Sophia Leung

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 16 the finance minister presented the 1999 budget. The budget is fiscally responsible and it invests in Canada's social priorities. It provides tax cuts and health care funding. The budget is good news for my constituents of Vancouver Kingsway and for all Canadians. Today I would like to address three aspects of the budget that will increase our standard of living and enhance our quality of life: health care, research and development, and tax relief for all Canadians.

Health care is the first priority of this budget. As a member of the finance committee I have heard from many Canadians that more resources should be devoted to health care. This is also a key issue in my riding. This year's budget has answered this demand. It has been called the health care budget because it greatly increases federal government support for health care. An additional $11.5 billion will be transferred to the provinces through the Canada health and social transfer over the next five years. In addition to the CHST enhancement, the 1999 budget allocates $1.4 billion over the remainder of the fiscal year and in the next three fiscal years. Those funds will improve access to quality health care information and increased support for research and innovation in health care.

The second important aspect of this budget is research and development funding. While the government is strengthening the health care system, it is also working to expand and integrate research in health care. Our government recognizes that innovative ideas are essential to maintaining a successful and competitive economy. Medical research can ensure the highest quality of health care for Canadians now and in the future.

This budget provides significant increases in funding to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation for biotechnology research and development, to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and to the National Research Council. There will be increased support for the successful network of centres of excellence, technology partnerships Canada and the Canadian Space Agency.

The third important aspect of the budget is tax relief. It is because our government has acted responsibly in recent years that we are in a position to implement tax reduction measures. Last year tax measures for low and middle income Canadians were introduced. Now we have begun to offer broad based tax relief to all Canadians.

Every Canadian who pays taxes will get a tax cut this year and 600,000 Canadians will not have to pay any income tax at all. Important initiatives include the phasing out of the 3% surtax on personal income, increased benefits to middle income families and increased child benefits to two million modest and low income families. The basic personal exemption has also been increased to $7,131. For the first time since 1965 nothing has been borrowed to pay for the tax relief.

While I do not have the time to discuss other elements of the budget in detail, I would like to mention several important areas. Highlights include support for learning opportunities and employment, broadening the child tax benefit and continued debt reduction.

I am happy to report that this budget will have a great impact on the province of British Columbia. That is where I come from. It will add $270 million a year during the next five years to B.C.'s provincial revenues in addition to tax breaks to individual British Columbians.

The cap on B.C.'s share of transfer payments has been lifted. For many years B.C. was one of the three provinces getting a lower per capita share than other provinces. Now the finance minister has lifted the cap so that over the next three years all provinces will receive the same amount on a per capita basis. Over five years it means that B.C. will get an additional $1.4 billion plus $471 million for health care. This is tremendous.

Tax breaks will result in B.C. taxpayers sending $200 million less to Ottawa in 1999. Even B.C.'s finance minister called this budget good news. It is great news for all of us.

As an MP from Vancouver Kingsway and a member of the finance committee I am proud of the budget our government has delivered. It will ensure that Canada maintains a strong economy and invests strategically in key economic and social priorities. Finally, it provides tax relief for all Canadians.

I congratulate the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and all my colleagues for the thoughtful and well planned budget for Canada.

[Chinese New Year, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all members of parliament a happy new year. Today is the first day of the year of the rabbit in the lunar calendar. There are many events across Canada to celebrate the new year. There are city parades, community celebrations and family gatherings organized coast to coast. Children receive red envelopes with gifts or candy.

It is also an auspicious day for the Minister of Finance to announce the federal budget. The year of the rabbit will bring prosperity, happiness and peace for all Canadians.

This Tuesday I am co-hosting with the Chinese federation of 21 Ottawa community organizations the very first celebration of the Chinese New Year on Parliament Hill.

Xin nian kuai le

. Happy new year.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the MP for Durham.

I am pleased to discuss Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

Citizenship is an issue that is very important to me, both personally and as a member of parliament. As an immigrant myself, I chose Canada as my country where I would live, work, raise a family and serve the community. As the member of parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, I represent one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse ridings in the country. I represent constituents who immigrated to Canada from countries around the globe, individuals from Italy, Portugal, Korea, Japan, India, China and many others.

