Deepak Obhrai

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

This is non-partisan. They were in the opposition so they know there is a failing in the system. When they got on the other side they were totally closed on any kind of reform. We would think that members on the other side who have been on this side would use their experience on this side to make the system work better.

We are all Canadians here. We are here representing our ridings. Our country is diverse in its views. I do not think we can say anyone is wrong or right. We have different points of view. We all represent Canadians here and we need to speak on behalf of Canadians.

My colleague has spoken about a private member's bill. He said that for seven and a half years one of his private member's bill has not come forward. I just went through the experience of having a private member's bill. There was debate on it and I asked myself what I was doing here. It was the most horrible experience I have endured in trying to address and get a point of view across.

I spent three and a half years going across the country from coast to coast speaking on every radio talk show that I could. I had townhall meetings and I had Canadians expressing their views. I came to the House, supposedly a democratic House, and with one swat it was wiped out.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, this is my second term in the House and as such people call me a veteran. I do not know why they call me a veteran. Just before the election I was called a rookie and overnight I became a veteran. I am supposed to know overnight exactly what is going on in the House.

In my four years one thing that has become consistently clear is that there is something wrong with the system. Everybody on the opposition side and backbenches, whether they want to say it openly or not, were unanimous that something was wrong with the system. We were elected to represent the people but somehow we are not able to do that. That was becoming quite clear. Everybody kept saying that, even the gentleman who is laughing.

We remember the member standing over there talking and saying that this was a bill with a problem. We all know there is a problem. There is a problem. Nothing is happening.

I am amazed that government members were on the opposition benches.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all members, as well as the PC Party, who supported this bill. I appreciate that they were able to understand the seriousness of this and I am grateful for their support.

I notice the other two parties are absent. Regretfully they do not seem to think this is a serious issue. However the important thing is that I wanted to hear from the government side, and I did from the parliamentary secretary.

I am totally confused by his comments regarding the seriousness of this issue and how the government is tackling it, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment and all these things, as if it was not a large problem. He claimed that the government and the justice system were addressing it and that everything was fine. He admitted there was a little more problem with home invasion and that the government would address it.

I had held a town hall meeting. I went out across the country and spoke on radio talk shows. The message I got was a totally different one. The message was that this government did not seem to be listening.

I challenge every member over there to go out, have a town hall meeting and listen to their constituents who will tell them how serious the act of breaking and entering is. The parliamentary secretary and the justice bureaucrats are saying this issue is being addressed. It is not. It is staring us right in the face. We have six month sentences and 80% repeat offenders out there. The justice system is failing to ensure safe homes for Canadians. Everybody is talking about it. It is only going to get worse.

I am amazed that the parliamentary secretary and the government said that everything was fine. It is not fine because that is what I have heard. I am not going to ask for unanimous consent because I know I will not get it. However this issue will come back because I will keep fighting for it. It is what Canadians are demanding out there.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, if I have five more minutes I will talk about this more and ask the question when I am finished.

The seriousness of this break and enter offence should be viewed from a different angle. I was talking to the justice minister who said that she may have some concern about a minimum sentence. I can understand, but let me explain. We are dealing with the criminal code but not all of the criminal code. We are dealing specifically with a crime on the increase. What is happening is that the sentences the courts have been giving, which are now only six months for everything, have created a lucrative business.

I was told by a police officer on the beat for break and enter that these repeat offenders are now using breaking and entering as a job. It is a profession, a job, just like me and everybody else going to work. Repeat offenders do not see the seriousness behind it. They do not see the seriousness of the invasion of individual privacy. They view it as a job. Why? For the simple reason they know that if they are caught they will be back out on the streets. Eighty per cent of people who break and enter are repeat offenders. They will be out. How do we stop it?

How do we nip this thing in the bud before it becomes one of the most serious crimes in this country? Let us have a minimum sentence of two years. That way we will be able to break the cycle of break and enter and we will be able to take them off the streets as well as give them help if they need it.

I am not talking about the first time offender. I am talking about repeat offenders. We have to be very clear. If somebody slips a first time, I can understand that. We are talking about repeat offenders and the problem staring us in the eye needs to be addressed.

In conclusion, I am sure my colleagues and everybody understand the gravity of this situation of break and enter. It is to be hoped they would give unanimous consent to make this a votable bill. May I ask for unanimous consent of the House to make this bill votable?

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 2001]

moved that Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to speak this afternoon to my private member's bill, Bill C-290, an act to amend the criminal code (breaking and entering).

