Deepak Obhrai

[Taxation, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the finance minister needed any more evidence that there exists a desperate need for tax relief in this country, it was delivered by the Centre for Social Justice.

The recently released study highlighted some very interesting points. One wonders how the minister responds to the fact that working class Canadian families are working harder than they did 10 years ago but have less to show for their extra efforts.

What about the fact that between 1989 and 1996 the average Canadian family saw its income decline by over $4,000. Is this the type of society we want to live in and pass on to our children? A tax break for middle and lower income Canadians is needed immediately.

This would be an important first step toward reducing the poverty which currently exists.

My advice to the finance minister is to read the report and go back to the drawing board.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a good question. That is something members on the other side should be thinking about. They are here protecting a small industry but they are accusing us of not helping. That is not the issue.

There is a bigger issue is if measures are taken against other industries what will they do then? My colleague is right. Under NAFTA I am sure this bill will be challenged and probably be seen to be wanting, so we will be paying the penalty.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in short, the government should have more faith in Canadian culture. Our cultural industries have what it takes to compete in an open and unfettered market.

In the narrow sense one can fall into the trap of believing that this piece of legislation will benefit the domestic periodical industry. I question whether it will.

Our country's economic and cultural prosperity has been built on foundations of free enterprise. Canadians have no reason to fear competition. On every occasion that we have faced it we have done well. Why is there a need to push the panic button now? This bill is shortsighted.

In the long run our magazine industry can become the pride of the world. Are some Canadian periodicals facing the threat of extinction? The answer is probably yes for some of them if they do not show innovation and results.

I have confidence that competition will bring out the best in our industry and that this sector will grow to become a world renowned first class industry without intervention.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Sheila's cops, cultural cops, as my colleague said.

This is an unparalleled power which essentially gives the minister the right to create her own surveillance police. This kind of thing may fly in other countries, but I do not think Canadians will accept such a system.

Because of these issues, I find that Bill C-55 affords the minister authority which goes beyond what our parliamentary democracy should allow.

The bill's extraterritorial application is another area I would like to address. As I have mentioned, the role of Bill C-55 is to protect our domestic periodical industry. The bill makes it an offence for any officer, director or agent of a corporation to run a split run edition, that is, a magazine with editorial content similar to its foreign original but with advertising aimed at the Canadian audience.

It is quite ironic that this government is introducing such a bill after it was so critical of the U.S. Helms-Burton act which sought to hold Canadian companies liable for doing business in Cuba. Perhaps the ministers of heritage and foreign affairs should get together once in a while to ensure that there is some semblance of consistency in the government's policies.

As parliamentarians we must also ask ourselves whether the federal government has the constitutional right to implement Bill C-55. Nothing that I have found either in constitutional or case law puts the area of print media in federal jurisdiction. As well the bill intrudes into provincial jurisdiction in the areas of property and civil rights.

Added to this, the provisions of Bill C-55 contravene sections 2, 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It violates the freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of association. It also violates charter security rights under sections 7 and 8. Furthermore it contravenes the enjoyment of property provisions found in the Canadian bill of rights.

All this evidence indicates that we are dealing with a very poorly drafted piece of legislation which offends the very basic values and laws which we as Canadians hold sacred.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

I rise today to voice my opposition to Bill C-55, the foreign publishers advertising services act.

I have been in this place for close to one and a half years. I have had the opportunity to observe and interact with members of both sides of the House. At this juncture, I would like to tell my colleague when he said that the Reform member should join his caucus, I extend to him the invitation to come and join us.

What separates the official opposition from the government is not that we have more concern for the people of Canada. What differentiates us is that we have a different view on how to achieve a better society for all.

We both want the same thing, a prosperous and tolerant Canada where all can participate openly. However, while this government feels that this can only be achieved through the cumbersome, heavy hand of central planning and intervention, the official opposition believes that freedom and having faith in people is the right road to take.

At a time when countries around the world are realizing that straight intervention has its limits, this government continues its policies of trying to run almost every facet of Canadian society. Bill C-55 continues this long tradition of Liberal interference in the lives of Canadians.

Before I deal specifically with Bill C-55, allow me to elaborate on my last point.

Many of my Reform colleagues have spent a considerable amount of energy questioning this government on the Canadian Wheat Board. As we know, the wheat board dictates the price at which wheat may be sold, thereby robbing our farming communities of the freedom to sell their goods. Interfering in market forces is no different than the central planning that the east bloc characterized before reaching its senses in the late 1980s.

