Deepak Obhrai

[Emancipation Day, March 1st, 2001]

moved

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should proclaim August 1 of each year Emancipation Day in recognition of the heritage and contributions of Canada's black community.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise this afternoon on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to speak on Motion No. 242, a motion proclaiming emancipation day. The text of the motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should proclaim August 1 of each (and every) year Emancipation Day in recognition of the heritage and contributions of Canada's black community.

Before I begin my comments on the motion, I would like to say that I have been a member of the House since 1997. This is the first time I have been able to bring forward one of my private member's initiatives for debate. I quite frankly wondered if I would ever get a chance.

How private members' business is conducted in the House is a strong reflection of the muzzle placed on opposition members and government backbenchers by the government. There are some tremendous ideas generated from members of parliament that are being ignored or discounted because of the limited time and resources given to private members' bills and motions.

In the case of the motion before us today, it has been deemed a non-votable item, meaning that after today's one hour debate, the motion will disappear. All the time, energy and thought that went into drafting the motion will simply disappear.

It is a shame that there is so little time for initiatives such as these. The government could lengthen the time given to private members' business each week. The government could allow one bill and one motion from each opposition and backbench MPs to be votable per session. Changes like this could have a tremendous impact on this place, but then the government chooses not to act.

Having said that, I will now begin my comments on Motion No. 242.

Slavery in the British Commonwealth ended on August 1, 1834, a day that is celebrated in several countries and Canadian cities as emancipation day. This occurred a full 30 years before the United States abolished slavery with Lincoln's emancipation act.

Spearheading the initiative was a member of parliament from the British house of commons. William Wilberforce introduced a bill to stop the importation of slaves into the British colonies. It was he who raised the voice of conscience. He impressed upon his peers the horrors of slavery and stressed that this barbaric practice went against the teachings of Christianity and other religions.

His heroic efforts have come to be recognized the world over and influenced the great American emancipator, Abraham Lincoln. In fact, Mr. Wilberforce's bill was the first international human rights legislation.

The bill called for the freedom of all people. It was the beginning of the global eradication of slavery. People tended to identify black slavery primarily with the United States. To a much lesser degree, slavery was practised in Upper and Lower Canada in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

It is worth noting that in the 1790s, several members of Upper Canada's legislative council and legislative assembly were slave owners. At the same time, prominent individuals in both Upper and Lower Canada were opposed to slavery. Individuals such as Lieutenant Governor John Simcoe, Chief Justice William Osgoode and Joseph Papineau were harsh critics of this barbaric practice.

Emancipation Day is recognized in several countries and in both the cities of Ottawa and Toronto.

I grew up in Tanzania. She is a country that has lost many of its sons and daughters to slavery.

There is a little city on the coast called Bagamayo where we can still see the ruins of structures in which slaves were held before they were shipped to the Americas. Standing there, tears come to people's eyes as they think of the suffering people endured and the number of families that were torn apart.

Two years ago I had the honour of going with the Governor General to Senegal. On the islands we saw where slaves were taken out. Believe me, it was not a pretty sight that any human being can be proud of.

Since 1834 Canada has played a vital role to thousands of those whose basic human dignity was denied. We can take great pride in the fact that the final destination of the underground railroad was Canada.

This is a non-partisan initiative that I hoped would garner unanimous support in the House of Commons. As Canadians, we should not only acknowledge past injustices but we must celebrate courage, compassion and conviction. We, as parliamentarians, should feel a sense of pride that our system took a moral stand on the issue of slavery.

The motion's only mandate is to recognize those people in the world who were the first to recognize emancipation for what it is and the hope it held for the millions of people who call themselves Canadians today.

Canadians listening to this debate today will know that February was a Black History Month. Across the country Canadians of African descent celebrated and reflected upon their rich and diverse heritage.

On February 22, on Parliament Hill, the Mathieu Da Costa Awards ceremony highlighted students from across the country who explored the contributions of Canadians of diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds.

I met with the members of the Ontario Black History Society who have been at the forefront of celebrations of black history for more than 20 years. Through dedication and commitment, they continue to spread the history of black Canadians and their incredible achievements like: the great black Alberta cowboy Mr. John Ware whose log cabin still stands in the Dinosaur Provincial Park; Mathieu Da Costa who, in 1605, was thought to be the first person of African descent to set foot on Canadian soil; and Mr. Anderson Ruffin Abbot, the first black Canadian doctor.

I could go on and on about the past and ongoing accomplishments and contributions of Canada's black community. Suffice it to say Canada is a better country and a better place today because of the contributions of black Canadians.

The motion I am speaking to today is not only about celebrating these accomplishments but acknowledging past injustices and the moral conviction of Canadians who took a stand against slavery.

