opportunity to debate and discuss it, frankly, would be viewed upon as our not carrying out our responsibilities to ensure that legislation brought forward accomplishes what the intent of it clearly is, and if possible, to go further than that. That means we should look for areas to add further strength in the bill and make sure it is going to achieve the same goals that all of us in the House want to achieve.

I am pleased to take a few minutes to comment on this important issue today in an attempt to move the bill forward to committee so we can ensure that it accomplishes what we all want it to accomplish. The bill is an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which recognizes quite clearly, “Whereas Parliament recognizes the importance of protecting vulnerable foreign nationals who come to work in Canada from exploitation and abuse”. That is very clearly written into the Immigration Act and I know all of us want to ensure that happens.

This bill proposes to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow immigration officers the ability to refuse or authorize foreign nationals to work in Canada based on if they are considered to be vulnerable persons and/or at risk of exploitation or abuse. That very much is left up to the person who is doing the interviewing.

Currently, the visa officer can explain to individuals that they have certain rights when they go to Canada. The visa officer can hand them pamphlets outlining that they may be asked to do certain things and that they do not have to because they have certain rights under their visa applications. That does not always sink in with the person on the other side of the desk who is fleeing poverty or for whatever reason desperately wants to come to Canada and is willing to take a chance. This bill would end that opportunity. It would give the visa officer the opportunity to decide that the person would be exploited. It gives the officer a huge power. It is something that needs to be seriously looked at.

The bill would also allow immigration officers to determine if granting authorization would be contrary to public policy considerations that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has specifically outlined or based on evidence that people are at risk of exploitation. Often it is a feeling that someone gets. When we ask why a visa was refused, the visa officer will say that it was instinct, just a feeling that a certain person would find himself or herself in a vulnerable position. It puts a lot of emphasis and trust on the minister giving visas on judgment.

I do not see where there is harm in doing that as long as we make sure the checks and balances are in place. In reading at least the beginning of this bill, I see it is going to require a second person to comment and that is helpful.

Under the proposed amendments to the IRPA, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could issue written instructions to immigration officers giving them the authority to deny work permits to applicants who appear very vulnerable to them. The instructions would be based on clear public policy objectives and evidence that outlines the risk of exploitation that the applicants face.

Written instructions could help identify, for example, individuals who would be vulnerable to humiliating and degrading treatment, including sexual exploitation. All of us as parliamentarians have been around for a few years and we have certainly had an opportunity to hear firsthand about the exploitation of many people who come here on a variety of different permits. They are very vulnerable and do not have a lot of support or resources, or even know where to turn to get help. They often end up in our offices, sometimes even our campaign offices.

These could include low skilled labourers as well as potential victims of human trafficking. Immigration officers would make their decision on a case by case basis. Each application for a permit is always assessed on its own merits.

Without this authority, immigration officers cannot deny a work permit to someone who meets all the requirements to enter Canada, even if they believe there is a strong possibility of exploitation or abuse.

Clearly, if we have licensed establishments that have a labour shortage, and through our process through HRDC, they can apply to have someone come over to fill that shortage. That is a problem for those of us who are trying to find ways of tightening up the system.

Either we start to ban some of these businesses and decide we are not going to have them. But if we have them, we have to recognize that they have the rights under the law to apply for workers to come to their legitimate businesses.

Strengthening these rules will hopefully provide a tool to respond to situations where a permit applicant could be at risk. Again, it puts a lot of effort and a lot of trust into the visa officer who is making that decision.

Here in the House I am sure that all parliamentarians support the protection of human rights and the prevention of exploitation of foreign nationals, and in particular, women who are at risk.

I must point out that we talk a lot about the exploitation of women, but it certainly goes on with the exploitation of many men who are in positions who do not know any other way out. They are fleeing again from poverty, looking for money to send home to their families, and often find themselves doing work that would be quite unacceptable to Canadians who are born here.

I would like to assure Canadians who are watching at home that the Liberal Party is committed to working closely with the international community to prevent human trafficking. Bill C-49 was an excellent piece of legislation that was just enacted at the beginning of 2006 specifically on the issues of human trafficking. We all recognize that it is a very important area that we need to do all we can to prevent that.

Previously, we had made substantial changes to restrict visa applications to temporary foreign workers who we believe to be at risk.

