Deepak Obhrai

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Let me ask another question. Every municipality in the country is demanding to know where the infrastructure money is from the government? The government has provided nothing. Every municipality wants federal government involvement in infrastructure. What does it do? It takes money like fuel taxes. It takes more money from cities than it gives back to cities. That is why cities need the money. All the mayors are demanding unanimously that the federal government now return that money to the cities, and not by that horrible infrastructure.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

--was one of the biggest disasters the country ever had. I lived in Alberta at that time and I know what the national energy policy did to that province.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am glad he asked that. He said that billions of dollars were given out to the oil industry. I want to remind him that the national energy policy, which his government brought out--

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to the motion brought forward by the NDP dealing with ethical behaviours for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

On the surface the motion looks like a feel good motion. The way the NDP has worded it, no one will say we should not be doing this because companies that are unethical will not have the support of the people of Canada and neither will they have the support of the shareholders. This is the kind of motion that is a great idea on the surface and idealistically everything looks fine.

As I was listening to my colleague from the NDP talking about child labour, the raping of the environment and these kinds of situations, of course Canadians are concerned, and on listening to this they will say that they do not want to support any companies that go into third world countries and rape the environment or break labour standards or labour codes. That is exactly what the motion is all about. It is all about the NDP trying to make a everyone feel good.

The problem is that when we go deeper into the motion and listen to what the member was saying, it is like the sky is falling. It is totally devoid of facts, totally devoid of common sense and totally devoid of how things work in reality.

This morning I thought I heard the member talk about how these companies were somehow associated with al-Qaeda. I did not hear exactly what she said but I was quite surprised to hear her talking about al-Qaeda. What does the Canada pension plan have to do with al-Qaeda, except for the fact that from their point of view they have to dramatize things to imply that the sky is falling and that we have to do something about it? It is a typical Liberal strategy.

Let us take a look at the record of the NDP in dealing with the economy. I come from Alberta, which is right next to British Columbia, and when the NDP was ruling in British Columbia with its high taxes, non-common sense approach to the economy, we suddenly had an influx of people coming into Alberta from British Columbia because they could not find jobs. We know the impact in the province of Alberta when the economy in British Columbia goes down because people move from British Columbia over into Alberta.

As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, in your own riding in the Okanagan Valley people could not find jobs when the NDP was ruling there so they moved to Alberta where there were jobs because of sound fiscal management.

The motion talks about these feel good situations but there are no sound fiscal ideas behind it. It is devoid of reality. It is a situation where one might agree that we have to do it, but let us talk for a second about the Canada pension plan.

On the contrary maybe nothing is happening, as they are suggesting we should not do this and that. I do not even understand when there is such a big scandal in this country. The Liberals are being held accountable. When every Canadian wants to know the truth of where that $100 million went, where does the NDP focus its attention? It focuses it on bringing forward a motion like this. Maybe when we have nothing else to do in the House we can discuss these things at that given time, but right now, when there is a scandal plagued government on that side and Canadians want answers, what do we have? We have a motion like this from the NDP.

Let us discuss the motion. I beg to differ with my hon. colleague on the other side when he says that the Canada pension plan is a great plan to take care of Canadians when they retire. That is nonsense. I have met with many seniors in my riding who are receiving Canada pensions and they tell me that the plan has failed as a safety net. They live on fixed incomes which are subject to slight increases.

We recognized that the Canada pension plan was not the vehicle to do that and therefore brought in the old age security. Even then, the old age security has put seniors who are on fixed incomes, living without subsidized housing, without other benefits, into a very tight situation.

The question we should be asking is whether the Canada pension plan is a real retirement plan. No, it is not. When CPP was first brought into the House we had discussions and found that there were serious flaws in the way it was designed and handled, and in the way it was set to look after the needs of seniors. The younger generation has no more confidence in the Canada pension plan.

The government recognized all those things, which was why it introduced the RRSPs and other things asking Canadians to be responsible for their own retirement fund. They did not want Canadians relying on the government.

About two or three years ago we had a debate when the premiums were raised. At that time we pointed out again that there were serious flaws in the Canada pension plan with the premiums and that it did not meet the requirements of the future generation, as the baby boomers get older and Canada pension plan unfunded liability increases. This is a well known fact.