Another key example is the high taxation levels that Canadians and Canadian businesses continue to endure. Canadians have seen their income shrink as they are forced to transfer more and more of what they earn to the government coffers.

All agree that more money left in the pockets of individuals and businesses will benefit the economy. While the finance minister boasts of balancing the budget, he does not reveal that the way he achieved this was on the backs of Canadian taxpayers and businesses.

The truth of the matter is that taxes have increased since this government took power in 1993. The fact that this government reneged on its commitment to scrap the GST is proof of its commitment to high taxation.

It is no secret there exists a direct correlation between tax levels and job creation. Is it a mere coincidence that the two provinces with the lowest income tax levels, Ontario and my home province of Alberta, lead the nation in creating employment.

Perhaps the minister should ponder whether the Canadian periodical sector could benefit more from lower taxes rather than from eliminating competition.

Today we heard a news report highlighting the plight of Canada's working class. The study released by the Centre for Social Justice states that working families are being devalued in Canada. Families are working harder than they did 10 years ago and have less money to show for their increased efforts. Between 1989 and 1996 the average family suffered a $4,000 decline in their income. Why does the finance minister not realize that the time has come for tax relief for the middle and lower income families and businesses?

I have used the issues of the wheat board and taxes to point to the fact that this government has a track record of intervening in the economy, often with less than stellar consequences.

Bill C-55 continues this Liberal tradition of intervention and state control. While Bill C-55 most definitely has economic ramifications, I would like to focus on its cultural dimensions.

This bill seeks to protect our domestic periodical industry from outside competition. It attempts to do this by prohibiting the right of foreign publications to sell advertising space to companies targeting a Canadian audience. This would free up advertising dollars for Canadian publications.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage introduces this bill claiming it will protect Canadian heritage. However, the minister and indeed this government has failed to recognize the essence of what culture is.

Culture comes as the natural consequence of economic activity. The key word in the last statement is natural. Culture survives and thrives best when it is allowed to grow in a natural state free of artificial crutches and interference. Culture and art must be promoted but never protected and created by the state. When the state starts dictating what culture is, it becomes a slippery slope toward when artistic and cultural freedom end and when state propaganda begins.

I would like to turn my attention to some of the specifics of this piece of legislation. Subclause 20(c) of the bill allows for the minister to make regulations respecting criteria to determine whether advertising services are directed to the Canadian market. By allowing the minister to make orders in council with respect to the nature of advertising, Bill C-55 essentially gives the minister the authority to make laws dealing with international trade without passing them through parliament.

Moreover clauses 4, 5 and 6 allow the minister to create her own culture police to investigate whether foreign publications are carrying advertising geared toward the Canadian market.

[First Ministers Conference, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the December 1997 first ministers meeting the premiers and the Prime Minister agreed to begin a process which would result in a better, more efficient social union for all Canadians.

Since then the provinces and territories have been hard at work negotiating on issues vital to Canadians such as education, social welfare and health. They have unanimously agreed to an arrangement in the design of social programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In short, the provinces have embarked on a project which seeks to improve their partnership with the federal government.

How has the Prime Minister responded to these overtures? By stating “If the premiers do not want to take what I am offering, they take nothing”. This is Liberal co-operative federalism in action.

The official opposition congratulates the premiers of Canada for working on behalf of all Canadians and we call upon the Prime Minister to begin doing the same.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we have seen the Minister of Finance trying to go into the EI fund to use it for other purposes even though that is not allowed under the law and is illegal. It is quite surprising that my colleague on the other side would not recognize that.

In answer to the hon. member's question, I repeat again that the Reform Party supports the concept of DNA testing but it has a problem with this bill. If this legislation is made really tough, then the government will get our support.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it looks like my speech went over the top of my colleague's understanding.

We said yes, we believe in this concept. We agree that we need tools to fight crime. The problem with the DNA bill is that it is a watered down bill that will not give us these tools. We support this concept. We want the government to make this bill tougher so that Canadians feel protected.

It is interesting that my colleague on the other side says that we should stay within the law. In the last week and a half we have seen the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance not obeying the law of the land, specifically the Minister of Finance when he—

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification.

This morning we saw a very sad spectacle in the House of Commons where a closure motion was put on Bill C-3. If I remember correctly, when those members were on this side in opposition they were the ones screaming the loudest when the former Tory government did the same thing with closure motions. Today what do they do? The same thing, they put closure. No wonder Canadians find respect for politicians at the bottom of professions.

The parliamentary secretary did mention certain things as being the first step. She said Bill C-3 was just a first step. However, as with Bill C-68, it will be watered down to where it actually becomes ineffective. She says this bill if thrown out would be a waste of taxpayer money. This watered down bill is a waste of taxpayer money because was does it do? It does a half job. It does not give our law enforcement agencies the full tools they need to fight crime.