I would like to end my comments with a poem published in a Negro paper called, “The Voice of The Fugitive”, in January 1851.

I'm on my way to Canada, that cold and dreary land The dire effects of slavery I can no longer stand My soul is mixed within me so, to think that I'm a slave I'm now resolved to strike the blow for freedom or the grave O Righteous Father, will Thou not pity me And aid me on to Canada, where coloured men are free.

I heard old Queen Victoria say if we could all forsake Our native land of slavery and come across the lake That she was standing on the shore with arms extended wide To give us all a peaceful home beyond the rolling tide. Farewell, old master, this is enough for me I'm going straight to Canada, where coloured men are free.

I would ask for unanimous consent of the members to make this motion votable.

[Criminal Code, March 1st, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, 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 potentially a home invasion.

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

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

The courts need a clear direction from parliament that sets out the concern Canadians about this very serious crime. I welcome the support of my colleagues for this non-partisan initiative.

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

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Fraser Valley. It is not that I really like it but he came up with an excellent proposal so I must give him time.

I listened to the member for Mississauga West a little while ago. When I looked at my watch and saw the time I thought it was past his bedtime because he was slipping. He was trying to tell Canadians, with his bellowing, booming voice, that this amendment was great. He was saying that the Alliance had taken its supply day motion exactly from the red book. The member was defending it and saying that the Liberals had fulfilled their red book promise. Can hon. members believe that? He said that there was an ethics counsellor, forgetting that the ethics counsellor reports to the Prime Minister and not to parliament as was promised in the red book. The member had the guts to stand over there and say that they have fulfilled the red book promise. That is why I thought it was past his bedtime.

The essence of the motion is about parliament, the voice of the people. In the House democracy works for the government and for the opposition. People who disagree with the government have a voice through the opposition. From what we have seen over the years, our voices have been silenced by procedures, manoeuvres and all the power of the majority government. Opposition parties have eventually had to resort to narrower ways and means of taking their message to the public.

The Liberals stand over there and say that the amendments are not changes but they will not say exactly what the opposition, the other voice in parliament, is trying to do. The opposition is trying to get the message out to the public about what is happening in the House, and its voice is being silenced.

The Canadian Alliance and my colleague from Fraser Valley have put forward proposals on the reform of the House. The whole purpose of the reform is to have a sound, reasonable debate. The other voice can be heard as well, not only the voice of the government.

My colleagues on the other side have said that there are committees where the opposition can debate the issues of the day. We all know that they were in opposition before 1993. They should know very well that those committees are totally ineffective. We have been there.

This is my second term. I have been here for three and a half years. I have never seen the government listen to a committee. It does not. Committees are nice. Committees are a very nice way for the government to deflect criticism of what it wants to do.

The government says a matter is going to a committee. It goes to a committee and when it comes back it is up to the minister and up to the government whether or not it wants to take a committee's recommendation. We are finding that most of the time it is not.

Where is the voice of the opposition, the voice of the other side, the voice of the people who elected us to speak in the House? We stand here and debate, but what happens? Nothing.

The motion, quite interestingly, says the government wants to be guided by the practices followed in the house of commons in the United Kingdom. Of course we all know it is the mother of all parliaments and that would be nice. However other practices are followed in that house which give a voice to the other side as well. A balanced voice is heard in that house, but not here. Here the government picks only what suits it so that it can ram through whatever it wants and forget about what the other voices are saying.

When the immigration minister said the Alliance Party attracted bigots, racists and Holocaust deniers, who was she talking about? Millions of people voted for our party. Was she talking about them?

Is that the respect the government has for other Canadians? Can it not respect the views of the opposition and other Canadians? It cannot. This motion is another example of the attitude that the government has of ramming things through.

We agree that to vote on 3,000 amendments would take a long time. The Speaker will still have some discretion over that. It is not the amendments we are worried about. It is the method of getting the message out. That is what is called democracy.

It is no wonder Canadians are losing confidence in the House. It is interesting that the members on the other side know that and allude to it. The member for Mississauga West referred this evening to one of his constituents. He claims it was a constituent but I doubt if it was a constituent; it was probably a family member who said “I hate all politicians except you”. It was probably a family member who said that, but the point is that Canadians are losing confidence in the House because debate is curtailed. They see the power of the government, the dictatorial power of the government, and their inability to effect any change in the House.

Then we start seeing little flames of separatism. We do not support them at all but those sentiments start to come out. I hope they do not become big sentiments but that is where they start.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it was blackmail. It is not blackmail. People are trying to find ways and means of saying what they want to say and having someone listen. If we do not listen, people will find other means to make us listen. That is what the amendments are all about.

[Criminal Code, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians view break and enter crime as more than a property offence. They view it as a personal violation worthy of firm punishment.

