Deepak Obhrai

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I still say that this is a change, not taking rights away. I still feel that parents in Newfoundland have the basic right to educate their children in the manner they want.

I know that in Calgary those who do not agree with that are teaching their children at home. Basically I am looking at this through the referendum and the desire of parents of Newfoundland who are asking for a change to be made to better administer the system. As a person who belongs to a minority I would be the first to raise the flag if I felt a minority right was disappearing. I do not feel a minority right is disappearing.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good analogies there.

To answer the question, in the case of slavery, that referendum was taking away the basic human rights of someone, treating someone as inferior.

In this case we are talking about a change in the system, not about taking away the rights of somebody. We are talking about changes. That is the way I view it. I do not view it as somebody's basic human rights in the province being attacked. All it is doing is changing the basic system which the people of Newfoundland people think would be far more effective for them and at the same time is giving them religious rights.

It is not taking away religious rights or the right to send my child to a religious school. I can keep my child at home and teach him religion. So there are two basic, strong fundamental factors here.

The bottom line is that in this referendum I do not view that a right has been snatched away from someone in Newfoundland. I feel that the referendum has asked them if they want a change in the system. That is the way I view it.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today after hearing compelling arguments put forward by members on both sides of this issue.

Having listened to my colleagues it is a very difficult situation for me to make a decision on. I have thought and thought about it. Especially being a minority myself, this is a very important question for me. Are we trampling on minority rights? There is always the possibility that a majority can trample minority rights, and being a minority this is a very important issue for me. I have looked at the issue very seriously. I sat in the House and heard all members talking about the pros and cons.

Where do I stand on the matter? After listening to everybody and looking at what we have stated as our policy, I have learned over several years that amending the constitution is never an easy undertaking. Nor should it be.

The constitution contains the principles and underpinning upon which we govern and are governed. Its influence on the daily activities of Canadians is all encompassing. Therefore our constitution must reflect the will of the people.

Some who have not followed the issue closely may wonder what exactly is happening with this amendment. Basically by amending term 17, the Newfoundland and Labrador school system would change its common denominational nature within the province, allowing the province to move to a single, publicly funded school system.

It should be noted that even with these changes this amendment would not take religion out of the schools. Term 17 contains a provision which guarantees that religion must be taught and that religious observance must be permitted in schools where requested by parents.

My colleagues feel this is not exactly guaranteeing minority rights that were guaranteed at the time Newfoundland joined Confederation. I agree that is true, but does it really take away a minority right? That is the question I was wondering about. I personally feel that it does not take away a minority right. It is there. It may not be in the same manner as it was before but it is there. Therefore I feel that the basic principle of a minority right being taken away is not a major issue.

On the other hand, children would not be forced to participate in such activities if the parents or themselves did not wish that. These issues are very emotional ones which go to the basic values of individuals. Each time this has been debated in this place we have heard very eloquent and heartfelt arguments on both sides as to why or why not we as parliamentarians should support or oppose this resolution.

As a new parliamentarian I have heard from several concerned individuals on both sides of the issue. This is a decision that one cannot enter into lightly. I have spent a great deal of time thinking about it. After thinking very hard on the issue I have come to the conclusion that I am in favour of this resolution. I feel that it follows the democratic will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My colleagues have stated that the question put forward was not clear and was changed and that the referendum did not meet the criteria of a real referendum.

I would submit that this debate has gone on in Newfoundland and it is the people of Newfoundland who are ultimately responsible for making this decision. In the second referendum over 73% of the people agreed on this issue. I can share some of the concerns my colleagues have expressed and I would agree with their sentiment. However, they have gone through two referendums in Newfoundland and in the second referendum the percentage increased. Therefore I am quite satisfied this was a legitimate referendum.

One of the first and foremost principles of our party is the equality of provinces and respect for provincial jurisdiction. We support each and every province's having equality of status and equal powers and Parliament and the Government of Canada's treating all the provinces equally. Term 17 deals with the provincial power over education and the amendment allows the house of assembly to decide.

