Deepak Obhrai

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize again the question that has come up on Bill C-24 from my constituents which the government should answer. The bottom line is simply, why should the taxpayers pay their hard-earned money to the political parties? That is the question they are asking.

Before question period I was talking about the bureaucracy that will be created by the bill. As my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley said, community associations would have to put up with this bureaucracy and they are volunteers. Why are we placing such a huge burden on volunteers? Are they to become partial bureaucrats, unpaid bureaucrats, because they are in favour of the ruling party and they can get money out of this? The people of Calgary East are asking those questions.

In conclusion, the people of Calgary East are opposed to the bill. Therefore, I would like to make the point on their behalf that I am also opposed to the bill.

[Canada Elections Act, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24. This is the second time I have spoken to the bill and it is because of my great concern about it.

I was quite surprised to hear the previous speaker from the government side say that there was wide support for Bill C-24. I have not received a single phone call in my riding of Calgary East in favour of the bill. I have received numerous phone calls opposed to it.

My constituents want to know why taxpayers should finance political parties, a simple question. Hard earned taxpayer dollars will be used to finance political parties. Taxpayers work hard for their money. The government is supposed to tax them for services that improve their quality of life, not send it down. The government is not supposed to play politics with their lives. As I said already, taxpayers cannot understand why they should have to pay for political parties. I cannot answer them.

This government calls itself the natural governing party of Canada. Those Liberal are the ones who have benefited the most out of this whole political financial system. They are the ones who have created it over the years. There are some flaws and there does need to be improvements, but why transfer this burden to taxpayers?

A phenomenon is occurring quite often these days. Somebody needs more money so the government transfers it to them, and this is called user fees. Canadians will tell us that user fees have taken off and there is no accountability. Any organization can charge a user fee and there is no stopping that. My colleague on the other side has a bill before the House, which I am supporting. It tries to bring some accountability to user fees. Bill C-24 is like a user fee.

What is stopping the government from raising the bar and having taxpayers paying money to political parties? There was a revolt in the Liberal Party, and what did the Prime Minister do to pacify those members? He raised the limit. Where does it stop? It will just keep going on and on. It is like giving a blank cheque to the government. With the government's record and when it suits it politically, it will do anything to keep an interest in that file. To Hell with ethics an to Hell with political acumen.This has been the government's record.

Does the government talk about patronage? With regard to Elections Canada, has the government brought in any reform in reference to returning officers? No, it has not. I bet most Canadians do not know that returning officers can only be appointed by the ruling party and nobody else. The government does not want to clean that up.

The government does not want to remove the 50 candidate rule because it benefits the most and it does not want any competition. It does not want to talk about secret trust funds. It also does not want to talk about third party responsibility. If Canadians came to know about that, they would demand change and more accountability. Who does it benefit? It benefits that government over there.

I was amazed to hear the last speaker say that we on this side of the House were attacking the government and that we were being partisan. We are being partisan? Look at the bill and the essence and the intent of it. What does the Prime Minister say about this bill? That it will be influenced by corporations and trade unions.

What does the bill do? There will be a $5,000 limit for individuals and a $1,000 limit for corporations. I am an elected member of Parliament. I go out and solicit campaign funds. Generally Canadians will give $20, $25, $100 or $150. The average Canadian does not give $5,000 to political parties. Only rich Canadians and corporations can afford to give $5,000. Because they give $5,000, why would they not have undue influence? The Prime Minister says that he wants to eliminate that by this bill? It is the same thing. They have just twisted it around so their rich buddies can give them $5,000. It has not changed, it will just be taken away from the corporations.

The essence of not having an influence on this is a counterproductive argument. That is why Canadians ask this simple question. Why should they pay? Why should taxpayers pay for political parties?

This bill also would create an expensive bureaucracy, as my colleague from Surrey just said. Riding associations will require a tremendous amount of reporting to fulfill their bureaucratic requirements. We will be creating a huge bureaucracy with huge reporting requirements.

