Debates of Feb. 3rd, 1999

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to represent our caucus in the debate at second reading of Bill C-63. I will be splitting my time with the member from Kamloops. I am relatively new to the critic area of citizenship and immigration, but I am getting well versed.

The issue is certainly not new to me given the area of Winnipeg in which I live. Citizenship is probably one of the key issues and concerns that we have in the community.

I am pleased to see that the minister has chosen to remain in the House to listen to the input of the opposition. I have not seen that in the past from any minister during second reading. Ministers usually read their piece and then carry on out the door. It is a very nice gesture and I am glad the minister is interested in what we have to say.

In my riding of Winnipeg Centre citizenship is a critical issue. We recently took a survey to get an idea of how many new Canadians are living within our borders. I knew there were high numbers of certain groups, but I was very surprised that there were 7,800 people of Filipino background just within Winnipeg Centre, and certainly my riding does not represent the majority of Filipinos in Manitoba or Winnipeg.

The only group that came close in numbers in terms of minority groups was the aboriginal population, with 6,500. There are over 2,000 Portuguese, over 1,800 Vietnamese, over 2,000 Chinese, Laotian, Cambodian, Eritrean, Chilean and Guatemalan people. I was overwhelmed by all the various subgroups. It was a real eye opener to see the number of new Canadians that have settled in the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

I would like to add that we would like to see many more. We would hope that any amendments to the Citizenship Act or Immigration Act would send a very welcoming message to the world that we recognize immigration as an engine of economic growth. In our riding it is critical in revitalizing an inner city that has more than its share of problems as a core area of a major Canadian city.

As a case in point, during the election campaign, going door to door in the worst part of my riding, it was revealing to see the housing stock. We would go past shack after shack with boarded windows or a house used by gangs, and then there would be a lovely little cottage, just recently renovated, with a painted fence, a new roof, curtains in the window and flowers planted along the sidewalk. Without even knocking on the door I knew that was the home of a new Canadian. I knew that would be a Filipino family or a Vietnamese family so proud of their home. The selling price of these houses is $15,000 to $17,000. A person can buy a good home in the inner city of Winnipeg for under $20,000. By anybody else's standards this would not be the kind of property that we would go to a great length to beautify, but the new Canadians who come to Winnipeg do just that. It is a real pleasure to see.

It is also a pleasure that the area is being repopulated. There has been a mass exodus out of the inner city. As people manage to get some means together they seem to move out to the suburbs, leaving this donut-shaped city and vacant houses. There have been 65 arsons since October in a 12 block area. It is almost like the Watts riots in the southern states at the height of the civil rights movement. It is burn baby burn. They are trying to level the inner city in many ways just out of sheer frustration at all things that poverty brings.

However, new Canadians are turning that around by buying these houses. They are also keeping the schools viable because there are more children in the neighbourhood.

Having said that, I am disappointed because I do not believe that this piece of legislation is going to move us any closer to the goal of welcoming new Canadians to the country or sending the message internationally that the door is open to Canada.

Without getting too technical I would like to go through some of the points that we have reservations about and what leads us to say that at this point, without amendment, our caucus will not be voting for Bill C-63.

First I would like to speak about the physical presence requirement in clauses 6(1)(b) and 2(2)(c). While I understand the concern over what many people feel was a loophole in the law, I feel that the proposed requirement for a full three years of physical presence in Canada is extreme. I also object to the loss of the current provision whereby one-half of the time spent in Canada prior to becoming a landed immigrant would be counted toward residency for citizenship.

The issue that we find the most fault with would be the language requirement, that the test has to be done in one of the two official languages. The minister in her introduction said that Bill C-63 was the result of extensive consultation around the country. I agree. I went to the consultations in Winnipeg. However, overwhelming I believe what the minister heard during those consultations was that Canadians did not want this rigidity. The language issue was a real sore point, a real hot button for a lot of the groups who made representations. Even the Filipino Association of Manitoba, the largest ethnic group in my riding, made a very spirited representation to that committee. It was very capably argued by the son of the chair of the committee on citizenship and immigration, who is a very bright and well respected lawyer in the city of Winnipeg. He spoke passionately against this particular clause. I am sure it was not the only group. I heard many groups making that representation.

I will quote the organization that deals with English as a second language in downtown Toronto, COSTI. Mr. Mario Calla felt very strongly about it. He said “A lot of people will forfeit the opportunity to gain Canadian citizenship as a result of this change and that is very unfortunate”.

There is great nervousness and unrest in the advocacy groups and in the social agencies that deal with English as a second language.

When we break it down to its barest core, how can we judge the value or the merits of an individual by virtue of what language they speak? Why must they be proficient enough to take a test in one of those two languages? I do not see how that has anything to do with whether they will be useful to us as productive Canadian citizens.

Many people who live here for three to five years, as Mr. Calla pointed out, are too busy to get good enough in one of the official languages to take a written test. When a person comes here and works at a minimum wage job, or maybe two or three minimum wage jobs, and maybe juggling child care, they might learn enough English or French to get by, like many people do.

We do not want more barriers. This really does send the message that Canada is not welcoming people with open arms because we are going to put all these roadblocks in the way.

There are many other obvious roadblocks. The hated head tax, of course, we are not going to talk about under the citizenship rules. I hope we get a chance to debate the head tax again under immigration.

Things like landing fees really set the tone to people in other countries who might be looking to Canada. They feel that it is not an open door; it is a door that has a series of hurdles in front of it meant to trip people up and keep them out.

My first wish would be for 5,000 new Canadians in downtown Winnipeg tomorrow. However, I do not see anything in these rules that will help us achieve that goal or even help with the message that Canada welcomes new Canadians to help rebuild this country.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity today to make a few comments on Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

For those of us who have been fortunate enough to be elected to represent our constituents here in parliament, one of the most pleasurable expectations of our time is to participate in citizenship ceremonies in our constituencies. I am sure I speak for everyone here in saying that it is one of the highlights to see the joy in the faces and to see the tears in the eyes of people becoming Canadian citizens by choice.

