Deepak Obhrai

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise again to speak on Bill C-13. This is the third time I have spoken on the bill. My colleagues before me have eloquently elaborated the concerns and problems they have with the bill. I would like to re-emphasize exactly what they are saying, because this is one of those new areas, new science, that we are going into, and it causes a great deal of concern to Canadians and to everyone around the world.

Last time I spoke, I mentioned the news about human cloning that had come at the beginning of the year, which shocked everybody around the world and once again brought to our attention the question of where we are going with this bill and with this technology. This technology has the potential of going in any direction if it is not checked or regulated. As such, by itself, having the bill brought in front of Parliament is a good thing. It is an attempt to regulate this new science that has the potential of either bringing forth a Frankenstein or, as said by my colleague who spoke last, being a huge benefit to humankind.

There is no debate about what stem cells can do and how beneficial they are to people who are suffering from diseases. Therefore, I do not think there is any debate coming along and saying we do not want stem cell research. The issue that comes out here is which direction we should go to. Because this is a new technology, it is better to err in favour of caution than to go ahead and blindly move into this science and then have to face the consequences further down the road. The consequences could be horrendous because we are talking about the science of cloning, the science of human beings, the basic structure of human beings.

Today we are speaking on the Group No. 2 amendments brought forward by the member for Mississauga South. I am glad that he has brought forward these concerns, because, like everyone else in the House, he has listened to the people and as such has brought his point of view forward in these amendments, most of which the Canadian Alliance will support.

We have two issues in his Group No. 2. One is that the member for Mississauga South has brought forward Motion No. 13 which intends to make it absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms, what human cloning is and which direction we will take. The majority of it is saying to proceed with caution, that this is an area where we must tread very slowly and very carefully because of the potential for not knowing what will happen.

My colleague from Calgary Southeast has brought forward Motion No. 17, which says the same thing. He is expressing an absolute concern saying that he does not wish to take the route of cloning, period. That is his motion. It is a motion that I will support. I do not think I want to take the route of cloning.

We do have the issue of stem cell research, adult and embryonic. Right now the adult stem cell research that is going on has a lot of potential. Whose potential? We have not actually evaluated or seen how deep the potential can go.

Perhaps it will answer a lot of the questions we are asking more specifically on using stem cells to assist people who have diseases such as cancer. If we have not yet examined the potential of stem cell research, then why do we want to go into the arena of cloning when we do not know where it is going?

The motion put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast which calls for a total ban on this route of embryonic cloning research is fine. We wish to support it. The Canadian Alliance put forward amendments at the committee stage saying that there should be a three year stopgap. In that way we could see in which direction we were going with stem cell and adult stem cell research. Down the road we could slowly and distinctly see its impact and maybe never have to resort to cloning. I am sure the majority of Canadians do not want to go the route of cloning.

Canadians are aware, as are we, that the health benefits of this kind of research are very good and that scientists need these routes and in wanting to go down these routes they have good intentions of assisting in the cure of diseases. Nevertheless, as those who make laws and regulations we need to use caution on this issue because this is one of the sciences that we do not know which way it will go.

I rose to speak to the bill to express the concerns that we have. I hope that when the time comes to vote on the bill, the government will allow a free vote so Canadians can, through their elected representatives, express their points of view on the bill.

[Criminal Code, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is nice to see you in the Chair. I thought I would give you a little practice standing up and sitting down in working as the Speaker. I want to congratulate you on that.

[Criminal Code, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-280, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife), put forward by my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley. This is my second time speaking on the bill because I view the bill to be of the highest importance and I would like to commend my colleague for bringing forward this private member's initiative to address this issue.

Her major concern has been the selling of wildlife, especially bears, which impacts Canada in regard to the parts of bears that are illegally sold all over the world. I was reading a publication by an investigative network of the Humane Society of the United States and the Humane Society International about the global underground trade in bear parts. It gives a pretty terrible picture of what is happening in Canada and around the world in the illegal trade of bear parts, which are traded for medicinal purposes.