[Free Trade Agreements, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 391 brought forward by the member for Joliette. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, any free trade agreement entered into by Canada, whether bilateral or multilateral, must include rules for the protection of foreign investments which do not violate the ability of parliamentary and government institutions to act, particularly on behalf of the common good, and must exclude any investor-state redress provisions and consequently, the Canadian government must enter into negotiations with its American and Mexican partners with a view to bringing the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, in line with the aforementioned principles.

Two or three weeks ago at the Tory convention, NAFTA seemed to be popping up again. NAFTA has had a major impact on Canada and its policies and is one of those driving forces that is now recognized by everyone for its tremendous benefits, which have come to Canada, the United States and Mexico. Of course there need to be adjustments and there have been adjustments.

When I was in Mexico, the people there needed adjustments as well and had some concerns, but overall, in speaking with people in Mexico, with officials in Mexico and with officials in Canada and in the U.S.A., I would say there is no denial of the fact that NAFTA has worked for the benefit of all three countries.

We need a rules based system because we are a small country with a small population but big resources. It is critically important for our size, for our values, that we have a rules based system where we can trade freely. The softwood lumber and other trade disputes taking place and the GMO issue with the European Union all indicate that larger economies do have the clout that can force smaller economies to the side if we do not have a rules based system, hence the desire of all these countries around the world, approximately 180 of them, to be members of the WTO. They want a rules based system that will protect their economies and give them the advantage, now proven, that freer trade provides as it assists economies, assists people and assists countries in coming out of their poverty. Let us look at what has happened to the economies of China and India after they came into the world market.

NAFTA is one of those agreements which has shown that a free trade agreement can work to the benefit of countries. What is chapter 11? Chapter 11 is basically about national treatment which mandates that foreign based companies should be treated the same as domestic companies unless compensated. That is the bottom line. That gives assurances to foreign investors that if they come here, yes, they will be treated as Canadian companies. What is wrong with them being treated as a Canadian company? I do not understand why we cannot treat foreign companies as Canadian companies.

I have here a letter from the Canadian Labour Congress, which opposes this. In reading this, I cannot really understand all the points except for the fact that the congress is against globalization and for protectionism. Being a labour congress, it wants to protect its labour interests. Nevertheless, it cannot convince me as to why it is against chapter 11.

It is interesting to look at Africa, where countries now want foreign investment where there was nationalization, where foreign investment companies were taken over. The president of Uganda has come out with a proposal asking that insurance companies insure investments in the country so that should something happen due to civil war or anything and foreign investors were to lose their investments, insurance companies would now compensate. That is one way of giving confidence to foreign investors: telling them that their investment going into the country is protected in the same way we in Canada want protection for our companies.

Canadian companies have taken tremendous advantage of NAFTA and have done extremely well, both in NAFTA as well as in going out. It has benefited all of us. This foreign investment provision also applies equally, as my Liberal colleague just mentioned, to Canadian companies when they invest overseas. It is not only what is coming in that we are worried about; it is also foreign investment going out, with Canadian companies investing outside of Canada. They also need foreign protection.

Henceforth it becomes pretty difficult to see this argument against NAFTA, against this investment provision. We saw what happened in the Tory convention. It is a party that proudly credits itself for bringing in free trade, considering that Mr. Mulroney at one time was opposed. He saw the merit of it, though, being a businessman, and did it. He did it and the Tories take credit for it. Of course the Liberals opposed it, but once in government they saw the merits of it. Now of course, as we heard, they are big proponents of NAFTA because it has proven to be a very successful trade agreement. Sure, there can be little ifs, ands, or buts here and there, but they easily can be taken care of.

In this letter I got from the Canadian Labour Congress, it says, interestingly, that up to now only eight times has Canada been taken on in this issue. We do business worth billions of dollars a day. According to the congress, it was also on environmental regulations, but the issue is that those regulations that should apply to foreign based countries apply equally to the Canadian companies. It is not that foreign based companies are being given some special treatment. No, they have to follow the same rules.