Most of us became Canadian citizens because we happened to be born here, but these people are different. As I say, it is a highlight in my life. When I am not able to be there my staff enjoy it equally. Everyone wants to take our picture, we are invited to teas and there are all sorts of dinner invitations. It is a great moment.

I appreciated the minister saying that it is a moving ceremony. One cannot help but be made proud again to be a citizen of Canada.

One of the things during the ceremony that I always feel a bit uneasy about is when I have to affirm my citizenship. We stand to talk about the Queen, her heirs and so on. I cannot help but think that this does not fit that well in modern day Canada. I do not want to get into a debate on the Queen and the monarchy and who we should be swearing allegiance to, but I do find it somewhat uncomfortable.

When I talk to new citizens they are curious about this Queen, where she lives and who she is. When I tell them she does not even live here, that she lives in another country, they think it is odd, but when one becomes a citizen of a new country a lot of things are strange. But having a Queen who does not even live here seems to be peculiar in modern day society. Our friends in Australia are looking at this. I look forward to the debate that we will have in our country one day, hopefully sooner rather than later, on the question of the validity of having a foreign queen as our own queen.

My colleague from Winnipeg noted that section 6(1)(c) of the legislation requires that an applicant for citizenship must have an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada. At first blush this seems like a reasonable requirement. If a person wants to become a citizen, to have knowledge of English or French is not an unusual expectation.

However, I think back to my own parents. They came from Norway and like most new Canadians sought out people of similar backgrounds and culture for the first year or two to become used to the new country. Obviously they spoke Norwegian. I do not think my father or mother spoke a single word in English. They arrived in this new country and some years later became proficient in English. My Dad in his late nineties still speaks with a real heavy Norwegian accent, so I suspect it was probably some time before he became proficient in English.

When the legislation gets to committee I want to encourage the minister to be open to this section to ensure that when we say that it has adequate knowledge that adequate does not mean we are going to prohibit people from becoming citizens who are having difficulty with the language and have lived presumably in their cultural community for the first two or three years and are simply in a very early learning stage. We will examine this in committee and I ask the minister to be sensitive to this section and open to some very clear clarification.

Perhaps I would ask her at this early stage that when she appears before the committee to define what we mean by adequate knowledge in a very explicit way. I know she will be concerned that we do it in such a way that this will not prohibit the kind of citizens we would welcome into Canada simply because they are a little weak in learning languages. I know the feeling when it comes to being a little weak in learning foreign languages. I am one of those people.

The section that requires residency in Canada for three of five years is again something else we want to look at because as Canada is one of the world's great trading nations which attracts people from other countries to take up residency and become contributing citizens, it is really one of the key aspects we have as a country in terms of facilitating new overseas trade arrangements.

When a person comes from Vietnam and takes up citizenship in Canada it is only natural for them to think if they are going to be doing foreign trade either importing material or exporting Canadian goods to Vietnam that heir friends there would be an obvious contact. So as we develop more trade and more overseas connection in terms of the whole globalization forces that are in place we should be sensitive to whether this three year permanent residency make sense recognizing modern commerce, trade and communications. I am not saying it does not but I simply want to say that we have some concerns about this and it should be considered carefully in committee.

I turn to section 28 which identifies a number of prohibitions:

Despite anything in this act, other than section 8, no person shall be granted citizenship or take the oath of citizenship, if the person

(a) is, under any enactment in force in Canada, subject to a probation order, on parole, or confined in any penitentiary, jail, reformatory or prison;

(b) is charge with, on trial for, subject to or a party to an appeal of a review relating to an offence under this act or an indictable offence under any other act of parliament.

One of the concerns I hear regularly, and I am not certain how accurate it is, is people often have a perception that a lot of people who have come to Canada and are not yet citizens and get in trouble with the law remain here. Consequently we pick up the costs and we welcome a criminal element into our country. I know that is not the intent of any legislation and not the intent of any government policy. It would seem that when we consider section 28 this might be an opportunity to consider that section and ensure that Canadians know clearly that if a person wishes to become a citizen of Canada and he or she gets into serious trouble with the law, that person is not welcome any longer in Canada. We do not want a person who participates in illegal acts to become a Canadian citizen. Again I ask the minister if she would clarify that section when we get to committee.

I applaud most of the initiatives the minister referred to in her opening comments in terms of the need to promote citizenship, the need to promote an understanding of what being a citizen of Canada entails, the responsibilities that go with that citizenship.

I feel that at a time when we have all these forces tugging at us as a result of globalization and we as Canadians are part of such a multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial country we have to emphasize what it means to be Canadian. It is not clear and I suspect we are one of the few countries in the world where people actually ask what it means to be a Canadian.

I cannot imagine someone in Greece asking what it means to be a Greek or somebody from Italy asking what it means to be Italian. They know these things but it is not as clear here because of the kind of country we are. We are an amalgamation of folks from every country of the world.

I ask the minister to give some thought to the consul we have in Chandigarh, Punjab. It was set up as a consul office. We understood the office would facilitate issuing visas and so forth but in my judgment there have been some problems with that consulate office.

In talking with people they seem frustrated because a goodly portion who come to Canada from the subcontinent of India are from the Punjab state. We should have that office operating in a more efficient and perhaps more elaborate fashion than it is at present.

I ask the minister to give that some thought, to expand the ability to facilitate those visas and other immigration and consular work from that office in the future.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation with interest but I have some questions as a result of his presentation.

He expressed a concern that he cannot really tell what the minister means in the legislation about the language requirement. He is concerned that the requirement might be a little too difficult and may set up a requirement that is unreasonable for some people who are new immigrants wishing to become citizens.

I have heard from people of new immigrant communities who have made that point to me. They are concerned from that point of view. I have also heard from others who say they think it is only a reasonable commitment on the part of somebody who wants to become a Canadian citizen to speak with a fair degree of capability in one of the official languages.