The purpose of the enactment is to provide for a minimum mandatory imprisonment of two years upon a second or subsequent conviction for breaking and entering where the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling house.

Break and enter crime is much more than a property offence. It is a crime against the person. Canadians view break and enter crime as a very serious and traumatic violation of their sense of safety and security. Victims of house break-ins rarely talk later about the television they lost or the other property that was taken. However, they talk about the fear and the fact that someone invaded the sanctity of their home. This is not a property offence in the same way we view an auto theft.

On April 19, I had a town hall meeting in my riding to discuss break and enter crime. A constituent came forward at this meeting to describe the fear she still feels after break and enter thieves violated her home several years ago. She described how she still feels unsafe in her own home and how she thought about selling her home because she is scared that the thieves will one day come back.

These kinds of stories show the reality of break and enter crime.

To quote Chief David Scott of the Saskatoon Police Service in a recent letter of support for the bill, he said:

You have correctly identified what we so often neglect to realize is the psychological damage and the tremendous trauma suffered by victims of home break and enters.

Constable Guy Baker of District 4 in Calgary said:

The best sentence I ever saw for a repeat offender was three years, however, the effect on the victims lasts forever.

Females feel personally violated and their house no longer has a sense of being a home. Men feel they have failed in their role as the family protector. Children have a hard time sleeping and many children start bed-wetting after their home has been burglarized.

While the psychological impacts of break and enter crime are often devastating in their own right, this can also be a violent crime because every break and enter is potentially a home invasion. In fact, according to statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice, 58% of break and enter incidents involved a weapon being present.

I would like to quote an Edmonton man who was viciously beaten in a break and enter that turned into a home invasion:

Physically I am okay. Mentally I am not. It's almost like I have to force myself to do things—even to go to work. I don't know what could be enough jail time (for this). There is no justification for what they did.

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

Chief Julian Santino of the Toronto Police Service said:

Deterrent sentences such as the one you have proposed are absolutely necessary if we are ever to realize the goal of truth in sentencing.

Sergeant Al Koenig, president of the Calgary Police Association, stated:

A two year minimum sentence will slow down the turnstile treatment of these career criminals.

Staff Sergeant Dan Dorsey of the Calgary Police Service said:

You have to take repeat break and enter offenders out of the circulation because they don't stop. We try to keep the habitual home breakers incarcerated for as long as possible.

Bill C-290 will also cut off what is a 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, including drug trafficking.

Break and enter is a crime once thought serious enough by parliament that it imposed a maximum sentence of life in prison. Today conditional and suspended sentencing has reduced the average jail term served by a repeat break and enter offender to six months. Only one in ten repeat offenders receives a sentence of two years or more.

That said, parliamentarians must provide a clear distinction to the courts about the serious nature of this crime by imposing a minimum sentence. As Chief Alex McCauley of the Sudbury Regional Police stated:

I view incidents of break and enter as a far more serious crime than it appears to be getting credit for, especially in the courts today.

Saskatoon Police Chief Dave Scott said:

I am confident the Canadian public is exasperated and distrustful of the Canadian justice system's ability to deal with this offence appropriately.

The courts do need a clear direction from our legislators regarding Canadian citizens' concern over their personal safety and their homes. A two year minimum would act as a deterrent to potential thieves and would take the professional thief off the streets. It would not add substantial numbers of new prisoners to already overcrowded prisons because of the relatively low numbers of repeat offenders committing a large percentage of break and enter crimes.

Statistics in Calgary suggest that as few as 5% of the repeat professional offenders are committing 80% of the crimes. A two year minimum would also prevent the provincial justice system from imposing different sentences from one jurisdiction to another. An offender in Alberta should be looking at the same sentence as a person from Ontario.

The bill was seconded by the former attorney general from Manitoba, my colleague, who will be speaking shortly on this bill. He said:

The courts need a clear direction from parliament that sets out the concerns that Canadians have over this very serious crime. This bill would provide that direction.

I would conclude by reading the following letter sent to me by a constituent, who said:

Dear leaders of our great country's political parties;

As I'm sure you are all aware, the member for Calgary East is in the process of introducing a private member's bill to give repeat break and enter artists a minimum sentence of two years in custody.

I would like to ask all of you, especially the Prime Minister, to please ask for all MPs in your respective parties to disregard party politics, and vote in favour of this bill. Please do not let a great bill, that could potentially help all Canadians in a great way, get squashed in favour of party politics.

