Deepak Obhrai

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, let me give you my best wishes. I am sure that you will come out swinging in your struggle for your health.

It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code in reference to street racing and to make amendments to another act, which would bring in a stronger punishment, as the government would like to say. We all know about the consequences of street racing. We have seen people lose their lives. Those who do street racing have a complete and total disregard for the safety and interests of others on the streets. All they are concerned about is their own interests.

My dear friend and colleague, Chuck Cadman, who is no longer with us, worked very hard to ensure that the bill was passed. One could say that Chuck Cadman's support of the Liberal government in May prompted the government to come up with the bill. We will accept that. I know Chuck wanted the bill passed and because the bill is before us, we will support it. Even though there is a political reason why this bill is before us, we will support it, but we do have a lot of concerns.

It is a typical Liberal approach to addressing issues that Canadians are always concerned about, specifically on crime. Every time a bill comes before Parliament from the Liberal side, we find that the bill is compassionate. The Liberals are always compassionate for those who have committed the crime. The Liberals say that a mistake was made and there should be rehabilitation and they try to put a face of compassion on all the bills that come before us to show that the Liberal Party is compassionate. The problem with that approach, which time after time Canadians have brought to our attention, is that the tendency of people is to ignore it, when there is no significant punishment.

I have introduced in Parliament three bills on three occasions. My private member's bill on repeat break and enter offenders, asking for a minimum two year sentence, has been defeated by the Liberals because they do not believe in mandatory sentencing. Why did I bring that bill forward? The concern with break and enter is such that repeat offenders find it profitable as a business because the punishment is so low and the rewards are so high. Offenders disregard it and they go do it again. So, what, if they have to go to court? They will get a suspended sentence or a small sentence and they are back doing the same thing. They continue on and as they become more efficient, there are more and more crimes.

The Liberal government will come along and tell us there have been no break and enters. They have declined across the nation. That is not the issue. The issue is that the crime of break and enter may have declined because of higher security or something.

The fundamental issue is when does punishment fit the crime? That is the key point. The bill that is before us has a similar consensus as that of Chuck Cadman. His bill had an escalating scale of punishment clauses to ensure that there was some kind of mandatory punishment for repeat offenders.

Mr. Speaker, you are from British Columbia. There have been recent cases in British Columbia where people have lost their lives and even police officers have lost their lives to street racing. These guys street race because they can get away with it, for the little fun that they get at that given time, with absolute disregard to the consequences it could have. They do not take into account the results and terrible consequences for others.

We talk about the people who have done this crime, but it is only recently, after pressure by the Reform Party of which I was a member, that we started looking at the victims, the terrible tragedy, the terrible consequences of these actions which are not thought of by these street racers, and what happens to the families.

A good example of that is what happened to me with the Ethics Commissioner. These actions and subsequent damage to my family are so severe that today, as I speak to you, Mr. Speaker, he is in front of the procedure and House affairs committee explaining these consequences. He probably never thought of it because he was so blind to the facts. He thought he had to do these things and he never thought of the consequences and what would happen to the family if he did what he did. Now he is in front of the committee to explain that.

I told the committee how these consequences have had an impact, on my sister-in-law, who has absolutely nothing to do with being a member of Parliament, and why her and her son's lives have become a public spectacle. Because Mr. Shapiro decided he wanted to go public and talk about something that was frivolous, this whole issue became public and the next minute everybody was talking.

I am talking about consequences, which are in this bill. The consequences of actions is what I am talking about. I want to tell Mr. Shapiro that the actions can be severe for those who have to pay the price. In the case of street racing, we know that people have lost lives. What about their families? They have voids that will be forever in their lives.

If we want a bill to address an issue, we cannot address issues in small parts. We cannot address a bill by saying one part is wrong and then think about another part. No, we need to understand and give a strong message. This Parliament has to give a strong message to anybody out there that their actions will have consequences, not that their actions will be taken lightly and we will look into the issue.

That is why the Conservative Party is proposing amendments to this bill, to make it tighter, to make it stronger, with the message going out that if street racing carries on and if somebody gets hurt there are consequences.

A couple of days ago, there were newspaper stories about a bus driver in Toronto who was shot in the face and there is the likelihood of losing an eye. He was an innocent bystander. Canadians want their streets safe. That is the issue everywhere, whether it is street racing, whether it is gun violence or any other form out there.

