Deepak Obhrai

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you back in the chair. I hope you had a good summer holiday. What puzzles me is simple. Government members were members of the opposition prior to 1993. They know how important a role the opposition plays in a democracy.

Those members have actual experience at being in the opposition. Those members stood in this place and held the government accountable. We can quote Hansard time after time to indicate what they said was important for democracy. What puzzles me is that, now they are on the other side, whatever they said while they were on this side has gone out the window. It is amazing that when they were in opposition they were pointing to weaknesses in our democracy. They are ignoring their own advice now that they are on the other side.

Many people listening to the debate may be wondering what we are talking about with regard to this omnibus bill. If I were listening to this debate I would have to ask myself the same. What exactly is the issue? Let me state this in plain and simple terms so people can understand what we are saying.

The government has brought in a bill containing a number of virtually unrelated justice issues that have been lumped into one piece of legislation. It makes it extremely difficult to debate these issues that are important to Canadians. They cannot be brushed aside. This is not a housekeeping bill.

I will talk about some of the issues. Child luring and child pornography over the Internet are extremely important issues, considering what is happening with the Internet. It is accessible to a huge number of people. This is a new menace which needs to be controlled and discussed at length.

The issue of animal cruelty is included in the bill. I have received a huge number of postcards from people regarding the pros and cons of what is considered animal cruelty. I am sure every MP has received a huge number of letters from people concerned about the issue. Canadians living in rural regions who deal with animals on a day to day basis have a different perspective because their living depends on it. They want more clarification so they do not break the law.

My colleague, the most senior member in the Canadian Alliance caucus and probably in the House, talked about shooting squirrels and sitting in jail for a long period of time. I hope it does not come to that. He was trying to illustrate the simple point that the bill did not have a lot of clarity.

The bill also contains amendments to the Firearms Act, Bill C-68, which is a totally different subject altogether. Criminal harassment is also contained in the bill, as is the issue of disarming a police officer. This is a very serious issue that we need to discuss to see what punishment should be given and what criminal procedure should be followed. This legislation needs a lot of discussion.

We are discussing many issues that are contained in one bill. We are saying that we cannot have a proper debate on all these important issues because members of parliament are not able to speak about the concerns of their constituents.

This is a bill drafted by bureaucrats who wanted it passed. They should not have sent it to the House of Commons. They should have done it under regulations. The bill does not have the input of the representatives of the people of Canada. It has the writings of the bureaucrats who do not represent the elected people of Canada. Bureaucrats do not get feedback from the people; elected representatives do.

I have been the CIDA critic and I know the government spends millions of dollars in bringing people from fledgling democracies to Canada to show them how democracy works. Over the period of 100 years this Chamber has built itself into a very respectable place where we debate issues. However when bills such as this one are introduced, democratic rights are trampled.

What is democracy? Democracy is where a government is accountable on issues of the day. It is the right of Canadians to speak through their elected representatives who sit in the House.

Then we get something like this, an omnibus bill written by bureaucrats, where we cannot discuss the issues in more depth to present the views of all Canadians. We have a big, diverse country containing diverse views. The government likes to use the word diversity and how it is the defender of diversity. Diversity also includes the points of view from coast to coast to coast, from urban to rural areas.

We do not have the opportunity of doing that because everything is lumped together in the bill and by 5.30 p.m. it will be all over. It will be pushed through.

The bill was written by bureaucrats who sit in Ottawa and do not represent the diversity of Canada. Members of parliament represent those diverse views.

When speaking to people who have come to see democracy in action, I have said that we have to be vigilant not to let the rights of the opposition be eroded because that right is the right of the people to hold a government accountable. When that erosion happens then we have to speak. Bill C-15 is an example of that.

Many members on the other side have also recognized that. When they were in opposition they understood the important role of the opposition. They too are saying that they see the danger and warning signals in Bill C-15. However they cannot say anything. Nevertheless they do have concern.

There are currently five members of the government here. In the last one and a half hours I have been sitting in the Chamber I have not even seen one of them stand.

[Foreign Aid, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the war against terrorism must also be fought on a non-military front. If we want the developing countries as allies to join us in this war, we also need non-military assistance. It is amazing that the government is overlooking this crucial area. What is the government doing to provide real assistance beyond its usual token contributions?

[Supply, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me this opportunity to talk about international development. There are two connections here.

He talked about poverty around the world. The causes of poverty are many. Causes can be attributed to a lack of governance, opportunity and corruption and other issues for which unfortunately the poor have to pay the price. I just returned from Africa where I witnessed the unfortunate tragedy of AIDS and bad governments.

