Rob Anders

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have has been consultation between the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, at the conclusion of debate on C-280 all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred until the end of Government Orders on Wednesday, March 26, 2003.

[Special Economic Measures Act, March 20th, 2003]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-414, an act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act (no foreign aid to countries that do not respect religious freedom).

Mr. Speaker, religious freedom is an issue we take for granted in Canada. It is a fundamental freedom guaranteed in our Constitution. Yet our government gives taxpayer money to nations that do not share these same values.

Millions of dollars through CIDA go to regimes that tear down churches, burn bibles and imprison church leaders. I do not believe the taxpayers would approve of their money being used to prop up governments which wilfully ignore this basic right.

My bill would limit CIDA funding to intolerant nations that do not respect religious freedom.

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

[Petitions, February 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, these petitioners note that March 10 marks the anniversary of Tibetan uprising day. In 1959, Tibetans rose up against the invading Chinese and about 100,000 were massacred, and some 1.2 million have lost their lives in the past five decades. Authorities continue to detain 13 year old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Panchen Lama, whose detention is now approaching its eighth year.

The petitioners say that the Human Rights Commission should adopt a resolution on the situation of human rights in China, East Turkestan and Tibet, with a view to ending specific human rights abuses. Further, the petitioners call upon the Canadian government to sponsor a resolution at the upcoming United Nations Commission on Human Rights to petition Chinese authorities for permission to visit the Panchen Lama for the purpose of ascertaining his safety and well-being

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on the broad subject of reproduction and replacement. It has come to the knowledge of many that a Sea King helicopter has crashed on to the deck of the HMCS Iroquois and two people have been injured. That ship, which was intended to be a command ship in the Gulf of Oman, is right now on its way back to Canada because of that.

I would like to touch briefly on the subject of replacement and reproduction. We are touching on that with regard to Bill C-13. We understand when we talk about the bill that replacement and replenishment is important when it comes to human beings, but for some strange reason the government has taken far too long to do the right thing when it comes to our Canadian armed forces, our navy and the Sea King helicopter replacement program. That is a real shame. I just wanted to get that on the record.

I would now like to talk about Bill C-13 and about human dignity and respect for human life. It is ironic, when I think of that as the first touchstone with regard to this speech, acknowledgement of human dignity and the respect for human life, I would like to think that the government does have respect for human life. I am grateful that no sailors died with regard to the HMCS Iroquois crash. Maybe that makes me think about whether or not the government really does have a commitment to those principles when I talk about Bill C-13 and whether or not the government is doing its level best to safeguard the lives of our littlest citizens.

Bill C-13's preamble does not provide an acknowledgement of human dignity or the respect for human life and I think it is very important that it does. There is also no overarching recognition of the principle of the respect for human life in the bill.

Our minority report recommended that the final legislation clearly recognize the human embryo as human life. We would like to have it such that the statutory declaration include the phrase “respect for human life”. We also believe the mandate of the proposed agency should be amended to include reference to the principle of respect for life. Some of our objections stem from the following ideas.

The complete DNA of an adult human is present at the embryo stage. We need to understand and respect that with regard to the bill.

Also, we in the Canadian Alliance recognize that adult stem cells are a safe, proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells can come from umbilical cords, blood, skin tissue, bone tissue, et cetera, and are all perfectly valid sources for us to get stem cells. The adult sources also are easily accessible, not subject to immune rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns. They are not treated as foreign tissues by the body and they are often taken from one's own body, never mind anyone else's. It seems the logical way to go.

Currently, adult stem cells are used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, leukemia, MS, and other conditions for that matter. Our minority report called for a three year prohibition on experiments with human embryos corresponding with the first scheduled review of the bill.

On a different subject but which is still related to Bill C-13, it does not seem very fair that the bill only requires the consent of one of the donors when it takes two donors to make an embryo. It takes two sets of genetic material. The bill does not recognize that both parents need to be required to give written consent for the use of the embryo, not just one. They have made the embryo collectively.

One of the things that really shook me and made me an advocate for the pro-life position was that I remember the debates that took place with regard to Chantal Daigle. I was a young man at the time, but as that decision was coming through the Supreme Court, I thought it was profoundly unfair that I as a man was deemed discounted from having any relevance or influence with regard to that decision and with regard to the definition in respect of human life. The idea that it was only one person's decision and that we as a society, or that I as a man, had no relevance in the decision with regard to human life struck me profoundly. I was not any more than a very young teenager at the time.

This bill, I feel, replicates that very same mistake. It does not recognize that it takes two people to create a child, not just one, and that the implications and the ramifications of those decisions are far above and beyond just the one individual carrying the child. Just as with regard to our Criminal Code, one rape does not just involve the victim or the criminal, it involves everybody else that it touches as well.

That is the reason we have a Criminal Code. We recognize that we do need to set laws that determine the difference between right and wrong and that set a standard of behaviour for all of us. If we do not have that, then we merely have capriciousness. We have anarchy. We have mob rule. We have a situation where people can do whatever they want so long as maybe it is consensual or reciprocal and is done in the privacy of their own homes or something, as some of those arguments go.

It is not quite that simple. Those things really do have an impact on the quality of life for the rest of us. They do impact the society we live in, the culture we have, our civilization. Therefore it is very important that we take firm stands on these things.

That is the reason we do not arbitrarily say murder is something that is up to somebody to decide whether it is right or wrong. We say firmly, through this place and our Criminal Code and through the police officers who enforce it out in the public at large, that murder is wrong regardless of how it comes about. If a person takes another person's life just because the person is upset or angry with the other person or it was done during some bar brawl or because of some grievance or something like that, it is wrong.

