Bill Siksay

[Afghanistan, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, serious concerns continue to be raised about Canada's prisoner transfers in Afghanistan. The Canadian military transfers child soldiers taken prisoner to Afghan authorities in Kandahar and, in particular, to the Afghan National Directorate of Security, or secret police. The secret police is known for its involvement in torture.

Canada must cease this practice immediately. Child soldiers must be handled in strict compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols.

Instead of turning them over to known torturers, Canada should be ensuring they become part of demobilization and reintegration programs operated by the United Nations through UNICEF. Such a program exists in Kandahar. Canada has supported similar programs in other countries. Yet when its own military is confronted with child soldiers as prisoners, it abandons its commitments.

Canada must also release information about these children taken prisoner, where they are currently being held, and assume responsibility for their well-being. Canada must not abandon its moral responsibilities in a time of war.

[Komagata Maru Incident, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion by the member for Brampton—Springdale:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should officially apologize to the Indo-Canadian community and to the individuals impacted in the 1914 Komagata Maru incident, in which passengers were prevented from landing in Canada.

New Democrats will be supporting the motion because we believe it is the right thing to do and because we believe it is long overdue.

Many folks in this corner of the House would have liked the opportunity to speak to the motion today. I know that I speak for my colleagues from Surrey North, Burnaby—New Westminster, New Westminster—Coquitlam, Vancouver East, and Nanaimo—Cowichan.

All of us have a longstanding interest in this issue, the Komagata Maru incident, and have worked on this issue for many years with people from our communities. We have often taken initiatives and we have called for action on this important apology many times over.

It is important that we acknowledge the injustices committed by Canada in the past. We need to remember and we need to apologize as we commit to working to ensure that we never again make the same mistakes. The Komagata Maru exists as a dark moment in Canadian history, a dark moment that we vow we should never repeat.

We have heard the story many times and it is a story that we must continue to tell. Back on May 23, 1914, the Komagata Maru arrived at English Bay in Vancouver. On board were 376 passengers from India: 340 Sikhs, 12 Hindus and 24 Muslims. The Komagata Maru had been chartered for the voyage to Canada. It was actually a coal freighter that had been modified to accommodate passengers.

The purpose of the voyage was political in nature. The intent was to test the colour bar that was part of Canada's immigration policy of the day. The organizer of the trip, Gurdit Singh, was intent on showing the injustice of that policy. All of the people on board were citizens of the British Empire, as were Canadians of that day.

Canada's policy at the time was designed to prevent Asian immigration. The policy stated that those who did not arrive on a continuous journey and who had less than $200 were denied entry to Canada. It is pretty clear that such a non-stop journey was virtually impossible from India and most of Asia at that time. Also, $200 was a huge amount of money by the standards of the time.

Debate in the House of Commons made it clear that the intent was explicitly racist. We have heard other speakers comment on it and quote directly from that debate.

It was also clear that the government intended to make it even more difficult to have a continuous voyage from India to Canada. It imposed on Canadian Pacific, its steamship line, to change the patterns of its voyages to make that impossible.

When the Komagata Maru arrived and the passengers were forbidden from disembarking, it was held for two months while court challenges were heard. In the end, the law was upheld, although 24 of the passengers were allowed to land.

On July 23, 1914, the Komagata Maru was forced to leave Vancouver harbour by the warship HMCS Rainbow. It arrived back in Calcutta, India, in September 1914, but the story continues to be one of tragedy. The British colonial authorities would not allow the passengers to disembark. In fact, they wanted to force them onto a special train going directly to Punjab. A riot ensued and 20 of the passengers were killed at that time.

Thus, the tragedy of the Komagata Maru was not just a story that happened on this side of the Pacific. It happened back in India as well.

At the time, there were Canadians who were prepared to extend a welcome to the passengers on the Komagata Maru. Members of the local Vancouver Sikh community, for instance, supported the legal challenges, held meetings at local gurdwaras and raised significant amounts of money. I think reports are that they raised $20,000. Again, that was a huge sum of money at the time.

They also collected provisions for the passengers, who were forbidden from disembarking. The Komagata Maru situation invoked a very strong sense of unity in the Sikh community in Vancouver at the time, along with widespread involvement.

I must say I am thankful that such compassion existed in the community at the time. I am also thankful that some members of the community were prepared to challenge that unjust law in a very direct way.

It is clear from the accounts of what happened that two things occurred. There were people who were directly involved in seeking justice and overturning an unjust and racist policy. There also were people who were acting out of compassion for those being held on the Komagata Maru.

