Nelson Riis

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

I listened with interest to the previous speakers and, on principle, we in the New Democratic Party support the principle of Bill C-65 on equalization. It is the ultimate form of an attempt by governments to level the playing field on crucial issues of social spending.

We all like the idea of level playing fields. We do not like different playing fields or uneven playing fields. We now have a level playing field for social programs, and equalization is a step in that direction, where the three have provinces, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, are not included but everybody else is.

Newfoundland will receive $1,648 per capita; P.E.I., $1,340; New Brunswick, $1,154; Manitoba, $898; Quebec, $521; and Saskatchewan, $232.

Looking at the history of this issue and the long lists of the per capita entitlement of provinces over time since equalization was first brought in, we notice something about the province of Saskatchewan. This province moves in and out from being a have province some years to being a have-not province in other years. Every other province is consistent. British Columbia is a have province, Ontario is a have province and Alberta is a have province. All of the other provinces are have-not provinces, but Saskatchewan is different. It comes and it goes. We wonder what is behind these statistics until we factor in which party forms the provincial government. By and large, it works like this. The people of Saskatchewan elect a Conservative or a Liberal government. It gets into financial and economic crises and then the province of Saskatchewan needs equalization payments. It qualifies.

Then the people elect a CCF-NDP government and everything is back in order again and Saskatchewan loses its status. Then the people elect a Conservative or a Liberal government which screws up the economy again. Basically it is a history lesson. Liberals and Conservatives screw up the economy and the CCF-NDP governments get it all back in order again. It is a reflection of the province qualifying or not qualifying for equalization payments. There is an interesting history lesson in these statistics.

I want to reflect on a view that was previously stated. We are talking about one sector of this whole issue of equalization, which is an umbrella for attempting to be fair. Yet sometimes when it comes to health care the government has been very unfair by unilaterally slashing beyond anything reasonable the health care system to cause irreparable damage to that sector.

We would be hard-pressed to find a single Canadian who does not say that our health care system is in disastrous shape because of the Liberal government. There are some people who will distinctly say that some provincial governments are involved, which is true. Ontario is involved. But by and large the slashing and hacking and the damaging records have been caused by the Liberal government in Ottawa.

I was shocked when we added up all of the costs of health care to find how much the federal government actually pays. I remember the old days when it was 50:50. We all remember the good old days when the federal government said it was an equal partner in this marriage. It said that it was an equal player and for every dollar spent it would pay 50 cents, that it would pony up, and it did. That was the way it was supposed to work. It was a family of the federal and provincial governments and the federal government paid 50%. It was a nice balance. That was the way it was supposed to work.

However, over the years that old playing field just about tipped upside down. When we add up all of the costs of health care, 30% is paid privately. There is nothing about dental work, eye glasses and so on, which is all part of health care. Sixty-one per cent is picked up by the provincial governments and the federal government picks up 9%. That is a real embarrassment. The Liberals should be hanging their heads in shame. They should be apologizing. They should feel sorry for what they have done and they should rectify it.

Let us understand that when we talk about equalization, which my party has supported from day one, we cannot look at it in isolation. It is important that we acknowledge that while the government has devastated health care, it has now come forward with a revised Bill C-65 which, on principle, my party supports.

Casino revenues are now taken into account with respect to the provinces' abilities to raise revenues, which makes sense because of the way the country is going. I do not want to comment on casino taxes or anything of that nature because I got into trouble doing that the other day.

The bill also reflects the value of harvested timber as opposed to the volume of harvested timber. It is fair to say that the province of British Columbia has some of the highest quality wood in the world. I do not know if it is the highest quality wood in the world, but possibly it is. This measure is fair. Some of the other provinces harvest a lot of timber as well, but it is of a slightly different quality.

Also we acknowledge that the cost of obtaining new oil is much more expensive than old oil. I know that old oil and new oil is a favourite topic of yours, Madam Speaker, but it is something we have to deal with.

At this point we, as well as some of our friends to the right, consider this as being a bit of serious tinkering. We have to take this more seriously. We have to see it in terms of the context in which we consider all of the fairness of this. My friends in the Reform Party reminded us about that little adjustment just before the Newfoundland election, which we all noticed and thought was interesting. Our friend Brian, from a previous life here, will have a chance to balance his books. Nevertheless, we have to get much more serious about how we develop this kind of policy.

Let us consider how the social union was struck. There were 11 middle aged, white men stuck away in the Prime Minister's residence playing poker with social policy: “I get this. You get this. I get a bigger share than you. No, your share is bigger than mine” and so on and so forth. They cut a deal. Mark my words, what we do not know is what part of that deal was left unstated. The Prime Minister said to premier X that if he bought into the deal they could make arrangements about X , Y and Z a little later.

We all agree that policy making in a crucial area such as health care or social policy ought not to be done by a few guys sitting in a secret meeting, cutting a deal over dinner. That is not the way we should develop public policy. Unfortunately that is the way it is done. That is the way the state of affairs has progressed.

My friend from Regina is going to be making a number of comments more specifically regarding his province. At this stage we in the New Democratic Party support in principle the issue of equalization. We have some obvious concerns which will come up during the committee's work on this legislation.

[Water Exports, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs who I am sure will acknowledge that Canada's most valuable natural resource is our fresh water. He will also acknowledge that foreign interests have access to every natural resource in Canada except one, our fresh water.

Will the minister explain why, after repeated promises by the government to introduce legislation to protect Canada's fresh water, he will not announce a moratorium today? As this is a matter of international trade will legislation be brought forward immediately to prohibit the bulk exports of Canadian fresh water?

[Petitions, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians from a variety of communities.

The petitioners are concerned about the government's lack of initiative to introduce legislation to protect Canadian fresh water. They are concerned that it has not announced any moratorium. They are worried that our trade agreements will facilitate the export of bulk water from Canada to the United States and northern Mexico.

The petitioners call on parliament to take immediate action to safeguard fresh water for future generations of Canadians.

[Tax On Financial Transactions, February 3rd, 1999]

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.

[Tax On Financial Transactions, February 3rd, 1999]

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.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

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.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

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

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

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.

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 3rd, 1999]

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.

[Petitions, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.

Residents throughout British Columbia heard rumours that the government plans to renege on its commitment to introduce legislation to ban bulk water exports from Canada.

They also point out their concern about the ability of the various trade agreements to facilitate the export of freshwater and are calling upon parliament not to proceed with any trade agreement that would facilitate this and to take action on legislation immediately.