The headline of this document is “Forest to Pharmacy: Canada's Underground Trade in Bear Parts”. It outlines in detail the laws of other countries to stem this terrible tragedy that takes place in our forests and with wildlife across the world. Based on this book, this trade is not specifically restricted only to North America. It takes place all over the world, but because we have a large bear population this has a major impact in Canada as well. As recently as about a week ago, a documentary on television indicated that there is poaching and killing of grizzly bears in Alberta. Forestry roads allow access to the bears and so also give access to those who are illegally trading in bear parts.

In my last speech, I talked about having grown up in a country that has wildlife as one of its natural resources and where poaching plays a major role. Around the world there have been attempts to stop this trade when animals become endangered. We have seen some successful programs, especially in Africa in dealing with the elephants, and with other animals, for example, the tigers in Asia.

Now we have to look at this and see what is happening with the bears and this illegal trading. In my point of view, we need to take two levels of approach. One level of approach is what my colleague is doing in trying to strengthen the laws so that our conservation officers have the tools and the mechanism to fight this illegal trading in bear parts. It is commendable that my colleague has brought forward the bill and it is to be hoped that the government sees why my colleague brought it forward, because there is a heavy, heavy concern.

I think that Canadians in general do not seem to recognize or to know that there is a vast illegal trade in bear parts going on around the world. If they did, they would rise up in anger. They would demand that the government take some action. That is why this has been brought in front of the House of Commons to be debated: so that government can take some action on the legislative front to give our officers the tools they need to bring to justice those who are breaking these rules and engaging in this horrible crime where bears are killed, killed only for their gall bladders and for their paws, because there is a perception that it gives some kind of vitality to life.

For our part, we need to work hard to ensure that laws are there. On the other side, too, we need to get on to the educational front. I am glad that the humane society and the animal welfare people are bringing this issue to Canadians.

Also, the other aspect is for the government to work more closely with other governments, and in this particular instance, the governments in Asia where these parts are in demand. Asia has a market for them, and as other previous experiences in wildlife management have shown, if there is a market for these parts it is difficult to stop the poaching and the killing. The only successful programs are those which have gone to the root cause, the market. In this case, we have to do the same thing. I think we need to talk with governments in countries where markets are thriving. We need to go on an educational spree in that part of the world and we need to let them know that they are not taking the right approach, that this is killing wildlife. We need to ask them what benefits they are deriving out of this.

A two-way approach needs to be worked out. If we go on an educational spree, people will start to look at this issue and the market will start to decline. If the market declines and it is no longer profitable to kill a bear for its parts, for example, then we will have done a tremendous justice.

That is not to set aside the fact that we are trying to bring in a bill in this Parliament dealing with this issue. I am happy to note that the bill is a votable bill, so that all members of Parliament who look at this will recognize why this legislative assembly needs to give tools to our officers to stop this trade. Again, as I say, it does not mean that at the end of the day we do not try to stop the market. With the combination of these two approaches, the bill and the education, we will have done justice to our future generations by protecting our wildlife species.

With that, I again congratulate my colleague from South Surrey--White Rock--Langley for bringing forward the bill. I hope that when it comes to the House for a vote it will receive the unanimous approval of all members of Parliament and we will act on this.

[Foreign Affairs, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Chinese minister in charge of religious affairs visited Canada. Canadians continue to be concerned with human rights violations in China. Falun Gong practitioners are still being prosecuted there. Recently a Buddhist Tibetan monk was executed.

I wish to ask the government if it took this opportunity to tell the Chinese that Canada views these human rights violations with serious concern and that they must be stopped.

[Volunteers, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians across this country contribute silently to the well-being of their community. Our country is blessed with these individuals. I am lucky to have these dedicated Canadians living in my riding of Calgary East.

Today, I would like to acknowledge their contributions to strengthening the communities in my riding.

I wish to congratulate and thank the presidents, past presidents, executives, past executives, board members, past board members and thousands of volunteers of the following community associations: Abbeydale, Albert Park, Applewood, Dover/West Dover, Erinwoods, Forest Heights, Forest Lawn, Inglewood, Lynnwood Ridge, Marlborough, Marlborough Park, Mayland Heights, Ogden, Penbrooke Meadows, Radisson Heights and Southview

We all appreciate their contributions to Canada's well-being.

[Divorce Act, February 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on Bill C-22, the Divorce Act amendments.

