Deepak Obhrai

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised some good points. The moneys wasted by the mismanagement and the boondoggles could very well have been utilized effectively for health care and for the military. Canadians recognize the military is starved of funding. The government's direction has made our military more like the Boy Scouts. If it is carried on, we will have a military hardly worthwhile calling a Canadian force.

We have had a couple of reports on health care because there has been a major concern over the state of health care. The moneys that were wasted in these boondoggles could have effectively been used to provide the services that Canadians want.

In reference to the gulf syndrome, I am aware of it. I have read about it. I know this has surfaced recently and that our soldiers are facing some health problems. Absolutely it is our responsibility that when our soldiers go to fight for our flag we must ensure their health and well-being. Naturally, it is extremely important that we address this issue. There is an obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to address that issue.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting comment. I will respond to that in due course, which will give her the opportunity and members on the other side to ask me questions on Kyoto.

Before I start, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and your family a merry Christmas and to all my colleagues in the House on all sides, a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

It is a pleasure for me to speak in the prebudget debate as the year comes to an end and we reflect back. At this juncture I would like to thank all my colleagues who sent me best wishes this year when I was going through some health difficulties.

I have stood back and looked at the government's record. Government members have stated time after time that they have tackled the issue of the finances of the country and that they are excellent money managers. They want to leave the legacy that they were excellent money managers and because of that we had surpluses.

Before I carry on, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Calgary Southeast.

Earlier this week the Prime Minister stood up and said that the Liberals had five years of surpluses and therefore they were great, despite the fact there is evidence to the contrary.

We have a very excellent Auditor General who has taken the government to task and is not afraid to speak her mind about the finances of the country and about the mismanagement of the government on that aspect. Canadians have a high degree of respect for the Auditor General. If it was not for her, we would not have known that the government was mismanaging our money.

For the Prime Minister to say that the record of the Liberals in managing Canadian taxpayer dollars over the years has been good and that is why we have a surplus is a fallacy. The former finance minister is also going to stand on that record in his run for leadership. Over the course of time, we in the opposition and, I hope, the Auditor General will show that to be the contrary.

Let us look at this. It all started with the HRDC boondoggle, which we must not forget. We must not brush these things under the table. What happened with that? Nothing much. No minister took responsibility for that.

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre, who has held numerous positions in the government, today mentioned it was important for ministers holding those positions to show accountability. Yet on that side, nobody took responsibility for the HRDC $1 billion boondoggle.

Then lo and behold we had the advertising fiasco for the unity issue and the wastage of money that went to Groupaction. We eagerly await the Auditor General's report on that. When that report comes out, I do not know who will take responsibility, because the person who could be held responsible for that fiasco was sent on a patronage appointment to Denmark. That is second boondoggle and no one has accepted responsibility for it.

Now of course we have the third boondoggle, which is the gun registry. Who is taking responsibility for that fiasco? Nobody. The Prime Minister likes to say “What's a billion dollars here or there?. It is loose change for him. However, for Canadians it is a lot of tax money. This is a lot of money to those single parents, or those students whose debts are increasing, or to those families who are working hard. If they had that money in their pockets, they could do well for their children, for themselves and overall for the economy.

Now we have the Kyoto issue. The government has forced this and will implement the treaty but we do not know the real cost. We do not know how it will affect jobs or whether this will be another boondoggle. Nobody seems to know. We are grasping in the dark.

We could have done something. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment just said, the United States of America is working hard without the burden of Kyoto to achieve targets that are even better than Kyoto. It is a fallacy for the Liberals to say that they are a special kind of green people and that we are not because we are opposed to Kyoto. That is absolute nonsense. We believe in greenery too. We have children too. We want to live in an environment that is safe and sound for our future generations. Because we are opposed to Kyoto does not mean that we are not in favour of the environment. We are opposed to Kyoto because we see danger.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment talked about her region. It is excellent that her region is doing well. I come from Calgary, Alberta, which is going to face severe economic consequences from this. Naturally I have to look at this. Those who live in Alberta are Canadians too. They also have the right to let their points of view be known, but the government will not listen to them. It ignored the plea to work cooperatively with all provinces so they could come up with an agreement that would enable us to fulfill our requirements to meet environmental sensitivities. However at the same time we are not going to sign a cheque. That would be devastating to the province's economy.

