Yasmin Ratansi

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is aware of the studies that were done by Dr. Fraser Mustard. Early learning and child care strategies are very critical because they help the country to be more productive. We need a country that is economically productive. If we were to be ideologically bound, as the Conservatives were in the past election by establishing a $100 fend-for-yourself system, it will not work.

It is important for the government and the opposition parties to work toward a very cohesive strategy for early learning and child care because it will boost the economy and productivity. However, I do not know whether the government has any money because it has claimed on page 6 that it will only fund essential programs and nothing else. I wonder how the vulnerable will be looked after.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I would like to preface my remarks with my deepest appreciation to the people of Don Valley East for my re-election to the House. It is an honour and privilege to serve as their representative. I would also like to congratulate all the returning members and new members. It is definitely a privilege to be here.

If we were one of those unemployed Canadians who once worked in Canada's manufacturing or auto sectors or if we were a recent graduate searching for the first break in the job market, yesterday's Speech from the Throne offers very little in the way of substance or hope for the future. This is truly a shame.

The reason the speech contains nothing in the way of substantial assistance to Canadians is because the federal government is broke. In fact, this particular Speech from the Throne will go down in history because it is the first one that actually forecasts a federal deficit in advance of next week's economic statement.

Canadians have a right to be angry. It was just a few weeks ago during the federal campaign that the Prime Minister swore that his Conservative government would never run a federal deficit. On October 7, 2008, the Prime Minister addressed the Canadian Club in Toronto and issued the following statement:

A Conservative Government will not be raising taxes. We will not cancel planned tax reductions for business. We will not be running a deficit. We will keep our spending within our means.

I guess the Prime Minister should have mentioned that the Conservative campaign promises come with a caveat because this one has already passed its expiry date. This is a promise that the Prime Minister made just six weeks ago.

Furthermore the Conservative campaign platform released just a week before election day stated the following:

Our plan's budgeting is based on the revenue projections in Budget 2008. These are the most up-to-date projections released by the Department of Finance....

If the Prime Minister had the benefit of the most up-to-date information, why is he suddenly changing his tune today or the day after the election was held? The official excuse that we have been hearing all around today from the government side is that there is a downturn in the global economy, but nothing could be further from the truth. This is a made in Canada federal deficit, courtesy of the Conservative Party.

Less than three years ago, the Conservatives inherited a $13 billion federal surplus from the Liberals. Unemployment was at its historical lows and the Liberals had put in place contingency funds to cover unforeseen budget costs and to pay down the federal debt at the same time.

How did the Conservatives blow that $13 billion surplus in such a short period of time? First, in spite of the advice of leading economists across Canada, the Conservatives went ahead with a bunch of tax gimmicks that did little to benefit Canadian taxpayers, yet created a massive hole in the public treasury to the tune of $11 billion. These tax measures did not create jobs, spur consumer spending or boost productivity. Instead, they created a hole.

Second, the Minister of Finance went on the largest spending spree in Canadian history with his budget 2007. Now Canadians will have a tough time swallowing the Conservatives' apology in next week's economic statement. In fact, the Conservatives will be hard pressed to explain why the cupboard is bare with little or nothing to offer Canadians in advance of an economic recession.

Although the Prime Minister has a background in economics, he sadly lacks the basic fundamentals to run a fiscally sound government. The Liberals ran healthy federal surpluses so that we could pay down the federal debt and our children and grandchildren would not have to pick up the tab with interest added on.

Unfortunately, those fiscal fundamentals have gone out the window with the Conservatives.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada has already indicated that moderate growth forecasts for the Canadian economy have virtually evaporated in less than a month. In other words, Canadians cannot expect too much from the Conservatives in terms of tax cuts or economic assistance because the federal government is broke. Once again, it is a Conservative government that is quick to whip out the federal credit card and start running up the public debt at taxpayers' expense.

The Speech from the Throne says so in the following paragraph:

Ongoing, unsustainable deficits are quite rightly unacceptable to Canadians. These structural deficits must never return. At the same time, in a historic global downturn, it would be misguided to commit to a balanced budget in the short term at any cost, because that cost would ultimately be borne by Canadian families.

That statement is truly astounding. A deficit is essentially an unpaid bill for our children and our children's children to eventually pay off.

I would like to know how much of the federal debt the Conservatives plan to pay off in the upcoming budget. The answer would have to be nothing. Few Canadians are aware that the largest single federal expenditure is interest payments on the federal debt. In budget 2008, that represented $33.9 billion or 14.5¢ of every tax dollar. We still owe $500 billion in federal debt and now the Conservatives are pulling out the government's credit card and piling on more and more.

Philosopher George Santayana is often remembered for the following quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Unfortunately, this is true of the Conservative Party.

In 1993, the Liberals inherited a $42 billion deficit from the Conservatives and were given the unpleasant task of cleaning up eight years of Tory mismanagement. The Liberals did a very fine job. They cleared off the deficit and brought Canada back as the strongest and most fiscally responsible country in the G-8.