We need the Canada pension plan to be in a sound fiscal position and one in which everyone contributes. Whatever it gives, it gives, so that it is there not as a complete safety net but at some point as a safety net. To do that we have to give the Canada pension plan board leeway as to where it can invest because investment is the key to where it will get its return so it is able to meet some of its obligations. I have to say some of its obligations because those premiums are not going to meet the full obligations. The way it is designed it will not meet the full obligations.

Having said that, can we now come along and say to the Canada pension plan board that it cannot do this or that? What do we base that on? Is it based on some notions out there? That is true, it is based on the NDP's notion that it is unethical and based on the fact that we are directing the board in what to do. This creates a danger.

My friends in the NDP should know that there are laws that prevent companies from polluting the environment, that prevent companies from going into third world countries and raping the environment. We have laws to charge them. We now have the ILO. We have signed the convention on child labour.

We are looking at many of the issues to which the NDP members have spoken, such as unfair labour practices, the environment and everything. We have laws in this country that will ensure that those companies are penalized. If they are penalized and charged their value on the stock market is practically zero.

Why are we sitting here asking that the Canada pension board be guided by ethical investment policies and telling it that it cannot do this or that? Members of that board are prudent managers and they will put the money into sound companies where they can get the best return.

I think I have already made my major point in saying why I will not support the motion put forward by the NDP. I would support the motion if it had concerned strengthening the child labour laws in third world countries. We would support a motion if it concerned enforcing environment laws for companies that rape the environment. However we will definitely not support a motion concerning some fuzzy buzzy situation about some company doing this or that.

We have other ways and means of doing those things but the motion before us today is not one of them. We should leave the Canada pension plan board to do its work. It is being run by competent people who can make the right decisions. As far as we are concerned, the board is already under severe stress and it will face more and more stress as more and more Canadians lose confidence in the Canada pension plan.

I do not have much confidence in the Canada pension plan being able to look after my retirement, and I am sure many Canadians feel the same way. As a matter of fact, some other countries are looking at ways of financing their own pension plans and many have different forms of pension plans.

A suggestion was made by the Canadian Alliance, and now by the Conservative Party, that there should be self-directed RRSPs for this thing. If our friends on the NDP side do not like one company for one reason or another, they do not have to buy stocks in that company. However to come along and try to direct the board on notions and vague ideas, that it is a mistake.

The member alluded to the Talisman being in Sudan. She should know that it was the public opinion in the country that made the Talisman move out. The Talisman moved out because its shares were not reflecting its true value. That is the public thing she should do, not come along and put forward this kind of motion.

What happened? The public put pressure on the company because its shares were not reflecting their true value. It sold a profitable business out to a company. Now what? Sudan now has a company and nobody can do anything about it. If they have anything, let the public know and if they do not want to let it ride, the shares will fall down and nobody will buy their shares.

However the NDP should not come in here with all these fuzzy words that we should not invest in the Canada pension. In all likelihood the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board will not put money into companies like the tobacco companies or companies that are building landmines. Who would want to invest in those sorts of things?

I do not know where the NDP members get their facts. Maybe they do have the facts to say that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board put money in those things. We do not even know about all those things.

It is difficult to support the motion because it is devoid of facts and has nothing to do with the reality of what is happening. It is just a motion with an idea.

As I said before, the Liberal government is facing one of the biggest scandals in the history of Canada and what do we have? We have a motion like this.

Let us talk about the scandal for a second where $100 million, boom, went down. The Minister of Environment spent money on a festival and then they start trotting out little documents saying that they sent money to other members' ridings.

Does the House know what the Liberals do? They do not for ask my approval. They send the money because they want to buy votes. They did not send the money because of some great festival. That is nonsense. It was pure vote buying. Then they say that I have seen it, that it has come across my table. The Prime Minister does not have to stand up and read it. I can tell him because I get something that says “Mr. MP, send your approval”. Even though I do not, the money gets sent anyway. They do not ask me. Then they stand up as if somehow I am associated with the scandal over there. Where does the money go? The money goes to buy votes in my riding. The Liberals were kicked out in my riding. Canadians are not foolish nor are they stupid. They know when the Liberals are trying to buy their votes.

The finance minister mentioned today that the budget that will come down on the March 23. Hopefully it will not tell Canadians that the Liberals will buy their votes by giving them goods. As a matter of fact, the member sitting across will go to Toronto and talk about the great money he will spend to do things. That is buying votes. He is being challenged in his riding.

