Deepak Obhrai

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I encourage the government to really promote this unique national park around the world. I agree with the hon. member, as I mentioned in my speech, that national parks are a treasure for Canada but they are also a treasure for all human races.

We should promote this national park all across the world, through all the means that we have from our Canadian embassies, brochures and tourism listings to promote this unique heritage. We are the custodians of this great national park for all the world.

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-7.

This morning the Minister of Canadian Heritage talked about her experience with the wonders of nature in Newfoundland. My colleague from British Columbia talked about his experience in the Rockies. I want to add that I grew up close to national parks in east Africa. As such I am a very strong supporter of preserving our environment and its unique habitants. One can proudly call them national treasures. These treasures also belong to the citizens of the world. Nations fortunate enough to be custodians of these treasures must fulfill their obligations to preserve this heritage for present and future generations.

The purpose of Bill C-7 is to create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence estuary, and to conserve and manage its marine resources.

This bill represents the culmination of an agreement which was signed by the federal government and the Quebec provincial government in April 1990. The Quebec national assembly ratified its commitment to the establishment and maintenance of this park earlier this year in June. Its bill will come into force once the federal legislation has been enacted.

This bill is a first. Not only is this the first federal-provincial salt water marine park, it also represents the first time these two governments jointly agreed to establish a park and to co-ordinate their park activities. Under the agreement made in 1990, the Quebec government retains the ownership over the seabed and the sub-soil resources. The federal government maintains responsibility over matters such as navigation and fisheries.

Since the agreement was signed in 1990, the two governments have worked together on legislative mandates respecting the park, compliance strategies, emergency plans and on research and education programs to ensure the protection of the area designated for the marine park.

The level of involvement by the regional and local organizations in this whole process has shown the general support for the creation of such a park. There has been no transfer of land in creating this park as both governments are responsible for their own jurisdiction in creating and protecting this park.

This park comprises a marine environment exclusively and measures 1,138 square kilometres. The boundaries may be changed if both governments agree on such changes and only after the public has been consulted.

A park management plan must be tabled in Parliament within one year of the park being established. The plan is to be reviewed every seven years and must be tabled in Parliament. I will speak on these points later.

Funding for the park was provided for in the 1995 federal budget. The federal contribution toward the development and operating costs is to total $20.7 million over five years. Additional funding from the federal government over 1989-93 was in the range of $6 million. Between 1993-95 an additional $4 million had been set aside from the green plan for the funding of this park.

Parliament must approve all new parks and any changes to existing parks. Although the auditor general feels that this is a cumbersome process, we welcome the fact that we have to debate such changes.

Our national parks system is a great source of pride for all of us. I do not think there are too many people who have yet to visit our magnificent parks. They provide us with a connection to nature and also give us a glimpse of our past and even our future.

National parks are owned by all Canadians and are supposedly managed on their behalf. By debating changes to the national parks system in Parliament, the government is held more accountable for how these parks are managed. The official opposition welcomes this debate and the opportunity to see that the government is held accountable for its actions dealing with our national parks.

That being said, there is some concern about the way in which this bill came before Parliament. By the time we as parliamentarians were given the opportunity to debate this bill, the agreement to establish the park had already been in place for several years. Should there not have been some consultation with Parliament before such an agreement was entered into?

I know that this is somewhat of a special case and that there were extensive consultations with local and regional groups in the area in which the park is to be established, but I wonder about future cases. Will the government do the same thing the next time? Are we nothing more than a rubber stamp?

This is the first of many future national marine conservation areas which the government set out in 1995 with its sea to sea strategy. At present studies are under way to judge the feasibility of establishing 15 more NMCAs and another six within the next two years. To date four areas have already been established. What guidelines are in place to ensure that there is adequate consultation with Parliament and with the areas involved?

Even though I have some concerns with this legislation, most of them dealing with the manner in which the government approached Parliament, I wholeheartedly support this bill. I believe it is important to live up to the agreement made at the beginning of the decade to conserve our environment, in this case our marine environment.

I would like to take a few moments to go over some of the specifics of the bill and deal with the concerns which I have.

This bill outlines four zones for managing parks resources. Zone one deals with the rare, unique, natural and cultural features that are sensitive to any type of land use. Zone two is similar to the previous zone, however some form of use can occur. Zone three deals with recreational activities. Zone four deals with land which will be accessible to many human use activities, such as commercial shipping and fishing, and natural resource harvesting.

