Deepak Obhrai

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have no comment to make. My colleague has very eloquently said exactly what our major concerns have been. I commend him for putting them on the record.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I rise again to speak on Bill C-65, the renewal of equalization payments. I have been sitting here all day listening to government speakers on this debate. What I have found is that they have refused to answer the questions that my colleagues and I have put to them throughout this debate.

We have listed our concerns point by point on this bill in reference to equalization payments. What we are hearing from the government side is the usual status quo or do nothing approach this government is becoming famous for.

The concept of equalization is not under challenge. We all understand and agree with the concept that Canadians are willing to share with their fellow citizens their good fortunes.

We have concerns and we have been saying them throughout this debate. Let us start with what the auditor general has been saying. In the auditor general's 1997 review he said that parliament is presented with the legislative proposals any time from a few months to a few weeks before an approval is required.

What is a problem is that parliament is not given adequate time to review this legislation. What is even more of a concern is that equalization makes up 8% of of all federal spending. We as custodians of taxpayer dollars need to debate the effectiveness of all legislation where taxpayer dollars are involved.

Here we have a program in front of us that uses 8% of all federal program spending and what do we get? We get probably three business days' notice or maybe a month's notice to look at this program. That is not transparency or accountability.

Bill C-65 from our point of view is an extremely flawed process. All my colleagues have been talking about their concerns. I was quite surprised to see the Conservatives showing the same concerns that we have despite the fact that at one point they formed the government and did not do much about this program. They have pointed out, as we have, the flaws in the legislation, the problems with this bill.

Let us talk a little about what concerns us, the formula. They have not told us what the formula is. We do not understand this formula. Who understands this formula, by the way? It is a formula that is supposed to create equality in Canada. That is funny, a formula that is supposed to create equality and members of parliament cannot even understand how it is calculated.

My colleague from the NDP this morning said he tried to look at the formula and gave up. We have a formula that nobody understands and it is now becoming even more complicated.

This is a question I am asking the government. Government MPs have been standing up and defending this equalization program with all its greatness, as they say, but they themselves do not understand it. How can they stand up and defend an expenditure when they do not know how it is calculated? This is a weird concept.

Government MPs have given the power to the bureaucrats again. It is the bureaucrats who are running the expenditure, not the House of Commons, not the elected members here. That is what is coming from that side and it makes me concerned and a little sad.

The auditor general has also talked about the formula and has said that he would like this thing to be addressed. The department said it would address the formula issue. It is quite interesting that even the bureaucrats have been struggling with this for 30 years and have had no success. It is becoming a guessing game. This is a cause of concern for everybody because what has the formula created? It has created inequality.

We now have seven provinces that we consider have nots. We have three have provinces. As my colleague this morning pointed out, some of the have not provinces have far more extensive social programs for their citizens than the have provinces, and I applaud them for that, yet they are called the have not provinces. In the have not provinces some of the programs are far superior. Where is this equality?

The whole formula issue was in a study done by Queen's University.

It took only two years to use the formula. After that it was a band-aid solution. The rest of the time the system is driven by various bells and whistles, which means that it is not addressing the real issue. It is at the whim of bureaucrats or at the whim of politicians.

As an example, Newfoundland Premier Tobin's expected deficit budget indicated that it was subject to manipulation. By whom? By bureaucrats and by politicians. Members of parliament who are supposedly the custodians of taxpayers money are unable and cannot find out how 8% of federal spending was spent.

This concept is justified by a very noble statement that services should be equal throughout Canada. It is driven by that statement and that is all it is driven by. After that it is lost in the middle of bureaucracy, in the maze of manipulation and inequality. There is something seriously wrong with the whole concept. That is what my party is challenging, not the noble concept of equalization.

Where are transparency and accountability? As I mentioned, members of parliament see in the budget document that so much money has gone to the have not provinces from the have provinces. It is a very strange concept, as my colleague pointed out, that seven provinces are have not provinces and three provinces are have provinces in a country that has the best standard of living in the world.