So where does the problem lie here? The problem does not lie in chapter 11. The problem lies in how the government handled that issue. It mishandled it and will end up paying for it. Why should chapter 11 be made the scapegoat for it? We do billions of dollars worth of business every day, and what we are talking about is a minuscule amount. I would not say it should be disregarded, but the government must see how it has mishandled all these cases and must not do it next time. As for the balance, where payments were given up, such as on the MMT case and so on, responsibility lies with how the government handled it. This provision just provides protection to foreign investors as well as Canadians.

Again I must say there is no argument that NAFTA is one of those agreements that everybody looks upon and says it has worked very successfully. And as for free trade, countries are working very hard on their foreign policies to ensure that they benefit from free trade. In conclusion, I must say that it is very difficult for the Canadian Alliance to support this motion.

[International Aid, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis of malnutrition and disease is reaching an epidemic proportion around the world.

Canada can play a very important role in helping alleviate this crisis and yet spending much needed funds in countries that can take care of themselves is a waste of precious resources.

Why does CIDA continue with this policy? Why?

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, Japan is in that part of the world. Taiwan and China are its neighbours. If Japan can stand up on principle, I do not see why Canada cannot stand up on principle as we espouse the same principles and same values too.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is very simple. Over 50% of the members in the House, 161 members, signed in favour of Taiwan's application to the WHO. Obviously they cannot only be members of the opposition. It also had to be members of the governing party, the majority members. Where are those members? I hope they will vote for this motion.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, Canada has a huge Taiwanese community. They are Canadians and they expect us to do something. We cannot ignore this. We cannot sit here and ignore the wishes of a segment of Canadians who happen to be of Taiwanese origin. It is the desire of a lot of Canadians, not just those of Taiwanese origin but those of other nationalities as well, who see the need for Taiwan to be a member of the WHO so its 22 million people can benefit from it. That is one reason.

Second, Taiwan is one of our major economic partners. We have to admit that this nation made up of 22 million people has made tremendous economic progress. It is our second largest trading partner. Canada also has a vested interest in seeing that the Taiwanese benefit from the WHO and from world services. At the same time, we must also see that there is the political situation of helping them. This is not China bashing. It is saying that there is a need to look at this in a different perspective. It should be Canada's responsibility to champion this cause as opposed to just staying neutral. Yes, there is a need to make an argument as to why Taiwan should be a member of the WHO.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

When I was the trade critic, I was an adamant supporter of China joining the WTO. I felt that as a great nation China should be a member of the world community and I supported its application to join the WTO. As such, the world also welcomed China into the community of nations. On the other hand, there was also an expectation that China then would take on its responsibilities as a member of the world community. As a member of the world community, there are responsibilities, which include making rational decisions and not trying to be living in the old culture that it was. The SARS crisis indicates why that kind of regime cannot be and will not be accepted in the world.

China has made tremendous economic progress by joining the WTO and is now becoming a critically important member of the world community, including in that region. It will become a powerhouse in that region, but first, it cannot act as a bully, and second, it cannot still be living in a closed society, thinking that whatever happens inside China will have no impact outside China. That is not going to happen, because China is now a member of the world community, period. It is simple.

The SARS crisis has indicated that very clearly. China's reluctance to say that there was a SARS crisis in the country has spread this disease across the world. If China had taken very strong steps in the SARS crisis, as is expected of all communities, then in this whole crisis there may have been fewer deaths, who knows. But the responsibility still lies with China. It must understand that politics should be put aside, that it is now a grown nation, a powerful nation, and that it should view this whole issue with a different perspective.

What I do not understand, even now, is that for a nation that is reaching out and saying Taiwan is its province, that it wants to overtake Taiwan, there is the very strange behaviour of the government of China in stopping 22 million Taiwanese citizens from benefiting from the services of the World Health Organization. What is so political about it? Nothing. This is for the benefit of the people of Taiwan, but here is a government that wants to represent them and it is denying them all of this. This boggles everyone's mind.