I agree with my colleague who said education should be the responsibility of parents. The primary responsibility of education must fall on parents. The parents who live in Newfoundland have made a decision through the referendum that this is the way they want to do it.

Another principle deals with respect for the equality of all citizens. We are in favour of citizens having equal rights under the law. Under the current system with term 17 there are not equal rights for all citizens. What is at issue here is whether the existing rights have to be swept away or whether they could be accommodated in some other manner.

Another guiding principle refers to the basic right of freedoms of conscience and religion. At issue here is whether the right to denominational schools is an element of this freedom or not. Under the new amended term 17 education in religion is not specific to any denomination but what is guaranteed is the right to religious observance for all.

The last two principles deal with the will of the majority while at the same time respecting the rights of minorities. At issue here is whether the procedures of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were fair and whether the rights and interests of minorities were safeguarded, as I alluded to in the beginning.

There have been arguments on both sides that have dealt with the fairness of the procedures used by the government in obtaining its mandate to reform the school system. On one side it has been argued that the government did not give the citizens enough time to make an informed decision, that it was a short campaign during the summer months and that the text of the referendum question was released only a week prior to the referendum date. The government actively campaigned for the amendment, as my colleague mentioned.

On the other side, this was the second referendum in a two year period, which supported the changes to the educational system in the province. The second referendum received a substantially higher percentage of support than the first one. As I mentioned earlier, the referendum question was supported basically in every part of the province and gained the unanimous support of the house of assembly.

When it comes down to whether the importance we attach to democratic consent and respecting the will of the majority outweighs our concern about the impact of this amendment on denominational rights in Newfoundland, I think it does. That is why I will be supporting this resolution.

[The Senate, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today I join a growing number of Albertans who want their next senator elected. Many residents in my riding have called saying they want the Prime Minister to allow the province of Alberta to elect its next senator. But the Prime Minister is not listening.

The poor attendance record of some of the senators, the partisan appointments of this government and the constitutional inability to “dis-appoint” delinquent senators all make the Senate increasingly irrelevant. It is time to change this institution now. The first step toward this move would be by ensuring there is an election in Alberta. This move is nothing new. Precedent has already been set with the election of Senator Stan Waters. So why the hesitation?

I stand before the House today as a representative of thousands of Albertans who want change. Let Albertans elect a senator who will represent them.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of this bill today.

Bill C-22 is an important bill and I am happy to have this opportunity to share my comments with my colleagues in this House.

I would like to take a moment to express my appreciation for the tireless hours that several individuals have dedicated to this very worthwhile cause.

Internationally the names of this year's Nobel Peace prize recipient, Jody Williams and her organization, and the efforts of the late Princess Diana brought international attention to this cause. I applaud the Nobel Prize committee for recognizing the efforts of Jody Williams and her organization who rightfully deserve the Nobel Peace prize.

Here in Canada there are many individuals and groups such as Mines Action Canada who have taken the initial momentum to work toward an international ban on land mines.

On a more personal note, I applaud my colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca who has worked tirelessly over these past several years in making this an issue on the Canadian stage.

In late 1995 he introduced a private member's bill that called for an international ban on the anti-personnel mines, a bill which was supported by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs. When the current minister came into this portfolio, he too supported this initiative.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his efforts which began the Ottawa process. This is a proud achievement for Canada. My congratulations go out to all Canadians who participated and made it possible to bring together over 120 countries which will be present in Ottawa next week for the signing of the treaty.

This treaty includes the banning of the use, production, stockpiling and the trade of anti-personnel land mines. It also includes assistance for de-mining and for victims of land mines. This was intended to be a collective disarmament treaty and has several significant humanitarian elements that will not only ban the creation of the land mines but also ban countries from using and trading them.

Canada's exemption will allow it to import, export and possess mines for military training, mine clearing and destruction. Police officers and the RCMP will also have the authority to possess and transfer the mines in the course of their duties to defuse them.

