Herb Dhaliwal

[Immigration Act, March 21st, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-392, an act to amend the Immigration Act (right of landing fee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to rise in the House today to introduce three private member's bills. Today I will be introducing a bill to amend the Income Tax Act which will allow for an increase in the small business deduction from its current threshold of $200,000 to $300,000.

I am introducing a bill to amend the Immigration Act to eliminate the right of landing fees.

I am introducing another bill to amend the Immigration Act to raise the age of dependent daughters and sons from 19 to 21 years of age.

I hope my colleagues will become familiar with these initiatives and that they will support them when they come before the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Canada Labour Code, March 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will be voting with the government on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Mr. Wong, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate a 104-year old Vancouver store owner, Mr. Wong, for his exemplary work and dedication on behalf of the YWCA.

His ties to the YWCA date back to the late 1930s when the organization saw a need in Chinatown for social services and bridges to help its Chinese Canadian residents overcome hostility and racism.

Mr. Wong came from a small village in Toi-San county in 1913. Like other Chinese immigrants, he had to pay a $500 head tax in order to enter Canada.

In 1931 he founded the Jong Wah Drug Store which he and his wife Esther ran for 47 years in the heart of Vancouver's Chinatown.

I congratulate Mr. Wong and all of his achievements. I know that all Canadians join with me in wishing him good health, long life and prosperity.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak on the budget today. It is an excellent budget. There are a couple of very important ingredients in the budget. Generally it is a balanced budget, it is a responsible budget and it is a compassionate budget. Let me state why those three things are very important for us on the government side.

The budget had to be balanced because we want to ensure that the actions we have taken on the deficit do not take away from the future. I know some people have said that they want to get rid of the deficit in three years but we have said right from the beginning that

our approach in dealing with the deficit would be balanced and reasonable and that we would deal with it in a compassionate and responsible way.

When we became the government there was a $42 billion deficit, a problem which many said was very difficult to deal with. During the first radio show I did after the election Bill Good asked me if my government was really going to deal with the deficit. I said that absolutely, we were going to deal with it because it was important for the future of the country, but that we were going to do it in a responsible way.

In the last election campaign we set specific targets and said that we were going to meet those targets. In the last four budgets we have met all the targets; in fact, we have done better than meeting the targets. It was very important to meet every one of our targets because it sent the very strong message to the international financial community that we were serious about dealing with the deficit.

Some of the Reform members are trying to take credit for our actions on the deficit but during election time we set specific targets, not because of the Reform Party but because we felt it was important to deal with it. Those targets have been met and as the minister stated in the last budget, we will be at least $5 billion below our target of $24 billion.

It was very important to meet our targets for a number of reasons. Because of the confidence we have established in the international community, our dollar has stabilized. Interest rates are unprecedented; I cannot remember the last time Canadian interest rates were below American interest rates. Our interest rates are presently more than two and a half per cent below the American interest rates. In the past it has always been the reverse, where the American interest rates were two to two and a half per cent below the Canadian interest rates.

This is what will create jobs. Opposition members have asked, what about jobs? Low interest rates create jobs, investment and confidence. Interest rates play a major role in the investment decisions of small and medium size businesses. If someone wants to construct a new building, for example, a new hotel or a new factory, interest rates will play a very important role in determining if that investment will go ahead. Canadians buying homes have to look at what the interest rates are. Interest rates can affect their choice of a home because of their influence on monthly mortgage payments. When Canadians buy cars, the interest rate is an important factor which determines whether or not they can afford to buy a car.

We have one of the lowest inflation rates of the G-7 countries. This will ensure the maintenance of our low interest rates.

All these things, dealing with the deficit, meeting our targets, having credibility in the financial markets, have led to lower interest rates, lower inflation rates and a greater confidence in the economy. It is so much so that economists are predicting Canada will have the best growth figures in the next medium term compared to other G-7 countries. It was not any easy task and all Canadians know that. It was a difficult task to achieve what we have today.