Yes, I have listened to the political speeches. I know the political arguments. No one has to tell me about the political arguments. I have been to APEC meetings. I have seen how the Chinese work. I have been to Taiwan. I have talked with the academics in Taiwan. I know what they feel. I am very well versed in the politics of the whole situation. What I do not understand is the reluctance of China to let Taiwan become a member of the WHO. We have precedents. The Palestinians are there and the Holy See is there, so what is the actual motive of China in saying no?

Why do I keep repeating this? This is not a China bashing speech. I am just pointing out the facts. Why do I keep repeating this about China? It is because the Government of Canada, regretfully, is afraid to stand up to China because of various reasons, be they economic, political or whatever. The Canadian government does not want to rock the boat. Those mandarins sitting in the foreign affairs department do not want to rock the boat and have given instructions on this. It is as simple as that. Yet countries or anyone logically looking at this application cannot find a sound reason why Taiwan should not be a member of the WHO. Why should 22 million people not be able to directly participate and take advantage of the services of the WHO?

I would say that one of the reasons, which I personally agree with, is that the 22 million people of Taiwan should be the ones to decide who is going to rule them and who is going to do that. They should make the choice, not someone from outside, but that is not the debate today. The debate today is about this point-blank simple fact: Why is China stopping Taiwan from joining the WHO and why is the Government of Canada following along and not agreeing to this motion? Even its own members have said they do, with 161 MPs stating they will support this application.

In conclusion, I say to the government members that they, like the opposition, support the people of Taiwan who do not want politics at this stage. The people of Taiwan want Taiwan to be a member of the WHO so they can participate in the world affairs of health, across the world.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and speak on this motion which basically speaks about Taiwan joining the WHO.

I was listening to the questions the parliamentary secretary was asking colleagues on this side. It seems to me from her questions that the government has made up its mind to oppose the motion, which is a tragedy, because people on this side, and including members of her own government, are in agreement that Taiwan should be a member of the WHO.

As a matter of fact, I can say that I know the parliamentary secretary very well and I respect her extremely. I can say in all honesty that if she were not a parliamentary secretary she would be supporting the motion, but because of the government she is not.

Nevertheless, in order to answer my colleague from the Bloc who spoke just before me on the question of what the real motive of the government is in not supporting the motion, of course it is the government's one China policy. Where did the government's one China policy come from? It is tragic that this is coming down to an issue in which the basic bottom line is politics.

My colleague mentioned certain reasons as to why he thought the government, with its one China policy, was opposing the motion. He indicated economic interests. However, I would like to state from a different perspective what basically has happened. As we all know, in the past for a long time China was in isolation. It developed its processes, its country and everything in isolation under Communist rule and saw the world with a different vision, a vision of suspicion and mistrust, and I would say that insecurity still exists with the current leaders of the People's Republic of China.

This is a tragic situation, because we all know China is a land of great civilization. China has nothing to be ashamed of. It is a great, proud country. Its people are very resourceful. It has given the world a tremendous civilization and it should be standing very proudly on its achievements.

However, this insecurity seems to go on, manifested in recent years when China has taken one step toward joining the world community. We can see it in its handling of the whole Taiwan issue, the nitpicking of the small issues on Taiwan about its membership in WHO. Basically anybody looking at this issue in depth will know that it would benefit mankind, it would benefit humanity and it would benefit 22 million people living on an island.

What is the downside? There is no downside to Taiwan joining the WHO. The only downside is that it is going to hurt the pride of those old leaders in China.

[Income Tax Act, April 9th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-432, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Old Age Security Act (seniors' windfall exemption).

Mr. Speaker, the bill would provide a once in a lifetimeexemption with respect to an insurance policy or an RRSP payout that is received by a senior who is receiving income from the guaranteed income supplement or the old age security program.

The payout would be subject to income tax but would not be considered an increase in the annual income of a senior and therefore would not result in a clawback of income received from the guaranteed income supplement or old age security.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)