Deepak Obhrai

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, we have seen the Minister of Finance trying to go into the EI fund to use it for other purposes even though that is not allowed under the law and is illegal. It is quite surprising that my colleague on the other side would not recognize that.

In answer to the hon. member's question, I repeat again that the Reform Party supports the concept of DNA testing but it has a problem with this bill. If this legislation is made really tough, then the government will get our support.

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it looks like my speech went over the top of my colleague's understanding.

We said yes, we believe in this concept. We agree that we need tools to fight crime. The problem with the DNA bill is that it is a watered down bill that will not give us these tools. We support this concept. We want the government to make this bill tougher so that Canadians feel protected.

It is interesting that my colleague on the other side says that we should stay within the law. In the last week and a half we have seen the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance not obeying the law of the land, specifically the Minister of Finance when he—

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA identification.

This morning we saw a very sad spectacle in the House of Commons where a closure motion was put on Bill C-3. If I remember correctly, when those members were on this side in opposition they were the ones screaming the loudest when the former Tory government did the same thing with closure motions. Today what do they do? The same thing, they put closure. No wonder Canadians find respect for politicians at the bottom of professions.

The parliamentary secretary did mention certain things as being the first step. She said Bill C-3 was just a first step. However, as with Bill C-68, it will be watered down to where it actually becomes ineffective. She says this bill if thrown out would be a waste of taxpayer money. This watered down bill is a waste of taxpayer money because was does it do? It does a half job. It does not give our law enforcement agencies the full tools they need to fight crime.

She has taken the position that she is tough on crime. The record of being tough on crime is not there. The Young Offenders Act is watered down. Bill C-68 is watered down. Bill C-68 has been changed to a degree where it is supposed to stop crime but it is not, it is infringing on the rights of Canadians.

The government transforms simple legislation into the most complicated legislation costing Canadian taxpayers a lot of money and does not do the job it is supposed to do.

The parliamentary secretary said Canada is the best place to live in the world as stated by the United Nations. Yes, when you look at other factors, but Canadians today are demanding that streets be safe. On that this government has a terrible record.

I am firmly committed to restoring confidence in our justice system. Canadians need to know what it is to have a true sense of security. This can be achieved only by strengthening our law enforcement agencies. How do you do that? By giving them all the tools they need to protect and apprehend the perpetrators of the most violent crimes.

DNA identification is an example of one of those desperately needed tools. If this process is used to its full potential, DNA identification could very well be the single most important development in fighting crime since the introduction of fingerprinting.

We fully support the concept of DNA identification because it gives our law enforcement authorities one more weapon in their battle to combat crime. However, if Bill C-3 is passed unamended it will give Canadians a false sense of security and therefore I cannot support this inadequate piece of legislation.

The bottom line is that Bill C-3 has such limited scope that I cannot in good conscience support it. Bill C-3 requires those convicted of certain designated offences to provide samples of bodily substances for DNA analysis. The problem with this is that the offender must be convicted prior to the processing being instituted. This will result in the databank being of limited use to police for suspects and persons charged.

The Canadian Police Association has raised concerns over this specific issue too. Police officers rightly point out that offenders arrested and charged with an offence would likely flee while on bail if they knew that DNA linking them to other offences would be obtained on conviction.

The government has stated this is within the charter of rights and the Constitution. I say it is more important to give tools to ensure that victims have more rights than criminals. That is extremely important to recognize. I say to the Supreme Court of Canada as well remember it is more important to recognize the rights of Canadians and victims than it is to recognize the rights of criminals which this government keeps doing time after time and destroying a good piece of legislation dealing with that problem.

Bill C-3 has offences that are split into two groups. The first group automatically leads to DNA testing. Crimes listed under the first category include sexual assault, murder and sexual exploitation. The second group permits seizure only if the court is satisfied that to do so is in the best interests of the administration of justice.

Here is the problem. This is left to the courts again and we know the courts have been lenient with criminals. The courts have been looking at the rights of the criminals over the rights of the victims and Canadians to make the streets safe.

We see that Bill C-3 has limited applicability in that it applies only to certain offences. However, even for this limited list it is not guaranteed that the taking of DNA will be authorized. It is clear that an effective, no-nonsense system of DNA identification is desperately needed in this country. Does Bill C-3 under the current act fulfil this needed desire?

By having a system that only applies to convicted felons who commit a narrow definition of listed crimes, we are truly doing a disservice to all Canadians seeking safer streets. The fact of the matter is that DNA is a modern identification tool which is to the 1990s what fingerprinting was to the early 1900s.

Many American states have DNA data banks, including South Dakota which takes DNA testing once a charge has been laid. A few years back Great Britain implemented a system that called for DNA seizure after a charge had been laid and the list of offences is far wider than what Bill C-3 covers.

