Deepak Obhrai

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to participate in the debate on Bill C-20, the clarity act.

Frankly, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians would like to see a resolution of the unity debate one way or another. Since I arrived in this country, like thousands of other immigrants who now call Canada home, I have been mesmerized by this debate.

In many ways the debate on separation is unique to Canada. In other countries of the world, when a group of people threaten to separate, they are labelled as traitors. Many countries have the death penalty for that, but in Canada the debate has been held in a civil manner and the issues are on the table for discussion. This is a credit to the Canadian people and to this country.

It is impossible to deny the seriousness of the potential breakup of our country. That is precisely why it is absolutely necessary to have clarity on this issue, to have the pros and cons clearly set out so that Canadians and Quebecers both know the result of their decisions and that it is seen as a fair and equitable process. If in the end it is not seen as a fair and just process, it will not be viewed as legitimate and will lead to a negative and confrontational attitude which will further divide the country.

There has been no doubt in the minds of most Canadians that the last referendum question had a double meaning and did not adequately define what separation from Canada would mean.

The Reform Party said that there was a need for a clear question for legitimacy and a plan B approach should Quebecers express their will to separate from Canada. This was attacked by advocates of the soft approach to federalism. The PC Party and its leader Joe Clark are advocates of this soft approach.

Canadians view the soft approach as the main reason the 1995 referendum was as close as it was. The 1995 referendum was a wake-up call to the Prime Minister and to the Liberal government.

I remember that night. As most Canadians did, I watched the results at home with my family. I watched with tremendous apprehension not fully understanding what it would mean if Quebecers voted to leave Canada. I think pride in our country won that night but it was a dangerous point in our country's history and a wake-up call for the country.

We cannot deny the tremendous contributions Quebecers have made to this country since Confederation. We cannot deny that French Canadians are the proud builders of this nation. Their cultural and language diversity have enriched our nation and I hope they will continue to do so. But it is the belief of the official opposition that this can best be achieved by expanding provincial powers and not through federal government handouts and legislation.

Quebec has the right to constantly challenge the federal government on areas of jurisdiction but in the case of the clarity bill, I believe Canadians through parliament have the right to ask Quebecers for a clear question and to define what it means to have a clear majority should another referendum be held. The clarity bill does improve the chances that a referendum on secession by any province will be conducted fairly. That is why my colleagues and I have agreed to support the bill.

The official opposition has suggested what a possible question could be. I believe it is a reasonable question and that it should be inserted into the bill as an example. The question simply states: Should, insert the name of the province, separate from Canada and become an independent country with no special legal ties to Canada, yes or no?

On the issue of what constitutes a clear majority, the government owes Canadians an answer. The Prime Minister and the intergovernmental affairs minister are quick to say that a clear majority is a number greater than 50% plus one but they are not prepared to say what that number is. Again the official opposition is prepared to be clear on this issue and to put the number at 50% plus one of the ballots cast. Of course the flip side of this is simply that if 50% plus one of the vote can split the country, then 50% plus one could split the province as well.

Quebecers' aspirations must be met as must the aspirations of other provinces and the first nations. It is important for there to be measures in the bill to improve the federation. The official opposition and specifically the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Calgary Southwest, have done a tremendous amount of work on developing ideas on reforming the federation. These ideas are at the core of the Reform Party and of the new Canadian alliance.

Our plan for renewing the federation is contained in part A of the new Canada act. The fundamentals of the new Canada act are designed to treat all Canadians with fairness and equality, to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians, to respect the equality rights and the dignity of all Canadians as well as their various needs, and to recognize that all provinces despite their differences have the same legal standing.

The new Canada act contains provisions for a better sharing of powers under the constitution; reduced federal spending powers in areas of provincial jurisdiction; a dispute settlement mechanism; a change in policies and programs for the aboriginal people; and democratic reform of federal institutions, especially the House of Commons, the Senate and the supreme court to make these institutions more accountable to Canadians.

I believe along with my colleagues in the official opposition that these changes are required to improve the federation and to create conditions in this country that are not limited to separation or the status quo. They are changes that would improve the federation by placing more power in the hands of the provinces.

I personally think the federal government can do a great deal more to promote the benefits of remaining in Canada to Quebecers.

Clearly the economic benefits of being in Canada are already having a positive impact on the province of Quebec. Montreal is sharing in the economic boom of North America. Jobs are being created, investment dollars are pouring in and real estate prices are climbing. These are positive signs for federalism and working together to ensure a strong Canada for the future of our children and grandchildren.

To conclude, I with my colleagues will support Bill C-20 because it sets out clear and fair rules for a referendum.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Conservative Party made a very good and interesting speech. I am amazed at the questions and comments of Liberal members, especially the member who asked a question two minutes ago.

