Deepak Obhrai

[Judges Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this motion from my colleagues from the Bloc, which I will be supporting.

My colleague from Wild Rose just asked what are the needs of these judges. One judge in Alberta said he should be able to go on holiday every year. That is their need.

When I ran in the election to represent the people of Calgary East they told me I was the custodian of tax dollars. “Remember we elected you, we who every day go to work and come home and who have not seen a pay raise for a long time, who have a hard time putting food on the table”. They represent small business. They represent workers. The average earnings in my riding are not more than $30,000. Lots will do with less than $17,000.

I am here representing them and therefore I cannot agree to this substantial increase that would be granted to judges. The money being granted here, as many colleagues of mine have pointed out, a $17,000 increase over two years, would feed a lot of families in my riding. A lot of families earn less than that. Here we are giving a substantial increase to judges who, by all standards, are earning a reasonable and fair wage.

The parliamentary secretary said it was the right time for such an increase. Is it really the right time for such an increase when increases have been frozen and workers have received an average increase of 2%? Here we are proposing increases of 4.1% for one year and 4.1% for the second year, which will be retroactive. Nobody is offering retroactive pay to the workers who are fighting for an increase. Why are the judges being offered this?

In all aspects, morally and everything else, this substantial increase is not, in my view, an acceptable situation.

As my colleague from Wild Rose said, I have a lot of friends who are judges. They do a tremendous job. My speech is not an attack on judges. What I am talking about here today is this reprehensible increase that has been given to judges in such a short time. It is a huge amount of money which will be spent at a time when we could better utilize the money for other causes which need urgent attention, as my colleague has suggested.

The member is right to ask why we are debating this issue. Why are we debating in the House of Commons a bill which will give Canada's elite, who are already earning a reasonable and fair sum of money, an increase that under any normal Canadian circumstance is way out of line.

The bill also recommends the creation of a judicial compensation and benefits commission. If we are to rely on anything that the government has done in the past, we can bet there will be some Liberal appointees on that commission. This is just another patronage appointment commission being formed by this government.

This increase, averaging $13,000, within such a short period of time is not a reasonable increase. It is actually an unreasonable increase. I find it extremely hard to swallow. If I went back to my riding and told working Canadians that I approved an increase of $13,000 for judges, they would look at me and ask “Where do you live? Do you live in Canada? Do you live in this riding? Why are you supporting the elite receiving such a substantial sum of money?”

We all recognize the job the judiciary is doing and the fine work the judges are doing and we agree that they should be compensated fairly. Nobody has a quarrel or an argument with that, but we certainly do have a major difficulty when it comes to such a substantial increase in such a short period of time. It should not surprise me that this is coming from a government that knows how to compensate its friends and the elite in this country.

The Reform Party would like to reform the appointment process for judges by removing the patronage appointment process. Of course the parliamentary secretary, who is sitting over there, would not agree with that because she is one of the people who proposed these increases for her friends.

The Reform Party would like to reform the patronage appointment process by making it more transparent and publicly accountable. If we did that, fair compensation for judges would also become transparent. That is the key. The most important aspect is that compensation for judges should become more transparent.

Therefore, I will wholeheartedly support Motion No. 1, put forward by my colleague from the Bloc, to amend the bill by deleting clause 5.

[Parks Canada Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Wild Rose.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on something that is dear to my heart and that is parks. The last time I spoke in the House was on the Saguenay bill. This time I am speaking on Bill C-29 the Canada parks agency act that offers to a degree a newer and more reformed approach to maintaining our national treasures.

Canada is a nation blessed with natural wonders. I represent the riding of Calgary East, a stone's throw away from the humbling beauty of Banff, Jasper and Yoho national parks. I can say confidently that Calgarians and all Canadians are proud of the national parks. Our country's beauty is rarely paralleled in any other nation and that can be seen in our bustling tourism industry.

Our national parks and sites attract over 24 million visitors a year and contribute over $2 billion annually to the economy. My hope is that this bill will allow our national parks to flourish while at the same time free off cumbersome government bureaucracy.

Bill C-29 calls for the creation of a new agency, the Canada parks agency. In this case I see some merit in the establishment of the parks agency. Let me explain why.

Parks Canada is currently responsible for our country's 38 national parks and among other things 131 national historic sites. It manages over 225,000 square kilometres of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and employs roughly 5,000 people. At present, responsibility for Parks Canada falls under the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Secretary of State for Parks and reports to the heritage minister. For this reason the new agency will be held accountable through the minister to parliament.

No doubt this will contribute to more efficiency and will hopefully lead to a decrease in the fees Canadians pay to gain access to our national parks. I have heard from my constituents on numerous occasions that the costs of visiting places like Banff and Jasper are becoming too high. These are treasures of Canada and belong to the people of Canada. We have an obligation to the people of Canada to make it as affordable as possible for families to take advantage of the beauty of this nation. It belongs to them.