She has taken the position that she is tough on crime. The record of being tough on crime is not there. The Young Offenders Act is watered down. Bill C-68 is watered down. Bill C-68 has been changed to a degree where it is supposed to stop crime but it is not, it is infringing on the rights of Canadians.

The government transforms simple legislation into the most complicated legislation costing Canadian taxpayers a lot of money and does not do the job it is supposed to do.

The parliamentary secretary said Canada is the best place to live in the world as stated by the United Nations. Yes, when you look at other factors, but Canadians today are demanding that streets be safe. On that this government has a terrible record.

I am firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system. Canadians need to know what it is to have a true sense of security. This can be achieved only by strengthening our law enforcement agencies. How do you do that? By giving them all the tools they need to protect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes.

DNA identification is an example of one of those desperately needed tools. If this process is used to its full potential, DNA identification could very well be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprinting.

We fully support the concept of DNA identification because it gives our law enforcement authorities one more weapon in their battle to combat crime. However, if Bill C-3 is passed unamended it will give Canadians a false sense of security and therefore I cannot support this inadequate piece of legislation.

The bottom line is that Bill C-3 has such limited scope that I cannot in good conscience support it. Bill C-3 requires those convicted of certain designated offences to provide samples of bodily substances for DNA analysis. The problem with this is that the offender must be convicted prior to the processing being instituted. This will result in the databank being of limited use to police for suspects and persons charged.

The Canadian Police Association has raised concerns over this specific issue too. Police officers rightly point out that offenders arrested and charged with an offence would likely flee while on bail if they knew that DNA linking them to other offences would be obtained on conviction.

The government has stated this is within the charter of rights and the Constitution. I say it is more important to give tools to ensure that victims have more rights than criminals. That is extremely important to recognize. I say to the Supreme Court of Canada as well remember it is more important to recognize the rights of Canadians and victims than it is to recognize the rights of criminals which this government keeps doing time after time and destroying a good piece of legislation dealing with that problem.

Bill C-3 has offences that are split into two groups. The first group automatically leads to DNA testing. Crimes listed under the first category include sexual assault, murder and sexual exploitation. The second group permits seizure only if the court is satisfied that to do so is in the best interests of the administration of justice.

Here is the problem. This is left to the courts again and we know the courts have been lenient with criminals. The courts have been looking at the rights of the criminals over the rights of the victims and Canadians to make the streets safe.

We see that Bill C-3 has limited applicability in that it applies only to certain offences. However, even for this limited list it is not guaranteed that the taking of DNA will be authorized. It is clear that an effective, no-nonsense system of DNA identification is desperately needed in this country. Does Bill C-3 under the current act fulfil this needed desire?

By having a system that only applies to convicted felons who commit a narrow definition of listed crimes, we are truly doing a disservice to all Canadians seeking safer streets. The fact of the matter is that DNA is a modern identification tool which is to the 1990s what fingerprinting was to the early 1900s.

Many American states have DNA data banks, including South Dakota which takes DNA testing once a charge has been laid. A few years back Great Britain implemented a system that called for DNA seizure after a charge had been laid and the list of offences is far wider than what Bill C-3 covers.

We should never allow ourselves to be so stubborn that we could not turn our backs on a good idea simply because it is not a made in Canada idea. Today we fingerprint all those who are charged for a crime.

The government has been saying, and this is where I differ, that a fingerprint is not a seizure. A fingerprint is from our body. In here it is saying that taking bodily fluids is a seizure. For the sake of crime and making streets safe, it is a justifiable seizure. If this is the case then why can this government not expand the very little role it has given to the DNA collection? While it may be true that DNA seizure involves the invasion of personal privacy, it does serve a greater role in solving and controlling crime.

At the end of the day parliamentarians must be able to look Canadians straight in the eyes and tell them that we have done everything in our power to protect them. I do not see how we can do this by voting in favour of this legislation.

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can deny the fact that our economy is tied very heavily to the United States and Mexico with NAFTA. I do not think the Reform Party was off track when we said we need a balanced approach when dealing with one of our most important trading partners. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, it has to be fair on both sides. We are saying we should not be tough on the U.S. We do not trust the Liberal government. It can be tough on this and destroy the good relationships we have. What we are asking for is a balanced approach, a balanced view.

That is most critical. They are our important partners. We have to recognize that. This is where most of our trade is. Therefore I do not think there is anything wrong with the dissenting report.