Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague not agree with me that it is a shame the government has abandoned human rights internationally, has abandoned the U.S. and has abandoned indigenous people in this country?
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 28% of the vote.
Committees of the House April 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague not agree with me that it is a shame the government has abandoned human rights internationally, has abandoned the U.S. and has abandoned indigenous people in this country?
Committees of the House April 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague would agree with me that September 13, 2007 was a historic day for indigenous peoples around the world. On that day the UN and its member states voted 144 to 4 in favour of the declaration. Sadly, one of those four members was Canada, even though Canada has been participating in the declaration from day one and has always endorsed UN declarations and always has been at the forefront of these declarations.
This declaration which is now part of a larger body of international law makes a much needed contribution to global understanding and promotion of human rights that are indispensable to survival and well-being of some of the world's most marginalized and--
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 April 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, there is a point here that is missing, that if we are talking about immigration reform, there is in fact a need for it, the need for a proper study and proper process to do it. Should it come through a budget bill? I do not think so. I think even my hon. colleague would agree that this is terrible and bad judgment on the government's part. It is bad politics in fact to tie immigration reform to a budget bill and make it a vote of confidence. The government so wants to be defeated, it is actually becoming quite laughable, because it attaches everything to a vote of confidence. I do not think this is the way that Parliament should work. It certainly is a waste of our time. It is a waste of the resources that we could be putting forward in a more effective way.
If we are going to have immigration reform, we need to do it in a cooperative way. We need to make sure that it is also done in a correct way. I do not agree with the way in which it has been handled by the government and I think most Canadians do not agree with it.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 April 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the comments of the member for Malpeque and his assessment of what took place. It was extremely difficult to say what I had to say, what I thought was very important to my constituents and my city of Toronto when there was constant heckling from the government benches. In many ways it is an attempt to silence members of the House, to prevent them from saying what they feel is important to their constituents, the citizens of this country.
I said over and over again in my speech that the immigration policy being put forward by the government in Bill C-50 is being brought in through the back door. We need to have immigration reform. I am one of those who has always felt that there are things in the immigration system that need to be reformed. We do need a study of immigration policies. We need to hear from the public. I find it highly regrettable that the government has actually attached this to a budget vote and made it a vote of confidence.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 April 7th, 2008
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.
Davenport Community Builders Awards April 3rd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to six outstanding community builders who are all recipients of the annual Davenport Community Builders Awards.
The Dovercourt Boys and Girls Club is an organization that provides a safe and healthy environment for the children across the Davenport community.
Jack Fava, a dedicated community activist, has worked hard to make our community safer.
Reverend Kate Merriman is a member of the board of directors St. Clair West Affordable Housing Development Group and is very active in the community.
Virginia Novak is a strong advocate and community leader committed to making Toronto a safer place for residents, families and businesses.
Nick Saul is executive director of The Stop Community Food Centre, an outstanding community organization.
Margaret Smith is committed to making the St. Clair Avenue West area of Davenport a better place to live and work.
On behalf of the residents of Davenport, please join me in congratulating these exceptional community leaders. Their work is appreciated by all residents of our community, the city of Toronto and the people of Canada.
Interim Supply March 12th, 2008
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board to provide the House with the assurance that the bill is in its usual habitual form.
Supplementary Estimates (B), 2007-08 March 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board to provide the House with the assurance that the bill is in its usual and habitual form.
(On Clause 2)
Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month March 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I believe at this time that if you consult the House there will be unanimous consent to pass the following motion: I move:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should designate September of each year as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month.
Ovarian cancer affects us all and I am honoured to see the House united on such an important issue.
Afghanistan March 12th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with members of all parties and I believe if you seek it, there will be unanimous consent to pass the following motion: “That, in the opinion of this House, September of every year be declared ovarian cancer awareness month”.
Ovarian cancer affects us all and I am honoured to see the House united in such an important cause.