Deepak Obhrai

[International Aid, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, next week the Chinese government is planning to launch its first manned space flight. China will be joining countries such as the Russian Federation and the United States that have accomplished this great feat.

Why does the minister not tell the Chinese government that fighting poverty in its country should be its number one priority? Why does he not do that?

[International Aid, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, CIDA gave $50 million in bilateral aid to the government of China. The government of China ranked number two on CIDA's list of countries receiving bilateral aid. At the same time, the Chinese government is spending billions of dollars on its space program.

Will the minister call on the Chinese government to do its part to reduce its own people's poverty?

[Contraventions Act, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-38, the marijuana bill.

As we look at the title of the bill, the marijuana bill, one wonders why on the eve of the Prime Minister's departure from politics we are debating a marijuana bill as if it were one of the biggest priorities we have in the country. It seems to me that if the Prime Minister and the government have brought in this bill because they have run out of ideas, then maybe the Prime Minister should just pack up and go home? Canada could then get on with the business of governing and moving forward.

When we look at the marijuana bill, the optics look good. It would decriminalize the small use of marijuana but still control it through summary fines which would not be appear on one's record.

However, as we look deeper into the bill, we realize there are serious flaws. I will point out those flaws today and give the reasons the Canadian Alliance is opposed to the bill.

In election 2000 one of the candidates running against me was a young fellow from the Marijuana Party. I actually thought he was a very intelligent gentleman. His purpose for running against me was to bring out the issue of medicinal use of marijuana.

As well, about two weeks ago a gentleman from my constituency came to my office and we discussed at length the medicinal use of marijuana. He suffers from MS and said that marijuana gives him some relief.

I want to go back to the gentleman from the Marijuana Party because he did get his point out. However it obviously was not a priority with Canadians because he hardly got any votes. This makes one wonder why the government would bring forward Bill C-38. Bill C-38 does not address the issue of medicinal use of marijuana. It just talks about removing criminal conviction for a certain amount of this thing.

When I was a student we used to ask for student discounts when we bought something because we were always short of money. It seems that kind of thinking has crept into the bureaucracy and out from bureaucracy into the bill.

A youth between the ages of 14 and 18 would actually get a discount on the fine. Can anyone believe that? An adult would have to pay $150 but a youth would only have to pay $100. The youth actually gets a student discount on fines. Something is flawed with the bill.

The government says that it will put in $10,000 for the drug strategy. The drug strategy has its own issues out here.

What is the point of the bill? It is not a priority for Canadians. There are other issues. The medicinal use of marijuana is a bigger priority than this issue. I even heard the Prime Minister talk about this bill on national television saying that we should not judge people who use small amounts of marijuana.

Now we do agree on the optics. Even the Canadian Alliance agrees but we have come up with an amount that is not quite as big as the amount in the bill. We think that having five grams should not require a criminal investigation. We understand that, however, if one is in possession of 30 grams, which is more joints, who are we pleasing?

The bigger concern we have, with the discount that I talked about, is what kind of message are we sending to our youth?

On one level we are fighting tobacco by asking people not to smoke. On another level, we are opening up other issues that go along with that, for example, after how many joints will someone become intoxicated? Will the person be driving a car and will the police have the resources to test for marijuana substance in the blood?

When we have so many other issues it becomes very difficult for someone like me, who even had, as I said, an individual run against me in my election and understood its point of view, to support the bill as it is presented.

The Alliance would like the bill to go back to the committee where we can think about it. The bureaucrats have mistakenly brought forward this bill and the Prime Minister is in a rush to push it through before he departs. Why? Only he knows the rationale for that. What is the rush? This is not a priority on the radar screen. There are many other issues that have a higher priority for Canadians, such as health care and all the other issues, than a marijuana bill.

The Canadian Alliance has called for amendments to the bill and has asked that it be sent back to the committee where we can rethink it and, when we have nothing else to do, discuss the bill again.

[International Aid, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are generous but they are not stupid. India has officially called on us to halt our aid to it. The reason for this is because it can take care of its own problems.

Why does this minister continue an aid policy that targets countries that no longer need our help, while ignoring the needy regions of Africa and Latin America?

[International Aid, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, China has recently announced that it would send three astronauts into space. If this country can spend that kind of money, it definitely does not need our aid money.

I have called before and I am calling again. Will this government stop its aid flow immediately to China and redirect it to needy areas such as Africa?