I understand well how important it is that Canada has citizenship legislation that is up to date. We must clearly reflect contemporary Canadian values. Bill C-63 aims to modernize Canada's citizenship legislation.

Before 1947 when the first Canadian Citizenship Act was implemented, people born in Canada were considered to be British subjects. Of course the concept of citizenship has evolved over time. On the eve of the new century the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has tabled the citizenship of Canada act. I would like to explain some of the changes the bill outlines.

At the present time all children born in Canada are granted citizenship regardless of the immigration or citizenship status of their parents. Bill C-63 does not propose a change to this policy.

Citizenship is also granted to children born outside the country to Canadian parents. The implementation of this legislation would mean Canadian children born abroad would be required to meet residency requirements by the age of 28 in order to maintain their citizenship. This proposed requirement reflects the importance that Canadians attach to having strong ties to Canada as a condition of citizenship.

As well, the act would end discrimination against Canadian parents who adopt a child overseas. With the proposed changes, adopted children would be granted citizenship without having to go through the immigration process.

Bill C-63 would also make changes to residency requirements for immigrants. The legislation proposes that individuals applying for citizenship would live in Canada for at least three of the five years. These residency requirements ensure that prospective Canadians become familiar with life in Canada and demonstrate their commitment to our country.

The legislation would also increase the chances for family reunification. We understand that need and respect the wishes of the Canadian family. It is important to have the family united in this land.

The bill also makes changes to the roles and the responsibilities of citizenship judges. Their title would be changed to citizenship commissioner. Their responsibilities would involve conducting ceremonies, advising the minister upon request and promoting citizenship. The new rules would guard against the abuse of powers or other offences committed in the context of duty.

The bill also proposes changes to the oath sworn by new Canadians when they obtain their citizenship. New citizens would swear allegiance to Canada and loyalty to Canada's head of state, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. New Canadians would commit to respect Canada's laws, rights and freedoms. The new oath will demonstrate attachment and commitment to Canada.

Canada depends on the commitment of people from diverse backgrounds to build a future together based on the sharing of such Canadian values as democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law.

As an immigrant I am proud to be a Canadian and I am proud to be the member of parliament for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Stuart Energy Systems, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 8 the Minister of Natural Resources addressed the ninth annual Canadian Hydrogen Conference in Vancouver. On behalf of the federal Ministers of Industry and the Environment the minister announced an investment by the federal government of $5.8 million in Stuart Energy Systems, a Canadian company developing a system for improving the refuelling of hydrogen fuel-cell powered buses. The total cost of this project is estimated at $17.7 million and will create 250 jobs.

This is a superb example of federal departments working together to support Canadian companies in developing more environmentally friendly forms of energy and technology. It also helps us to meet our Kyoto commitments. Congratulations to Stuart Energy Systems for helping us move in the right direction.

[Revenue Canada, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. No one likes to pay taxes. We assume that the system is fair to every Canadian taxpayer. What has the minister done to make the tax system fair for every Canadian?

[Multiculturalism, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that there will be a celebration of multiculturalism week in British Columbia in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway on February 20. It is a community celebration organized by my office and the Vancouver Society for Immigrant and Visible Minority Women.

Vancouver Kingsway is a very culturally diverse riding. This event will bring together Canadians from all cultural communities to share and discuss their ideas and concerns with their member of parliament.

[The Aga Khan Foundation, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend I was very pleased to attend the Aga Khan Foundation's annual Partnership Walk Volunteer Workshop in Vancouver. The event launched International Development Week, which is January 31 to February 6.

The Aga Khan Foundation's volunteer workshop brought together volunteer leaders from 11 cities across Canada. The guest of honour was the Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie.

Congratulations to the foundation for its excellent work in supporting over 30 under-developed countries.