This whole business of using Canadian taxpayer money to buy votes has to stop. Canadians are saying that, and hopefully they will say it at the polls. For the first time Canadians are showing real anger with the way the Liberals have managed the money. It is terrible the way Liberals have managed the money. The anger is coming out, and they recognize it because the polls are showing it.

We should debate in the House how best to use Canadian taxpayers money. When the Liberals mismanage it, we then stand in the House ask the questions so Canadians have the answers.

To get back to the motion, it is difficult for my party to support it. Before my friends in the NDP get up and say that the sky is falling, the sky is not falling. We have different reasons why we do not support the motion.

[Criminal Code, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 2003, I presented a petition to the House from my constituents. The petition was signed by 142 people from my riding of Calgary East. The petitioners called upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or other activities involving pedophilia are outlawed in Canada.

Other members of Parliament have presented similar petitions. This petition is the essence of what the feeling is out there. The feeling is unanimous out there that we need to protect our children. There is no other meaning. It is unanimous that the people of Canada are saying, “Let us protect our children”. We have to take that message very seriously.

Bill C-12 is an attempt to protect our children, but there are flaws in the bill that the Conservative Party cannot support. We believe the bill is not tough enough to protect our children. We get the message from our constituents, and again, that message is--let me repeat it--that we have to protect our children from sexual exploitation.

Bill C-12 does not do that on two bases. One is on the basis of what is called artistic merit. The definition of artistic merit as given by the court's decision can be interpreted as broadly as possible. That is not the message we are getting from the people of Canada. That message should be reflected in this bill: artistic merit should not be a defence for anyone who is abusing the children of Canada. Simple, point of fact, straightforward: the children of Canada need to be protected. They are children. We are their guardians. If we do not protect them, who will? We cannot have any loopholes that say there is a possibility under artistic merit or some other kind of loophole that this exploitation can take place.

I have not come into any kind of contact with child pornography, except once when the Toronto police force came to our caucus and did a presentation on child exploitation. I was stunned. One actually has to know. I commend these officers when they see this day and night. I take my hat off to them and wonder how they can sleep at night when they see all this exploitation taking place.

Those graphic pictures would have shocked anybody. It shocked me such that I got up from there with a clear cut, straightforward, simple resolve that there should be no defence whatsoever when it comes to protecting our children. They can come with any kind of defence or excuse, but it does not exist. When we look at the evidence that is gathered and when the police force show us this horrendous picture of what is happening--and it is happening--then we have to say no.

The other issue is about the age of consent. We in this country have an age of consent which, in anybody's mind, we would say is a form of sexual exploitation. How can we have 14 as an age of consent when everybody else has an age of consent ranging from 16 to 18? The age of consent should be over 16.

I do not understand why the government chose to ignore this specific issue when the former minister of justice, the member from Edmonton, stated quite clearly that she had talked to the provincial ministers and everybody agreed that the age of consent should rise.

I am sorry to say this, but when I read “exploitative” relationship, I see bureaucratic language. Exploitative relationship is bureaucratic wording. Why can we not make the bill simple and clear? We must be clear in this bill: “the age of consent should be this”. It should not say if somebody in an exploitative relationship and then go ahead and give arguments and try to define what the relationship is. All these loopholes come out of this.

Although the bill has come back from the committee, which made some recommendations for changes, the changes in this particular instance do not reflect the will of the people of Canada, which is very simple: stop completely, with no loopholes, the exploitation of the children of Canada.

My party and I will find it very difficult to support this bill.

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, first let me congratulate you on taking on the position of Assistant Deputy Chair.

When we first debated this bill in the House, this party, the former Canadian Alliance, expressed surprise that the government, despite all its resources of lawyers and bureaucrats, attempted to go through the process of changing the 50 party rule. Everybody here knew that it would not pass through the Supreme Court of Canada. We all understood that.

We are still baffled as to why a government, with such resources, would try to ram through such legislation. This is a democracy and political parties are the essence of a democracy. One would think that the government would allow a wide open area where people could, through their political parties, express whatever points of view they had. That is the essence of democracy; however, to bring in this 50 party rule is muzzling dissident opinion.