We have had the HRDC boondoggle and the gun registry. We do not know where the gun registry will go or how much money it will cost at the end of the day. Our party has asked questions all week about the cost of the gun registry but the Minister of Justice has refused to answer that simple, straightforward question. Canadians also are asking that question.

Now we have the question of GST fraud. The government is cooking the books, as it is called in accounting terms, and has created a scenario where Canadians no longer have confidence. The government does not know where the GST money has gone. The Minister of National Revenue, when answering questions from this side, has not allayed the fears that the GST money has been lost in fraud.

I would like to conclude by saying that the legacy the government wanted to leave of sound management of Canadian tax dollars lies in tatters. When the budget is brought down, we will look at it and raise these points again.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

It is. So I would like to congratulate her and wish that she get another position.

She raised an important point and my colleague from Nanaimo reiterated the same point to which she responded. The government refuses to acknowledgte the crux of the matter pertaining to Kyoto, but she has today finally acknowledged it. It is an important point that must be re-emphasized, namely that Canada will be inside Kyoto, and the U.S.A. will be outside Kyoto.

Agreements have been signed between our countries and many states in the U.S.A. have set up targets to ensure that their environment is clean. At the end of the day there are more regulations coming out because companies are regulating themselves in the U.S.A. It is making Kyoto look like a second hand treaty because their targets are more important.

Why is it necessary for us to sign Kyoto and have impacts on our regions? There may not be any impact on her specific region in Kitchener, but there are impacts on other regions. Why do we want to sign a flawed treaty while we can do the same thing the U.S. is doing, setting targets that can achieve what we are all trying to achieve, a safer greener world?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague opposite for being a parliamentary secretary. I do not know if her term is coming to an end.

[Peace Award, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the South Asian Studies Program at the New College, University of Toronto, is awarding the International Acharya Sushil Kumar Peace Award to Nobel laureate Professor John Polanyi, a very distinguished Canadian scientist.

Professor Polanyi is a professor of chemistry at the University of Toronto and president of the Canadian Committee for Scientists and Scholars. He is a member of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada and a Companion of the Order of Canada. Professor Polanyi's awards include the 1986 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society of London, and some 30 honorary degrees from six countries.

The award is named after a most revered and respected Jain teacher, the late Acharya Sushil Kumarji, who spent his life promoting peace and harmony in the Indian subcontinent and the world.

On behalf of the South Asian community and the Canadian Alliance, I would like to congratulate Professor John Polanyi on winning this award.

[National Defence, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree we need to help in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, but the minister has not answered the question. The question still remains: Why are Canadian taxpayers paying for security for somebody else while we are not paying any money for our own armed forces?

[National Defence, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while the government cannot find any new money for the Canadian armed forces before next year's budget, it has quietly spent $11 million to build the Afghan national army. Why do our troops continue to go without while she funds the Afghan troops?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has worked very hard in her area of British Columbia and in the U.S.A. to create a better flow on the transportation corridor. She has worked to ensure that the flow of goods and people across our borders is trouble free and to enhance trade and good relations between our two nations. In her view, will Bill C-17 have any detrimental effect on what she has been working on in British Columbia?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has the responsibility to govern. However the key element under Parliament is that there be a transparency to ensure that human rights are not abused. These are rights which over the years we have established in Canada through Canadian Parliament and for which people have fought. One of those rights was the right of women to vote. However I am not saying these rights will be abused.

Over the years we have reached a level where we have some of the best human rights legislation in the world and we must ensure that none of these will be taken away through a unilateral act by the government. Therefore it is the responsibility of us and the committee to ensure that that does not happen. Nevertheless they still have to have some room so they are able to manoeuvre and govern and rise to the occasion.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, he has made an absolutely good point. I have a document from the citizenship board that states how many claimants from various countries have applied.

As for the ministerial permit that my hon. colleague talked about, a couple of years ago in the citizenship committee I tried to get the reasons behind why those permits were being issued. The Liberals manipulated the committee and gave no reasons.

As of today, a new report has come out on the number of permits issued by the minister. He answered the question here and he may be right that the problem could be a genuine case. However Canadians have the rights to know the reasons for these permits being issued. The government should make it transparent and tell us why these permits are issued, not just issue them. We need to have the confidence that claimants who are criminally ineligible are not allowed to enter the country.

We need a transparent system whereby we know why the minister has issued permit for these individuals. I hope the message gets out to make this a transparent system.