Omar Alghabra

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak to budget 2008, a budget, as in previous Conservative budgets, that has let Canadians down.

As a member of the official opposition, my job is to critically evaluate the performance of the Conservative government and hold it to account, and that is an easy job. It is an easy job to show how incompetent and incapable the Conservative government is. However, only exposing the weaknesses of the Conservative government is not good enough.

I think Canadians expect other members of Parliament to put forward their own ideas, to inspire them and to show a vision and ideas that will advance Canada further and improve the welfare of Canadians.

Therefore, I want to take this opportunity to focus on what I think a Liberal budget would contain. By the way, it is not because I am afraid of being sued by the Conservatives. It is because I think a lot of my colleagues here today have shown and exposed a lot of the weaknesses in the budget, and I have done that in my previous speeches.

Today I want to talk about what a Liberal budget would contain. It certainly would contain a lot of items that would advance Canada and would make it an even better place than it is today. It would pay attention to the concerns with which Canadians deal.

We have issues of the economy, the environment, infrastructure, health care, affordable housing, post-secondary education, smart integration for immigrants and poverty.

Let us start with the economy. There is very little doubt that we are heading toward uncertain economic times. A lot of industries are struggling, particularly the manufacturing industry, especially in Ontario. My riding hires about 50% of the jobs, so it is a very important segment of the industry of our economy, not only in Mississauga but also in the rest of Ontario and across Canada.

What is the role of the government when a sector of the economy faces some challenges? There are two ideologies.

One ideology believes that a government has no role, that it should not intervene and that it should let the so-called marketplace forces get rid of certain industries or fix certain industries. In the meantime, jobs are lost and industries are devastated.

On the other hand, some people believe government can play a positive role in society and can help smooth out transitions and help facilitate economic growth. If one believes in that, one believes the government, during these uncertain times, has a role to play to facilitate the transition or the challenges that manufacturing industries go through.

We know they are temporary. We know they are part of the economic cycles. The best thing for a government to do is to smooth out that transition, so in the future, the manufacturing sector can carry the burden for other sectors that may struggle, and continue to pay taxes and create jobs for Canadians.

A Liberal budget would have contained incentives to create an environment for private investment. It would have created some form of partnership. It would have created tax incentives to attract domestic and foreign investment. Other countries do that. Canada is falling behind. Given the ongoing economic and international economic conditions, our jobs are being transferred somewhere else because the government is not doing what it needs to be doing.

It also would have created a healthier environment for research and development. For example, in our system currently, there are tax credits for companies that invest in research and development, but those tax credits are not refundable. They can only get them accredited against a profit. Currently some of the manufacturing companies are not experiencing any profits because of the downturn. The forestry industry as well is not seeing any profits, again because it is facing some challenges. What does that do? It disincentivizes them from what they need to be doing, which is focusing on research and development and building for the future.

A Liberal budget would introduce some form of partially refundable tax incentive, which would mean that a corporation would get some of the tax credit refunded before they would be able to record a profit to help it sustain that research initiative so it could build for the future.

On the environment, there is very little argument, even from the Conservatives, that climate change is a big global challenge. Canadians expect their government to take a leadership role on that file.

A Liberal budget would introduce measures, not only to set targets for greenhouse gas emissions, but to create incentives for industries and individuals so they would be able to reach those targets. It is a similar to the manufacturing industry. We are going through a transitional period, from our current practices, whether at an industrial or at a consumer level, to a much more conscious level of carbon emissions and environmental footprints. We need a government to play a positive role in the transition period, and a Liberal government would have done that.

We heard a lot over the last while about the infrastructure deficit our country faces. Canadian cities are the economic engines of our economy. It is important that a government supports its cities in providing services, like roads, schools, community centres and bridges, so that the economic engine is sustained and is able to grow.

This is not just important for the people who live in cities. This is important for people who live in Canada. Everybody relies on those economic engines, whether we live in cities or in rural areas. Therefore, it is important for a government to play a partnership role with cities so they are able to confront the challenge of infrastructure deficit and build for the future. We do not want to leave the country worse off to our next generation than we have inherited.

I am proud to say that our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has made a courageous and innovative announcement about investment in infrastructure. Therefore, again it comes down to what we believe in, whether we believe that a federal government has a role to play in facilitating the economic, social and environmental growth of a country or not. The Liberal Party does and would have introduced in a Liberal budget measures to invest in infrastructure.

On health care, today the medical associations are on the Hill. They have told us about the shortage of doctors and nurses. This is something where the federal government can also play a role in partnership with our provinces. This is an issue to which the Liberal government paid lot of attention to in the past. In 2005 the former prime minister signed a $41 billion deal with the provinces to increase investment in health care. I can assure members that a Liberal budget would have contained a substantive measure to invest in health care.

I know I am running out of time, so I want to talk about an issue that is very much debated, and that is payment toward debt. Canadians discuss this all the time. How do we use the surplus?

