Herb Dhaliwal

[Gun Control, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to once again voice my complete commitment to stricter gun control legislation.

On November 8, Dr. Gary Romalis, my constituent, was shot while eating breakfast in his kitchen. For Canadians incidents of this nature are horrifying and incomprehensible. They should not have to be endured by any society.

I implore all my colleagues to work toward more effective gun control and crime prevention measures. We must make shootings of this nature a thing of the past.

I feel deeply for Dr. Romalis and his family. I know I am joined by all members of this House in wishing him a full and speedy recovery.

I am very disturbed by the number of shootings on Canadian streets and in our homes. As the federal representative for Vancouver South, I will continue to advocate initiatives that will make our streets and homes safer.

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on third reading of Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree First Nation Settlement Agreement Act.

I begin by thanking hon. members on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for supporting the bill at second reading and in committee. I would also like to thank the negotiators and all the people who participated in the negotiations.

This is neither a complex nor a controversial piece of legislation. It has been developed through extensive consultations with all parties that will be affected by it and is supported by them.

Bill C-36 is concise and direct. Despite its brevity it is important. For the Government of Canada the proclamation of Bill C-36 will mean a release from any other further claims by the Split Lake Cree First Nation under the northern flood agreement.

More important, it will mean that we are fulfilling our commitments to this First Nation. It will allow us to begin to build a new partnership with this First Nation, a partnership based on trust, respect and understanding for the people of the Split Lake Cree communities.

Bill C-36 means they can now realize the full benefits of the northern flood settlement agreement. Most elements of the agreement are already being implemented and, as a result, the Split Lake Cree are building a better and more secure future for themselves.

To fully appreciate Bill C-36 we must first acknowledge that the people of the Split Lake, Cross Lake, Nelson House, Norway House and York Factory First Nations in northern Manitoba paid a high price for the northern flood agreement. The flooding of 4,800 hectares of reserve lands by the Churchill River diversion projects of Manitoba Hydro deprived many families and communities of access to their traditional hunting, gathering, harvesting and fishing areas. It occurred with little consideration to the needs or rights of these people.

A quarter of a century later the Government of Canada cannot turn back the clocks. However we can and must respect the commitments that have been made to the First Nations concerned. One way we will do that is by seeking parliamentary approval and royal assent for Bill C-36.

As hon. members are aware, the governments of Canada and Manitoba, as well as Manitoba Hydro, have attempted through the northern flood agreement of 1977 to provide compensation to these nations. In addition to cash compensation the agreement contained provisions for land management, resource development, community infrastructure, navigation and so on. It also provided for the appointment of an arbitrator to deal with the claims arising under the agreement.

Unfortunately the northern flood agreement is vague or silent on many key issues. As a result it has been very difficult to implement. It has led to frustration and excessive costs for the parties involved as it encourages arbitration rather than co-operation.

The two governments and Manitoba Hydro have therefore been pursuing settlement agreements with individual bands based on a common set of principles and objectives.

Bill C-36 arises from such an agreement with the Split Lake Cree First Nation, the first and only band specific settlement agreement negotiated to date. The Split Lake Cree agreement was reached in June 1992. It fulfilled all outstanding obligations of the Government of Canada to the First Nation pursuant to the northern flood agreement.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the agreement is already being implemented with no significant problems. It is providing additional financial compensation to the Split Lake Cree. As well, it is providing for the transfer of certain lands to the First Nation, the creation of two new reserves, and increased socioeconomic opportunities for the Split Lake Cree.

The government made a commitment in the agreement to entrench several of its provisions in legislation. This is what we are endeavouring to achieve with Bill C-36.

Specifically Bill C-36 implements four provisions of the agreement, all of which stand to benefit both the First Nation and the government. First it will remove any administrative responsibility the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might have for moneys paid under the Split Lake agreement. By stipulating that these are not Indian moneys under the Indian Act, this in turn will give the First Nation far greater control over the funds which will be managed on its behalf by a trustee.

Bill C-36 will also ensure that provincial crown lands provided in fee simple title as a result of the settlement agreement will not become special reserves under sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Act.

The First Nation will thus control the use and management of these lands without interference from the government and without the restrictions of the Indian Act. From the government's perspective this clause means the department will not have responsibility for these lands.

Bill C-36 will also address the costly and cumbersome dispute resolution process set out in the northern flood agreement. Individual band members can continue to make certain claims against Manitoba Hydro, but the simplified adjudication process set in the Split Lake Cree settlement agreement will take precedence over the process included in the northern flood agreement.

Finally, Bill C-36 ensures that the Government of Canada can utilize the Manitoba Arbitration Act when matters are in dispute under the northern flood agreement with regard to the Split Lake Cree First Nation. Currently Canada is the only party to the agreement that does not have access to these arbitration mechanisms.

As I indicated a moment ago, five First Nations were affected by the Churchill River diversion projects and are therefore eligible to receive benefits under the northern flood agreement. However Bill C-36 applies to only one of those First Nations, the Split Lake Cree, since it is the only First Nation that has signed a band specific settlement agreement. I am hopeful that negotiations with the remaining First Nations will be successfully concluded in the future.

