House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 78% of the vote.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 May 30th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, these provisions look to the future of how we can improve the system. We have put in measures. We are increasing the number of people in the field who can process the backlog. It is very unfortunate that our government inherited such an incredibly large backlog of almost a million.
The improvements that we would make will process for new applications to help us give time to focus on the backlog that the Liberals left with us.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 May 30th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member's question does nothing but emphasize some of the false statements that have been made in and outside the House.
I have spoken to many people who sincerely want to come to this country, people who recognize that the system is broken and that these improvements, through this legislation, would help reunify families.
In fact, I was in Cairo just last weekend. On Sunday morning I drove by the Canadian embassy. There was a huge lineup of Egyptians who wanted to come to Canada. This is just one example. Nobody was standing at the front door, but we have a special immigration door. That is how seriously people want to come to Canada. They recognize the strength of our country. They recognize the opportunities in our country.
However, what have we done to them in the past? We have stuck them at the end of a line of almost a billion people long, I should say a million. When I listen to the opposition suggestions of what the carbon tax is going to cost Canadians, that is where my billions come from.
Many people want to come to Canada. The legislation before us would actually break the back of a broken system and bring us to a system that would help.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 May 30th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I am pleased to rise to speak in absolute and sincere opposition to the proposed amendments to Bill C-50, amendments that would seek to effectively delete the government's proposed improvements, and I emphasize improvements, to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which are contained in part 6 of Bill C-50.
I note that the amendments originate with my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, but they are supported by my colleagues down the way in the NDP. Sadly, this is yet another occasion where the NDP, despite its rhetoric, will vote against crucial measures proposed by this Conservative government to help immigrants.
The NDP's track record on immigration is a sorry one at best. In this Parliament alone, the NDP has voted against $1.3 billion for settlement funding, after a funding freeze of 10 years under the previous government. The NDP also voted against the establishment of a foreign credentials referral office. It voted against cutting the immigrant head tax, which our government cut in half, despite the NDP.
The NDP has even voted against providing increased protections for vulnerable foreign workers. Its continued opposition to Bill C-17 is preventing vulnerable foreign workers, who could be subject to abuse and exploitation, from getting protection that they need and deserve.
Despite their talk, the New Democrats do not step up to help newcomers to Canada. This Conservative government, however, does and continues to do so with our immigration changes proposed in Bill C-50.
Our proposed amendments in part 6 of the budget implementation act addressed the legislative roots of Canada's broken and overloaded immigration system. Neither Canadians nor prospective newcomers to our country benefit from an immigration system that, due to its systemic deficiencies, forces prospective immigrants to wait for up to six years before their applications are looked at, let alone processed.
The current system is especially problematic, since by 2012 fully 100% of our net labour growth will come from immigration. The systemic flaws in the current immigration system continue to hinder our country's ability to meet the needs of newcomers and the social and economic needs of our country. Urgent action is required. That is why changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act were included in budget 2008.
“Advantage Canada” 2006 identified that Canada needed the most flexible workforce in the world, an issue that is critical to Canada's future. Without our proposed legislative changes, the uncontrolled growth of the immigration backlog will continue, the backlog we inherited, by the way, from the previous Liberal government, which currently stands at over 900,000 people waiting in line to come to Canada.
This backlog is unacceptable. Urgent action must be taken so the backlog can be reduced. A new and more efficient processing system is desperately needed, a system that is both responsive to the needs of the newcomers and the needs of Canada.
To move toward accomplishing these goals, the legislative changes contained in part 6 of Bill C-50 are absolutely essential. The fact is Canada faces serious international competition in attracting people with the talents and the skills we need to ensure our country's continued growth and prosperity.
Compared to the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, we are the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen, code or prioritize skilled worker applications. Compared to other countries, Canada's system is simply not flexible enough. While Australia and New Zealand are processing applications in six to twelve months, if nothing is done, processing times in Canada will reach ten years by 2012. As more people submit applications and our current obligation to process every application to completion remains, the backlog continues to grow and Canada's labour shortages worsen.
If we do nothing to address the problem, we risk having families wait even longer to be reunited with their loved ones and we risk losing the people our country needs from other countries. Because those countries are in fierce competition with us for the skills and talents that newcomers bring, our government believes that without this legislative intervention the system is destined to collapse under its own weight.
It is important to note that the legislative changes contained within Bill C-50 are but one aspect of the government's approach to addressing the backlog problem. These legislative changes would prevent the backlog from growing, but let me be crystal clear on two key points about these proposals.