This year's surplus was close to $13 billion. A Liberal government, as it has historically done, would have approached it in a balanced approach. We would have paid down part of the debt, but we also would have recognized the fact that the country has severe needs and aspirations. We would have invested in the future of our country. We would have invested in infrastructure, as I said. We would have invested in the environment.

While it is important to keep the debt down, it is also important to invest in the future. Again, it is not only good for us but it is essential for future generations.

[Petitions, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition on behalf of my constituents in regard to the assassination of the chief peace negotiator for the Tamils in Sri Lanka. This petition calls upon the House of Commons to condemn the targeted killing of the Tamil peace negotiator, to request the Government of Canada to exert diplomatic pressure on Sri Lanka to respect the human rights of the Tamil people, and to urge the Government of Sri Lanka to engage in negotiations with the Tamils toward a peaceful political solution.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, March 4th, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-523, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to table a bill to amend security certificates after the Conservative government chose to suffocate debate on Bill C-3, which has just passed. Even Conservative Senator Nolin acknowledged that he had to hold his nose and adopt that bill because of the lack of time provided by the government.

Witnesses before legislative committees provided us with compelling evidence on why the law formerly known as Bill C-3 is flawed. This debate is not over. Canadians deserve a more fulsome discussion. This is my contribution to the debate. It is based on recommendations I gathered from legal experts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about debt payment and in abstract, everybody understands the fact that lower debt is a good thing, but let us put this in context.

I want to give the hon. member an example of a typical Canadian family that has a mortgage and comes across a bonus at the end of the year of extra money. Now they have a choice. They have a child who needs to go to university, or they have the option of reducing their mortgage. What does he think the family chooses to do? Does the family put the money into the mortgage payment or save that money for their child so he or she can go to college?

[Afghanistan, February 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in his closing remarks, my hon. colleague talked about our responsibility as parliamentarians toward our soldiers.

There is no doubt that when Parliament discusses a military deployment this is a very serious decision that parliamentarians need to discuss and engage in. There is also no doubt that there are various points of view and passionate opinions about this issue.

However, I would like to hear the member's comments on the fact that there are accusations from some members of this House that any kind of debate is aid or comfort to the enemy and that it is not helping the actual objectives of the mission. I found it extremely shocking that while parliamentarians have a responsibility, not only to our soldiers but to Canadians and to the rest of the world, to debate this matter extensively and exhaustively, some members make accusations that any kind of motivation behind this debate is aiding and comforting our enemy, when I think the purpose is exactly the opposite.

[The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point. It is impossible to avoid that point. The Conservatives know that Ontarians are not warm to their government. They know that Ontarians do not like the Conservatives. Even the Minister of the Environment remembers that.

If the government had consulted, had done the studies and had done its homework, it would have disarmed us from any opposition. We would have had very little to say if it had done its homework. However, the government, in an ad hoc manner, is trying to change the Constitution without extensive consultation on the backs of Ontarians.

[The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not understand why even other Canadians will not like this bill. They know that when unfairness is applied to one Canadian, even though they may not be affected by it today, tomorrow the government could introduce something that will be unfair to them. If they do not take my word, they can take the word of Premier Danny Williams. He tells Canadians that if the government can do this to him, that it can do this tomorrow to them.

I will give the hon. member some numbers. Right now, Ontario has a 38% share of the population. By 2011, it is projected to have 39.4% of the population. The 10 seats the Conservatives are talking about does not come close. It is only 50% of what is needed to address the growth in the population of Ontario.

We agree that Alberta and British Columbia should have fair representation but what is fair is fair. Ontario deserves to have its fair share and we will stand up for Ontarians as we stand up for all Canadians.

[The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member does not want to debate the bill. He wants to debate issues of provincial jurisdiction. When the Conservatives table a bill on Ontario I will be happy to debate it. Right now we are debating Bill C-22 and the member from Alberta is in no position to speak up on behalf of Ontario.

I want to hear from the ministers and members from that caucus who are from Ontario. In the next election, how will they explain to Canadians who live in Ontario why they are supporting this flawed, unfair bill?

[The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, all the government knows how to do is insult but not consult. The government forgets that it only has a minority government. It will need to face Canadians in the next election.

The Minister of the Environment must remember where his seat is. He will be facing Ontarians in the next election. Not only will he need to explain the budget, not only will he need to explain his performance as the Minister of the Environment and not only will he need to explain his record under Mike Harris, he will need to explain his support for this flawed bill.

The Conservative government is shameless. It needs to go back to the drawing board. It needs to consult with the premiers and with its counterparts and then we will be able to have a constructive discussion. As it stands, the bill is unfair not only to Ontarians but to all Canadians.

[The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation), February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-22, the bill that the House leader has just admitted to the public is unfair to Ontario.

I will begin my remarks by reading into the record excerpts of letters that my premier, Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, had consistently written to the Prime Minister when this bill was Bill C-56. The first letter was sent on June 4, 2007 and it reads:

Dear Prime Minister:

1) I am writing to express my concern about Bill C-56, which your government introduced on May 11, 2007.