Does it not concern the member that when he reads the legislation he really cannot tell what the minister has in mind? The legislation is so vague that it is impossible to tell what the minister has in mind. If I were a new immigrant concerned that the requirements might be set at too high a level I would be concerned that it is not in legislation. The member said he would ask the minister at committee and find out what she has in mind. That is not good enough for me. That is not good enough for new Canadians who want to know what the requirement will be. It should be in the legislation.

I see that problem with almost every proposal made in the legislation. There is not enough information to determine what the minister has in mind. Is the member not concerned about that issue? Is it good enough for him just to hear the minister's answer and then assume that is what will happen?

The second issue concerns the need to promote citizenship. He is supporting that concept, that there is a need for government to promote citizenship. The heritage department already does what it claims is promoting good citizenship with several different programs. I wonder why that is going on. The member had expressed his support for that concept.

Does he believe that local community groups somehow are not capable of promoting good citizenship, that service and cultural groups in the community somehow are not capable of promoting good citizenship? Does he feel there actually has to be a government bureaucracy whose job it is to promote citizenship? Does he have that little faith in the local community to do that?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am puzzled by what I sense as an attitude on behalf of my friend. When I say I welcome the opportunity for these officers to go into the community and promote citizenship, I do not imply that is the only thing that takes place when they promote citizenship.

I know the citizenship judges who operate in my constituency. They are excellent individuals who are recognized in their communities as outstanding Canadians. They make it a habit of promoting citizenship. They go into schools, college classes, immigrant centres and so on to talk about the responsibility of Canadian citizenship. My friend might think this is a bad idea but I do not. That is not saying that other people are not doing it in all sorts of other ways. Of course they all do.

I am very happy to say that many immigrant societies in my constituency promote Canadian citizenship. They promote the concept and educate new citizens about what Canadian citizenship means. What it means to be a citizen in some countries is quite different from what it means to be a citizen in Canada. Examples are the attitude toward police forces and authority in general and the attitude toward members of parliament. The fact that you can actually walk into an MP's office is rather unique in the world, unheard of.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the time has run out.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, could I seek unanimous consent for another 90 seconds?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you. This is after all legislation and from this legislation will flow regulations. Regulations will be the place to be specific in terms of what is meant by a term as vague as adequate knowledge. My friend is absolutely right when he asks what this means.

I hope the minister will explain what it means and that we will see in regulations specifically what that means. Does it mean a test, as my friend from Winnipeg indicated? Is it a competency level? Is it an ability to communicate in some simple way through a written letter or through oral communication? What does it mean? My friend is right that we have to be specific about this. It has instilled virtual fear in the hearts of many in the immigrant community because they see it as a potential barrier. I do not believe it is an intentional barrier. As long as the definition is adequate his concern and the other concerns can be adequately met.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening and to speak on the proposed changes to the Immigration Act. Before I venture too far into the matter I would like to revisit a bit of the history of Canadian immigration.

On January 1, 1947 the first Canadian citizenship act took effect. It was from this point on in our history that we were considered Canadian citizens. This led to an unprecedented population increase of over 40,000 as people from around the world wanted to become Canadian. The concept of citizenship evolved as Canada advanced over the years. In 1977 parliament initiated a new citizenship act. Today, some 22 years later, we have proposals before us to change the act once again.

I heard the hon. member from the NDP say how sorry he was that we were referring to the monarchy. I am so pleased and proud that the monarchy is still part of our citizenship oath. I represent Canada's first city to be incorporated by royal charter. We and our people played a major role in building all of this country. We date back to 1783. There are those who say they want to eliminate our ties to the monarchy. I cannot believe that the people who say that sit in the House of Commons.

I recall when the rumour was flying around here. I asked the Prime Minister in the House if we were going to break our ties with the monarchy. After he talked to the minister of heritage he stood and said “I am not going to break the ties with the monarchy. If the hon. member for Saint John would like to represent us in London, England we will fly her out tomorrow”.

Well, I did not take that job but let me say that I have had an opportunity to be with Her Majesty. I have had the opportunity to be with Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and also with Princess Diana before her life was taken away. I want to say to everyone here and back home that if they want to divide this country like never before, that would happen if the monarchy was removed from the oath.

I say to everyone how important this truly is. I was very pleased when I saw the new oath and when the hon. minister read it because the oath still refers to the monarchy.

The minister knows that my office has worked very closely with her office on a number of immigration cases. We put in over 250 hours in regard to one case. There was a problem concerning a family with one child who had been born in the United States and another child who had been born in Canada. My staff and her staff worked together. There were rules and regulations that had to be met.

After many months we were able to bring that family back to Canada. They arrived just a few days before Christmas. The whole community came together. The little children got off the plane. People had come from all over to give them gifts. Both the wife and husband work. They have contributed to society. They donate their time to those who are living in poverty. The husband is a baker. He goes to Romero House which is a little drop-in centre. People who have no money go there to get their meals. He bakes for them at night. He makes sure that they get the best of food. This has been a very beautiful success story but it took a long time.

I remember when the auditor general came to the public accounts committee. He talked about the immigration program and the process. He also talked about the fact that some 20,000 people are still here in Canada illegally because our process is so slow in the manner in which it is presently laid out. He recommended major changes to streamline it. I understand the minister has stated that with the new changes they are hoping to have all those cases completed within the year. I must say that is a very strong statement because of the numbers that we have.

When it comes to the system, as the auditor general stated, it must be changed with the commissioners. I have heard here tonight about taking patronage out of it. All I can say is that whoever is there, let them be competent, let them know the process, let them apply the process. Let them do whatever they have to do but do it in a manner in which politics does not play a role in it.

I know this is difficult. We hear about the little families in church basements. Usually when they go into a church basement it is because if they go back to the country from which they left, their lives are at stake. Usually they would not be in the church basement if the minister or priest did not believe in helping the little families.