Contrary to the misinformation that is out there, we will not be placing any limits on the number of applicants that we will accept. Canada remains open to immigration and anyone can still apply.
However, under the proposed legislative changes, we will not have to process every application. Those applications not processed in a given year can be held for future consideration or returned to the applicant with a refund of their application fee. Individuals in this category would be welcome to reapply. The result would be that the backlog will stop growing and actually start to come down.
This flexibility in managing the backlog would accomplish three things. It would help reduce the backlog and ensure that immigrants have the jobs they need to succeed and allow our country to continue to grow and prosper.
Once these changes are implemented, the immigration backlog will stop growing and will begin to decrease the long lineup waiting news on entry to Canada through other important measures our government is taking.
Among other things we have committed over $109 million over five years to bring down the backlog.
Other steps that would be taken include: organizing visa officer “SWAT teams” to speed up processing in parts of the world where wait times are the longest; providing additional resources to these busy missions; helping build capacity to meet future levels and increasing demand; and coding applications in the existing backlog with the appropriate national occupational classification code and destination province where they are requesting to reside, so applicants with the skills we need can be referred to provinces for possible selection by provincial nominee programs.
Part 6 of Bill C-50, when combined with these non-legislative measures funded in budget 2008 and beyond, would act to control and reduce the backlog and speed up processing. Because immigration is so important to Canada's future, we need a modern and renewed vision for immigration.
These proposed changes are part of a vision that involves creating a more responsive immigration system, one that allows us to welcome more immigrants while helping them get the jobs they need and building better lives for themselves and their families, because their success is our success.
Urgent action is required. Part 6 of Bill C-50 and all of budget 2008 would deliver this much needed action.
I end by expressing my gratitude to my colleagues opposite in the Liberal Party who have so graciously helped our Conservative government ensure speedy passage of our budget legislation through the House. I am pleased the Liberal Party supports our proposed immigration measures and budget 2008. I am pleased the Liberal Party recognizes that budget 2008 and Bill C-50 are full of positive measures for all Canadians, those present now and those soon to be here as well.
I encourage all members of the House, especially my colleagues in the Liberal Party, to defeat these detrimental amendments to Bill C-50 and continue to work toward its speedy passage unamended.
Business of Supply May 29th, 2008
Mr. Chair, in the spirit of thanks, we should continue by thanking the minister who has obviously been rewarded for his diligence and hard work in the trade department. It has been recognized by the Prime Minister that he can take on this new task. He needs to know the government is solidly behind him in that challenge and we will be there to support him in it.
Speaking of leadership, it is under the leadership of the international trade minister that we signed our first free trade agreement since 2001, the agreement the EFTA. Many people ask, what is the EFTA? The minister has already acknowledged it is the European Free Trade Association, those countries that are not in the EU.
The minister recognized that this was the way Canada would have a doorway to that huge opportunity, that huge trading bloc, the European Union. It was under his leadership that we signed an agreement with Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
I had the privilege to visit a few of these countries on behalf of the minister. I saw for myself the tremendous benefits. One simple one is they consume purely Canadian durum for their pastas. There was an 8% tariff on that. Guess what? That is gone now: no tariff, plain and simple. If no one else, my wheat farmers are very happy about that.
That is only one example of what has happened with this first transatlantic free trade agreement. Canada now has a doorway to the European market.
Canada and the EFTA both enjoy access to some of the richest markets. Not only is it a benefit for us, but it is a doorway for the EFTA countries into our NAFTA trading bloc as well. They see that as a benefit. That is the beauty of free trade agreements, they are two way.
I enjoy talking about all the accomplishments of the trade minister. We know they will be reflected in his leadership in foreign affairs.
Could he perhaps explain some of the other benefits that he sees through EFTA into the European market?
Business of Supply May 28th, 2008
Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member who plays a very pivotal role in the finance committee. The member for St. Catharines is much younger than me, Mr. Chair, I am sure that is obvious when you look at him. We expect him to be here for many years. He has done a wonderful job representing his constituents and representing all Canadians on the finance committee.
He was one of the very few who was actually able to travel all across the country during our prebudget consultation. The rest of us were caught up in other issues, but the hon. member travelled across the country and heard from all Canadians. We had a discussion at committee today about how many of those recommendations we heard during our prebudget consultations; 22 of the 37 recommendations, if I have the figures right, were actually implemented in the budget.