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time. I am pleased to speak today in the prebudget debate. As a member of the finance committee and an MP from western Canada, I have heard from many individuals and groups. It has become clear that Canadians want tax cuts and more health care funding. There are three main areas I would like to talk about, tax relief, health care and more funding for research and development.

A reduction in the tax rate will benefit Canadians. Our committee considered the level of reduction and how reduction should be distributed. We believe government priorities should be as follows. First, target tax relief to those most in need, including students, charitable organizations, children and Canadians with disabilities. Second, general tax relief starting with low and modest income Canadians. Third, increase general tax relief over time.

Based on recommendations from the finance committee last year the basic personal amount and the spousal amounts were increased for low income taxpayers. As well, the 3% general surtax was eliminated for many individuals. In combination those new measures reduced significantly the tax burden of the low and middle income taxpayer.

Now we can better afford additional tax reductions. Now that the tax measures aimed at the low and middle income Canadians have been introduced, the committee believes the government must begin to offer broad based tax relief.

It is only because the government acted responsibly in recent years and because Canadians from coast to coast have made substantial sacrifices that we should be in a position to implement tax reduction measures which will benefit all Canadians.

Our committee recommends that the next budget introduce personal income tax reductions for all Canadians. Further, we recommend that the government commit itself to future tax reductions by presenting a three year tax reduction plan.

We suggest that a temporary 3% surtax be completely eliminated in the next budget. The 5% surtax on high income earners should be eliminated gradually.

We believe the increase in the basic personal and spousal amounts in last year's budget should be extended to all Canadian taxpayers, not just those with low incomes.

The second area I would like to talk about is health care spending. We all agree more government resources should be devoted to health care. It should be the number one priority for government. Many individuals and groups expressed concern that the system may no longer be funded adequately. They argued that the federal and provincial governments should work together to ensure this.

The federal government should use some of the budgetary surplus to restore some of the cuts. We recommend a review of transfers to the provinces. Investing part of the surplus in improvements in medicare would demonstrate to Canadians the federal government's commitment to the medicare system and the principles of the Canada Health Act.

When cuts were made to the transfer payments many provinces simply made across the board spending cuts. We need strategies that ensure efficient and effective services are not eliminated. Increases should be justified by efficiency assessments of health care spending.

The committee is aware that as Canadian demographics change and the population ages, it is inevitable that health care costs will rise. We are concerned that the quality of health services could be undermined if funding is not increased. Increased investment could be used to improve service delivery, investment in new technology and to reduce waiting lists.

The third area I would like to address is that we need more funding for research and development. We recommend an increase in funding for new research initiatives. Innovative ideas are essential to maintaining a successful and competitive economy. Research and development can ensure the highest quality of health care for Canadians. We need research projects to demonstrate better ways to provide home and community services and a drug delivery program.

At the same time as the population ages, innovative technology becomes more and more sophisticated and expensive. We must find ways to ensure that Canadians have access to the best medical treatment possible. Medical innovation is a way to do that. On a per capita basis, direct federal funding for health research and development is five times as high in the United States as it is in Canada.

In France spending on medical research has also increased much more rapidly than in Canada. Therefore the committee recommends that more resources be allocated to research and development.

In conclusion, Canadians recognize that the federal government has a role to play in making Canada prosperous. It must also be responsible for both fiscal and social policies. As the report demonstrates, tax reductions and health care spending are priorities for Canadians.

[Finance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague commented on brain drain. According to a C.D. Howe Institute report, I do not think high tax is the only cause of brain drain. It is not a determinant. Environment and quality of life are part of the reason.

The cancer research institute in B.C. was very happy to announce recently that two leading cancer researchers will return from the U.S. to start a new project called gene research. That is happy news and it is not necessary to go the other way.

According to statistics Canadian researchers and scientists sometimes do go to other countries. The number is around 10,000 but we have about 20,000 newcomers to fill that gap.

[Fishers' Bill Of Rights, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to explain why Bill C-302 should not become law.