We pointed this out on many occasions. The member from Vancouver who studied this bill at length with other party members and even our former party, the PC Party, came up with the 12 person rule. This is a more reasonable figure. It allows for the concerns that the government House leader just expressed about the fraudulent use of special interest groups trying to take advantage of the bill that his government introduced recently.

A 12 person rule would have been sufficient. I am sure that if this proposal had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, it would have agreed to the 12 person rule. Now the government has received a big slap on the hands and it is one person rule. The government is now scrambling and running to do damage control.

It is interesting to hear the government House leader say that it will return to the Supreme Court for an extension of this June 2004 rule. I do not understand that. We have debated this in the House. It is going to the committee and there is no need for an extension. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled, so let us go ahead and finish this issue of registration of parties.

He mentioned that there were two pillars to this bill: party registration and anti-abuse measures. Anti-abuse provisions are quite important in any legislation that is put forward. If there were no anti-abuse provisions in a piece of legislation, one would wonder how one would implement those laws.

There are new stringent rules in Bill C-3 coming into play during election campaigns. These came into effect January 1. Nomination and founding meetings of all parties, including ours and the Liberal Party, are all subject to Bill C-3 before the election campaign begins. There are a lot of candidates and people who do not understand the provisions of Bill C-3, including people in my own riding where the nomination meeting took place last week.

I would hope that Elections Canada, which is responsible under this provision, will take these anti-abuse provisions seriously. Without that, there is no point in making bills. There is no point if Elections Canada will not take the complaints that will be coming to it seriously. If it does not, then the whole essence of the bill and what Parliament intended to do falls through the cracks.

I am hoping that Elections Canada will not pass the buck because it does not have the resources to implement the will of Parliament in this case.

Coming back to the anti-abuse provision, I think we have an agreement. I will say that the government is worried to some degree about the abuse. We are all worried about the abuse. We will look at it in committee in order to bring improvements to this, see how we can tighten the anti-abuse provision, and at the same time maintain the essence of democracy, which embodies the free opinions of Canadians.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are angry, and all I see are Liberals crying crocodile tears about how hurt they are.

I have been in Parliament for seven years. If I had ever questioned the Liberals about the sponsorship program three or four years ago, before the scandal broke out, that member would have called me an anti-Quebecer. I am not against Quebec. I have sat in Parliament and listened to those comments. Today, because the people in Quebec are angry, and she is from Quebec, they are now crying crocodile tears.

The bottom line is this. What happened to taxpayer dollars? What happened to prudent management? Those questions are being asked by Canadians.

I recently campaigned in my riding. I noted seniors were struggling, single mothers were struggling, families were struggling, veterans were struggling and students were struggling. Yet we have a program which spent $250 million.

How did this program get approved in the first place? What was the value of the program? The responsibility lies with the finance minister to have a program that benefits all Canadians.

[The Patent Act, November 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member from the NDP. While she articulates the point of view about the crisis in Africa, I find a complete irony in her presentation. She alluded to the position of the Canadian Alliance on the issue. She talked about the humanitarian report of the subcommittee on Africa. She read a letter from somebody who had been to Africa, but she forgot the fact that I grew up in Africa. I have been back to that continent many times and have seen the ravages of AIDS there. I do not need a lecture from her or her party.

I was on the foreign affairs committee when it did this report on Africa. I knew very well of the humanitarian crisis in Africa. As a matter of fact I was quite surprised that her contribution from her own party on that issue was not very strong because I have been on that committee many times.

Therefore, I would like to say to her that when she stands in the House of Commons and starts accusing anyone else, she should check her facts first before she comments on what the Alliance Party has said.

I have attended the talks by Mr. Lewis. While I understand Mr. Lewis, he was appointed by the United Nations to look at the horrendous tragedy taking place in Africa, I do not need anyone to tell me what exactly is taking place. When I see what happened 20 years ago, and when I see what is happening right now, anyone who is from that part of the continent knows the devastation.

I want to make that point clear. However, I do not want to take away from the importance of this legislation which the government has brought forward to fight this pandemic. Her party is supporting the bill. We are supporting the bill. Let us get on with the work.

[International Cooperation, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition's senior critic for international cooperation, I would like to pledge the Canadian Alliance's support for yesterday's announcement of the federal government's introduction of legislative changes to implement the August 30 agreement on access to medicines for developing countries at the World Trade Organization.