The attitude of this government and the finance minister was to look at government from the bottom up. We did not just say that to deal with the deficit we were going to cut everybody by a certain percentage. As a government we said that we wanted to review all programs starting from the bottom up. We said that we wanted to get rid of those programs that were no longer relevant to Canadians. We said that we wanted to get rid of those crown corporations that were no longer relevant to Canadians. We looked at how we could turn those services that could be provided more efficiently and effectively by private industry, municipal governments and provincial governments over to them.

Canadians have said to us that they want a government that is efficient, that they want less duplication and less waste. That is another area we looked at in terms of saving money and dealing with the deficit. We asked: Where is there waste in government? Where are there inefficiencies? How can we do it better? This was the basic view we took in trying to deal with the deficit and in trying to re-engineer government to meet the 21st century, to move forward into the next century where we could have a government structure that could be with us for a long time. It was not an easy task. It was a difficult task, but that is what we have done.

We also understood that there are investments to be made in this country so that we could be competitive in the rest of the world, that Canadian products could be sold. The reality is there is globalization. We have to compete on the international market. Canada is a trading nation.

We understood, for example, that infrastructure is very important to be competitive around the world. If we have road systems, ports, airports that are efficient we will be more competitive. If we have a communications system that is efficient and responsive we will be able to be more competitive in the rest of the world. If we have ports that can ship products very efficiently it helps the business community because it is more efficient and much more cost effective. We understood that. That is why we had an infrastructure program to ensure that we maintain the infrastructure and improve it for the coming century.

We also recognized that research and development is very important. Any country that does not do research and development falls behind. So in this budget we have said that there will be $800 million in the Canada Foundation for Innovation, $800 million

toward research and development which, by the way, will be administered by the private sector. It will determine where it is most advantageous for Canadians to spend that money.

We also understand how important trade is for Canada. That is why we have the Prime Minister's Team Canada missions where he has travelled to the Asia-Pacific, to South America and other regions to tell other countries that Canada is ready for business. Canada has the expertise. It has the skills. It has the products to deliver to people around the world.

I can say having the opportunity to travel and meet many leaders around the world that other countries want to do business with Canada. They know the type of products that we can provide. They know the skills, the efficiencies and the quality of the products which Canada provides in goods and services. They have all said "We want to see Canada at the table. We want them to be there because we are confident in the services and products they provide".

We understand how education is so very important for Canadians. That is why we have made it easier for students to pay back their loans, to give them more time and not to have to pay back their loans in the first six months but over 30 months to give students that leeway.

As well, we have said we want to encourage people to invest in education. That is why the registered education savings plan has been doubled from $2,000 a year to $4,000 a year to encourage Canadians to invest in education and invest in their children.

We recognize that truly children are our future. I am proud of this government's work on child poverty where we have invested in children. We are making sure that we help those children of the working poor. That is the recognition of a country with true compassion that cares for those people who are less fortunate.

[Taxation, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

The new foreign reporting requirements have generated considerable concern in British Columbia. In response to these concerns, the Minister of Finance recently announced that these rules would not take effect until 1998.

Can the minister tell the House why the T-1 income tax form sent to Canadians for the upcoming tax season contains three questions relating to foreign property reporting?

[Fisheries, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the foreign affairs minister.

Canada signed the Pacific salmon treaty with the United States over a decade ago. This treaty is crucial to B.C.'s coastal communities and to a sustainable Pacific salmon fishery. The Americans have failed to live up to the equity provisions of this treaty.

Could the minister brief the House on the measures that the government will take to resolve this ongoing dispute with our U.S. neighbours on the Pacific salmon treaty?

[Criminal Code, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have had some very good interventions here today.

I want to congratulate the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca for bringing this forward. I know the work he has done on this issue. I know that the personal experiences he has obviously help him to understand the issue better.

This is a very important issue for me as well in that the deployment of anti-personnel mines is a massive human tragedy. It not only maims but it takes life and a lot of the time it affects women and children.