The letter writer was concerned. This crime happens from coast to coast and is not unique to any province. I believe home break and enters to be one of the greatest invasions a family or person can endure. I am sure my family and I would be deeply traumatized by that experience. I believe this is a huge problem and is always in the minds of all Canadians. Please help all of us in this great country feel a little more secure and at ease by helping to reduce such heartbreaking and demoralizing invasions.

I would like unanimous consent from members of the House to make this a votable bill.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I saw my friend across the way point to our NDP colleagues and ask them to listen, but I can assure her that I was listening to the good points she made. My colleagues on the other side are good friends of mine but they do have selective hearing. They only want to hear what they want to hear on chapter 11.

Perhaps the member would like to comment on what the minister and the Prime Minister said about chapter 11. I know the minister very well and I know his own gut feeling is that the provision is needed and is appropriate to protect investments going out. I am sure the member agrees with that.

Does the member think that perhaps the statement was a slight misunderstanding or misstep by the minister?

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for asking this question.

He is absolutely right. In the long term when an investor is pouring his money into a situation, he needs investment stability. He needs to know that an investment is made and a return is expected.

The problem is that in the past when there was an investment, the nationalization, the taking away of properties, the seizing of properties, resulted in situations where there was no stability. Individual investors could not predict what was happening to their investments. Nobody, even the NDP, I am sure, will agree to throw money down the tubes when there is nothing there. No one will agree to that.

Chapter 11 and these rules we are trying to create are there to ensure that investors know what to expect and to bring stability to that system. At the end of the day, some questions about environmental and labour standards are issues that we have international bodies to deal with.

Under the United Nations we have the ILO and UNEP. These are international bodies that can bring pressure on the governments of countries where an investment is made to ensure that they have rules and laws that will protect their environment and their labour standards according to their needs. It is wrong to take other labour standards and dump them on other governments. Let them decide what their labour standards are. I must say it bothers me that the NGOs who sit here are in the best environment in the world and are trying to put their views on different countries while not understanding what other countries want.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will never understand it. At one time members of the NDP talked about fair trade and how they did not oppose free trade. They said they liked fair trade.

Fair trade can only be done if it is a rules based system. If it is not a rules based system where will we get our free trade from? Where will we get our fair trade from? I do not understand.

The member has just given the exact example of the prairie farmers he is talking about in the U.S.A. Do we know why? Because agriculture is not on the table. Agriculture fell off. If agriculture were under WTO fair trade rules, what the member is talking about would have never happened. The member should just wake up to the fact that if we want to talk about fair trade then it is going to be a fair, rules based system. That would solve the problem.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have good friends in the NDP. I do respect the view from that side, but I do not share that view. I grew up and worked in Africa and I know the devastation and the impact of unsound economic policies.

In the 1970s when countries became independent people chose two paths. They chose either a free market economy or a closed economy. Tanzania chose the socialist economy. Many countries of the world chose socialist economies while others chose free market economies.

In about 20 years a marked difference took place. Countries with freer markets were the ones that took part in trade. The best example of globalization is Hong Kong. Its prosperity is globalization. It does not produce much because it does not have anything. Yet it has one of the best standards of living.

There were two systems in the world. When the socialist closed system collapsed, countries realized that in order to raise living standards for their populace they had to open up their markets and look for private investment. Government aid was no longer the point. If they wanted to raise the standard of living of their people they had to have private investment and open trade. This was staring them in the face. We are seeing that today.

That is why dictatorships have collapsed. They have collapsed because they could not sustain economic growth. Economic growth can only come through trade, sound economic policies and good investment policies. That is what the governments of various countries are trying.

There are programs available in CIDA. I agree with CIDA when it tries to create sound policies for economic management in foreign countries, particularly business rules and investment rules which foreign countries lack. It may be a long process, but if it is done I am positive like everyone else that the economic standard of these countries would increase.

It is important that Canada have free trade access because we have a small market. Canada has only 30 million people. We need foreign trade for our own prosperity. It is a win-win situation for everyone.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, before I start I would like to commend you for trying to bring decorum into the House during the debate. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to speak on the supply day motion put forward by the NDP. At this time I have to make up my mind which way I should go after what the government and the NDP have said.