We also endorse the recent Standing Committee on the Status of Women report, “Turning Outrage into Action to Address Trafficking for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation in Canada”. It calls on the government to do more to address existing systemic problems involving the most vulnerable members of our society. Clearly, on this side of the House we are waiting to see what kind of action the government takes to address those very issues.

As the former chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and throughout my political career at the municipal and the federal levels, I heard heart-wrenching stories from marginalized women who fell victim and also heard many constructive suggestions for solutions to this grave problem.

I believe that we need strong laws to protect the most vulnerable, so I will be supporting sending the bill to committee for further review and study. We need further consultation and possible amendments that I am sure will come from some of the members of the House to strengthen the bill.

Although the intent of the legislation is critical, it no doubt needs to be improved and we will do that at committee, which I hope will be done quickly and hastily.

There are considerations that first must be made to ensure the legislation truly achieves the goal of protecting all foreign workers. This is why I believe it should go to committee and I am confident that the work will get done there.

A serious shortcoming of the bill is that all classifications under the foreign worker program could potentially be adversely affected, including agriculture workers and live-in caregivers. If the bill were enacted as it is written today, these workers would have to be denied entry to Canada, exasperating temporary foreign worker shortages in certain sectors of the labour economy.

Therefore, the committee needs to find that balance to ensure protection and avoid exploitation, but still allow people to come into the country to carry out the needs that we have as far as labour shortages. It must ensure that these people know what their rights are and that they have an avenue to complain, to make changes, and to change an employer if the employer is abusive.

Refusing foreign workers entry to Canada based on the potential risk for abuse does not decrease the demand for these workers. This has the potential to create underground economies which render temporary workers even more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse which is exactly what we are trying to avoid with the intent of this legislation.

We need to ensure that blame is placed on the abusers, not on the victims. This is so important because victims of human trafficking, which my colleague continues to refer to, are often so frightened to come forward and admit what has actually happened to them.

I look forward to the bill being sent to committee, for improvements to be made, and for it to be referred back as soon as possible. I hope that we will be able to work together in a non-partisan way to prevent temporary foreign workers from being subjected to exploitation or abuse in Canada and for people to clearly know that they are welcome.

We need them to come to Canada. We want them to come and do well, and to move forward.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member. I know that as we all do he clearly has similar concerns about just what we can be doing to reduce crime in our cities and to improve the overall safety of our country. I think all of us have that same issue at heart, and the question is, what is the answer?

For some of the issues around Bill C-35 and reverse onus, in some cases those things are already happening, but it does send the message that we want to send to the judiciary. My concern is about our large urban centres like Toronto, which I represent, and the unfortunate and continuing gun violence in my riding.

I have two questions. First, what are his thoughts when it comes to the whole issue around handguns in our cities? This is something that the community safety minister in Ontario and the attorney general have talked about. They have talked specifically about a ban on handguns in major cities. They also told me that two weeks ago the police raided an apartment looking for someone and found 260 legally registered handguns and 1,000 pounds of ammunition.

Bill C-35 is not going to be big in helping us in those avenues, so what other suggestions does the member have? Does he think we should be going in that direction as a next step when it comes to the handgun issue?

[Infrastructure, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal government that put cities on the agenda. It would never be there if it were not for the work that we did. The minority Conservative government has no plan for the future sustainability of our cities. The minister's flawed initiative to make monthly transit passes tax deductible does nothing to increase ridership.

Could the minister point to a single city where an increase in public transit use can be attributed to the introduction of his meagre $3 a week transit pass deduction? How does the minister expect transit use to go up when the only incentive he is offering amounts to the sum total of one free bus ticket a week?

[Infrastructure, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to investing in our cities, the Conservative government will not put its money where its mouth is.

The previous Liberal government had invested over $800 million in public transit, but sadly, transit has fallen off the Conservative government's radar screen. The minister said this past weekend that the government's national transit strategy is not about new funding.

I wonder if the minister could tell me how many buses and rail cars he thinks cities can buy with his empty speeches.

[Firearms Advisory Committee, May 28th, 2007]

Clearly, no one believes the minister, Mr. Speaker. He was so proud of the firearms secret society that there was no announcement, no biographies released and no press conference.

Does the minister agree with the member for Yorkton—Melville when he says, “The difference between the Liberal government and the [conservists] is obvious by the people who make up the committee?”

Why did the government change it from the firearms advisory committee to the firearms advocacy committee?