Deepak Obhrai

[May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me again say quite clearly that both Ms. Kim and Ms. Everall have not been charged as far as we are concerned and neither are they on any no-fly list. They have Canadian passports. They are free to travel wherever they want, however they want. Nothing is stopping them.

If and when, and how they are going to be charged, there are processes and procedures that are laid down very clearly where they would have the evidence presented. At this given time, it is a hypothetical situation to say that they have been charged. As far as we know, they have not been charged for anything.

As for the advisory, if people were to go to the website, it is always updated when events do take place. I would again tell the hon. member that we are investigating this new incident that has happened in Mexico. Our consular services are there, as is normal, to provide full support to the family.

[May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing up this issue. I understand these women are his constituents, so he has brought this issue to Parliament.

This government takes very seriously its responsibility for the safety and security of its citizens abroad. Whenever Canadians are victims of a tragedy outside Canada, there is understandably a great deal of public interest and concern. This government shares that concern.

When a Canadian is murdered abroad, consular officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs have an important role to assist the family of the victim. We have more than 270 points of service around the world to provide consular assistance to families dealing with these tragic situations. In the case of the Ianiero murders, our honorary consul in Cancun arrived on the scene within hours of the murder to provide consular support and assistance to the family.

As the hon. member knows, this government takes crimes against Canadians abroad very seriously. The role and the mandate of the Department of Foreign Affairs is to ensure that local police authorities actively investigate crimes against Canadian citizens.

As soon as we are advised that a Canadian citizen is the victim of a crime outside Canada, consular officials immediately contact local authorities to register our concern and to ensure that they are aware of the crime. Canada expects that all crimes against Canadians, wherever they occur, will be thoroughly investigated by local authorities and that due process will take place.

In the Ianiero case, consular officials were immediately in contact with Mexican authorities to insist on a thorough investigation and to emphasize our desire to see that the perpetrators of this terrible crime are brought to justice. However, it is the sole responsibility of the authorities in the foreign country to investigate the crime. Canadian officials have neither the mandate nor the jurisdiction to investigate this crime, or indeed any crime, perpetrated against Canadians outside Canada.

In some cases, we may receive a formal request from a foreign government for assistance with a particular criminal investigation. This initiative must be taken by the foreign government, not Canada. In the Ianiero case, the RCMP received a formal request for assistance from the Mexican authorities.

The RCMP and other Canadian law enforcement agencies continue to follow up on elements of the investigation here in Canada. However, the murder investigation remains the responsibility of the Mexican authorities.

I can assure the House that we will continue to follow developments on this case closely, as we do with all such cases where Canadian interests are concerned.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs met with Ms. Everall and Ms. Kim last December to hear their concerns. They raised the fact that their names had been mentioned several times by the Mexican attorney general responsible for the investigation. They asked for the minister's assistance to clear their names. The minister advised them that while it is possible under the Canadian system for investigative authorities to state publicly that certain individuals are no longer of interest as part of an investigation, he was unaware of a similar practice in Mexico. He also advised that it was likely that they would need to wait for charges to be laid before such a statement could be asked from the Mexicans.

Ms. Everall and Ms. Kim also expressed concerns that their names could be placed on a no-fly list by Mexican officials and that they could be sent to Mexico to face criminal proceedings. The minister stated, and I can confirm again today, that we are not aware of any criminal charges against either Ms. Everall or Ms. Kim.

We will continue to ensure that this case is brought to the highest level of the Mexican government. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs continuously bring this issue up with the Mexican authorities to ensure this investigation proceeds expeditiously. At the end of the day, we must recognize the fact that this investigation is conducted by the government of Mexico.

We will continue to talk to the Mexican authorities to ensure a thorough investigation by the police authorities in Mexico is undertaken.

[May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, we have hired 500 new officers. We will continue hiring officers to ensure that we fall within the prescribed service time limit. Due to this unprecedented demand, we have naturally seen a huge demand for Canadian passports.

At this time, Passport Canada has also launched our initiatives, including policies and programs in facilitating the passport application process while maintaining stringent security standards, automating our processing system, expanding the receiving agent network, and looking at other innovative solutions such as launching a travelling service to accommodate rural communities. We are doing everything possible to ensure Canadians receive the service they are looking for.

[May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to discuss the topic of Passport Canada with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche this evening.

Passport Canada's volume has reached levels never seen before, as the organization issued a record-breaking 3.6 million passports in the last fiscal year, some 500,000 more than the previous record-breaking year.

Due to the new U.S. requirements for air travel to the United States, Passport Canada continues to experience a sharp volume increase in passport applications.

Since November, Passport Canada has processed over 1.8 million passport applications and is making every possible effort to cope with an incredibly heavy workload. For that reason, since the fall, Passport Canada has hired 500 new clerks and passport officers. Hiring will continue until passports can be issued within the prescribed service standards.