As you know, this new legislation will change the formula for readjusting seats among the provinces in the House of Commons and is intended to implement your promise made during the last election to "restore representation by population for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta in the House of Commons while protecting the seat counts of smaller provinces.

I must express my surprise that this legislation does not honour your commitment to the people of Ontario, although does so for the people of British Columbia and Alberta - and for the seven other provinces. Under the proposed legislation, Canadians in Ontario will continue to be significantly under-represented, and we will be the only Canadians who do not enjoy one of the most basic democratic rights: fair representation by population.

I am concerned that your minister has misunderstood the consequences of this legislation for the people of Ontario. He has indicated in public on several occasions that it represents substantial progress for Canadians living in Ontario. This is simply untrue. I am attaching the seat projections anticipated under this legislation.

As you can see, despite the fact that Ontario will gain additional seats, the gap between our share of seats and our share of population will continue to grow. The federal government's legislation, which we presumed would rectify a long-standing injustice, will, in fact, make the problem worse.

This means Ontario's growing population will not be adequately represented. Ultimately, the size of Ontario's constituencies will grow even larger. For example, under Bill C-56, both Alberta and British Columbia will get a new seat in the readjustment following the 2011 Census for every increase of approximately 100,000 people. However, Ontario will get only one new seat for roughly every 200,000 people. Ontarians would become increasingly under-represented with each new readjustment following future censuses.

I do not believe that your government or minister, in all good conscience, would introduce legislation that attempts to entrench in the Constitution a formula that so clearly disenfranchises Canadians living in Ontario - and only Canadians living in Ontario. Other Canadians will see their representation keep pace with or surpass their province's population, but Canadians in Ontario will not. I cannot believe that this is what your government intends.

Another letter dated September 16, 2007 reads:

Dear Prime Minister:

I noted with interest your address to the Australian Parliament on September 11, and agree with your description of democracy as “an instinctive sense of fairness, self-restraint and compromise.

It was my concern over the lack of fairness in the treatment of Ontario voters contained in Bill C-56 that prompted my letter to you on June 4.

I call on you now, as I did then, to restore representation by population in the House of Commons, and I continue to urge you to make a simple amendment to Bill C-56 so that Canadians in Ontario receive the same treatment as those in British Columbia and Alberta. Based on current population and future projections, the people of Ontario are entitled to at least 10 more seats than anticipated in your legislation.

I note that you have prorogued Parliament and will begin a new session in October. In the spirit of starting anew, I suggest that now would be a good time to consider amending Bill C-56 prior to its reintroduction in the House of Commons to take into account Ontario’s fundamental concerns.

I have another letter dated November 22, 2007, which states:

On November 14, 2007, the federal government introduced Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, which will change the number of seats in the House of Commons. This bill is of great concern to me, to our government, and should be of concern to all Ontarians. I want to ensure that all Members of Parliament from Ontario understand these concerns.

If this bill passes, it will weaken democratic representation for Canadians living in Ontario by granting us fewer seats than we are entitled to in the House of Commons. In its current form, Bill C-22 undermines some of our most cherished democratic rights: representation by population, "one person, one vote," equality under the law and effective representation.

During the 2006 federal election campaign, the Conservative Party promised to "restore representation by population for Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta in the House of Commons while protecting the seat counts of smaller provinces." Bill C-22 breaks that commitment.

I could go on reading these letters. There is also an attachment of the projections that I will be happy to table in the House of Commons so Canadians can actually see what the legislation is proposing.

The government is conducting itself in a bizarre manner. The government has falsely claimed that it will end the bickering between provinces. What has it ended up doing? I has ended up insulting Canadians, insulting the provinces and breaking its commitments to the provinces. We are not just talking about Bill C-22. We are talking about the Atlantic accord, child care, the environment and infrastructure funding. All of those things have been completely terminated.

The Prime Minister has yet to hold a first ministers meeting with the premiers. He invited them over for dinner for a couple of hours of discussion where he told them what he was going to do whether they liked it or not, but he has never held constructive consultation with the premiers.

The minister himself admitted that this bill has flaws. I agree with him, but I would have given him more credit if he had come to us with a proposal after consulting with the premiers and with Canadians. If the government had put forward an effort before proposing the bill, we would have been able to engage in a constructive debate. It then could have told Canadians that it had tried.

However, now the government is saying that it knows it is not perfect but that it is trying. It is trying at the expense of Ontarians. It is trying without consulting anyone and without even appearing to be consultative. The government is shameless. It tries to pretend that it is all for democratic reform but it is afraid of Ontarians and of Canadians. It will need to explain that to the population of Ontario and to Canadians in the next election. It will need to stand and tell Canadians that it did not consult them because it knew what was best for them, that it knew how to conduct its business and everyone must accept it without arguing.

The government does not care about the people of Ontario. It does not care about Canadians. It only cares about its own agenda. All it wants to do is make change via stealth. It does not want anyone to know what the hell it is doing.