One of the opportunities I had on this issue was with a delegation at the Interparliamentary Union led by Senator Bosa. I was given the duty on behalf of the Canadian delegation to have this issue of banning anti-personnel land mines on the agenda. The Interparliamentary Union is made up of 133 countries. This is an international issue. It is up to members of Parliament from around the world to build a consensus and come to an agreement on having a total ban on anti-personnel land mines.

At the Interparliamentary Union it was our task to get this issue on the agenda. However, just to get issues on the agenda of an international organization is a tremendous task. There had been a number of attempts before by Belgium to have this issue put on the agenda and they had failed.

There was a real effort by all of our delegation. We had written to many of the ambassadors of other countries to inform them that we wanted to have this on the agenda. One of the ways that happens is there is a vote at the IPU on the first day. We were able to convince members of Parliament from around the world to come together and vote on this issue. We were very successful in convincing them to put it on the agenda.

Once the issue was on the agenda a drafting committee was struck. I had the privilege to be on that drafting committee. The Canadian text was adopted as the working document. This was the document that was accepted. It would have been a great asset to have other members, like the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, with us when the work was done there. Unfortunately his party does not want to go to some of these international forums.

These international forums are very valuable to put international issues on the agenda. We are working with members from around the world and Canada has taken a leadership role in the world. Too often as Canadians we undersell our influence around the world.

This is a good example where the Canadian delegation was able to get this issue on the agenda and have the Canadian text as the working text for the committee. What happens in these international organizations is that it goes to the working committee. The working committee debates some of these issues and comes up with a consensus.

As Canadians we ask why would some countries not want to support the banning of anti-personnel land mines. It seems very logical. There were some countries that were not interested in doing that. One of those countries is China. It produces more anti-personnel land mines than any other country. When the text was being examines, the Chinese were not interested in a very

strong text. I said to my other colleagues, most of whom were very supportive, that in the public mind these international organizations often water down what is necessary.

This resolution should not be watered down. It is very strong and asks for a total ban on anti-personnel land mines. It would stop their production, their transportation and their use.

The Canadian delegation, along with other countries, was able to adopt a very strong resolution at the IPU. The final paragraph asked the IPU to work with other international organizations like the United Nations so that the international community could come together to formalize a convention for the total ban of anti-personnel land mines.

Many of my colleagues here today have articulated the tragedies which land mines have caused. I also want to inform the House and the Canadians watching this debate of the tragedies which anti-personnel land mines have caused.

The October issue of Equinox has an excellent article. One of the stories was about a mother and her four-year old daughter who were out working on the farm. The mother had the daughter strapped to her back when she stepped on an anti-personnel land mine which costs no more than $3 or $4 to produce. It went off with 12 pounds of pressure. The mother was killed. She lost her limbs and died right there. The four-year-old child who was on her back lay there with one of her legs blown off for three days before someone found her. That four-year-old child will have to spend the rest of her life with one leg. Imagine the tragedy. That tragedy happens 500 times every week. It happens in those countries which are least able to deal with it.

When my wife and I toured the refugee camps on the Thailand-Burma border we went to a clinic which is partly funded by the Canadian government. This clinic is in an old barn which has been converted into a hospital. It was not a hospital in the sense of what we are accustomed to. It was just a broken down building which had been put together. Normally it would hold ten patients. There were 100 people in that hospital.

Our memories are very vivid. We met a 21-year-old Burmese student. Due to a land mine both of his arms had been blown off and he had no vision. It made me feel good that as a member of Parliament I was able to, in a very small way, help to bring this issue before the international community. Canada has a very important role to play in this regard. It has taken a leadership role.

A conference was held in Canada. We tried to bring those countries who are like minded together. It is not easy to get the international community to agree to something. One thing that I have learned as a member of Parliament is that Canada is very well respected by the international community. It is well known that Canada will take a leadership role on very important issues. It will be able to get those countries together but we have to do the groundwork. We have to get those countries together and ensure that we do our homework to get this done. There will be countries that will say they do not need it because they will ensure there are regulations so that the mines are not laid indiscriminately and it will be okay to do. However, the reality is that it is not true.

