Deepak Obhrai

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the matter of the Devils Lake outlet tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

As the House knows, the Devils Lake outlet has been a challenging issue for the Government of Canada. While Canada and the United States, under the boundary waters treaty of 1909, have long enjoyed an enviable relationship with respect to our shared waters Devils Lake has been a longstanding irritant within that broader picture.

Obviously our government is very disappointed by the decision of North Dakota to operate the Devils Lake outlet prior to the installation of permanent and effective treatment measures. In light of the important science and engineering efforts in progress, our government believes that the outlet should be closed to allow this work to continue unhampered. The outlet has operated sporadically since Monday. We very much hope that through our concerted efforts we will be able to convince North Dakota to close the outlet.

Since the House took up this matter in June 2005, our government has worked with the United States to implement the terms of the August 2005 joint statement on Devils Lake flooding and ecosystem protection. Under that agreement Canada and the United States agreed to first, work together to design and construct an advanced treatment system, taking into account the results of the ongoing monitoring and risk assessment; and, second, engage the International Joint Commission's international Red River board to develop a basin wide water quality and biological monitoring program for the Red River basin. We were working very closely with our U.S. counterparts on both of the efforts when North Dakota made the precipitous decision to run the outlet this week.

On the matter of advanced treatment for the outlet, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with Canadian technical experts, is carrying out a detailed engineering feasibility and implementation analysis of treatment measures jointly recommended by the Government of Canada, Manitoba and Minnesota.

Work to date confirms the possibility of putting in place effective treatment. We continue to work with the U.S. EPA on the details of the treatment design and hope to see work on installation begin as soon as possible.

As a result of the representation by Canada's ambassador to the United States, the U.S. government has reiterated its commitment in cooperating with Canada in the design and construction of an advanced treatment system and to work with us through the IJC on the survey of fish parasites and pathogens in the basin.

At the request of the Government of Canada and the United States, the International Joint Commission has also been engaged on Devils Lake. Under the commission's international Red River board, important binational science is underway to survey and understand fish pathogens and parasites that may be present in Devils Lake, the Sheyenne and Red Rivers and Lake Winnipeg.

The threat of a possible transfer of alien invasive species from Devils Lake into Canadian waters is at the heart of our government's concerns. This substantial scientific project funded jointly by Canada and the United States is providing important information about biological risks associated with Devils Lake and helping to inform the design of treatment measures.

The second year of this work will be starting shortly and we look forward to viewing the results. However, the operation of the outlet seriously jeopardizes the integrity of the scientific work and underlines the importance of turning the outlet off until this work is completed.

Since the outlet opened on Monday, the government has made its views known forcibly and extensively. Ambassador Wilson has spoken to North Dakota Governor Hoeven to express our disappointment and call for the outlet to be closed. The Minister of the Environment has also spoken with the American ambassador.

As well, this week in Washington the deputy minister of foreign affairs and international trade made Canada's views about the Devils Lake outlet known to his U.S. counterparts. Officials have also conveyed the government's position to the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.

The Prime Minister has raised the issue on the Devils Lake outlet with President Bush. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also expressed his concerns about the outlet to Secretary of State Rice.

The purpose of raising the issue at the highest level was to stress the importance of installing permanent treatment measures before the outlet was run. We will continue to press the United States government to take action to help resolve this difficult matter.

The Devils Lake outlet project is a potential threat to Canada in three areas: invasive species transfer, water quality impact and socio-economic effects.

First, in the absence of the completion of scientific testing of the water in Devils Lake and points downstream, the risk of invasive species is unknown but concerning. The governments of Canada and the United States continue with this scientific work through the IJC to understand the possible risks from fish parasites and pathogens. Until that work is completed, the outlet should remain off.

Second, Lake Winnipeg and the Red River are sources of drinking water for tens of thousands of people in Manitoba. Without knowing what biota are contained in Devils Lake, there is a potential risk to water quality of the Red River and Lake Winnipeg.

Last, the general degradation of water quality and foreign biota transfer could have important socio-economic impacts on the broader Lake Winnipeg watershed. Lake Winnipeg enjoys multi-million dollar commercial and recreational fisheries. I would also note that the majority of the commercial fishers on the lake are aboriginal Canadians. Lake Winnipeg also supports a vibrant tourist industry.

The government remains deeply concerned that all of these benefits are put at an unknown degree of risk by the unsafe operation of the Devils Lake outlet. We also continue to work with the US EPA on the design of an effective treatment to address the possible risks that I have set out.