This same member supported the $20 million payment to the NHL. I heard the Liberal member on CBC Radio supporting the program. Yet his own caucus was opposing it and that is why the program was cancelled. I am amazed that I do not hear any objections coming from that side. As a matter of fact that side is trying to say that this was a good program, not understanding that it was totally mismanaged and, as my colleague has said, the biggest scandal to hit the government. Perhaps he would like to comment on what we are hearing from Liberal members.

[Festival Of Eid Ul-Fitr, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since early December, Muslims in Canada have been fasting during this month of Ramadan, a month of blessing marked by prayers and charity.

I have had the honour of joining in the celebrations over the years. The Muslim community has made a tremendous contribution in enriching Canada. Their involvement with other Canadians in academic, professional, artistic and cultural sectors is what has helped make Canada the number one country in the world.

Ramadan ends with the Festival of Eid Ul-Fitr which means breaking the fast. Eid is celebrated after the sighting of the new crescent on the previous evening. As Eid falls in January and the House of Commons will be closed, I take this opportunity on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition and members of the Reform Party to wish all Muslims “Eid Mubarak”.

I would also like to extend to all Canadians season's greetings, and on the dawn of the new millennium, our best wishes.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak this afternoon on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a final agreement.

Like many of my colleagues speaking here today, I am not from British Columbia, but that does not diminish our resolve to see an agreement that is in the best interests of British Columbians, Canadians, and the Nisga'a people. That is why I am speaking to this bill today.

Bill C-9 is not an ordinary piece of legislation. The agreement that is before the House is an arrangement providing for the government of the Nisga'a people, the government of the local economy and the government of the relations with each other and with non-aboriginals. The bill seeks to replace a terribly flawed system that has existed for 130 years. It is a system with a track record of bringing poverty, family breakdown, violence, illness, shortened lifespan, unemployment and suicide to the aboriginal people of this country. It is a system established and mismanaged for over 100 years by successive Tory and Liberal governments. The system as it exists today simply does not work. Its record speaks for itself.

An effort to change the system has led to a series of land claims, court cases and court actions which are further straining the relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. In addition to the billions and billions of dollars that Canadian taxpayers commit to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development every year, the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook for a potential $200 billion price tag as an estimate of the cost of all aboriginal demands. This is an absolutely staggering figure.

It is clear that tensions between aboriginals and non-aboriginals are perhaps higher than they have been in years.

Many are looking at the Nisga'a agreement as a framework that will miraculously solve all our immediate problems and provide a template for the future. However, this government does nothing to redress the key components of aboriginal governance and economic development.

If this agreement sought to give the Nisga'a people a chartered municipal government similar to the form of local government enjoyed by most Canadians, this would be a step in the right direction, a removal from special status and a step toward equality. However, Nisga'a laws according to this agreement will override provincial and federal laws in a multitude of areas. It will give the municipality paramount power over 14 areas of exclusive jurisdiction and shared powers in another 16 fields of federal and provincial jurisdictions.

The Nisga'a government will be exempt from a range of provincial taxes and stumpage fees and will not have to pay the GST. Individual Nisga'a citizens will be permanently exempt from having to hold or pay federal and provincial licences, fees, charges and royalties on fish and wildlife entitlements provided under this agreement.

At first glance the above points may seem almost trivial. However, we must remember that this agreement is supposed to provide a template for 50 similar agreements in British Columbia. The precedent is being set for race based tax exemptions throughout British Columbia and indeed throughout Canada.

I would like to address the lack of physical and democratic accountability in the Nisga'a agreement. The Nisga'a treaty effectively centralizes power in the hands of governments on aboriginal lands and not in the hands of the people. Individual Nisga'a will depend on the government in a variety of areas, including housing, social assistance and employment. In fact, most of the employment on Nisga'a lands will be either with the Nisga'a government or with corporations owned by the Nisga'a government.

Similarly the model of economic development proposed in this agreement is one in which nearly all revenues flow from the federal and provincial governments to the Nisga'a government. It does not flow to the Nisga'a entrepreneurs, workers, taxpayers or citizens. It flows to the Nisga'a government to generate economic activity.

This agreement in fact continues to deny aboriginals many of the political and economic tools available to other Canadians. From responsible self-government to all the tools of the marketplace and private enterprise for economic development, this agreement in essence denies aboriginal people access to tools that the vast majority of Canadians take for granted.

Let me look for a moment at property rights. There is an absence on reserves of the most basic of property rights, just as there is an absence of contract rights. There is an absence of free markets in housing, labour and capital. Because these fundamental rights do not exist on reserves, many aboriginal people have had to leave the reserve in order to get the tools that other Canadians take for granted.

