Deepak Obhrai

[Nigeria Election, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a presidential election important to all of the African region took place in Nigeria on April 21. Nigerians turned out to vote, despite long wait times and the potential for violence and intimidation. It is commendable that despite these deterrents, Nigerians remained determined to exercise their right to vote. I applaud their commitment to the democratic process.

The Government of Canada is deeply concerned about reports from international and domestic observers of serious irregularities. Observer groups have said that the election has failed to meet international standards. We agree with that assessment.

We urge Nigeria to quickly address all the shortcomings of the April 21 election through appropriate judicial measures. There must be credible avenues of redress so that Nigerians' confidence in their democratic institutions is not further eroded.

Canada stands ready to support the many Nigerians who want to make democracy succeed in their country.

[Sudan, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to helping to achieve a lasting peace for the people of Darfur. Canada welcome's Sudan's recent acceptance of the full heavy support package of UN assistance to the African Union mission.

Given Sudan's record of stalling international efforts to achieve peace in Darfur, Canada is calling on the Sudanese government to demonstrate that it is a full partner in this process. We must now focus on ensuring that the next step, a hybrid AU-UN mission, is in place as soon as possible.

Canada is part of a concerted international effort to bring about a just and lasting peace throughout all of Sudan. Since 2004 Canada has spent over $368 million working to improve the human rights and the humanitarian situation in Sudan. This includes support for urgently needed humanitarian aid, diplomatic efforts to achieve peace and of course our support as a principal donor to the African Union's peacekeeping mission in Darfur.

[Ethics Commissioner, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a statement about the Ethics Commissioner's report tabled on March 30.

The Ethics Commissioner has concluded that I did not contravene the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons. I do not dispute this conclusion.

However, I do take issue with the inquiry process and the content of the report.

I urge hon. members of the House to not concur in the report. Instead, I would urge the House to refer the entire matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a full and thorough investigation, with recommendations.

The inquiry process and the report violated the principles of procedural fairness.

The Ethics Commissioner did not inform me that an inquiry had been resumed. This deprived me of my right to make representations at all appropriate stages throughout the process. The code provides that procedural right. In fact, I only learned of the existence of the report one hour prior to it being tabled, but two months after the report says the inquiry had resumed.

The report includes many personal details about my extended family that the Ethics Commissioner learned during the investigation.

Personal information about the unhappy circumstances of my sister-in-law's marriage surely was not required to support the conclusions. Nor was there any need to write about stupid and unfounded allegations against my family that had nothing to do with this inquiry.

Surely the Ethics Commissioner is meant to exercise tact and discretion, like when he provides the report for public office holders. Surely he should limit his reports to such details as are necessary to support the conclusion, and no more. The code requires the Ethics Commissioner to conduct the inquiry in private and to provide relevant reasons for this conclusion. Why should all details from the private investigation be disclosed?

I will be asking the committee that personal details from the report that are not necessary to support the conclusion be removed from the report and from the Commissioner's website. The integrity of the code is at issue. All members of Parliament are at risk of such disclosures if the report stands as a precedent.

The procedure and House affairs committee will have to consider whether the way the Ethics Commissioner handled this report constitutes a further prima facie contempt of the House of Commons.

In October 2005, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs directed the Ethics Commissioner to suspend the inquiry. He did suspend it, but refused to do so because the committee asked him to. Instead, he suspended it because he had learned of an RCMP investigation into the matter, which went on to clear me of all allegations. In November 2005, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs found the Ethics Commissioner in contempt of the House of Commons since he did not comply with the provisions of the code.

The Ethics Commissioner had full knowledge of the direction of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to suspend the inquiry, although he refused to accept this direction at that time. The Ethics Commissioner resumed the inquiry but did not advise me. He did not advise the House of Commons. He did not seek guidance from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which had directed him to suspend the inquiry.

Now the report has been tabled without seeking the direction of the committee. The inquiry process and the report still suffer from the same kinds of problems that had concerned the committee when he was found in contempt. Once again, the Ethics Commissioner has shown no regard for procedural fairness and no regard for my family's privacy.