[Ogden House Seniors Association, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Ogden House Seniors Association has approximately 175 active volunteers. These volunteers help run the many programs that secure the mental, physical, emotional and social well-being of the seniors in the community. Its programs include physical activities, games, shared meals, crafts, assistance with lawn care and snow removal, and visitation for those seniors who are isolated. Volunteers pick up and return library books for those who are unable to do it themselves. These services allow seniors to stay in their homes when they might otherwise not have been able to do so.

I would like to thank the volunteers of the Ogden House Seniors Association and commend them on their efforts. Their hard work and dedication is an example for all of us.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have risen to speak to Bill C-13 because of the very strong and serious concerns we have.

This is an area of uncharted waters and the bill can have very serious ethical and moral complications. Therefore, it is very necessary, before we pass the bill, to take a step back, look at it very carefully and then decide as a society what exactly we want to do.

My colleagues on this side of the House and a number of members on the government side as well have stated their objections to the bill. This issue affects everybody. We cannot take it lightly. As I said the last time I spoke to the bill, we have some very serious concerns because we see loopholes in the bill of which individuals could take advantage and which could start us off in a direction that later on we may regret.

Let me talk about what Bill C-13 is about. It is about human cloning. It is about reproductive technology. These are the issues now before the Canadian Parliament. A commission has looked into this, with the former prime minister's wife as one of the commissioners. Our former leader, Mr. Preston Manning, spent a huge amount of time studying this topic. Because of the concerns that have arisen with the bill and the loopholes that exist, members on all sides of the House of Commons, from all parties, are expressing serious concern.

As I mentioned, there are loopholes. They give us an uneasy feeling. I do not understand why we cannot have very tight controls on this until we are positive and we know in which direction we are going with research. Why would the government not put those controls in place? We do not know.

Even with what is happening at the United Nations, what the government is trying to do, we do not know. An international convention to ban human cloning is being debated at the United Nations right now. One resolution, which is backed by the U.S. and several other countries, calls for a comprehensive ban on all human cloning, reproductive and therapeutic. That would be consistent with what the government is trying to do with Bill C-13, which would prohibit the creation of human cloning by any technique. That is fair enough, but there is another resolution out there, which calls for a ban on only reproductive cloning. Strangely enough, the government is supporting that resolution.

On one hand the government is supporting a resolution that calls for a complete ban on cloning, but on the other hand it is supporting another resolution that says the ban is only for reproductive cloning. Why this double standard? What is the government trying to say? We just do not seem to understand the direction the government is taking.

As my colleague who spoke before me said, the government is now trying to ram through the bill because I guess the Prime Minister wants to leave a legacy. It is on his agenda and he wants to do it, but it may have serious implications in the future. We wonder why we cannot debate the bill. Why can the bill not go back to the committee? Why can all these loopholes we have indicated not be tightened? Why can it not be explained to us exactly what the government's agenda is? We seem to be getting conflicting reports.

For example, in May 2001 the former minister of health supported an international convention to prevent human cloning. The resolution said no more human cloning and everybody agreed with that. Speaking in Geneva at the meeting of the WHO, the former minister gave his support for a resolution condemning cloning as “ethically unacceptable and contrary to human dignity”.

We have conflicting messages coming from the government. It does not know in which direction it wants to go or what it wants to do. Therefore, Canadians are a little wary. We are wary of the bill. Where is the bill going? It becomes even more disturbing to us with the loophole I have mentioned.

Is it on the government's agenda to allow therapeutic cloning to go ahead? If it is on the government's agenda, then it should say that so Canadians can know exactly what the government means. What does the government want with the bill? Why create a bill that has loopholes? Why go to the UN with two different positions? Nobody knows where Canada stands on this issue. We have to wonder what the government's hidden agenda is. Even the government members who are opposing this legislation do not seem to know where their government is headed on this issue.

As I have said, human cloning, being a new technology, goes against all ethical and moral teachings in society. We of course do know that stem cells have a very strong research value. We also know that stem cell research is needed because of its very good therapeutic advantages. But those are adult stem cells.

It is time for us to take a step back and say we should not have human cloning but we should go ahead with adult stem cell research. That way, we will know precisely where we are going and when we go into these uncharted waters we will know in which direction we are going. Why would we try to navigate uncharted waters and find ourselves beached in an area where we never wanted to go?

