Deepak Obhrai

[Queen's Jubilee Medal, February 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the recipients of the Queen's Jubilee Medal awarded throughout Canada and particularly in my constituency of Calgary East.

We co-hosted an event with four other constituencies and the Hon. Lieutenant Governor Lois E. Hole attended to present medals to extraordinary Canadians who, in their own way, have made a valuable and outstanding contribution to both community and country.

I would like to congratulate: Raghbir Basati, Surendra Bhandari, Fariborz Birjandian, Chuck Blanchard, Gita Boyd, Pradeep Charan, Ray Clark, Dinesh Dattani, Michael Detheridge, Vinay Dey, Titus Matthews, Ed McNally, Krishna Naicker, Michael Pearson, Prabhudas Ruparell, Ian Seright, Kumar Sharma, Abbimanyu Singh, Ajit Singh, Gabrielle Stapleton, Tishma Taneja, Rufo “Tigs” Tidalgo, Anil Tiwari, Manhar Verma and Neville Wells.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, perhaps if he had listened to my speech he would have understood why we brought forward this motion by saying after the day. First, the government was elected to run the country so it has the authority and is required to make decisions but after the decisions are made, they are brought here.

One of the exchanges that took place this afternoon was that the Prime Minister said that if the Alliance would withdraw its motion the government would agree to a vote. The only reason we did not accept that was because the government refused to put the next day as the deadline.

Our motion calls for the next day even if Parliament is closed and the government makes a decision. However it was not willing to accept that because it then could recall Parliament maybe two months after the decision was taken based on this motion. We were not willing to agree to that which is why we refused the request of the Prime Minister when he promised there would be a vote in the House.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am a little stunned and surprised to hear the member say that the west should supply the evidence and the intelligence.

I do not think he tuned into the last report given by Dr. Blix and the inspectors which said that Iraq was not complying. Perhaps I should tell my colleague why we have inspectors in Iraq. What is their job? What is their duty? Why were they sent over there? They were sent over there so they could look for evidence.

Dr. Blix and the inspectors went in front of the Security Council and said quite clearly that Iraq was not complying. Perhaps the member will go back and read the testimony. That is exactly what the international community said and what the inspectors said.

Yesterday, Mr. Powell and even his own foreign affairs minister said that there was disturbing evidence. I do not know what more this member wants.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my party and my foreign affairs critic for bringing forward the motion so that we can debate in the House what is right now one of the most important issues facing our country and the world community.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia.

We have started the debate. This morning the Minister of Foreign Affairs came to the foreign affairs committee and laid out the government position. What has happened here is that we have brought forward a motion so that in the democratic traditions this country is built on we can debate and discuss the issue and put to a vote whether our soldiers should or should not go.

I listened to my colleague from Mississauga, to his arguments about not voting for this. It is typical, because he has probably been told by his government and his whip, cracking the whip on him, that he is not going to support it, but that really does not hold water. He is a member of Parliament, elected by the people to come to this chamber to debate and vote.

That is the whole purpose of the motion put forward by the Alliance and supported by the Bloc. This morning even the NDP members had this motion out in the foreign affairs committee because they felt that there was a need to vote on this important issue, on which we can agree and disagree. Of course we disagree with the position of the NDP, but that is fine and acceptable. In our democratic society we have agreements and we have disagreements, but at the end of the day the elected representatives must have the choice to vote. We can argue about it, and I know that my hon. colleague from Mississauga is a lawyer so as a lawyer he can argue in any direction he wants, which he is doing right now by saying he is not going to support the motion because, as he put it, it is after the fact.

The bottom line is still that the Parliament of Canada will have to vote on the issue. My colleague's own government said this when it was in opposition.