There are no specific levels of protection described in this bill. They are more clearly outlined in the 1995 management plan. Fortunately this plan goes into much greater detail concerning how these regions will be protected and available for use. However as it is only a plan, it is subject to change quite easily.

As I alluded to earlier, a new management plan is to be tabled in Parliament a year after the park is established and is subject to review every seven years by the respective provincial and federal ministers responsible. My concern is that the government of the day, either due to pressures from certain groups on either side of the issue or from economic pressures, may decide to make changes in the plan which may be detrimental to the park and to the organisms that the act is to protect.

Another concern relates to governor in council appointments concerning the administration of federal activities within the marine park. The minister can under the powers outlined in Bill C-7 conduct activities to advance ecosystem knowledge and to enter into intergovernmental agreements. The minister would have to allow for public participation and could cancel and issue permits. If it is not the minister currently responsible, namely the Minister of Canadian Heritage, then it will be up to the cabinet to choose who is in control of this park.

On a related note, some concern also exists with respect to the regulations.

Currently the two governments are working to harmonize the activities of both levels of government in this park. This harmonization committee currently is comprised of representatives from the federal, provincial and four regional governments, the affected band council, the scientific community and a conservation group.

At present they are ensuring the goals of the management plan established in 1995 are put into place and are serving as a consultant to the respective federal and provincial minister responsible for ensuring that the strategies and methods outlined in the plan are attained.

The main concern here comes with the minister's power to determine the composition of this committee. Although the 1995 management plan has already established the composition, it is at the minister's discretion to change this composition.

My main concern deals with the accountability of the minister. Will such changes be announced or will there be some consultation with Parliament before any changes are made?

A good portion of the bill deals with compliance issues and enforcement officers powers to control unsanctioned activities in the park, including their authority to conduct searches with and without warrants and to make arrests.

Fines for individuals range from an undetermined amount for minor fines and anywhere from $10,000 and/or and six month jail sentence for summary convictions to $20,000 and/or a maximum five year jail term for indictable offences.

For corporations, the fines range from $100,000 to $500,000 for more serious infractions. Courts are also given the authority to order compensation for any remedial action necessary.

I support the general principle of this bill. Both the federal and provincial governments over the past several years have indicated that there is at the time a strong commitment to conserving this unique area.

The regulations and management plan that have been put in place appear to give this bill its teeth. While I can understand why these two governments have proceeded this way, as it is much easier to amend management plans and regulations when not legislated into law, I do hope this practice is maintained by future governments and that adequate public consultation takes place before any changes are made.

As I said already, national parks such as the one proposed here are national treasures for all Canadians to enjoy. It would be a shame if actions were taken which would not reflect the sense of immense pride we take in our national parks.

I therefore join my colleagues on both sides of the House in supporting this bill.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

I thank the member for asking the question. We do not have a problem with the Mackenzie Valley. I think the member is right. It is nice clean water and all the rest. The First Nations have every right to take full advantage of it for their prosperity.

We have a problem with the record of this government, the government intervention through this bill, a creation of a level that we feel will not utilize fully the Mackenzie Valley. That is the problem we have and that is why we are saying let us look at it again so that we can clean out the bureaucracy level and make sure that the people of the First Nations take full benefit of the Mackenzie Valley.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, let me tell the member what our real problem is. Our real problem is the level of bureaucracy the government is creating. We do not have much of a problem regarding the intent of the bill. We understand the intent of the bill but we have a problem in the way the government is going about doing it. It is creating another level of bureaucracy. It is fine to say that it has free votes on everything, but why does the federal government have a hand in it by appointing certain members to the board?

We know from past experience that the government is going to appoint to the board some Liberal MP who has been defeated or someone who may not have the proper expertise. Therefore, we definitely have a concern about this.

The member should listen to what the Reform Party has been saying. We have no problem with the intent of the bill. We have a problem with the way the government is going about having the bill implemented and in the way it is set up. That is the problem we have with this bill.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, October 28th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this historic place to speak on Bill C-6, an act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

As this is my maiden speech in the House, I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to the voters of Calgary East. They are the reason I am here today and I assure them I will be their voice in this House over the next four years.

I would also like to thank the volunteers who so tirelessly worked on my campaign. Most important, I want to express my thanks to my family. My wife Neena, my daughters Priti and Kaajal, and my son Aman have stood by my side over the last few months and I realize the next four years will be trying ones but I want to express just how much they mean to me.

I would like to speak to several of the concerns that I and my party have with this bill.

