Deepak Obhrai

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague on the other side got the wrong impression. I was saying that CIDA's $2.2 billion budget should be used more effectively before we think about increasing aid.

If the existing budget is not properly utilized, why would we want to spend more money? The biggest danger is that Canadians would start suffering from foreign aid fatigue because they would see their foreign aid dollars not being used effectively. Let us use the $2.2 billion more effectively before we start spending more money.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary--Nose Hill for the question. It boils down to Canada's competitiveness in the international globalization economy. We all know that 43% of our economy is tied to exports. Exports are a crucial factor for Canada's prosperity. Our hands are tied when our companies are taxed at a high rate. The debt load ties them down because of lower dollars and they end up becoming uncompetitive.

China proposed a trading bloc for Far East countries at the economic discussions held in Shanghai. The European Union and NAFTA have also formed trading blocs. Trading blocs are being formed and the world is becoming more competitive.

Canada will lose its share of the world market if we do not look at our economic regime to ensure that our companies have the ability to compete on the global market. Canada's prosperity would be jeopardized if that happened.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre. It is a pleasure to speak to our motion which calls for repriorization in the upcoming budget to ensure there is no excess or wasteful spending. As international development critic for the Canadian Alliance I will use this supply day motion to speak about international development and the role of CIDA.

In the post-September 11 world there is a growing consensus that Canada must do more to promote both broad based economic growth and the alleviation of suffering in the developing world. Under the Liberal government Canada's commitment to the developing world has dropped below our capacity to help. Nevertheless we cannot increase Canada's capacity by simply spending more money.

CIDA has had only marginal success in its history. It has been subject to criticism by the auditor general and to political interference, the latest example being the diversion of CIDA funds to the minister's campaign workers in her riding.

This is the minister who goes around the world promoting transparency and lecturing other countries about how to ensure their dollars are well spent. Yet in her own riding the minister is stretching treasury guidelines as far as she can without breaking them to reward her friends and campaign workers. That is ethically wrong.

We must ensure our development aid meets value for money criteria. The government must launch a new international development white paper proposal before it seeks to increase the aid budget. This afternoon the Canadian Alliance called for a white paper to discuss Canada's role in development aid.

The Minister for International Cooperation held town hall meetings across the country to try to come up with what she says is a new focus for CIDA. These town hall meetings are not a white paper. They are not a comprehensive long term study of where our development money is going, how effective it is and how effective it has been in the past.

From experience I can tell members development dollars that have gone out of Canada have had only marginal success. As we have seen and as has been stated time after time, poverty has risen in many countries where we have given money without accountability. We have never asked for accountability from the other side. There are numerous examples.

The parliamentary secretary talked about going through the WTO and the trade route to give these countries access to our market. Yes, that is the new approach and I am glad the government is finally recognizing it would assist people in the developing world to come out of poverty.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned Doha, Qatar. This was the second WTO meeting I attended. It was the first time I saw CIDA representatives at the meetings so there has been some thinking in this department.

However in my experience as an official opposition critic I have found CIDA to be one of the most secretive departments. People do not know what the department does. Although it likes to claim it is responsible to parliament, I as an official opposition member do not know what CIDA is doing. It gives us information in pieces. It gives us what it wants to give us.

This agency is under the scrutiny of the country and parliament. It has a budget of $2.2 billion and it hides behind a curtain. It is an agency that dreams about how to spend its money on projects.

When I was going to Doha I spoke with the president of CIDA who was accompanying us. He did not know who the critics were, who was speaking about international development in parliament or what we were trying to hold them accountable for.

The minister stands and talks about the fact that there is transparency. I have talked to parliamentarians and to NGOs that have called numerous times. I can say that this agency works in secrecy because its policy advisers refuse to talk to them.

I went on a trip to Brussels with CIDA officials. I was amazed at how much they were trying to keep things to themselves rather than have them out in the open. These are Canadian taxpayer dollars. Why are they not accountable? They are not accountable because they are subject to political interference. They are subject to giving money to their friends.

I was in China where its growth was an amazing 8%. Yet it was one of the largest recipients of CIDA money. May I ask why? CIDA was supposed to help developing countries with issues such as AIDS suffering and education, but here it is helping China. Maybe I can speculate that it is because the friends of the Liberal government get business contracts in that country.