However, what I was trying to say in my speech against terrorism and what I was trying to say about the support which we need to give to countries that will stand with us to fight this new menace, is that many countries lack the resources to help us in fight these terrorists.

Those countries, which need assistance, have pledged to stand with us against terrorism. While we have military and naval intelligence and other kinds of solutions, these countries will require assistance to sustain themselves. At the end of the day we do not want these countries, through internal turmoil, to break down creating a new state as we witnessed in Somalia.

To stop the growth of terrorism and the recruitment of terrorists, it is important for us to assist those countries.

[Supply, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech I would like to commend my colleague from the other side who has done extensive work and was completely forthright today when he stood in the House and told the truth regarding the rules and laws which his government refuses to implement. For that I commend him. He has done a great job.

I would like to begin by extending on behalf of my family, my colleagues and myself our deepest condolences to the families of the victims of Tuesday's unprecedented terrorist attack in the United States.

What we witnessed a week ago today will forever be ingrained in our minds as a new menace facing all peace loving communities of the world. This act was perpetrated by spiritually bankrupt individuals without conscience and devoid of love who think nothing of the rights of others. I say that they were spiritually bankrupt because these individuals have no love and compassion for others.

Religious leaders of all faiths have condemned this act and reaffirmed their religions' most important tenet, which is that the taking of innocent lives is never justified.

I am also concerned with and condemn with the same breath the intolerant acts taking place in North America against minority groups. This is also a crime.

The death of two individuals in the U.S.A., the beating of a youth in Ottawa, the burning of a Hindu temple in Hamilton and the harassment of Muslims around our nation are all crimes. The full wrath of our law should be brought against those responsible for these acts. Our society is built on tolerance and freedom. These we will protect both domestically and internationally.

Over 5,000 people died last Tuesday. Those who died came from over 40 countries. This is a crime against humanity and as such we must stand together to fight these crimes. Those who join us are united in brotherhood to fight this menace. Those who refuse to join us will be apologetic forever as we move forward without them.

Canada has to join this battle or we will become future victims of this menace. Unfortunately we are already victims having also lost citizens in this tragedy.

As this is international terrorism our focus has fallen on our immigration laws. Let me be clear that this is not about immigration or refugee policy but rather immigration and refugee law.

The debate concerns the adequacy of our laws to protect us from those who intend to break our laws and use our laws to promote these hideous crimes. We are talking of a small minority but nevertheless a minority that has no conscience. We must guard against them. For that purpose it is important that we have the right laws that allow us to tackle this menace.

Immigrants and refugees themselves run this course of action because in the end they become the victims of those who break the laws and commit these hideous crimes. Unfortunately we are witnessing these acts.

Canada is a land of immigrants where diversity is our strength. Let us not allow these criminals to break our strength. Therefore I urge the government to act to ensure that the weak links in our immigration laws are tightened. We must listen to the suggestions of Canadians.

Calling people who are pointing to the flaws in our immigration laws racists and bigots has the effect of strengthening racists and bigots because terrorists are racists and bigots. I hope the minister of immigration will take note of this.

Another area that requires attention is giving law enforcement agencies the tools to fight terrorism. Today's motion is an important step in that direction. Law enforcement officers are our new soldiers in this battle. Let us give them the tools they need and our full support. However I need to say a word of caution to our law enforcement agencies. They should ensure that these tools do not become the tools of harassment of the innocent or they will lose this battle.

Terrorism is born from poverty. Canada should fight this new war, but Canada should also assist those developing states that are also joining the fight against terrorism. We cannot allow the seeds of terror to be sown in those states that wish to help us in our hour of need.

We must not forget that most societies are built on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We cannot allow those few to shake the foundation of what we have built. People have come from around the world to build this free and prosperous society, and this should not change. We should not shake this great foundation.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and I thank the hon. member for asking it. Today this motion, this hard work, was put through by my colleague working as the official opposition. That is what we are doing over here. That is what our job is as the opposition and we are doing it. That is why today we are debating the motion. I remind the member that the motion came from the Alliance, not the Liberals.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I can speculate. It served the purpose of the government. As I said, the government has a different agenda and the government controls this whole situation. By not allowing bills to become votable, by going through the committee, the government could control what is going on. We have seen that happen all year. It was one way for the government to have total control of parliament.

My ex-leader, the MP from Calgary Southwest who is in the chamber today, has stated on many occasions that the House has become dysfunctional. As a matter of fact he has indicated his desire to leave politics because, as he has said, the House has become dysfunctional. He is a member whom Canadians highly respect, a member who has worked tirelessly for the country, and who, as the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber, has firsthand knowledge of how dysfunctional the House has been.