The police forces are asking us to do something. Even in the case of pornography with child predators. We need to send a very strong message about the consequences. When we have bills that have loopholes, or are watered down with the whole Liberal philosophy that they have to be compassionate, it is not sending the right message. The concern of what is happening on our streets, to our homes, is becoming louder and louder for Canadians.

Like me, all my colleagues listen to their constituents. I hope many of them will speak on behalf of the bill to strengthen it. The purpose of strengthening it is not to look as though we are cruel or that we have no compassion. That is not the point. We are all compassionate. The point is that the consequences for one's actions must be stated in the bill. People must know that they will face the consequences.

A bill is passed in the House and the independent judiciary implements the law. I am not saying there is anything wrong with an independent judiciary. I strongly support having an independent judiciary. It is the strongest foundation of a democracy. However, many times we have seen the judiciary send the wrong message. One decision is subsequently picked up by others and it goes on.

On many occasions many members of the judiciary have said that we in this place are the ones who propose the laws. Members of Parliament are the ones who give the directions. There is nothing wrong in sending the judiciary a message about mandatory sentencing. We are telling the judiciary that Canadians want safe streets. We are telling the judiciary that Canadians want people to pay for the their actions. We as lawmakers have to make strong statements, and we should do so in proposed legislation. Bill C-65 is a watered down version of Mr. Cadman's desire.

I was at Mr. Cadman's funeral and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you were at his memorial service. We heard many tributes made to Chuck by politicians and people who knew him very well in his riding. What came out very strong was Chuck's compassionate nature and how hurt he was after losing his son. He galvanized himself into working to ensure that the punishment fit the crime.

Chuck was not interested in throwing people in jail. He was interested in making people understand that there would be consequences for their actions. If we do not do that, then people will not understand, and that is the problem with this bill.

Chuck would go to victim's homes. He understood their pain because of the pain he himself felt. A compassionate man like Chuck would like to see a stronger bill. He would like us to send a stronger message. Bill C-65 does not propose that. While addressing Chuck's concerns, the bill still is a watered down version of what he wanted.

We want to bring in amendments that will leave a legacy for Chuck so people across Canada will get the message and, most important, the judiciary will get the message that the Parliament of Canada is very serious about addressing crime, about making our homes safe and our streets safe.

I again intend to bring my private member's bill on break and enter forward in the House. My bill would ensure a two year minimum mandatory sentence. The purpose is to break the cycle of people repeating these things.

I again intend to bring my private member's bill on break and enter forward in the House. My bill would ensure a two year minimum mandatory sentence. The purpose is to break the cycle of people repeating these things. We talk about compassion. Mandatory sentencing is not being cruel. We are being compassionate by taking repeat offenders off the streets and making them realize this is not a profitable issue.

Grow ops have become a major problem in our cities. In my riding grow ops have become a major issue because housing is cheap. Why? Because we have a problem with legislation. Hence the law enforcement agencies are weak when it comes to this issue.

I have met with law enforcement agencies in my riding. I have met with the local alderman, the local MLA and with local associations to address the issue of grow ops. Grow ops subsequently get into the drug trade and into prostitution. We have discussed how to address this issue. One solution is to put more police officers on the street. That has been our experience when police officers talk to us. They say that if they have more resources, they can put more police officers on the street which is a major deterrent, but we are not doing that. The police officers in my riding in Calgary have identified that there is no strong legislation to help the police to do this.

While the Liberals on the other side will say that this bill will address in the strongest possible terms those issues, another independent body will make the final judgment on how this is done.

Our experience has been that this independent body tends to go in a different direction. We are then doing a disservice to the independent body, the judiciary. We are not taking anything away from it. We are telling it what I want it to do. That is our responsibility. The Parliament of Canada carries the responsibility to make sound laws, laws that protect Canadians. We are elected to do that. We are not elected to create vague bills and then leave it to an independent body to decide what it wants to do.

We are giving our responsibility to it. We have said time after time that on many issues the government refuses to make law. It runs to the Supreme Court of Canada and asks it to make the decision.

It is this Parliament that will make the decisions. We make the laws. Let us give direction. This way Canadians feel confident that we are doing our jobs. The judiciary feels confident that a clear direction has come from Parliament. In this way we follow the direction that Canadians want us to follow. They have elected us to be their voices and their consciences.