It is nice to see once in a while something positive come from the other side. A parks agency is one such proposal, although we do have some reservations on this. The parks agency will be able to raise and keep its own revenues. It will have access to a $10 billion parks and historic sites account which it will have to repay to the crown with interest from revenues generated, making the agency accountable. As well third party operators will be permitted to administer certain facilities hopefully providing increased revenues and efficiency.

This new financial independence will allow revenues generated to flow back into the parks and sites. This means that new parks will be created and those already in existence will be better served and maintained.

The agency will be able to bargain directly with its employees and CEO and will have the authority to appoint employees and to establish terms and conditions of employment for agency staff. Hopefully this will afford the agency the flexibility to develop a human resource regime that is more responsive to the agency's operational environment.

The auditor general will be able to audit the agency at his discretion.

Bill C-29 also commits the agency to hold consultations on a biennial basis. This will allow Canadians to share their views on the agency's program and to participate in its management direction.

As well, the agency will consult directly with parties that may be affected by any new fees. As I mentioned before, Canadians are getting a little upset at the high cost of park entrance fees.

The bottom line is that parliament, the auditor general and most importantly, the Canadian people will be able to hold this new agency accountable. What we have here is a bill asking for the creation of an agency that will be self-sufficient, more efficient, more flexible and fully accountable.

It is also my hope that this agency will contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of Canada's natural environment.

I have been fortunate enough to visit many parks around the world. As a matter of fact I was born near the foot of one of the more famous sites in the world, the Ngorongoro crater in Tanzania. Because of these reasons, national parks are very dear to me. It is important to protect the environment and our treasures not only for the Canadian people but for the world. We are the custodian of these national treasures for the people of the world. This is why this is very dear to me.

I would like to see the responsible management of these resources for future generations. I would caution that I want to see responsible management of these great treasures for the people of the world.

I have gone across the world and have seen great parks but I have also seen parks which have fallen in disarray. It saddens me when I see that happening. Therefore, when something such as this parks agency is proposed, then I feel there is merit to it and am willing to support it.

The official opposition is committed to having our national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner. For the reasons outlined, I see little reason why I should not support Bill C-29.

[Hepatitis C, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, while hepatitis C takes up permanent residence in the liver and blood of thousands of Canadians, it is becoming obvious that compassion has been evicted from the government they trusted.

Does anyone on that side of the House have the courage to look Canadians straight in the eyes and tell them they belong to a government that cares?

[Young Offenders Act, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister of Justice issued a discussion paper on reforms to the Young Offenders Act.

In June 1997 the same minister proclaimed that amending the Young Offenders Act was a priority. Here we are almost one year later and there is no sign of legislation, no sign even of draft legislation. Instead Canadians are given a document which contains few specifics, few details and no concrete proposal for changing the act.

If the minister lacks the leadership and the political skills to address the important issue of youth crime, then perhaps she should get out of the way and allow the official opposition to take up the mantle.

The Reform Party advocates a three-pronged approach in dealing with youth crime. This would include an early detection and prevention strategy, community based sentencing for non-violent offenders and ensuring that the Young Offenders Act applies to youth between the ages of 10 and 15.

The bottom line is that Canadians are concerned about their safety. It is too bad that—

[Multiculturalism, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism jetted 20 British Columbians off to China at a cost of $300,000. Why? So they could learn Mandarin Chinese. This is yet another example of wasteful spending.

Does the secretary of state not feel that one can learn this language by taking a course in Vancouver which, after all, is home to over 250,000 people of Chinese heritage?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure again to speak to Bill C-36, the budget implementation bill, at report stage.

Today there was a report in the newspapers that Canadians are feeling poor. I can tell the House why Canadians are feeling poor. It is because their government has become richer at their expense. Why? It is because of high taxation, not because the government reduced expenditures. It has been on the backs of Canadians, raising taxes as well as cutting funding to the provinces. Funding to the provinces for education has been cut by $6 billion.

This has created a debtload on students. We all know that students' debtload has skyrocketed.

I have two daughters who are in university. One has just completed university and she has a debtload of $15,000. The other has a debtload of almost at $8,000 and she is midway through her university degree. They are both very worried about how they will pay this debt.

Let us talk about what the government is trying to do. It has come up with what it calls a millennium fund. The irony of this situation is that Brian Mulroney, a former prime minister, came up with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords so he could go into the history books as doing something. Now we have this Prime Minister who also wants to go into the history books by bringing in the millennium fund which is not well thought out.

Who will benefit from this millennium fund? We are told that the fund is targeted toward students. About 7% of students will receive about $3,000. It is based upon merit. Granted, there has been talk about need, but the majority of scholarships will be given on merit. We heard a member opposite talk about how the merit system will work.