We are losing the battle. If we were to remove every one of the anti-personnel land mines presently on the ground it would take us 2,000 years at today's rate. However, two to five million mines are being laid in the ground each year. It is a real tragedy.

I know my time is limited so I will conclude. It is up to the members not only in this House but around the world to come together and say that as members of Parliament, as people we want to make sure that we correct this problem.

I want to thank the hon. member from Esquimalt for bringing this forward. He can count on my support to continue to work in the international forums. Canada is willing to go along with it but we need all the other countries in the world to come on board. We need to concentrate on the international forums and put this debate forward. When we win the support of all the other politicians around the world then we will be able to deal with this issue. I am sure we can be successful in working together on this issue.

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to take the member up on his offer to go fishing with him but I am afraid I might get arrested and spend two days in the slammer and I am not sure if I want to do that. I will have to get certain guarantees that I will not be arrested when I go fishing with the member.

The hon. member for Delta has a very good point about making sure that we have standards. Part of this legislation is to make sure that we have national standards to ensure that all provinces, when they manage the habitat, have signed an agreement. Within those agreements there will be standards to which they must adhere. I agree with him that we need standards but that is in the bill. Part of

what the bill is all about is to give those powers so that we can negotiate and have national standards.

I ask the hon. member to go back to the bill. This is one of the main purposes of the bill, to ensure that there are national standards and habitats are protected. That is under the minister's constitutional mandate and the agreements will be there to do it.

As much as I agree with him, I think if he reads the bill he will understand and recognize that his concerns have been dealt with under the bill.

[Fisheries Act, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's West.

I listened intently to my colleagues from the Bloc. Many of us in the House have heard them say on every issue that no matter whether it makes good sense or common sense, they would have us turn everything over to Quebec.

The member, although he spoke very passionately and articulated his views very well, should understand that fish do not respect boundaries. They do not understand jurisdictions. Fish swim between international boundaries and they swim between provincial jurisdictions. For the member to stand up and say that we should turn everything over to Quebec, he is not understanding the fundamentals of what fisheries is all about.

I am pleased to speak on this new fisheries bill. As someone who served as a parliamentary secretary to Brian Tobin, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I have learned a little bit about the fishing industry. I probably have a lot more to learn about it because it is a very complicated area.

Before I took over the position of parliamentary secretary, I think I had two experiences in the fishery, going out to fish. Both times I was not able to catch any fish, so my friend did not invite me any more to go fishing with him because he figured that I was not good luck for him.

This is a very important bill. I know that my colleagues in the Reform Party think it is very important. That is why they are listening very intently. I am sure they know that I have some very interesting things to say.

This fisheries bill is long overdue. As has been stated earlier in this House, since 1868 the act has not been reviewed in a comprehensive way. The area I want to concentrate on is habitat, which is very important, but before I get into that I want to make some general comments.

This bill modernizes and updates the Fisheries Act. Members of the House should be saying that this should have been done a long time ago and not complain about how it fails to deliver. In fact it does deliver on some of the fundamentals of the fisheries, which is to have a fishery of the future, a fishery which is environmentally sustainable, a fishery which is economically viable and a fishery which reflects a commitment to the coastal communities.

This new fisheries bill is about building partnerships. I know many members in the House, including both opposition parties, the Reform and the Bloc, have talked about partnerships and how important it is to develop partnerships in the industry.

I had the opportunity to meet many of the members in the industry. Whether it was the aboriginal community, the commercial industry, the sports fishery or the small communities, they wanted a change in the fisheries. They wanted a change which would help build a stronger and more sustainable fishery. One way they wanted to do this was by building strong partnerships.

The reason we want to build strong partnerships is so that people will have a vested interest in the fisheries. It will ensure that when people are involved in the fisheries, they will act in a responsible way.