Our government continues to press the governments of the United States and North Dakota to close the outlet until this important work is concluded and effective treatment is in place. We will continue our longstanding cooperation with Manitoba on the Garrison Diversion issues, as well as to work closely with the province to protect Canadian interests.

[Privilege, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the member for Brampton—Springdale raised what she called a question of privilege concerning a conversation at a meeting held last Thursday.

I leave the issue whether this is really a question of privilege in your wise judgment, Mr. Speaker, which I know will be fair based on my past experiences of your rulings.

I know the member for Brampton--Springdale was hurt that she was not successful in her attempt to become the president of the Canada-India Parliamentary Friendship Group. I know she blames me for that. However, the decision was for the members to make.

Mr. Speaker, I at no time acted or intended to act in any manner to intimidate the member for Brampton--Springdale. I believe we are here to work for our country.

I call on the member for Brampton--Springdale, and equally applying to me, to work together to support the new office bearers.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the actions we have taken are to strengthen the Canadian economy. We are very pleased to provide tax relief to individuals, families and businesses. We are very pleased to reduce the federal debt. All of these actions work to strengthen the Canadian economy. That will benefit the workers of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon. friend that we will come forward resolutely to address the issues that help Canadians, not go against them. We are very confident. We will come forward with a firm decision, with a firm will to ensure that Canada moves on the right path, not in the way the member's government did while dithering on this side and that side.

Most important, he talks about fiscal balance. As the Prime Minister said, we have broken no promise. In fact, we have strengthened the fiscal balance to ensure that all provinces get maximum advantage. They have the choice. They should also look at what the budget does overall for their citizens. There is no such thing as only a citizen of Saskatchewan or a citizen of Nova Scotia. They are all Canadians and the majority of this is to their benefit as Canadians.

In reference to income trusts, I remind my friend on the other side that he and his government did not take any action. He literally believes that the tax burden should shift from the corporations to ordinary Canadian taxpayers. Does he really believe that is the way it should go?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-52. Before I start, I take exception to what the NDP just said, and that is the government has not taken British Columbia into account in the budget. Prior to that, we had a Liberal member stand up and talk only about Saskatchewan.

Those members of Parliament think the government is not addressing provincial issues. We are addressing provincial issues. We are addressing issues that affect all Canadians. This is their way of twisting the facts. That is how they want to do it. The actual fact is the budget is for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We disagree with the opposition parties, but that is their way it is.

The member from Saskatchewan talked about Saskatchewan and then he went on to talk about the Kelowna accord. I remind him that a short while ago the Prime Minister made a speech on how our new government would address the issue of land claims. What is interesting is the national chief was with the Prime Minister. This is what he said:

—today's announcement...is a positive response to what our people have advocated for decades, and it is a testament to the perseverance and dedication of our people.

By this statement, he is saying that the Liberals ran the country for 13 years and for 13 years they did nothing.

Since the Conservative government has come into power, it has taken action. We know the previous government was run by Mr. Dithers. The Conservative government is run by Mr. Action. The Prime Minister has shown commitment and action. He has given a firm direction of where we want the country to go. That is reflected in the budget.

Very clearly, this is a Conservative budget with Conservative values. This is not a Liberal budget that dithers on this side or that side.

What are the Conservative values in the budget? They are restoring fiscal balance, tax relief, debt reduction, investing for Canadians, preserving the environment, improving health care, supporting our troops, supporting our farmers and supporting our seniors.

The NDP and the Liberals of course do not support it or the things about which I have talked. They want to go down to their narrow, little agenda.

Let me talk about seniors. This is what CARP, an association for people who are 50-plus, had said. Again, after years of advocating when the Liberals were in power, nothing was done. Now they stand and cry indignation about all the things which they did not do. CARP says, “After years of advocating for the age at which RRSPs must be converted from 69 to 71, this has happened as well as income splitting”. CARP is saying that this is a good budget for seniors.

Let me talk now about tax fairness, income splitting and income trusts. The previous speakers did not address the issue of income trusts. Do they really think we could have the income tax burden moved from corporations on to the shoulders of ordinary Canadians? That is what would have happened. They do not want to talk about that. That is why the government was very firm, despite the fact that we had to change the rules on income trusts. We knew tax fairness was very important for Canada. The Conservative government stands for that.

Budget 2007 carries the Conservative policies, which are good for Canadians. It addresses issues that Canadians want. Of course we do not expect the Liberals to like this budget because they never did it.

What is really very funny about the Liberals is they argue about things as if they were never in power. It is as if they had nothing to do with the situation we are in today. However, the good thing about is the Conservative government is very forceful. We know where we want to go. The Prime Minister made it very clear in the election promise as to where our direction would go. That is strongly reflected in the budget.