We will be proposing amendments to the bill to ensure that people understand the consequences for their actions.

[Natural Disasters, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, October 8, Pakistan was the centre of a devastating 7.6 magnitude earthquake. India and Afghanistan were also affected. Reports put the death toll are at over 50,000 lives lost, with Pakistan bearing the brunt of the disaster.

I was saddened to hear the government's initial reaction. It was only after pressure from Canadians, in particular, in communities affected by the earthquake, did the government increase its contribution.

All this highlights the need for Canada to be better prepared when it comes to reacting to natural disasters worldwide.

I was heartened by the tremendous outpouring of assistance by Canadians from coast to coast in coming to the aid of the people affected.

On behalf of my colleagues and myself in the Conservative Party, I send my deepest condolences to the people of Pakistan, India and Afghanistan for the loss of life in this tragedy.

[Privilege, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, just before you started, you said we are here to make wise decisions and I thank you for making a wise decision here. I move:

That the process by which the Ethics Commissioner is conducting inquiries in relation to the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons, in particular, the issue raised in the House by the hon. member for Calgary East on September 26, 2005, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)viii.

I know the committee in its wisdom will ensure I receive a fair hearing.

[Terrorism, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and anger that I rise in the House once more to condemn a terrorist attack on innocent people. For a second time in the peaceful tourist resort of Bali, terrorists have chosen innocent victims. As in 2002, again Canadians were among the injured.

This summer we saw cowards target innocent people in London, U.K. They also struck in Madrid in May 2004. We also see innocent people being targeted in Iraq daily. We will not be intimidated by these cowards.

It is regrettable that at the recent UN meeting of world leaders consensus could not be achieved to provide for a greater and concentrated anti-terrorism effort, which would have been in the best interests of all the members. I cannot overestimate the absolute importance of the world leaders coming together on this point.

We want to tell the Indonesians that Canada will stand with them to fight terrorism. On behalf of the official opposition, I offer my heartfelt sympathies to the victims of this tragic event and their families.

[Privilege, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on September 16, 2005 I wrote to the Ethics Commissioner, Dr. Bernard Shapiro, that I had lost confidence in him and that the investigation he commenced against me be referred to the RCMP. In the same letter I advised him also that I would refer this matter to Parliament.

This past Friday, September 23 at 3:30 p.m., I received a hand-delivered communication from the Ethics Commissioner's office. I immediately returned the communication unopened and informed the Ethics Commissioner's office that I would rise in the House on a question of privilege to charge Mr. Shapiro with contempt.

Therefore I rise today on this question of privilege to charge Dr. Bernard Shapiro, the Ethics Commissioner, with contempt.

In the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page 180 it states:

--each House interprets and administers the law of Parliament in order to find breaches of privilege or contempt in appropriate cases, and interprets any statute law setting out procedures to be followed.

The authority under which the Ethics Commissioner is to conduct investigations is contained in the Parliament of Canada Act and the Conflict of Interest Code appended to the Standing Orders, pages 107 to 118. The Ethics Commissioner clearly breached one of them and was negligent in the way he applied the other.

In my telephone conversation on September 13 with the Ethics Commissioner, following his letter of August 23, 2005, where he for the first time indicated what sections of the ethics code I had violated and requested that we have a telephone conversation, I said I would provide all documenting evidence to indicate that all his allegations made against me were false. We agreed to meet the following week.

However, the next day, on September 14, I received an e-mail from my office saying that Jack Aubry of the Ottawa Citizen would like to get my comments on the Ethics Commissioner's investigation against me. I called Jack Aubry and he said he wanted my comments on the investigation. I asked how he found out and he said he was interviewing Mr. Shapiro who then told him that he was investigating me. He also said that Mr. Shapiro told him that he had material that suggested something inappropriate was happening.

The next day, on September 15, articles appeared in major newspapers across the country. The articles in question are being tabled before the House. In these articles, Dr. Shapiro is quoted as saying, “I have some material that suggests something inappropriate was happening”, and saying that I was under investigation. These damaging articles were carried in major newspapers across the nation.

The Ethics Commissioner's office carries a lot of legitimacy with the public. Hence, when they say that they are investigating a member of Parliament, then go on to make public comments, the member is seen as guilty by the public, especially by those who do not know me. This has been the feedback my family and I have received from numerous Canadians across the country.

