Deepak Obhrai

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we all knew that member as binder boy in the previous Parliament when he was sitting over there. In 1988 he was part of the rat pack holding the Conservative government accountable.

When his government came into power in 1993 it made two promises: one, to abolish the GST; and two, to raise the immigration level to 1% to 300,000, neither of which his government fulfilled.

Is the member, as a member of the Liberal government, going to tell the finance minister to fulfill those promises that were made in 1993 when he was part of that government?

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is the transport critic and has taken on the big transport issues in this country. I want to bring one point to him on which I would like his comment.

We still today as it stands have one airline that dominates the skies of Canada and that is Air Canada. Even today as we fly on Air Canada's international and domestic routes, there is an old saying that if this airline can make your life difficult, it will continue to do so. The service level is still very poor, but that is because it has a monopoly. That is because it does not have competition in this country. In spite of the fact that there is WestJet and everything else, Air Canada still has international routes and it still has business class. It still maintains this and it is still under government control. It was quite surprising to see the CEO of this airline agreeing with the transport minister on what he suggested, thus telling me that there is collusion going on over there with the same old government interference in this thing.

Does the member not feel that we need to emphasize competition in this area so that Canadians, like everybody else, can benefit from the competition that comes about?

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not joking. I am exactly telling the truth. Does he think Canadians can be fooled by these things? These issues have brought the Liberals down from a majority to a minority. They continue to do that. Yet in their prebudget speeches they have no shame. They stand up and say everything is fine. It is not fine.

I want to draw on something that the member said about ODA. He said that he supported .07%. Let us for a minute look at the ODA. ODA right now is almost approaching $3.5 billion. That is a lot of money. I am not saying that we should not help poor countries with aid, but there needs to be an accountability section. It is not by standing up, as Liberals do, and saying .07% when they do not put effective controls on the money that has already been allocated toward the fund.

There is no accountability. CIDA, the agency that is supposed to look after foreign aid, is one of those secret bureaucratic agencies that has no control. The minister comes here once in a while and says that this is what she wants to do, but where is the control?

Despite the fact that there is the Gomery investigation, we need solid control on expenditures. Yet nothing is coming from the government. It is the same old rhetoric, it will do these things.

Could the member comment on that?

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I notice the member on the opposite side has all those nice flowery words about accountability and his government. If he looks, he will see what is happening at the Gomery commission, the biggest scandal that Canada has ever seen. There have been scandals after scandals. We still have the GST even after it promised in 1993 to eliminate it. Yet the member stands up and says that there is sound economic management by his government.

[Provincial Centennial Projects, November 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have another example of the Liberal government ignoring the west.

In the past, the federal government has allocated funding to promote provincial centennial projects. Next year Alberta and Saskatchewan will be celebrating their centennials. As of today, there has been no allocation of funds to Alberta and Saskatchewan. Why?

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, as my other colleagues have indicated, what is happening in Ukraine is a serious concern and a major world issue that faces all of us. We all have to take a very strong stance in the House in sending a united message to the people of Ukraine saying, as my colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla said, that we are with the people of Ukraine during this hour of need.

When the cold war came to an end, when Ukraine became independent 14 years ago, there was hope all around that region and in Canada as well that democracy was coming to that country and that people would be able to speak out and have the choices that democracy gives.

Canada has a long history of accepting refugees from Ukraine who left because there was no freedom in Ukraine. They came to settle in this country. They have made a great contribution to this country, including in the House of Commons for democracy. Naturally their cousins in Ukraine, after the fall of the Soviet Union and Ukraine becoming independent, also had high hopes. As such, they have 14 years of democratic experience.

But with what is happening over there right now, one would have to ask if the cold war is coming back. What we are seeing, as my colleagues have said, is that the Russian president has said they are landing there. I can quote Russian President Putin saying that Ukraine does not need a lecture and congratulating the winner already when there are demonstrations taking place on the streets of Ukraine.

Not only that, but as has been pointed out, independent observers, including Canadian observers and members from my party and other parties, have said with no uncertainty that absolutely clearly this was not a fair election, that this was a hijacked election.

Let me go back. Are we seeing the return of the cold war? I do not think so, but what has happened is that the people of Ukraine have been robbed, as my colleagues have said. They have been robbed of democracy. They have been robbed by fraudulent means because of outside intervention from the Soviet Union, which is trying to keep its sphere of influence over this region because it does not want Ukraine to go.

The challenger, who was not declared the winner, is pro-western. That is okay. There is no such thing as a pro-western or Russian influence, but apparently the Russians feel that they somehow still after 14 years control Ukraine. We cannot allow that. Ukraine is not controlled by the Soviet Union. Ukraine is controlled by the people of Ukraine and they, during this exercise of democracy, made it very clear what they wanted.

We do not know what happened. The results are not fair. It has been hijacked. I do not need to go into the reasons for how this hijacking took place, but all observers are saying that this is what is going on over there. And now we are moving into a very dangerous situation where there are people on the streets. We pray at this time and we are asking the authorities in Ukraine that there not be any violence and that they let the people speak.