I would like to bring in another point of view. My riding, like many ridings in Canada, is made up of hard working Canadians, Canadians who, due to the high taxation of this government, are struggling to put food on the table. They do not have the money to send their children to university. Most of their time is spent trying to put food on the table. Therefore, they have less time to spend looking after their families.

In my riding, particularly, there are hard working, working class people. When I visited a high school in my riding the principal told me that only 10% of the students will go on to higher education. What is the solution to that?

I talked to them and explained that they do not have to go to university for higher education. They do not have to go to college to get ahead in life. They should look at another option, trade schools. They can become electricians. They can become drywallers. They can become carpenters. These are the options the majority of the students in my riding face.

Where is the millennium fund going, their tax dollars? It is not going to address these concerns. That is why I call the millennium fund an elitist fund. Time after time after time many members have talked about how it will help students in university. That is fine, but what about the other students? What about thousands of Canadians who will try to choose a trade career and be denied access to the fund?

Therefore the amendments the Reform Party have put forward are worth looking at to address many of the issues I have raised. First and foremost, Motion No. 3 asks that we take a look at public and private post-secondary education institutions in Canada that are designated for Canada student loan purposes. This will open it up to many students in high school who are unable to go university but choose a trade as their career.

I emphasize that we must look at the students who choose careers that are different. We must also help them. We do not want a shortage of skilled workers in the trades area.

Motion No. 42 is extremely important. Whenever taxpayers' money is put into something, be it a private foundation or a government institution, there has to be a mechanism where people can appeal a decision that at times may not be favourable.

We know that the bureaucracy in these foundations has a tendency to follow strict rules. There has to be a place where people can go to someone and say that a wrong decision was made. They have that right because they are taxpayers. Their parents have paid money into the fund. That money has not been raised by private sources. It is public money so the right to appeal should be there.

I will talk about the provinces. Education is a provincial jurisdiction. Provinces are the ones most closely associated with the economy of their regions. They know what is required in the regions. It is not the federal government sitting 2,000 miles away. Therefore it is important that we look at the motion which allows the provinces to opt out and use the money in the way that will address their own needs. It is very important that they be given flexibility. It is public money. There is no need for the federal government to have tight control over it although it talks about the private foundation.

I ask my colleagues across the floor to look at the motions that are trying to create a better disbursement of the fund and make it accessible to all Canadians.

[Division No. 137, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-19 which seeks to amend the Canada Labour Code.

I listen to debate from across the floor and from members from the other party accusing the Reform of being anti-worker, holding farmers hostage and trying to make the middle class rich. I ask myself what is the debate leading to.

Labour harmony is very crucial to the economic prosperity of Canada. That goes for the workers, the employers and management. Economic prosperity is a partnership between the workers, management and those who run the businesses. Any time we create an imbalance going toward one right against the other then we are creating a situation where in the long run it affects all Canadians.

When my hon. colleague talks about the Reform Party spending time working for the middle class, I would like to tell him that the majority of the middle class are workers for whom he is saying he is fighting for their rights. I do not know whose rights he is fighting for but he seems to write off the middle class. I would like to remind the member that it is the middle class people who are also the workers of this nation.

As my colleague said, we are trying to create a fair balance, a balance in the rights of the workers and the rights of the persons who have put the time, effort and sweat into running the business. We cannot have one held hostage at the expense of the other. Both are partners in the economic prosperity.

The Reform Party in general supports many of the good intentions in this bill. Like my colleague said, all we are trying to do is strengthen the bill. We are not taking anybody's right away despite the rhetoric that comes from the other side.

My colleague quoted what members on the other side said when they were on this side. As a new member of parliament it makes me agree with Canadians who say politicians do not speak the truth. These are the members who said one thing on closures while on this side of the House and another thing on closures on the other side. This is not a good example for upcoming politicians in this country.

The Reform Party has brought in Motions Nos. 18 and 20 which deal with the national economy as a whole. The federal government has approximately 10% of the workforce under its jurisdiction. That 10% is working in an environment providing service to all Canadians which is very important and crucial. In some of the legislation it gives them a monopoly. Therefore these industries have a very serious potential of harming all Canadians.

When we look at this bill in terms of these motions that is what we are talking about. It is wrong to say we are trying to hold workers hostage. We are just trying to say that we should not hold Canadians hostage. As such, my colleagues have brought in amendments that are trying to address that.

We agree that the continuation of service must carry on if there is a danger to public health and safety. That is paramount and critically important. However, we also feel that the national economy needs to be protected but not by taking away the rights of the workers as was said on the other side. We want to create a balance to ensure that services go on and we do not hold the Canadian public hostage. Being a member of the union as well as working in the business sector, I feel everything needs to have a balance. I have had experience both in strikes and running a business. I can see that antagonistic attitudes, egos and all these things get in the way and create a situation that harms the Canadian public.