The Ethics Commissioner's public musings have given legitimacy to false allegations that have damaged my reputation. Additionally, comments made by him to the public are quoted in the National Post dated September 16, 2005:

But what we've got is a bunch of people who are trying to do exactly the right thing who sometimes do the wrong thing.

Having been prejudged by his office, I wrote to Mr. Shapiro on September 16, 2005, as mentioned earlier, and demanded that this investigation now be conducted by the RCMP and not by him.

All Canadians are deemed innocent until proven guilty. This is our fundamental right. I am questioning what happened to my rights.

On page 116 of the Standing Orders, section 27(7) of the Conflict of Interest Code states:

The Ethics Commissioner is to conduct an inquiry in private and with due dispatch, provided that at all appropriate stages throughout the inquiry the Ethics Commissioner shall give the Member reasonable opportunity to be present and to make representations to the Ethics Commissioner in writing or in person by counsel or by any other representative.

This section was breached when the Ethics Commissioner leaked information about the investigation to the media. Not only that, but he has prejudiced my rights by saying to the media that he believes some impropriety has taken place.

I believe also that the Ethics Commissioner breached section 27(4) of the Conflict of Interest Code. Let me say and produce documents to show how he breached this section.

On May 9, 2005 the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, said he had received unsolicited affidavits that he handed to the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner for them to do as they saw fit. These letters were also copied to the Leader of the Opposition.

These were the same affidavits that were sent to the Prime Minister and to the former minister of citizenship and immigration in June 2004. The same affidavits were sent to my political opponent in the 2004 election, as quoted in the May 15, 2005 edition of the Calgary Herald .

We will not discuss how a document addressed to the Prime Minister and to the former minister of citizenship and immigration, the member for York West, showed up mysteriously on the desk of the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, a year later. Neither will we ask how the national media were informed of these documents that were sent to the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner.

My sister-in-law, the woman at the centre of this unfortunate blackmail attempt, and her son were in Ottawa to give her side of the story. She made arrangements to meet with the Ethics Commissioner on May 13, 2005. She was accompanied by her son who was witness to what had transpired, mainly a matrimonial dispute between a husband and a wife. She then told the Ethics Commissioner the reasons for the affidavits were a blackmail attempt to get her to return to India.

On June 6, 2005 Eppo Maertens from the Ethics Commissioner's office wrote to my sister-in-law, and I quote what he said, “Thanks for your help” and he continued, “We are anxious to move ahead with the inquiry”. Furthermore, the letter said that the Ethics Commissioner's office was in the process of retaining a lawyer in India to help investigate allegations against me.

I, as a member of Parliament, had absolutely no idea this was taking place, contrary to sections 27(4) and 27(7) of the Conflict of Interest Code. Furthermore, they wanted to investigate my sister-in-law's private life.

Therefore, I wrote Mr. Shapiro a letter on July 14, 2005 outlining my concerns and for him to understand that this was a family matter. One important point I made was that contacting the husband would only play into his hands, causing him to feel as though he had a hold on my sister-in-law through me.

I intend to table all these documents in the House.

In a reply to me on July 18, 2005, Mr. Shapiro advised me, “The inquiry was initiated at the request of the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Member for Eglinton—Lawrence”. The letter continues on by saying that we had not cooperated with him.

Then in my letter of July 26 I challenged Mr. Shapiro with documented proof that the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, had not initiated the inquiry and also refuted his allegations that I and my family had not cooperated with him.

This is after my sister-in-law had given him taped transcripts from her husband saying he did not send these letters, as well as a copy of a letter from my lawyer in India to the husband to provide proof of these allegations.

In a reply to me on August 4, Mr. Shapiro changed his tune and stated it was he who had decided to proceed with the inquiry. I repeat that I was informed on August 4, 83 days from the time my sister-in-law met with the Ethics Commissioner. This is a clear breach of section 27(4). Now I have learned that I am being investigated.

A person who is being investigated is always told what he is being investigated for and not just that he is being investigated. Therefore, I sought legal advice from the House of Commons' lawyers and was advised to find out why I was being investigated.

On August 9 I wrote to the Ethics Commissioner and asked him what he was investigating me for. On August 23, 2005 I was advised by the Ethics Commissioner what he was investigating me for. This was a total of 103 days from the first interview with my sister-in-law on this matter.