There is no accountability. What concerns me is that it is for the next five years. Perhaps government members have a problem. I think that is why they have been ramming through the bill to meet some deadline. They could not come up with a proper review of the formula, but they could have extended it for six months while a parliamentary committee looked into the whole process. All members who have given speeches in the House are in agreement with the concept, so I would not see any problem with all parties studying the issue for the next six months.

[Criminal Code, February 11th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-475, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my private member's bill in the House today. This bill would establish a minimum two year sentence for second or subsequent convictions of break and enters on dwelling houses. I am proud to state that I have the support of the justice ministers of Alberta and Manitoba. It is my hope that this private member's bill will receive support from my colleagues so we can effectively address this national problem. Canadians view break and enter crimes as more than just property crimes. They view them as crimes against the person.

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

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who will decide who will be sitting on that side. I rest assured that Canadians will ensure that if the Liberals carry on with heavy taxation and continue the health care crisis they will on this side pretty soon. Let us not worry about that. We will leave it to the decision of Canadians.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. I am sorry to see that it was introduced. The member is right that my province is struggling with it. I personally believe that VLTs, as has been done in my province, should only be in casinos where those who want to go there can go. They should not be accessible to the general public. The member is right. I do not agree.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy that my colleague asked a couple of questions and made some comments. We will introduce the new Canada act when we are over there and they are over here.

The second factor is that under no circumstances will we give up the cornerstone of the policy that all Canadians and all provinces are equal. How did we suddenly come to recognize the factor that 70% of the provinces are have nots? It was from the formula those members came up with that is so complex nobody can understand it. People in my province cannot understand this formula. It is they who have created have not provinces versus have provinces. The Reform Party has stated that.

We agree with equalization. We agree with the policy that all Canadians are equal, but we are asking for a better allocation of resources like we have proposed. Those members must have been listening to what we have said about how the equalization program should work.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech of 1999. I will begin by wishing my colleagues and all of the constituents of Calgary East a happy new year.

As we approach the new millennium Canadians are looking to their elected representatives, and especially the government, for visionary and bold leadership. The role of the official opposition is to point out to Canadians when their government does not meet these expectations. With this in mind, I rise today to voice my concern over Bill C-65. I do so because I am convinced that this piece of legislation does not address the economic inequalities which exist among the provinces in our federation.

The concept and the intent of provincial equalization payments in order to guarantee all Canadians comparable services and standards of living is indeed a noble goal. My party supports this concept.

Reform members who have spoken today have made the point very clear that we support the concept of equalization and of Canadians having a guarantee of comparable services and standards across the country.

The role of every government, including the federal government, is to ensure that the equality of all Canadians is guaranteed. That is the cornerstone of my party's policy. Therefore, why are we opposed to this legislation? This legislation falls short of achieving this goal.

What amazes me is that after so many years of experience—and we have had this program for close to 40 years—one would think that this government would have learned to use our financial resources more effectively. However, what we have before us today is a status quo piece of legislation which is flawed and does nothing but pour more money into this program.

Why do that? Every program this government introduces costs more and more, while Canadians are burdened with oppressive tax rates and coping with the crisis in our health care system. Can the government not use taxpayers' money more prudently? Apparently not.

I am also amazed to learn that in a country rated as one of the best and richest in the world we have seven have not provinces and three have provinces. Why is 70% of the country made up of have not provinces? It is difficult to understand. One can readily understand a province needing assistance when an important sector of an economic activity collapses.

The current fisheries crises on the east and west coasts require attention and the injection of resources. The federal government should intervene to ensure that Canadians living in these regions do not suffer undue hardship.

However, that being said, the systemic equalization program that we are discussing today is inefficient, a waste of resources and fails to address the underlying problem of regional economic disparities.

This morning the Leader of the Official Opposition and my colleagues outlined some of the major problems and flaws in this program. Let me highlight some of them again.