We have all heard of the lady in Paris who said her group had attempted to clone the first human being, but we now know that story was not true. That lady in Paris said her group had done the first human cloning. I am certainly glad it did not happen. Of course we all know the story of Dolly the sheep. Do we really need to go that way?

I can say without a doubt that Canadians do not accept human cloning in any capacity. The majority does not. We do not want to go into that area. Since we do not, we need to stand up and say in the clearest terms that we will not accept any bill that has the potential, as Bill C-13 does, for loopholes that can lead us in that direction.

In conclusion, my party will not agree with Bill C-13 because of our reservations.

[Income Tax Act, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Lethbridge who has brought forward this private member's bill, Bill C-325, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service).

For my good friend, my colleague from Lethbridge, whose riding encompasses a lot of rural areas, this is extremely important. Volunteers are extremely important in rural areas as they man emergency services and are providing the quality of life and that valuable service which otherwise would be extremely costly for Canadian taxpayers. These individuals are volunteers in our rural communities who are manning emergency services. My colleague and everybody who lives in rural Canada recognize the importance of these individuals to their well-being and safety.

My colleague introduced Bill C-325 because, first, he feels there is a need to recognize these people and he actually wants to recognize the importance of the volunteer men and women in emergency services and our dependency on their services. Second, he wants to attract and retain volunteers in a time in which they are increasingly difficult to recruit. Third, he wants to compensate these courageous individuals for their efforts in providing a safe environment for people in rural Canada.

Let us talk about these three points in detail. Let us talk about the importance of volunteer men and women in emergency services. As I said in my earlier remarks, emergency services are very costly services to provide in small rural communities. These individuals who have dedicated their time and training and who work in emergency services, which we all know adds an element of danger to their lives as well, are unsung heroes in their communities.

It is time for us to recognize them. It is time for us to stop, look and see what they are doing. Volunteerism is a very important factor in Canada. This afternoon, in an S.O. 31, I also will speak about volunteers in Canada. Canada is considered the number one country in the world because of volunteers. Volunteers span the whole country from east to west; every community has its volunteers. It is very important that we as public policy makers recognize that those who volunteer their time for the betterment of others should receive recognition and our thanks. We recognize their contributions and this is a very small way of recognizing their contributions.

All we are asking is that the workers be allowed to deduct $3,000 from their taxable incomes from any source. It would help them in many aspects. It would help them in regard to recognition. It would be a small token of appreciation from Canada. It would be a little extra money for their services so that they would feel important, because they are important, and they would recognize that we have not forgotten them.

It is important for us to recognize our volunteers. Volunteerism is the essence of Canadian society. It is the stronghold and foundation of our society. It is what brings us the quality of life such that we are recognized around the globe as the number one country in the world.

In these difficult times we must also look at retaining volunteers. There are pressures of time at their work and for their children. All these things put extra pressure on people, who find that they now have less free time on their hands in which to volunteer.

Therefore, the first thing they will drop is volunteerism, because at the end of the day nobody wants to be burnt out. Those of us who come in daily contact with volunteers know that many of them are already burnt out, but they keep on working for that quality of life.

We must ensure that we do not lose this vital component of our society in Canada, volunteerism, and the best way to do that is to ensure that volunteers feel important, feel that they are part of society and feel recognized. Giving them a tax deduction is an aspect of letting them know that they are a very vital part of the community.

As we have stated, emergency services are considered essential services. Our laws ensure that people in emergency services are always available to provide those very needed services and safety features. So it is with volunteers too. We must make sure that is recognized. We must work to ensure that volunteers are available, because if they are not, then what do we do? Would it mean that these services would be reduced? That is not an acceptable option. Otherwise it would be a very expensive situation for us. A $3,000 tax deduction is not a very big sum of money. It would be a very small token of appreciation for these people.

Third, these are courageous people who have families and other work. They take time off from their work and their families to perform these services as well. They would welcome this reward, which would recognize those who volunteer their time and would make sure that those who live in rural communities or anywhere else have that level of comfort in knowing that emergency services are available in times of difficult situations.

Giving tax benefits is one of the small ways in which we can recognize those who provide services for society. We as politicians have given tax deductions, and generous tax deductions as a matter of fact, to those who contribute to political parties because we recognize the importance of political parties to the democratic system of our country. Hence, we have a system where we recognize quite generously those who donate to political parties. I do not see anything wrong with it. As a matter of fact, developing the system through Bill C-24, which is coming out, where the taxpayer now will foot the bill, is a recognition of the value of democracy in our country.

