Deepak Obhrai

[May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the issue of protecting Canada's fresh water from bulk export. I would like to clarify briefly some of the legal protections in place and I reject the member's assertion that this government and the Minister of International Trade have misled the House.

Amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act came into force in 2002. They prohibit the bulk removal of boundary water from Canadian basins for any reason, including for the purpose of export. Limited exceptions, consistent with the main purpose of the safeguard, are provided for in the regulations.

This protection is the result of advice sought by the governments of Canada and the United States from the International Joint Commission. The IJC is the binational organization created by the Boundary Waters Treaty to help prevent and resolve disputes regarding waters we share with the U.S. In fact, the IJC reviewed the amendments and commended the Government of Canada for the added protection.

The idea of establishing an export ban has been repeatedly raised as an alternative for protecting Canada's water. However, the prohibition on bulk removals presently in place is a better approach. It is more environmentally sound and consistent with international trade obligations.

The prohibition protects water in its natural state, in its basin, before the issue of its export arises. Thus, water is regulated in its natural state rather than as a commercial good or a saleable commodity.

International trade obligations do not apply to measures that regulate water in its natural state. This approach is supported by a 1993 joint statement by Canada, Mexico and the United States confirming that: NAFTA creates no rights to the water resources of any party; and unless water has entered into commerce and become a good or commodity, it is not subject to the terms of any trade agreement, including NAFTA.

These views were subsequently reaffirmed in 1999 by the U.S. government in its submission filed with the IJC. In it, the deputy U.S. trade representative pointed to the body of international law which makes clear that water resource management rights belong to the country or countries where the watercourse flows. This is precisely what we are doing. We are managing our water to ensure sustainability for future generations.

Canadian provinces have also implemented protections for waters in their jurisdiction. Nonetheless, some have suggested that the federal government ought to, in essence, federalize provincial waters. The Canadian Constitution is very clear on the matter of natural resources, whose ownership largely resides with the provinces. Both federal and provincial governments, acting within their jurisdictions, have established an array of freshwater protections.

In conclusion, governments at all levels in Canada have a role to play in protecting our water. We will remain very steadfast in protecting this unique and vital resource.

[Afghanistan, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, for any decision made in engaging with anybody, it is the Government of Canada that will make the decision. However, as I have said, and I will repeat it again, it is the responsibility and the prerogative of the Afghan government to negotiate with its citizens, including the members of the Taliban. For any reconciliation process that will bring peace to the region, they can count on Canada's support.

[Afghanistan, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the decision to engage the Taliban was made by the government of Afghanistan. Canada does not interfere with what the government of Afghanistan does.

We will support the government of Afghanistan in any kind of reconciliation effort that can bring peace to the region and that will renounce the violence. Therefore, we will continue to support the government of Afghanistan.

[Omar Khadr, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, Mr. Khadr faces serious charges. We will continue providing cultural assistance where we can, but any questions on whether Canada plans to ask for the release of Mr. Omar Khadr from Guantanamo are premature and speculative as the legal process and appeals are going on.

[Omar Khadr, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Khadr faces some serious charges. The Government of Canada has sought and received assurances that Mr. Khadr is being treated humanely. Department officials have carried out several welfare visits with Mr. Khadr and we will continue to do so.

[April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member, who keeps me busy by asking questions every night on consular affairs, but I am very happy that he does, because it shows concern on the part of both sides of the House for Canadians who find themselves in some legal dispute in other countries.

I can assure him that as he keeps the government in line, the government makes sure that our consular services are available and we will do everything possible to help Canadians who have been caught in some kind of a legal problem overseas.

[April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East for his comments in the House on the case of Mohamed Kohail, a young Canadian citizen sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia. I share his concerns very much, and I can assure him that the Government of Canada is doing everything possible to seek clemency for this young Canadian.

As the member stated, we are not interfering with the Saudi judicial system. What we are asking is that clemency be shown to this young Canadian as we are all appalled at the death sentence handed out to this young Canadian.

I would like to assure the hon. member that Mr. Kohail's case continues to be monitored closely by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and by myself.

I would like to point out that departmental officials in Ottawa and Saudi Arabia have been actively involved in the case since Mr. Kohail was arrested in January 2007. Our officials have also attended the court hearings. When consular officials were prevented from entering the courtroom to observe a session, our embassy in Riyadh sent a diplomatic note to the Saudi ministry of foreign affairs to protest this exclusion.