To answer my colleague, that is why Canadians were losing respect for the chamber, because it was dysfunctional and everything was controlled by the government, by a small government and a concentration of power in the PMO.

This is the first step. I can speculate that the reason it is the first step and the government has agreed to this is that because finally even Canadians outside have spoken out and have said they need some substance out of the House. They have said “We have given them a pay raise. They had better deliver”. I am glad that we have been given this opportunity to work for that.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motion dealing with private members' business. I would also like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Provencher.

It was quite interesting to listen to my friend on the other side speaking about partisan politics and saying that they do not talk partisan politics. The problem is that when he starts on the rhetoric it is necessary for us to set the record straight.

Talking about setting the record straight, I would like to say that the motion we are debating was introduced and brought in by my hon. colleague sitting next to me. I commend him for doing so. I know he was on the committee and was extremely frustrated with the way things were going so he introduced this motion.

Despite what my friend on the other side said about all the problems or little turbulences my party is going through, I would like to tell Canadians that we have been elected to represent them in parliament and to hold the government accountable and that is exactly what we are doing.

The introduction of the motion dealing with private members' business is to ensure that members of parliament from all parties have the right to stand in parliament to speak on behalf of their constituents.

When my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona asked the member a question about how many times he had voted independently, he gave us a great analogy of playing on a hockey team. As Canadians have said time after time, and if he goes back to his riding and polls his constituents perhaps they will tell him, they want him to speak on their behalf. That is what he has been sent here for, not this team business. There are no goals to be scored here. We have to stand up and represent our ridings, and that is what my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona was asking of my friend on the other side.

I return to the issue of private members' business. This is my second term in the House. I am very grateful to my constituents of Calgary East that sent me here to debate issues they feel are important. Based on that we try very hard to introduce private members' bills. It is one of our vehicles as members of parliament who are not in government or who are not ministers to bring the concerns of Canadians to the floor of the House. It was brought in over the years so that members of parliament could democratically represent their ridings.

During my first term as a rookie MP I submitted a lot of private members' bills. Lo and behold not one was chosen. For four years I have stood on this side of the House and I could not address those issues. When I was returned to the 37th parliament I reintroduced the same bills and two of my private members' bills were selected in the lottery system. I thank God for having my bills selected because it is only through His hand that these bills were selected.

When I was preparing my private member's bill I consulted Canadians across the country and received their input. Those Canadians who felt these were important issues got excited. One of my bills dealt with emancipation day to recognize Canada's contribution to the abolition of slavery. Members of the black community were extremely excited and happy. They gave me full support. They even came here from Toronto to recognize this important day.

I also had a private member's bill dealing with a minimum sentence of two years for repeat break and enter offenders. Over the last parliament I went across Canada. I spoke on radio talk shows. I received the support of Canadians, including the chiefs of police of Toronto, Saskatoon and Calgary, the police association of Calgary and the Canadian Police Association. There was a huge amount of support from all those groups. When I brought my bill forward I thought it would be a non-partisan event and that it would be debated in the House of Commons so that Canadians would know on which side of the issue the government would be.

The subcommittee that was set up to select private members' bills said that my bill would not be votable. Suddenly all the hard work and excitement and all the associations that provided support meant nothing. With it saying no, all I could do was stand in the House to speak to the bill for 10 minutes. I spoke for 10 minutes on the bill. I might as well have gone home and spoken in front of a mirror because there was nothing I could do about it. I was angry. I spoke, sat down and said goodbye to all the effort that was put into the bill.

I reintroduced that bill in the House today. Unless we change the system the same thing will happen. All the groups that work hard to bring issues to parliament will not have their voices heard because the government has a different agenda. The government's agenda is not to represent every Canadian. It is running the country and it has a different agenda, but as members of parliament we can bring issues forward through private members' bills. We spend a lot of time getting support. Then we come to the House, and why is it that three or four people decide whether or not a bill will be votable?

My friend on that committee felt frustration arising out of it and brought forward the motion we are debating today. I was very pleased, in one degree, when I listened to the government House leader say he will support the bill. All the other parties have said they will support the bill, so let me say that I am literally looking forward to returning to parliament in September when private members' bills are votable.

Now I can go out there and work hard as I can to bring a bill here and I can tell Canadians, yes, it will be brought to the House, it will be put to a vote and we will vote on it. If the members over there on the government side and other members feel this is an important bill and vote for it without following party lines and not playing at teamwork, this will become a House that will gain the respect of Canadians.