In the event that a country falls under suspicion of violating the treaty, fact finders will be sent by the international community. They will have the powers to search and seize them with or without warrant. Dwelling houses can be inspected with a warrant. Warrants are not required to search military bases and/or warehouse facilities.

This bill comes into effect once given royal assent and also takes effect in all provinces. As I only have 10 minutes on this bill, I will leave most of the technical details of this legislation to those who have spoken before me as well as those who will speak after me, as I agree with most aspects of this bill.

Land mines are a very serious issue in the international arena. The use of anti-personnel mines already violates numerous tenants under international law. Each and every year it is estimated that over 250,000 individuals are at the least maimed and all too often killed by land mines. That works out to one person every 20 minutes. This is a tragic loss. To make it even more tragic is that these losses are often unnecessary.

Without the removal of land mines in post-war areas, many of the land mine victims have died or have been injured unnecessarily. These land mines are currently deployed in over 70 countries, most of them developing countries. Countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia, Cambodia, Croatia, Eritrea, Iraq, Mozambique, Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam are all affected. There are approximately 100 million mines that are waiting for their next victim. With the variety of land mines in existence, there are over 350 different types of land mines. The severity of injury can be quite varied.

These losses could have been and, more importantly, should have been prevented. Land mines do not discriminate. They will target any individual who comes into their path. Our brave peacekeepers have paid a heavy price in places like Bosnia. These brave soldiers carry on their duties which bring honour and pride to our nation and are to be saluted for their courageous work in spite of danger to their lives.

It is interesting to note that those who manufacture or order the deployment of land mines themselves are in no danger of losing life or limb to these land mines. It is instead the soldiers that are at risk as well as innocent civilians who ultimately are the victims of this senseless carnage. I often wonder how many politicians or high ranking officials face danger from these land mines.

I take a personal interest in this bill. Coming from Tanzania, which is the northern neighbour of Mozambique, a country which has been devastated by the use of land mines, which has been the result of an internal conflict within that country, from my experiences in my native land, I can see how land mines placed indiscriminately can cause havoc in the civilian population.

In these countries the infrastructure development is concentrated in the urban centres. In the countryside people walk on trails and bush paths going from village to village. Women use these trails to fetch water from rivers and from wells. Children play using these areas, running up and down these trails to meet their friends from neighbouring villages.

When unchecked, the use of these land mines interferes with a society whose primary mode of transportation in the countryside is the time honoured use of two feet. We can, therefore, visualize what terrible deeds these land mines can do. Women, children, elderly people, soldiers all pay a heavy price for the absurdity of men who pursue political agendas.

Those who manufacture such items of horror should be held as responsible as those who place those land mines. It is only fitting. Therefore, we can move forward and stop manufacturing land mines.

There are real economic costs to the production and removal of land mines is estimated at 2 million land mines being deployed every year. When one considers the cost of production for each land mine which runs anywhere from $3 to $70 each, just think what this money could be better spent on. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 mines are removed each year at a cost of approximately $300 to $1,000 each. With these figures there is an estimated cost of approximately $50 billion. Although this figure is enormous, I would argue that this would not compare to the loss of life. It is believed that for every mine removed another 20 are planted.

At the current rate of de-mining, if more land mines were to be placed it would take over 1,000 years to rid the world of these dangerous killers. Getting rid of these mines is not going to be easy.

Besides the sheer time involved in finding these mines, as most mine fields are not mapped out, de-mining is a very dangerous job. It is believed that for every 5,000 mines removed, one person will be killed and another two will suffer injuries.

I could go on and on and read a whole list of statistics and figures, but that does not bring the real issue to the forefront. This is not a financial issue, but an issue of our core moral values.

The contribution that those who were maimed or killed would have made to our society would have far outweighed the so-called economic loss of getting rid of these land mines.

To put it more simply and bluntly, one cannot put a price tag on life. We all have to move forward to ensure that this senseless killing of innocent civilians and soldiers stops.

