Jim Jones

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the hon. member for Calgary Southeast retract the statements he just made.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Calgary Southeast for bringing this motion forward.

Helping our families through tax relief is an admirable goal for any government. Certainly the Conservative government in Ontario has led the way in that regard.

I would ask a simple question of the Reform member. In 1993 Ron Mix, a Reform candidate in Edmonton North, said this about women in the workplace. “Women are being forced to work under the guise that they are being liberated and enjoying the freedoms of the workplace, when in fact it is bondage”. Meanwhile, in a 100 page paper the Leader of the Opposition quoted from the Bible:

Wives, be subject to your husbands as the Lord, for the man is the head of the woman.

I ask the Reform member, as this motion deals with ending discrimination in the tax system, will that member also refute those discriminatory comments, or does the Reform member support those comments?

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

In this budget the fundamental problem with the government's approach is that it ignores the best approach to increase the business investment needed to improve productivity: lower business taxes and a lower regulatory burden.

Since the Liberals took office in 1993, corporate income tax revenue has more than doubled. Many of these taxes do not even depend on whether or not a corporation is profitable. The federal Department of Finance estimates that 70% of taxes that business pays are not related to any profit. Meanwhile, according to the Conference Board of Canada, of every single dollar in extra profit made by corporations over the past 30 years, a full 62 cents is clawed back.

I ask the member, if the government were truly concerned with productivity and jobs, would it not address the heavy tax burden that discourages needed business investment in this country?

[Minister Of Industry, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the lights are on at Industry Canada but nobody is home. In the past three months the Minister of Industry sang the virtues of high taxes as a way to improve productivity, turned a blind eye to federal loans to convicted criminal Yvon Duhaime and got caught with his pants down when the WTO ruled that Technology Partnerships Canada was an illegal subsidy.

Now we have news that the big banks, in particular the National Bank of Canada, are often misusing the federal small business financing program, costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars in bad loans.

What is the minister's response? The status quo. This is unacceptable. While Bill C-53 was a welcome improvement, we need a law and regulations with more teeth, we need penalties on banks that knowingly break the rules and we need a claims process that includes an assessment on whether banks reasonably evaluated loans.

The banks should not get taxpayer dollars to cover bad loans for business projects that clearly were not feasible. It is time for the industry minister to—

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-63, an act to amend the citizenship act.

Citizenship and immigration matters are extremely important to many of my constituents in Markham. It therefore gives me great pleasure to speak to this proposed legislation.

Just last month we signed up 360 new citizens. Markham has a population of 190,000. Roughly 55% are of ethnic origin.

My caucus colleagues from Saint John, New Brunswick and St. John's East have spoken very eloquently about the human side of citizenship and immigration cases. I would like to outline some of the details of Bill C-63.

This legislation amends the citizenship act by changing certain citizenship rights and conditions for citizens and applicants. This bill also revises the criteria for obtaining citizenship, the process for granting, denying and revoking citizenship to Canada.

This bill is a result of the report of the immigration legislation review advisory group which was submitted to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in December 1997. The report was entitled “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”. The government had commissioned the review to determine how immigration and citizenship legislation could be reformed.

The report was met with mixed reviews from the press and the public. Concerns were raised about a number of issues, including new citizenship tests that require a physical presence in Canada, dropping reference to monarch successors from the citizenship oath and the new requirements that the person speak one of Canada's two official languages.

I hope the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration gives these and other issues due scrutiny. We need to hear from organizations representing our immigrant community. Furthermore, we need to hear from other individuals and groups concerned with the different aspects of this bill.

I would now like to review some of the substances of the legislation. Bill C-63 stipulates that a person born in Canada becomes a citizen unless the parents are diplomatic staff of a foreign government or the United Nations.

The act also allows the minister to grant citizenship to a person who is at least 18 years old, meets the residency test of being present for three of the past five years, has an adequate knowledge of English or French, and has adequate knowledge of Canada, citizenship responsibilities and can communicate that knowledge in English or French without a translator.

The residency test is changed in two significant ways. First, prospective citizens must have been residents for three of five years prior to application rather than three of the previous four. Second, the rules are changed to require that the prospective citizen be physically present in Canada during those three years. Currently it is possible to be a permanent resident of Canada while actually living abroad.

Minimum residency requirements may be waived on compassionate grounds. The minister may grant citizenship to a minor or adopted child on application. The minister may also grant citizenship to someone who was born outside Canada to a citizen parent, is less than 28 years old, has resided in Canada for at least three of the past five years and has not been convicted.

Persons may be stripped of citizenship if they were born outside Canada to Canadian citizens who was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977, respectively, at aged 28 unless they meet minimum residency requirements.

Citizenship may be renounced if persons apply to the minister because they are citizens of another country or successfully apply for another citizenship, not a minor, able to understand the significance of citizenship renunciation and not residing in Canada.

The cabinet may order the revocation of citizenship if a person obtained it by duplicity. Persons referred for citizenship by someone who loses citizenship could also lose their citizenship.