As my colleague from Wild Rose said, we have respect for the cabinet. The cabinet, the government, has been elected to govern the country, so it will make a decision. If it is going to make a decision it should be brought here to Parliament so that we can all debate the issue and give the pros and the cons and, at the end of the day, so that Canadians know what their elected representatives think. Many have reservations about this and many do not. As we heard from a previous speaker, she had her arguments. I am glad she brought up those arguments here. Canadians can listen to her arguments here and on CPAC and can make judgments on them.

The question still remains. I heard the government House leader talk about the motion and not bringing this to a vote. It is amazing how the government plays with words and twists them around so it is not caught. It is amazing how the government can twist its words, say it does not want to do this and then shut down debate on what those members were making demands for when they were in opposition. Talk about a double standard.

Coming to the point about the situation with Iraq, my colleagues on both sides have talked about the pros and cons on Iraq and many have said no and have put forth all kinds of arguments. I would like to give my point of view, and I have two questions on the whole issue.

First, resolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the Security Council of the United Nations. The resolution was to say to Iraq, “Let inspectors in. Give them free access. If you do not, there will be consequences”. The world body made a clear-cut decision by giving a message to Iraq.

Irrespective of the facts, my colleague asked why Iraq, why not other places, why not North Korea? Right now we are dealing with Iraq and the world body made a clear statement. What do we have after that? The inspectors went over there and the chief inspector had to come back to the United Nations and say that Iraq was not cooperating. Excuse me, but we told Iraq to cooperate with this. The resolution was given in October and we are still sitting in the same spot, with nothing resolved. As of today about half an hour ago, the President of the United States was saying the same thing, that he is not complying.

The question is, why is he not complying? Why is he not listening to the world's voice? Here today we are standing up and saying that we do not want to go to war. Yes, I agree. Nobody wants to go to war. People here are saying that they got phone calls. Yes, I got phone calls. Let us say we do not want to go to war. Who wants to go to war? In this western society we have seen the ravages of World War I and World War II. Do we think that anybody would be in favour of war in this country that has seen the ravages of World War I and World War II? No, nobody will be in favour of war.

Yes, we know that we are not at war with the people of Iraq. As a matter of fact, we are saying that there will be suffering there and we do not want any suffering. So I am asking a simple question: Why is Saddam Hussein not listening to the world's voice and saying simply and point blank “Yes, I will dismantle”?

I now come to the second point. To all the people who are accusing us of going to war to bomb the kids, I ask them, what have they done to tell Saddam Hussein to go? If he voluntarily goes tomorrow, we know there will be no war. If he goes away, there is no question of war or anything there. I am saying no, we are not going over there, we are not sending him petitions. The people of the region who will be affected by this war, none of them are talking out there.

My colleagues from the opposite side of the House will not talk about telling Saddam to go. Let me ask the Liberal member who went all the way to Iraq, did she ask Saddam? Did she tell Saddam to go for the sake of the people of Iraq? No, she did not. She came back over here and said he is a nice guy, that Tariq Aziz is a nice guy. Every time the inspectors go before the Security Council, what do we have? We have Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister, standing up and saying, “We will comply. We will open our doors”. The doors should have been open right from the beginning.

Let us be united, with one voice, in saying to Saddam, “Either open your doors or go”. Then there will be no war, because nobody wants war.

What about our own soldiers? Do hon. members think we like saying here to put the lives of our own soldiers in danger? Why would we want to go to war with the people of Iraq? They have been suffering over there. The Shiites, as my colleague from Mississauga said, and the Kurds are all suffering under Saddam Hussein. Do we think that Saddam Hussein is somebody we should stand up and clap for? Should we give him an award for being a good ruler? What has he done? For all the years he has been ruling in Iraq, Madam Speaker, give me one achievement of his for his country such that members of his own country, Iraqis, would stand behind him, except for those who justify him, who benefit from him.

The bottom line is this. We should stand up, speak with a unanimous voice and tell Saddam Hussein, first, that we are sick and tired of these games he is playing, and second, to go voluntarily, and then there would be no war. It is as simple as that.