When the Liberals and the NDP members vote against the budget, this is what they will vote against.

The budget is about tax relief for individuals and families. It is about tax relief for businesses. It is about money for infrastructure. It is about making Canada's economy stronger. It is about reducing federal debt. It is about post-secondary education and skills and training. It is about science and technology. It is about defence and public security. It is about preserving our environment. It is about investing in Canadians, improving our health care system and most important, restoring the fiscal balance for a stronger federation.

The main point is the budget is the firm direction, the firm road map to where Canada will go, after listening to Canadians. The budget is all about that. When the Liberals and the NDP vote against this, they will vote for what Mr. Dithers and the Liberals did for the last 12 years they were in power.

I sat on that side through three Liberal budgets and I listened to the Liberals. They had this whole beautiful budget that would make Canadians feel good because they would address all these issues. At the end of the day, most of the issues were never addressed.

I am very happy and glad that the new Conservative government will tackle those issues right.

[Philippines, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Philippines faces serious human rights challenges. Foremost among those is the large number of extrajudicial killings that have been reported. These killings have targeted political activists, journalists and others. Many of them have gone unresolved.

Canada has expressed our concerns on numerous occasions to the Philippine government about extrajudicial killings and the apparent culture of impunity that is undermining law and order.

Canadian officials continue to meet and consult with groups most affected by the violence. We support building a capacity of expertise in the Philippine government institutions that are mandated to improve the human rights situation.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the important steps the Philippines have taken to address this problem, including Task Force USIG, the Melo Commission and the invitation of the UN Special Rapporteur. Further, President Macapagal-Arroyo has stated her intention to implement new measures, including the creation of special courts to investigate the killings and the strengthening of witness protection to address the issue.

[Syria, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, over the last month Syria has sentenced several prominent human rights defenders, intellectuals and political activists to harsh sentences for up to 12 years' imprisonment for basic efforts to promote human rights and democratic freedoms in Syria. These acts contradict fundamental practices of democracy and respect for human rights.

On April 26 the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued a public statement on the human rights and democratic situation in Syria and urged the Syrian government to ensure that its domestic laws and practices are in keeping with its international human rights obligations.

Today the Government of Canada calls on President al-Assad to show clemency and grant general pardons to Anwar al-Bunni, Kamal Labwani, Michel Kilo, Mahmoud 'Issa, Khalil Hussein and Suleiman al-Shummar, and release these and all other political prisoners. In so doing, the government of Syria would encourage democratic freedoms and the development of genuine democratic participation and electoral processes in Syria.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group respecting their participation at the 13th annual assembly of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentarians' Conference on Environment and Development held in Islamabad, Pakistan from February 26 to March 3, 2007.

[Vietnam, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, Vietnam has been cracking down on peaceful political activists. Since March 30, seven Vietnamese activists have been found guilty in four trials and given jail sentences ranging from three years to eight years for spreading propaganda against the state.

These actions violate the principles of freedom of expression and tolerance for peaceful opposition. Canada calls on the Government of Vietnam to release all political prisoners and to respect the international standards for human rights to which it has freely adhered.

Vietnam has a duty as an ASEAN member country and an increasingly engaged member of the international community to respect these fundamental rights.

Canada urges the Vietnamese government to respect an individual's right to a fair trial. The promotion and protection of human rights forms the central part of Canada's relationship with Vietnam.

Canada will, therefore, continue to urge Vietnam to ensure that the right to freedom of expression and due process are fully respected.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, to date, 143 countries have signed this convention. Also, subsequent agreements that we have signed, the free trade agreement and NAFTA, provide for the ICSID arbitrators to resolve the investor state disputes both in Canada and in the country which the investor is a national party. That indicates the importance of this convention.

I cannot say why the provinces did not sign this but it is more important to know that we need to have a level playing field for our investors dealing with other countries as well.

I do not know why she says that there is no accountability in this process. We are discussing this act here in Parliament and it very clearly states the process. The idea that just because few disputes came before it there must be something wrong with the convention, that is not the idea. I do not know where she gets the idea that there should be disputes all the time every time. Most of the time, there are laws and situations in countries and the investors follow the local laws and do not need to go to these arbitrations. However, these are measures that give confidence to businesses and to everybody else that should those things arise dispute mechanisms are everywhere, including the WTO and NAFTA. This is something that is required and is needed.

As for the provinces, for whatever concerns they have, we will act together, but this law needs to be passed here in Parliament and we will actually be working with everybody to create that environment. Canada is a nation of trading. Over 40% of our GDP is based on foreign--