Reform's main opposition to this bill evolves around the creation of yet another level of bureaucracy. In addition there are specific industry concerns that need to be addressed before this legislation comes into being. It would be much easier to iron out any wrinkles in the agreement prior to its taking effect than to introduce an amendment to legislation at a later date which only adds to the bureaucratic jungle and the backlog of legislation we currently face. Our time and energy as parliamentarians could be better spent elsewhere.

With that said, I do realize the validity of the goals of this legislation and in particular the need to implement past agreements made by the Government of Canada. It is also important to take steps to better manage and protect our lands for our children and our grandchildren.

We are dealing today with an agreement made by the Mulroney government. In 1994 under Bill C-16 a land claims agreement was made between the federal government, two First Nations bands and the Metis calling for an integrated system of land and water management to apply to the Mackenzie Valley through the creation of certain boards. The Reform Party opposed Bill C-16 due to its creation of an additional and unneeded level of bureaucracy and opposes Bill C-6 that we are debating today for the same reasons.

In 10 minutes I do not have the time to go into great detail on all the concerns. However, I would like to spend a moment or two on an issue that is of great concern to me, the establishment and management of the various boards that act as watchdogs over the use and development of the Mackenzie Valley.

These various boards will be partly comprised of individuals nominated by the First Nations involved and partly from the nominations of the territorial and federal governments. I have no real concerns over the appointment of individuals nominated from the territorial and First Nations groups involved. However, with this Liberal government's previous history of nominating its political pals from days gone by, I am concerned that this will be yet another political patronage ploy for the government.

One only needs to look at the government's appointments to the Senate since it was elected to power in 1993 to see that it would much rather appoint its political pals than the best suited individuals for the jobs. With its record I am left to wonder how the government will decide to choose who will sit on the various boards.

In particular I am concerned as to the technical expertise these individuals will bring to their positions on the board. As it deals with a very sensitive environmental area, I would ask the government to put aside its own political agenda, that is making sure all of their political pals are not put in place, and ensure that board members are put in place because they are the best individuals for the job.

Other involved parties have specific concerns with this legislation as it currently stands. The Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines, which speaks for some 600 groups and individuals, has serious concerns after the briefing it was provided by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at the end of September. Specifically the Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines has four main concerns.

Not only does the bill provide new obstacles for resource development, it also raises several concerns about the possibility of litigation in the future. It also leaves the various parties open to the use of deliberate delaying tactics in the periodic environmental reviews that must occur under this bill. I have already expressed my concern over the election process of board members which the chamber also raises.

In each of its concerns there are several compounded and complex issues within each area of concern. I would like to take a moment or two to outline some of the complexities of these issues and hopefully someone from the government side will help to clarify any confusion that exists.

With respect to the obstacles for resource development, there is growing concern over the rights to compensation, the powers granted to the boards regarding permits and leases, and an enforcement policy which can best be described as confused. I believe that for effective management of the land and water resources in the Mackenzie Valley area there needs to be more specific policies set in place before this bill is passed into law. We need to be proactive in setting out specific guidelines, especially in the areas of jurisdiction of the boards. We cannot be making up the rules as we go along.

Second, several questions remain unanswered concerning the unresolved issues not addressed in this bill. The participants of the briefing session that DIAND held in Yellowknife at the end of September left with the understanding that such unanswered questions would only be resolved by the courts. Our current court system is weighed down enough with litigation. It would take years before litigation arising from the flaws in this bill could be resolved. This should not and cannot happen.

With environmental concerns playing a fundamental role in how we approach matters regarding land and water management, the concern over various delaying tactics that groups can impose in ensuring that the periodic environmental reviews and assessments that must occur through the bill is real and must be dealt with. Although the government officials feel that these concerns are improbable, past experience suggests that these concerns are indeed justified.

Before I conclude, I would like to reiterate our concerns with the bill and why our party will be opposing it at second reading. There are too many unanswered questions as to how the land and water management will be structured. In my opinion the government is simply reacting to the commitments made by the past government without thinking about the environmental consequences of the bill.

We agree that the government should hold to its responsibilities even if they were made by previous governments. However, the question remains, at what cost? We should look more closely at what the consequences of this bill are.

Second reading deals with the principle of the bill. Without some major amendments at committee and at the report stage we feel that this bill will do more damage than it will do good. It will only cause a more confused bureaucracy with unclear regulations, regulated by a board or a series of boards that are appointed by the government.

Our environment should be first and foremost in our minds as we study this bill in more detail. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill as it is.