Now we may need to clean up the Conservatives' mess because they are going down a slippery slope. As the official opposition, the Liberal Party pledges to make this minority Parliament work but we need to look after the interests of Canadians who will eventually demand a fiscally responsible government that is accountable, reliable and lives up to its campaign promises.

[The Economy, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago in the midst of a federal election campaign the Prime Minister swore that his Conservative government would never run a federal deficit. In spite of a $16 billion surplus that the Conservatives inherited from Liberals in 2005, it now seems that the Prime Minister is poised to break his first campaign promise in less than a month.

The official excuse from the PMO will be the downturn in the global economy, but the reality is this is a deficit manufactured by the Conservatives. Despite the advice of leading economists from across the country, the Conservatives went ahead with ill-conceived economic policies that cost the federal treasury $11 billion a year. Couple this with the largest federal spending spree in Canadian history and we have a made in Canada fiscal disaster courtesy of the Conservative government.

It is said that history repeats itself, and once again the Liberal Party will eventually inherit a financial mess and will have to clean it up.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is such a well versed person in finance, I assure him that my constituents have been very concerned that the government, which inherited a $17 billion surplus, has brought the country down to the brink of bankruptcy.

The minister was responsible for a $5.6 billion deficit in Ontario. He and his colleagues were also responsible for the Walkerton crisis, for shutting down hospitals and for eliminating 7,000 nursing jobs.

Mr. Speaker, that is a--

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tackle the first question regarding why this is in a budget bill. If the issue of immigration is so critical, and if it needs thoughtful consideration, it should never be part of a budget bill, it should go its standing committee. That is part of the democratic and parliamentary process. The government chose to put it in a budget bill probably to hide it.

There is no transparency in what the government is doing. It claims that the process it has put in Bill C-50 are instructions. There is no process, they are just instructions by the minister to somehow eliminate the backlog.

If one were to look carefully at the bill, the instructions would come into effect February 2008. For the backlog, which has been there before February 2008, any person who is already in the system is not get affected. I think this is a smoke and mirror game that the Conservatives are trying to play.

Why are the Conservatives trying to play this game? I would suggest that they want temporary workers. They do not want permanent residents.

Every one of us in the House is an immigrant, whether one came here three years ago, or one's ancestors came here 300 years ago. To bring in only temporary workers is being regressive and going back to when coolies were brought in to build the railway. This is a very regressive and repugnant bill that has to be overturned by the next government.

[Conservative Party of Canada, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is a fierce competition taking place on the government benches these days.

Parliamentary secretaries are locked in a battle to determine which one has the least amount of credibility.

The PS for Treasury Board is the leading contender. His ability to fall in line and say outrageous things means he is always near the bottom of the credibility pile.

Not to be outdone, the PS for Public Works made a bold move on Wednesday to demonstrate that he too can be just as ridiculous as his colleague, even if it means breathing new life into an old scandal.

However, when it comes to lack of credibility, no one can hold a candle to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He lacks credibility internationally, which is something that the government excels at.

With such shining performances from his parliamentary secretaries, it is easy to see why the Prime Minister has no confidence in his frontbench and is the minister of everything.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take a deeper look at budget 2008 and Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill.

In the normal course of parliamentary debate a budget discussion would ordinarily reflect a thorough examination of the government's fiscal policies and state of the nation's finances. However, for some strange reason the Conservative government has chosen to depart from this parliamentary tradition and to effectively attempt to sneak through a major shift in immigration policies, literally through the back door. This is a strange course of events.

Our parliamentary tradition calls upon the government to introduce legislation according to departmental responsibility, which is to say, a transportation bill would be proposed by the Minister of Transport, or a defence bill would be proposed by the Minister of National Defence. On what grounds does the government justify lumping an immigration bill with a budget implementation bill? If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is so convinced that her proposal is of vital importance to the country, why is she so afraid to introduce a separate act and face the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration?

Under normal circumstances a proposed act is debated separately for the simple reason that respective parliamentary committees, for example, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, or the Standing Committee on National Defence, will have an opportunity to review the proposed legislation according to the committee's area of responsibility. This is how a democracy works.

We are in a democracy. We are not in an autocracy. We are not in a dictatorship. We are in a democracy. Therefore, democratic institutions have to be respected. There are long-standing established processes within Parliament that are available to the minister. Those are what she should be using. It is quite straightforward.

Canadians are not gullible. They are well aware that the Conservatives are attempting in an underhanded way to force an election on the backs of immigrants. The Conservatives have been putting advertisements in the papers trying to justify their stand. They probably think immigrants are gullible. The government has been sending the junior minister out to meet with people. Immigrants are not stupid. People understand where the government is coming from.

Canada is a land of immigrants. Everyone in this House, with the exception of the aboriginal people, is an immigrant, whether one came here three years ago, or one's ancestors came here 300 years ago. It has been through thoughtful debate and discussion that our immigration policies have evolved. Immigrants are here to stay and the government cannot cherry-pick whom it wants.