We have seen this happen time after time. Civil revolutions have taken place. An example is Serbia. The people took over parliament. That ended peacefully and now Serbia is moving ahead.

We are asking the authorities to make sure there is no violence as people express their disgust at what has happened there. I am very happy and pleased to see that the Government of Canada has condemned this vote rigging and has taken a very strong stand on this.

I am pleased to see that my party, as my leader said during question period, is standing behind the stance that the Government of Canada has taken to send one strong clear message: that an election cannot be hijacked, that no one will be allowed to hijack an election, and that we will not accept this kind of nonsense that has taken place in Ukraine.

We want to say this in no uncertain terms to the Russians. The only leader that is accepting this election is the Russian president, no one else, despite the fact that there independent observers over here. Does the Russian president not listen to the independent observers who are saying quite clearly that what has happened in Ukraine is not a fair election?

Therefore, we want to send a very strong message. Although we have strong relations with Russia, Russia is our friend and there is no more cold war, we must tell the Russian president this. I hope the Prime Minister will tell the Russian president that we hope he will exercise his influence so that there is no violence on the streets of Ukraine and at the same time use his influence to say that this election is not a fair election and we call upon the parliament of Ukraine to dissolve and call again for a new election. In the strongest words, we wish to relay this message and stand with the people of Ukraine.

[Canadian International Development Agency, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the CIDA minister issued news justifying CIDA aid to communist China. This is a nation that can take care of itself. It has the world's largest foreign reserves.

People in Africa are dying. They need our help.

Why can CIDA not get its priorities straight? Why?

[Diwali, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Indo-Canadians from coast to coast will be celebrating Diwali, popularly known as the festival of lights, on November 12.

Diwali is celebrated all across the world because of its message of good triumphing over evil. Indo-Canadians celebrate by praying and sharing sweets on this joyous occasion.

I along with the India-Canada Association of Ottawa will host the sixth annual Diwali celebration on November 16 on Parliament Hill. This annual event brings Canadians from different backgrounds together, strengthening our bonds and understanding of each other.

This is an open invitation for all to come and enjoy Diwali with fellow Canadians. On behalf of my fellow parliamentarians, I wish all Indo-Canadians a happy Diwali.

[Contraventions Act, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak to the bill on the issue of marijuana, an issue to which I spoke when it was first introduced in the last Parliament.

One of the serious problems that has crept into my riding and has caused a lot of concern for the residents is prostitution. After checking with the police and others, prostitution is driven by drugs. What we have now in my riding, right in the middle of Calgary, are drug growing operations, which is another serious problem. In trying to address that issue, we have met with law enforcement agencies to see what can be done. One of the things they always say is that they want the tools they need to crack this vicious trade that takes place.

At the end of the day, these guys who are engaged in these drug activities and all these things, are not law-abiding citizens. For them, any kind of a law that is weak sends out a message that it is okay for them to carry on because the punishment will not match the severity of their crimes.

The marijuana bill, from the Conservative Party's point of view, would send the wrong message, a message of tolerance toward using drugs, because it would create a system whereby fines would only given for the possession of a certain amount of drugs, and there would be a difference in the fines for adults and the fines for younger children.

I do not understand why we would have this kind of a difference for younger children. Is that to say that because younger children do not have money or whatever that their fine should not be as high and that it is okay for them to smoke? No.

Let me quote from the background material of the special House of Commons committee on the non-medical use of drugs which stated in its findings that reforms should be accompanied by prevention and educational programs--and here is the point--outlining the risks of Canada's use of marijuana and, in particular, the heightened risk it poses to young persons.

I want to read from another report which talks about the same thing. It says:

Combining cannabis reform with this public education campaign will reinforce the message that marijuana is illegal and harmful to one's health.

Now we know that it is harmful to one's health. If it is harmful to one's health, especially younger people, why are we coming along with a fine system that tells young people that their fine will be reduced? I do not understand the logic in that. We know and we have identified this as being a health hazard for young people.

As recently as two months ago, my young teenage son and his friend, who are studying at the University of Alberta, were arguing with me that it was okay to smoke marijuana and that it was not harmful to our health. I asked them where they had read that information and they said they had read it on the Internet.

If we want to stop people from smoking, we have to be tough, but now, when we introduce a bill such as this, we are sending out a message that it is okay to smoke and if they get caught it is a small fine, a lower fine for younger people and a higher fine for older people. The fact is that marijuana would probably be less harmful to older people.

I have been lobbied by people who use marijuana for medicinal purposes. We have recognized that use despite the fact that it is bad for their health but it does give them relief from their chronic diseases. That has been taken into account and I am glad we have addressed that issue.

However, concerning the issue we have before us today, we should have a zero tolerance policy. We need to have educational programs to tell young people that smoking marijuana is bad. The committee recommended that. On one hand we are saying that we need educational programs but on the other hand we are saying that the use of marijuana up to a certain level is okay. However, it is not okay.

