Deepak Obhrai

[Human Rights, June 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we learn with great disappointment that the military-led government of Burma has again extended the term of detention for Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. This brave lady has now spent 10 of the past 16 years under house arrest.

Canada strongly condemns the renewed detention order against her. This act shows the Burmese government's callous disregard for fundamental freedoms, democracy and human rights. We call upon the Burmese regime to immediately release Aung San Suu Kyi and work toward an enduring and lasting peace.

The Burmese people have suffered for too long. Universal condemnation has not produced any results. It is therefore time for the UN Security Council to become involved.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the rationale of a surtax on the oil companies because of the high prices of oil and gasoline. The motion speaks to that.

Nevertheless, I mentioned that we are taxing industries across the country, whether it is the oil industry or any other industry. Because the oil industry does not impact Quebec, that is perhaps why the Bloc has put forward the motion. To the Bloc members, it is the whole idea of grabbing the resources out there. Albertans feel they want to grab their resources.

However, the government accepts and gives its responsibility to Canada. We do not have a problem standing behind the equalization formula. Royalties, according to the Constitution, belong to the provinces and not to the federal government. Therefore, as one of my colleagues rightly pointed out, this is only one industry. It does not impact the Bloc members and their province and it is irresponsible behaviour on their part.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the motion plays to the fears of Canadians. I am quite stunned when she says that I have no regard for ordinary Canadians. I am also an ordinary Canadian.

I said in my speech that when I shopped for a car, I looked for a long term objective to ensure that I used less gas and did my part. There is no point in her argument.

She made reference to the issue of record oil company profits. Not only are the oil companies making a profit because of high commodity prices, other companies are making a profit as well. However, oil companies are being taxed. They contribute their share in taxes. Also, the oil companies are employing thousands of productive Canadians across the country.

I come from a city that has the headquarters of oil companies. I see their involvement in the arts and various other sectors of our communities. I do not buy the argument of the hon. member.

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise to speak to the motion put forward by the Bloc in reference to oil prices and specifically, oil companies.

As I come from Alberta, it is quite important to me as to what happens to this industry. As I read the motion, I was quite surprised to find that it seemed to be playing to the fears of Canadians, a fear that high oil prices and pump prices would have a major impact. There is no question in anybody's mind that high gasoline and oil prices do have impacts on other sectors of the economy.

The former speaker from the Bloc talked about being in the construction industry and the impacts it would have on other industries. There absolutely will be impacts on other industries. Why would there not be? It is not only with oil prices, but any commodity prices that increase have impacts on other sectors of the economy. However, this is a band-aid solution to the situation. Applying it will hurt the economy in the longer term more than help it.

When we look at these things, as a responsible government, we want to look at long term solutions, not just the fact that because the rising economies of Asia and other emerging markets are demanding oil, the price of crude oil has gone up and therefore it reflects on the market and on the pumps. To propose a band-aid solution to this will not work.

The government has come up with a lot of approaches in the budget to address the whole economy of the country, such as lower taxes for businesses and individuals, which will put more money back into the pockets of Canadians.

This year I bought a new car. The first thing I looked at was what kind of gas mileage I would get from the car. I did not look at what the gas prices were at the time. I looked into the future to ensure that the car I bought reflected the oil prices because it would reflect on my pocket. The responsibility of taking these kinds of actions is mine, as it is for every consumer. It is not like we can play around with the market and create a situation which has devastating impacts.

I remember when the national energy policy was introduced by the Liberal government in Alberta. I was in Calgary and heard what the economy of the oil companies was. It was devastating. A person could walk in and buy a house for a dollar. People were dumping their houses. Their life savings were wiped out.

We cannot just come out say that we should put a surtax on oil companies. As the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Industry said, what does a surtax on an oil company have to do with the oil prices? Bloc members say they want to tax the profits. There has to be a coalition over there.

Let us for a minute think about what is happening in Venezuela. The new president is playing with its oil heritage. He has the lowest prices of gasoline in the world. He says it is other resources and so he wants it at cheap prices. Guess what? He is playing with the money of future generations to benefit today's generation. That is the criticism. He is not benefiting from world prices that will help build the economy. The country is not only built on oil prices. There has to be investment in education, health and infrastructure to create a competitive environment that is beneficial to everybody, not just to one sector.