In previous years immigrants were brought in for specific labour purposes and we have seen the repercussions of that. Canada, having learned lessons from its immigration policies and its stand on immigration since World War I and World War II, has become more thoughtful. As a nation we have become more thoughtful. It has been Liberal prime ministers, such as Prime Minister St. Laurent, who started the formal process of immigration from European countries. As an immigrant myself, I remember well that it was Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau who opened immigration from countries other than European countries.

Canada is a choice for a lot of immigrants. That is because we are a people who have a very good view of what it means to live in a pluralistic society. We have seen societies that cannot comprehend pluralism. Canada has been thoughtful. Canada has been respectful. I think all members in the House should understand that and should behave in that manner toward this bill.

My colleagues in the Liberal caucus are committed to make this Parliament work. We do not want to be constantly in an election. This is not the same as a hamster on a treadmill. This is not how Parliament should function.

Let us take a closer look at the immigration proposal that we now have before us. Bill C-50 proposes a series of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which quite frankly is regressive. Under that bill the Conservatives are seeking to abandon all sense of transparency and objectivity in the selection process and simply empower the minister with absolute discretion and the ability to cherry-pick applications at will. Previous ministers had that power but they decided not to utilize it. They decided to give away that power.

The current bill allows the minister to give instructions. What sort of instructions is the minister proposing to give to the immigrant officer abroad or here in Canada? What does the minister think she will be doing? Is she the one that will be reviewing every file? Is she the one that will be reviewing everyone's qualifications? Is she the one who has the authority to determine who comes in and who does not? Objectivity is being dispensed with so that the minister or the government of the day can be extremely selective.

Under the new legislation the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would have the discretion to determine not only which applications will be processed quickly and which ones will be held at the visa office until a later date, but also to return some applications without any consideration at all. These are the ones that people are concerned about. The Conservatives are attempting to toss out objectivity and fairness under the guise of expediency.

Yes, there is a backlog in the application process, but any intelligent person knows that the process requires resources, not cherry-picking by the minister. The Conservatives have not made immigration policy their priority. They have been withholding funds. They claim that they have put in money, but they have actually extracted money from the immigration department.

If the government does not put resources in the right area, how can it be determined how the process will work? It is important that resources be allocated to streamline the process.

The bill also represents a major change in the way in which we choose who is to become a Canadian citizen. Yet the Conservatives feel it is okay to tuck this into a budget bill and somehow bamboozle the Canadian public, which is what it is trying to do with money from the government coffers. The Conservatives are putting forward an advertising campaign to bamboozle the immigrant population. It is not going to work because my colleagues and I, as we have stood in the House, have been standing to fight for fairness, for equity and for transparency.

It appears that the Conservative members have a fixation on forcing an election rather than acting as a responsible government. We have seen in the weeks and months that have passed that the government has no agenda, no vision and no direction. It just wants to go on a treadmill like a hamster.

When an election is called, I can assure the House that Canadians will surely remember which party acted responsibly and in the interest of the country.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for an excellent presentation on the bill. I would like to ask her opinion on a couple of issues.

If the bill is so important, as the minister claims, why is the minister trying to hide this bill under a budget implementation bill? Why is this bill not going to its respective committee? Standing committees have been established under the democratic process of this Parliament so they can review bills thoroughly. Why is the minister trying to hide this under a budget bill and force an election if the bill does not go through?

Why does the minister want the power to choose? What is the minister's hidden agenda? If she wants to choose the people and instruct the people, why is she bypassing those bureaucrats who make the decision to choose and review because they have been given the tools to do so? Why is the minister trying to take on that power?

[World Environment Day, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Environment Day, but for the third year in a row, no one in Canada is celebrating.

For the first time in Canadian history, we have a government that is actually opposed to aggressive action to protect the environment. The whole world knows that the greatest challenge we face is global warming. Our international allies are making great efforts to ensure their greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the terms of the Kyoto protocol are met.

However, for the last two and half years, the government has done nothing but destroy Canada's efforts to fight global warming. The government cancelled billions of dollars from programs to fight GHGs. The Minister of the Environment has refused to provide strict caps on emissions by the large polluters. When the premiers of Ontario and Quebec created a cap and trade system, the government did nothing but attack the effort.

The time is long past for action. The government should listen to Canadians, stop denying the science of climate change and global warming and work with the members of the House for a solid solution.

[June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today, angry General Motors employees formed a roadblock around the company's Canadian head office to protest the loss of 2,600 manufacturing jobs. This announcement will have a devastating effect on Oshawa for years to come. The member should be ashamed of himself for giving platitudes to those people instead of concrete actions.

The government has not been able to rejuvenate the economy. Instead, it is reusing and recycling the money, the surplus that the Liberal government's fiscal prudence left it, the $17 billion. It has now brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy and has not invested anything.

The province of Ontario is promising to help. It is looking to the federal government to show some leadership and assist the manufacturing sector before it is too late.