As a member of the official opposition I feel that this is a highly secretive agency which is not accountable to the Parliament of Canada. It is difficult because we have to sit and wait for the auditor general to come out with her report. Every auditor general's report had something to say about CIDA's wasteful management.

The example I gave about how the minister used CIDA money to reward her campaign workers is one of the biggest, blatant abuses I have seen from a minister, a minister who is supposed to keep this agency accountable. Instead we have this biggest abuse of blatant and unethical behaviour.

She stands and hides behind the fact that she had met treasury guidelines. We can read the treasury guidelines to see that there are lines which should not be crossed. She did not cross that line; she stayed behind the line. Was it ethical to give these contracts to campaign workers who helped work on her report? Nobody knew this. When we asked for access to information this agency denied us access. I hope the bureaucrats in CIDA are listening and realize that parliament is asking for accountability from this agency.

I want to speak to another issue dealing with tied aid. Tied aid is a protectionist policy that reduces the effectiveness of development aid. In a recent study $800 million of CIDA aid money was tied to the procurement of Canadian goods and services by recipient countries. According to the World Bank and the OECD, tied aid inflates the cost of goods and services as it reduces the real value of aid by 25%.

The government reduced Canada's untied aid from 62% when it came to power in 1993 to 30% today making it absolutely ineffective. This 25% translates to $200 million. This is one area where we can start to reform, repriorize and ensure that other dollars are spent effectively. These are examples where we feel it is time that the budget looked at repriorization and not at new spending.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the examples of my colleague for whom I have a high degree of respect. I saw the smile on her face as she talked about her community and the good she felt the handouts of government money had done for her. However our motion calls for repriorization. It points out where money is wasted. We have numerous examples of where money is wasted.

I will ask a question on a specific issue. The hon. member across the way alluded to the fact that the Alliance is against CIDA. I will be speaking after this and explaining our position on CIDA. However recent newspaper reports have clearly stated that the minister used government money to reward her campaign workers with a report that was of no value to taxpayers.

These are numerous examples of government waste for which we in the opposition are holding it accountable. Would the member perhaps like to comment on the government waste that we are pinpointing and that the auditor general has pinpointed today?

[International Aid, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the post-September 11 world there is growing consensus that Canada must do more to promote broad based economic growth and the alleviation of suffering in the developing world. Today the Canadian Alliance is calling on the Minister for International Cooperation to launch a new international development white paper process to address Canada's approach.

CIDA has only had marginal success. It has been subject to criticism by the auditor general and subject to Liberal political interference, the last being CIDA funds going to the minister's campaign workers.

Parliament needs to debate key issues on Canada's approach such as tied aid, crisis response, economic growth, charity support and country selection. The launch of this process would ensure transparency and accountability for Canadians.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-36. It is an important piece of legislation. Concerns have been expressed by many and I will dwell on them shortly. The bill is needed because it is important that we address the issue of how to combat terrorism. Canadians want the bill but they are apprehensive.

It is critically important that all Canadians have an opportunity to discuss the bill thoroughly, bring in amendments and allow debate to take place. It is important that Canadians do not feel apprehensive about the bill. After a thorough debate they should feel satisfied with the direction it is taking.

However today the government has invoked time allocation to stifle debate on the bill. Hundreds of Canadians have expressed concern about the issue. More and more Canadians are expressing concern because they have not had an opportunity to provide input into the bill.

We had an opportunity this morning to ask the Minister of Justice why she brought in time allocation. That is a good step toward reforming parliament. Time allocation used to come in and we never had an opportunity to ask the minister about it.

What was amazing was the response the Minister of Justice gave. She said there had been extensive consultations and that 13 hours of debate were held in committee. What is 13 hours of debate for a bill of this magnitude? Most of us in the House have not had an opportunity to speak. Colleagues of mine would like to speak to the bill as would colleagues from other parties. We want to express our concerns about what is right and what is wrong with the bill but we no longer have the opportunity.

The government has put time allocation on the bill, yet the minister stands proudly and says the government has had extensive consultations with hundreds of Canadians. The most amazing thing is that she said parliament has had a full debate on the issue since September 11.

As was pointed out to her, the bill is coming before us after all the amendments were done in committee. As parliamentarians we would like to be able to discuss the issue and look at the views of colleagues. That opportunity is being denied us by time allocation.