It is important hon. members understand that Bill C-36 does not give force to the Split Lake Cree Settlement Agreement, as the agreement is already being implemented. It does not place a new burden on the government but simply ensures that we live up to our commitment as set out in the agreement. The passage of Bill C-36 will have a significant impact on the members who make up the Split Lake Cree First Nation.

The goal of the minister responsible for this challenging portfolio is to make a difference in aboriginal and northern communities and to give families and individuals both the hope and the tools for a brighter and better future.

I urge hon. members to join me in pursuing that goal. Bill C-36 is an important element of the legislative agenda of the government for aboriginal people. It deserves the support of the House so that it can be referred to the other chamber at the earliest possible date.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the members of the Bloc and the members of the Reform Party, particularly on their views on multiculturalism. It is obvious they do not have a clue what multiculturalism means and what it is all about.

I want to tell them a little bit about what multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is a vision of Canada. One of the things that is really lacking on that side is a vision of Canada. It has no real vision of Canada. It does not understand that multiculturalism is valuing our cultural diversity and how important it is to value our cultural diversity.

As someone who came to Canada as a young boy at the age of six, I know a lot about multiculturalism. I know a lot about some of the barriers that immigrants face when they come here. Our family came here in 1906. If some people would read the history of what happened in British Columbia they would understand that at that time we did not have a policy of multiculturalism and there were laws that discriminated against certain groups. If we talk about the Komagata Maru , I ask everyone to read about that or the exclusion act. All of those things will give members a better idea of why multiculturalism is so important.

One of the Reform members said that everybody is the same. Everybody is not the same. I have three children and they have different needs. They are not the same. For some reason the Reform Party thinks if we treat everyone the same we are treating them equally.

People have different demands. People have different needs, just as the aboriginal community has different needs. As a society we have to recognize that. We have to make sure that they participate.

The Reform Party members are the same people who took the lead to campaign against Sikhs in the RCMP even though it was against the charter of human rights. The legal courts have shown that. Do members think they will change their policy even though the courts have ruled it is against the charter in a recent decision?

The Reform Party members actively have a policy which discriminates. I say that they do not understand what multiculturalism is. It is about bridging, about communication. That shows how little they know because they are not interested in listening when somebody has a different view.

Multiculturalism is about communication between different cultures. It is about bridging, about participating, about including Canadians. That is what multiculturalism is.

For members who want to talk about treating people equally, in their convention they had a resolution that says that immigrants should not get any social benefits for the first five years, but they want them to pay the same taxes. They do not want to give them a break on the taxes. They do not want to give them any social benefits for the first five years. Is that treating people equally? That is not treating people equally. That is about dividing Canadians. That is what we do not want. We want to include Canadians, not divide them. That is what the Liberal Party is all about and what this Liberal government is all about.

I am very proud of my culture and heritage and I believe it is very important that people know about their roots. If you do not know your roots you do not know where to go. I have learned that it is very important.

There are many business people in the Reform Party and they should understand how important multiculturalism is in this global economy. In the province of British Columbia people recognize that. The recent government has said in the schools it wants to be able to teach Mandarin, Cantonese and Punjabi where the needs are. That is important for the global economy and for us from an economic point of view to have growth in jobs. We cannot work in isolation. That is why it is so important.

In my own riding there is an area called the Punjabi market where many Indo-Canadians have their shops. The other day I opened a convention at the Pan Pacific and a tourist from the U.S. said: "I have heard about the Punjabi market. I would like to go down there and do some shopping". That is how important it is from an economic point of view to have that cultural diversity.

In the area of arts and culture the members of the Reform Party think that we can cut all the funding for arts and culture and then when we have the money all of a sudden all the artists and the infrastructure will come back; that sure, we can cut all the funding for arts and culture and five years from now it will be very simple to all of a sudden fund it again and all the art and culture will flourish. Life is not that simple. Art and culture are very important to this country and it is very important to maintain them.

I was on a trip to Europe this summer and when you visit a museum like the Louvre or a city like Edinburgh you really understand how art and culture are very important. I hope members of the Reform Party will also look at that with an open

and broad mind, not in a narrow focus. I am sure they will understand a lot better.

Multiculturalism is ensuring that all Canadians participate fully in Canadian life. Recently when I was vice-chairman of B.C. Hydro it adopted a vision that its employees should reflect the community it serves. That is what multiculturalism is all about. It is about equal opportunity. I will not go any further because my time is running out.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member for Gaspé. I have the honour of serving with him on the fisheries and oceans committee.

I spent most of my life before I became involved in politics working on contracting and specifically providing services in government. This is a good step toward consolidating some of the many government departments, as I am sure members of the Reform know.

If we consolidate, billions of dollars worth of contracts will be accessible to every Canadian under the open bidding system. Right from the computer we will be able to access the number of contracts that are being bid on right across the country, whether it is in Halifax, Vancouver or any other part of the country.

Is the hon. member going to tell the small business people in his riding, the people who are now bidding for contracts, very good companies from Quebec who bid on contracts in Quebec City, Vancouver, Edmonton or Halifax, that he wants to take that opportunity away from them?