[Terrorism, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a disturbing theme is emerging. Terrorist organizations and individuals are benefiting because of the inability of CIDA to keep proper controls. This is totally unacceptable.

Will the minister immediately review her aid programs to ensure no terrorist organizations are recipients, directly or indirectly, of Canadian tax dollars?

[Terrorism, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we asked the Minister for International Cooperation for her assurance that no foreign aid dollars were being funneled to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah or the Tamil Tigers.

Reports now say that CIDA has been funding Canadian organizations with ties to al-Qaeda. Canadians are losing faith in the Liberal government. Will the minister order a review of aid programs in areas of terrorist control?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak again to Bill C-13. Yesterday I spoke to the motions in Group No. 4. Today we are dealing with motions in Group No. 5 proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga South and my colleague who spoke just before me and who went through each and every motion giving his support. In general, I do not want to go back and say the same things that he has said.

As I said yesterday, the issue of reproductive technology has created much concern among Canadians and, as such, we need to look at it. As my colleague mentioned, the former leader of the Reform Party took a keen interest in this issue while he was a member and came up with a lot of recommendations. At the same time a committee was set up to study the whole issue of reproductive technology and it came up with recommendations.

We have all been concerned about this issue for a long time but our concerns became bigger when, as I mentioned yesterday, we were advised that the first human cloning had been done by Clonaid. We are concerned that unless and until we have rules and regulations in place, we will not know in what direction this new research will go. Therefore, by introducing this bill, the government is attempting to address some of the concerns surrounding this issue.

However, as I stated yesterday, the concern we have with the bill is that it has left a lot of loopholes. These loopholes can allow the concerns people are expressing to fall through the cracks and we would not know what direction it will end up going.

Yesterday I stated my concerns about the transparency of the agency and about allowing the minister to appoint people to it who may or may not have a conflict. Even though he or she may or may not appoint people who have a conflict of interest, I fail to understand why the legislation could not include clearcut guidelines as to who can serve on those agencies because that agency, at the end of the day, will be the one that will set guidelines, rules and ethics on this subject.

There are two points on this subject that many of my colleagues have talked about. One has to do with the availability of the adult stem cell as well as research using human embryos. Unanimously on both sides of the House, no one seems to have any difficulty with adult stem cell research because of its availability and a lot of other things. However the bill also talks about using human embryos to a certain degree. I would like to read this so that those who are listening and watching television will know what the bill is proposing in reference to using human embryos.

The bill would allow for experiments on human embryos under four conditions: first, only in vitro embryos left over from IVF process can be used for research; second, embryos cannot be created for research with one exception, that they can be created for the purpose of improving or providing instructions in AHR procedures; and third, written permission must be given by the donor, although the donor in this case could be singular. As we know there are two donors, a male and a female, but all the bill mentions is a single donor. Fourth, all human embryos must be destroyed after 14 days if they are not frozen.

When we talk about human embryos, we were all human embryos. It is a matter of concern as to how far we can use human embryos. Because of this concern, there needs to be further and more thorough debate on the issue. As such, the Canadian Alliance has asked for a three year moratorium so that when the first review of the bill comes up, we can look at this and see in what direction we want go. We should go down the path of adult stem cell research first and put a moratorium on human embryo research. Then we can see where that one leads us before we venture into human embryos.

There are a lot of pros and cons to this. I am sure that there perhaps is better use of human embryos for medical purposes but I am extremely uncomfortably even with the thought of using human embryos at this given time.

The bill lays the foundation for the use of human embryos. We need to stop that at this stage, vote for the adult stem cell and wait three years, as has been recommended in committee. Then we can see where we have gone before we venture out and under what conditions and stronger guidelines we do that. I do not want the situation that has happened this year, as was stated yesterday, that somebody could announce the cloning of a human being.