New passport officers currently need to go through a stringent 12 week training program to ensure that the security and integrity of the Canadian passport is not jeopardized. Under no circumstances will Passport Canada allow untrained personnel to take on tasks associated with the production of such a highly secure document.

Of the 500 clerks and passport officers that were hired, 376 are clerks and 124 are passport officers. Of these 124 passport officers, 110 have already been deployed across the country. This leaves only 14 passport officers in training. Clerks, meanwhile, are trained on the job and immediately deployed.

Passport Canada's infrastructure was designed in the 1990s to produce 13,000 passports per day. However, measures implemented in anticipation of the western hemisphere travel initiative, including the hiring of the 500 new employees, has raised production to 20,000 passports per day.

Passport Canada is now able to cope with the demand and is addressing its backlog. Should demand continue at current levels, Passport Canada forecasts that most of its service channels will be back to normal this summer.

Passport Canada is continuously looking at ways to improve security and client services, while prudently managing its funds in order to ensure an accessible, reliable, flexible and efficient service at a reasonable cost.

My government welcomes a dialogue with MPs to resolve this matter.

[May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where he is getting this number of 19 that we are going to close. I have just told him that should this happen, the Government of Canada will make an announcement.

As to the strategy, what strategy? The strategy is that it is an ongoing process to ensure that the best services are provided in the most effective manner making use of Canadian tax dollars to ensure that Canada's presence overseas is as robust as possible. Priorities change and with that things change.

I want to remind the member again, once more, we will make an announcement should it happen. As the minister said, there has been no decision made with any further mission consolidation.

[May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this very important question. What is of course always surprising is that the Liberals seem to forget their record. They were the government for the last 13 years and their record was that they closed 31 missions. Then they re-evaluated that and they opened up 43.

The government's re-evaluation process is based on how best to represent Canada overseas, how best to make use of our resources to ensure the maximum advantage for Canadian tax dollars, and at the same time ensuring maximum advantage in our relations in the countries where our embassies are in order that they are at their utmost levels and not affected.

The hon. member has talked about Osaka right now. I want to remind him that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has recently talked to the new ambassador from Japan and is in constant touch with his counterpart in Japan. They understand the reason why these things take a normal process. There has not been any impact on the relationships between Canada and Japan or any of those countries.

He keeps asking, “But do we have a strategy? Do we have a plan? What is our plan?”

The Minister of Foreign Affairs told Parliament last week that we are doing what all governments should do: reviewing the places where we would have the most important strategic presence and we will make ongoing assessments as time goes by.

I will remind the member that, yes, the government will make an announcement when we are opening and we are closing. It will not come from the opposite side. The opposition needs to understand that it is not the government any more.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently told the committee, and I want to repeat it for my hon. friend here, that no decision has been made with respect to further mission consolidation and if it does over time, this government will make a decision.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have hypocrisy in this. What we are saying is, as the hon. member knows and has said, this is a flawed institution. Therefore, we need to have a small incremental step moving toward that direction to improve this institution. That is all the bill would do. We have to move ahead and do something about this institution, and the bill is all about that.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

The member can listen to the Senate reports, but I can tell him what Canadians are saying out there and I can tell him what constituents are saying out there. They are saying, “They do not listen to me”.

Yes, the Senate is a blight because, aside from the fact that they are not elected, it is a job for life. Where else is there a job for life anywhere out there?

Third, let us look at the record of that party for its buddies who have been put in the Senate as a reward. That is the chamber of second thought? A reward for their buddies?

That is not what the issue is here. The issue here is that is we need to reform the Senate so that the people of Canada now can have a choice.

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the member is saying to show him what is wrong with the Senate and why Canadians are upset about the Senate. It is amazing. I can give a litany of things, aside from the fact that senators are not elected. Also, when the Liberals were in government it was a reward for their buddies and for the then prime minister's buddies. That is what is wrong with the Senate. It is because their buddies are in that institution--

[Senate Appointment Consultations Act, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and speak on this very important bill.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

When we talk about the Senate, it brings out a lot of emotions in Canadians. That is because the Senate is becoming a dinosaur of an institution on the Canadian democratic scene. That is not because of the individuals who are in the Senate. They are very fine individuals and are dedicated and committed to public life for the betterment of Canada.

We are talking about an institution that shackles these individuals and stops them from using their full potential to contribute to public life in Canada. That is because over a period of time the way the institution has been managed has been manipulated and has slowly come to the point where today Canadians do not wish to have this institution.

Right across the country we are seeing debate about abolishing the Senate. Right across the country we are seeing that Canadians either do not want the Senate or they want to reform it.

When I was campaigning in 1997 in Calgary and I talked about the Senate, there was an immediate anger from Canadians. This institution did not represent their point of view. It did not represent what people normally would feel, which is that they have an elected representative in the Parliament of Canada. What they had was not an elected representative. What they had in the Senate was somebody who was in the Parliament of Canada but who was not speaking for them.

