Deepak Obhrai

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said that. What I said was that in relation to the Immigration Act, in relation to what has happened after September 11 and the recent pronouncements made by the U.S.A., asking Canadians from certain regions and making two classes of citizens is unacceptable. However the Americans are reacting because they perceive there is a problem in our system of immigration, of security checks and other things.

Anybody who comes here has to undergo security checks, as was passed in this Parliament. We have to ensure that we maintain the security checks fair and square as has been passed by this Parliament. When people come in from all parts of the world with security checks, they should participate fully like any other Canadian. Our friends in the south then would not have a cause or a concern to put certain rules on people from certain countries.

As a matter of fact, we should be very cautious and not trample on our human rights. That is absolutely important. At the same time we must ensure that we have a system that will take care of all these points. That was the point I was making.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, before I commence my concluding remarks I want to say that today after a long time we have taken one small step for the MPs but a giant leap for the Canadian voters in putting democracy back in the House. We are very pleased.

In reference to Bill C-17 on public safety, the most important fact is that we needed the bill because of the September 11 attack, but subsequent events are showing that people are overreacting.

When the bill was first introduced I made a speech saying that while we were delegating powers it was important to ensure that we did not go overboard. The recent announcements from our good friends from the south indicate that at times they do go overboard.

It is time for us to talk to the Americans about Canadians or landed immigrants being profiled or fingerprinted in the U.S.A. I hope the government will take strong measures to ensure that it feels confident and we feel confident in our immigration system, and that its security aspects are tightly monitored to ensure that those who come in wanting to break the law do not squeeze in through our system and then create a mistrust in our immigration system.

The bill also deals with part 8 which amends the Import and Export Permits Act by providing control on exports and transfers of technology, in essence, in the biological and toxin weapons conventions implementation act. It is interesting to note that it took the Liberal government almost 30 years before it finally signed and improved on this act.

Once again I would like to say, as my other colleagues have said in this place, that this is an omnibus bill that touches a lot of aspects. We all cannot debate all these aspects but nevertheless have to be vigilant to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to the public safety bill. This is a bill that takes into consideration what happened on September 11. Naturally Canadians desire the assurance that their borders are safe and that law enforcement agencies have the powers, the means and the ability to ensure that our security is taken care of.

The problem with the bill is that too many provisions and other acts have been put in one bill. It does not allow us to break it down to ensure that the rights of Canadians and safety are maintained.

The most important aspect of the bill is the immigration section. We have heard time after time about the need to ensure that we have an immigration system that reflects the needs of Canada and takes into account that security is not breached if there is a slack system. If due diligence is not done there is a possibility, and I refer to those who do not subscribe to a lawful means or do not subscribe to coming through the legal means and misuse the system, that some individuals will sneak through. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that it does not happen.

A disturbing feature has come out in the last two days. It may be the government's lack of security or an extra desire by the authorities in the United States, who have started profiling certain individuals with certain backgrounds coming into this part of the world, especially those who are Canadians and living in Canada, to fingerprint and single out certain individuals.

The United States is a sovereign state. We enjoy good relations with the U.S. Canada does not want to have two classes of citizens in this country. The responsibility for this lies over there with the government to ensure that the integrity of our immigration system is not compromised, so that people who come to Canada from any part of the world are properly screened and can live with dignity in this country, and travel anywhere around the world with a Canadian passport without having to rebut the actions of the U.S.A.

The U.S.A. is going overboard in this respect. We must tell them that Canadians, from all parts of the world, have gone through our system. It is also important that the government have a system and an immigration policy in place that ensures that we do not have people slipping in. This is important and once that is done I am sure that the U.S.A. would have confidence and it would not create this type of a law which we all do not like. I do not wish to go to the U.S.A. and be fingerprinted just because I am of a different colour, absolutely not.

There are two ways of approaching the problem. On the one hand the United States has gone overboard, but on the other hand, we do not have full confidence in our own system. Whose responsibility is that? The responsibility lies on both sides, including the Government of Canada to ensure that this does not happen.