The local media of the day were not so kind. They often whipped up racist sentiments against those who were on the Komagata Maru and they sensationalized the situation. The sentiments the media evoked inflamed less than honourable actions and statements by others in the community.

Most of us here in the House of Commons, and in fact most Canadians, are descended from immigrants, other than those who are from first nations. Our families came to Canada with high hopes for a better life. That was true of my family when they emigrated some time ago from Germany, Ireland and Scotland, but also more recently when family members came from Hungary.

That is one of the tragedies of the Komagata Maru incident: the tragedy of dashing the hopes of those people on board the Komagata Maru, who were never able to realize that dream. They were never able to make a contribution to the building of Canada and to the success of this country.

That is part of the reason why Canada must apologize to those who were on the Komagata Maru and to the Indo Canadian community. As a Canadian, I should offer a personal apology, and I do.

Part of my family lived in Canada at the time. While they lived in eastern Canada, I am sure they did nothing to see the law changed, to challenge the policies or to challenge those attitudes. I think we all have to bear responsibility for the actions of our democratically elected governments. I bear some of that responsibility in the inaction of my ancestors here in Canada.

New Democrats support this motion. We hope the government acts without further delay. However, I also have to say that discussion of this motion comes at a time when we are also discussing new changes to the Canadian immigration act.

Many people in Canada are concerned about the proposals from the government. They are concerned about the additional discretion that would be given to the minister. They are concerned about the change in the immigration law that would allow the requirement of processing of applications to be passed over. I think we have to always maintain our vigilance about the impact of changes to our immigration law.

Canada can be proud of its record on human rights. We are not perfect, and the Komagata Maru incident is just one example, but we have learned from our mistakes and we continue to learn from our mistakes. Sadly, we continue to make them with first nations women, temporary foreign workers, racial and ethnic minorities, and people caught up in national security concerns. Transsexual and transgender people still know prejudice and discrimination in Canada and are still denied full human rights and full participation in our society.

We should speak humbly when we call for action on human rights concerns. We should speak strongly and clearly but with humility and grace. We should never back away from seeing justice for those who are oppressed, but we should always do so in the knowledge of our own history and our own failings. We should always acknowledge our failings and pledge that they never be repeated.

Just the other day in the Globe and Mail, Gurcharan Singh Gill, who is a descendant of one of the individuals who was on the Komagata Maru, Daljit Singh, spoke about his hopes in this whole regard. There is only a handful of people in Canada who are descended from Komagata Maru passengers and Mr. Gill is one of them. He said from his home in Surrey, British Columbia, that if the government does it “with a full heart, it is all right”.

It is indeed right to offer this apology and it would be right to do it with a full heart.

[Petitions, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today signed by many residents of British Columbia and Ontario who are concerned about the role of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in promoting and defending Canadian cultural and artistic freedom. They also believe that there should be no ability for the government, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, any office of government or government official to make subjective judgments concerning artistic content that limit the freedom of expression.

The petitioners call on Parliament to staunchly defend Canadian artistic and cultural expression, to rescind any provisions of Bill C-10 which allow the government to censor film and video production in Canada, and to ensure that the government has in place subjective and transparent guidelines that respect freedom of expression when delivering any program intended to support film and video production in Canada.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for London—Fanshawe for her intervention and her broad perspective on this debate around emergency shelters and safe houses for aboriginal women who are fleeing domestic violence.

It was great the way she pointed out the limited or non-existing housing options for many aboriginal women and indeed for many women in Canada when they are leaving domestic abuse. For aboriginal women the member pointed out that they could leave the reserve, they could face homelessness, or they could return to a dangerous domestic situation. She also pointed out that second stage housing, the stage after being in an emergency shelter, might not be available.

The member for London—Fanshawe has an important private member's bill on the order paper, the NDP's housing bill of rights. I wonder if she might talk about how that particular piece of proposed legislation would assist women in Canada with the kind of housing situations that they face. It is a very important piece of proposed legislation.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last year the government announced some money for aboriginal women's shelters, for 35 existing shelters and 5 new ones. That is certainly not enough for most of us who are concerned about the situation regarding shelters and safe houses and given what we have already heard in the debate this morning of the number of communities where aboriginal women do not have access to shelters.

One strange aspect of the announcement was that northern aboriginal women were excluded from any of this funding. There was no funding for aboriginal women in the north.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain why the government ignored the needs of first nations and Inuit women in the north for new shelters and funding for existing shelters in that announcement last year?

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for putting this motion forward this morning. It is an important issue that should be discussed. I am glad too that she made the connection between the provision of emergency shelters and safe houses, and the overall housing situation for first nations in Canada, but that is true of women all across Canada.