I have seen it, I have worked with it and I know what it is all about. I hope we are able to work out a far better system than it has been in the past.

They talk about the two official languages, whether they should be able to speak English and French. I come from Canada's only official bilingual province, New Brunswick. Our door is open for immigrants. In fact, a motion was passed recently by the mayor and council in Saint John, New Brunswick asking for more immigrants, to work to bring more into Saint John, New Brunswick.

If they are not absolutely fluent, there are all kinds of opportunities with our Samuel D. Champlain Centre. If they are not fluent in French, we will teach them. It will not cost them anything. If they are not absolutely fluent in English, we can do the same.

Our doors are open in Saint John, New Brunswick and our people want more. They do not all have to be in Vancouver or Toronto. They can be in the maritime provinces as well. I hope in the future people will look at that in Ottawa. They have a role to play. They have a lot to share with us.

It talks about having to be a skilled worker. I mentioned the man who is a baker. Bakers are considered to be in short supply in Canada. However a refugee who can bake but who has no formal degree may fall short of receiving adequate points at the interview.

We have to find a way to keep an open-minded approach to judging those who apply. At the same time I agree that people must have the skills that show they can perform the task they say they are able to perform. The test should be flexible, changing in its application but not in its content.

Other proposals contained in the most recent report are things that will have to be debated.

There is reference to same sex families. There are those who will believe that that constitutes a family. I am one who believes in the traditional family. I am one who will always speak for the traditional family. I think the traditional family has been forgotten and it is time for many of us to speak out for them. I really do. I have some concerns about that section which is being recommended.

Other proposals contained in the most recent report are things that need to be debated.

On the issue of maintaining Canadian safety, I agree that we need to go as far as possible. The safety that Canadians now enjoy should never be compromised for any reason. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world. Although everything is not perfect, we are fortunate to live in this nation.

Some of the more serious concerns I have with the proposals lie in the fact that there are no concrete measures proposed. There are no details for us to study and comment on.

What some of these proposals mean to one person may not mean the same to some of my colleagues. This puts a great deal of work in front of the committee members as they will ultimately be the people who decide what is brought forth for concrete measures.

The PC Party has long valued the contributions of newcomers to Canada. For the most part the immigrants we have received into Canada have been very resourceful, vibrant people. Our party believes that we must have a balanced approach to immigration, one that would not punish legitimate applicants but one which would prevent abuse of our social programs.

If we had a system that would see the end of patronage appointments, and I do not care who is in government, just make sure that we have responsible people there, then we would have a much better system.

Another suggestion would be to streamline the procedure to help expedite the process for legitimate applicants. As I have stated, it takes a long time. This could also serve to quickly turn around those applications that will not be accepted.

In closing, this process will be long. It will need to be thoroughly developed to best serve the needs of those wishing to come to Canada. I hope all opinions will be listened to and respected.

I want to thank the hon. minister and her department for the help and co-operation she has given to me and my office on refugee cases in the past year. I want that on the record.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the speech by the hon. member brought to mind the fact that I am an immigrant and had to go through the immigration process in 1979 to get into Canada. It took about two years. We first applied and we were automatically turned down. We asked why we were turned down. We applied a second time. It took three applications to come here.

My wife and I had money to buy a home. We had jobs guaranteed. We felt we had earned the right to come here. We had earned it. We truly felt like Canadians and that is the way we have behaved since, as Canadians.

I personally see nothing wrong with having a high standard. That is the same message I get in my riding from all of the immigrants who have come in through the legitimate process.

I have two questions for the member. She does not object to requiring reasonably high standards. The second point has to do with criminal refugees.

The real problem in the major centres has nothing to do with immigration as such. But it is the problem which the minister is not addressing which is the one of criminal refugees.

In a TV interview last week with BCTV, a reporter basically demolished the minister over the issue of not deporting criminal refugees and allowing them to enter our borders holus-bolus. She has done absolutely nothing.

In the last three to four months in Vancouver there have been multiple arrests of up to 80 criminal Honduran drug dealers who are all illegal entries. Up to half of the arrests every night in Vancouver are criminal non-residents, aliens who have crossed the border as criminal refugees.

Has the member thought about that problem in the big cities? Like most of the people of Vancouver, does she agree that there should be a better way of getting rid of those bad people quickly instead of having them hang around for 10 or 12 years?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, what one has to ask is were they like that before they came in or did they become criminals after they came to Canada, to Vancouver?

When it comes to the drug situation the member knows it is not just the immigrants. That drug situation is across the nation. When it comes to a criminal coming to Canada and becoming a Canadian citizen, then there is something wrong with the system. There are not enough strict rules to protect and to have the checks and balances.

A little man who had come from Guatemala to Saint John was shot in the stomach. He was lying in the street dying. A fireman found him, picked him up, took him to his home and saved his life. That little man lives in Saint John right now. He contributes to our society. He was not a criminal. He spoke out against a communist way of life. That is the only thing he did.

When it comes to drugs we have to take stronger stands. We have to do more to clean up the drug situation across the nation. If there are immigrants who are into that and have come in with a criminal record then they should be deported. We have to strengthen the system. We have to have a stronger system. There is no question about that.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, to make sure that my question is clear, I hope the hon. member has seen the news reports in the Vancouver area where up to 80 Honduran drug traffickers are being arrested at one time. Eighty of them. They are taken to the court in Vancouver, charged and then they are immediately released. They all live on welfare. They all have free medical care. They acknowledge that they are illegal refugees.

I am not talking about the genuine refugees who come from genuine refugee screening camps around the world. People as young as 12 years old are using the system to come here to abuse our laws and deal in drugs. They know they can be here for 10 to 12 years before they are deported and it is all because of the minister over there who will do nothing about the problem.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, if they are here illegally, if they are breaking the law, then they should be deported immediately. That is what the auditor general would say. I think we all agree to that.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get clarification regarding a comment the member made. She said she and her party certainly would not support redefining a spouse as a same sex spouse. The member was referring to the leeway the minister has for her to change that definition on her own if this legislation passes.