Here is one of the essential elements, providing volunteers, a vital service, at no cost to the taxpayer. So the recognition of a tax deduction of $3,000 would go a long way. We all know that to get a tax deduction based on one's income, it starts from 18% and goes up. It is not a very generous amount that would cost the Government of Canada a lot of money. The alternative is more expensive.

Therefore, I do not see why we would have difficulty in agreeing to the bill. It is not a big sum of money. It is not going to impact the finance minister's books. As a matter of fact, the government wastes more money on other things like the HRDC boondoggle and the gun registry. They have spent more money wasting it on those things, so why can we not recognize the people who really count, who make our country number one, with this small token of appreciation?

It is my pleasure to support my colleague's bill recognizing these individuals.

[Hiv-Aids, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, having witnessed firsthand the ravages of AIDS in Africa, the Canadian Alliance Party and I would like to join the worldwide call to address the HIV-AIDS crisis through cheaper drugs.

During my visit to Kenya where I spent considerable time, I saw how in a few short years AIDS had become a human tragedy, leaving behind orphans, widows and economic slowdown.

The Canadian Alliance supports efforts by the government to facilitate the delivery of drugs to developing countries to deal with public health emergencies, such as the HIV crisis in Africa.

Our party also believes that we as policy makers must strike a balance between developing new drugs and providing those drugs at affordable prices.

People's lives are at stake. Canada has always stood with the disadvantaged. The time has come for Canada to stand again and take a lead.

[Appointment of Judges, September 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Motion No. 288. For those individuals who are looking in on this debate today, I wish to explain that the motion is asking the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the process by which judges are appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.

An independent judiciary is one of the most important pillars for a stable society anywhere in the world. As my colleagues from the Bloc have mentioned, not only should justice be seen to be done, it must also be perceived as being fair. Ordinary Canadians must be able to put their full confidence in a judiciary system and expect judgments to be fair and right.

Canada has a good judiciary system and Canadians do have confidence in it. However, after the charter of rights was introduced Canadians are now perceiving judges as reading into the laws of this land. Our Constitution gives Parliament the power to make laws. The judiciary has the paramount duty of ensuring that those laws that are passed in this Parliament are administered fairly across this nation. That is democracy.

Recently, judgments that have come forward have raised questions as to how far the power in the judiciary or Parliament can go in interpreting laws. On many occasions this has been a cause of serious concern in many parts of this country. Are justices of the Supreme Court going too far?

Since there is so much power overlapping in some cases and since judges influence the laws passed by elected officials, we should look at the process of appointing judges more openly. Hence the motion brought in by my colleague from the Bloc.

As the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his speech, the Prime Minister of Canada appoints judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. The bottom line is quite simple. He can consult with individuals, but nothing in the act says he must follow their advice. At the end of the day he is solely responsible for appointing them. That is quite a lot of power in a society as ours with such regional diversity across this nation. One has to wonder why a Prime Minister would have so much power to shape the direction of society by appointing the kind of judges he liked to the Supreme Court.

Examples in the past have indicated that Conservative Party prime ministers appointed Conservative judges to the Supreme Court while Liberal prime ministers appointed Liberal judges.

Well let us just say this. Canadians do not want Liberal or Conservative judges. They want competent judges. They want judges who are not tied to any political party so that they can make fair and square judgments upon which Canadians can rely.

Such as with the last appointment made to the Supreme Court of Canada, it always comes down that there is somewhere along the line a Liberals Party connection. Formerly there would have been a Conservative Party connection when the Conservatives were in power under Brian Mulroney.

It begs a simple question. Why can we not have a transparent, independent system? The motion calls for that. Let us send it to the committee. Let us look at it.

At the end of the day, the beneficiary of this motion, the beneficiary of an open and transparent system, is the Canadian public, Canadian society. The primary reason we are in the House of Commons is to address the issues that Canadian society wants us to address.

I fail to understand why anybody would not want to look at the system and try to improve upon it to give it more accountability and to make sure that there are good candidates.

Let me say right now it is not my view that there are any bad candidates on the Supreme Court. All we are saying is it is time to look at the process. We must ensure that the process is one with which Canadians are extremely comfortable and which has a fair and equitable system of appointing judges to the bench. That is all the motion is asking for and I will be supporting the motion fully.