We should never allow ourselves to be so stubborn that we could not turn our backs on a good idea simply because it is not a made in Canada idea. Today we fingerprint all those who are charged for a crime.

The government has been saying, and this is where I differ, that a fingerprint is not a seizure. A fingerprint is from our body. In here it is saying that taking bodily fluids is a seizure. For the sake of crime and making streets safe, it is a justifiable seizure. If this is the case then why can this government not expand the very little role it has given to the DNA collection? While it may be true that DNA seizure involves the invasion of personal privacy, it does serve a greater role in solving and controlling crime.

At the end of the day parliamentarians must be able to look Canadians straight in the eyes and tell them that we have done everything in our power to protect them. I do not see how we can do this by voting in favour of this legislation.

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can deny the fact that our economy is tied very heavily to the United States and Mexico with NAFTA. I do not think the Reform Party was off track when we said we need a balanced approach when dealing with one of our most important trading partners. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, it has to be fair on both sides. We are saying we should not be tough on the U.S. We do not trust the Liberal government. It can be tough on this and destroy the good relationships we have. What we are asking for is a balanced approach, a balanced view.

That is most critical. They are our important partners. We have to recognize that. This is where most of our trade is. Therefore I do not think there is anything wrong with the dissenting report.

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Surrey Central.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, the Special Import Measures Act. This morning my colleague from Okanagan—Shuswap made an excellent eloquent speech and I wholeheartedly support what he said. He brought up excellent points on international trade and very eloquently showed the shortcomings and the shortfalls of the government.

Canada as a nation is a willing and active participant in the increasing globalization of the world's economy. Canadians have the education, innovation and motivation to prosper in the global economy. There are literally hundreds of thousands of successful stories of Canadian participation in the world economy, whether in business, communication, the arts, science or technology. Canadian companies have made their mark on the world stage not with production and subsidization, but with brains and hard work.

Participation in international trade has provided many positive benefits for our country. However, we must also be vigilant. Trade disputes will inevitably occur. They may be over fish quotas, computer parts or National Hockey League teams. Therefore, it is our job as legislators to ensure that protection mechanisms are in place when they are needed and only when they are needed.

The Special Import Measures Act is one such protection for Canadian industry that is adversely affected by product dumping or subsidies. Again I repeat, this act is protection for Canadian industry that is adversely affected by product dumping or subsidies.

In fact, the Special Import Measures Act is the principle legal instrument which allows Canadian companies to request and get anti-dumping and countervailing duties against imported goods which are found to be sold at too low a price or whose production is subsidized.

Revenue Canada and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal are responsible for administering the system while Revenue Canada is responsible for policy and legislation.

The process is technical in nature but is essential to determine if there is a threat of material injury to the domestic industry. If an investigation determines that an injury has occurred trade remedy actions could be applied.

Actions will include eliminating the dumping of goods by foreign exporters by introducing a duty or in trade remedies against a foreign government for unfairly subsidizing a product or commodity. The injury investigation is clearly the most critical component of this process.

Under existing international rules authorities must determine if dumping or subsidization of goods has caused damage to a domestic industry of the importing country before duties can be imposed.

It is at the preliminary stage where the investigation is most important. Careful consideration must be given to all parties involved. Therefore the appropriate balance must be maintained between the right of the industry to seek trade remedy projection and the rights of those who may be affected by such measures.

This must include the effects that any anti-dumping measure could have on downstream processors and on consumers. At present considerations are given to downstream repercussions after a final determination of injury by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Let me give an example of a recent case involving Gerber baby food. The residual effects of the trade tribunal's decisions were not considered and the public interest was not protected.

U.S. baby food manufacturer Gerber Canada says it will have to abandon the Canadian market because of the ruling by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal that forced the company to increase the selling price of jars of baby food.

The ruling has sparked an outcry from various public interest groups and concerned parents across the country. A 60% increase in Gerber prices has effectively eliminated Gerber from the Canadian market and created a de facto monopoly for Heinz, a company which already holds 80% of the market share.

This threat of a monopoly by Heinz has attracted the attention of the Competition Bureau with the aim of reversing the decision of the trade tribunal. Clearly the system is not perfect. Often we cannot predict all the consequences of a decision.

However, it is crucial that we structure the process to ensure that the interests of downstream producers and the public interest are examined before any decisions are made if the effects could greatly harm an industry and have a negative impact on the public.

Canada is intrinsically tied to the world economy. Participation in NAFTA and WTO and numerous trade agreements between individual nations ensure Canadian companies have a place to sell their goods and services.

Similarly, foreign countries look to Canada as a potential market for their goods and services. This is healthy competition but as long as the rules are fair for all competitors. When the rules are broken legislation like Bill C-35 must be in place to offer remedy to those harmed by unfair trade practice.