On CBC radio this morning a report was that all parties except Reform supported the changing of the definition. That comment was with regard to the bill of last night of the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased the member brought that up so we can clarify it. No, it was not the party. The hon. member from my party who attended and spoke was speaking on behalf of herself and her feelings and not on behalf of the PC party. I am speaking on my behalf. I am not for same sex benefits. I am not for redefining the family. I am for the traditional family and everybody knows that across Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 28, 1998, consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Tax On Financial Transactions

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak today with regard to Motion No. 239. I infrequently speak in this place primarily because most of the time when I do want to speak it is not always possible and also because I speak only when I have something to say.

I know my hon. colleague has the best interests of our country in mind when he indicates that financial speculators apparently do have some play in some of the problems that occur in a lot of countries where there is not a lot of good control over finances.

I ask this question with regard to the financial transaction tax, the Tobin tax. Economists will tell us anything we want to hear or there are ways to build models to indicate what is good and what is bad.

As I understand it, the best way of avoiding a financial disaster is to have good management, good fiscal policy, good regimes and legislation to make sure that financial institutions and people who deal in financial transactions are managed properly.

The second thing which apparently is a myth is that foreigners are responsible for creating speculation in countries. There are a lot of greedy people in the world. Machiavelli said the strong will do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. There are people like that in this world. It does not matter what kind of situation they are in. If we were to give everybody in our country, all 30 million people, $1 million each some would have goodwill. They would want to help their neighbours and do not really care about money. After 10 or 15 years a lot of them would end up with zero cash and some would end up very rich, saying “We are all right, thank you very much. We do not care about all of these other people. Let them suffer because they did not do X and they did not do Y”.

That kind of world is not a good world to live in. It is a world where the law of the jungle prevails. Sometimes people say to me Liberals are soft. I can be as strong and as vicious as any of my colleagues around the table.

But if one really gets out in the jungle, as I did one time, and looks at the real wild animals they are not well dressed, they do not have three piece suits. They are ugly. They roll around in a lot of stuff, they smell like the jungle and they are vicious.

Some of the people who wear tuxedos, drive the big limos, live in places that are fenced in with servants and slaves and what have you think this is great. It is not a good environment to live in. In that kind of environment even the people who are working for them do not like them.

I will get back to the second point I want to make. Speculation starts in their own country for some people. They understand the rules. They understand the regulations. It is the stock brokers or the local banker who gives these tip-offs. They trigger these things. It is kind of like a BRE-X. The next thing we know all kinds of things happen. Then in come the speculators. The speculators become involved. If we could only get a buck every time somebody makes a transaction it would be good for the common good of all Canadians and this would not happen.

The third point which is probably the most important reason why this Tobin tax would be problematic is in this world there are many countries where trading occurs. The capital will flee to the country that does not have a regime in place where moneys are taken during transactions.

Although I know what we do in this House is very important, our discussions about how we regulate things and we are here as legislators, I am not here just to make laws. An old farmer told me when I was first elected “Go to Ottawa but don't make a lot of rules and regulations that you are going to place in a stand somewhere. Remember some times things like the ten commandments. That can get you very far”.

Sometimes notwithstanding that our colleagues come up with good legislation and there are a lot of good private members' bills that have been passed in the House, the best thing about private members' bills is that we discuss them. We look at all the angles and we pry and we probe. Sometimes the good ideas are stolen by ministers or by colleagues or by some group and used. We have to be mindful that we are just not here to make rules and regulations, put them in some kind of document, place them on a shelf somewhere or try them and they do not work or they make the system worse.

I understand the finance minister has looked at it and the department has looked at it. We hear the concern of the hon. member, but Canada is already exercising international leadership. We have a broad strategy to attack the underlying causes of financial market volatility. Big financial markets are not perfect institutions.

As well, I am told, the challenge we face is to find the best way of dealing with these problems, which economists call market imperfection. In other words, no market is perfect.

Proponents of the Tobin tax then argue that such a law would put sand in the wheels of international financial markets by imposing a very small percentage tax on a foreign exchange trader. And so the argument goes. This would discourage speculation. It would stabilize the financial markets without interfering unduly with longer term trade or investment.

Others are attracted by the tax revenue. There are a lot of people looking for these big slush funds, tax moneys. Politicians would love it so we could spend it and so that we could raise some funds which they believe would finance and enhance worthwhile programs.

We do have regimes for raising taxes. Those regimes are well thought out. This discussion is very good but as far as I am concerned this is not the way the government should go because of those reasons I mentioned.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was delighted to hear my colleague from Bruce—Grey. I have not heard him speak often, as he mentioned, but I wish he would do so more often. He certainly provides an excellent view on this subject. I also enjoyed his member's statement yesterday. He was on all the national networks mourning the loss of the rodent in his riding.

I am here this evening to talk about the motion of my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle on the financial transactions tax, that in the opinion of this House the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with all OECD countries.

Like many ideas that come from my colleagues in the aging New Democratic Party this is a noble one I think with a good purpose and a thoughtful objective in mind, to find some way of governments imposing some discipline on the increasingly unwieldy currency and financial exchange markets which really seem to many of us to be out of control at times. I think we, like all Canadians, share at times a feeling of helplessness as we are adrift on the sea of trillions of dollars being exchanged daily across the world electronically, affecting our standard of living, affecting the value of our currency, affecting our international purchasing power and yet to a very large extent beyond the control of us as individuals or as communities or as government. So I recognize the frustration which gives way to the kind of impetus we see behind this motion.

It would be wonderful if we could find a fiscal policy lever, a tax if you will, to slow down the sometimes destructive and irrational nature of these speculative currency markets. That I admit. It would also be marvellous if we could live in a world where everybody had a marvellous standard of living where there was no poverty, no unemployment and no economic inequities. But unfortunately that is not a world we live in and it never will be. That is a Utopian world. There are some things which government simply cannot do. One of the iron laws of economics is that people will generally act in their own self-interest and maximize their own returns. This is an irrefutable fact of economic history.