That is something that Canadians and anyone in a democratic institution understands, and they say that it is not acceptable. As a matter of fact, even today Tony Blair is trying to bring reform to the House of Lords because he knows that these institutions have outlived their usefulness. That is the way it is. For our institution here in Canada it is the same, but I want to make sure we understand that we are not talking of putting down the senators now.

Both the Liberal Party and our colleague from the Bloc, as I just heard, are saying that the bill does not bring about proper reform. The Liberals are saying that we should do a full reform, that this is what they want to do. Yes, we all agree that there is a need for reform, but that, as we know and as they know, is not going to happen because of the way our Constitution is set up. We need to take incremental steps toward achieving that goal.

Canadians want this. They are demanding that something be done about this institution. Regretfully, I would say that this institution is a blight on democracy in Canada because of the way it is set up. Again I want to say this: it has nothing to do with individuals there.

Around the world, Canada has a very stellar reputation for democracy. We go out preaching democracy, just as I have done many times myself. The foreign affairs committee is doing a major study on democratic reform and how Canada should go ahead and promote democracy around the world. This is one of our very strong values when we go out into the world. CIDA does it. Everyone else does it. It is a strength that Canada has. People around the world respect Canada for this institution and for what we do in the promotion of democracy.

On many occasions I have had the opportunity to speak members of opposition parties who have come to Canada to see how Canadian democracy works. What has been amazing during many of the times that I have gone overseas and have talked to parliamentarians in other parts of the world is that they really do not know how our Senate works. They think our Senate is an elected Senate. They think our Senate is something very powerful, like the American senate.

I have gone on visits with senators. I have seen red carpet laid outside for the senators. Some think that the Senate is the most important institution in Canada. When I tell them that there is something wrong in our democracy and that the Senate is an institution that is not elected by Canadians, that is the first shock. The second shock is that it is a job for life. Where would anyone get a job for life? The senators have nothing to fear. They have nothing to worry about. That is another shock for people. People ask me if I am telling them that senators are there for life and do not have to be re-elected. I tell them yes, they do not have to be re-elected and they are there for life.

They ask, “Who appoints them?” The Prime Minister, I say. What criteria are there to be in the Senate, they wonder. They ask, “Is it to be a buddy of the Prime Minister or what?” There are no criteria for who will be in the Senate, I tell them.

When they first hear about this, they actually start shaking their heads and say that we must be kidding or joking and I tell them no, we are not. It is a shock to them that in Canada, a land that promotes democracy out there in the world, we have an institution that is absolutely undemocratic. It is totally undemocratic. It has become undemocratic over a period of time because of the way it has been manipulated, the way that has been done.

Canadians today have absolutely no confidence in that institution. What do we do? Do we close our eyes? Do we say that we have an institution but there is nothing we can do because we want it to have complete reform? That is a cop-out. The Liberal Party would like to leave the Senate as it is because it is an institution that has benefited them the most, so now they say that we must have complete reform.

I just heard my colleague from British Columbia say that British Columbia is unrepresented in the Senate. They are all angry with the Senate. We just heard the member from Quebec talk about why the Senate is irrelevant as far as he is concerned. But we have to do something. We cannot just carry on. We cannot just carry on with our eyes closed and say that here we have an institution that is non-responsive and we cannot do anything about it, because it will never happen. We know how the Canadian political scene is. It will never happen. There are differences between provinces demanding all these things. Where will we get this unanimity between provinces? How many provinces will get what seats? Who will do what? Will it be an elected Senate?

However, do we close our eyes and let that institution carry on and be a burden on the taxpayers, who are getting nothing out of it? No.

Even better, in regard to the individuals who are serving as senators and are excellent people, we need their expertise. We need to give them legitimacy. We need to understand that. We need to know that when they are saying something people are listening to them. Right now nobody listens to them because of the way it is set up. They themselves are shackled. They are very fine individuals who have served Canada very well. They need to be heard. If they cannot be heard with this kind of institution, then they are muzzled, they are silenced, because nobody will listen to them.

Do we want an institution like that? No. We need to do an incremental step. Yes, this bill may not address many of the concerns that everybody has, those I have just outlined about the amount of representation and from where, and all of these other things that are a big flaw in this institution. We will not be able to do all of it. This may not go all the way, but it is a step in the direction of what Canadians want, which is that they will have voice in who will be sitting in the chamber. The bill provides them that voice. We have to be cognizant of the fact and provide them with that without changing the Constitution. As for any move to change the Constitution, believe me, it is not going to happen. We have seen this happening in the past. We have seen these things going on out there, with too much diversity of opinion to have unanimity on what to do.

I know that everybody in the House knows we need to make a change. I am urging all members to let us go on with this small, incremental step.