The entire budget may not be implemented if the NDP has its way. The NDP tried to hold this up at committee. Fortunately, we had the support of the Liberals because they recognized all of the important pieces in this budget, important to all Canadians. The Liberals helped us. The Bloc was there working with us. It understood the benefits that Canadians will see from this.
Let me share some of these benefits that we do hope and pray that the Liberals will continue support. If the NDP continues to play its silly games, it will hold up incredibly positive initiatives for Canadians if we do not get this through the House and through the Senate before summer. Let me talk about some of them.
The tax-free savings account, TFSA, is scheduled to come into play January 1. Canadians for the first time will be able to save tax-free, capital gains free. That is the first time since RRSPs were implemented. It is not to replace RRSPs, but to supplement savings for Canadians. Also, we are looking at $500 million to help improve public transit; $400 million to help recruit new front line police officers; and nearly $250 million for carbon capture and storage, both in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. Mr. Chair, you would appreciate and know a lot about the one in Saskatchewan. There is also $160 million to support geonomics and biomedical research. We need to raise the alarm bell that these need--
Business of Supply May 28th, 2008
Mr. Chair, the finance minister has been doing a superb job of answering and we do not want to wear his voice out in one evening. Therefore, I will answer the member for Blackstrap, who I thank for her representation of her constituents. She has been a tremendous asset to that part of Saskatchewan. We know that she has great support in that region. She does a great job backing up her minister. She is here tonight to help support one of the landmark pieces of our 2008 budget, the tax-free savings account, described by many, not just us, for its landmark savings opportunities for Canadians.
January 1, 2009, will bring this into effect. Canadians over the age of 18 will be permitted to deposit up to $5,000 each year. TFSA will provide greater savings incentives for low and modest income individuals. In the first five years, over three-quarters of the benefits will go to the lowest two tax brackets. That is one of the most important features to this. It provides an opportunity for all Canadians to save.
Additionally, we have ensured TFSA income and withdrawals will not affect eligibility for federal income tested benefits and credits. To see how much we can save, I encourage all Canadians, and I will repeat this website, again, to go to www.budget.gc.ca. Our finance minister has been very clear about reminding Canadians how they can save, and they can go to this website.
It is no wonder we are getting such positive reactions. The C.D. Howe Institute said, “This tax policy gem is very good news for Canadians, and [the finance minister] and his government deserve credit for a novel program”.
The Winnipeg Free Press said, “To at once encourage investment and savings is a good idea in a country like Canada where individual debt is high and investment low”.
BMO economist Doug Porter said, “The tax-free savings account is a very positive development—I think it’s a step in the right direction”.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce as well said, “the creation of a Tax-free Savings Account will encourage savings, a measure which the Chamber has sought for many years”.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said, “This is an excellent policy proposal. Canada needs to reward people that save because their investments fuel economic growth and job creation”.
As well, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the TFSA account was “an inspired measure.
Not to be forgotten are the comments of the hon. member of for Halton about TFSA being a good idea, “It's something I have long advicated for”.
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about manufacturing, then we need to question what could be one of the most devastating, punitive taxes that could ravage the sector. The carbon tax would create a huge disadvantage for Ontario's manufacturing sector when it is least able to cope with it.
I think Ontario's environment minister, John Gerretsen, put it best when he recently declared, “I am not sure whether a carbon tax would work in Ontario”.
Even a prominent Ontario federal Liberal, Gerard Kennedy, stated,“I think a carbon tax is the clumsiest of the options that we've got so far”.
It is not just clumsy. It is punitive and regressive, with the potential of devastating Ontario's manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, Ontario's manufacturing sector is clearly facing challenges due to shifts in the global economy, along with the rise of new emerging markets, like China and India, as well as a stronger dollar, challenges that have been made worse by what can be best described as lacklustre manufacturing support by the former government.
It is not just us saying that. It is organizations like the United Steelworkers that recently stated the following:
The [manufacturing] crisis didn't just start when the Conservatives took office. The Liberals had 12 years to deal with this stuff and they did nothing.
They did nothing and yet have the audacity to criticize our considerable efforts to assist manufacturers, efforts like over $9 billion in tax relief specifically for manufacturers and processors, efforts like the $1 billion community development trust to help provinces like Ontario to assist communities plagued by chronic high unemployment or layoffs, efforts like a temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in machinery and equipment, or efforts like a $250 million automotive innovation fund to fuel the development of greener and more fuel efficient vehicles while helping preserve and create high quality jobs.