I look to the many small business owners in my riding of Calgary East. Many of them use their properties or homes to secure capital from the banks to get their businesses off the ground. This is a luxury that has been denied to the native entrepreneurs because of the system of socialist economics that exists on reserves. The reserve system has not only had a negative impact on the aboriginal people, but it has been poisoning the relationship between aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

The fact is that investors and business people thinking of doing business in areas contained in aboriginal lands and treaties are thinking twice about making these investments.

I would like to talk now about what the official opposition proposes as a solution to a system that has proven itself to be ineffective and in fact harmful to aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike.

First, the official opposition believes in equality for all Canadians. Aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike should be entitled to the same rights, entitlements and powers in law with the freedom to use the law in different ways to give expression to their uniqueness and diversity.

Second, the official opposition believes that all Canadians are entitled to the services of a local government that is fiscally and democratically accountable to the people it serves.

Third, the official opposition believes strongly that the department of Indian affairs should begin the process of funding aboriginal persons on reserves directly, then allowing local aboriginal government to tax its own people to get access to it. This measure would go a long way to enhance the process of fiscal and democratic responsibility.

Finally, we believe that private property and contract rights must be established on reserves. We must develop real housing and labour markets on reserves, including equal economic rights for men and women.

To conclude my comments today, Bill C-9 does nothing to repair the damage caused by the 100 plus years of the reserve system. The bill does nothing to provide to aboriginals the basic rights that the vast majority of Canadians enjoy. The bill does nothing to satisfy the principles of equality under the law, fiscal and democratic accountability, private enterprise and free market.

The bill fails even the most basic of democratic principles. It fails to take into consideration the democratic rights of people living in the federal riding of Skeena, who will be most impacted by the bill. It fails to fulfill the democratic interests of British Columbians who continue to be denied adequate representation. It fails to take into account the interests of Canadians in general who have been denied full debate and disclosure of a bill that will have a tremendous impact far beyond the Nass Valley and British Columbia.

I would like to thank the member for Skeena and my Reform colleagues for standing in the House and fighting for what they believe is right, and for what I believe the vast majority of Canadians believe is right.

The bill is unfortunate for the Nisga'a people, British Columbians and Canadians.

[Trade, December 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the suspension of WTO talks in Seattle represents a severe blow to Canadian farmers demanding the elimination of export and domestic subsidies.

Subsidies by countries like France, Korea and Japan have dramatically lowered the world price of grain and devastated our farmers. The U.S. anti-dumping laws also remain a crucial barrier to farmers in western Canada. Talks scheduled to resume at WTO headquarters in Geneva this January give our negotiators one more chance to end the log jam. However, there is little evidence to believe that anything immediate will occur.

It is time for Canada to take a leading role on this issue and enter into tough bilateral negotiations with the United States and partners in the Cairns group to force France, Korea and Japan to open up their markets. The time has come for the government to play hardball on behalf of Canadian farmers.

[Trade, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1993 version of the red book the Liberal government promised to renegotiate the NAFTA agreement to specifically exempt bulk water exports. Unfortunately, this is one of the promises the government has failed to keep. Exempting water from our international trade agreement is the best way for Canada to protect its waters.

Why has the government abandoned seeking exemptions for our water in international agreements?

[Trade, November 26th, 1999]

You are off the hook, Paul—

[World Trade Organization, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, reports coming from the WTO in Geneva indicate that a draft agenda for the Seattle negotiations has reached a stalemate. As it stands now the elimination of the export and domestic production subsidies in the agricultural sector could be sidelined as it will be up to various delegations in Seattle's free for all to come up with an agenda. With 11 days remaining before Seattle, why will the minister not guarantee Canadian farmers that the elimination of agricultural subsidies will be his number one priority?

[World Trade Organization, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure to participate in round table discussions with a number of Canadian businesses, ranging from agricultural consulting to telecommunications, dedicated to making a difference in the developing world.

As Canada prepares for the new round of WTO negotiations we must remember that Canada has prospered greatly from a rules based trading system. However, we cannot fail to include developing countries in the economic and social benefits offered by international trade.

The Canadian private sector, in co-operation with private sector companies in the developing world, can play a vital role in the new millennium in alleviating poverty by inspiring hope, hope where people can dream of a future for themselves and their children because of jobs and new opportunities. These are the benefits of international trade.

We look to Seattle and the WTO as a mechanism to increase prosperity for all people of the world, not just a few.

[Port Of Vancouver, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the export of petrochemicals, sulphur, potash, coal and the entire forest industry in B.C. depend on access to our ports.

Clearly the port closure will have a devastating impact on western and national economies. Foreign buyers will be forced to look elsewhere for suppliers. The Canadian consumer will pay the price for additional shipping charges from American ports.

Will the Minister of Labour act to develop a contingency plan, or will Canadian exporters and consumers be left to pay the price?