Deepak Obhrai

[February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that he knows that human rights is the number one policy of the government. The Prime Minister has stated on many occasions that our government will take a principled stand on human rights abuse around the world and for that reason we have been very active on the international scene, including the UN.

Yes, the UN director general has said that the UN is facing challenges in line with the African Union, but we are all working together to ensure, and I agree with him, that the quicker the deployment takes place the better it is and the killing fields, as he mentioned, will stop.

We will continue working on it, but I can assure him that this government will, and that is part of our priority, work very hard on the issue of human rights.

[February 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Mount Royal is very much engaged on this file. As part of the efforts of Canada's Parliament, as well as parliamentarians on this side of the House, we are working with him and his colleagues to ensure that this issue regarding Darfur remains in the public domain. Members have been pressuring the government to carry on working toward bringing the situation in Sudan under control.

I attended a conference at the UN on Darfur and talked about many of the issues that my colleague has raised.

Canada is heavily engaged in Sudan. Since 2004, Canada has given $414 million for UN peacekeeping forces as well as the humanitarian effort. We will continue to do that.

I can assure the member that we will continue to work with the international community to bring more pressure on the government of Sudan to accept the UN peacekeeping forces as mandated by the UN Security Council.

Canada was at the forefront at the United Nations human rights council. We want to ensure that Sudan's human rights record remains under scrutiny all the time. We have repeatedly called on the government of Sudan to cooperate with the international criminal code with respect to the two Sudanese my colleague is talking about who have been indicted by the International Court of Justice.

Canada is working with both the UN forces and the African Union forces. As a matter of fact, we have pledged money to the UN until it is able to get all the resources it requires. We have extended the leases for the helicopters for the African Union.

The UN is facing challenges in trying to bring that force together. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, with whom I have talked on many occasions, is working hard to ensure that those UN forces are there, but it is a challenge.

The United Nations is an expert in these kinds of issues. It has the knowledge on setting up peacekeeping missions. It has its own standards. It has its own department to take care of these things.

Canada is waiting for the UN to tell us what it wants. We cannot tell it what to do. It is for the UN, through its peacekeeping division, to tell us what it wants and what we can do to help.

The UN has asked Canada to carry on supplying the helicopters for the African Union and we have agreed. Originally, the UN had told us it did not want our helicopters, but as has been rightly pointed out, the UN is facing challenges, so we will continue with the lease program so the UN forces can use them.

The government of Sudan is putting up a lot of roadblocks with respect to this issue. We do not expect the government of Sudan to suddenly welcome all these forces considering its record in the past. However, we are cooperatively working with the international community. We have been at all the peace talks that have taken place and will continue to do that.

I assure the member that Canada will ensure that this issue of Darfur is addressed as quickly as possible.

[Foreign Affairs, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to address the subject of Motion No. 410 as it relates to Iran.

The government shares the opposition's outrage and alarm regarding the situation in Iran. Our current approach to Iran is quite intensive in its scope, and clearly reflects a deep and justifiable concern about Iran's behaviour, domestically, regionally and internationally. We fully and completely agree with the member that the time has come for further action. We fully support this motion.

My colleague from Crowfoot will speak about the situation in Sudan.

I want to take a few minutes today to remind the House of what our government is already doing to bring pressure on the regime in Tehran, but first let me outline why we feel it is so important for pressure to be brought on Iran to change its behaviour.

Canada believes Iran's continued support for militant groups threatens regional stability and raises the spectre of further conflict. Tehran's support for terrorism is longstanding and poses a consistent threat to regional stability, peace and security. It is vital that the international community engage and exert pressure on Iran to stop its destabilizing influence and end its support for militant groups in the region such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The defence minister's expressed concern over support for the Taliban coming from Iran is a testament to Iran's spoiler role in the region. Canada must continue to work with the international community and with its multilateral partners to address its concerns on Iran's role in the region.

Canada remains very concerned and has shown a great commitment toward addressing the poor and deteriorating human rights situation in Iran. The persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, such as the Baha'is, continues unabated. The recent four year sentences given to three members of the Baha'i faith, combined with the sentences issued to 50 other Baha'is for their involvement in a community youth development program, attests to this fact.

Women's rights are oppressed, freedom of expression and the media are severely restricted, and efforts have been made to intimidate academics and journalists. All of these examples attest to the unacceptable human rights situation in Iran.