Essentially what I am saying is that the imposition of a financial transaction tax proposed by this motion would be unworkable, impractical and would create unintended consequences that would be far more devastating on developed countries like Canada than are the current vagaries of the currency exchange markets.

One example springs to mind about the kind of perverse unintended consequences that result from governments when they choose to establish certain outcomes through tax policy. In the 16th century in England the crown was looking for an efficient way to tax people based on their wealth.

The tax collectors then noticed that wealthier people tended to have homes with a relatively new luxury of windows. Lovely Tudor homes with windows were being built throughout the land. The tax collectors decided to advise the crown that they should impose a window tax. It was a brilliant idea to soak the rich. The 16th century version of the NDP said “Let's soak the rich and redistribute that income. Let's have some Robin Hood economics here in jolly old England”.

They imposed this punitive tax on windows. The tax collectors went around from town to town and county to county and counted how many windows people had in their homes and assessed a levy based on how many windows they had. Inevitably we can imagine the consequences which tax collectors could not possibly imagine in their linear minds. What happened was that everybody throughout the land boarded up their windows and darkened their homes to avoid the taxes they would otherwise have to pay.

This marvellous new innovation of Renaissance architecture, the window, became blackened and covered up because of a punitive tax which was designed to achieve some kind of equity. To this day in some small villages in England we can see what were once framed as windows covered up by plaster. To this day we still see the unintended consequences. That is the kind of natural, inevitable, historical, human reaction to the effort by the state to impose taxes on people to penalize them for certain activities.

We have seen this in more recent history where other developed economies have tried to impose financial transaction taxes such as the one contemplated in this motion. We have seen that jurisdictions such as Brazil, Sweden, Japan, Germany and Switzerland, all in the past five years or so, have removed or eliminated financial transaction taxes which they had at one point levied principally on the trading of equities and other financial instruments. The United Kingdom, while not yet having eliminated the FTT which it imposed on the registration of securities, cut it in half back in 1986.

Why did all these countries that were theoretically generating revenue from this painless small levy on financial transactions end up eliminating it? What they found was much like the window tax, that these financial transaction taxes were counterproductive.

By imposing a levy on securities and equities and the trading of those instruments there was less activity in their equities market, less securities were being registered. Why? It was because investors acting rationally in their own self-interest moved their financial investments, their equity tradings and so forth into other jurisdictions.

The tax base which these governments had sought to derive revenue from began to diminish. By imposing a tax not only did the revenues from that source decline year after year as investors moved more capital trading out of the country, but it became completely counterproductive because all the FTTs in various jurisdictions had a dampening effect on economic growth.

There is absolutely no doubt that we would see a similar unintended consequence were Canada and other OECD countries to impose an international tax along the lines proposed by economist James Tobin in his now notorious Tobin tax. There is no doubt that it would be impossible to compel every national jurisdiction in the world to comply with such a tax. It would also be impossible to impose sanctions on those sovereign jurisdictions that refuse to do so.

Even if we could persuade all 26 OECD countries and all G-7 countries to impose a 1% or .5% levy on financial transactions, of which I am highly skeptical, we would still have some 130 international sovereign jurisdictions to persuade to participate in this kind of tax.

Inevitably some would do what banking havens like the Grand Caymans, Bermuda, Switzerland and the Channel Islands do today, that is act as havens for investment. We would find that capital would flow to the point of least resistance. We would end up with an enormous distortion in international financial markets which would be devastating to equity markets and the prosperity and economic prospects of countries like Canada.

With respect to my colleague from Regina, it is a nice idea but it is impractical. It would not work. It could not work. Let us not hamper Canada's economy by imposing such an unworkable international tax regime.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, which I feel is an important one, in light of my personal values.

First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for tabling Motion M-239, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community.

An amendment to this motion has already been proposed by the hon. member for Repentigny and reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by removing the words “enact a tax on financial transactions” and replacing them with the following:

“promote the implementation of a tax aimed at discouraging speculation on fluctuations in the exchange rate.”

I hope the majority of our colleagues in this House will support the amendment as well as the main motion. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is to be commended for putting forward this motion, which parallels the current debate surrounding the issue of globalization. This is a good example of globalization and how the world has shrunk, given that, with the extremely sophisticated technology available today, financial transactions can be performed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and have a major impact on economies worldwide.

This has been done extensively, and it makes this motion today, the Tobin tax, all the more interesting in light of recent developments.

In a word, as we know, the purpose of this tax would be to levy a very small amount—one tenth of one percent—on international currency transactions around the world. It is estimated that such transactions total, and that is where it becomes interesting, between $1,500 and $2,000 billion a day. It is hard to imagine what $1,000 billion a day represents. That is order of magnitude we are talking about here. At the end of a year, given a rate of one tenth of one percent, $150 or $175 billion would have been raised and managed, as a world fund, by the UN or another organization designated by the international community for this purpose. As a result, and this is very important, wealth would be better distributed.

It would act as a mechanism to curb rash exchange speculation on the currencies of countries, sometimes the most vulnerable countries. We would kill two birds with one stone with this world fund, which could be used effectively to fight poverty worldwide.

And better distribution of wealth would be achieved. This would have the effect of counteracting the negative effects of globalization and slowing down the progress of the unbridled neo-liberalism which has reigned for far too many years already.

We have seen the way these faceless speculators, with no sense of social responsibility, no accounting to anyone, whose job it is to type away on computer keyboards everywhere on this planet, checking out interests rates that are too low, fostering their own clients' interests, thumb their noses at community or national interests.

When we refer to national interests, we are not referring to some vague concept. We are referring to what has happened in recent years, first of all in Asia, in Japan, Malaysia, Korea, Indonesia. All of Russia has been through it since the wall came down, and now has become a haven for all manner of crooks and criminals. Things seem to be out of control. A few years ago Mexico too was experiencing some very hard times, as Brazil recently did.