I would like to note that several key nation states have not yet signed this treaty and I hope they overcome their differences and sign on as well.

For the most part these countries are citing security reasons for using the mines. Yet often the use of these mines is as destructive for the armies that have set up the mines as for the enemies.

We now live in a global village. We are members of one gigantic family. Our efforts should be devoted to promoting harmony and peaceful coexistence. All religions of the world espouse neighbourly love. Wars are destructive, causing loss of precious human life, breaking up families, causing pain.

However, we have a long way to go before we can peacefully coexist. This treaty is the first step toward achieving that goal and it receives my full unconditional support.

In conclusion, I would like to say that while I stand proudly in supporting this bill, I also feel and share the pain of those who were the victims of land mines. To them I say while we may have been late and have let them down, our prayers are that our present and future generations will not suffer the same pain that they have suffered.

[Taxation, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the riding I represent is made up of small business people, single parents, working families and seniors. They are trying to make ends meet. These Canadians do not want government handouts. All they want is the government to take its hands out their pockets.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. His so-called latest tax relief is simply nickels and dimes. When will he listen to these Canadians and commit today to bringing in real tax relief for small businesses, single parents, working families and seniors?

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the final reading of Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.

When the Reform Party critic from Kootenay—Columbia spoke on November 4 on this bill, he raised certain issues of concern. I quote from the Reform member for Kootenay—Columbia:

The legislative process that we entered into in this House is very important. All steps in the process are very important. In this case the committee work will be a very valuable part of putting this important legislation in place.

It is important for people on both sides of this issue to have an opportunity to express themselves so that we as members have a clear understanding as to where their concerns are.

What we suggested is that the committee must take a look at the flexibility of the legislation and the impact on potential tenants.

What happened at the committee was there was a briefing from Parks Canada officials. The member for Kootenay—Columbia asked that we address concerns and call witnesses. The member requested recorded votes. The committee members unanimously defeated the call for witnesses. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage effectively gave it the old rubber stamp.

The committee did not do its job. It did not do due diligence. The rubber stamp was unanimous by all other parties.

As far as the member for Kootenay—Columbia stated on November 4, 1997, once again the Liberal government is using the House as a rubber stamp. Today we now have the committee acting like a rubber stamp.

Some of the concerns raised by the Reform critic are, for example, the implication for commercial and sports fisheries on the St. Lawrence. What are the implications for other users of the river? It is absolutely essential that the people who are using the area for its marine life be consulted. What are the implications because of the overlay of the park regulations? If we consult generally speaking we can avoid any confrontations and avoid taking unnecessary steps.

Most important is what precedent has this bill established for future parks. Parks cannot be established in isolation or in a vacuum. Consultation is required in order to ensure that they work well.

At second reading the member for Kootenay—Columbia said that it is imperative the committee ask all the questions and ensure those questions are debated at committee and answered before coming to a final conclusion. This was not realized.

I reject the rubber stamp process and therefore have some concerns about the balance of this legislation. It would appear that all the other parties at the committee are unwilling to do their jobs. All the same, this would not stop Reform from voting in favour of the establishment of the park.

Parks are an important issue to the Reform Party. Reluctantly and in spite of the flawed process I am recommending to my colleagues that we vote in favour of the park.

In conclusion, on a personal note as a Canadian I am proud to see that Canada will have the first marine national park in the world.

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the final reading of Bill C-7, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 21st, 1997]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker—

[Cultural Grants Acknowledgement Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and join my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia in debating his private member's bill, C-204, an act to require that in the advertising and at the opening of a cultural project supported by public money a public acknowledgement of the grant be made.

As my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia mentioned, this act requires recipients of grants of public funds for cultural projects to acknowledge that a grant has been made and to specify the amount of the grant at the time the program is announced or advertised and opened to the public. Non-compliance of this requirement may result in the recipient having to repay the grant.