Let me start by telling the House why the Alliance will not be supporting the motion put forward by the NDP. The NDP's criticism of chapter 11 or globalization, as it has embraced the anti-globalization protest movement, is on only one theme. The theme is that it is multinationals against the others. All the NDP keeps saying is that it is multinationals against the others, but I can tell them that the issue is not multinationals. The issue is small and medium sized businesses.

Under the globalization regime that has taken place opportunity has now been given for the first time to small businesses and medium sized businesses to take advantage of and participate in trade. This means for both sides, not only for Canadians. It means that other countries can also take advantage of globalization. Their business people can take advantage of it and bring prosperity to their countries.

We all know that prosperity comes through a good economic plan. If a country does not have a good economic plan and the businesses are not there, no matter what we say at the end of the day people cannot take advantage of it. People will not have jobs. Where will prosperity come from? I can tell members that the government cannot supply the needs of the people. The government is only supposed to regulate. The government does not have the resources to invest in and try to uplift the standard of living.

It is very strange to listen to the NDP. Any time the NDP is in a position of power, it quickly changes its views. The parliamentary secretary spoke about the former premier of Ontario changing his view and saying globalization and free trade are good.

I would also remind the NDP that only three days ago its former member of parliament, who has suddenly changed and is now in the government, is saying that the NDP is on the wrong track in regard to this issue of anti-globalization. I am talking about the hon. Chris Axworthy, who is now a minister in the government of Saskatchewan.

Members can see what happens. Every time an NDP member gets into the government his or her views suddenly change because the importance of free trade is realized. NDP members go around saying they are anti-globalization, saying free trade is bad, and they focus all the blame on multinationals. Multinationals are not the issue. The issue is small business, medium sized businesses, farmers and everyone whose livelihoods depend on trade.

Our farmers' livelihoods depend on trade. We can all see what a devastating impact not having a rules based system in agriculture has had on the farming communities in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and all over Canada. It is extremely important that we have a rules based system so everyone can play a fair game and bigger economies cannot muscle in on smaller economies.

It surprises me, in that the NDP has so many members coming from Saskatchewan. Perhaps I should not say so many, but there is a little sprinkle here and a little sprinkle there of members who come from Saskatchewan and Manitoba and who stand up for their farmers. They should know how not having a rules based system can hurt ordinary farmers. These are not multinationals we are talking about. We are talking about ordinary Canadians, with medium sized farms, whose livelihoods are being threatened. This is when the NDP should get up.

To go back to the motion, and to the government on chapter 11, the NDP motion talks about what the Minister for International Trade said before the foreign affairs committee. He said “I can assure you that we are not seeking an investor state provision in WTO or anywhere else”. That is what the minister of trade stated.

This is really surprising coming as it does from Canada's trade minister, a trade minister who time after time preaches the benefits of a rules based system of trade for Canada. As the former critic for international trade, I have travelled with him many times and I know that his commitment to free trade is there. Therefore it came as a complete surprise to me when he made this statement, because he knows about the importance of a rules based system. Chapter 11 is a rules based system that has been put in NAFTA to address the issue of protection of investments. If there is no protection for investments they are not going to flow. We have seen this happen time after time.

On the one hand the minister wants rules to encourage fairness and predictability for investors. That is fair ball. On the other hand the minister seeks to change these rules in a secret backroom agreement. He has said that he would like to try to reopen this chapter 11 issue again with both the U.S.A. and Mexico. Both those governments have stated quite clearly that they are happy with chapter 11. They do not see it as a threat.

What baffles everyone is the fact that when the NDP went up against free trade and globalization, especially at the protest in Quebec City, it forgot that there were 33 heads of state there who were elected to represent the views of their people. There was the fifth party, which is not even in government, saying that these people were wrong. What else is a democracy if in a democratic system a government elected by the people cannot speak?

However, here we have people coming from a democratic system like ours saying that these people are wrong. Here is an example of the type of comments that were heard. The so-called anti-globalization protester, Jaggi Singh, said that the violence was inside when he started blaming the heads of state. This makes us wonder what a democracy is. There were people there who were elected to be democratic leaders and their views were being challenged.

I agree with one point, that is, we need a transparent system for these agreements so that Canadians know what it is they are signing. The simplest system for that is to bring this agreement into parliament. Let there be an open and honest debate in parliament. Let it be ratified by parliament. After all, parliamentarians are the voice of the people. We have committees that go out and listen to the people. Let the provinces have their say on this as well.