For five straight years, Canada has worked with more than 40 co-sponsors and successfully led a resolution on the situation on human rights in Iran at the UN General Assembly.

Canada demonstrates great leadership in this respect as it leads one of the most difficult country specific human rights resolutions at the General Assembly. It should be noted that Canada has achieved success with this resolution despite attempts by Iran to pass no action motions which, had they been successful, would have adjourned the debate on the resolution.

The adoption of the Canadian led resolution signals that the international community is deeply concerned about Iran's serious human rights situation, and that concrete steps must be taken to address it.

Iran's nuclear program and its continued defiance of the demands of the international community on this issue have generated considerable international concern through most of this decade. A nuclear armed Iran would be a grave threat to regional peace and security, and we have fully supported the efforts of the United Nations Security Council to press Iran on the scope and direction of its nuclear program.

Since 1996, Canadian relations with Iran have been governed by a policy of controlled engagement. This policy reflects Canada's ongoing concerns about the Iranian government's opposition to the Middle East peace process, its support of terrorism, its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and its atrocious human rights policies.

Following the death of Canadian-Iranian Zahra Kazemi in 2003, and the lack of progress in punishing those responsible for her death, Canada tightened the controlled engagement policy. As it stands now, the controlled engagement policy limits official bilateral dialogue to the following four topics: the case of murdered Canadian-Iranian Zahra Kazemi, Iran's human rights performance, Iran's nuclear program, and Iran's role in the region.

Within the confines of the controlled engagement policy, Canada also prohibits the opening of Iranian consulates, cultural centres and Iranian banks in Canada.

Furthermore, it prohibits the establishment of direct links and any high level visits. The Canadian government's control engagement policy has shown great foresight in that it already bars cooperation between any Canadian government agency and its Iranian counterpart. For example, Canada does not facilitate trade and investment between Canadian private firms with any Iranian state entities.

In addition to maintaining a controlled engagement policy with Iran, Canada has fully implemented the binding economic measures called for under the United Nations Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747. These sanctions reflect many of the international community's concerns and send a strong signal to Iran that it must change its behaviour with respect to uranium enrichment activities or continue to face stringent multilateral sanctions.

Canada is supportive of these sanctions and believes that they are an effective approach in attempting to force Iran to end its uranium enrichment program. The Security Council is currently deliberating on a third sanctions resolution which, if approved, would further put international pressure on Iran. Should this resolution be adopted, Canada would fully implement the new measures decided upon within the resolution.

The Government of Canada has also supported and responded to the warnings of the financial action task force on the risks posed to the international financial system by Iran's lack of an anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regime.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions recently issued an advisory drawing attention to the FATF recommendation for heightened attention to transactions related to Iran as a result of these concerns.

We welcome the interest and advice of the hon. member for York Centre. We fully and completely support the motion and we can see the value in placing economic pressure through measures such as those we have already imposed and the divestment measures proposed in the motion.

Let me conclude by stating that our government will continue to work on strategic, focused and ultimately effective actions to respond to the situation in Iran.

[Humanitarian Aid Workers, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the past months, we have witnessed an appalling increase in attacks on humanitarian aid workers.

Just last week, three humanitarian workers were killed in Somalia. Aid workers have been attacked recently in Afghanistan, Darfur and Sri Lanka. The UN suffered one of its deadliest years in 2007 with 42 employees being killed in the line of duty.

It is essential that humanitarian workers have full, safe and unhindered access to affected populations.

There can be no impunity. Those who attack aid workers must be brought to account. Canada calls on all governments that have not already done so to become a party to the 1994 United Nations Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel.

Attacks on humanitarian workers must be halted. Canada will continue to provide political, diplomatic and financial resources toward this end.

[February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how a vice-chair of a committee of Parliament would not understand the committee is independent of the government. It calls witnesses independent of the government. It reports independent of the government. Then it advises to the government on that point.

That it is how committees of Parliament work, which he should know as a vice-chair. So why would he want a panel that is appointed by the government to address it? Now that the panel has come back he should exercise the democratic right for every Canadian through the committee and call in the panel.

Again, why is he now afraid to call Mr. Manley? What is he worried about? Why did the Liberals not call Mr. Manley? Is it because Mr. Manley was the former Liberal deputy prime minister and they are afraid of what he has said? Otherwise, what would be the reason for the Liberals to refuse to have Mr. Manley come before the committee?