I strongly support this bill. In fact, I have introduced a similar bill, namely Bill C-222, which requires the recipients of grants to specify what percentage of the project was funded with taxpayer dollars. In this day and age, taxpayers are far more observant of how their tax dollars are spent. As parliamentarians, we must act responsibly to ensure that the tax dollars are effectively being spent. I believe that this bill is a step in ensuring that tax dollars on cultural projects are being spent wisely.

Over the last few months I have had the opportunity to speak with people from all across this great land of ours and they are often quite surprised about how our tax dollars are used for certain projects, most notably in instances where cultural grants are being pursued.

In some instances, some people are appalled at the fact that their tax dollars are being spent on what some consider to be objectionable material. I have been asked who is accountable for this spending and I cannot provide them with an answer as no one is willing to take responsibility. Typically, everyone washes their hands of taking responsibility.

As tax dollars are being spent on these projects someone must be held accountable. The responsibility falls on the government to ensure that the money is spent wisely and for all parliamentarians to ensure that the government is acting responsibly.

Bill C-204 is a step in the right direction. It targets any grants that are provided through agencies such as the Canada Council and the Canada Information Office. As my colleague mentioned, this does not apply to direct parliamentary appropriation such as those for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has stated that she is not responsible for agencies such as the Canada Council and leaves the decision as to who is given what for grants up to the council. I am presuming that this holds true for other arm's length agencies within the department as well.

This does give these agencies some autonomy so that they are not merely puppets of the governments of the day. However, on the flip side, it does not provide the taxpayer with any accountability for their contribution.

This leads to the question: Who is responsible? With the principle of responsible government that is one of the foundations of our parliamentary system, the answer should be the minister in charge. However, as I mentioned just a moment ago, she does not claim responsibility on how agencies related to the Department of Canadian Heritage spend our money.

This must change. Our government must take responsibility for how each and every dollar is spent. For far too long we have let governments spend money without being accountable for how it is spent. The taxpayer is demanding that an answer to the question on how we spend their hard earned money is given.

I do not think the purpose of this bill is objectionable. It is not meant to discriminate against any one agency or group that receives or gives grants for cultural events and projects.

As my colleague for Kootenay—Columbia mentioned, Bill C-204 is not focused on any one region of the country and is not meant to be discriminatory against any of these regions.

Events and projects are being funded by taxpayers dollars in every community across the country. Although there is some discussion and disagreement over the amount of funds provided by the federal government to subsidize such events, some individuals feel too much money has been spent on events. Some individuals feel more should go toward promoting cultural events. This is not the purpose of this bill. I will not be debating those arguments now.

What I will say that is that under this private members bill, the taxpayers will have some say, albeit indirectly, over how the tax dollars are being spent and a right to know when and where it is spent. Governments not held accountable succumb to pressure and go on wasteful spending sprees, resulting in higher taxes.

While the government claims credit for balancing the budget, Canadians on the street know that the budget has been balanced on their backs. They are fearful that governments not made accountable can easily run a deficit. There is no law for this government to operate within its means and I commend the Government of Alberta for introducing the law requiring future governments to operate within their means. Perhaps this government will see the light and introduce a similar bill.

By making the public aware of various cultural projects which receive grants, either in whole or in part, the arm's length agencies, such as Canada Council, will be somewhat more responsible and accountable for their choices as to who receives what. Otherwise public pressure resulting from some unwise choices may lead, in extreme cases mind you, to funding for their agencies being decreased by the federal government in the future.

One of the many facets of private members' business is to fill the gaps that the government leaves open. Bill C-204 fills one of those gaps. I would encourage all my colleagues from all sides of the House to support this initiative. It is a small step in making us more accountable.

I would like to go on record to show that the governing party in the House has denied unanimous approval to make this bill votable. It is denying accountability to the Canadian taxpayer for expenditures on cultural grants.

In closing, I would like to take a moment to express my personal gratitude to those individuals and groups who promote and preserve Canadian heritage through various projects and performances. This bill is not intended as a barrier to these groups who are receiving funding, but instead it is intended to provide some accountability with the expenditure of taxpayers funds.