A 1997 report by the city of Calgary police service indicated that break and enter offences were the number one concern of Calgarians.

I will be introducing a private member's bill on Wednesday that will amend the criminal code and impose a minimum two year sentence for repeat break and enter offenders. Statistics show that a high rate of repeat offenders are committing 80% of all break and enter crimes. This says to me that existing penalties are not deterring repeat offenders.

Many provinces are also calling for tougher sentences. Home invasions, because of break and enters, have led to violent incidents. Keeping this in mind, I hope my colleagues will support this initiative.

[Canada Elections Act, February 23rd, 2001]

We went up. You went down. Perhaps they can understand that the Canadian public has made its choice. The public has said where those members are going to sit.

Let us go back to Bill C-9. It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on Bill C-9. This is a bill the government brought in because of a court ruling. It seems to me, and I can never understand what the government seems to be doing, that this bill is destined to go back to the courts. It came from the courts and it is destined to go back to the courts because it is a flawed bill.

The bill is saying, based on the ruling from the courts, that the government will recognize a party with 12 or more candidates. The government will recognize that party only on an election ballot. The government will not recognize it as a registered party. The difference between being on the ballot and having registered party favours the old parties, including my party—the Canadian public has chosen us to be the official opposition, contrary to whatever the members opposite want to say—and it favours the government.

It seems to me that the government is trying to protect itself. If the trend carries on and the NDP and the other parties keep losing ground, then the bill will apply to them too. If they lose one or two candidates, they will lose party status in the House as well.

We are talking about registered parties. Let me tell the House what a registered party gets. A registered party gets electoral voter lists. A registered party gets the ability to issue tax receipts, which allows it to do fundraising. It is also allowed to provide rebates on election expenses. Most importantly, if for some reason the party is suspended, the bill would allow the party to have its assets liquidated.

What is happening here is that we are creating two classes of parties in the country, registered parties and eligible parties. I do not understand why we would want to do that.

Smaller parties ran in my riding in the November election: the Marijuana Party, the Communist Party and the Natural Law Party. There were also five from the other registered parties.

The Marijuana Party was running on the basis of getting out its message. That is fine. I thoroughly enjoyed having their members as my opponents and debating with them on the issues. They had one simple message they wanted to get out to the public, which was that marijuana be legalized for medicinal purposes. That was their only message, because a Mr. Krieger, who is in jail at this time, was and is using marijuana as a medicinal purpose to counteract pain. He wanted this message to get out. That was fine. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get out one's message. After all, we do talk about freedom of speech. We cherish freedom of speech.

Why can we not have these eligible parties become registered parties? Perhaps the government can give me a good reason. If it is good enough to recognize a party's official status in this esteemed House, why can we not recognize anyone who is putting up 12 candidates as a registered party? Why are we creating two systems here? I will never understand this.

We have a lot of things we can do, but here is a bill that is destined to go back to the courts. The bill addresses nothing, yet we have important issues to be addressed. There are issues about reform. There is the reform of the Senate, and my friend talked about reforming the House so that members of parliament can speak on behalf of their constituents. As is evident and as has been stated time after time, the power of what is happening in the House is with the Prime Minister's office.

We are on the committees, but we know they are irrelevant because at the end of the day everything comes from one person. Democracy in parliament has been eroded over the years, a legacy from past governments of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. That is why the Conservative Party has been relegated to the back rows of the House. This is the legacy that party left, a legacy of the eroding of democracy, of all aspects of power being concentrated in the hands of the PMO.

These issues need to be addressed. The Alliance has put forward a lot of good proposals for debate. The other parties even agree with us on this, in regard to a private member's bill. We are elected by the people of Canada. We are their voice. However, this is my second term and, based on experience, I can tell my colleagues that our voices here are not heard, nor are the voices of government backbenchers.

Let us address the issues that are important. Let us address the fundamental points of freedom of speech, transparency and the ability to allow those who want to speak on behalf of Canadians speak. Let them be allowed. The bill before us does not do that. For these reasons we are opposed to the bill.

[Canada Elections Act, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleagues from the other side that the Canadian public only two months ago gave their verdict on that party and that is why those members are sitting at the other end of the Chamber, almost on the way out. Perhaps they will understand, since they are sitting here talking about democracy, that it was the Canadian public that made them lose their seats to the other party. Let us keep that in mind.

[Black History Month, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on behalf of the official opposition in recognition of Black History Month.

Ancestors of Canada's black community have been present in Canada for more than 300 years and have made tremendous contributions to the building of our nation, both as slaves and free men and women.

Thankfully slavery in the British Commonwealth ended on August 1, 1834. Abolitionists and others who fought against slavery, including those who arrived in Canada by the underground railroad, have recognized August 1 as Emancipation Day. I will be debating a motion on Thursday, March 1 that would proclaim August 1 as Emancipation Day in tribute to those who struggled against slavery and continue the ongoing international struggle for human rights.