A full-scale attack is launched on certain economies—often developed ones such as Japan but sometimes still fragile, such as Indonesia perhaps—so that these economies must suddenly face some devastating times. This may be seen in the document I am going to read. This has devastating effects on economies and on the individuals in them.

Fortunately, an awareness is developing internationally. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Charles F. Johnston of 5th Avenue North in Saskatoon for alerting me to the debate and inviting me to take part. He summarizes very well the problem with the Tobin tax: “A tax like this not only would impose a number of constraints on short term speculation, but it would generate a fund destined to support economic growth and restore social programs throughout the world”.

Mr. Johnston is one example of the awareness that is developing, especially in France. That is not new. We all know about the acuity of the French on social issues. They have always been in the forefront. They are there thanks to a publication you are no doubt familiar with, Madam Speaker, Le Monde Diplomatique , which, in January of this year, published a ground-breaking article on the question, entitled “For the reconstruction of the international financial system: at the root of the evil”. The root of the evil for Le Monde Diplomatique is the processing of financial transactions, including those involving currency and rates of exchange.

I will quickly read several quotes: “So, since the crash in the winter of 1994-95, half of the population of Mexico has fallen below the poverty line. Malnutrition and famine are again raging in Indonesia. In Russia, ten years of economic liberalism have done more to tarnish the reputation of capitalism than 70 years of propaganda on the “real” socialism. Average life expectancy for men has dropped by seven years, unprecedented in the 20th century. In Korea and Thailand, IMF suicides continue. Workers who have been laid off and are without resources kill their wives and children because they are unable to provide for them.”

I will read another excerpt from this excellent article: “The top 20% of humanity consumes 86% of the wealth, while the bottom 20% is left with 1.3%. The fact is, and we hear it often enough, that the gap is widening yearly at the same time as official development assistance is declining. It is the debt that is the worst threat to the future of the south, particularly the future of less developed countries that are in the process of almost disappearing off the face of the earth because of debt that they are unable to repay now and will never be able to repay in the future.

The less developed countries are spending an average of over 20% of their export revenues on servicing this debt. If this were lowered to 1% or 2%, as it was for Germany after the war, these countries could invest the money saved in health, education, and the environment, thus generating a virtuous circle. The more a country could invest in human capital and sustainable development, the more it could reduce its debt, to the point of eliminating it entirely.”

This is what would be done with the international fund resulting from the Tobin tax on international currency transactions.

Still in France, I would like to mention the Association pour la taxation des transactions financières pour l'aide aux citoyens.

The purpose of this association is to denounce financial globalization, which adds to economic insecurity and social inequality by circumventing and limiting the choices open to nations, democratic institutions and sovereign states responsible for the general good. The association wishes to show that it is necessary and possible, contrary to popular opinion, for people to put the public interest ahead of the interests of financial markets and transnational corporations. This Paris-based association also has a Web site. I urge everyone to contact it.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion of the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on whether we should enact a new tax on financial transactions.

During the Christmas break I had the opportunity to travel throughout my riding and talk to many of my constituents, as I like to do whenever the House is not sitting. I also held a number of town hall meetings and many private meetings where my constituents voiced their concerns on a number of issues. They told me that they need more money for better health care. They said they need more jobs and better opportunities in rural Canada. Many people also told me that politicians need to get to work to solve our national unity problem.

In all of my travels in the last six weeks and in all of my discussions with constituents not one single person said that what this country needs is a new tax. Since I was elected in June 1997 I cannot think of one single time when any voter asked me to raise their taxes.

I read several newspapers every day. I also look through many press clippings. This may be hard to believe, but I cannot recall ever seeing an article or an editorial calling on the government to raise taxes or to bring in another tax. Yet we are discussing how we can take even more money out of the pockets of hard working Canadians.

I have heard other members talk ad nauseam about James Tobin, the International Monetary Fund and the Asian financial crisis. I will talk about why introducing a new tax is a bad idea.

It is important for members on all sides of the House to remember that when taxes go up there are very real consequences on the lives of every Canadian. Whenever I hear a politician suggest that we should increase taxes I think of a gentleman from my riding by the name of John Minard. John Minard did not come from a wealthy family. He did not always have an easy life, but he made the most of his life and shared his successes with others.

John built a successful building supply business that employs his family and many members of his community. He and his family worked very hard at making this business successful and at making sure that the family's needs were always looked after.

John was usually the first one at work in the morning and the last one out at night. He worked six days every week to make sure that his family and his employees had a job to go to and that their bills were paid. However, John Minard did not stop at providing for his very large family. John always felt that he should give something back to his community. Mr. Minard gave time and money to minor hockey, to baseball and softball for children. He was involved in the local Rotary Club and he always had money for the Christmas Miracle for Kids.

Unfortunately, John Minard is no longer with us. He passed away just over a year ago. I bring up his name not just to pay tribute to this good man, but to make a point to my hon. friend from the NDP. There are many John Minards in every community around this country. All across Canada there are people who work days, nights and weekends to make sure their families have enough to eat. These same people are the ones who always have a few dollars for the scouts, for the hospital drive or for many other worthy causes in their communities.

What I want us to consider before we forge ahead and raise taxes is this. Whatever project we would spend this new money on, we are taking money away from the John Minards of this country. Is this project important enough that people like John Minard should have less money to feed their families? Is getting money for whatever whim happens to strike members of parliament this week so important that we should deny that money for all the kids in John Minard's community who benefited from his generosity? I do not think so.

Yes, I understand that the hon. member thinks it would be a neat idea if we could get all of the countries and all of the principalities of the world to agree to do something about the nasty currency trader, but that tax fails the John Minard test.