To do that, we create a business environment. We tax the oil companies as is necessary and we ensure they are in a competitive sector. The revenue derived by the government is what it reinvests into the infrastructure and everything else to create that economy.

I am very pleased that this is what has happened in Alberta. The revenues that come in benefit everyone in Canada, including Quebec, because Alberta then pays into the equalization formula. We talk about fiscal imbalance. We need to ensure there is a level standard of living throughout Canada. If one sector is doing well temporarily, that is fine. However, again I want to remind the House what happened in 1981 in Alberta because of high oil prices. Albertans, including myself, lost our life savings because of irresponsible government economic policy. We want to ensure that does not happen today.

The government has said that we will create an environment that is beneficial to all Canadians. The budget talked about tax cuts for individuals and businesses, including small businesses, as well as a reduction of GST.

About a month ago a report came out. According to the report, there was a slight dip in consumption of oil in the North American market. That is exactly what we need to do. We do not need to put a heavy emphasis on the oil sector alone. As the Minister of the Environment has indicated, we are looking at other sources. We need to reduce the demand on oil. That is the right approach. This is what we should do as part of our educational issues.

Is there going to be an immediate change in the price of oil? No. As I said, the Asian economy is now rising. Today we see both China and India in the market looking to buy resources, including oil companies, to feed their growing economies. This puts pressure on the commodity market.

It is quite interesting that with China's rising need for resources, it is buying its resources from Canada. Canada being the richest resource country in the world, naturally our economy is doing well. They will not talk about those sectors because that is the sector that benefits only them.

We need to get out of the situation of looking at what only benefits one province. What benefits Canada as a whole is the approach members of the House of Commons should take.

Therefore, the motion is quite contradictory and it will, from my point of view, create a situation where its long term damage would be quite devastating.

The motion talks about the Competition Act. The Liberals were in power for almost 13 years. Now Liberals get up and talk about the Competition Act. Where were they? Why did they not bring anything forward, if they felt the Competition Act required strengthening? It is obvious that they did not have any desire to do it, and one would wonder why.

From my point of view, the motion is playing to the fears of Canadians, but that is not the right approach to take. The government has indicated, with its priorities and budget, the right way to go to ensure that Canada remains the number one country in the world.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how we can do development over there, how we can build schools and build whatever she is exactly saying about development without bringing security over there. Does she want human rights workers to be killed over there? What does she want? Our forces are helping in order to rebuild the country.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as we have stated, we have three approaches to the Afghanistan crisis: military, development and building of democratic government in Afghanistan. Once we have achieved those objectives with our international partners we will be able to leave Afghanistan proudly.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member for Brampton—Springdale would accuse my party of just having human rights now. If the member looks at the record she will see that we were the ones who supported the deployment in the first place. We stood behind democratic reform and we stood up for human rights. I find those comments intolerable.

I have no idea what she means when she talks about 100 days. It was her government and the prime minister before her when he was in the Persian Gulf who said that we would be there as long as there was no shooting and then we will leave. What kind of commitment is that? She is talking about human rights. We are not flip-flopping. We stand for human rights.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I join all Canadians in expressing our deep sadness and sorrow at the loss of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. We will all remember her sacrifice.

Canada's commitment to Afghanistan is consistent with Canada's support of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights around the world. We are playing a leadership role in Afghanistan. Under the umbrella of a UN-NATO mission, 36 nations, including Canada, have made much progress to date, but laying the groundwork for democratic and economic development takes time and requires sustained support.

Our brave men and women in Afghanistan are helping to make Afghanistan safe for reconstruction. With our integrated approach consisting of diplomats, the Canadian Forces, development workers and civilian police, Canada is helping the Afghan people bring stability to their country, strengthen governance and reduce poverty. We are there at the request of the Afghan government.

Already we have made a significant contribution to the stabilization and reconstruction efforts. Yes, the mission is complex and risky and yes, it is definitely very different from the situations in the past. The world became a much less predictable place. The nature of the threat has changed, but we must not waiver in our resolve.

