Deepak Obhrai

[Foreign Affairs, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, al-Assad continues to blatantly disregard the international community while innocent people suffer.

Today Canada is implementing additional measures, which include sanctions prohibiting the export of certain goods to Syria, against Syria's state-run radio and television, the government-owned General Organization of Tobacco and the petroleum exporter, and against three individuals closely associated with the regime.

Our government will stand with the Syrian people and support their demand for freedom, dignity and a brighter future.

[International Co-operation, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, talking about flip-flop, those members should look at what they did in the Libya mission.

As a world traveller, I can tell members that the countries this fellow should have been visiting are India, China, D.R.C., Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia, where 60% of the world's hungry live. Canada is the second-largest contributor to the World Food Programme to feed the hungry, at $300 million. Therefore it is an insult to Canadians and their tax dollars that this fellow came over here to waste the dollars they have contributed by giving $5 million over—

[National Defence, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed until 2014 to participating in an international mission to train Afghanistan security forces to prevent that country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. We will assess what is necessary to meet these objectives and we have not made any final decisions at this time.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, if I understood the hon. member, he is questioning the competency of the Government of Manitoba by saying that it did not know the full results, that it did not get this thing.

I cannot believe a member in this House would get up and say that the Government of Manitoba does not have the full facts and that it made a decision sitting in the darkness. Amazingly, it is the same concept that his leader, the leader of the official opposition, used when he talked about Dutch disease. It is pitting one province against another, which damages the whole economy of Canada. If the whole economy of Canada is damaged, how does he expect to help Canadians?

It is amazing to hear the NDP members say that they do not like and now they are talking about how other Canadians do not have the expertise or do not have what they believe in. What an amazing—

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in answer to his question, yes, in the 2010 meeting with the finance ministers, the government, through the Minister of State for Finance, my good colleague from Okotoks, met with the finance ministers of our country, all of them. They raised a strong objection. Once they raised the strong objection, it was very clear to us that we needed to find another method for going forward.

Therefore, to answer his question whether we met with the provinces, yes, we did.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, he talked about humour. Let me talk about the humour he is talking about when he says they are there to defend the middle class. Amazingly, how is the NDP going to defend the middle class when it is fighting the natural resources, talking about a Dutch disease? He is talking about damaging the economy, putting divisive policies in the country, which will have a very negative impact on the whole economy of the country.

He should first get the facts right before he starts getting up and saying the NDP is going to defend the middle class. The way the NDP is going, there will be nothing left to defend anyway.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise again to speak to Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act.

First, I would like to respond to the last Liberal speaker. When I listened to him, I wondered if there were warning bells that there would be a merger between the NDP and Liberals. Maybe he was talking about that. I wish them the best of luck.

Coming back to the business of the pension plan, I will speak to the NDP position later on. Right now I will speak about the Liberal position, which is typical. The Liberals are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They like this, but they want to do that. What do they want to do?

Let me tell them this. They should not mislead Canadians when they speak about the CPP.

We should look at the CPP legislation. CPP can only be amended by the consensus of two-thirds of the provinces, representing two-thirds of the population. That is how one can change CPP, and not by what the Liberal Party has said. The Liberals can talk about anything they want, but it will not change the fact that CPP can only be changed when two-thirds of the provinces agree to change it. We should be honest about it.

The provincial finance ministers, at their 2010 meeting, had strong objections to changes to the CPP. Maybe the Liberals should take that fact into consideration. The provinces have a strong objection to changing CPP in the way in which the member keeps speaking about as a good way to change it. For that reason, they will support it but they want CPP.

Yet, as was pointed out, the NDP government in Manitoba is different from the federal NDP opposition. However, all provincial finance ministers agreed that this was the right way to go. I am sorry to say that the objections made by the Liberals against this bill hold no water. It is typical Liberal rhetoric. They are sitting on both sides of the fence.

I will talk about the NDP's opposition to the bill. The NDP is now a party with its head in the sand. I look at what the NDP leader has said. He has been talking about the Dutch disease, creating division between resource rich provinces and so-called manufacturing provinces, not understanding that resources and manufacturing are intertwined.

The provincial economies in Canada are intertwined. Yet the Leader of the Opposition is going around the country and talking about the Dutch disease, saying that the resource sector is destroying the economy of the province of Quebec where he was born. He said that it was destroying manufacturing jobs in Quebec. What narrow thinking. The NDP is aspiring to be the Government of Canada? That is the most dangerous scenario one can think about happening in our country.

If the Liberal members would like to join the NDP, I would ask them to think about this. Do they want to join a party that is sowing division in our country? We have one of the best mobility systems in the world, considering Canada's economic situation compared with other countries. We can move from eastern Canada to western Canada within days and have everything transferred.

We have an economic system that benefits the whole country. Yet, what did the NDP leader say? He is blasting the resource rich provinces. Now he has also changed and is hitting northern Ontario. He does not like the forestry sector there.

I can tell the House that he will quickly change his tune when it applies to his province of Quebec. What kind of leadership is being displayed by the so-called Leader of the Opposition, whom some have termed the “prime minister in waiting?”

As long as I am on this side, we will fight tooth and nail to make sure Canadians understand how divisive that party is. That is why it comes as no surprise that the NDP opposes this legislation. When the NDP opposes something, we know we are on the right track.

Let me get back to talking about the pooled registered retirement. Those who have a business background know the value of having this pooled registered pension plan.