The formula for determining the distribution of funds is overly complex and convoluted. It is based almost entirely on assumptions and not on hard facts or statistics. The current program ends up pitting province against province and results in resentment and conflict, the haves versus the have nots.

There is no accountability, leaving the entire process open to political manipulation and bureaucratic interference. It penalizes provinces which display industriousness and innovation.

I would like to elaborate on my last point. In my home province of Alberta the cornerstone of our prosperity has been the oil and natural gas sectors. We are and always have been proud to share these resources with our fellow Canadians despite the introduction of the unfair and discriminatory national energy program during the early 1980s.

Today oil prices are quite low. This has led to hard times and layoffs in the oil patch. However, due to the resilience of Albertans and their government, Alberta is not facing an economic crisis. This is because Alberta has diversified its economy to avoid such situations.

The federal government could learn much from the Government of Alberta. It could also take some pointers from the Government of Ontario. The Ontario economy is booming through low levels of taxation and job growth.

The question still remains: What are we to do with this inherently flawed equalization program? The official opposition suggests a new approach. For starters, let us discuss a new approach to equalization through open and honest debate in parliament.

We are supposed to be the custodians of the public purse. It is up to us to find cost effective ways to ensure that all Canadians have comparable services. We must also eliminate the arbitrariness of the current program and eliminate bureaucratic interference. We must create a transparent and accountable manner of addressing regional inequalities. This could be achieved through a simpler formula.

The official opposition's new Canada act proposes two basic reforms which have been outlined by speakers from the official opposition. I am going to repeat them so that members opposite will understand what we are trying to say. They are: the equal treatment of all Canadian citizens with per capita grants to provinces for shared cost programs, and a single equalization grant based on a macro indicator of per capita provincial GDP compared to per capita national GDP.

Canadians are respected around the world for their generosity and desire to help others. The citizens of our country are compassionate people who will go to great lengths and sacrifices to ensure that their neighbours are well taken care of.

However, this government should not take this goodwill and generosity for granted. I am sorry to report that our current method of equalization takes advantage of the compassion inherent in Canadians.

I will conclude by stating that what is needed is a frank and open discussion in parliament over the nature of equalization payments in our confederation. I humbly submit that the Reform Party's new Canada act proposals merit serious consideration in the debate over the equalization program in our country.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the hon. member. The member said in her response that Canada was a great country. She said the usual Liberal things: feel happy, feel good and everything is going great.

A United Nations committee came here and blasted us on child poverty. In my speech I said that there are over 1,000 homeless people in Calgary. StatsCan said today that taxes were so high the disposable income of Canadians is getting lower and lower. How can she talk about a feel good approach with everything that is going on? Does she not read all these things? What would be her response to that?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak on a topic that is important to all of us, national unity. National unity takes on a special significance today given the results of yesterday's election in which a party dedicated to the break-up of our country was re-elected in the province of Quebec.

Although the Government of Quebec will attempt to say that it has been given a mandate to hold a referendum and begin the departure from Canada, I beg to differ. I believe Quebecers have made a choice of good governance and not separation. Poll after poll indicates that Quebecers do not want another referendum.

The premier of Quebec is looking for what he calls the winning conditions for separation. We must ensure that the only winning condition which exists is that of Canada. It is time that we all rise to this challenge and create the climate for winning conditions for Canada. All Canadians must work together to ensure that there is not another referendum.

The solution is a political one and parliament has a very important role to play. We must give all Quebecers and all Canadians a reason to believe in our country. We must show them that Canada can work. This is a wake-up call for the Government of Canada. It is time for it to be proactive. A Liberal government cannot take the stance it took in the last referendum.

Today in Canada there are options and ideas on the table. The official opposition has already presented the new Canada act. Today's motion contains a framework for Canada as we enter into the 21st century.

The official opposition is committed to ensure that every attempt is made to avoid the break-up of the country that we love so much. Canadians from coast to coast share the same view. We have seen the Calgary declaration garner support from almost all provinces. We have also seen the provinces make tremendous progress on the issue of the social union.