This important step taken by Canada to make a sincere commitment to fight the ravages of the HIV-AIDS pandemic is a great feat in the never ending struggle to combat this horrendous disease.

By supporting this legislation, the Canadian Alliance joins the war against HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. We owe it to future generations to ensure that diseases such as HIV-AIDS which have ravaged so many countries are brought under control.

[Income Tax Act, October 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this private member's motion, Motion No. 293. The government should celebrate and encourage Canada's magnificent and diverse culture by changing the Income Tax Act.

As the multicultural critic for the Canadian Alliance, I must start by saying our multicultural policy has been highly successful. It is viewed around the world as being one of the most progressive policies of countries that have people of different cultures living together. This of course allows an expression of culture, which is excellent, and promotes, like any other cultures, innovation and creativity. One would tend to agree with the motion because it recognizes diverse creativity among the artistic community.

A civilization's maturity is also reflected in how far it has developed its culture. Canadian culture is very highly respected around the world, be it the French culture, the English culture or the aboriginal culture. We have a diverse culture. Across this nation we see this fabulous creativity from artist from all walks of life. It is a matter of great pride and support.

We would like to support the motion wholeheartedly. However aside from the fact that we would like to support this cultural advancement, and we will support it, the difficulty with the motion is it asks that artists be treated as a special group. It asks that they have an exemption from income tax.

In many of the gripping notes I have received, mention has been made that artists have to struggle a lot before their work is recognized. I think that is a given fact not only in Canada but everywhere else. However to change the Income Tax Act to try to assist them in that way leaves us with this question. Where, how far and why only them?

I have a partial list of people with special status. It includes people with disabilities, caregivers, people employed overseas, people who have stopped earning an income, people who are buying RRSPs and so forth. It is a partial list but it is big. When we see the government using taxpayer money to promote its friends, like Bombardier and some other businesses, then one would not be surprised that somebody like my colleague from the NDP, who is from the artistic community, would also want that. There is nothing wrong in her bringing forward that motion.

We have had three private members' motions, particularly this week, asking for the same thing. As a matter of fact one of my colleagues, whom I supported, brought forward a motion asking for an exemption for firefighters. Then we had my colleague from the NDP asking for income tax exemptions for those who participate in sports. Now we have this. Where do we go from here?

The Canadian Alliance believes the solution to all this lies with having lower income tax for everybody, because every group, one way or another, has a need. A lot of seniors live in my riding. They face terrible times because of their fixed incomes. Calgary being a booming city, the rents are rising and so is everything else. They are having a hard time. Groups, such as minor hockey teams, are looking for some kind of relief. Everyone is looking for relief. How much can the pot be spread before there is nothing left?

In my party's view, a very simple solution to better address these issues would be to cut the unnecessary expenditures. Let us get rid of the boondoggles at HRDC and the gun registry. Cutting out the unnecessary expenditures would allow the Government of Canada to reduce taxes overall. Then every Canadian would benefit, be they in the artistic community, in the business community, anywhere.

An overall tax cut would give the initiative to all Canadians, including artists. It would meet the objective that my colleague has put forward to help the artists that need assistance. An overall tax reduction across the board would assist everyone, including single mothers. We seem to forget single mothers. Single mothers have a difficult time raising their children. They have jobs which do not pay enough. In my riding the last time I was out knocking on doors I came across many single mothers who had returned home to live with their parents because they could not financially make ends meet.

There are pockets of homeless people in our cities. To come up with a band-aid solution for this group or that group will not solve many of the issues. Why would we say yes to one group and no to another group? How could we differentiate between the groups? They all make a solid contribution to our Canadian mosaic.

The solution is an across the board tax reduction. That can only happen if the government controls its expenditures. If the government does not control its expenditures, then there is nothing we can do.

The same party that has put forward the motion has said that our foreign aid commitment should increase by 0.7%. That is a very nice thought, but where would the money come from? There is only one taxpayer and there are other issues to be addressed.

If the government reduced its expenditures, it would be able to reduce taxes. Then everyone in society would benefit, including the artists.

It is with difficulty that we must say we do not support the motion. It is not because we do not recognize the value of the artistic community; it is because we think a better approach would be a reduction in overall taxes.