One of the highlights of this bill is it builds partnerships. It also gives the minister the ability to sign agreements and ensure that the communities and the industry are very much involved in the management of the fisheries.

The other area this legislation tends to emphasize is the administrative side. One of the things that many groups talked about and which was important for B.C. was to ensure that there was more local input in the decision making. Some of the changes in this bill ensure that we have boards not only in the Pacific but in the Atlantic as well. This will ensure that those boards are sensitive and that the decision making is based on regional needs and requirements. The bill addresses that particular concern.

The bill also deals with licences, how licence appeals are to be based and the whole licensing policy. This is very important for British Columbia and all of Canada.

I could go on and on about a whole array of subjects that are important and which my colleagues have failed to talk about. They have only talked about jurisdiction.

When I worked with the former minister of fisheries we looked at the salmon treaty and tried very hard to deal with that. As members know, this act incorporates the act which was brought in to deal with foreign overfishing. This will be simpler and easier to deal with.

This is a very good bill. We have to compliment the minister of fisheries for bringing in legislation which is modern, up to date, flexible and which reflects some new realities in the fisheries. The fisheries have changed a lot and the demands from the communities have changed a lot. If we want to have sustainable fisheries and truly want to protect our fisheries, the act will provide the needed flexibility to do so.

One of the most important components of this bill is habitat. This bill amends the habitat provisions to help habitat in the Fisheries Act. These important provisions of the legislation allow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to delegate several freshwater habitat protection responsibilities to provincial governments that are in a better position to fulfil them. That is a very good common sense approach.

We heard the member of Parliament from Chicoutimi talk about allowing the provincial government to deal with this. That is what this bill does. It states that it wants to delegate several freshwater habitat protection responsibilities. This addresses some of the concerns that have been put forward. It makes very good common sense.

This government has continued to make sure that we take a very common sense approach. Where the provincial governments can do a better job, where they can administrate better, where they can deal with the responsibilities and where we can reduce overlap, this legislation deals with it.

Canadians have said they want us to reduce overlap and duplication with the provinces. This bill deals with that by having delegation agreements with the provinces. It deals with it by clarifying roles and setting out clear responsibilities that will improve habitat management and make it more consistent across the country, that will help to eliminate the overlap of federal and provincial roles in freshwater habitat protection and reduce the confusion that results from such overlap, that will clearly spell out which level of government will be responsible for what aspects of habitat management. These agreements would not change the constitutional responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Canadian fishing industry is an international industry with 80 per cent of Canada's production being exported to over 70 countries worldwide. Canada is the world's fifth largest exporter of fish and seafood products. There is a significant international component to the whole fishing industry. The members of the Bloc would not agree with that because they do not realize that 70 per cent of the fishery involves exports. They think it should be mandated provincially but it has a very international mandate.

Recently I travelled across Canada as the vice-chair on the national Liberal task force on aquaculture to regions with active aquaculture industries. It is a new developing industry. I have come away with the impression of a positive future for this rapidly expanding industry.

For example, in 1995, B.C. sold $165 million in farm fish and fish products while employing thousands on a full time basis. Eighty-five per cent of this product is exported to markets in the United States and along the Pacific rim. This new industry will provide jobs, business opportunities and boost the Canadian economy. That is why we as Liberals recognize that.

We recognize the new opportunities that exist in this area which is why we have a task force. It is unfortunate that other members have not recognized the opportunities that exist out there.

I will conclude by giving other members an opportunity to speak as well. The objective of the provisions of the bill is to clarify roles and responsibilities. This legislation will go a long way to protect fish habitat. I urge hon. members to support this much needed legislation.

[Air-India, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. By the way, it is great to see the solicitor general back in the House. The Gander, Newfoundland air crash, the Hinton train wreck, the Dryden aeroplane disaster and the Westray mine explosion have one thing in common: inquiries were conducted into all four tragedies.

The Air-India explosion more than 11 years ago was the worst civil aviation disaster in Canada's history. Can the minister tell the House when Canadians can expect the long overdue inquiry into the Air-India tragedy?