On September 11, 2001 it became painfully clear that Canada and Canadians were vulnerable in a way we had never thought possible before. We know we must defend and secure Canada at home, but we must also know that we must deal with threats abroad. This means dealing with threats in Afghanistan.

The terrorists who implemented the September 11 attacks trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda terrorist network, financed and inspired by Osama bin Laden, found a welcome haven under the Taliban government of Afghanistan. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan with an iron fist, first denying women opportunities for education or work, publicly executing people without due process, terrorizing an entire population and driving the country into the depths of poverty.

In late 2001 coalition forces, including Canadian forces, helped to drive the Taliban from power and into hiding in the remote hills of Afghanistan, and to crush the al-Qaeda network that it had harboured; crushed but not eliminated. The battle was won, but the international effort to stabilize Afghanistan has only just begun.

To ensure that Afghanistan was never again to be used as a haven for terrorism, it needed a democratically elected authoritative government. It needed the capacity to provide the rule of law, security and respect for human rights throughout the country. It also needed an economy capable of providing for the basic needs of the Afghan people and a capacity to curtail illicit opium production. This is a long term project that requires the long term commitment of the international community.

Afghanistan has achieved an enormous amount in only a few years. It has a new constitution. It has a democratically elected president and parliament. Its army is being rebuilt and its police forces are being retrained. Women and girls now have the freedom to go to school and legitimate businesses are emerging. Hospitals, schools and roads are being rebuilt.

With the help of Canada and the international community the Afghan people are triumphing over tyranny and taking back the country, but Afghanistan remains fragile. Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants continue to try to destabilize Afghanistan. Opium cultivation accounts for almost 60% of the country's GDP. We must stay the course until Afghanistan is able to withstand these pressures.

NATO has played a vital role in the achievements to date and will remain key to future progress in Afghanistan.

For Canada, our participation in NATO ensures that we have an equal voice in the world's strongest military alliance, one dedicated to defending the values that are fundamental to the United Nations and to Canadians, and one dedicated to addressing the new threats that we all face today.

None of us can go alone.

My government is very aware that our engagement in Afghanistan carries risks but we also know that what we are trying to do, to create a stable and secure Afghanistan that is no haven for terrorists, is worth those risks. It is because the long term security of Canada and Canadians is at stake.

I will conclude by offering my thanks to the Canadian men and women who are serving on our behalf in Afghanistan. We mourn for those who have died and we stand firm with those who continue to strive for peace and security in Afghanistan.

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member has a very distinguished record as a human rights protector, a human rights defender and a former justice minister of Canada.

Nobody can argue the fact that there is no crisis in Darfur. The crisis is absolutely very serious and demands urgent attention. He set out a 10 point plan.

Given the situation in Africa, given that there are crises in the neighbouring country, there are crises in Congo, there are crises all across central Africa, it is incumbent upon us to assist the African Union to be the driving force.

Time after time I have heard “Africa for Africans” and “Africans must take the lead”. Yes, that is what we should do, although we recognize our responsibility to assist them and help them shoulder the load. In Darfur we have seen that not happening, henceforth, their request for UN forces to come in.

The comprehensive peace plan that is being discussed in Abuja, and Canada's UN Ambassador is there to assist that, is the first step, if it is implemented, toward the goal of achieving a sustainable peace in that region. The need for sustainable peace in that region is very critical in Africa.

Instead of his 10 point plan, would the member not say that Canada must stand behind the Africa Union's political will, that it may not have the military capability, but we should be out there to do that and let the African Union be the leader with us and all the donors assisting the African Union in achieving that objective?

[Darfur, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the member has been to Darfur and has seen first hand the crisis in Darfur. I was a little confused when he said he expects the peace talks to go on for almost six years. That is a very, very long time. We are looking at a peace agreement that is happening now with concrete steps to be taken now to stop the killings that are taking place. I do not know what the member means by five to six years.

The AU has put forth a very comprehensive plan that takes a lot of things into account, human rights, development and everything. It is a comprehensive plan that we want both parties to sign ASAP, as quickly as tomorrow hopefully, so that the killings can stop, reconstruction can start and people can go home. That is what we are debating today, so I am a little confused by what the member means by five to six years of peace talks.