We have certain situations in this country where we do justify the taking of life, for example, in the case of war. Of course we know how serious and grave a situation that is and how long we deliberate before we take on something like that.

It is interesting and it is profound that there are parties in this place that will object strenuously to the use of force to remove somebody like Saddam Hussein and object to the potential harm of innocent life, and I think of our friends in the Bloc and in the NDP. I understand there are sensitivities, particularly in Quebec for example, with regard to the situation of war.

I find it ironic that there can be such concern with regard to people in Baghdad yet when it comes to Canada's littlest citizens, there is not that type of concern about people who may have sat in this place but will never get the chance because of some of this legislation, the way the Criminal Code is set or not set in this place, the grey areas it leaves in the law and the arbitrariness it leaves with regard to the definition of life. As a result there will be people who may never sit in this place.

It is profoundly ironic that some people are very upset about some nature of death but not others. It is interesting.

I want to quickly touch on a few points I wanted to make with regard to this bill. The regulatory agency would not report to Parliament but only to the minister. That is a profound mistake. Also, I believe there needs to be a free vote on this subject and the legislation.

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, with the airline tax that was brought in for security purposes, I was wondering why we do not see more sniffer dogs. Whenever I visit the border posts they tell me that the number one thing they need are sniffer dogs.

We have a tax that brings in a lot of money, and sometimes more than what the airport actually costs for security and everything combined, and yet in Quebec, for example, we only have one sniffer dog for eight border crossings between Quebec and the United States. Can members believe that? One sniffer dog and their noses do not even last for a full shift.

Why this government imposes a tax like that and yet does not even produce more tangible things that are needed on the front line, I do not know.

I would like to ask the hon. member a second question. How is it fair that her government has an EI tax applied to students when a lot of students will go ahead and work in part time jobs, never get enough hours to ever be able to collect employment insurance and yet they are paying this tax? There is no benefit to them whatsoever. They will never be able to collect employment insurance but they are forced to pay into it. How does she justify that?

[The Budget, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Edmonton. I think it was the Liberals in 1993 who talked about how they would kill, scrap and abolish the GST. Now that they have had a huge budgetary surplus, whatever happened to killing scrapping and abolishing the GST? What has happened to even reducing the GST?

[Privilege, February 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a number of letters from other members in the House with regard to changes to labour law, the cost of bilingualism, national security, tax reductions and all sorts of things. Letters circulate all over this place encouraging members to take sides on a particular issue. That is part of the nature of our job.

I was trying to solicit a policy initiative the same way that all members in this place do with private members' bills and other issues. We regularly do that.

Frankly I am shocked that the member would stand and make that a point of privilege. I can look into it and report back to the House but I fail to see how it is a point of privilege.

[Goods and Services Tax, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House a story of fraud and waste. Let me tell the House about scams, lack of accountability and hypocrisy.

The GST is highly vulnerable to fraud. From low level scams where cheaters collect and pool their receipts with friends and relatives returning overseas, to high level operations such as those uncovered recently involving tens of millions of dollars. Bogus companies declare huge sales but without any product or service ever being delivered. The GST claim is made and the crooks get a 7% rebate on money that was never spent. It is estimated that such fraud could amount to more than $1 billion annually. There was a plan to track down fraudulent GST claims. However, in 1995 the fraud investigations unit was disbanded. The CCRA began reporting GST fraud on an ad hoc basis.

What kind of shady deal did the tax haven loving Bermuda registered former finance minister make? To make matters worse, he was warned by the Treasury Board but did nothing about it.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc a question.

I share many of his and his party's concerns regarding the federal government taking away money that rightly belongs to the provinces. I think particularly of health care, where in 1966 the federal government made a promise that it would be funding 50% of health care in the country. I know the premier of my province at the time, Ernest Manning, predicted that the federal government would wind up paying substantially less and would leave the provinces holding the bag.

I heard the last question and response, and I would love if the hon. member would take time to elaborate on his concerns regarding the federal underfunding of health care and how bad a position that has put Quebec in not getting its fair share of funding from the federal government. What does the member think the federal government should do to make good on that?

He also touched on employment insurance, an area where the federal government is taking massive over-contributions. I am glad that he touched on the $45 billion surplus that the federal government has amassed from employment insurance.

I would also like him to touch on something related to employment insurance, which is the Canada pension plan. His province was smart to set up the Caisse de dépôt to exempt themselves from the federal government on this. Education is another aspect with regard to--

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2003]

No, I did not think anybody here knocked on the door of anybody who was concerned that the Jehovah's Witnesses were not subsidizing the Liberal Party of Canada.

Do you see how crazy this is, Mr. Speaker? We have prime time here and we could be talking about all these other issues. We could be talking about Senate reform. The Prime Minister used to talk about Senate reform. I remember that in Calgary, my hometown, when in 1990 he was trolling around for votes in western Canada, he came to my fair city and said he supported a triple E Senate, but is he talking about a triple E Senate? Is he talking about reforming the process of how senators are elected and selected? Is he talking about putting Bert Brown into the Senate, the man who won more votes in Alberta than all the Liberal candidates in Alberta combined, including the minister from Edmonton looking at me from across the way? That is right. He got more votes than she did, more than she and all of her colleagues combined did, but are they talking about putting Bert Brown into his duly elected seat in the House of Commons? No, they are talking about political party financing. That is crazy.

Nobody I talked to in the last election would have said they thought it was more important that I get that financing for the Liberal Party of Canada than it was to look into those slush funds with regard to Groupaction or Shawinigate. Did anybody talk about that? No, they did not.

They recognize it. Even the Liberals across the way, Mr. Speaker, recognize that they do not have the priorities of Canadians at heart. Even the Liberals across the way recognize they are doing wrong and I am--