We have a rare opportunity for co-operation between provinces. We must seize this golden opportunity for a new era of federal-provincial co-operation that will benefit all Canadians.

I also feel that the Calgary declaration and the social union will give Quebecers a reason to believe in this country. The time for rhetoric and feel good statements is over. It is time for this government to act.

Let us consider what we are discussing today. The social union negotiations which are currently taking place between the federal government and its provincial counterparts are a tremendous step. First, we have seen a unanimous provincial consent on the issue of the social union. This is significant given the ideological and partisan differences which exist among our provinces. Second, the social union will afford the provinces the right to create programs tailored to their individual needs.

When we talk of social union, what exactly are we referring to? We are referring to a new system where the provinces would have greater freedom to design social programs to fit their individual character. There needs to be more federal-provincial consultation in the design of social programs and a collaborative approach to the use of federal spending powers.

Provinces should be given the ability to opt out of programs and receive compensation as long as they implement a program which addresses the specific needs. It is clear that in certain areas national standards are needed, but national standards do not necessarily mean federal standards. They need to be developed jointly with the provinces.

When disagreements do occur, a dispute settlement process is needed which is not dominated by one side. Perhaps more important, a social union is needed so that the federal government cannot unilaterally dictate standards, cut funding, and then expect the provinces to maintain these standards.

The provinces need to know that sufficient funds will be made available by the federal government so that programs can be effectively implemented. The social union is essential because our country is large and diverse. A central parliament cannot hope to effectively address the needs of diverse regions.

My one and a half years as an MP have reinforced my view that decentralization in key areas is the best method of dealing with our diversity. It is time that the federal government realize this and stop playing with the future of our country. The federal government has done an effective job of convincing Canadians that any sharing of powers is detrimental the well-being of our nation. We have reached a point when we must re-evaluate the manner in which we approach our deteriorating social net.

Let me draw the attention of members to what is happening in my home province of Alberta. In Alberta today we receive $578 million less than we did in 1994 for health care. At the same time, Alberta's health care spending has risen by $400 million largely due to an aging and increasing population and high costs of medical technology and drugs. Overall Alberta has gone from a 50:50 cost sharing arrangement with the federal government to a situation where the federal government now funds approximately 14% and the province of Alberta spends about 86% for health, education and social assistance.

Lacking predictable funding, provinces like Alberta have been scrambling to address the long term issues that have risen in our social assistance program. Provinces now share all future risks due to rising costs, aging population and lifelong learning.

As the government assumes a lesser role in the area of social care, this void is being filled by families, individuals and communities. There are over 700 community organizations and literally thousands of dedicated volunteers delivering social services in the city of Calgary. However, despite the best efforts of these fine people there are simply not enough resources set aside for social programs.

In my home town of Calgary there is an estimated 1,000 homeless people requiring shelter. A recent attempt to provide shelter for 150 of Calgary's downtown homeless population failed largely due to costs and red tape. Many people find themselves on the outside looking in. This is not acceptable. Hence we see the desire of the provinces to create programs for their specific needs.

Again, the federal government is taking its usual slow time to respond. Therefore our motion is calling for a deadline. The Leader of the Opposition has asked the government what is the hold up. The government is not answering.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is high time we took this responsibility seriously.

Therefore I call on all members of the House to cast aside partisan politics and help create the winning conditions for federalism.

[Terrorism, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the new solicitor general will not stonewall this question. Recently the director of CSIS stated that Canada is the number two country in the world when it comes to terrorist activity: “Terrorists have been provided a safe haven here”. He also revealed that it is becoming increasingly difficult to effectively combat terrorism.

While this government has the money to spend on millennium celebrations and tunnels for Senators, CSIS has had its budget cut by over $65 million. Is the government going to sit idle or will it act now to ensure Canada does not become the number one home for terrorists?