Section 27(4) of the Conflict of Interest Code calls for a member to be given reasonable written notice before an inquiry is conducted. The Ethics Commissioner started this investigation in May. I was not informed which section of the code I had violated until August 23, 2005. In addition, section 27(4) says that members shall be informed and given reasonable opportunity in which to make representation.

So blatantly has this section been violated that Mr. Aman Anand, the husband who has a restraining order against him in Calgary and a police report saying that he was sent to a psychiatric ward, had the opportunity to meet with the Ethics Commissioner's representatives before I, a member of Parliament, had that right.

Mr. Anand, who is the husband, some time in the second week of September met with a lawyer hired by the Ethics Commissioner in India. I, a member of Parliament in Canada, was given the opportunity to respond only after I had requested it. That was on September 19.

We have an officer of Parliament who has breached the rules of Parliament. Mr. Shapiro acted in contempt. I am sure Parliament never anticipated that an Ethics Commissioner could violate the Parliament of Canada Act and the rules of the House with respect to conducting an investigation of a member of Parliament.

The Parliament of Canada Act and the rules are not clear on the process to follow under which these unexpected circumstances arise. Since Mr. Shapiro is an officer of Parliament and given that he breached the rules of Parliament established for his conduct, a question of privilege is the appropriate means to resolve this issue.

In addition, I cannot see how the Ethics Commissioner can make a fair judgment of the application of the code as it relates to members of Parliament when he himself fails to apply the code as it relates to his office. His carelessness and disregard for the rules is inexcusable.

I would bring this matter to the committee, but as we have experienced, such a process would take a great deal of time and certain procedural manoeuvring could scuttle a resolution to the issue.

Furthermore, the ethics committee could not determine whether this was a matter of privilege. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, only the House can determine that. Besides, Mr. Shapiro is not in contempt of the committee. He is in contempt of the House for violating the rules of the House in a way that prejudges and casts a cloud of suspicion over one of its members.

I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege so that the House can determine whether or not Mr. Shapiro is in contempt for his actions.

Mr. Shapiro, as an officer of the House, and the code of conduct are relatively new. Therefore, there are no precedents. However, citation 59 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's refers to two employees of the House of Commons who were fired for writing articles that reflected badly on the character of the House.

The Ethics Commissioner was appointed by the House and is therefore responsible to the House. He is responsible for articles that reflect badly on a member. What is worse is that he caused this to happen by disobeying the order of the House, which is section 27(7) of the Conflict of Interest Code.

Contempt is described on page 225 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada as an offence against the authority or dignity of the House. While privilege may be codified, contempt may not, because new forms of obstruction are constantly being devised and Parliament must be able to evoke its penal jurisdiction to protect itself against these new forms. There is no closed list of classes of offences punishable as contempt of Parliament.

As I said earlier, I do not think Parliament anticipated this situation. It assumed that the Ethics Commissioner would play by the rules Parliament set for him. Mr. Shapiro is guilty of disobeying the authority of the House. In so doing he has done damage to my reputation and prejudged my right to a fair investigation.

All these events lead me to believe that I am facing cultural discrimination from the Ethics Commissioner's office. Is it open season on members of Parliament from different cultural communities? When I told him this whole matter could be resolved with my sister-in-law returning to India but with deadly consequences, he said that was not his concern.

In conclusion, I wish to make a personal appeal to all. Today a very difficult personal family matter was made public. My family, including my sister-in-law, has struggled with this, but if we were not to raise these points, we would do a disservice to thousands who face these kinds of institutional discrimination and where justice is denied.

My family has suffered tremendously. I do not wish to go into private details.

My appeal to all is to please remember that there are human beings behind these events who get hurt because of unthoughtful actions by those who abuse the power they are given.

All Canadians have a right to recourse from the courts when these kinds of privileges are abused. Mr. Bernard Shapiro, in a letter to Democracy Watch, a copy of which I tabled, stated that he is immune from court action. I wonder if that is why he discarded good common sense in this case.

Allegations are not something that bother me. All it took was one phone call from me to the Indian authorities to find that the affidavit that Mr. Shapiro is basing his investigation on is a forged one.

I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege so that the House can determine whether or not Mr. Shapiro is in contempt for his actions.

If you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Multiculturalism Day, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to rise in recognition of June 27 as Canadian Multiculturalism Day.