[The Constitution, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend we celebrate the anniversaries of two milestones for democracy in Canada.

Five years ago this Sunday, on October 26, 1992, millions of Canadians had a rare taste of grassroots democracy when they cast their votes in a national referendum on constitutional change. Ordinary Canadians resoundingly rejected the special status, distinct society laden Charlottetown accord. By doing so, they also rejected the top down process by which that accord was drafted. Canadians set an important precedent that day. Never again will they allow political elites to dictate our constitutional future.

Four years ago tomorrow, millions of Canadians defied conventional wisdom and set another democratic landmark. They voted Reform by the millions. On that day 51 new Reform MPs joined the Reform member who is now the member for Edmonton North.

These are two great dates, two dates that mark the coming of age for democracy in this country. Reformers everywhere should be proud.

[Volunteers, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and commend the countless volunteers who unselfishly devote their time and energy to making their communities a better place to live.

These volunteers ask for nothing in return. As a result of their efforts, dedication and commitment to their communities, their friends and their families enjoy a high quality of life that has become the envy of the world.

I cannot stress strongly enough that these volunteers are a sense of pride for all Canadians. I therefore take great pride in acknowledging the following community associations in my riding: Abbeydale, Albert Park/Radisson Heights, Applewood Park, Calgary Marlborough, Crossroads, Dover, Erin Woods, Forest Heights, Forest Lawn, Inglewood, Marlborough Park, Millican Ogden, Penbrooke Meadows and Southview.

Our heartfelt thanks goes out to all these community association volunteers. Their commitment has not gone unnoticed and is very much appreciated.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Madam Speaker, this is my first time speaking in the House and it is indeed a privilege.

I have listened to the motion of the NDP and to the response of the Liberal government. I represent a riding which is not very well off. A lot of people are looking for government assistance and are on government assistance.

The general thrust, as I listen to the members of the NDP and of the Liberals, is that with the spending that will take place, jobs will be created. However, the evidence is to the contrary. Yes, we do need to spend money on many of our social services but that is not going to create meaningful jobs. It is going to create jobs that are there but are not meaningful jobs.

What is important for the economy is to reduce the deficit. I have business experience. I am a small businessman and in the last 15 years the tax burden on my business has exceeded to the point where I have had to cut staff in order to balance my books. It is lower taxes and the proper environment that will create the investment and create meaningful jobs.

I have two daughters in university who will soon be going into the job market. They are looking for training in jobs that will be meaningful and help in our prosperity.

The economy is changing into an information age and moving into a global economy. That is where we will excel in the job training aspect by retraining our youth. It is not in spending money but in creating the environment for the business sector. We all know it is the business sector that will create the jobs, not the government sector. The government sector is always inefficient so we must create an environment for the businesses that will create the jobs.

I do not disagree with some of the points that she has made concerning spending money on training which will create jobs. Yes, it may create jobs but it will not create ever-lasting jobs.

All we hear from the NDP is that there are many unemployed and we should be spending money to create jobs. I differ on that. The spending of money is not going to create jobs.

Some of the proposals which were just mentioned may create jobs and may be necessary. It is not going to make a big dent in the unemployment rate. I share the view that we should bring the unemployment rate down. Our fundamental difference is that the NDP is asking for spending and we are not. We are asking for a climate to create jobs.

[Immigration Act, October 7th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an act to amend the Immigration Act (right of landing fee).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my private member's bill in the House today. This bill amends the Immigration Act to prevent the assessment of the right of landing fee on immigrants in addition to the application fee. This will prevent economic discrimination against immigrants from low income countries which may be caused by such fees.

Canada is a land of immigrants and the current right of landing fee placed on people coming to Canada in addition to their application fee is discriminatory and regressive.

This practice goes against our history and against our vision of our country. Almost everyone can trace their roots back to immigrants and even today immigrants continue to play an important role in Canada's development.

This bill is a step in returning Canada back to its vision regarding immigrants. This bill was introduced in the second session of the 35th Parliament and I hope that members of the House will seriously consider the bill's intent and purpose.

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

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my comments to the member and draw on what my colleague from Calgary Southwest said about job killing.

That is job killing for the workers, but what about the small businessman, and the extra tax burden which the government does not want to call that, but it is a tax burden on small business. What about the small business, the extra tax on small business? It will kill many businesses that are borderline because of the high taxes of the Liberal government.

What about killing small businesses which will in turn kill jobs and will take livelihood away from small businessmen. What about that?