I support the proposed changes to the Special Import Measures Act introduced in this bill, but with some reservations. I support that the existing legislation and the proposed amendments to this bill abide by agreements already in place with the World Trade Organization anti-dumping and countervailing duty agreement.

I support the attention given in this bill to administrative and economic efficiency, procedural fairness and transparency in decision making.

However, I would like to see an amendment to this bill that would ensure a more comprehensive examination of injury at the preliminary stage. This to safeguard the interests of all parties involved and to assess the impact right down the line on the public and on downstream producers.

[The Senate, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a recent poll conducted in my home province of Alberta has confirmed what my party has always known. The vast majority of Albertans want Senate reform and want it now.

Over 80% of Albertans want a direct voice in who represents them in Canada's upper house.

The poll also states that support for an elected Senate is strong, deep and entrenched.

How does the Prime Minister respond to this plea for an elected Senate? He goes ahead, fills an Alberta Senate vacancy with a federal Tory, instead of allowing the people to say who will represent them. This is Liberal democracy in action. It is this arrogance which helps explain why Alberta's federal Liberal caucus holds their meetings in a phone booth.

The Prime Minister cannot stop the people's will. It is only a matter of time.

[National Parks Act, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think everyone is concerned about pollutants and the ecological damage done to national parks.

I was born right next to national parks in Africa and I treasure national parks and animals. I share the sentiment that we should be very careful to ensure that pollution does not damage our ecological environment.

[National Parks Act, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is pretty expensive. I have the 1996 rate, which I think has gone up, by the way. It says $6 for adults but I think it has gone to $10 per day for adults, if I am not mistaken.

I remember when I was there it used to be $1 per day. Now it is $10 per day and $10 per day is pretty expensive. It is $75 a year to go to that national park. Again I appeal to the government to revisit that fee.

[National Parks Act, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have risen on this bill on many occasions and talked about the importance of national parks in Canada for future generations. We have supported this bill in the past. We are now aware of the controversy that took place about taking out a portion of the boundary due to the mineral finds in them.

I would say that both sides have good arguments. I would like to agree with my colleague from Cypress Hill who said future generations can change this if so desired. Although he says let us do it right in the first place, I would venture to say that at this time, due to the fact that this area has also been identified as a calving ground for the bluenose caribou, we not change it.

It is important to recognize that national parks are an ecological treasure. We are the custodians of this ecological treasure for our future generations. Therefore the Reform Party says we should support the concept of environmentally sensitive zoning.

The Reform Party supports cost effective and efficient initiatives that protect and preserve Canada's wildlife and wilderness areas for future generations to enjoy. Based on this, my party is in agreement with this act and will support this because it follows what we support.

However, I would like to talk on another point on Parks Canada. This is the user fee, the entrance fee into the national parks. I come from the riding of Calgary East which is at the foothills of the greatest natural treasurer we have in Canada. It is the Banff National Park at the foot of the Rockies. A tremendous amount of traffic goes through that park.

Over the 20 years since I first came to Canada I have marvelled at that area. I have noticed time after time that the user fee keeps rising.

Today it has come to the state where there are serious concerns as to what is the aim of this national park. One U.S. ranger said U.S. parks are set aside for the specific purpose of being available for all people, not specific people who can afford to go there.

We support our national parks as they are our national treasures for all Canadians. We should not raise the user fee to a level where only those who can afford to go can. That has happened. I do not go frequently to Banff National Park but I did at one time. Now I do not because of the high cost of going into my own national heritage. This is a cause for concern.

Imagine going through Banff and having to use the washroom. Our bodies do not say we are in a national park and cannot go to the washroom unless we have paid the user fee. If we have to go and we stop we are liable to a $2,000 fine.

As was quoted in the Calgary Herald one out of four cars going through Banff National Park does not pay the fee. Why? Do we think they do not wish to comply with Canadian laws? Nonsense. They do but the user fee is too expensive.

I am asking the government to consider that user fees for national parks is not revenue generating. We pay taxes. Taxes have not been reduced. Therefore this government should not use user fees as another form of taxation. It is important we recognize this fact.

User fees should be at a level where all Canadians can afford to go into national parks to enjoy themselves. Members of parliament have just been given pay raises of 2% so I presume they can afford to go to national parks. But I am talking about general usage.

My party supports this bill. We agree with this bill.

I would like to wish a happy summer to all my colleagues in the House. Go back to your constituencies and work for your constituents. I would like to pass a motion to adjourn the House for the summer.

[Immigration, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, who makes the laws in this country, parliament or the supreme court? This is another decision in which the supreme court is reading into the law. You have the authority. You have the right to do it. You have the law to do it. Are drug dealers going to take precedence over genuine refugees? When will you intervene and kick—