A lot of concerns are being expressed about the legislation, especially by visible minorities and immigrant communities. They want assurances that they will not be targets. While the intent of the bill is not to target anyone they need assurances that the bill will contain provisions to make sure their freedoms are not taken away or curtailed to some degree.

We have heard about incidents where bigots and others have targeted minorities. This is wrong and totally undesirable in Canada. As recently as last week I heard a report about Sikh truck drivers from Montreal who were subject to harassment because they have beards and wear turbans. This kind of thing must stop. These people are not part of terrorist groups. However it can only stop when we have the opportunity to debate and bring out these issues and say this is the wrong thing to do.

The government has invoked time allocation and stifled the debate. People will be apprehensive. For the bill to effectively fight terrorism it needs the support of all Canadians. We cannot have people sitting out there feeling apprehensive about the bill and not fully supporting it.

The bill is needed. It is required after September 11 to fight terrorism. We are fighting people who do not obey the laws, people whose own narrow view of life prompts them to disregard human life and curtail the freedom of others. The most important thing is that they do not respect the freedom of others.

The bill is needed to fight these guys so we can maintain our freedom. At the same time we cannot stand here and create a bill that makes a huge section of the Canadian community apprehensive because they figure somehow or other they could be subject to unnecessary harassment. That is the most necessary thing we must do here.

An important example is the incidents that happened in Montreal when Sikh truck drivers were harassed. That is absolutely wrong. I hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs will do something about the issue.

We find it amazing that we have had extensive committee hearings, a bill has gone through committee and come in here, and the first thing the government does is invoke time allocation. The amazing thing is that the Minister of Justice is saying our allies, the Americans and the British, did the same thing.

That is fine. Our allies also need to fight terrorism and they brought in their own bills, rightly so. However we need to discuss the issues in a Canadian context and take into account the Canadian environment. We have our own laws. Our society is slightly different from other societies. We need a thorough debate in the House so we can address the issues many are raising.

My colleagues on this side have expressed many concerns. They want to tighten the bill where they think it is lax. The bill will not achieve its objectives. That must be done not only in committee but in debate in the House. The hon. member for Calgary Centre said we need parliamentary oversight of the bill to see that it fulfills its mandate but does not take anyone's freedoms away.

The minister said to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre that parliament is the oversight for the bill. That is exactly what she said. Yet it is in this parliament that time allocation has been brought forward so we cannot debate. Perhaps she can explain how this works. One minute she is saying parliament is the watchdog over the bill and the next minute we cannot stand to talk about the bill because she brings in a time allocation order. Does this make sense? No, it definitely does not.

Sitting here and listening to the Minister of Justice give all the reasons she has brought in time allocation,I feel Canadians will have no confidence in the bill. There will always be a little apprehension. We as members of parliament must go out and talk to our constituents. They are telling us they have apprehensions or they feel the bill is flawed in certain areas. All that can be dealt only with when there is a thorough debate in parliament.

Perhaps the minister could open an emergency debate on the issue this evening, let it go all night and allow every member of parliament to speak and give their points of view. If amendments are needed we could debate them in the House because we can always improve on the bill. She could then can pass the bill in the normal course of business. Members of the Canadian Alliance have said they are supportive of the bill. I do not see what the problem would have been.

I am extremely disappointed at what has happened today with the move for time allocation. The government talks from both sides of its mouth. As parliamentarians we will be keeping a close eye on the bill.

[International Aid, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister that she has no CIDA deployment in Afghanistan to evaluate, monitor and co-ordinate aid distribution. The British are making commitments to ensure aid effectiveness, but our minister has a habit of giving untendered contracts to her campaign workers and has a record of mismanagement according to the auditor general.

Will this unco-ordinated and ineffective response be the hallmark of her aid policy in Afghanistan?

[International Aid, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to increase foreign aid and has repeatedly said that its priority is rebuilding Afghanistan. Under the minister, CIDA has lost its focus and has become an agency for rewarding her friends.

Why give the minister more money when she cannot even use the current aid budget effectively?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

Before I start, I would like to say that, in general, diplomatic immunity that is given to diplomats is well upheld by the diplomats who live in this country. There have been incidents of one or two that have cast a bad light on the diplomatic community but overall the diplomats who represent their countries in Ottawa, who on many occasions I have had the pleasure of meeting, are very dedicated people working for the benefit of their country and good relations between Canada and their country. It has always been a pleasure meeting them. I do not think anything that we say here today should in any way reflect the excellent work they have been doing over here.