Canadian officials remain in close contact with Mr. Kohail's family and legal counsel, as well as the relevant Saudi authorities to explore all avenues available to assist Mr. Kohail, including the appeal of his sentence and the granting of clemency.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has written to his Saudi counterpart to request that the government of Saudi Arabia review the verdict. On a recent visit, the Minister of Public Safety also reiterated this government's position and requested that a review of the decision be conducted in accordance with Saudi law.

The Minister of Public Safety also spoke with Mohamed Kohail and his family to convey his personal assurances of the importance that the government attaches to this case.

The Canadian ambassador in Saudi Arabia is actively involved and has personally met with Mr. Kohail, his family and legal counsel to discuss developments on the legal aspects. Our ambassador also recently met with the Saudi minister of justice to seek assurances that due process will be observed in the appeal.

As demonstrated by all our actions, the hon. member can see that this case is a priority for this government and will remain so until we are satisfied that Mr. Kohail is accorded due process and that his human and legal rights are upheld.

The Government of Canada continues to engage Saudi authorities to ensure that Mr. Kohail's rights are respected and that he is afforded due process. I can assure the member that repeated representations have been made and will continue to be made to senior level officials.

[China, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government has always supported dialogue between China and representatives of the Dalai Lama. We have always encouraged a peaceful resolution of differences; one that protects the rights of the Tibetans.

The recent unrest in Tibet has demonstrated the urgent need for a resolution. This government consistently pressed for dialogue between the Chinese government and the representatives of the Dalai Lama during this crisis.

This government welcomes China's recent decision to meet representatives of the Dalai Lama. We are pleased that it has acknowledged that it is time for dialogue.

As always, Canada is ready to support a meaningful, substantial dialogue. An early, peaceful resolution is in the interests of all.

[April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, nobody is giving anybody a lecture. She is a member of Parliament and she has the right to ask any questions and the government will put forward a position.

In her question she said that she needed transparency. I am telling her that this government is committed to transparency. That is what we have actually done. That is what we have done in the past and that is what we intend to do in the future. I was just outlining what this government has done to achieve the transparency that Canadians want. I can assure the member that we will continue to do that.

She has every right to ask questions in Parliament about what the government is doing whenever she desires. I know she is an independent member of Parliament so sometimes she is not on committee so she may have missed that. I can assure her that she is more than welcome to ask any questions on transparency in reference to our mission in Afghanistan.

[April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for raising this question.

In Afghanistan we strive to strike a balance between three pillars of engagement which are security, development and good governance. That is because security, development, and good governance are fundamentally dependent on each other in Afghanistan. This principle is embodied in the Afghanistan Compact, a five year road map for progress launched in 2006. The compact sets out benchmarks in each of these areas and timelines for meeting them. The Afghanistan Compact guides our engagement in Afghanistan.

When the motion was presented in this House, it was agreed to by the majority. Of course, the Bloc and the NDP voted against it. Nevertheless, it was passed with a majority vote. It was not a government motion. It was about the Canadian engagement in Afghanistan. I would like to correct the member and tell her that this was a Canadian position.

When the Prime Minister appointed the non-partisan panel which came up with the recommendation for 1,000 soldiers and everything, we acted and we had a debate in this House. It is hard for me to understand why the member was not part of the debate when we discussed all of this.

Nevertheless, the government is fulfilling what the motion stated. A cabinet committee has already been set up. A parliamentary committee has also been set up which is made up of opposition members, myself, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. We will be working to ensure the essence of what was passed in this House, which is what Canadians want.

I want to re-emphasize the point that although we are committed to Afghanistan, we are committed to informing Canadians and having a debate in this House and telling Canadians what the mission is accomplishing and what is happening in Afghanistan.

I would like to assure the hon. member that this government is completely committed to an open and transparent system to ensure we fulfill our requirement which is the Afghanistan Compact.

As far as the 1,000 troops are concerned, this mission is UN mandated under NATO. We are a member of NATO. The American forces are a member of NATO. The French are a member of NATO as are the British. More than 60 countries are engaged in Afghanistan either through military, security, development or other aspects.

We know that Canadians take great pride with the international community in the effort of our brave diplomats, soldiers and development workers in Afghanistan. They are proud that Canada is making a difference in the lives of millions of Afghans.