This is the appropriate way for a democratic institution to work. If the government is committed to an open, honest, transparent system, then it would do that by bringing this into parliament and having it ratified. I do not mean the FTAA evening debate the government gave us, saying it was an open, democratic system and we could debate. We had until midnight to debate it, and the government said it also had a parliamentary committee going out to listen to the people.

Hold on a minute. If this is transparency, then we have a serious democratic problem, because we stand up and make these points but no one is listening to us. We huff and puff here in parliament but no one is listening to us. We make speeches. The NDP might have a point or two that we should listen to. That is fine, but no one is listening.

We went to the committee. I have been on that parliamentary committee. I have gone out there with the parliamentary secretary. I have seen people come out to the committee and I have seen what happens. What happens? Nothing happens. The way the parliamentary committee is set up, the way the system is set up, we can huff and puff but at the end of the day it is the way the government wants it.

Violent protests regarding anti-globalization mean nothing. People are a little concerned about globalization. They are concerned with the fact that under globalization they do not know which way to turn. This uneasiness is translated into protests because of the failure of the government to engage people in debate and to promote the benefits of free trade.

We know why the MAI collapsed and went down the tubes. It was because the government thought that it would sign the MAI and then sit back silently, not talking to Canadians and not letting them know what was happening.

The issue which concerns us the most is the transparency of the system and the unopenness of the government to talk about the international agreements that it has signed. It was only after the pressure was put on the Minister for International Trade, when he went to Buenos Aires, that he said he would make it open. I commend him for doing that and for pressuring the other governments to do it as well. That is one credit that I will give him. However it came after the fact and only when there was pressure put on him.

After daily questions in the House the minister decided that he had better do something because things were not looking good in Quebec City. The minister could have done it before. The problem is that the government reacts after the pressure. It does not have the vision to say what it will do or how it will do it. Hopefully now it will get the message.

The Alliance agrees with the government that the principle of free trade is very important for Canada. Free trade is also important for the prosperity of poorer countries as it would raise their standard of living.

In the motion there is one point dealing with chapter 11 that worries us. I do not know what the government's position is on chapter 11. Maybe it could tell us because we are hearing contradictory statements. The Prime Minister says chapter 11 is working well. That caught the Minister for International Trade off guard. The minister is running around and trying to patch it up by saying that he is just thinking of improving it. Then we have the president of Mexico and the president of the U.S.A. saying that everything is fine.

There are a number of cases that challenge chapter 11. There may be one or two cases where the rules were not followed. There are more facts to the NDP story about companies that have won damages using chapter 11. The fact is that the government has failed to follow the rules which it should have followed. That is why it ended up paying. If it had followed the rules right from the beginning this issue would not have arisen. The parliamentary secretary knows what I am talking about.

Basically chapter 11 has been working well. If it has been working well and giving guarantees to investors, I do not see why it cannot be transferred into the FTAA and the WTO. It should be transferred because it would create a rules based system. It would give investors who invest money for the prosperity of everyone the kind of rules they need to know where to put their money and how their money would be protected. Business and trade rely on investment.

I grew up in African countries and these countries are looking for investment to increase their prosperity.

The figures regarding direct aid have changed. From the 1970s to today direct aid was given from government to government to many countries to improve their living standards. After 20 years we know that the living standards in continental Africa have fallen back. The direct aid program has failed miserably.

Today the figures state that private investment that is flowing into developing countries has tripled. Governments are viewing that as a new form of investment. It would be in the form of indirect aid and it would open up borders. It would raise the living standards of these countries, and every democratic country is thinking of that.

If we look at the figures today, the flow of private investment is faster into these countries and their standards of living are also going up. There is no longer direct aid.

If this happens as a developmental process then it is necessary to have chapter 11 which protects investment so that those who are investing know the rules of the game. We do not want a system where governments can nationalize investments making investors run away. At the end of the day money would not be given as direct aid. If we wish to raise the living standards of developing countries, it has to come from private investment, contrary to what members opposite are saying.

Chapter 11 is the route to ensure that this would happen. If there are one or two little bumps, it does not mean that there is something seriously and fundamentally wrong with it. In the overall scheme of things it would help everybody. It would help developing countries, and that is what we are looking for.

I would like to say to the Minister for International Trade that he should be very careful. What he was quoted as saying is now the basis of the motion. He should be extremely careful not to fall under the pressure of the NDP and make these kinds of statements that in the longer term would hurt free trade. In the long term it would create a crack.

If investment slows down, I am sorry to say that we would be facing the same problem, which is a shame as more than three-quarters of the people on earth live in abject poverty.