I wonder whether the bill was brought here as an aftermath of the APEC fallout in Vancouver. I am surprised our government would take this route after what happened in Vancouver when Canadians tried to hold a legitimate protest against certain diplomatic visitors and heads of states from other countries. Canadians do have freedom of speech and they have every right to protest.

What I do not understand in the bill is the rationale. Why would the government create a bill that would give it open authority to bring people into this country from any part of the world whether we agree or not? Is it because we want to show to the world that Canada welcomes anyone who wants to attend conferences here?

The bill would allow the Minister of Foreign Affairs to override the requirement of foreign representatives, who may or may not have criminal records, to come into this country and claim immunity protection against our laws.

Our laws are made after a tremendous amount of debate in parliament and in committees and here we are now extending this immunity to individuals who are coming over here for conferences at the whim of the foreign affairs minister.

To me the bill is being sent silently through parliament without debate. Most Canadians do not even know what repercussions the bill would have. I am sure the government is aware that there is a heavy degree of concern, which is why the press secretary said that the government would use the website to put out information and put more transparency into the bill so it will become more acceptable to the Canadian people.

From the record of the government we can see that transparency is not enshrined in the bill. The bill would still allow the government to do what it wants or does not want.

What happened in Vancouver and the subsequent inquiry that took place should never have happened. Millions of dollars went down the tube in trying to understand whether there was interference from the PMO's office. This inquiry would have never taken place if Canadians had been allowed to protest as they are allowed to do under Canadian law.

The other issue concerns the government's decision to grant broad based immunity to individuals coming into this country who represent their governments. We will have no control over who comes into the country. Governments can send representatives of their choice, and rightly so, but what control do we have over that? We have none.

The government does not like taking action. The bill does not promote Canadian values and I can say without any doubt that it will not sit well with the Canadian public. It would give the Minister of Foreign Affairs the power to bring anyone into Canada and override the laws we have created and put in place to protect Canadians. There does not seem to be any sense of rationale.

If we find individuals are not acceptable to come to Canada because of their past records all we have to do is advise their governments that their representatives may not be allowed into the country. What is wrong with that? Why are we not taking that route? We are instead taking a route where the minister signs a waiver and lets the individual come into Canada. It does not make any sense.

It is becoming difficult to support the bill. I do not know how far we can go with this. We are holding international conferences here and we have seen a lot of people making protests. Some of them make legitimate protests but others take the violent route and we use our laws to stop them.

This is a far fetched scenario, but considering the road the government is going down we will soon have demands from NGOs and others asking for protection when they come here as well. I hope the government does not go that route. However in looking at the bill I do not have much faith in the government.

I listened to my colleague in the NDP. We in the Canadian Alliance find it difficult to support the bill for many of the reasons we have stated. What happened in Vancouver at the APEC conference is still fresh in the minds of Canadians. An inquiry was held to find out if there was any interference from the PMO. Nothing in the bill gives us confidence that there will be no political interference in demonstrations.

What was the real rationale for the government to introduce the bill? I do not think the real rationale was to stop people from coming into Canada. Perhaps the real rationale was to enable the government to control protesters so they do not become an embarrassment.

I have travelled on behalf of Canada with the minister to many international conferences. In general terms there is no need for this kind of bill. There is no need for these draconian measures at all. We should be careful.

After September 11 the anti-terrorist bill was introduced. Now we have a concern about the civil liberties we are debating here. Bill C-35 would override that and extend blanket immunity. That is where the problem arises for us. We in my party will have a difficult time supporting the bill.

[Diwali Celebration, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on November 14, Hindus across the world and in Canada will be celebrating Diwali, the festival of light.

The Diwali celebration symbolizes the victory of good over evil and Hindus join their families and friends in celebrating it with prayers, sweets, exchanges of gifts and fireworks.

Hindus also start their new calendar immediately following Diwali. Today Diwali is celebrated on all continents of the world.

Following the September 11 terrorist attack, it is important that we take time to pray for peace and tranquility for all humankind.

I urge all Hindus in Canada to share with their families, neighbours, friends and all Canadians the message of peace that symbolizes Diwali.

As a member of the Hindu faith, I wish to extend, along with all my colleagues in parliament, a happy Diwali and a prosperous new year to all Hindus.