The government claims that it is not saying it is legal but that it will not be a criminal offence. Well, we do not want our law enforcement agencies, which already have scarce resources, going after people who possess one or two joints, but let us make the level of possession at perhaps one or two joints, which will probably not affect anyone's health and will not be a criminal offence. The Conservative Party is recommending the possession of up to five grams only which means about six or seven joints. However, when we are talking about 30 grams, that translates into 50 or 60 joints, which is pretty hefty.

We also need to address the issue of drug driving detection. All the reports from committee have said that marijuana does impair one's mental capabilities and that it is dangerous for drivers.

Bill C-17 has a lot of flaws. At this stage the Conservative Party finds it difficult to support it. It is a great headline maker to make a statement indicating that certain small amounts of marijuana will be decriminalized, but if the government wants to do it that way it has to be done in a more responsible manner. Parliament has that responsibility to our young people and the public at large.

On Monday a Calgary city councillor was on the same plane with me and indicated that Calgary's police chief did not think this was a good idea because it would make law enforcement officers weak in fighting this crime.

When the bill goes to committee my colleagues and I will try to make sure there are enough changes in it that will send the message that we will not tolerate the use of drugs.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-13.

I spoke before on the bill dealing with the DNA database that was introduced in the last Parliament. At that time the Conservative Party had many objections. It was not a good bill and needed more amendments. It had too many loopholes. We highlighted our concerns at that time, but the government brushed them aside. We are back at it again with a few more amendments. The government is now trying to fix it because it was not fixed back then. My colleagues have been saying the same thing. There are flaws in this legislation.

We in the Conservative Party support a DNA database. As everyone has already highlighted, it is one of the strongest tools that police enforcement agencies need to fight crime and make our streets safer. We have to give them the power and the tools that they need, and this is one of those tools. Nobody is opposing the DNA database at all. Nobody is opposing the intent of this legislation. It is high time it happened and we are glad that it is happening.

We cannot allow loopholes to take place. Things can slide out and then it becomes an ineffective tool. What is the point in making legislation with loopholes if law enforcement agencies will have difficulties to enforce it?

My esteemed friend from Yorkton--Melville highlighted his concerns about why the DNA database would not be an effective tool even though it would be available. I want to repeat what he said about the DNA database in England and about how effective the act was in the U.K. He talked about 1,700 hits on that database. I want to tell people who are listening tonight what he meant by a hit. It simply meant that the police were able to go to the database and were able to have 1,700 hits tying criminals to the crime scene. That is a very good enforcement tool for police officers.

We have forgotten the victims of crime. Instead, we have concentrated on rehabilitating and treating criminals who break the law. That is fine because that is one of the many tools we have. However, we must never forget the victims of crime. That of course takes us to the bigger issue.

Last week the Minister of Justice talked about Steven Truscott. What I want to highlight about the Steven Truscott story is the fact that we need effective tools. This case highlighted something that was wrong. This young man was sentenced to death. If I read the reports correctly, the only reason he missed the noose was because he was a young fellow and Canada did not want to execute a young person. Would that mean that if he had been around 30 years old, he probably would have been hanged? We know now that would have been a terrible miscarriage of justice. That is the reason why I am opposed to the death penalty. Mistakes cannot be made. When we go to that extreme, we cannot make a mistake because it cannot be undone.

The DNA testing tools given to our police agencies allow them to make their jobs effective. It is also meant for those who have been charged but do not want to be wrongfully convicted. That is why the police need these tools.

Let us look at what my colleague stated. He reminded us that last year the RCMP laboratory in Regina was closed down. As a matter of fact, my colleague told me that there is a shortage of 60 RCMP officers in Saskatchewan.

If we are not going to provide the tools, the people and the resources to address these issues of crime, then what is the point of bringing in legislation? It is a band-aid answer to crime. As my colleagues who have already spoken said, all police and enforcement agencies want this tool so that they can effectively do their jobs. At the end of the day, they are subject to criticism when things do not happen and they get frustrated.

I remember with great sadness when two officers from the Toronto police sex crime unit came to our caucus and made a presentation on child pornography. That was one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen in my life. Some of us could not even stand and watch what these police officers were showing. They were saying that they needed the tools to fight the heinous crime of pornography.

The government said that DNA testing would go a long way toward doing that, but what these officers and enforcement agencies were saying was that this was not sufficiently enough. I fail to understand why we do not listen to them. Of course, on the other side of the coin one has to ensure that liberty and a person's civil rights are not abused. It is not a blank cheque where the police will utilize it without checks and balances.

Let us look at the case in Saskatchewan where this young aboriginal was found frozen to death. The internal review indicated that the police officers may have over-used their force. We cannot allow this kind of thing in our society. We need to have checks and balances. In the overall scheme of things our law enforcement people need the legislative tools to fight crime. The House is where we debate. We must give them the tools so they can make our streets safe.

We have highlighted the things that are wrong with the bill. When we take it to committee, hopefully the government will listen and make amendments so that the bill can become more effective in fighting crime. I thank my colleagues who are highlighting this issue and saying that we need to make this bill stronger.