She will probably be aware of a major report that was done last fall in Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon about the housing situation in the north. One of the key conclusions in that report was that the situation for women was particularly troubling given that the lack of housing options often forced women to return to relationships and homes that were not safe for them. Because they did not have other options for safe housing, they were forced back into their relationships.

I wonder if she could relate that to the lack of a national housing program here in Canada. It is something that the previous Liberal government got out of in a major way. The current government has taken no significant new initiatives on housing at all and I wonder if she could talk about how the need for shelters relates to the lack of a national housing program in Canada.

[Committees of the House, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on the motion to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is a recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts).

As we have heard, Bill C-327 was tabled by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie in response to a petition of over 1.5 million Canadians, a petition spearheaded and headed by Virginie Larivière, a 13-year-old girl who was concerned about the role of television violence in the rape and murder of her younger sister. She gathered those petitions and presented them to the Mulroney government back a number of years ago.

The petition expressed the concern of over a million Canadians about the effects of violence on television in our society. This is clearly a very strong opinion about the circumstances and that issue. Members of Parliament needed to take that expression of concern very seriously. That is exactly what the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie did when he proposed this private member's bill. He did absolutely the right thing in putting forward a serious attempt to address that issue raised by so many Canadians.

Unfortunately, there were problems identified with the bill as proposed. The most serious problem members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage faced, after listening to testimony from many organizations and individuals, was that many witnesses saw this bill as giving the CRTC the power to censor television programing in Canada. This was seen a inappropriate by most of the witnesses and the members of the committee. It was a power that the CRTC should not have in the opinion of most of us, and I agree.

I have heard the concerns expressed around censorship and the freedom of cultural expression. Many of those have been raised recently regarding the Canadian film and video tax credit in the provisions of Bill C-10, which include a very broad possibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage using guidelines to deny film and video tax credit based on personal sensibilities about what is appropriate film or video production in Canada. We have seen a great outcry from the cultural and arts community about that aspect of the bill.

We were very aware in the committee of that context of Bill C-10 and it was clear that we could not proceed with the provisions of Bill C-327 as they were presented.

There were also concerns that disputed some of the evidence presented in support of Bill C-327, including the way the numbers were used to compare the number of acts of violence in the Laval study, which my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has cited. It was also clear that television violence was only one source of violence today that Canadians and children faced. The Internet and video games were also very major sources of very violent programming and violence to which children and adults were exposed.

Therefore, for those reasons, I support the concurrence motion that we should not proceed with Bill C-327 as it was originally presented and as it cleared the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

However, I want to point out that it became clear to me, as we worked on the bill in committee, there was the possibility for amending it to fully remove the censorship provisions and instead stress the further development of broadcast codes and media literacy education commitments. It was clear there were serious concerns in Canadian society related to violence on television and its effect on adults and children in our society.

It also became clear that media literacy education was an important approach to dealing with the concerns, an approach that deserved stronger support from government, the CRTC and broadcasters. Many organizations do that excellent work, and we heard from quite a number of them. We should ensure there is expanded access by adults, children, parents and educators to the work on media literacy and media awareness done by those organizations.

It also became clear that the development by broadcasters of codes of ethics, broadcast codes, programming standards, classification systems and related complaint mechanisms should be enshrined in the Broadcasting Act. I appreciate that private broadcasters have developed those codes, voluntarily originally. Now through the auspices of the CRTC it is more mandatory, but they belong in the Broadcasting Act.

We should also put into the act that such codes should be developed in consultation with government, the CRTC, cultural workers, media unions, media literacy and media awareness organizations, advocacy groups and interested individuals, among others, that such codes and classification systems should be formally reviewed every five years, comprehensively, independently and publicly, and that further analysis of the connections between the depiction of violence and violence in society should be part of the mandate of the CRTC and broadcasters, as should media literacy education and media awareness education for Canadians of all ages.

I proposed amendments that would do exactly those things, that would add all those aspects to Bill C-327 as originally proposed. I had an indication from the chair that my amendments would be seen as being in order.

I also had clear support for my amendments from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, one of the groups that most clearly stated its concern and its opposition to the original bill because of what it saw as censorship provisions in the bill. It supported my amendments because it was clear that I had removed effectively all the censorship provisions from the bill.

Sadly, the Conservatives and Liberals on the committee would not even consider these amendments and then decided to recommend that the bill be abandoned without any discussion or debate on the amendments, which I had worked on, proposed and brought to the committee.