Motions Nos. 22 and 23 deal with the transportation of grain. Once the grain reaches the port it can be shipped out. There are flaws in this and it is absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say that we are holding farmers hostage. We are not. This is absolute rubbish.

What we and the farmers are saying is that their crops are very important. Grain must be shipped but so should the other crops. This is crucially important for our economy.

We cannot carry on. It is quite interesting, as my colleague across the way indicated, that grain is crucially important for the economy. Grain is crucially important for Canada's international commitments. I agree 100% that it is crucial but why are they speaking about only one aspect? There are all the other aspects which make up the whole picture. Members across can pick up on things that suit them and present their arguments. This does not give the whole picture.

If we think it is critically important for the nation and need to address it in a bill then let us address the whole issue, let us address the whole picture. All farmers are equally important. They have international commitments. They have international obligations to meet.

We support the grain farmers and we think the intent of that small portion is fine but we are asking that they all be included to give a whole picture.

I feel that in supporting these amendments I am not going against the wishes of workers. I am not being anti-worker. All I am saying is let us look at the whole picture. Both workers and management have an equal role to play and both are partners. Therefore this should not be viewed as anti-worker legislation but something to make the whole picture.

[Immigration, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of new immigrants came to my office last week. They are highly respected physicians. They were invited by this government to come to practise medicine in Canada but lo and behold, the professional organizations have refused to allow them to work.

My question is for the minister of immigration. Why is the government misleading immigrants? Why promise and not deliver?

[Human Rights, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, 1998 marks the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations, of which Canada is a member, affirmed the basic rights of all individuals on earth.

Since then we have come a long way in terms of respecting the basic human dignity of people around the world. Whether it involved the freeing of colonies from imperialist rule, the ending of legislated discrimination in South Africa or the collapse of oppressive regimes across eastern Europe, we have made tremendous progress since 1948. However as Tiananmen Square and more recently Kosovo have taught us, the struggle for freedom is not yet finished.

Let us pause for a moment to congratulate ourselves for the strides we have made. Then let us get back to work to ensure that all people's rights are respected.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-30 which gives educational rights to Mi'kmaq nations. It is a privilege for me to talk from a minority point of view on this bill. I would very much like to support this legislation. However, as my colleague pointed out, we do have some serious reservations. We would support this legislation if our amendments can be incorporated.

My party's cornerstone policy is equal treatment for all Canadians. We want all who live in Canada to be equal participants in the Canadian mosaic. We recognize that the first nations have a very unique culture and unique customs, which we encourage them to maintain. We also want them to be an equal part of this Canadian mosaic.

When we talk about issues like this one, allowing education to be run by cultural groups, these questions arise. What kind of education? How will that education relate to joining in the Canadian mosaic? The bill states quite clearly that this educational system should be compatible with other Canadian educational systems so that students can transfer from one system to another. However, our concern is that in past experience this has not been the case.

The board is set up so that chiefs have the power and they will be the board members, but there is the concern of who the chiefs are accountable to. The chiefs are supposed to be accountable to the people of the bands but past experience indicates this has not been going on. This raises the concern of how this board will be run. School boards are technically run by parent councils, teachers and elected trustees. Why should that principle not apply here? Why should they not have trustees elected by the band members to run the schools?

We do not see that happening here. This is a top down approach where the chiefs will be the board members and there will be no elections. That is our first major concern. How will the band member be part and parcel in directing school policy?

This bill will be used as a precedent for other aboriginal communities so it is right for us to address the important issues related to the accountability of these systems. We would not have much problem if there were a board to address the needs of the full native community, if the board were elected by the band members, the teachers and others in the education field. Then they could provide the best education for these children who would go on to become future Canadians of excellence in their fields. This is possible in providing a framework for native Canadians.

As my colleague mentioned, it is important to recognize something which is a cornerstone of my party's policy. Are all Canadians and we should be learning to build bridges with each other. Canadians should not be separated. Canadians should not be compartmentalized.

When we create schools and compartmentalize people into different areas, when will these Canadians interface with other people who have come from all over the world to live in this country? After all, we are citizens together. Where will they understand brotherhood? Where will they understand comradeship? Where will they understand being proud Canadians? Even the military would not go to this extent because we need brotherhood. We should be together.

We are creating what to us is a division but we also recognize that there are unique requirements of the first nations, their culture and their customs. We understand that and we respect them very highly. We feel that can become part and parcel of a broader picture of teaching native culture and native customs not only to Mi'kmaq but to all Canadians in schools. In that way we can build bridges with each other, we can understand each other.

I have reservations to this bill. I would like to see further discussion and amendments brought in so that we can have a greater picture on this.