The minister may not revoke a person's citizenship if the person is not notified or if the person within 30 days of notice requests appeal to a federal court and it is determined by federal court that citizenship was not obtained by some false representation or fraud.

Bill C-63 allows the minister to restore citizenship to a person whose citizenship was not revoked under the act or prior to the legislation or was a permanent resident of Canada after loss of citizenship and has at least 365 days of residence in Canada as a permanent resident in the two years preceding application for citizenship.

If the minister or cabinet believe that it is against the public interest, any person may be disallowed from taking the citizenship oath. Such a decision would remain in effect for five years. Any person determined to be a threat to Canadian security under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act may also be barred citizenship.

Additionally Bill C-63 specifies that persons may be denied citizenship if they are on parole, probation or imprisoned, charged with an indictable offence in or outside Canada, under investigation by the Minister of Justice, the RCMP, CSIS or are or have been charged under the Criminal Code, have not been granted legal entry to Canada or are under removal order.

Bill C-63 lets the minister monitor conformity to the act and reverse citizenship decisions.

Citizenship judges will be renamed citizenship commissioners and will be responsible for promoting Canadian values, respect of law and social harmony. While they will preside over citizenship ceremonies, they shall no longer approve citizenship applications. Instead applications shall be decided by departmental officers. The salaries and benefits of the position will remain the same.

Bill C-63 changes the oath of citizenship. Where the current oath swears or affirms allegiance to the Queen and her successors, the new oath swears allegiance only to the Queen but not her successors.

Finally, the bill makes it an offence to misuse citizenship related documents. It sets punishment standards for citizenship officers who engage in wrongful behaviour.

By and large these changes appear welcome and somewhat overdue. It seems that every year we keep getting consultation papers or reports released by the minister without any concrete action.

I do worry about the impact that Bill C-63 tougher citizenship qualifications will have for international business people and others who travel extensively outside the country. The bill would force immigrants to be physically within Canadian borders for 1,095 days, a total of three years within a five year period before applying for citizenship. We need to be careful not to unfairly restrict international commercial activities in the private sector.

The intent of Bill C-63 is positive. The devil is often in the details. However, careful study and consultation at the citizenship and immigration committee will help improve the bill and address problems highlighted by others.

[Chinese New Year, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of Chinese New Year, the year of the rabbit.

As we celebrate this momentous occasion on the Chinese calendar, I should note that on Saturday the Right Hon. Joe Clark and I joined with 2,200 members of the Chinese Canadian community in Toronto to support the dragon ball 1999, a benefit for the Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care.

This event was yet the latest example of the invaluable contributions made by Canadians of Chinese origin to our national way of life.

Despite having encountered obstacles of racism and discrimination in the past, Chinese Canadians nonetheless comprise one of the most loyal, dedicated group of citizens in this country.

In my riding of Markham I know firsthand the positive impact brought about by the Chinese Canadian community.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I would like to wish all Canadians of Chinese origin much luck, prosperity and success in family and business.

Gung hai fay choy. Happy new year.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals can run but they cannot hide from being accountable for misuse of grants and loans. Yvon Duhaime, a financially challenged convicted criminal, admitted that he received assistance from the Prime Minister's riding staff in applying for government funding.

I ask the Prime Minister, did he or a member of his staff intervene with the Business Development Bank or any other department to obtain dollars for Yvon Duhaime?

[Business Development Bank, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, no ordinary Canadian would loan Yvon Duhaime $100, let alone over $800,000 in loans and grants courtesy of the taxpayer. Then again, no ordinary Canadian can spend millions of other people's money on lavish travel. No ordinary Canadian can find high paying political jobs for their relatives.

I ask the Cadillac Prime Minister, who happily cut the ribbon—

[Business Development Bank, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Yvon Duhaime misled federal officials about his criminal record, has a track record of not paying his taxes or his creditors and sank the first instalment of his federal handout straight into his personal bank account.

In short, he has all the wrong credentials for getting government money, except that he bought a hotel from the Prime Minister and his friends. We already have reports that contractors for the hotel expansion have not been paid.

Can the Minister of Industry assure this House that Duhaime is using the $615,000 loan for the hotel expansion and not for any outstanding personal debts?

[Year 2000, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I hosted an information breakfast on the year 2000 problem in my riding of Markham. About 100 people joined me to learn how some of the Canadian leading firms are addressing this issue. Whether it was listening to Gary Baker from the Arthur Andersen consulting group, Al Aubry from IBM or Rod Morris from CIBC, breakfast attendees were reassured that the private sector by and large is ready for the millennium bug.

Unfortunately the federal government cannot make that same claim. According to the most recent auditor general's report various important government systems remained at risk as of last June. Furthermore the auditor general concluded that some essential government services may be interrupted at the start of year 2000.

As this is year 2000 awareness week I urge the federal government to follow the lead of the private sector to take stronger and more effective action so that Canadians can easily rest assured about indispensable public services.