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

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to talk about Bill C-3 pertaining to Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and also to Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, Bill C-39.

Basically the bill allows both companies greater access to sell themselves and to get more outside shares.

The Canadian Alliance has no problem with the bill as such. Our natural resources critic will allay whatever fears he has when the bill goes to committee. We will be supporting the bill as it now stands.

The bill also talks about Petro-Canada and the attempt by the government to increase individual share ownership and remove non-resident ownership. I wish to draw attention to the oil sector as we are talking about Petro-Canada.

Sometime last summer the Calgary caucus, the members of parliament from Calgary, showed through calculations how much money the federal government was taking from Canadians through taxes on gasoline. It was interesting. We highlighted that there was a tax on a tax. The GST on gasoline was a tax on a tax. The government levied the excise tax and whatever the other taxes were, and then the GST came in on top of every other tax.

We came out and said that it was double taxation and it should be removed. We called on the federal government to reduce taxes on gasoline. This was a cry that went out when gas prices went up.

When gas prices went up the government resisted reducing taxes, despite what we showed them. It did so because it was reaping benefits from the tax on gasoline prices. Who was benefiting from increasing gas prices? The federal government. It benefited because of the way the tax structure is set up on gasoline. As prices and the excise tax went up, the 7% GST on top of that started to reap windfall profits.

At no time did the government think it necessary to return the money it was getting, the windfall profits, back to the taxpayer by reducing taxes. No, the government kept the money.

Then the government tried to offer what I will call a band-aid solution to the rise in heating oil prices. My colleague from the Conservative Party indicated to the government that it was a very ill-conceived program.

Let me give an example. I got over 50 calls to my office from Canadians talking about their heating bills and how unfair they were. People say that when the government wants money from them, it takes the money right away through Revenue Canada with no questions asked. However when it comes time to give the money back the government brings in a stupid, ill thought program

Here is what happened. The government decided that those eligible for the GST refund would receive the rebate. Just for a second let us think about the GST refund. It is the goods and services tax imposed uniformly across the country. That is fine. We can understand the government giving GST rebates across the country.

The government is now trying to give money to homeowners, a segment which is not uniform across the country, but which needs money to pay for heating costs. Suddenly people who did not pay heating costs and had no heating bills were receiving the cheques. Those who paid heating costs were not receiving the cheques. Children were receiving the cheques while parents, who paid the heating bills, were not. Naturally they phoned our offices to say it was unfair.

Another point is that the GST rebate is based on the previous year's income. In this case it was based upon income from 1999. The heating oil crisis is in the year 2001, not 1999. Why is the government basing the rebate on the year 1999? There were changes in 2000 where people were not earning the same amount of money and needed help. However they did not qualify because their income from 1999 was slightly higher than it was in 2000.

The government in its haste, without thinking, brought in the plan. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say that the government has given money to 11 million Canadians. It may have given money to 11 million Canadians, but were they the 11 million who needed the relief? Were they the ones paying the heating bills? No, they were not. That is why even prisoners were getting cheques. Does the government think prisoners pay heating bills in penitentiaries?

We now have an ill conceived program, as is normal. Half the programs coming from that side are like that. All my colleagues here have received numerous calls from their constituents on this foolhardy program.

The government gave back $1.2 billion to the Canadian public without thinking. What an idiotic program. If it wanted to really help there were ways it could have done so. It has a huge bureaucracy. Could all those bureaucrats and mandarins not have thought up a plan where those who were paying would get a cheque? No, they did not. They used a quick solution without thinking about it.

The government has wasted $1.2 billion. Canadians notice the unfairness of the system, the unfairness of the high taxes they pay. The government has stated that it will reduce taxes, but the way taxes are being reduced is not uniform.

On behalf of my constituents I needed to bring up the point of the heating oil and let the government and those mandarins know that this is a wrong and ill thought out program that is wasting $1.2 billion.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if my friend on the other side had heard my speech, that is exactly what I said. We can change.

What happened in the past? We know from the MAI agreement and other agreements on globalization that if we do not discuss and have a transparent system then we have trouble. Let us change the system. We do not want to sit with the old system. It is time to move into the 21st century.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking that question. That is the essence of the whole thing.

The committee heard representations and had consultations on what would be our position going into this agreement, which is fine. That is the way it should be. We should open it up to Canadians before talking about it at committee level. We should take the views of Canadians and use them as a position, not leave it to the bureaucrats or mandarins of the department. After having done that, what would be the final outcome? We do not know.

The draft agreement is not the final outcome. That has not been signed. That is what we are talking about today and that is what my colleague is worried about. It is the final version that requires approval by parliament before the Government of Canada signs it.