The reports today talk about the number of people that were not eligible to come into Canada but did so through a ministerial permit. If there is a good reason, let us have that reason. Let it become transparent. Let people know who comes into the country and why. We have genuine, legitimate refugees coming into Canada, but we also have numerous reports of people slipping through because of a lack of resources. I agree that we have laws that should take care of the cracks in the system.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, being on the committee where we have these parliamentary secretaries, whom I love to call the whips because they come in with their whips, I have witnessed what my hon. colleague has said. The backbenchers backtrack and by backtracking they give away their power. They have done a marvellous job in getting their Prime Minister to start off in office so they can run the agenda. They have done it. They have the Prime Minister retiring so they do have the power, as my colleague said, and I hope they will utilize it.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is on the record that the government is appointing its friends to these positions which should be non-partisan positions. We take pride in saying that our civil service, our administration arm, is independent of the legislative arm, but the government is overriding that.

My colleague from the Bloc is absolutely right. Not only does the ambassador to Denmark come into play but even the WTO ambassador, Mr. Marchi, was a patronage appointment. As a matter of fact when my colleague and I visited Geneva, he was over there telling me that he had taken the Alliance on before and that he could take us on any time. I told him that he was no longer in the House of Commons, that he was an ambassador representing the people of Canada.

Yes, that erosion of confidence carries on when patronage appointments are made. What the motion does is it tries to take that away and says that the people of Canada must be allowed to speak through the committee and through their elected officials. Perhaps the WTO ambassador was the right choice but if he had come in front of the committee he would have received the legitimacy that he needs.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, time after time Canadians exercise their right to vote but lose their confidence when they see we no longer can represent them. They have only one way to speak. The majority of the people speak through silence. They just go away. As my colleague has alluded, that is what is happening. The government is not sitting there with a majority of the vote.

Many democracies have seen that danger and have put rules in to force people to come out to vote. In Australia, for example, the people have to vote. We want to stand with confidence over here that we are representing the people of Canada. However, if there is no power, as it is happening slowly in the country, we are losing the goodwill of the people of Canada, and it is important that we retain that goodwill.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to the motion brought forward by the Bloc. All members in the House, including the ones on the government side, know that the motion is very important.

When we come to the House as new members of Parliament, we come with a dedication and commitment that we are representing the people of Canada and that in this House we have the power to bring forward issues from our constituents. Lo and behold, it is not very long before we learn that we really do not have much power in this House.

The tragedy is that we go around the world preaching democracy to other countries. We tell them what they should do, but we seem to be slowly eroding democracy in our own institutions. Over the years patronage and cronyism have served the governing party well. That is why it likes to call itself the natural governing party of Canada. What a joke.

Sitting over here, we know that slowly but surely the actions of the government have come to the point where the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office is talked about by everybody today, including Liberal members of Parliament and including one of the Liberal leadership contenders.

I just listened to the House leader trying to defend his position. What can we expect from the House leader? It helps him and his government send their friends overseas and put their friends into positions. Then they can count on them for their leadership support and for their fundraising efforts. Blatant patronage and abuse have been going on for some time. Who does it help? Them. The Prime Minister is not willing to change. They will say it is opposition rhetoric again. It is not the opposition rhetoric again. It is being said by a member of Parliament who finds himself sitting over here trying to do things and being stonewalled.

Why can the Parliament of Canada not speak on behalf of the people of Canada? Why not? The Parliament of Canada is not made up of the Liberal Party. It is made up of five parties of members of Parliament sitting here who would like to bring forward issues that Canadians want to be discussed. Is that what is happening? No. What is happening is a total manipulation by the Liberal Party in promoting its agenda.

There was the spectre last year of ministers crossing the ethical lines, including at some point, and we do not know whether it is true, the Prime Minster himself, and he said it is because the ministers have become complacent. Of course they have become complacent. There is nobody to hold them accountable. They have a majority. They can manipulate the system. They have slowly been doing that over the years to the point where today even Liberals, including one of the Liberal Party leadership candidates admit that the PMO has too much power. One would wonder why the frontrunner, who could easily take it, is now saying that the Prime Minister's Office has so much power. It is because Canadians are saying that enough if enough.