First I would like to say that my colleague from Prince George—Peace River has taken the initiative to ensure that the voices of Canadians and everybody were heard when the bill was being formulated and will be heard as it is going to be formulated when it goes to the committee.

I have listened with interest to my colleague from the Liberal side as well as my colleague from the Progressive Conservative side. Both have articulated a very good point, especially the Liberal member from Sarnia when he said that the bill seems to have been drafted by the lawyers in the justice department without major input from the people of Canada, which would be through the House of Commons. Therefore I thought it was important for me to stand up and speak on the bill.

Why do I think it is important? Let me start by saying that for the last three to four years I have received representations in my office from frustrated people who are in divorce proceedings, whose marriage, for whatever reason, has broken down. They have come to my office and have expressed frustration about the Divorce Act and about the way the courts have acted and have passed judgment.

I had a town hall meeting where I wanted to discuss the issues that were in front of Parliament. I was surprised at the number of grandparents who came, pleading that we do something so that grandparents will have access to the children. At the end of the day, grandparents do have a right to their grandchildren.

In regard to these proceedings, we have a lot of experience. We have seen what happened in the past. We know that on many occasions when divorce proceedings take place it is not harmonious. It is a split that leaves bitter feelings. These feelings tend to be used against the children, who become pawns for revenge purposes, regrettably. As many members will know, even in the last year or so in Calgary we have had cases where parents have taken the lives of small children so they could get revenge against the other partner. What a tragedy, Mr. Speaker.

This calls for Parliament, for the people, to look at this issue, because divorce is on the rise. It is a fact of life. There are single parents out there and we need to listen to them and address this issue, because it is there. It is not going to go away. It is not going to be hidden under the carpet. If we are going to leave it to the unelected officials, to the courts, to create the rules or regulations or laws for this, then we are doing a huge disservice to Canadians.

During election 2000 when I went door knocking, I was stunned and amazed at how many times I met single mothers with children. They had returned home to stay with their parents. In talking to them, I heard their frustration with trying to raise the children by themselves. If statistics are anything to go by, for the majority of children who live in poverty it is because of the single parent. Due to the breakup of marriages, single parenting is what is sending children into poverty.

In the budget the government has said it is going to spend so much money for child poverty. Fair enough. Agreed. It is a good point, but the fact of the matter is that we should go to the root cause one step behind this, to where it is coming from. It is coming from single parenting.

How do we address the issue? It goes back to the divorce cases. We need to look at the divorce case issue and come up with not what the bureaucrats or lawyers are trying to do but with what is really out there, what is really happening, where the cracks are that we need to solve. There are the rights of grandparents and shared parenting.

What if we give direction to the courts to say we want shared parenting because it is the responsibility of both? Why should one parent be put on the other side and carry the burden while the other parent feels he cannot participate and feels neglected in society? There have been recent cases of this in Alberta, where revenge has been taken and the poor children have even lost their lives.

The question here is that it is for the sake of the children. The parents may decide they want to be separate and to go ahead with their own lives, and so be it, they make the decision, but we have to take into account what the children need. They love their children. We all use the same words, interestingly, and we all say “for the sake of children”, but what and how?

When the bill goes back to committee hopefully people will come and offer presentations and will fight to make sure that there is an equitable share for both parents in raising the children. That is good in the long term for society and it is good for us because we are investing in our children, the long term future of this country.

[International Cooperation, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, recent correspondence from Len Good, the president of CIDA, talks of aid money going to China for years to come. This is a country that least needs foreign aid. Projected aid to China and India will almost equal the increase of foreign aid in the budget.

On the one hand they increase aid saying the poor need it, and on the other hand they blatantly waste it by funnelling to countries that do not need it. Why?

[International Cooperation, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the budget today will increase foreign aid. Without stringent controls, we know from past experience that money can find its way into terrorists' hands.

Will the minister assure Canadians that no foreign aid money will find its way into terrorists' hands?

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24.

Before I go through the details of the bill and why I oppose it I would like to go back to a personal observation that was made a couple of years ago when I went to Washington with the international trade minister. We were there for a globalization conference. During the luncheon speech that he was making, I had an opportunity to walk around and speak to some of the Americans that were in the audience. They made a very interesting observation. They said it was quite enjoyable and pleasant to talk to Canadian elected officials because they listened and paid attention to what was being said.