By resuming the inquiry without informing me and by tabling the report, the Ethics Commissioner has defied the will of the committee. Therefore, his conduct, in my opinion, constitutes a further contempt.

If the Ethics Commissioner has chosen to ignore what the members of the House have said about the subject matter of this inquiry, about the need to respect the personal privacy of my family, and the principles of procedural fairness, then how can we accept the report?

Let me quote what the committee said about its concerns: “The risks to Members, and the very integrity of the Code, demand nothing less”.

Therefore, I will ask the House to refuse to concur in this report if a motion is brought before the House. I will take the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a thorough investigation and a review of the provisions of the code to ensure its integrity. This will help ensure that in the future hon. members will have the benefit of procedural fairness from the conflict of interest inquiry process.

I have no objection if a new report is tabled after due regard to the concerns I have raised and the findings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the 51st report, adopted on November 17 and tabled on November 18, 2005.

I want to say one more thing. Despite my repeated requests not to get involved in a family dispute, this request was ignored. A life was lost through suicide. The privacy of my sister-in-law and her two sons has been violated through no fault of their own. They have no recourse. When this was pointed out to the Ethics Commissioner by my sister-in-law during Mr. Shapiro's visit to Calgary, he chose to ignore it.

Because of this attitude, today the private details of my sister-in-law's life are published in the report tabled. Ethnic newspapers are now running articles on her life and the lives of her two sons. Is this fair? Also, I will ask women's rights groups this question: are they going to defend this woman's rights?

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I are on the foreign affairs committee. In her speech she has highlighted a lot of the challenges that are being faced in development in Afghanistan. We have heard our witnesses tell us about the challenges. I agree with her that the challenges are there and must be addressed.

What is really confusing is what is coming from the Liberals. Their last speaker just said that we have 25 partners in CIDA and that Canada is not giving enough aid to Afghanistan. Let me tell him that Afghanistan is the number one country where Canada is committed to giving international aid.

As a matter of fact, Canada is giving $1 billion over the next 10 years for development projects in Afghanistan. For him to stand up and say that CIDA's budget is for 25 countries and that somehow we have missed Afghanistan is totally misleading.

Another point is that the Liberals have said that there are no new goals or there are ambiguous goals in Afghanistan. All I want to say is this: look at the Afghanistan Compact. The compact gives a complete picture of what should be achieved in Afghanistan and that is what--

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the Liberals like to twist facts to suit themselves.

He mentioned that there was no debate. First, perhaps he does not know that the foreign affairs committee, as we speak, is doing a full-fledged study on our mission in Afghanistan. Four of his members are over there. Witnesses have been invited, including the Minister of National Defence, who will appear next week, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has appeared. A thorough process is currently going on in the foreign affairs committee.

Second, perhaps he has not seen today's reports that say all human rights groups are saying that the Taliban is committing war crimes in Afghanistan by targeting civilians. What would he like to do? How would he like to help those civilians, by leaving them by themselves?

[Democratic Republic of Congo, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 2006, the Democratic Republic of Congo went through its first democratic election in more than 40 years with President Kabila winning this milestone event.

The presence of UN forces, MUNOC, in the DRC was instrumental in ensuring that the election was peaceful.

Canada played an important role in this election. Therefore, the Government of Canada was alarmed to learn of the violent confrontations that started in Kinshasa on March 22 between the forces loyal to Senator Jean-Pierre Bemba, the loser in the 2006 presidential election, and the national army and the police in the capital city. Congolese authorities have issued an arrest warrant for Bemba.

During the Great Lakes Conference in Nairobi this past December, all countries pledged to uphold the transition to democracy in Congo. I also met with President Kabila.

Canada condemns this violence and calls on all responsible Congolese leaders to respect and advance the peaceful democratic processes.