[Terrorism, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is part of a global coalition to fight against terrorism. As such, we have collected millions of dollars to fight terrorism. Now we hear of possible foreign aid dollars going to banned organizations like Hezbollah or the Tamil Tigers.

What assurances can the minister give to Canadians that no Canadian foreign aid money is making its way to any terrorist organizations?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House of Commons in the new year on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East. I am very happy to speak to Bill C-13, an act respecting assisted human reproductive technologies and related research.

As we all know, at the beginning of the year the Clonaid company said that it had cloned a human being, the first cloned baby. This sent shock waves around the world. All religious leaders and people who want dignity given to human life were shocked and stunned by the news. I was stunned also. I hope we do not go along with that research.

The bill is an attempt to not go toward the route of cloning, but the route of research, the route of human reproduction technology. There are a lot of consequences for this research.

We tried to draft this in a bill in committee. A committee researched the issue and presented its report. The report indicated that we needed to address the issue and bring in rules and regulations and try to stop the free-for-all research which has the potential of going in the direction that society in general does not want to go and respect the basic principle of human life.

The government presented Bill C-13 to try and address the issue. While the intent is there to have some control and some rules and regulations, some sort of ethical behaviour and ethical dimensions to this point, nevertheless like anything else the government does, it is job that has only been half done. The bill tries to do everything and in the process, it ends up doing nothing. That is the essence of why the Canadian Alliance opposes Bill C-13.

My colleague has presented many amendments. We hope that these amendments will be accepted and will make the bill stronger. Then we can address all the issues and ensure that there are no loopholes or cracks in the system. This is a subject that is creating a tremendous amount of debate among Canadians.

In Motion No. 72 the government has created an agency that will be given the mandate to create some ethical guidelines as well as rules for doing research on stem cells, whether they are embryonic or adult stem cells.

The problem as usual is there seems to be a lack of commitment by the government. It is somehow afraid to take a tough stand. There are no conflict of interest guidelines. The minister has the power to appoint anyone to the board.

If the minister appoints a person who falls under the conflict of interest rules, what stops that person from having a conflict, such as working for a biotech company? Of course, the minister will say that it is not possible and they are going to do due diligence. But again what is the problem? Why can it not be put in the bill to make it transparent that a person who has a conflict of interest will not be appointed to the board? That is clear, plain and simple. Yet that is missing, and it gives the authority to the minister.

Canadians know very well the record of the government on transparency. They know about the boondoggle in the gun registry.

This afternoon the government introduced the bill on political party financing. In the dying days of his regime, the Prime Minister is now bringing in this legislation. He wants to leave a legacy but he has opened up to the fact that his Kyoto legacy is going off on a tangent and his African legacy is having severe problems. He wants to create that as a legacy, despite opposition from his own members. He is talking about bringing in transparency, but the government's record on transparency has left Canadians shaking their heads. With this bill, it is again showing up here.

It is amazing how the government is so afraid to step into the area where people are held more accountable. I do not know what the government is afraid of. The Prime Minister will not give accountability even to his backbenchers. Look at the vote we had on choosing the committee chairmen. The Prime Minister is the one who had problems with that.

The government's record on transparency and allowing openness is on the record and Canadians will not buy into it. The same thing is happening on the subject of stem cell research, which is a subject of the future. The potential for research and for finding cures for many of what ails the human race through stem cells is tremendous. There is a desire to see that this research carries on, but in a manner that is acceptable to the Canadian people. We do not want to go down the road of what we heard when that company came out of nowhere and said it had cloned a human being.

It is critically important as we debate this bill that we in the official opposition point out what we think are the flaws of this bill. Therefore, it is difficult for us support the bill.

[Goods and Services Tax, December 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, reporting procedures practised by this government are questionable at best. The firearms registry was allowed to balloon to $1 billion under the government's watch.

I will give the revenue minister the opportunity to come clean, to practise the transparency that she has been bragging about. Millions and millions have been lost to GST fraud. Canadians want to know: Why?