[February 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that member is the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today he talked about two issues: democracy and human rights in Afghanistan. He quoted what the independent panel had said. He also mentioned that the committee had prepared an interim report on Afghanistan. We needed to listen to witnesses to prepare that comprehensive report. Yet that member talks about the independent panel. Why did the member opposite vote against the motion to call the independent panel in front of the committee? What were those members afraid of hearing? Why are they afraid of listening to Mr. Manley?

The member can stand up and talk about the same report, yet he refused to pass a motion to bring members of the independent panel before the committee where everyone could question them and their evidence would form part of the report. Being the vice-chair, he will be responsible for a one-sided, partisan report, not a comprehensive report in which all Canadians are interested.

Why is he afraid of listening to the independent panel? Why is he afraid of Mr. Manley?

[Afghanistan, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Liberal Party members yesterday revealed their fear for an open, reasoned and informed discussion. Maybe that is because the Liberal Party is divided on the mission in Afghanistan. Perhaps the Liberal Party does not want an open, honest and constructive debate on the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

Why are the Liberal Party members afraid of Mr. Manley's testimony? Why are they afraid of Mr. Manley? I want to know why.

[Death Penalty, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to tell my NDP colleague that the tragic events in his family have touched all of us and we offer him our sympathy.

This government is not reopening the debate on the death penalty in Canada despite what the member said. I want to make it very clear again and again so she understands once and for all, instead of going for the rhetoric she is talking about. This government is not reopening the debate on the death penalty in Canada.

Our position has been very clear. In cases where Canadians face the death penalty abroad, the Government of Canada, on a case by case basis, based on what is in the best interest of Canada, will continue to consider whether to seek clemency. We take our responsibility very seriously.

As we have repeatedly mentioned, our stance on this issue does not affect Canada's status as a country without the death penalty. We continue to strongly support international law and international standards on the death penalty.

Our position is clear. Canada's laws and history have made a response to the first part of this motion today unnecessary. There is no death penalty in Canada, not in law nor in practice and this has been the case since 1962.

In 1976, capital punishment was removed from Canada's Criminal Code when Parliament decided, after years of debate, that capital punishment was not an appropriate penalty for Canada.

In 1987, a free vote was held in this House regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty. The result of the vote was in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty.

In 1998, Parliament removed the death penalty from Canadian law completely with the passing of an act to amend the National Defence Act.

This government continues to speak for Canada and make its voice heard at the international level on all matters of foreign policy, including international human rights. In addition, Canada's voice is a principled one which supports international standards and the rule of law.

It must be recalled that the death penalty is not, in and of itself, contrary to international law. International law clearly recognizes that different states may legitimately take differing views on the issue of the death penalty. One of the foremost human rights treaties adhered to by over 130 states is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada has been a party to this treaty since 1976. The covenant does not prohibit the imposition of the death penalty but rather sets out that states that retain the death penalty must abide by certain rules. Canada advocates full respect for the safeguards and due process of law where the death penalty is still in use.

I will conclude by reassuring this House, despite suggestions from the opposition that we are wavering in our support for the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, nothing could be further from the truth. The House has spoken on this issue previously and we will not reopen this debate.

[Afghanistan, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the second anniversary of the Afghanistan Compact, a milestone agreement between the United Nations, the government of Afghanistan and the international community.

The Afghanistan Compact provides the framework for the international community's engagement in Afghanistan until 2011.

When it was developed, Canada was there, along with 60 other nations and international organizations, to pledge its full support to the compact. Our country was instrumental in ensuring that the compact included a mechanism to monitor programs and measure progress.

We have joined with the international community to help the people of Afghanistan build a better future. We know many challenges lie ahead but we are encouraged by the significant progress Afghans have been able to achieve since the fall of the Taliban.

Our support for this important agreement is a noble endeavour, that of helping a country devastated by decades of conflict and oppression to get back on its feet.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this dispute is between two parties that have agreed to go in front of an arbitration tribunal. Therefore, it is important to recognize that when two parties go there, they decide what they would like to discuss and how, and they like to keep their affairs out of the public domain unless it is part of a public policy issue.

When an investment is made, the laws of the country are always maintained. As the Parliament of Canada, we create the laws as to how companies will operate in Canada. Any investment that comes into our country will be required to operate under our laws as made by Parliament. That will never change.

The arbitration tribunal will not override the laws of our country. It will only make decisions based on a dispute mechanism for reasons of investment, but our laws, as established by the Parliament of Canada, will be protected.