My wife ran a business for 15 years. I worked for the city and helped her with her business. I had a government pension plan then and I have a government pension plan even now, and so do many Canadians. Canadians who work for big corporations have a pension plan. After putting 15 years of hard labour into her business, my wife has no pension because there was no vehicle available to her. All she can do is put money into RRSPs to help her out with her pension planning because that is her only vehicle. When I talked to her about this pooled plan, she wanted to know why nobody had brought this idea forward before. Why did it take so long?

All provinces unanimously support this. Not all Canadians will benefit from this plan, but it will reach those people who have been left out, who do not have any other tools like we have. This plan would fill the crack in their retirement planning.

This plan is a strong tool. It would allow a portion of Canadians, those who are self-employed and those who cannot enter into this, the opportunity to have another vehicle for their long-term retirement plan. What is wrong with that picture? I do not understand what those members find wrong with that.

I hear members talking about the fee, saying they think it would be high. Let me get this straight. Those members are going to oppose a very good plan that would benefit thousands of Canadians because they think the fee would be high. Let me be clear. They do not have any proof that it would be high.

This plan would be based on experience, based on pooled resources and based on this being under an act of legislation. Those would ensure we get the best money for this pension plan. In the long term it would help thousands of Canadians in their retirement, which is key.

The opposition will fearmonger again about our government raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 to qualify for OAS. That does not apply to those who are currently getting it or will be getting it in the near future. We have to look at the long term.

On June 2, I will have been in the House for 15 years. When I was on the other side, we debated the Canada pension plan when the issue was raised by the government of the day. At that time, the Liberals sat on this side of the House. We changed to reflect the increase. We recognized that the Canada pension plan needed to be changed because otherwise it would not be there in the long term for Canadians.

Today, instead of raising the premiums, which would impact the fragile economic recovery, all we are saying is that the age be deferred from 65 to 67. This would apply to the younger population. This would provide them with enough time and tools to continue to build a retirement savings plan, which would be there for them when they retire. The plan will not be bankrupt.

To the Liberal who keeps talking about seniors, I am telling him to use the word correctly, when he is talking about 65 to 70. This is for the younger generation coming up. The current seniors and the seniors we will be getting in the next short period of time are not impacted. However, that is not what he is going to talk about because it does not fit into his agenda.

However, I am happy to note, irrespective of whatever they say, at least they will vote with us, so that by itself is a positive factor.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, first let me commend this hon. member. I have had numerous conversations with him in debate, including in this House, about his excellent work in bringing forward human rights abuses in Iran. Today in his speech he has very eloquently pointed out very serious issues of human rights abuses in Iran, and he continued to do so throughout his career when he was the Minister of Justice.

As he rightly pointed out, Canada, for the ninth year, has put in a resolution at the United Nations, which for the first time has received a tremendous amount of international support, the highest it has ever received, which shows that the international community is very much concerned—as he is, as we are—by the erosion of human rights in Iran.

Of course, I would like to acknowledge the fact that he was the government's minister of justice at the time when the resolutions were being brought forth, and we continued doing that.

There is no question that we put great value on his judgment. Not only that, the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself places great importance on the work that the member has done; not only that, he also takes his strong advice.

My question to him is this: does he feel that in his interface with the Minister of Foreign Affairs he is happy and confident that this government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have been moving very strongly on this file that he has very strongly highlighted, because during the period of time that he has done that, the government has acted on it?

I want to ask the hon. member's opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has been working with him to bring these issues to the forefront.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I want to speak to the issue that the member just brought up about Rights and Democracy.

I am on the foreign affairs committee. The Rights and Democracy issue came in front of the foreign affairs committee. We looked at and saw how dysfunctional it had become.

What the member should understand is that he is talking about an issue where he is on the other side. The foreign affairs committee prior to this one did a study on the promotion of democracy around the world. In that report, which was unanimously adopted by everyone at foreign affairs, we stated that all the expertise of this thing needs to be combined into one situation where we can pool all the resources and promote the same objectives.

I do not understand why the member could not understand that the same objective he is talking about, the promotion of democracy and human rights, can be done collectively where the expertise is sitting: in the department of foreign affairs.

That is the decision that was made by the foreign affairs committee, that was the decision when Rights and Democracy came in front of this thing and that is why this committee took this action. That is why we felt there was a need at this time for a change with Rights and Democracy. That is what the member needs to understand.

The issue remains the same. No matter what, we will be fighting for human rights around the world.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, first, let me take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for highlighting the abuses in Iran. The whole purpose of tonight's debate is to bring forward what is happening in Iran and she very eloquently stated that. I want to thank her very much for taking part in tonight's debate.

It is very important that all members of Parliament speak about the abuse of basic human rights. These are rights that we are guaranteed in Canada. The member has strongly highlighted the issues of women's rights, sexual rights, freedom of religion, and the executions that take place. The Iranian regime is not being held accountable. It has been flouting all international norms.

My good friend from Montreal is a very strong human rights advocate, especially on Iran, as is the member and everybody here. On behalf of the Government of Canada, I want to thank all members for taking part in the debate and for bringing these issues forward. It is a very difficult situation. What members are bringing forward tonight on this topic highlights the issues.

The government works with the international community and we need to put pressure on Iran. Iran is an independent country. As parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, I have been around the world, but I refuse to shake hands with the foreign minister of Iran as I do not want to be seen as supporting the regime.

Let me say to the hon. member and everyone taking part in this debate, job well done. Unless we highlight what is happening in Iran, the regime will keep doing these things until it is stopped. This is what Canada is trying to do at the UN.