Deepak Obhrai

[Foreign Affairs, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me today in urging both Sudans to cool the current tensions that threaten to reignite war. Cross-border bombings and support for proxy rebellions in each other's territory undermine progress toward stability and development.

Canada strongly encourages both governments to take all measures to protect civilians, including religious and ethnic minorities, and to prevent a humanitarian crisis. This is particularly urgent in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, where humanitarian access is essential to stave off near famine conditions.

Sudan and South Sudan must redouble the efforts mediated by the African Union to negotiate post-independence arrangements, including on oil, citizenship, and borders.

Only through the peaceful resolution of these issues will we see the establishment of two viable states at peace internally and with each other.

[Foreign Affairs, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Foreign Affairs completed a historic visit to Burma, the first of its kind. While there, he met with several high-ranking members of the government, including the president and foreign minister. They discussed the latest developments in human rights and democracy, the situation of ethnic minorities and Canada's hope for a better and brighter Burma.

As the world celebrated International Women's Day, the minister also had a great opportunity to meet with the Nobel laureate, honorary Canadian citizen and one of Burma's great champions of change, Aung San Suu Kyi. Canada has been a strong opponent of her oppression in Burma, and while several very positive steps have been taken, we hope that the progress to date will continue to lead to further reform. Change must be sustained so that the aspiration for a better and brighter future for the Burmese people is realized by all.

[Foreign Affairs, February 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages, the treaties entitled: Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, done at Strasbourg on January 25, 1988, as amended by the Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, done at Paris on May 27, 2010; and an Agreement on Social Security between Canada and the Federative Republic of Brazil, done at Brasilia on August 8, 2011.

[North Korean Refugees, February 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the latest reports of North Korean refugees in China facing the risk of being forcibly sent back to North Korea.

North Korea is a state where basic freedoms, including religious freedoms, are not respected. Disturbing reports include public executions, torture, arbitrary detentions, collective punishment, forced abortions in prison camps, and reports of increasingly harsh treatment against those who fled North Korea and have subsequently been repatriated.

Canada has raised this issue at the United Nations on multiple occasions. We call upon all parties, including China, to respect the principle of non-refoulement of refugees from North Korea.

I join the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in encouraging all parties concerned to find a viable humanitarian solution for these individuals.

[Iran, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, again, we have no problem with what the member is asking for. We have one of the toughest sanctions against Iran and we agree with him on the threat that Iran poses to international peace.

Our sanctions prohibit dealings between individuals in Canada and Canadians abroad with the Revolutionary Guard Air Force. Our measures currently in place target those individuals making the decisions to carry out acts of nuclear proliferation and human rights violations.

There is a ban on virtually all financial transactions subject to certain exemptions for transactions under a contract signed before November 22. These are exemptions against the Central Bank of Iran. There are also exemptions to make sure that the embassies in both countries are operating and that people can transfer money less than $40,000.

These are very strong sanctions. Again, they are the strongest in the world against the brutal regime in Iran.

[Iran, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before I start I want to acknowledge the great work that the member for Mount Royal has been doing on the human rights issues around the world. I would like to commend him for the work that he has done.

Canada is deeply concerned by the Iranian government's continued disrespect for the human rights of its citizens, its destabilizing regional role and its nuclear proliferation activities.

I would say to the hon. member that Canada has taken a very strong stand against Iran. Since February 2007, Canada has imposed multilateral sanctions in line with four UN Security Council resolutions against Iran's nuclear activities. Since July 2010, Canada has imposed two major rounds of sanctions in tandem with our allies and concerned countries around the globe against the belligerent government of Iran.

Most recently, on November 21, 2011, Canada again implemented a number of strong measures against Iran under the Special Economic Measures Act. These expanded sanctions prohibit almost all financial transactions with the Iranian government, add individuals and entities to the list of designated persons and expand the list of prohibited goods. With the enactment of the 2011 round of sanctions, Canada has targeted measures in place that prohibit the export of any goods used in the oil, gas and petrochemical industry in Iran. This comprehensive ban covers the Iranian crude sector.

In the same round of sanctions, Canada prohibited virtually all financial transactions between Canada and Iran, including transactions with the central bank as part of more comprehensive measures against Iran, which is what the member has been demanding.

Innocent citizens of Iran are not intended to be the target of these sanctions. The nature and scope of these measures have been proportional to the defiance and non-compliance of the Iranian regime to the international community. Their purpose is to put pressure on the Iranian authorities to address the concerns of Iran's nuclear program and the military linkages that were revealed in the most recent IAEA report.

Canada has already targeted several branches of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, notably, as the member has said, many of the forces are in the IRGC.

Canada's concerns about human rights violations in Iran are long-standing. As part of its ongoing efforts to promote respect for human rights in the country, Canada led the adoption of the resolution “Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran” in the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly. This is the ninth consecutive year Canada has led this initiative. The resolution was co-sponsored by an additional 42 member states and supported by 89 in the vote, with only 30 member states voting against it. This represented the largest margin of adoption since Canada assumed lead of this resolution in 2003.

Canada's sanctions against Iran are among the toughest in the world. We will continue to lead the international community's attempts to put pressure on Iranian authorities to comply with their international obligations and return to negotiations regarding its nuclear weapons.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it was the proud record of this government under the present Prime Minister. The Canadian people gave this government a majority for that.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, let me say in very clear and certain terms that the Canadian public makes the decision because it affects them. Canadians responded in the last election to how we handled things in 2008. Canadians gave us a majority government and those members are sitting in the corner because Canadians did not trust them.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, precisely what I want to tell everyone is the difference between that party and this party. Those members would like to interfere with the running of private corporations and put their own stamp on them.