Fishermen and mariners alike know how easy it is to get lost at sea, especially in fog. Debate on this bill seems to be like sailing in a particularly thick fog. The debate has wandered all over the map and has been lost in the fog of rhetoric and politics. It has strayed far from the facts and facts are what we need when we talk about Canada's fishery. Facts are what are needed here, not emotion, not fed bashing, not rhetoric and not scoring political points. Few facts have been advanced from the other side of the House.

One important fact is that none of the opposition parties would support this bill in the unlikely event they were to form a government. Why? Because it is a bad bill that would become bad law, one that would neither preserve fish stocks nor help fishing communities.

During early debate on this bill my colleagues spelled out its many deficiencies, but today I would like to return to the issue of compensation which was raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni when this bill was last debated.

He said that the right to compensation for those whose rights were taken away or abrogated by the federal government was probably the most controversial aspect of the bill. It would be hard to say which is the most controversial aspect of this bill but this one certainly ranks close to the top. The strangest assertion in the hon. member's qualified defence of this bill came when he said that government and DFO bureaucracy will fight this clause tooth and nail because it attempts to make them accountable for decisions they make about people affected by their decisions.

How does this clause contribute to making the government and the so-called bureaucracy more accountable than they already are? Presumably by making them pay for the so-called damage their policies have caused. But who pays here? What did the architect of the bill have in mind? Where does the member think the money would come from to compensate fishers harmed by a government decision? Not from the minister and the so-called bureaucracy, but from the taxpayer. This is from a party that prides itself on fiscal responsibilities.

The government cannot afford the luxury of throwing taxpayer money around. The government has to be responsible to all Canadians. Sometimes that requires making tough calls, the kind which do not please everyone but which hold the greatest hope for the future.

When the hon. member says that it is far easier for bureaucrats or ministers to sit ensconced, buffered and unchallenged and be securely protected from the results of their decisions, he implies several things.

First, he implies that public employees and the minister are somehow unaccountable, but the fact is the government is responsible to the people of Canada. When the people of Canada vote they pass judgment on the government's performance. If the government needs to be held accountable for mistakes every Canadian can do so at election time.

Second, he implies that instituting a regime that would hand over millions of taxpayer dollars would somehow punish those who make decisions in Ottawa. To this I can only say that it seems as if the fog has rolled in and completely obscured the hon. member's argument.

Leaving aside the strange notion that public employees should be punished for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities, this clause would punish no one but the member's constituents and those of every member in the House.

What would it accomplish other than to burden the taxpayer and take money away from other worthwhile causes? Nothing. Would it create more fish? No. Would it preserve the fish that are left? No. On the contrary, if the bill succeeded in discouraging DFO and the government from taking steps to conserve fish stocks it would do just the opposite.

I am taking time with this argument because the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni said it was the crux of the bill to bring accountability to the bureaucracy. The women and men of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are already accountable to their superiors who report to the minister, who is in turn accountable to the people of Canada.

Once more we can say how badly conceived and unnecessary this bill is. The member went on to say the DFO bureaucrats would prefer not to deal with people affected by their decisions because plainly it is uncomfortable for them.

Again let us look at the facts. In September the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans convened a meeting with fishermen for a mid season review of the cod stocks in the gulf of St. Lawrence. He took with him to the meeting those same DFO scientists and managers the member says would prefer not to deal with people affected by their decisions.

The member would have us think that DFO does not seek input from fishers, but my colleagues have already recounted in detail how fishers across the country are participating in fisheries management decisions that affect their industry. Fishers are actively involved in stock assessment, fish conservation and monitoring. They participate in the development of integrated fishery management plans and the setting of fishing quotas. Many fishers are already involved directly in managing fisheries through co-management or joint project management with DFO. DFO developed co-management to give the people who work in the fishery more say in how it is managed.

The new fisheries act will offer individuals and communities even more say over the decisions that affect their lives. We need to bring this debate to a speedy conclusion so this bill can come to the floor of the House and be rejected, as it should be.

There are far better ways to serve the needs of Canada's fishing communities and preserve the fishery for future generations. The government has taken a number of important steps and is moving on others. I urge the House to reject the bill.