If the government carries on with this farce Canadians will talk, and the way they will talk is by not going out and voting. We all know that has been the trend. If we do not listen to Canadians they will simply say it by not voting. Then we will stand here saying that we have the mandate from the people of Canada to come and speak here. I am saying that we will not have that mandate if we carry on and not give confidence back to the people of Canada that the Parliament of Canada is relevant.

This motion is one of those attempts by my colleague from the Bloc to make the governing of the country accountable to where it should be, to the people of Canada. That is the essence and the point of democracy.

When I came here I proposed four private members' bills to the House and not even one of them has been made votable. Nobody wants to discuss them.

I have had support for my break and enter bill from the police associations and Canadians from all across the country but, guess what? Because the justice minister is not interested it is manipulated and lo and behold nobody discusses the issue. It is done and out the window.

How many hours and how many consultations have we had? Many colleagues on this side have brought in private members' bills? Where have they gone? The government side has also brought in private members' bills. The frustration is not only on this side. It is also on that side. I hope today some of them will realize that they do not have to be worried or afraid of the Prime Minister. He is going in the year 2004. I ask them to stand up and say what Canadians want them to say, which is to give Parliament back to the people of Canada, away from the PMOs office.

I have travelled outside the country and have met many great ambassadors but I have also met those who were appointed through patronage. I find it amazing that those patronage appointments who represent Canada are still biased. Who do they represent? They represent their party, not the people of Canada.

I will be very happy to vote in favour of this motion because all we are doing is trying to speak on behalf of the people of Canada.

[Diwali, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, Hindus across the world will celebrate the festival of lights, popularly known as Diwali. This day signifies the victory of good over evil. All those whose ancestry goes back to the subcontinent will light their homes and in the spirit of warmth share sweets and best wishes with all fellow human beings.

As one from the Hindu faith it is my pleasure to invite my colleagues from both sides of the House to celebrate the festival of lights with fellow Canadians in Room 200 West Block this evening at 6:30.

This is the third annual Diwali festival and this year it is jointly organized with the India-Canada Association of Ottawa. Aside from a small pooja, there will be cultural performances as well as a reception put on by the members of the India-Canada Association.

I wish to encourage all members to attend the Diwali celebrations in their own ridings. Let me and the executive of the India-Canada Association wish each and everyone in Canada a happy Diwali and a prosperous new year.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I was one of those guys who definitely benefited from our health care system this year when I had my medical problem. Through personal experience I can vouch that we have one of the best medical systems in the world. The doctors and nurses are critically important. It is very important for us to ensure that the system survives and is there for future generations. Today's take note debate is based on that.

My point is that while we debate this issue, the underlying fact remains that it is important for us to maintain the system, as the member alluded to, for all Canadians, seniors and everyone. I would like to know her thoughts on that.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to the bill. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

Actually this is the second time I have spoken on this issue. I spoke when it was first brought to the House. On many occasions I have alluded in the House to the fact that I come from Africa. I was born in Africa and grew up and worked there. My colleague discussed the issues of Sierra Leone and the Congo of today, where the conflict is ongoing and where diamonds are a major force and one of the major culprits in fuelling this war.

I grew up in Tanzania, a diamond producing country. It has been one of the major diamond producing countries for a while. At the present time I would like to give due credit to the people of Tanzania, to the Government of Tanzania, and to President Nyerere, as a matter of fact, who brought unity to that country. As such, because of his vision, his desire and the nature of the people of Tanzania, diamonds did not become one of the major points on which there was conflict in that nation. We are all thankful, especially people like me who grew up there. We never witnessed the war and, as my colleague from Nepean—Carleton mentioned, the horrible tragedies that have taken place in Sierra Leone. On that aspect I would like to once more express appreciation to the people of Tanzania, to the Government of Tanzania and to late President Nyerere for creating a peaceful atmosphere so that diamonds did not become a major situation there like elsewhere on the continent.