That was a serious disappointment. When we have the opportunity to consider private members' legislation at committee, we should go the whole way on that consideration. When members bring forward amendments to legislation before a committee, the committee should hear those amendments and have discussion on them. Sadly, that was short-circuited by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in this regard.

I would not have been able to support Bill C-327 as it was originally proposed and now as it returns to the House. That is why I support the motion before us today that the bill be abandoned, that we not proceed with the bill.

However, there was something valuable in the proposal from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. We could have rescued the bill and found in it, with some amendments such as the ones I proposed, something that would be worthwhile for Canadians and that would serve us well in the long run, something that merited more discussion. We should have debated it more thoroughly in committee at the end of our considerations.

However, given now that the only option before us is the original form of the bill, sadly I have to concur with the full committee that we should not proceed with the legislation, given the very serious problems.

[Petitions, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by residents of Montreal and the Stratford area who are concerned about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its guarantee of cultural expression, noting that it is essential to democracy and the creative process and Canadian arts and culture.

The petitioners note that the Criminal Code already contains provisions regarding pornography, child pornography, hate propaganda and violent crime. They suggest that any guidelines for government funding must support the cultural sector, including the film and video production industry and that the guidelines should be objective, transparent and respect the freedom of expression.

They therefore call on the government to defend Canadian artistic and cultural expression, to rescind provisions of Bill C-10 which allow the government to censor film and video production in Canada and to ensure that the government has in place objective and transparent guidelines that respect freedom of expression when delivering any program intended to support film and video production in Canada.

[May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the parliamentary secretary could not even give her statement with a straight face. She knows that she is stretching some of the truth in this situation.

The reality is, as I said, the government has made no new initiatives of its own. Rather than criticizing the NDP and misrepresenting our voting record, the Conservatives should be thanking us for having fought the Liberals to ensure that there was money that they are now able to spend on housing. That is the only way they have any money for housing.

There are three existing programs on housing. There is the existing program on affordable housing. There is the residential rehabilitation assistance program. There is the homelessness initiative. All of these programs will expire in 10 months and yet the Conservative government has refused to commit to their renewal.

When will the government commit to their renewal? Do we have to go through the same terrible fight that we did the last time the homelessness initiative was up for renewal?

[May 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks back I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development regarding homelessness and affordable housing in Canada.

Report after report in community after community across Canada has called on the federal government to deal with the affordable housing and homelessness crisis in Canada.

Just since I became the NDP's housing critic last fall, the stack of reports issued on that topic is almost a foot high. It includes reports from northern Canada, from Nunavut, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, from most major cities, from many non-governmental organizations and also from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing. All recognize that the housing situation in Canada is in serious crisis. Some call it a national shame and all recognize, I should probably say demand, that the federal government must be involved in the solution.

The only commitment from the Conservative government in the last budget was for five pilot projects on homelessness that might be related to mental illness and the work of the new Mental Health Commission. I do not deny for a second that there is value in these projects, but the reality is that more pilot projects and studies will not solve the crisis of homelessness or of the availability of affordable housing in Canada.

The government and the minister talk about having spent more money on housing than any other government. That claim is only possible because the NDP leveraged a commitment of $1.6 billion from the last Liberal government. New Democrats got the Liberals to abandon yet another huge tax cut to big profitable corporations, big polluters and the wealthy and instead to invest in housing, post-secondary education, public transit, the environment and international aid.

We will remember the Liberals then lost the election and the Conservatives put that money into their housing trust. They in fact got to appropriate the money that the NDP fought for.

The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, in his answer to my question, contended that the NDP had voted against the $1.4 billion on housing. He is absolutely wrong in that claim. Members of the NDP are the ones who fought for and obtained that funding for Canadians who need homes, an education, who want to see action on the environment and meet our foreign aid commitments. We are the ones who fought for more money to fight homelessness and to build affordable housing in Canada.

The increase in spending on housing that the government claims cannot be attributed to action on the part of the Conservative government. It has taken no significant initiative of its own in this regard.

We need a national housing program that actually builds homes in Canada and for Canadians. The NDP is committed to a 10 year national housing program to build 200,000 new affordable and social housing units, to renovate 100,000 existing units and to provide 40,000 new rent subsidies. We would reinstate the co-op housing program which has been hugely successful and is recognized around the world for building communities of people of mixed incomes, very successful communities that have been a huge boon to many cities and towns across Canada.

New Democrats would also introduce a housing bill of rights based on the private member's bill from the member for London—Fanshawe, originated by the member for Vancouver East, that would enshrine the right to housing in law according to the obligations that Canada has made in international agreements that have been signed and to legislate the process for developing and implementing a national housing program.

Those are some of the steps that New Democrats--