Lots of Canadians buy Canada Savings Bonds and lots of Canadians save for their retirement. Those are the people who would have to pay this new tax. Is it more important to bring in this trendy new tax just so we can say “We showed those money traders in Singapore who is boss”? Or is it more important that the kids who play minor hockey in Woodstock, New Brunswick still have people like John Minard and those who have come after him who they can count on to help support their communities? In my opinion, I say let us support the hard working generous people like John Minard in our communities and take a pass on this tax.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say at the outset what a joy it is to be participating in the debate today which has been made possible by my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle. I had the pleasure to second this bill. In a sense, I am a co-sponsor with my colleague.

It is interesting to listen to the debate and the commonality. Every speaker on this topic speaks against the currency speculators. Everybody is against those who make their living by speculating on currency. I have not heard anybody yet say that they are in love with the currency speculators, that currency speculators are somehow helpful, that currency speculators have done anything good for the economy, or that they are doing anything good for society generally.

We are in complete agreement that currency speculators who sit up 24 hours a day in some parts of the world are causing problems, causing havoc to the attempts of sovereign nations to develop their economies.

While listening to the previous speaker, I could not help but think of our debate around gun control. Some people say that gun control will not stop all murder. Therefore, why do we have gun control?

No one said that it would stop all murder and that it was either one or the other. We have gun control in our country to attempt to reduce the rate of murder. I think we have been successful.

On balance, we can argue about whether this gun control initiative is appropriate or another control is appropriate, but the fact that we are not all packing sidearms like they are in Texas makes this place a better place to live, a safer place to live. The fact that everyone packs sidearms in Texas makes it a terrible place to live.

When we talk about currency speculators, let us agree that it is worth the effort to try to control these characters. No one can make a convincing case that this is good for anybody other than currency speculators and some of their bosses.

When we look at the media and listen to some of our colleagues we hear a financial elite who just do not want any kind of meddling in their marketplace. They want to have carte blanche freedom to do whatever they want. If that results in countries being devastated, like we have seen as a result of currency speculators, so be it. We even came close in our own country just a few months ago when we watched our dollar collapse day after day. In August last year our currency collapsed day after day, hour after hour, simply because speculators were speculating on our currency. It had nothing to do with the state of our economy. But it caused problems. It caused uncertainty in the marketplace. A lot of investors and consumers were concerned about making important investments or consuming the items or services they wished.

A long comes an idea. Is it a perfect idea? My friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle says:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community...

In other words, if the international community is in support of this, then this will proceed. We cannot do it unilaterally. We do not want to do it unilaterally. We want to show leadership. The world is calling out for leadership.

I am pleased to say that our Minister of Finance a few months ago was completely against this idea. Now the Minister of Finance says that he is open to these ideas. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance says that he thinks there is merit in this. That is why I am puzzled by some of my friends in the Liberal Party who are against this initiative. If the Minister of Finance thinks it is a good idea and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance thinks it is a good idea, why are those Liberals across the way bad-mouthing this concept?

That is what they are doing. But it is a free country and I appreciate that they have a right to say unusual and perhaps uninformed things.

Let us look at what we are talking about. We are talking about a form of the Tobin tax. In 1972 James Tobin, Nobel Prize economist, first proposed the idea of a tax on foreign exchange transactions. This has now been updated. The most recent suggestion is that this would be a tax as low as .1% of transactions in order not to swamp the normal commission charges and so on. It is fair to say that the first $10,000 would be exempt.

We are not talking about the person buying a Canada Savings Bond. We are not talking about a person buying a car. We are talking about people who are currency speculators.

There would be another charge, but the reality is that it would only be with the support of the international community.

If the international community was in support of some form of a Tobin tax, why would Canada not be in support of it? I listened to the leader of Germany the other day. He is in favour of some form of a Tobin tax.

I returned not long ago from the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum. Twenty-two nations from around the Pacific came together. This was a major item. Unanimously they agreed that some form of a Tobin tax was appropriate for their countries. Yet some of my friends in the Liberal Party bad-mouth this concept. They are bad-mouthing the leadership of Asia-Pacific. What are these people thinking?

I know that some of my friends are here as voices of the financial elite of the country. I can understand why they would not support this legislation. However, most people representing constituents in the House of Commons would say “Show me a constituent in this country who would vote against the idea of a Tobin tax”. If I went to Calgary today and said “Do you folks in Calgary like the idea of some form of control on international currency speculators?”, I bet there would not be a single Calgarian who would stand and say they would not want this kind of tax.

[An hon. member]

Oh, yes there would be.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Oh, no there would not be. The financial elite spokespersons would say that. However, I know the average Calgarian well. My previous home was on the outskirts of Calgary. A Calgarian will not say “Give free rein to the international currency speculators. Let them destroy economies around the world. Let them smash the Canadian dollar”.

We are a major trading nation. The value of our currency is crucial in our ability to work in the international marketplace. The stability of our currency is crucial. That is why I cannot understand my friends in the Reform Party who do not want to bring some meaningful rationale to this process. As I say, it is a free country. If they want to be on the side of the international currency speculators, who I am to say they ought not to be there.

We are quite enthusiastic about this initiative for two major reasons. First, it would have the ability to control international currency speculation. There is no question about that. Some have said we have to talk every country in the world into this. My goodness. Eighty per cent of global foreign exchange trade takes place in only seven cities in the world, Tokyo, New York, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, Frankfurt and Bern. It would not be bad if if we could control 80% of foreign currency speculators.

There is another way. If the international community buys into this why could it not be a provision of membership, as my friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle suggested, in the IMF? If you are going to participate then you buy into this concept. The leading nations of the world have bought into it. Why would you not if you were a small country that wanted to join this organization?

Another very significant benefit of the Tobin tax is the money it would raise for international development. The suggestion is it is probably in the range of $150 billion that it would raise to solve the problems of poverty and environmental degradation around the world. That is why I asked my Liberal friends across the way why they would be against such a massive initiative which could really solve the significant global problems we have today. My friend should be ashamed of himself.

For extremely good reasons we support this concept of the Tobin tax. We support enthusiastically the suggestion by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle that in the opinion of this House the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community.