What is he going to tell them in his march to become independent? Now they have access to billions of dollars worth of contracts, as this open bidding system consolidates to include other government organizations such as crown corporations. Even contracts and opportunities that exist in other parts of the world like the U.S. or Asia-Pacific are put on its bulletin board.

It creates tremendous opportunities for business people in Quebec, for new people, perhaps his own son who would like to get into business providing services for government, whether it is in construction, whether it is consulting or any other type of service.

What is he going to tell them? That he wants to take that opportunity away from them, the billions of dollars of government contracts they get to bid on competitively on which if they are the low bid and can be shown to qualify they will be awarded the contract? That instead of looking at an expanding market and giving them more opportunities even beyond the borders, limiting them to a smaller market, limiting them to fewer opportunities? What response would the hon. member give to all those small business people in Quebec and those people who do work for government and are involved in government contracting?

They understand the tremendous opportunity which exists and the changes that will come about in the new infrastructure in terms of the information technology and the instantaneous access to that information. As we build that infrastructure these departments can be very important to consolidate the services that people have access to and the contracts and the business opportunities that exist.

I would like to ask the member what his response to them would be.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

I hope he is a federalist.

[Fisheries, September 29th, 1994]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Fisheries, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Delta for his question.

As the minister and I have indicated in this House before, there is an independent review going on which the hon. member stood up and asked for. Part of the mandate of that review is to look at enforcement.

Unlike the hon. member across the way, we will look at all facts and will not start making allegations or accusations without getting the facts. That is what the independent review board is all about. Once we have seen the facts this government will act as it has in the past, in a comprehensive, rational and pragmatic way, not in a knee jerking panicky way.

[Justice, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 22, a member of the Reform Party stated in the House opposition to Bill C-41. I would like to state for the record that I am deeply disappointed with the member's opposition to such a well conceived bill.

Given that the Reform Party continues to campaign on a law and order, get tough platform, demanding strong justice legislation from the government on a daily basis, I am particularly surprised that it is not supporting the government's efforts to increase the severity of punishment for crimes motivated by hate, crimes even more reprehensible than random acts of violence because they are clearly premeditated based on the offender's hate for his victim.

This is just another example of the Reform Party's empty rhetoric, inconsistent messages and lack of substance.

[Party Fundraising, September 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that an efficient, reliable, safe and viable system of transport is absolutely essential for Canada's future growth and prosperity.

What Canada must have is a national transportation system that emphasizes safety and reliability, that is efficient, that builds strong viable companies in all modes. It is time to give the frustrated Canadian taxpayer a break. It is time for those who use the transportation system to pay a fair share so that as a government we can better allocate our scarce financial resources.

The budget called on Transport Canada to review the potential for the commercialization of a number of its major activities. This will be done in consultation with affected parties with the objective of improving efficiency and ensuring long term viability.

Commercialization means users dictate what services they want to have provided and how costs can be controlled. Commercialization means that whatever option is selected it must allow market discipline to lead to more efficient service, greater flexibility and less dependence on tax dollars.

Commercialization means that the goal must be higher quality and more efficient service to the user at less cost to the taxpayer. For instance the Minister of Transport recently announced a new national airports policy. Under this policy the operations of Canada's largest and busiest airports will be transferred to Canadian airport authorities made up of community interests. These airport authorities will be able to make the most of their airport's commercial potential and to explore new methods of finding financing and to achieve greater efficiency and cost saving and to match their services with the local demands.

Commercialization will not dilute Transport Canada's priority ensuring and where possible enhancing the safety and security of all Canadians.

Transport Canada does not have to be the owner and operator of a service in order to make sure it is a good service. The department's role can be defined by its role in policy and regulation.

There is every reason to believe that carefully planned commercialization will mean major savings to taxpayers and better service to the clients.

As the Minister of Transport said in responding to the hon. member's original question with commercialization: "We will maintain the involvement of the Government of Canada in a supervisory, a regulatory and policy way".

[Unemployment Insurance Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has noted, predation by sea lampreys is considered to be one of the major causes of the collapse of the lake trout and whitefish fisheries in the 1940s and 1950s.

In response to this concern the Great Lakes fishery commission was created between the United States and Canada to find ways to manage sea lampreys and to develop a research program to sustain fish stocks in the Great Lakes.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which represents Canada as a party to the Great Lakes Fishery Convention, is actively involved in the planning and implementation of the lamprey control program.

This program, according to statistics provided by the commission, has reduced lamprey populations by approximately 90 per cent from historic levels. Given the economic importance of the Great Lakes fishery to our fishing community, there is still work to be done. That is why Canada recently increased its funding to the commission by 33 per cent to a total of $5.145 million. We have secured assurances from the U.S. government that it will follow Canada's lead and increase its funding to the commission as well.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is proud of the work that Canada and the U.S. have done to support lamprey control on the Great Lakes. We have managed to build this fishery up to a $2 billion to $4 billion industry annually.

We will continue to support this commission in the future. It is our belief that it is now time for those who directly benefit from the Great Lakes fishery commission's efforts to join us and begin contributing to the cause of the lamprey control program.

We all have a responsibility in maintaining a healthy and prosperous fishery for the future.