Indeed, on the auto sector, General Motors of Canada said that the finance minister has been an “outstanding, supportive advocate for GM and our industry“. It went on to say, “There is no better evidence than the federal budget's creation of an Automotive Innovation Fund”.
That is just a small sample of what we have done to assist the manufacturing sector.
Now let us look at what the official opposition is proposing to help the manufacturing sector: a new carbon tax. The Liberal leader has been a strong advocate of this plan, despite the fact that it would clearly harm manufacturers, hiking production and shipping costs tied to energy inputs. It would be a punishing new tax that would make our exports more expensive, creating a huge disadvantage our manufacturers simply cannot afford now, especially in Ontario.
This is not just political rhetoric coming from this side of the House. One just needs to read today's major Windsor Star editorial, which states:
A carbon tax will penalize low-income earners, rural Canadians and suburban commuters far more than urbanites who can afford downtown lifestyles and it will negatively affect the ability of Canadian businesses, already struggling under the weight of a rising loonie, to compete internationally.
The Liberal carbon tax plan is leaving a lot of people worried. Indeed, just the other day the Liberal Premier of Ontario formally rejected a regressive plan like his federal cousins.
I ask the Liberal member from Ontario if she has had a chance to consult with the businesses, seniors and those on fixed incomes in her riding and answered the questions we are all asking: How much would the Liberal carbon tax increase gas prices? How much would it increase electricity and heating bills?
Mr. Speaker, we do know that there are sectors which are experiencing weakness, but we have a coherent, long term plan for the economy and it is getting results. The job numbers speak for themselves. Our unemployment rate is near a 33-year low. There are over three-quarters of a million net new jobs since we formed government, and 80% of those are full time. Over 100,000 net new jobs have been created so far this year.
As BMO economist Douglas Porter recently stated, “...even as manufacturing employment contracts...the simple fact is that all other industries are more than offsetting the weakness. Employment is up 2.1% in the past year, slightly topping the pace of the prior five years”.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals with their non-stop negativity, their non-stop trashing of the Canadian economy might very well be the only people in Canada who are hoping and wishing for an economic downturn.
It is true that Canada is not an island and global financial volatility and the U.S. dollar weakness will affect certain sectors of this economy. But it is important to recognize that in large part due to the actions of our Conservative government, Canada's economy now has a strong foundation to grow and succeed through our long term economic plan, Advantage Canada.
We have acted quickly to bolster confidence in the economy with long term measures, including nearly $200 billion in tax reductions to stimulate the economy, including historic reductions to corporate taxes, significantly trimming the national debt, significant investments in R and D and infrastructure, and as well, $1 billion to help retrain unemployed workers for new jobs in growing areas of the economy.
The perpetually pessimistic Liberals, who have fully embraced the failed tax and spend ideology of the 1970s, want to throw taxpayers' money at band-aid, short term government intervention in the economy, measures that will only lead to substantial new spending, higher taxes and following that, massive deficits. Indeed, the Liberal leader is currently advocating a whopping $60 billion plus increase in spending that would put Canada into a substantial deficit.
Further, to burden Canadians coping with high gas prices, the Liberals are actively plotting to impose upon each and every Canadian a huge multi-billion dollar gas tax. As the Minister of the Environment has alerted Canadians, such a massive new tax would not only represent a gas tax increase, but also a new tax on home heating fuel, a new tax on natural gas for people to heat their homes, a new tax to heat hot water tanks, and a new tax in the generation of electricity.
I ask the member opposite to consult his constituents and ask them if they are really prepared for this punishing new tax. Talk to the seniors. Talk to those on fixed incomes. Ask them if they feel they are not paying too much at the pumps as well as for their home heating and their electricity.
While he is at it, he should ask them if they agree with the Liberal leader's musing about increasing the GST by 2%, or maybe more. We know the Liberals are actively considering doing this, as the Liberal finance critic has repeatedly stated that hiking the GST is “an option. All I can say is that”--raising the GST--“is consistent with our approach”.
I ask the member opposite, does he really think introducing a massive new tax on gasoline and other fuels, hiking the GST by 2% or more, or thrusting Canada into a $60 billion deficit represent a sound and sustainable long term economic plan?
Clearly, the Liberal idea of economic stimulus is to max out the national credit card, borrow, and then to reach even further into the pockets of hard-working Canadians.