I have seen diamonds being mined. I have seen how easy it is to smuggle diamonds. A small piece of the illegal diamond activity also went on in Tanzania. Diamonds are small and can be hidden or taken away in a small bag. Hence they are very attractive and one of the easiest things to smuggle. Once there was a market it became an easier commodity to smuggle, which in turn fuelled these wars. However, as my colleague asked, where were these arms coming from? There were big arms brought into the country. They had to be brought in.

I will ask my colleague about one of the biggest concerns about the Kimberley process. We still have on that continent governments that are not accountable, governments that do not follow even their own rules of law. Zimbabwe is an example. There are other countries as well. Let us look at the Ivory Coast. I was in Ivory Coast with the Governor General on a state visit in 1999. Then it was a peaceful land, touted as one of the model African states. We must look what is happening there today, where such a rapid deterioration has taken place. It is quite shocking to see the civil war that is going on there.

Because of the lack of accountability, because nobody holds the countries accountable, the conditions for the rule of law seem to dissipate very quickly on that continent. That gives rise to these kinds of wars of smuggling. Countries that have diamonds will smuggle them because it is a very easy process, but on the other side we have someone providing a market for them.

The Kimberley process is an excellent attempt to stop it. The international committee is making an attempt to try to stop it through the process. I think it will have a success. There is no question in my mind. This is not one of those processes that will fail. My colleagues before me have indicated some of their concerns about the bill. They intend to take them to the committee to see that those concerns are addressed and tightened.

However, let us go back one step to the Kimberley process. While we have confidence in the process, for the sake of the people in third world countries and in Africa at this stage--and this disease can spread even to Latin America where there are diamonds or commodities that are easy to smuggle--there is a question that we also need to address in Ottawa so that we take this scourge of civil war out of the countries. We need to hold the governments accountable as well. We need to orchestrate that. If they do not fulfill the rule of law as is required by civilized countries through United Nations or whatever, then there must be a mechanism to bring them to accountability.

I am glad to hear from my colleague across the way that in Sierra Leone people identified as being responsible for the atrocities committed over there eventually will be brought to trial. I hope they do that, and also in the Rwanda and the Burundi processes as well. We need to do that. If we do not do that, we can have as many Kimberley processes as we want, but at the end of the day they are not going to solve this. It will put a dent into this, but will it at the end of the day be sufficient to stop this misery on this continent and anywhere else? In a bigger ratio diamonds are a natural resource that has been utilized for this because they are easy to smuggle, but if they find some other natural resource for which this can be done, the issue will come up again.

Let us talk for a moment about Nigeria before democracy and the new government came in. As we know, the famous poet was hanged in Nigeria by the former dictator because he was demanding for his people the rights to the natural resources, the oil in those people's lands. Those people were not benefiting. The natural resource was not being used for the benefit of the people. When that happens, there is a deficit. When that deficit happens, if there is a way somebody will exploit it. In these cases, many of the rebel leaders have exploited it. They may have a genuine concern. Who knows?

However, we need to create conditions where there is a rule of law, where somebody held accountable, so that we never give rise to situations where the local people feel that their natural resource is being utilized not for their advantage but against them. The responsibility also lies with the governments in power, the Government of Sierra Leone, the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo. They also all are responsible to ensure that they take care of their own people so that these grievances do not arise where people are forced to take up arms. That is also one of the root causes.

Let us talk for a second about Angola, which is rich in diamonds and which is responsible for this. UNITA for a long time has been at war there, during the cold war because it did not feel part of the nation that picked up arms. Of course it easily could have easily given up when the peace treaty was signed. This conflict of course was exploited by the major part.

The Kimberley process is an excellent process. I will personally support the bill because I know we need to address this issue right now, but there are also bigger issues that we must not brush off the table by just saying that the Kimberley process is the answer to these things.