It is a time for all Canadians to reflect on the contributions that cultural communities have made to the enrichment of our heritage in which all Canadians share.

Multiculturalism Day is one that promotes diversity and understanding that makes Canada unique among nations and the envy of the world.

It is only fitting that I note with great pride June 27 and acknowledge the hard work, challenges and immense sacrifices that all Canadians have made to the strengthening of our society.

The Conservative Party, by introducing the Multiculturalism Act in 1988, is committed to breaking down barriers and promoting understanding so all Canadians can enjoy the richness that our nation affords.

[Air-India, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today, June 23, marks the 20th anniversary of the Air-India bombing. To date it remains Canada's worst terrorist attack and to date we still have no answers. Over 320 people are dead and no one has been brought to justice.

I rise not only for those who were killed, but for the families and loved ones who remain and whose lives were changed forever. In an instant children lost their parents. Husbands and wives were split. The magnitude of this tragedy is immeasurable and without words.

In 1999 I attended the memorial service in Ireland. This year the leader of the official opposition is attending the memorial in Ireland on behalf of the Conservative Party.

On behalf of my colleagues in the House, I extend our deeply felt sympathy to the families of the victims. The Conservative Party supports recognizing June 23 as a national day of mourning for victims of terrorism.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we know what is happening over there. Canadians know what is happening over there. The government wants this extension brought in just because it does not want to extend Bill C-38 into the fall. The government knows that will be getting close to elections and the government does not represent the views of the majority of Canadians on Bill C-38.

The government wants to keep that distance from the time it discusses Bill C-38. It wants to ram it through this Parliament as far away from the elections as possible. That is the real reason the government wants Bill C-38 to come here: so that Canadians will forget about it during the summer. Is that not the real reason the government wants to extend this Parliament?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for pointing out what is going on in our federation. We are blaming each other. The federal government blames the province, and the province blames the federal government. This playing goes on all day.

When I go out in my riding Canadians are saying, “We don't care who you are. Get the job done”. It is as simple as A, B, C. We have provincial agreements and we could easily sit down and talk with each other to find solutions. Our duty is to help Canadians.

This afternoon a colleague asked a question regarding the fiscal imbalance. The federal government keeps taking in money but how much money is it putting back into Canada?

During the election campaign, we saw all the expenditures. The Liberal government says that it is giving money to the cities, but it was the Liberals who starved the cities. The Prime Minister was the finance minister for how many years? Today as we look around, the cities, infrastructure, defence, everything everywhere is crying for money.

My colleague from Saskatchewan has pointed out another example where I am sure that the government decided to take the money out to save the expenditure. Of course, that was not part of the NDP deal and that is why the RCMP does not have the money now. After all, this budget bill is $4.9 billion for the NDP so the Liberal government can survive.

The common sense approach that the member was asking about, I would not expect that from the government side.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised an excellent point. It has become shameful for us in Canada. He is absolutely right. We have been going around talking about good governance and telling other countries how they should handle their affairs when we do not look at how we handle our own affairs.

We only need look at what has come out of the Gomery inquiry, and let us not mince words about it. The way the Liberal Party operated in Quebec on the sponsorship scandal with all this money, one would think one was reading a novel about some dictatorship in a third world country where money was flowing around to buy things. Under no circumstances would one expect something like that in a country like Canada. We would expect that people who are in public service would have honourable intentions and would not take the Canadian taxpayers to the cleaners.

What we have heard is extremely shocking. No wonder Canadians are angry. Let us not even worry about what the foreign aid people in other countries are saying, we Canadians ourselves are angry. When I go out in my riding and talk to my constituents, it is unbelievable the amount of anger that exists.

The Prime Minister of Canada went on national television and stated quite clearly that he was sorry. It is not a question of being sorry. What kind of a message are we giving to our children? What kind of a message are we giving to anybody on what has happened here?

One of the good things about this whole issue is that we do have certain safeguards. One safeguard that brought this issue to light was the Auditor General. I am very happy to say that it was the Auditor General's investigation that brought this issue right out in the open. I have been speaking in Parliament about all the government waste that is going on and nobody listens, but when the Auditor General brought it up, that was the safeguard we had. I am happy to say that part of the Conservative Party's platform is to strength that institution to ensure there is accountability and never again will something like that happen in Canada.