Private corporations are accountable. The member should understand how a private corporation is run. As the member's friend from Winnipeg said, the CEOs are accountable to the shareholders as to how much compensation they receive. They are not accountable to the NDP. The shareholders put money into the banks. The NDP did not put any money into the banks. The shareholders are the owners of the banks. They will decide the amount of compensation for the CEOs.

[Financial System Review Act, February 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to this bill, especially after my friend for Winnipeg Centre has just given an empty lecture. He is very well known for his flowery words. I was quite pleased to hear my friend from Cape Breton join him in trying to praise what they had been doing. However, if we really look at what has happened, it is no wonder they are a smaller party than before because those members were totally out of touch with Canadians. That is why they find themselves in that corner.

I will correct what the member for Winnipeg Centre has said. He has been using his flowery words and theatrics to say that the bill has come from the Senate and that it is not needed. He forgets why we are debating the bill. To be clear, it is because of the regulations and financial safeguards that the government introduced for the country's financial institutions that have allow them not to be affected as other global institutions have been. It was because of strong regulations.

We have a bill that looks at financial institutions. This bill is a common sense thing. That is what I want to say for the member for Winnipeg Centre who was debating the bill and talking about shareholders.

I will be sharing my time, Madam Speaker, with my colleague for Calgary Northeast

It is natural when we have an act that contains dynamic factors toward financial institutions, that we have a sunset clause so we can come back and review what has happened. Therefore, we would have the best institutions and be able to change to meet the demands of the day.

The previous member talked about being a shareholder. He should be doing very well if he is one. He wants to make money from his investments. Talking about making money and investing by the anti-trade and anti-business party called the NDP, Lorne Nystrom was a strong financial critic. I was in the opposition when he was here. Today he is a big businessman. I met him outside in the corridor and he is doing trade. By the way, we heard all about trade with China. Members can talk to him.

There was talk about going to Shanghai, doing business with China and profiting. This is something I would think should be alien to NDP members. However, when it is time to make money, those members are right there. As the member said, he went to a shareholder meeting of a bank. Then he stands in the House and calls them gougers and all kinds of names. He is as shameless as anyone else when it comes to making money. That he is a shareholder of a bank is even more surprising.

Coming back to the act, after every five years, it has to be reviewed. It has a five-year sunset clause. We can then put the latest changes and address what is happening in the economy for the benefit of Canadians.

I was listening to a member from Winnipeg talk about ATM fees. The ATMs are used by thousands and thousands of Canadians because it is a wise, cheap and convenient alternative to going to the bank tellers. That is why it is so popular. The member did not recognize that.

Coming back to this fact that this has been brought forward, it is because we are now coming to the end of the five year sunset clause. That is why we are debating it in the House. Whether it comes from the Senate or wherever it comes from, it is necessary and it is required by law for us to debate the bill. If we do not debate the bill and review the sunset clause, then the act would die and we would be unable to address the changes in the financial institutions. It is a requirement by law.

That is what we are talking about it, not about the NDP members crying about the Senate and everything else. Their argument is to abolish the Senate. It is a very great argument. I just love their argument. Why is there argument is wrong? Because they know under the Constitution it is not possible to do it. They know that very well. What is so great about a proposal which we know will never pass? That is the NDP, giving a proposal which will never pass.

If we look at other countries, Canada stands as a beacon of financial stability during the recession. We have heard about sub-prime mortgages and what has happened to the banks in America and in the European Union.

All the banks had to be saved, even the German banks, British banks and American banks. Did anything happen to the Canadian banks? No. Why? Not because of the party and not because it took credit, it is because we had sound financial regulations under which the Canadian banks worked. However, as things change, we want Canadian banks to going out and showing the Canadian strength, not what the member opposite calls about gouging and all these things.

If the Canadian banks are making profit in the world market, as the NDP's former finance critic is trying to do now with a business arrangement with China, what is wrong with that? As long as the Canadian banks are making money, they are paying their taxes and at the same time they are employing Canadians. That is a plus for Canada. There are jobs for Canadian. The NDP should understand that corporations make this happen.

We just heard from a member who talked about the teachers' pension plan and investments. Does the member think the teachers' pension plan will invest in a company that is losing? Absolutely not. How many pension plans of unions are invested in the banks, strong banks. We do not want weak banks in which to invest. Therefore, it is important that these financial institutions be accommodated.

The Liberal member mentioned 2008. The Liberals have their heads in the sand. In 2008 there was a recession. Did he not hear about the G20? It is a collective effort by the G20, which agreed to do the stimulus package so the world would not go into recession and that there would be jobs. Any time this government has presented anything, the opposition parties have opposed it. That is why the Liberal Party sitting at the corner.

At the end of the day, what happened? The Canadian economy withstood those shocks because of the sound financial input of this government.

The reduction of the GST, which was promised by the Liberals and has now been fulfilled by this government, gave extra money to companies to get across to consumers to spend money so the economy would move on, something the NDP members should learn and move on from the anti-trade and anti-business agenda so they can move forward.

We have an example with the 2008 recession. Where is Canada today, as it has been said by the Minister of Finance? I am really glad my friend from Winnipeg does not like the finance minister. If he did, I would be worried for the economy of Canada. It is his kind of business idea, so I am glad he made it very clear that he does not like the finance minister.

The Minister of Finance said that this government, since coming into power, and for my friend from Cape Breton—Canso, has created 600,000 full-time jobs for Canadians. Under your government, it would probably have been cutting transfers—