[Supply, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member across the way saying something. He was going in all directions and discussing all kinds of things, so it took me a while to figure out what he was trying to say. I picked up a couple of points and will ask him to clarify them.

The hon. member alluded to his own private member's bill in the Ontario legislature and how it was, he said, passed in three days. However I am sure it was less than the pay increase the government moved through the House.

He said how great his bill was. The hon. member has been on the government side and could have easily worked hard to make sure the private member's bill was improved here. I would ask him if it is the practice of the Ontario legislature to have every private member's bill votable. If it is, I commend Ontario for having a good democracy. Perhaps the member can tell us about that. Are all private members' bills in the Ontario legislature votable?

[Nelson Mandela, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I was born in the African country of Tanzania and am therefore no stranger to life in a society where there are racial strains and tensions.

Thankfully we are free to debate the granting of honorary Canadian citizenship to one of the great figures in recent history in a Chamber where there are no racial strains or tensions.

I for one have been very grateful to be accepted in Canadian society as a member of a visible minority. It is particularly validating that I have been chosen by thousands of people to be their representative in the House of Commons.

Not only is Nelson Mandela an international symbol of resistance to prejudice and injustice, he is also a symbol for peace and forgiveness because, following his release from prison when he became the president of South Africa, he made the country's transition from apartheid to democratic qualities a peaceful one. Here was a man who was hounded by police for 10 years and then imprisoned for 27 years as he struggled on behalf of the non-white majority for freedom from apartheid.

He was banned from all public activity, as the forces arrayed against him used everything under the laws they had written to maintain apartheid. A lesser mortal would have emerged from this ordeal either a broken man or a bitter man intent on revenge against his oppressors. However Nelson Mandela was not a lesser mortal. He preached peace and reconciliation and in the end was jointly awarded the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize.

I can attest, as one coming from Africa, that Africa has suffered tremendous racial discrimination. Discrimination robs one of his dignities. It should not have a place in any civilized society. Mr. Mandela fought for human dignity.

We are a society growing increasingly comfortable with the idea of a cultural mosaic. We all are free to practise our religion, maintain our cultural identity and live side by side with people born on the other side of the planet. Canada is recognized in the world community as a peaceful place where we can pursue our dreams both individually and collectively. We not only have two official languages, but all the languages of the world are spoken in our homes, shops and neighbourhoods. We too are an example of tolerance, forbearance and peaceful co-operation.

The issue for me is not the qualification and achievements of Mr. Nelson Mandela, but rather the lack of process by which parliament grants honorary Canadian citizenship. It seems to me that such an honour should be not granted without a debate.

In the future I would suggest establishment of an all party committee that would first set up the ground rules for why and how honorary Canadian citizenship should be granted. Once this has been accomplished, the committee would meet when required to consider qualification for such status and to discuss and ponder the qualifications of nominees, and whether a particular individual should be accorded such an honour. It is my belief that all members of parliament would be proud to serve on such a committee.

The committee would then bring forward its recommendations to confer honorary citizenship in the House of Commons. Once conferred, it would be clear to one and all that the status of honorary Canadian citizenship had been granted with the blessing of every Canadian from every corner of the nation.

Just last week I attended the ceremony to honour Raoul Wallenberg, a hero who saved thousands of Jews from the Holocaust during World War II and who died in a Soviet labour camp. It is lamentable that so few Canadians know the history and the heroism of Raoul Wallenberg. Had his honorary citizenship been subject to parliamentary discussion and decision as I suggest, perhaps millions more Canadians would know and honour the memory of Raoul Wallenberg today.

Today we are talking about informing Canadians about the great achievements of Mr. Mandela. If we are going to honour our world's heroes, let us do it out in the sunshine so all Canadians can share in the tribute and knowledge.

I would like to conclude by saying that Nelson Mandela has already taken his place among the world's historic figures. He is as deserving of praise and high honours as any individual who has ever graced the pages of our history books.

[Criminal Code, June 12th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-386, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to reintroduce my private member's bill that would amend the criminal code to impose a two year minimum sentence for repeat offenders of break and enter crime.

Break and enter crime is not only a property offence, it is a crime against a person. It is a psychologically damaging crime, often leaving victims feeling personally violated and traumatized. It has the potential to be a violent crime because every break and enter is a home invasion.

The bill is a victims' amendment to the criminal code because the result will be fewer victims brought about by imposing a real deterrent on professional break and enter criminals.

The bill would also cut out what is the real source of revenue for career criminals and organized crime by breaking the cycle of using the proceeds of break and enter crime to finance other criminal activities.

I welcome the support of my colleagues for this non-partisan initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)