Their observation was that it was because privy council members and other members were elected, and were accountable to the people. In Washington, with the exception of the President of the United States who is elected, the secretaries of state are appointed by the president, so they have the attitude, “It is my way or the highway”. It is the president alone who is accountable, not the secretaries of state. The people I spoke to gave the comparison that elected officials who were accountable would listen to the people, whereas those who were not elected did not have to listen to the people. As they are not bound to listen to the people, they might make decisions that are at times not reflective of what the populace desires.

What does that have to do with Bill C-24? It has to do with accountability. Bill C-24 talks about political financing for political parties, riding associations, candidates, and nominations. It is an attempt by the government to transfer the control from being accountable to the populace to relying on the state for the financing of political parties. Financing of political parties is one of the most important aspects in democracy because only then are we accountable to the electorate.

The government's rationale for this is the same as saying it does not want to be held hostage or be unduly influenced by corporations, unions or other bodies. It wants the whole thing transferred to the government so it would become less accountable.

The Liberal Party has failed miserably to raise money from individuals. In the past it has relied on big corporate donations. As far as other parties are concerned the New Democratic Party is a typical example. It is totally detached from the Canadian population because its money comes from the trade unions. Its constitution allows trade unions to have a disproportionate amount of influence in its party affairs than ordinary people.

The Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party, being a new party, has a higher level of contributions from ordinary Canadians. As such we are accountable to them including myself. My average donation is between $100 and $150 from the people in my riding. If I need money I need to go out to talk to individuals and be responsive to them. They feel good about being involved in the political process of the country and that they are contributing to democracy.

A couple of questions need to be raised as to why the bill is coming forward now when the Prime Minister has already declared that he is going. He has introduced this bill saying that we need to reform the financing of political parties because we do not want undue influence from big corporations. Just think for a second about the timing of the bill. The Prime Minister has declared that he is going and is accountable to no one, as he likes to point out.

If we look at the history of the Liberal Party, it has benefited the most from corporate donations. Why would a party that has benefited the most from corporate donations suddenly have a conscience saying that no, it does not want this. Up to now it has benefited the most and now it says that was a bad thing. One wonders why that happened. If we look at the political financing of the Liberal Party we ask the question, why now?

If the Prime Minister thought he could stop his challenger, I think that big fish is gone out of his net. He has already amassed a fortune out of corporate donations. I am sure that 90% of the former finance minister's financing has come from corporations, which is exactly directly opposite to what this bill is intending to do. The whole purpose of the bill, no matter what the government says, is under suspicion.

We are shaking our heads and asking: What has happened? Why should Canadian taxpayers suddenly take this responsibility of financing political parties? Where is this grassroots democracy where one must give money to participate?

If people feel good and we are responsive, they will give us the money. Accountability of elected officials is the key element. The bill would take that away and would create a federal bureaucracy that would interfere with the workings of a party because the government would be financing it.

One of the reasons why we oppose the bill is because it would take the accountability out of ordinary grassroots Canadians and spread it to the government so that, for the ordinary Canadians, the ruling party would not be accountable. That is the trademark of what is happening with the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister who has proudly said that he was going and that he was accountable to no one, and that he could bring these things forward.

He has been in the House for 40 years and we give him credit for that. He has been in the political arena for a long time. He has seen everything and he has respected tradition. However, for him to say that he was accountable to no one must go against his own grain of thinking. Forty years of being in the House and he is saying that upon leaving.

In conclusion, the timing and the intent of the bill is suspicious, given the record of the government. As such, we will oppose the bill.

[Criminal Code, February 13th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-393, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce the bill. This is the third time I have introduced it.

The purpose of the bill is to provide for the imposition of a minimum mandatory period of imprisonment of two years upon a second and subsequent conviction for the offence of break and enter where the offence was committed in relation to a dwelling house.

A break and enter crime is much more than a property offence. It is a crime against a person. It is a psychologically damaging crime, leaving victims feeling personally violated and traumatized.

Our courts have given judgments and the average judgment has been around six to eight months. Most break and enters are repeat offenders. The minimum two year sentence will ensure that repeat offenders are taken off the streets and given the necessary rehabilitation to l break the cycle of crime. That is why it is my pleasure to introduce the bill.

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