[March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I share with my colleague the impact of cluster bombs on civilians and on humanitarian law. I agree with him that those are the ones that need to be addressed under treaties to ensure they do not harm civilians. The objectives are the same.

I would like to tell my hon. colleague that Canada is participating in this international convention. However, to make it effective we all need to participate. It is all right if Norway has taken the initiative on this. The main issue is that Canada is participating and will continue to participate in the coming years to ensure there is a ban on cluster weapons that will affect civilians on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Canada will be fully engaged and I will keep the House informed of current progress on this matter.

[March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richmond Hill for raising this important humanitarian issue.

As members may be aware, cluster munitions typically contain a large quantity of submunitions that can blanket a whole wide area in a short period of time. They can be both air dropped and ground launched.

When cluster munitions fail to detonate, unexploded submunitions become explosive remnants of war and pose a grave danger to civilians and a serious obstacle to sustainable development for decades after a conflict has ended.

I would like to make Canada's position on cluster munitions clear to the House. The use by Canadian Forces of any weapon, including cluster munitions, would be subject to prior reviews to ensure full respect for international humanitarian law. The Canadian Forces have not yet had operational situations where cluster munitions were required nor have they ever been used for training purposes.

The Canadian Forces recently destroyed its entire stockpile of MK-20 Rockeye cluster munitions. The Canadian Forces currently hold 155-millimetre dual purpose improved convention munitions which are ground delivered cluster munitions. These munitions are in the process of being destroyed.

On November 16, 2006, the Norwegian foreign minister, noting the inability of the UN convention on certain conventional weapons, or CCW, to adequately address the cluster munitions, invited interested parties and representatives of the civil society to meet in Oslo in early 2007.

Norway later formally invited states prepared to move toward a new instrument to meet in Oslo on February 22-23, 2007. On February 2, 2007, the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepted Norway's invitation for Canada to attend the meeting. A delegation comprised of representatives of DFAIT and DND represented Canada in Oslo.

The Canadian delegation approached the discussions in Oslo with an open mind and a clear objective of reducing the negative humanitarian development impacts on the misuse of cluster munitions.

Canada agreed to the Oslo declaration issued on February 23 at the end of the meeting because we share the goal of reducing the negative humanitarian and development impacts of certain types of cluster munitions. We entered the following caveats: This may not be possible until late 2008; and, we understand this to refer to those categories of cluster munitions that harm civilians contrary to accepted principles of international humanitarian law. We are agreeing to participate in the process without prejudice to the outcome of subsequent negotiations.

Further work on the cluster munitions initiative would be carried out in Lima, Peru in May 2007; in Vienna, Austria in November or December; and, in Dublin, Ireland in early 2008. Canada expects to participate in all of these meetings.

Canada's participation in the meeting in Norway was warmly welcomed by states, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations, despite qualifications in the Canadian position which were clearly communicated.

[Zimbabwe, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the president of Zambia likened Zimbabwe to a sinking Titanic.

Zimbabwe is currently experiencing a worsening economic and political crisis as a result of the government's disregard for human rights and the rule of law and its destructive economic policies.

On March 11, the Zimbabwean police brutally suppressed a public gathering of opposition leaders. This resulted in two deaths. The Minister of Foreign Affairs immediately condemned the Zimbabwe government's use of violence against protestors and called for the immediate release of more than 100 protestors.

The Government of Canada will continue to call on the Government of Zimbabwe to respect human rights and the rule of law and to encourage a dialogue with all sectors of the Zimbabwean society to find democratic, peaceful solutions to the crisis.

Canada will also work closely with other members of the international community, including countries of the Southern African Development Community, to help resolve the crisis of governance in Zimbabwe.

[March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is exploring every opportunity and every option to raise the case of Mr. Celil with the Chinese government in an effort to secure information and access to Mr. Celil.

Canada will use every method that is deemed appropriate to put forward Canada's desire of ensuring Mr. Celil's well-being. The Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister will continue to actively monitor this case. We will use every international forum and every opportunity, as I have mentioned, to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected overseas.